I feel like I understand communist theory pretty well at a basic level, and I believe in it, but I just don’t see what part of it requires belief in an objective world of matter. I don’t believe in matter and I’m still a communist. And it seems that in the 21st century most people believe in materialism but not communism. What part of “people should have access to the stuff they need to live” requires believing that such stuff is real? After all, there are nonmaterial industries and they still need communism. Workers in the music industry are producing something that nearly everyone can agree only exists in our heads. And they’re still exploited by capital, despite musical instruments being relatively cheap these days, because capital owns the system of distribution networks and access to consumers that is the means of profitability for music. Spotify isn’t material, it’s a computer program. It’s information. It’s a thoughtform. Yet it’s still a means of production that ought to be seized for the liberation of the musician worker. What does materialism have to do with any of this?

  • BeamBrain [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s not what materialism means in the context of communist theory.

    When communists talk about materialism, we generally refer to historical materialism, the theory that a society’s culture and politics (its superstructure) are shaped by its material forces (its base). This isn’t strictly a one-way street, mind - it’s cyclical, with each exerting some influence on the other, though the base dominates. See this diagram. This view is generally contrasted with liberal idealism, which assumes that ideas and culture are the dominant drivers of society.

    To give an example in the most straightforward terms possible, let’s take the question: “What is the connection between the 19th century US southern aristocrats’ Christianity and their support for slavery?”

    Idealism says that these aristocrats were pro-slavery because they interpreted the Bible to be pro-slavery.

    Materialism says that these aristocrats interpreted the Bible to be pro-slavery because they were pro-slavery.

    Ultimately, they were following their economic and material interests in a society in which Christianity was the dominant religion. Anything they may have believed or professed to believe about Christianity emerged from that.

    • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well I sure disagree with everything you just said. I think it’s reductive, simplistic, and appeals to problematic realist sensitivities. What does everything you just said have to do with communism?

      • BeamBrain [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What does everything you just said have to do with communism?

        It’s the entire basis of communist theory. Capitalism cannot be “fixed” because its basic structure consists of two classes with different relations to the means of production, the bourgeoise and the proletariat, who have diametrically opposed material interests. The way to resolve this contradiction is to do away with the parasitic capitalist class and reorganize society so that it consists only of workers.

        This is 101-level Marxism. If you don’t agree with any of it, then, uh, you may be on the wrong site.

      • mah [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        so you are not a marxist, bye lol :)

        i’m joking. but you really need to read about marxism.

        What does everything you just said have to do with communism?

        It’s the very basics of our theory. and it’s basically what i told you before.

        ofc, you can believe in socialism without being a marxist. You might be interested in reading Polanyi for example.

        • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No, I do understand everything you just said, I just think it’s wrong and that a properly communist analysis would demonstrate that. Are you telling me that historical materialism is just one of multiple ways of arriving at communist conclusions?

          • mah [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Communism is usually associated with historical materialism, the theory that everyone here is trying to explain to you. However, there have been other forms of socialism before and after Marx. You might find interesting Henri de Saint-Simon and his theories, Paul Lafargue, or for another, more recent example of non-Marxist socialist, Karl Polanyi.

            If you don’t believe in Marxism, that’s okay. But you need to study it first, and based on your original post, it might require some more time, patience, and reading.