on authority is only a counter to anyone who wants to abolish all forms of authority. If an anarchist believed in elected foremans for factories for example then on authority would not apply to what they believe
it’s not really a counterargument against anarchism but against the stupidest subsection of anarchism imaginable
So do people really think politics will be over once people’s economic needs are met?
The goal isn’t to “end politics” but to improve people’s lives. If we abolish the existing power structures, new ones will arise to take their place, yes, but those new ones don’t need to be the same as our current ones, just as a capitalist liberal government isn’t the same as a feudal monarchy.
I’m just listening to Engels when I say that.
All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society.
public functions will lose their political character
That doesn’t mean politics will end, just that administrative functions like constructing and maintaining sewage systems, electrical grids, hospitals, will be cleansed of politics.
But those activities include non-economic politics. For instance, a hospital being allowed to conduct abortions is not within the realm of Marxist theory, but it is a part of politics.
intersectional liberation is necessary to communism, which is itself “the doctrine of the liberation of the proletariat”
This is some “Marx never considered X” shit at this point. Its a 200 year long intellectual tradition - it has been considered
If intersectional liberation is necessary, then can you judge communist nations for not abiding by that? If a communist nation doesn’t offer gay marriage or the ability to choose ones gender, by what rights is there to critique this? Can I say a country isn’t truly communist if I can’t get married to someone of my gender?
Some AES do and some don’t. Some haven’t resolved those contradictions yet and they should be criticized for it. That’s why we use the the term Actual Existing Socialism and not True Perfect Socialism.
These countries are socialist projects, projects that fall within the social revolution, to use Engels term. All AES have broadened democracy comparative to before their projects began and work toward the resolving of contradictions. Just because they haven’t been resolved doesn’t mean those projects arent socialist.
No, but it would look fundamentally different than what it does right now. One of the core premises is that culture & politics are inextricably formed out of property relations & the distribution of economic surpluses.
It is a premise, but there are cases seen in governments where a people will choose to a act against their absolute economic interests for relative sociopolitical interests. Hell, a major underpinning of fascism or apartheid states is that a part of the social working class will get an elevated social position by allying with an oppressive state as long as they get some privileges for doing so.
You’re not wrong, the entire point of Marxist Internationalism & Solidarity is precisely to combat that tendency. In short, this is not really a counter-argument to Marxism, precisely because the vast majority of Marxist theory (that written between the Revolutions of 1848, and the revolutions in Russia & China) are written in exactly that context, and exists to address & make the argument to workers why that’s a bad idea for them to do.
Of course getting people to accept & understand that is harder than just saying it; but the point is that this isn’t something Marxists are unawares of. If you are interested in further (digestable) info on the topic I would suggest the youtube channels Jonas Čeika - CCK Philosophy, Hakim, Yugopnik & Second Thought.
I’m not presenting an argument against Marxism, just its implementation as described by its founding thinkers.
It gets sold as you only need to do it once, but it is something that needs constant attention and requires a review of those who say they follow The Revolution to make sure they still continue to do so.
It gets sold as you only need to do it once, but it is something that needs constant attention and requires a review of those who say they follow The Revolution to make sure they still continue to do so.
Absolutely, no disagreement on that position.
I think that’s kind of true of all political programs though, to some extent. Everything is of course subject to entropy.
Those are still good channels to check out though, if you’re interested. :3
I only bring it up as a part of communism over other systems seems to encourage a political system resistant to political change. The requisites that you need to join a certain political party and that only that one party seems to create a political monoculture that will calcify into something that doesn’t serve the people.
Do you have a lot of experience with life in a world where everyone’s “economic needs” are met
No, but I’ve got a lot of experience with retired people on pensions that like to rule their HOA’s with an iron fist. I’ve also got enough experience with people who don’t want people to choose their own pronouns, which isn’t an economic decision.
those people are still living within a capitalist society
But do you think fascists won’t fasch just because there isn’t money in it?
i don’t think you understand how either capitalism or fascism works
Fascism isn’t an economic system, but a political system that was one of the first political systems of the modern era to attempt to create an unequal society without a unifying monarch. Inherently, it is the ruling class giving rights and privileges to a minority to allow them greater standing over the rest of the population, usually through the trappings of conservatism.
Feel free to correct me where I’m wrong with that understanding.
Facism is essentially capital abandoning liberalism to defend itself in violent reaction to socialism/threat of socialism.
Fascism is an anti-intellectual movement so there’s not much real “theory” but anti-communism is its bedrock belief.
It terms of economics theres really no difference between it and modern neoliberal capitalism
I don’t actually follow your definition at all. I would say that while fascism is not an econimic system itself, that there is no fascism without capitalism
