this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2024
440 points (78.1% liked)

Memes

45893 readers
1870 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
Libertarian Communism and Anarcho-Communism are just different titles for the same ideology.

I disagree that communism has to be globally achieved and can't be achieved in one country. If a country can create a strong enough decentralized military and has access to the necessary resources for their survival then communism can be achieved in one country.

As I've previously stated, Libertarian Communism hasn't been given a chance to be properly implemented, mostly due to the...

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
...unpopularity of the ideology as compared to Authoritarian Communism.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I believe at that point you are making a semantical argument on what is considered centralized vs decentralized, and what is and isn't a state. A fully unified army of similar power would defeat a decentralized army, which necessitates some level of democratic centralism, by which point you have a state. Additionally, how do you see abolishing money while being invaded by Capitalist neighbors, as has happened to all AES countries?

I don't believe Anarchism is more likely to succeed than Marxism in establishing Communism.

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
A military being decentralized doesn't mean that it won't be fully unified. A decentralized military doesn't imply disorganization; rather, it allows for localized decision-making while still creating a cohesive unity through collective goals and voluntary cooperation.

The abolition of money would still be possible even with threats of invasion or outright invasions by capitalist governments. In fact, removing the incentive for profit-seeking and resource exploitation inherent in...

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
...monetary systems would strengthen defense against aggression by creating genuine solidarity and more of a focus on mutual aid and collective security.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I believe this is just vibes-based analysis that dismisses what has materially been seen when attempted in real life. I won't say that Anarcho-Communism isn't more beautiful of an idea, but I also don't believe it to be practical at the scale required to defend a revolution from outside aggressors.

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
Libertarian Communism can be practical at a scale required to defend a revolution from foreign defenders due to its emphasis on decentralized, community-based defense strategies that empower individuals to protect their communities collectively, which in turn creates a strong sense of solidarity and resilience against external threats.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This was tried and lasted merely 2 years in Catalonia before more organized millitaries handily beat the Anarchists. The strength of worker-movements lies in unity, not individualism. A strong sense of solidarity is nice, but ideals cannot beat proper organization.

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
I know that the strength of workers' movements resides in unity, not individualism. Libertarian Communism, or at least Platformism, is an ideology of ideological unity first and any individualism is within the context of the greater working-class movement. It's also important to note that the Catalonian anarchists were defeated for various reasons, including external military pressure, internal divisions, and the challenges of implementing radical social change amidst broader...

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
...political turmoil and counterrevolutionary forces. It's not correct to conclude that the Catalonian anarchist were defeated simply because their military was decentralized and that hierarchical organization is superior to non-hierarchical organization simply from this very narrow view of the conflict.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Of course they faced numerous other issues, my point is that it seems that by holding to their ideals over what is practicible, they opened themselves up to failure.

On theory vs practice, it is important to test theory against practice and adapt theory to fit practice. What remains beautiful in theory must be measured by its practicality.

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
But they didn't hold their ideals over their practicableness, and in fact that may have been the reason why they were ultimately defeated. During the Spanish Civil War, the(CNT) and (FAI) were part of the broader Republican side, which included various leftist and anti-fascist groups. While the anarchists were initially wary of collaborating with the Republican government, they did participate in the anti-fascist coalition and the Republican government in Catalonia, known as the...

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
...Generalitat. However, the relationship between the anarchists and the Republican government was complex and often strained. The anarchists sought to maintain their autonomy and implement their vision of a decentralized, self-managed society, which sometimes clashed with the goals and methods of the Republican authorities. There were instances of collaboration, such as the participation of anarchists in the government and the militia forces, but there were also conflicts and...

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
...disagreements over issues such as the militarization of the militias and the centralization of power. It is completely possible that had the organization of the military been unified in a decentralized way they would not have been defeated.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What evidence do you have in support of this, other than idealism and vibes?

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
I haven't based a single thing on idealism or "vibes". I examined the historical events and inferred a logical conclusion based on the facts, and the facts are that ideological unity was indeed lacking and necessary among the Spanish Revolutionaries, but nothing suggests that their unity had to be based on hierarchy and centralized planning, nor does anything suggest that the CNT-FIA's methods of the organization were inferior simply because they lost because other traditionally...

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
...hierarchical Spanish military groups also lost to the fascist as well, including the Spanish Marxist backed by the Soviet Union.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ideas do not create reality. Unity through organization is a proven concept resistant to outside forces.

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
I never said ideas create reality, however, I do believe that ideas can shape reality through the actions of those who hold those ideas, and I completely agree with the concept of unity through organization, again, never stating the contrary.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You were idealistically stating that more decentralization would have helped the Anarchists despite material evidence to the contrary. Hierarchy is not a bad thint, unjust hierarchy is.

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
Hierarchy is a bad thing as it perpetuates inequality and oppression by allowing certain people to have more power than others. Not only would a system where power is decentralized be better in terms of eliminating inequality and oppression, but such a system would be more in line with communism's goal of creating a classless society.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)
  1. Hierarchy does not perpetuate inequality, accumulation does. Hierarchy without accumulation and democratically accountable does not perpetuate inequality.

  2. A decentralized system is not necessarily better at addressing systems of inequality or oppression.

  3. Decentralized or Centralized makes no difference on creating a classless society.

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
Hierarchy is the accumulation of power in the hands of a select minority of people. Even if there are safeguards to prevent too much power going to the top there will still always be an accumulation of power at the top of the hierarchy, thereby creating an inequality of power amongst the population. The only way to not have inequality of any kind is to get rid of hierarchy.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Hierarchy is not an accumulation of power, but authority vested in individuals. Democratically accountable, there isn't anything inherently wrong with it.

Additionally, inequality is not an enemy of Communism. Communism is about providing for everyone and giving everyone a dignified life, not about making everyone equal. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" inherently accepts inequality of circumstances and outcomes as acceptable as long as everyone's needs are met, which is impossible in the contradiction of Capitalism.

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
I'm not able to take anything you say seriously. First, you claim that individuals having authority over others isn't an accumulation of power even though a person with authority would have to have power over others to have authority over them, and then you claim that communism is compatible with inequality, which is the most absurd thing I've ever heard a communist claim. You sound like a revisionist.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

Accumulation means increasing, it does not mean static power vested democratically. Capitalists accumulate via an endless cycle of M-C-M', which in turn swallows everything else. Elected representatives can be recalled, and even if they never are, they do not infinitely profit off the labor of others.

Please explain how "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" implies the goal is equality, and not satisfying the needs of everyone. Equality is idealist, satisfying needs is materialist. Marx explains precisely what he means:

"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

If anything, you are the revisionist, promoting half of Critique of the Gotha Programme and rejecting the half that isn't Anarchism-friendly.