“Techno-feudalism”?

[FireIceTalon]

I don't think any system on its own is strong enough to be self-sustaining.

This is true in the sense with any system that has distinct class relations. The State is an organ of class rule. The form that State takes doesn't matter so much here, be it a Monarchy, a liberal democracy, a fascist dictatorship, social democracy, or State Capitalism. The ruling class needs an agency of sorts to protect and ensure the perpetuation of its long-term interests and manage its everyday affairs.

 I don't think (true) communism is even possible unless all your neighbors also play by the same rules.

Before I respond to this directly, I need to elucidate what communism is. There is no ‘true’ or ‘fake’ communism - there is just communism as defined by Marx and Engels: a classless/stateless/moneyless society. Nothing more, nothing less. They used this term interchangeably with "socialism" as well (to my knowledge, a distinction between the two terms, in a Marxist sense, didn't come about until Lenin. But this distinction is superfluous imo). For more on this, Paul Mattick gives a good overview: https://www.marxists.org/subject/left-wi...munism.htm

Another important detail here is that many people (even self-proclaimed communists) think of communism as "the common ownership of the means of production". While it is true that this is a necessary component of communism, it is not a sufficient one. We have worker owned co-ops that already exist within the capitalist system, which is proof of this point. A much better description of communism is the abolition of "The Law of Value" (or the value-form), which is the core economic law of capitalist production and its social relations. I can speak more on the value-form if necessary but this should do for now.

But, communism is absolutely possible. In truth, humans organized themselves in largely communist-like societies for literally 10's of thousands of years - this fact alone pretty much confirms its "possibility". Make no mistake, the goal isn't to de-industrialize and go back to a primitive organization of society, but simply to eliminate the value-form and reorganize production along use-values instead of exchange-values. Of course, this presupposes the disappearance of the processes that make capitalism what it is: namely, the valorization of value, and the law of capitalist accumulation. There is nothing unrealistic about this, as capitalism is neither transhistorical nor infallible.

But for a communist society to be possible, it requires a very high level of developed social productive forces, and therefore a high level of social value (productivity) and abundance. This precondition is very much in place now, but that doesn't mean we will or can transfer into a communist society. The contradictions of capitalism have to be at a point where they are no longer sustainable, and we aren't there yet. This is why Marxist-Leninists framing is wrong. Communism cannot be (and will not be) imposed on the populace through a party, in an ideological sense. It will be imposed on them when the conditions of capitalism reach a point of collapse (which IS inevitable), and they come to realize that a reorganization of the production process is absolutely necessary for their very survival. Most workers probably won't even comprehend themselves as communists so much as they will see that material conditions of capitalism are a existential threat to their being, and will thus take actions that are naturally the antithesis to capitalist production.

Now, this doesn't make communism inevitable, but it does make it historically necessary. When capitalism inevitably collapses, there will only be two alternatives: it either takes us down with it, leading to complete ruin of humanity, or a reorganization of production eliminating the value form. Capitalism, at one point too, was also a historical necessity, as the productive forces that characterize it were developing beyond the mode of production and institutions that composed feudal society. We are seeing the same thing now, albeit the very beginning, of the productive forces become more advanced than the current mode of production, which is entirely outdated. These are the laws of history; which Marx and Engels discovered in very much the same way Darwin discovered the laws of evolutionary biology.

And by that mindset, would you say that the universe of Star Trek The Next Generation was communist, despite (in the show) claiming to be democratically run by elected leaders? Everything in that show points to a communist-like system, and I can't help but wonder if Gene Roddenberry thought of TNG as a communist utopia.

No, because communism isn't a utopia. That isn't what it promises, nor is that even its goal. In fact, communists do not even promise total equality, as is often asserted (incorrectly). Just a higher form of production and better (albeit much better) living conditions for human beings than what capitalism has been able to provide.
Marx and Engels were in fact extremely critical of utopianism, and Engels wrote a whole text on this called Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, which is one of the pillars of Marxist literature. Per Engels:

   

[FireIceTalon]

I would even go as far to say that, Marx's concept of the class struggle, while fundamentally correct, needs to be transcended in a sense with the current conditions of capitalism, and where it seems to be going. It is no longer just 'bourgeois vs. proletarians', but something even bigger.....namely humanity vs capital. If we follow capitalism's internal logic (its endless [drive for] accumulation) to its conclusion, it will be a very significant threat to our existence (if it isn't already). A communist revolution would simply be humanity pulling the emergency brake before we tumble off the cliff.

