Weird flex. Meeting material needs can be accomplished under different economic systems. I would say as a Liberal Capitalist you believe in a private property system where owners can take the work of others for their own benefit. I would respond, “If you don’t work, you don’t eat”, but that applies to the capitalist owners in the same way as their workers.
I leave out “socialism” because for the vast majority of actual implementations, they have been Marxist in character, and additionally any Socialist system in my opinion would either progress to Communism or regress to Capitalism, making it kind of redundant to split from Communism.
Communism isn’t a type of Socialism if we are being nitpicky, but the Mode of Production after Socialism.
Additionally, I did say it was an extreme simplification, and I meant that. I’m not diving into syndicalism, utopianism, Posadism, Maoism, Gonzaloism, Trotskyism, Hoxaism, etc because ultimately they don’t need to be delved into for someone with no knowledge.
I know we are engaged in other conversation. I will read the other comment when I have time to kill.
I need to respond to the continuum idea of politics namely: capitalism -> socialism -> communism. The continuum is a creation of Lenin in State and Revolution. A similar anachronism is suggesting there is a continuum to evolution. Continuum’s are silly for evolution and politics.
That’s actually wrong. Marx came up with it, he just called what Lenin called “Socialism” as “lower-stage Communism.” The origin is in Historical Materialism, and the concept of Scientific Socialism (as opposed to the Utopian form that thought you could just think up a good society and create it outright).
Calling it a “continuum” is misleading. Capitalism, as an example, starts with many smaller Capitalists but eventually concentrates and monopolizes. This is a trackable and historical motion, not a “continuum” but nonetheless an observed trend. Socialism, on the other hand, continues that movement but does so in the direction of collectivization, as public ownership and planning not only becomes feasible but far more efficient at higher levels of development, which is also observable and trackable.
Communism is when this process has been done and all private property has been folded into the public sector. This isn’t a straight and narrow line, but a process that will happen in many different manners across many different countries, but by tracking trajectories and behaviors this prediction becomes clearer and clearer, and Marx becomes vindicated by the passage of time as we observe them coming to fruition.
The person we are replying to is someone who wanted the absolute basics. Getting into the nuances of minor Syndicalist movements, the historical Utopian Socialists like Saint-Simon, or other forms really isn’t relevant unless you want to dig deeper.
Historically, the 2 largest and most significant strands of Leftist thinking and practice have been Marxist and Anarchist, and there are no non-Communist Marxists. I mean this absolutely, 99.9% of existing leftism has been either Marxist or Anarchist. They don’t need to understand the subtle differences in Yugoslavian Marxism or Russian or Chinese or Cuban, because they all are forms of Marxism.
Further still, again, Communism comes after Socialism. It isn’t a form of Socialism.
Further still, again, Communism comes after Socialism. It isn’t a form of Socialism.
Only if you define “socialism” only as “the transition period between capitalism and communism.”
And I do not. Because, again, I am not a Marxist-Leninist.
And it seems like you have some all-encompassing need to label everything, but I would say many people on the left do not subscribe to an individual label like you seem to think that they do.
Socialism is generally a form of society where public ownership and collectivization is the driving force of the economy. Communism is when that process is complete. There are various different forms and characteristics Socialism takes, but they all exist in motion and thus will either move on to Communism or revert to Capitalism. To call Communism a type of Socialism would be to call Capitalism a type of Feudalism, just because both have property owners, but this of course is not a good form of analysis.
I understand that you aren’t a Marxist-Leninist. I am, sure, but again I made the very clear case that the overwhelming majority of Leftism worldwide and historically has fallen under the categories of Marxism, which is without fail Communist, or Anarchist. These aren’t necessarily ML specific points of view, if you can point to major non-Marxist, non-Anarchist strains of Leftist practice that have any major relevance, then I can concede.
As for Leftists that don’t ascribe to labels, I don’t really care about what one individual is thinking, because I am not trying to prepare them for random internet leftist #18948 with their own specific eccentricities. I am talking in extremely broad and relevant distinctions, like what has actually existed and continues to exist.
but they all exist in motion and thus will either move on to Communism or revert to Capitalism.
This is just not true… We have seen that, in practice, this does not need to be true. For example, market socialism exists. Mixed economies exist (and thrive).
I look forward to hearing why none of those pass your purity test.
Extreme simplification:
Liberalism: supports capitalism. Current system + tweaks
Leftism: supports anticapitalism of some form, the two biggest umbrellas being Marxism/Communism and Anarchism
Marxism/Communism: supports collectivization, public ownership, and central planning (I have an introductory reading list if you want to learn more, or just read Principles of Communism)
Anarchism: supports full horizontalism and networks of communes
Sorry to say I’m a self aware liberal capitalist. I must say I love to consoom (with some moderation)
Weird flex. Meeting material needs can be accomplished under different economic systems. I would say as a Liberal Capitalist you believe in a private property system where owners can take the work of others for their own benefit. I would respond, “If you don’t work, you don’t eat”, but that applies to the capitalist owners in the same way as their workers.
