Communism

2595 readers

300 users here now

Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml

ComradeClucky@lemmy.ml

389

Protestation (discuss.tchncs.de)

submitted 2 days ago by protestation@discuss.tchncs.de to c/communism@lemmy.ml

102 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

You started with “communism results in elites stealing surplus labor." Now it’s “communism can’t prevent inequality".

Inequality, at least the levels of inequality that really matter, is largely a result of the theft of surplus labor. I acknowledge the difference, but I don't see how they are not so different as to really impact my argument.

every attempt at communism has somehow also resulted in a small group of elites stealing the surplus labor.

and “maybe there’s something outside capitalism and communism.”

That argument followed on my previous statement that "I think both capitalist and communist propaganda is full of shit". That has always been my "lane".

The original one is already falsified.

false

In Cuba, the political class does not own production and surplus is routed through the state

Now who is moving the goalpost? The elites don't have to own the means of production to steal surplus labor. The mechanism is irrelevant. Also, if the surplus is routed through the state, then those who control the state effectively own the surplus. This is mitigated only by the degree to which the politicians are actually accountable to workers. Cuba is a single party state with tightly controlled speech and media. Every candidate is nominated by the elites, with voters only getting an up or down vote. Not great accountability there.

On China: you admit Mao-era redistribution was real, then dismiss it because inequality resurfaced later. Congratulations, you’ve just demonstrated that outcomes depend on material conditions, not some mystical communist essence.

You ignored my entire rationale. If I mug a king and distribute their stuff, that's not communism, it's revolution. Communism is a system of economics and it's supporting political infrastructure. Communism rose out of the revolution, but they are not the same. I judge communism by how it functions when the revolution is over. As communist systems were deployed, inequality rose right along side it.

On the USSR: saying “attempts don’t matter, only outcomes” is historically illiterate. Institutions don’t appear fully formed

I don't see how your statement invalidates mine. At no point did the USSR not have economic elites. Specifically the Nomenklatura.

And notice how far you’ve already retreated. Now you say communism doesn’t create elites, it just “can’t stop them.”

I never said communism creates elites. I said it results in elites. If I leave my window open in the rain it results in wet curtains, but it did not create wet curtains.

Ignoring that context while declaring socialism “powerless” is like judging a burned house without mentioning the arsonist.

Another goalpost shift. I spoke of communism, not socialism. They are not the same thing. Also, every country has "arsonists" to deal with. A political system that only works when the world cooperates is not going to be successful at any time in the foreseeable future. And yes, I do realize how not level the playing field was.

Finally, since you want to posture

How exactly am I posturing? How are you not posturing?

socialist theory is not vibes or moral preference. It’s a scientific framework... You clearly don’t understand that method.

Again with the socialism? Socialism existed long before historical and dialectical materialism though Marx did develop more rigorous systems of analysis. I'm a "hard science" kind of guy, so I'm not completely on board with calling it science, but that's just a quibble. There are many forms of socialism though, not just Marxism, and each has their own "scientific" rationale.

Liberalism and capitalism, by contrast, rely on idealist abstractions...

I'm not a liberal, and I support capitalism even less than I support communism - largely for the reasons you stated.

If you actually want to contribute something meaningful, start by learning how material analysis works instead of recycling warmed-over liberal common sense and calling it insight.

And I'm posturing? LOL

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 12 hours ago

You’re still doing the same shell game: redefining terms mid-argument, ignoring material institutions, then declaring victory.

You said “every attempt at communism results in elites stealing surplus labor.” That is a specific claim about class extraction. It is not the same thing as “inequality exists.” You keep pretending they’re interchangeable because your original statement collapses otherwise.

You wave away Cuba by saying “whoever controls the state owns the surplus.” That’s liberal abstraction. Cuban officials do not privately own factories, land, or finance. Surplus is overwhelmingly allocated socially (healthcare, education, housing, food subsidies) under permanent blockade. That is categorically different from capitalist ownership. Calling every state-administered surplus “elite theft” empties the concept of meaning.

You dismiss Yugoslavia even though workers’ councils directly controlled enterprises and surplus. That alone falsifies your “every attempt” claim. Your preferences don’t override historical structure.

On China under Mao Zedong, you claim redistribution was “just revolution, not communism.” No. Those mechanisms were implemented through socialist institutions: collectivization, mass-line governance, cadre supervision, campaigns explicitly aimed at suppressing bureaucratic privilege. When inequality later rose after political line changes, you treat that as proof against socialism instead of proof that outcomes depend on material conditions and leadership. You’re proving the materialist point while denying it.

You invoke the “nomenklatura” in the Soviet Union as if this is some revelation. Marxists have analyzed bureaucratic degeneration for over a century. Yes, a privileged stratum emerged under siege, devastation, and isolation. That does not automatically make them a property-owning bourgeoisie, nor does it validate your universal claim. Degeneration under pressure is not identical to surplus extraction as a ruling class.

Your rain-and-curtains analogy is embarrassing. Social systems aren’t weather. They operate under concrete historical forces. Treating imperialism, sanctions, invasion, and sabotage as background noise is textbook idealism.

Then you retreat into “communism vs socialism” hair-splitting to dodge counterexamples like the Paris Commune, where officials were recallable and paid worker wages, or early Soviet soviets and factory committees with income caps. These were explicit anti-elite mechanisms. They directly contradict your claim.

At this point the pattern is obvious: whenever concrete institutions don’t fit your thesis, you redefine “communism,” redefine “elite,” or redefine “surplus.” That isn’t analysis. It’s cope.

And your final pivot is telling: “no system works unless the world cooperates.” congratulations on discovering imperialism. Marxists begin with the reality of imperialism. You invoke it only to declare socialism impossible, while giving capitalism a pass despite it requiring global coercion just to function.

Now for the part where you really make yourself look ridiculous: you pretend you're some “hard science” guy while dismissing historical and dialectical materialism. I have a bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD in STEM, alongside a master’s in Marxist theory. Socialist theory is not vibes or moral preference, it’s a systematic framework for analyzing class relations, production, surplus, and material conditions. You clearly don’t understand that method, yet you keep lecturing people who do. Liberal capitalism, by contrast, rests on idealist fairy tales about “human nature,” “markets,” and “incentives.”

At this point you’re either arguing in bad faith or you fundamentally don’t grasp basic political economy. Either way, this isn’t a serious exchange anymore. I’m done engaging with someone who substitutes semantic evasions and surface-level cynicism for material analysis.