[Archon_Wing]

But in seriousness I think FIT might agree Soviet Russia and Chinese Communism do not have much to do with Marxism.  I am overwhelmed with thousands of dollars of medical bills I cannot pay.  Years ago I visited Yugoslavia.  The friend I was with injured her foot.  After treatment she asked the doctor how much would it cost?  The doctor laughed.  She replied:  "This is a communist country.  No one pays for healthcare."

Of course there are disadvantages, but this is something that has stuck in my memory.

I would not only agree, but I would say it’s the only correct framing. Marxist-Leninists are idiots that love the former USSR, and many of them will defend present day China. Neither one was ever communist though. They are just capitalism with different arrangements. Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism) is fundamentally not compatible with Marxism, as in the theory written by Marx and Engels. 

The flip side to this is that the bourgeois framing of these states is pure propaganda that lacks nuance as well. These states absolutely need to be critiqued, but only a materialist analysis can provide a correct understanding.

The doctor’s framing is entirely wrong. There is no such thing as a “communist country”. All it is is capitalism with different arrangements, ie State capitalism or capitalism with a heavy welfare state. Communism presupposes free healthcare, but free healthcare does NOT presuppose communism. In fact, not even worker ownership of the means of production means communism exists. It’s a necessary, but NOT sufficient, component of communism.

In the past, I have defended Marxist-Leninist states, but I am much more critical of them now - from a correct framing of Marxism. For those who would insist that Stalinism = communism, I’d suggest reading this, Mattick is brilliant:

https://www.marxists.org/subject/left-wi...munism.htm

In short, communism can be summed up as the abolition of the ‘Law of Value’ - the core economic law that governs capitalist production and social relations.

All in the wording. They call it  Marxism-Leninism but in the end it's actually in reverse. The Marxist aspects  are actually secondary if present at all.

In the end, Imperial Russia just got reskinned and the same could be said of Modern Russia as well. I feel this is a better explanation then just "Godless Communists" or that infamous motto imprinted on money these days. And as for China, it's always been about whatever's convenient to fight against Western Imperialism to prevent another century of humiliation. (but not their own imperialism)

Although I don't really think tankies should be given much thought anyways.

Oh yea, and hi everyone!

[FireIceTalon]

But in seriousness I think FIT might agree Soviet Russia and Chinese Communism do not have much to do with Marxism.  I am overwhelmed with thousands of dollars of medical bills I cannot pay.  Years ago I visited Yugoslavia.  The friend I was with injured her foot.  After treatment she asked the doctor how much would it cost?  The doctor laughed.  She replied:  "This is a communist country.  No one pays for healthcare."

Of course there are disadvantages, but this is something that has stuck in my memory.

I would not only agree, but I would say it’s the only correct framing. Marxist-Leninists are idiots that love the former USSR, and many of them will defend present day China. Neither one was ever communist though. They are just capitalism with different arrangements. Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism) is fundamentally not compatible with Marxism, as in the theory written by Marx and Engels. 

The flip side to this is that the bourgeois framing of these states is pure propaganda that lacks nuance as well. These states absolutely need to be critiqued, but only a materialist analysis can provide a correct understanding.

The doctor’s framing is entirely wrong. There is no such thing as a “communist country”. All it is is capitalism with different arrangements, ie State capitalism or capitalism with a heavy welfare state. Communism presupposes free healthcare, but free healthcare does NOT presuppose communism. In fact, not even worker ownership of the means of production means communism exists. It’s a necessary, but NOT sufficient, component of communism.

In the past, I have defended Marxist-Leninist states, but I am much more critical of them now - from a correct framing of Marxism. For those who would insist that Stalinism = communism, I’d suggest reading this, Mattick is brilliant:

https://www.marxists.org/subject/left-wi...munism.htm

In short, communism can be summed up as the abolition of the ‘Law of Value’ - the core economic law that governs capitalist production and social relations.

All in the wording. They call it  Marxism-Leninism but in the end it's actually in reverse. The Marxist aspects  are actually secondary if present at all.

