Marxism is anti-utopian, it’s based on analyzing how societies evolve over time. What is deemed “authoritarianism” is the need for the proletariat to exert its control over the bourgeoisie, rather than the reverse, yet bourgeois rule is more authoritarian.
That’s fine in theory, until the party starts calling everything it sees as a potential opposition or threat to itself and any attempts to adapt to the times “burgeois”.
Until you guys create a clear set of rules to permit gradual evolution, dissenting voices, protecting the rights of the individual and political opposition, while preventing things like cult of personality, nobody is getting on that ride again.
(oh wait, there is another ride like that but for the nation instead of the proletariat, it’s called fascism…and everybody is getting on it…again)
I’m sure you’re definition is probably broad enough that that my concept might include some of the wars you’d discount. …but not all.
in any case, even if I narrowed it down significantly, there’d be enough to disprove “communism is incompatible with war”.
Rather, you could say “in theory, communism is incompatible with war, even though it isn’t a magical fix for the underlying tendencies and in some cases needs that drive war.”
Wars happen for a number of reasons, and there should be a distinction between offensive and defensive wars.
In theory, capitalism is incompatible with war as it is assumed to be a system of fair exchange. Many economists and philosophers followed Ayn Rand in promoting this idea. Obviously it is NOT such a system, and is instead a relentless amoral pursuit of profit and value extraction, and will cheerfully use war to obtain resources while simultaneously extracting value via defense industry stocks. It also uses war to crush any opposed ideologies, which is censorship in its most violent form.
I am not familiar with how communism or socialism is compatible with war outside of Rand’s claim that socialism consumes resources leading to demand for more which must be taken from neighbors rather than using a system of free and fair exchange.
Communism will never, has never and can never work on a large scale.
Yeah, because authoritarian systems always fail, without exception
The only real solution is to remove authority and bring society to adult level - better the other way round though.
remove adults and bring all the kids to the authoritarian level. Check.
Marxism is anti-utopian, it’s based on analyzing how societies evolve over time. What is deemed “authoritarianism” is the need for the proletariat to exert its control over the bourgeoisie, rather than the reverse, yet bourgeois rule is more authoritarian.
@naeap@sopuli.xyz
That’s fine in theory, until the party starts calling everything it sees as a potential opposition or threat to itself and any attempts to adapt to the times “burgeois”.
Until you guys create a clear set of rules to permit gradual evolution, dissenting voices, protecting the rights of the individual and political opposition, while preventing things like cult of personality, nobody is getting on that ride again.
(oh wait, there is another ride like that but for the nation instead of the proletariat, it’s called fascism…and everybody is getting on it…again)
Yes, because rule by the bourgeois will always tend towards a more authoritarian level than Socialism.
Neither can capitalism. But communism is incompatible with war.
history disagrees.
Are you counting defensive wars against capitalist colonizers, fascist invasions, and uprisings against oppressive puppet regimes and tyrants?
Everyone can be a tyrant or a puppet if you think different enough
I like how everyone’s response so far is “words have no meaning”
Always the victim. Get back to your struggle sessions, and hope the target isn’t you.
Are you counting defensive wars against capitalist colonizers, fascist invasions, and uprisings against oppressive puppet regimes and tyrants?
I’m sure you’re definition is probably broad enough that that my concept might include some of the wars you’d discount. …but not all.
in any case, even if I narrowed it down significantly, there’d be enough to disprove “communism is incompatible with war”.
Rather, you could say “in theory, communism is incompatible with war, even though it isn’t a magical fix for the underlying tendencies and in some cases needs that drive war.”
Wars happen for a number of reasons, and there should be a distinction between offensive and defensive wars.
In theory, capitalism is incompatible with war as it is assumed to be a system of fair exchange. Many economists and philosophers followed Ayn Rand in promoting this idea. Obviously it is NOT such a system, and is instead a relentless amoral pursuit of profit and value extraction, and will cheerfully use war to obtain resources while simultaneously extracting value via defense industry stocks. It also uses war to crush any opposed ideologies, which is censorship in its most violent form.
I am not familiar with how communism or socialism is compatible with war outside of Rand’s claim that socialism consumes resources leading to demand for more which must be taken from neighbors rather than using a system of free and fair exchange.
…that difference is entirely which side of the battle line you’re on…