hexbear.net is on sale for auction
Auction: https://www.sav.com/auctions/details/7073489/hexbear.net
Not sure what will happen, but seems to be a Fediverselore event for sure
Update: post from hexbear admin on chapo.chat: https://chapo.chat/post/4468531
You're viewing a single thread.
Karma
I’d downvote you, but you’re at 9/11 upvotes/downvotes and I don’t want to ruin it
this, exactly. That the communism site is being sold to the highest bidder is karma, just like the oppressive action of capitalism driving escapism into communism is.
the raw reality is that neither pure communism nor pure capitalism will work. It's like saying "top-down architecture is better than peer-to-peer architecture," or vice-versa. it's foolish. the right architecture depends on the situation being addressed.
What on Earth is "pure communism?" Or "pure Capitalism?"
Distilled and filtered three times, of course
Of course, I forgot that Political Economy is the same as alcohol, lol
It needs to be repeatedly mixed with water until it’s effectively just water. But the spiritual essence of the system will magically remain
Pure communism or pure capitalism would be systems of societal organization that function as close to the respective ideals of communism or capitalism as possible.
I'm surprised that was unclear.
It's unclear because it isn't helpful. Just because something can be imagined doesn't mean it would function in that manner. Capitalism doesn't have ideals, liberalism would be the closest. Communism does, but applying it in reality and testing theory to practice is one of the major pillars.
Capitalism, as practiced by humans, absolutely has ideals and principles. they may be implicit, and they may be foolish and dangerous to enact, but it absolutely does.
Even the basic foundational logical arguments for capitalism are rife with assumption, and, ultimately, opinion.
Communism does, but applying it in reality and testing theory to practice is one of the major pillars.
Will you rephrase that?
Capitalism is a mode of production. There are ideologies that exist post-hoc to justify its existence, but these are not Capitalism itself as a mechanical process. There aren't logical assumptions for its existence just like there aren't logical assumptions for gravity, but there are explanations for them based on Human observation.
As for Communism, since it really traces all relevant interpretations to Marx, is closer to an analysis of Capitalism and a prediction for the future. Marx didn't design Communism, he analyzed Capitalism's trends and predicted, just like how Capitalism resolved the contradictions within feudalism, so too will Socialism and Communism resolve the contradictions within Capitalism. Marx's idea of a "Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society" isn't a blueprint he created, but a prediction of where humanity must eventually trend towards as industry gets increasingly complex and interconnected, and competition fades into cooperation.
I am not going to give you a lecture on Communism if you don't want one, but the idea that "pure communism" means implementing Marx's prediction of a future society now before industry even reaches the point where that makes any physical sense is an idea no Marxists hold outside of fringe dogmatists that reject Marx's own analysis.
there is no real separation of an ideology from the framework that is it's context, because that ideology is a response to and utilization of that framework, and the framework gives rise to the ideology. So, sure. One can argue (and it is commonly argued) that capitalism is not an ideology. And it is, in a technical sense, an economic system which has evolved over time. A "mode of production," as it were.
But in reality, it is not merely an economic system, but rather, has all the trappings, prescriptions, and effects of an ideology - and, as with any ideology, a change in the foundation of that ideology leads to different behaviors, for better and worse. This is why I do not, in general, separate capitalism from the underlying perspectives that drive it. It is useful to see that they are linked, and directly impact each other - although, there's definitely a time for dissection.
But also, we can very effectively sum the two (capitalism and communism) up as "privately held means of production" and "publicly held means of production" - and that "pure capitalism" would be a theoretical privately-held means of production without any interference from the state or other public entities, and that "pure communism" would be the (again, theoretical) inverse of that.
And, as I said, neither can exist effectively and functionally as an extreme. The more a system is on one of these extremes, the more susceptible it is to abuse (or, proper interference) by the other.
We should understand that, while linked to liberalism, Capitalism itself isn't liberalism. The importance of that factor is the massive error where you call Capitalism "private ownership" and Communism "public ownership." This is silly, and I will explain why.
Capitalism is a natural phenomenon, not an idea. It is what it is in reality, it's reliance on a stare to reinforce private property rights. The state in the context of a Capitalist economy is a part of the Capitalist system, public or not. The inverse applies to Socialist systems as well (Communism is a post-socialist Mode of Production, and must be a global economy, so there isn't much point using it here), private ownership is still a part of the rest of the economy.