In the end, Imperial Russia just got reskinned and the same could be said of Modern Russia as well. I feel this is a better explanation then just "Godless Communists" or that infamous motto imprinted on money these days. And as for China, it's always been about whatever's convenient to fight against Western Imperialism to prevent another century of humiliation. (but not their own imperialism)

Although I don't really think tankies should be given much thought anyways.

Oh yea, and hi everyone!

Hey there, long time ^..^


Yes. ML’s come with the pretense of agreeing with Marx and Engels, but once you start asking a few questions or providing a few observations, they defend what they call “actually existing socialism” over whatever Marx and Engels wrote. For them Lenin and leaders like Mao, Stalin, Castro or even Deng Xiaoping in some cases as the most developed interpretation of “Marxism”. Almost none of these people, nor their followers, have read a fundamental text like Das Kapital. 

I’ve had just as many heated debates with ML’s as I’ve had with neo-liberals and rightists. The truth is, Marxism-Leninism isn’t an innocent misunderstanding of Marxism - they are PRO-capitalist every bit as much as a normal right winger is. They come with the pretense of being anti-capitalist, but in reality they just want different arrangements under capitalism than what right wingers want. They are, in essence, the left-wing of capital. 

It’s why I don’t even call myself a “Leftist” anymore, because that presupposes anyone who supports capitalism is right-wing. This is false. Capital has both a left and right wing. I identify as a Marxist, nothing more nothing less. But if there is any particular understanding of Marxism I subscribe to, aside from Marx and Engels, it would be the German strain of what is called Left or Council Communism (think authors such as Paul Mattick, Otto Ruhle, Anton Pannekoek, Herman Gorter, and less formally, Luxemburg). They have the most accurate and consistent interpretations of Marx and Engels writings.

I will say that the collapse of Soviet State capitalism was a bad thing though, because this allowed western imperialism to grow in power to unprecedented levels. I support Marxist-Leninist states insofar that they are ‘national liberation movements’ that generally led to somewhat better conditions from western backed fascist regimes (Cuba was better off under Castro than Batista, USSR was better off than under Tsarism, etc), but I do not support them as a means or ends to achieving communism. Leninism is a dead end and not applicable to today’s conditions (if it ever was, which I don’t believe it was). Some ML’s today love modern China and consider it a legit DOTP, which is asinine.

Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc are all just nationalist politicians. Lenin might have been a genuine Marxist at heart but he was wrong about lots of things, though “The State and Revolution” and “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism” are essential reads for any Marxist.

[Archon_Wing]

But in seriousness I think FIT might agree Soviet Russia and Chinese Communism do not have much to do with Marxism.  I am overwhelmed with thousands of dollars of medical bills I cannot pay.  Years ago I visited Yugoslavia.  The friend I was with injured her foot.  After treatment she asked the doctor how much would it cost?  The doctor laughed.  She replied:  "This is a communist country.  No one pays for healthcare."

Of course there are disadvantages, but this is something that has stuck in my memory.

I would not only agree, but I would say it’s the only correct framing. Marxist-Leninists are idiots that love the former USSR, and many of them will defend present day China. Neither one was ever communist though. They are just capitalism with different arrangements. Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism) is fundamentally not compatible with Marxism, as in the theory written by Marx and Engels. 

The flip side to this is that the bourgeois framing of these states is pure propaganda that lacks nuance as well. These states absolutely need to be critiqued, but only a materialist analysis can provide a correct understanding.

The doctor’s framing is entirely wrong. There is no such thing as a “communist country”. All it is is capitalism with different arrangements, ie State capitalism or capitalism with a heavy welfare state. Communism presupposes free healthcare, but free healthcare does NOT presuppose communism. In fact, not even worker ownership of the means of production means communism exists. It’s a necessary, but NOT sufficient, component of communism.

In the past, I have defended Marxist-Leninist states, but I am much more critical of them now - from a correct framing of Marxism. For those who would insist that Stalinism = communism, I’d suggest reading this, Mattick is brilliant:

https://www.marxists.org/subject/left-wi...munism.htm

In short, communism can be summed up as the abolition of the ‘Law of Value’ - the core economic law that governs capitalist production and social relations.

