You're viewing a single thread.
I think state instruments of power will make mistakes and cause undue harm if they exist, and yet we need them to exist to fight a literal war with the most powerful military force in human history, by several orders of magnitude. I think there are genuine issues that arise there. I just don’t think the vast majority of people raising concerns about the harms of communism are worried about the specific errors that have actually occurred and were unforced. They’re too busy repeating talking points about how cruel Castro was to the slave owners.
The solution is clearly to have a first revolution which establishes a socialist state and then a second revolution after the capitalist states have all been defeated. (I am only half-joking)
while i personally despise trotsky because his adventurism regarding his views on permanent revolution endangered the soviet union and communism as a whole, the concept itself is valid. the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time after all, even if that quote specifically was made by a chud the sentiment is real. without the occasional violence in society to shake up the class structure, hereditary power and corruption will entrench itself into an utopian classless system given enough time and that endangers the project of communism as a whole, so we need purges, not reeducation, murder, the death penalty carried out on reactionaries basically until the end of time to maintain communism. communism is not pacifism, humans are innately violent and a utopian system would require it.
This is a ridiculous take. A classless system does not endanger communism, it is communism. Reactionaries are not timeless, they are explicitly contextual. Humans are not innately violent, physics is. Violence is useful in accumulation due to scarcity and social structures. Getting to classlessness and moving beyond scarcity will create incentive conditions that make violence less and less viable as a means to accumulation until ultimately everyone will be fully enmeshed in interests that align with peace over war.
tell me, do you think we can get rid of religion? like maybe we can abolish the church or have some sort of state sponsored atheism, but some people will gravitate towards religion, they will form cults, no amount of education will change some peoples minds, if anything education will just make them more reactionary. i dont know where reactionary thought comes from, maybe its from birth, maybe its from environment, probably a little of both. either way it just seems like something that will always come about in humanity, some people are just naturally contrarian. we already dont understand where sexual orientation comes from, ive heard that it comes from birth, or that it comes from environment, or that its a bit of both. it would be absurd to think we can just get rid of gay people through better education nor should we since being gay is not a character flaw unlike reactionary political leanings. not to say sexual orientation and politics are one in the same but they both seem to not be by choice, and rather an innate part of someone. i did not choose to be a communist, communism chose me. i did not choose to be asexual, again, that's sort of innate. and you know, beliefs change over time, my sexual orientation has changed over time, but what im really just trying to say here, beliefs isnt really a choice. you either gravitate towards one set of beliefs or the other. i have a rather fatalistic view on these things.
The USSR tried to forcefully abolish religion. It was a terrible move. That doesn't mean that people will form reactionary cults for all time. Religion as you know it emerges from material conditions. When we change material conditions, religion as we know it will cease being maintained by material conditions. Religious reaction emerges from this as reactionaries attempt to change material conditions to maintain the religion as it was. All we need to do is prevent that regression and the reactionary aspect of religion will whither over several generations.
Reactionary thought is not innate. That's ridiculous. There is no such thing as contentless reactionary thought, that's idealism. Reaction is context-specific and it does exist in the absence of specific changes.
You are making an argument from human nature, something you, as a communist, should know is completely unfounded.
I cannot believe you are comparing being a reactionary to being queer.
all im saying is even if you got rid of the money, the reactionary institutions, did as much education as possible, and most importantly abolished private property. there will always be people who will threaten progress with their beliefs. sure we can certainly reduce their numbers through nonviolent means, but just given enough time, reactionary outbursts are going to happen, and that is when the use of force is necessary, and it would be best to use it proactively before they can. and thats why i think nonviolence is incompatible with communism. we are always gonna need a guillotine on standby.
I know what you're saying, you don't have to repeat yourself.
You clearly don't understand what reactionary means nor what causes reaction. You're using "reactionary" as a stand in for "evil" and positing a moral realism wherein there are good "progressives" and evil "reactionaries". This is idealist.
Non-violence is incompatible with physics, let alone communism. But not because we're constantly going to be fighting against would be warlords. Warlordism will become untenable as a strategy for accumulation under communism. That is one of the ways we know that we have achieved sustainable communism, when it is more effective for anyone to collaborate for resources than it is to compete for resources. So long as we have scarcity we will have the risk of warlordism and therefore we will have the state and therefore we will not have achieved communism yet.
But all of that is based on a material analysis of the system. It does not need appeals to human nature, it has a historically materialist analysis of reaction and reactionaries, and it does not rely on utopianism nor idealism.
Your position is not merely a difference of opinion, it is uninformed.
Horrible take. Essentialist bullshit not rooted in actual materialist analysis.
Last I checked, it's not a utopian system. Where did you come from?
Permanently Deleted