this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
1103 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
7907 readers
3367 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do you understand the difference between capitalism and commerce? Using money for trade isn't what makes capitalism what it is. Capitalism is, from wikipedia, "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market" Capitalism means that I can own something I have nothing to do with and you have to pay me for the privilege of using it. When that thing is housing or food or medicine then I own you unless you want to die.
Capitalism means taking from the worker and giving to the 'owner'. The problem is that work is real and ownership is a made up concept.
The more you learn about it the more you'll understand how evil it is, I promise.
I think your whole first paragraph is just posturing, maybe i did speak incorrectly, i dont care.
In your economic system, if I make a machine that makes something, and sell it to a guy, what happens to that machine if what it makes is important or valuable?
Your question doesn't make sense. Try rewriting it a little clearer.
How are you making your machine? Does it literally create something from nothing? Why would what it creates have any value if it can be infinitely easily produced, even if important? If it obeys the laws of physics, why would you be able to compete with large, mass scale industry as a single person?
Your question largely doesn't make any sense.
Please elaborate on what you mean, your thought experiment made no sense. And yes, I'm a Communist, correct.
How was saying you arent a communist pro-?
Seems more like a dodge for you to avoid making an argument, but you do you. Don't know what you mean by claiming I'm not a Communist, either, who counts as a Communist in your eyes?
You practice communism? You subsist from a communist system solely?
Considering Communism as a Mode of Production refers to a relatively far-future, fully publicly owned global economy, humanity hasn't reached Communism and thus by your definition nobody has ever been a Communist. This, of course, isn't true, a Communist is someone who generally follows Communist ideology and wishes to bring about Communism.
This is just a non-sequitor no true Scotsman, and seems to be deflection.
Call it a deflection if you want, I call it being correct.
Would you rather me identify as Marxist-Leninist? That's the specific type of Communist I am.
Now that we have presumably gotten through that part, I'm entirely down to talk about whatever it is your machine example is supposed to prove, if you're willing to elaborate more on what your hypothetical is for.
Bravo on showing such respectful and good-natured civility towards someone who is undoubtedly a troll. I applaud your restraint. However, I think you entertained their obvious bad faith arguing for far too long. It's quite clear that they are hostile towards communism and are being deliberately combative and insulting to try and get a reaction out of someone. Unfortunately, as the Reddit floodgates begin to burst, I am sure many more trolls and hostile reactionaries whilr be flooding Lemmy for the forseeable future. Stay strong, comrade <3
Thanks! And for what it's worth, I'm 100% aware, they end up serving as a great springboard for other onlookers, who may change their mind. I've had people DM me saying as such, which is why I keep doing it. Thanks though, comrade!
That's actually a great strategy. It is perplexing to me to see the incivility of common conservative discourse online with other people they percieve as being "left wing" that others who read such exchanges could see anything other than it being childish and crude, especially when the other party is participating in a respectful manner. For myself, I don't resort to using incivilty against incivility but end up concluding that it's a waste of my emotional stamina to continue a discussion where one side insults and denigrates me as a matter of course. I'll keep your idea in mind next time I encounter such a time. Keep doing the hard work ;)
Thanks! I've been doing it for over a year now, so I have a good bit under my belt, haha.
Well, I appreciate the primer you linked in this thread. I was already reading Blackshirts and Reds, but now have some other material to read in conjunction with it. Take care, friend <3
Oh, thank you so much! Feel free to leave feedback, and if you use the comlib ebooks, a comrade here makes them and maintains the site, fae does a great job!
Take care, friend!
🫡
We both know if my machine has any value, it'd be taken away from me. That's really all I need to know.
I don't really agree with that. For it to have Value, it would need to be socially necessary, and fulfill a role not already better filled by other machines.
Where are you getting the materials? What time are we talking about, early Socialism, late Communisn, somewhere in between? The answer would change depending on the level of development of the productive forces.
I know you don't agree, that's why I think you're wrong.
Communism is a lovely idea, I support the goals you want it to achieve, and I'm sure there's a species out in the universe that would function quite well with it. Not Humans though, too greedy, too vein, too convinced they are right.
And maybe you think your better and it wont happen with your particular brand, but I know it will, it'll end in suffering like the rest.
I support Capitolism because so far it has allowed more humans in history to thrive than ever before, and I don't need a better answer than that.
Communism does work, though. I am not sure what you're actually trying to say. Moreover, the biggest reductions in poverty have come from Socialist countries like China, meanwhile Capitalism is in decline. That's only natural, as Capitalism decays.
