Marxism

[Alcala-Cordel]

>:(
Anarcho-communism, left-communism, Trotskyism, council communism, Luxemburgism, and many others that are either based on or use Marxist ideas.
We have so many factions

personally I think Zizekism communism is the most realistic faction to come out of the marxist camp. Instead of focusing on how capitalism is bad, he made a case on how it can be used to provide for the people when not being used soley to accumulate wealth.

Many ideologies based on Marxism, especially the libertarian-left ones like neozapatism, have/are working though.

[Nevertopia]

personally I think Zizekism communism is the most realistic faction to come out of the marxist camp. Instead of focusing on how capitalism is bad, he made a case on how it can be used to provide for the people when not being used soley to accumulate wealth.

Many ideologies based on Marxism, especially the libertarian-left ones like neozapatism, have/are working though.

hey whatever works. My concern is Marxism doesnt.

Theres a few concepts that have merit but like capitalism taking it all in as is would be a bad idea.

[Kubra]

Private property means private (ie individual) ownership of the means of production. If the workers (communally) own the means of production, there is no private property, only communal property.

oic, so thats why marxism fails. It has no checks and balances for corruption or rewarding effort. Everything is everybody else's problem right?

On the topic of "rewarding effort", there was never a period in the soviet union that did not feature wage differentials. But that didn't save the union.
As for everything being someone elses problem, I mean we all have jobs. I think we can safely say that's not an exclusive feature of the left, no?

[Nevertopia]

oic, so thats why marxism fails. It has no checks and balances for corruption or rewarding effort. Everything is everybody else's problem right?

On the topic of "rewarding effort", there was never a period in the soviet union that did not feature wage differentials. But that didn't save the union.
As for everything being someone elses problem, I mean we all have jobs. I think we can safely say that's not an exclusive feature of the left, no?

yes and yet capitalism is the one to make it work, not communism.

[Kubra]

On the topic of "rewarding effort", there was never a period in the soviet union that did not feature wage differentials. But that didn't save the union.
As for everything being someone elses problem, I mean we all have jobs. I think we can safely say that's not an exclusive feature of the left, no?

yes and yet capitalism is the one to make it work, not communism.

well, could you explain what makes our wage differentials better, and what makes our inter-departmental bureaucracy more effective?

[Cisairse]

You are wrong, it is partially capitalist in that it relies on trade and markets.

Including markets doesn't mean your system is capitalist.

Besides, most forms of socialism do not involve markets.

It draws from the concepts of Mondragon which is a cooperative corporation, SAIC which is an employee owned corporation, and directly employee ownership by workers and unions. It aims to cut down on salaried workers and increase ownership. It is also built around concepts of workplace democracy which is highly productive. It also comes from ideas like the Meissner plan which creates greater employee ownership by allowing people to pay into payroll taxes to buy shares in places they work. The end point is a mixed economy with a much higher amount of employee ownership. If you take it to its long endpoint, you can create a highly productive mixed economy with near complete worker ownership. Thus in a market system you end up with democratic control and ownership of the means of production which cannot occur under communism. It also is more productive, has less layoffs, and is more stable than the communist idea. This is how it is explained from the viewpoint of Bernie Sanders. https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18643032/ ... rship-jobs It is much more of a possibility than what is coming from the Communist Manifesto.

Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist, he's a capitalist. Mixed economies are capitalist societies, they just have lots of welfare and a large public sector.

Also, "less layoffs?" The Soviet Union had negligible unemployment for its entire existence under a socialist regime. That has never been the case in any capitalist society ever.

If you remove all the incentives for producing everything by removing all management, then make everything becomes a giant flat bureaucracy where there are no reasons to be productive, you end up with a huge mess which does not support anyone. Suddenly, there is no management, no incentives, no party and a complete lack of direction.

That is completely untrue. You'll find that humans are, generally, quite passionate. If anything, socialism should increase productivity and innovation substantially compared to regimented, hierarchical capitalist systems.

Capital accumulation allows for investment. What is the means of storing wealth for future use in a "postscarcity society". By definition first you get abundance. How do you then take it from abundance to superabundance, or the "terran federation."

I am very confused what you're saying here. Can you rephrase?

[Nevertopia]

yes and yet capitalism is the one to make it work, not communism.

well, could you explain what makes our wage differentials better, and what makes our inter-departmental bureaucracy more effective?

the accumulation of wealth.

[Cisairse]

I don't believe that, because it would be a very silly thing to think really.

Marx left a ton of "blanks" in his "script" for the future of the workingmen. ML is one way to fill in the blanks. There are plenty of other ways.

Such as?...