You can still get goods and services in Socialism and Communism, I don’t know what you mean by “consooming.”
I guess it depends on which interpretation of communism you believe in.
I’m a Marxist, so Marxian.
Thank you for the reading list! I’ll take a gander :)
They’re conveniently leaving out the entire concept of Socialism for some reason, while making sure to mention Marxism by name.
So I would make sure to add that to the list. Communism is a specific form of socialism, but the two are non synonymous.
I leave out “socialism” because for the vast majority of actual implementations, they have been Marxist in character, and additionally any Socialist system in my opinion would either progress to Communism or regress to Capitalism, making it kind of redundant to split from Communism.
Communism isn’t a type of Socialism if we are being nitpicky, but the Mode of Production after Socialism.
Additionally, I did say it was an extreme simplification, and I meant that. I’m not diving into syndicalism, utopianism, Posadism, Maoism, Gonzaloism, Trotskyism, Hoxaism, etc because ultimately they don’t need to be delved into for someone with no knowledge.
I know we are engaged in other conversation. I will read the other comment when I have time to kill.
I need to respond to the continuum idea of politics namely: capitalism -> socialism -> communism. The continuum is a creation of Lenin in State and Revolution. A similar anachronism is suggesting there is a continuum to evolution. Continuum’s are silly for evolution and politics.
That’s actually wrong. Marx came up with it, he just called what Lenin called “Socialism” as “lower-stage Communism.” The origin is in Historical Materialism, and the concept of Scientific Socialism (as opposed to the Utopian form that thought you could just think up a good society and create it outright).
Calling it a “continuum” is misleading. Capitalism, as an example, starts with many smaller Capitalists but eventually concentrates and monopolizes. This is a trackable and historical motion, not a “continuum” but nonetheless an observed trend. Socialism, on the other hand, continues that movement but does so in the direction of collectivization, as public ownership and planning not only becomes feasible but far more efficient at higher levels of development, which is also observable and trackable.
Communism is when this process has been done and all private property has been folded into the public sector. This isn’t a straight and narrow line, but a process that will happen in many different manners across many different countries, but by tracking trajectories and behaviors this prediction becomes clearer and clearer, and Marx becomes vindicated by the passage of time as we observe them coming to fruition.
It’s also a type of socialism, by the modern definition of the term as I understand it
I know how Marxist-Leninists describe it, but I’m not a Marxist-Leninist.
Socialism is an umbrella term that includes communism.
The person we are replying to is someone who wanted the absolute basics. Getting into the nuances of minor Syndicalist movements, the historical Utopian Socialists like Saint-Simon, or other forms really isn’t relevant unless you want to dig deeper.
Historically, the 2 largest and most significant strands of Leftist thinking and practice have been Marxist and Anarchist, and there are no non-Communist Marxists. I mean this absolutely, 99.9% of existing leftism has been either Marxist or Anarchist. They don’t need to understand the subtle differences in Yugoslavian Marxism or Russian or Chinese or Cuban, because they all are forms of Marxism.
Further still, again, Communism comes after Socialism. It isn’t a form of Socialism.
Only if you define “socialism” only as “the transition period between capitalism and communism.”
And I do not. Because, again, I am not a Marxist-Leninist.
And it seems like you have some all-encompassing need to label everything, but I would say many people on the left do not subscribe to an individual label like you seem to think that they do.
Socialism is generally a form of society where public ownership and collectivization is the driving force of the economy. Communism is when that process is complete. There are various different forms and characteristics Socialism takes, but they all exist in motion and thus will either move on to Communism or revert to Capitalism. To call Communism a type of Socialism would be to call Capitalism a type of Feudalism, just because both have property owners, but this of course is not a good form of analysis.
I understand that you aren’t a Marxist-Leninist. I am, sure, but again I made the very clear case that the overwhelming majority of Leftism worldwide and historically has fallen under the categories of Marxism, which is without fail Communist, or Anarchist. These aren’t necessarily ML specific points of view, if you can point to major non-Marxist, non-Anarchist strains of Leftist practice that have any major relevance, then I can concede.
As for Leftists that don’t ascribe to labels, I don’t really care about what one individual is thinking, because I am not trying to prepare them for random internet leftist #18948 with their own specific eccentricities. I am talking in extremely broad and relevant distinctions, like what has actually existed and continues to exist.
This is just not true… We have seen that, in practice, this does not need to be true. For example, market socialism exists. Mixed economies exist (and thrive).
I look forward to hearing why none of those pass your purity test.