• DeckPacker@lemmy.worldEnglish
    17·
    3 days ago

    I agree, but the other guy is not marxist. Marx defined communism as a classless stateless society.

    A more accurate term would have been lenninist or tankie

      • PugJesus@piefed.socialEnglish
        6·
        2 days ago

        No. Marx advocated for a party and the takeover of the state by socialist/communist parties, but not a vanguard party. The idea of a vanguard party was very much centered around the Bolshevik/Menshevik split, with Lenin and the Bolsheviks advocating for a then-radical idea of a small core of Very Ideologically Correct revolutionaries giving marching orders to the masses; while the Mensheviks advocated for the then-more-traditionally-accepted Marxist position that a socialist movement is not just for the masses, but also by the masses.

        The core distinction between Marxist Communism and Anarcho-Communism is essentially that Marx believes you have to take over (or create) a state first in order to suppress the economic conditions that lead to elite concentration of power, and only then can the state be done away with. Anarcho-Communists believe that the intermediate position of taking over the state is unnecessary, that it can be abolished directly in the same stroke as the revolution occurs.

        There are often other quibbles too - such as whether economic development is a necessary prerequisite for a modern stateless society.

      • Commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        4·
        3 days ago

        You’re wrong, marxism-leninism is when you do capitalism and call it socialism, and regardless of the name it has very little to do with and often directly opposes marxism

          • Commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            2·
            3 days ago

            I mean kinda, but the thing with capitalism is that there’s no bureaucracy directing the production, you produce a commodity and kinda hope there’s a demand for it and it sells, else you go bust. A true anarchy of markets, if you will.

    • RamenJunkie@midwest.socialEnglish
      4·
      3 days ago

      Anarchy is when one person decides it would be funny to take all the bread and throw it in the ocean because it would be funny and notjing says they can’t and everyone starves anyway.

  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.netEnglish
    21·
    3 days ago

    Totally inaccurate. Not everyone starves, just the undesirables. Party leaders will be just fine! /s

  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.mlEnglish
    1·
    2 days ago

    Me, a beurocrat loyal to the party: Muahaha! Now I’m going to make everyone starve! Hehehehehe!

    This is just silly. If you actually look into the causes of historical famines, it wasn’t just some moustache-twirling beurocrat deciding to withhold food out of spite. For instance, in the USSR, wealthy landowners burned grain in response to collectivization, which they would’ve done regardless of who was trying to collectivize the land.

    Moreover, this example only focuses on people involved in food production. If you’re saying that the workers in food production should be the ones to decide where the food goes, then guess what, they’re the authority now. Maybe they’ll even decide to hire some beurocrats (oh no!) to figure out distribution so they have more time to focus on their actual jobs. Or maybe they don’t. Either way, if you’re not in a critical industry, you’re at their mercy just as much as you would be in a more centralized system.

  • snoons@lemmy.caEnglish
    4·
    3 days ago

    And the farmer relies on the bread the bakery makes so they can continue to produce the wheat.

    …what I’m failing to understand is where the bankers factor in… >.>