Orthodox Marxists will say that ML goes against Marx's post-1848 views about how there should be no intermediary state or vanguard party. Engels was an anarcho-communist, and felt that the end goal of a communist society should be the complete destruction of the state, not its transformation into the "worker's state" like Stalin called the USSR.

Libertarian socialism is generally in the same vein as anarcho-communism. There's also syndicalism like the Wobblies, which is a more liberation form of democratic socialism (which is still marxist). And of course you have Trotskyism, which is adjacent to ML but not the same as it, and Posadism, which is just Trotskyism except instead of a world revolution to bring about communism you have aliens and global thermonuclear warfare.

There's also roughly 1 billion other ideologies that I haven't mentioned.

[Kubra]

well, could you explain what makes our wage differentials better, and what makes our inter-departmental bureaucracy more effective?

the accumulation of wealth.

What, is that it?

[Cisairse]

Right. In a socialist society, there is no capital accumulation. That's the key difference.
In fact most of the other "details" of the differences between socialism and capitalism derive chiefly from the fact that there is no capital accumulation in socialism.

Further, the means of production are not privately or corporately owned in socialism.

doesnt that just create a system where everybody is perpetually poor? Or the very least an inability to rise above their means and needs?

Well, no. 0 inequality doesn't mean everyone is poor. In fact it means quite the opposite, everyone is able to survive because nobody is sucking up too many resources.

Marxist doctrine doesn't seek to answer the question of what happens to surplus production, because that's a political detail mostly irrelevant to organizing society. That being said, Marx did (accurately) predict that socialist societies would be phenomenally more productive than their capitalist predecessors and create a huge surplus of necessities, which could be rationed for later use.

on a sidenote i think its a neat idea for a capitalist communism corporate hybrid where the employees owns the corporation they work for. Its very democratic capitalist.

That's basically the Nordic Model.

[Kubra]

Such as?...

Orthodox Marxists will say that ML goes against Marx's post-1848 views about how there should be no intermediary state or vanguard party. Engels was an anarcho-communist, and felt that the end goal of a communist society should be the complete destruction of the state, not its transformation into the "worker's state" like Stalin called the USSR.

Libertarian socialism is generally in the same vein as anarcho-communism. There's also syndicalism like the Wobblies, which is a more liberation form of democratic socialism (which is still marxist). And of course you have Trotskyism, which is adjacent to ML but not the same as it, and Posadism, which is just Trotskyism except instead of a world revolution to bring about communism you have aliens and global thermonuclear warfare.

There's also roughly 1 billion other ideologies that I haven't mentioned.

Well you haven't nearly any of the variations
you're forgetting trotskyism, and cliffite trotskyiste, and pabloite trotskyism, and spartacist (UK) trotskyism, and sparacist (US) trotskyism....

[Cisairse]

Orthodox Marxists will say that ML goes against Marx's post-1848 views about how there should be no intermediary state or vanguard party. Engels was an anarcho-communist, and felt that the end goal of a communist society should be the complete destruction of the state, not its transformation into the "worker's state" like Stalin called the USSR.

Libertarian socialism is generally in the same vein as anarcho-communism. There's also syndicalism like the Wobblies, which is a more liberation form of democratic socialism (which is still marxist). And of course you have Trotskyism, which is adjacent to ML but not the same as it, and Posadism, which is just Trotskyism except instead of a world revolution to bring about communism you have aliens and global thermonuclear warfare.

There's also roughly 1 billion other ideologies that I haven't mentioned.

Well you haven't nearly any of the variations
you're forgetting trotskyism, and cliffite trotskyiste, and pabloite trotskyism, and spartacist (UK) trotskyism, and sparacist (US) trotskyism....

yeah

[Nevertopia]

the accumulation of wealth.

What, is that it?

YES. THATS THE WHOLE POINT.

[Kubra]

Well you haven't nearly any of the variations
you're forgetting trotskyism, and cliffite trotskyiste, and pabloite trotskyism, and spartacist (UK) trotskyism, and sparacist (US) trotskyism....

yeah

\ Jokes aside, I'll never understand the trotskyists tendency to reproduce by division.

[Kubra]

What, is that it?

YES. THATS THE WHOLE POINT.

Oh, then please explain how the accumulation of wealth sorts out middle management task delegation, or how it sorts physical task by piece and hourly rate.

[The Sovereign Realist State]

Orthodox Marxists will say that ML goes against Marx's post-1848 views about how there should be no intermediary state or vanguard party. Engels was an anarcho-communist, and felt that the end goal of a communist society should be the complete destruction of the state, not its transformation into the "worker's state" like Stalin called the USSR.

