• C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    @Cowbee
    Marxism, at least in its historical implementations, does deviate from certain communist principles, but it’s not an entire betrayal of communist principles as a whole. There’s no doubt that the unique aspects of Marxism (its reliance on the state, central planning, and vanguardism) led to authoritarianism and the concentration of power in the hands of a few individuals, which made achieving communism under those conditions impossible.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Fundamentally, I believe we disagree on Communism itself. The USSR was honestly pursuing Marxist Communism, and was not a betrayal of such values. However, you believe Communism to be more pure, more anarchic, and thus see the USSR as a betrayal of those values.

      I believe we should judge the USSR along Marxist lines, rather than Anarcho-Communist lines, as the USSR never claimed to be Anarcho-Communist (though they revered Kropotkin and named the largest train station, Kropotkinskaya, after him).

      • C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        @Cowbee
        I see it as more practical to judge any communist movement, whether Marxist or Libertarian, by how effective those movements are at achieving communism. Libertarian Communism so far has not been successful, but it also hasn’t been given a proper chance so it’s impossible to label the methodology a failure. Marxist Communism, on the other hand, has had dozens of opportunities to achieve communism in multiple countries during the last century but always resulted in the creation of…

        • C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          @Cowbee
          …authoritarian states that were anything but communist and all but a handful of them still exist, the rest collapsing due to various reasons.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Marxism is, as I am sure you know, an ever-evolving theory. If we look at these states dialectically, we can see unresolved contradictions that did indeed lead to collapse in the case of the USSR, but we can also point to rapid progress and enlarged social safety nets.

            I believe by “Libertarian Communism” you are referring to a far more limited government, yet you also appear to desire an elimination of money on an almost immediate timeframe. You also quote Marx, in the Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society as well as from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, yet reject Marx’s descriptions of what those accomplish and look like.

            Honestly, I believe you are making the same philosophical error as the metaphysicians, looking at a concept from one side devoid of the other, at a static, fixed point, rather than dialectically as it changes and resolves its contradictions. The USSR was making advancements, until it killed itself. We should learn from this, rather than reject it wholesale.

            • C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              @Cowbee
              Libertarian Communism doesn’t advocate for a limited government, but for the complete absence of the government, rejecting the idea of a centralized authority altogether, seeking to create a society based on voluntary cooperation and collective ownership of resources. In my criticisms, I’m not just referring to the USSR, but to all of the attempts at authoritarian communism and how most of them collapsed, and how the only remaining 5 still have not achieved communism.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  So what’s the difference between Libertarian Communism and Anarcho-Communism?

                  Either way, you’re being extremely vague. Communism is impossible in one country, it must be global, and as such it must be protected. What length of time is enough to suggest a Socialist state has “failed?” What metrics determine AES countries have “failed?” How quickly must they achieve global communism to be a success? These are rhetorical questions, you don’t have to answer them all, but they do point out more of your idealism, rather than materialism.

                  Secondly, and the question I do want an answer to, what method do you believe can succeed in a measurably more successful way? Simply stating Libertarian Communism isn’t truly sufficient, as you have already said, Libertarian Communism has never once lasted more than a couple years, in Catalonia, or in Primitive times.

                  • C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    @Cowbee
                    Libertarian Communism and Anarcho-Communism are just different titles for the same ideology.

                    I disagree that communism has to be globally achieved and can’t be achieved in one country. If a country can create a strong enough decentralized military and has access to the necessary resources for their survival then communism can be achieved in one country.

                    As I’ve previously stated, Libertarian Communism hasn’t been given a chance to be properly implemented, mostly due to the…