Your definition fails to take into account the context to which portions of the economy play in the broader scope, and therefore which class holds the power in society. A worker cooperative in the US, ultimately, must deal with Capitalist elements of the economy. Whether it be from the raw materials they use being from non-cooperatives, to the distributors they deal with, to the banks where they gain the seed Capital, they exist as a cog in a broader system dominated by Capitalists in the US. Same with USPS, which exists in a country where heavy industry and resources are privatized, it serves as a way to subsidize transport for Capitalists. The overall power in a system must be judged.
What Socialism ultimately is is a system where the Working Class is in control, and public ownership is the principle aspect of society. If a rubber ball factory is privately owned but the rubber factory is public, the public sector holds more power over the economy. In the Nordics, heavy industry is privatized for the most part, and social safety nets are funded through loans and ownership of industry in the Global South, similar to being a landlord in country form. In the PRC, heavy industry and large industry is squarely in the hands of the public, which is why Capitalists are subservient to the State, rather than the other way around.
Systems are what they are in total. You wouldn't say a "pure volcano" is lava, right? That doesn't make any sense either.
Pure communism = A stateless, moneyless, classless society. Not simply whatever we're doing to try to get there.
Pure capitalism = Anarcho-capitalism gives way to its final form, Arachno-capitalism.
I think the obsession with "purity" is just dogmatism, though. Systems are what they are, not some form of pure distilled ideology.
But that's a part of the point I was making. They are ideological extremes, and don't function in reality - both because of flaws in the ideology, and because of the fundamental difficulty of getting most ideologies to be universally accepted.
ideological purity can't generally sustain itself, it must ultimately address external concepts (and actions).
Capitalism isn't an ideological extreme, it isn't an ideology to begin with. Moreover, it's pretty clear you don't really understand what Communism is in theory if you say it doesn't function in reality, rather, it's more of an analysis of societal progression.
I asked you because your point doesn't make any sense to begin with, it's very close to the "I'm 14 and this is deep" idea.
Nah. Capitalism may not, in the strictest, theoretical sense, be an ideology. But it is, in actuality, an ideology. It is not simply an economic system, but rather, a complex ideological web, including an entire set of beliefs and principles about what reasonable behavior actually is. It is, however, an ideology that has a logical and economic foundation - however flawed that foundation and its operational reality may be.
My understanding of communism is fine. Not believing in the ultimate efficacy of your preferred system doesn't make me an idiot. But feel free to sling more mud, it makes you look great.
It isn't mud slinging. Capitalism is a mode of production, the broad ideology of Capitalism is Liberalism. Capitalism, as a mode of production, formed before Liberalism did. Capitalism wasn't an idea, but a system that naturally arose and became post-hoc justified by ideologies like Liberalism.
Communism is closer to an ideology, as it is a prediction for what society will eventually necessarily trend towards. It isn't about preference, it's an acknowledgement of changes in the mode of production as industry advances and human class dynamics shift.
When you describe "pure communism" as not working, what are you talking about, physically? Same with "pure Capitalism?"
physically? That's the point. you don't get "pure capitalism" or "pure comunism". But abstractly, and relevant, physically:
For communism, or public ownership of production (and often, resources in general), the issue is that it is easily hacked by individuals who seek personal advantage by seizing control of the distribution of assets - but the system relies on people not doing that. this occurs both in the large and small scales. on the kindest end, this looks like "the fireman's ball".
For capitalism, or the private ownership of production (and often, resources in general), the issue is that it's sustainability depends on "enlightened" or at least reasonable self-interest, but winning strategies often don't have those characteristics. In effect, when no public-sector oversight is present, capitalistic systems shit the bed. when public-sector oversight is present, capitalistic systems tend to remove it.
Feel free to disagree about any of this, but I don't think I'll be pursuing this conversation further. I don't think it's likely to be fruitful.
Then maybe instead of calling it "communism", we should call each version something that reflects the actual system and not the end goal? "Vanguardism" maybe?
We already call "Marxism-Leninism," well, Marxism-Leninism, which includes both the system and the end goal.
Fair enough. I'll start just calling it that instead of "communism".
I think you should just use terms the way Communists and people in general have been using them, though. MLs are Communists, you don't need to not call them by what they are.
If the system's purpose is what it does, and not what they claim to want, then we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
I suppose, perhaps you have a different conception of what Communism is than what Marx believed it to be or how it is likely to be achieved, in which case Marxism-Leninism would indeed not fit your conception of Communism.