Libertarian socialism is generally in the same vein as anarcho-communism. There's also syndicalism like the Wobblies, which is a more liberation form of democratic socialism (which is still marxist). And of course you have Trotskyism, which is adjacent to ML but not the same as it, and Posadism, which is just Trotskyism except instead of a world revolution to bring about communism you have aliens and global thermonuclear warfare.

There's also roughly 1 billion other ideologies that I haven't mentioned.

Right but as for practical applications of 'true marxism'.................................

[Cisairse]

Orthodox Marxists will say that ML goes against Marx's post-1848 views about how there should be no intermediary state or vanguard party. Engels was an anarcho-communist, and felt that the end goal of a communist society should be the complete destruction of the state, not its transformation into the "worker's state" like Stalin called the USSR.

Libertarian socialism is generally in the same vein as anarcho-communism. There's also syndicalism like the Wobblies, which is a more liberation form of democratic socialism (which is still marxist). And of course you have Trotskyism, which is adjacent to ML but not the same as it, and Posadism, which is just Trotskyism except instead of a world revolution to bring about communism you have aliens and global thermonuclear warfare.

There's also roughly 1 billion other ideologies that I haven't mentioned.

Right but as for practical applications of 'true marxism'.................................

What?

[The Sovereign Realist State]

What?

Has there been any 'true communist' experiment?

or is it just theoretical?

[Feyrisshire]

Has there been any 'true communist' experiment?

or is it just theoretical?

I hope that you know that "communism" means a classless, moneyless, stateless society.

[UniversalCommons]

It is not the Nordic Model. The Nordic Model corporate structure is based on union negotiation not direct ownership. The Cooperative Corporation comes from Spain, and the ESOP is mainly an American construct. There is still a focus on salaries in the Nordic model. There is more direct ownership in this model. It is a move away from salaried corporation. There is also more focus on the welfare state because of the use of salaries in the Nordic model. There are considerable differences. Wages taken out of a place where you are an owner are handled differently than if you are a salaried. It is a slight restructuring of the nordic model to allow for more worker ownership. Also, there is less focus on government ownership.

[Cisairse]

It is not the Nordic Model. The Nordic Model corporate structure is based on union negotiation not direct ownership. The Cooperative Corporation comes from Spain, and the ESOP is mainly an American construct. There is still a focus on salaries in the Nordic model. There is more direct ownership in this model. It is a move away from salaried corporation. There is also more focus on the welfare state because of the use of salaries in the Nordic model. There are considerable differences. Wages taken out of a place where you are an owner are handled differently than if you are a salaried. It is a slight restructuring of the nordic model to allow for more worker ownership. Also, there is less focus on government ownership.

Still obviously not socialism.

[Cisairse]

What?

Has there been any 'true communist' experiment?

or is it just theoretical?

I honestly have no idea what you're asking me.

[Northern Davincia]

Such as?...

Anarcho-communism, left-communism, Trotskyism, council communism, Luxemburgism, and many others that are either based on or use Marxist ideas.
We have so many factions

To argue that Marxist-Leninism is not based on Marxism is absolutely insane. Try not to narrow it down to your favorite flavors of communism.
In fact, Trotskyism is only distinct from Stalinism in their approach to foreign policy.

[Feyrisshire]

It is not the Nordic Model. The Nordic Model corporate structure is based on union negotiation not direct ownership. The Cooperative Corporation comes from Spain, and the ESOP is mainly an American construct. There is still a focus on salaries in the Nordic model. There is more direct ownership in this model. It is a move away from salaried corporation. There is also more focus on the welfare state because of the use of salaries in the Nordic model. There are considerable differences. Wages taken out of a place where you are an owner are handled differently than if you are a salaried. It is a slight restructuring of the nordic model to allow for more worker ownership. Also, there is less focus on government ownership.

Still obviously not socialism.

Any discussion of the Nordic Model, or any other European model would not address the fact that disproportionate economic power is still in the hands of shareholders of private corporations, who would then translate this economic power to political power as they are still free to lobby for more economic liberalization and laxer regulations.

This also doesn't address the role that multinational corporations from European countries (See the controversy around a Swiss corp Nestle) bring in Third World countries that comes with any other Nordic or European model.

Any discussion of "worker ownership" or "direct ownership" under this framework is simply "private ownership".

[Cisairse]

Still obviously not socialism.

Any discussion of the Nordic Model, or any other European model would not address the fact that disproportionate economic power is still in the hands of shareholders of private corporations, who would then translate this economic power to political power as they are still free to lobby for more economic liberalization and laxer regulations.

This also doesn't address the role that multinational corporations from European countries (See the controversy around a Swiss corp Nestle) bring in Third World countries that comes with any other Nordic or European model.

Any discussion of "worker ownership" or "direct ownership" under this framework is simply "private ownership".

Yes.