All in the wording. They call it  Marxism-Leninism but in the end it's actually in reverse. The Marxist aspects  are actually secondary if present at all.

In the end, Imperial Russia just got reskinned and the same could be said of Modern Russia as well. I feel this is a better explanation then just "Godless Communists" or that infamous motto imprinted on money these days. And as for China, it's always been about whatever's convenient to fight against Western Imperialism to prevent another century of humiliation. (but not their own imperialism)

Although I don't really think tankies should be given much thought anyways.

Oh yea, and hi everyone!

Hey there, long time ^..^


Yes. ML’s come with the pretense of agreeing with Marx and Engels, but once you start asking a few questions or providing a few observations, they defend what they call “actually existing socialism” over whatever Marx and Engels wrote. For them Lenin and leaders like Mao, Stalin, Castro or even Deng Xiaoping in some cases as the most developed interpretation of “Marxism”. Almost none of these people, nor their followers, have read a fundamental text like Das Kapital. 

I’ve had just as many heated debates with ML’s as I’ve had with neo-liberals and rightists. The truth is, Marxism-Leninism isn’t an innocent misunderstanding of Marxism - they are PRO-capitalist every bit as much as a normal right winger is. They come with the pretense of being anti-capitalist, but in reality they just want different arrangements under capitalism than what right wingers want. They are, in essence, the left-wing of capital. 

It’s why I don’t even call myself a “Leftist” anymore, because that presupposes anyone who supports capitalism is right-wing. This is false. Capital has both a left and right wing. I identify as a Marxist, nothing more nothing less. But if there is any particular understanding of Marxism I subscribe to, aside from Marx and Engels, it would be the German strain of what is called Left or Council Communism (think authors such as Paul Mattick, Otto Ruhle, Anton Pannekoek, Herman Gorter, and less formally, Luxemburg). They have the most accurate and consistent interpretations of Marx and Engels writings.

I will say that the collapse of Soviet State capitalism was a bad thing though, because this allowed western imperialism to grow in power to unprecedented levels. I support Marxist-Leninist states insofar that they are ‘national liberation movements’ that generally led to somewhat better conditions from western backed fascist regimes (Cuba was better off under Castro than Batista, USSR was better off than under Tsarism, etc), but I do not support them as a means or ends to achieving communism. Leninism is a dead end and not applicable to today’s conditions (if it ever was, which I don’t believe it was). Some ML’s today love modern China and consider it a legit DOTP, which is asinine.

Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc are all just nationalist politicians. Lenin might have been a genuine Marxist at heart but he was wrong about lots of things, though “The State and Revolution” and “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism” are essential reads for any Marxist.

Well, I suppose this kinda touches a lot of issues. First, people think when you are of a similar vibe means you accept all their beleifs wholesale. Not always bad, it's boring if everyone agrees. Others though treat it like a betrayal.

As for rearranging the furniture to suit one's needs, well, that just seems like a thing we've been trained to do. Much like the "moderates" that thought Hitler could be useful but you already know this one.

As for the fall of the Soviet Union, yes, though I also see the reboot towards "business as usual" for Russian Oligarchy to be just as bad. People were hoping that they would join the Neoliberal world and well you see what happened there too. What's even more horrific is stuff like Nazbol which has way more fans then it should.

But yes, it's a bit rich the areas of the world that have been most responsible for enslaving the planet and backed even more that did indirectly stand on a moral high ground just because they've had a few decades to think about it occasionally.

I guess the mistake many make is picking which group of murderers to idolize.

As for your actual position, well shrugs; I've always thought you were part of the cool people. That's a better sounding alignment anyways.

[FireIceTalon]

I wish I would have read more theory back when this forum was more active and we were having all those discussions/debates. I look back at some of my posts and realize that while I was right about certain things, my framing was off. At the time I had only read about 3 or 4 Marxist texts and was more into engaging with other people with similar views. I learned a lot, but I came to realize that much of what I learned wasn’t exactly correct.

I’m far more well read now and much more certain of my views and understanding of history and political economy, and for people new to Marxist/communist literature I tell that there is no way to overstate how important reading theory is. I’m a good 20+ books into the theory (including reading Das Kapital cover to cover) and the difference in what I knew back then and now is like night and day.

[FireIceTalon]

Next read: Anti-Dühring by Engels.