I've never seen it provide the same comfort and stability that a capitolistic system can. Where is communism working?
What do you mean by "providing the same comfort?" What are you comparing it to, peer countries, or Imperialist ones like the United States? China is Socialist and is becoming the undisputed world power, while dramatically reducing poverty. The Soviet Union was better for its people than modern Capitalism has been, or former Tsarism.
Socialism is stable, yes.
As for Xu and Du, those are not the sole figures on Socialism in China, nor does that definition actually hold for Socialism. Socialism is determined by which is primary in an economic system, be it Public ownership or private, and in the PRC it is public. Large firms and heavy industry is nearly soley in the public sector, while the private sector is dominated by small firms.
As for Russia, 7 million people died due to the reintroduction of Capitalism, social safety nets were stripped bare and workers rights fell dramatically. Socialism was better than Tsarism and was better than Capitalism has been, whether you feel disgusted by facts or not it's the truth.
Exactly the type of reply I'd expect.
Hello, different person here. It's understandable that you're confused by this tbh, but there are real proposals.
Broadly, there are two basic suggestions:
It's not one or the other and they're often combined.
It isn't fair for a king to control an army and do what he likes with it, that's dangerous. The army has to be controlled by the people of the nation. But, if you and your friends want to privately own guns, that's fine. So long as you aren't organising into a militia, it does little harm.
Critics say, likewise: if your machine is small, who cares. But if it's sufficiently powerful, if it could concentrate wealth and power in your hands, create mass unemployment (maybe even allow you to wield military power): that's harm. A machine like that should be controlled by the people.
Hey, comrade, good comment! I want to offer that in my experience, Principles of Communism is clearer and more concise than the Manifesto, for someone entirely unaware. I also have an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list I keep for easy sharing.
I don't really get it, are you calling me a commie in a deragatory way and downvoting me after you tried to spread Communist theory? I'm confused.
I'm some kinda new-wave radical centrist, can't call myself one after reading your big book. I believe in a lot of the criticisms and measures, but I think LTV & Vanguardism are the literal dumbest shit ever. But good luck with them, and thanks for taking an interest.
What's wrong with Marx's Law of Value, and what's wrong with the concept of a Vanguard? What "big book" are you referring to, Capital, or the Manifesto of the Communist Party?
Big Book → Capital, I've only read vol 1 though (2 & 3 are like a jillion pages 😭)
I started writing my complaints, but it's taking longer than I thought. I'll drop an update if I finish writing it. My issues are mainly about the assumptions Marx makes about the topology of production networks (particularly regarding cycles), and the classification system used to produce nodes (is a node one particular spindle, or all spindles generally: this has implications). I haven't read any newer theory so IDK this has probably been adressed.
There's also the transformation problem. I don't think that's as big of a deal as it's made out, since you wouldn't just be slotting these Labor-Theoretic Values in place of Market Values, but people do often suggest doing this and it's really weird to me.
To be fair, I think my understanding of the theory has some errors in regards to the interaction of Work Intensity, Labor, and Productiveness, so I'll have to do some more thinking. Might change my complaints.
Regarding Vanguardism, I don't have a particularly sophisticated critique as I haven't read the lit. The Vanguard's position would change as a result of joining the Vanguard (now holding state-like power), this changes their relationship to the revolutionary masses and their stated mission, and would inevitably change their actions in much the same way that holding Capital would (i.e, probably they'd go mad with power). But again I don't know if that's been addressed.
If you can be more specific, I can take a crack at explaining, but I can't really go off of what you've provided other than the transformation "problem," which I can address in short and link what I believe to be a more in-depth explanation of common criticisms of Marx's Law of Value.
Essentially, Marx's hypothesis that there existed a formula that he was never able to find that could solve for the difference between Capital Intensity and the notion of profit equalization across industries ended up being wrong, in that such a formula did not exist. However, we can see with empirical evidence that Marx's Law of Value ends up being correct, in that profitability is closely tied to Capital Intensity, and that equalization of profit across industries really just does not come into play outside of noise.
This wasn't because Marx was stupid or anything, but because math itself had not advanced enough to show that such a transformation did not exist, but this does not disprove Marx's Law of Value, rather, it affirms its more important foundations while dismissing a hypothesis of Marx's that he never fully developed, nor could he have.
Here's a link to the article.
As for the Vanguard, you should read about the Mass Line and Democratic Centralism, both address your issues.