• Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          That one’s kinda weak for learning why fascism is inevitable in a Capitalist system. Wage Labor and Capital and Value, Price and Profit both do a much better job of actually explaining the inherent unsustainability of Capitalism.

          As fun to read as the CM is, it’s ultimately a pamphlet to radicalize workers, it isn’t really a solid overview of Marxist theory.

          • aesthelete@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            A lot of this writing has the same flaw that many other analytical texts have: great at diagnosing or discussing a problem and absolutely shit at coming up with any solutions to it.

            The “what is the problem” part of the text is like 95% of it, then it’s “what we can do about it” is the remaining 4% before the author thanks his wife.

            The “what is the problem” part is full of cogent analysis, data, and decent hypotheses and is well researched.

            The “what can we do about it” is weak ass half-thought out ideas that never wind up getting implemented in whole or even in part because of their obvious flaws.

            I personally think that’s because actually organizing people to do anything about any problem is infinitely harder than identifying one.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Critique of Capitalism was just one of Marx’s 3 major pillars, the other two being Dialectical and Historical Materialism, and Socialism.

              If you think Marx simply ignored the process of what to do, then you aren’t understanding why he didn’t fully. Marx believed that every country would have unique circumstances, and that there is no one size fits all solution. That being said, he also did believe these would have Socialism in common, as well as revolutionary means.

              If you want to see Marx give his thoughts on how to get to Socialism and then Communism, Critique of the Gotha Programme is a good place to reference. Marx talks about a weak Socialist program, and what they ought to do instead. As for Dialectical and Historical Materialism, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels goes over past failures of Socialism, and how Marxism and Marxian philosophy solves these issues.

              Calling Marx and Marxist contributions “weak ass half-thought out ideas that never wind up getting implemented in whole or even in part because of their obvious flaws” is just plain silly. There’s tons of coherent thought in how to achieve Socialism, and why. Analysis of Capitalism was Marx’s focus because everything else hinged on it, and is why he devoted so much time and energy to Capital.

              • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Calling Marx and Marxist contributions “weak ass half-thought out ideas that never wind up getting implemented in whole or even in part because of their obvious flaws” is just plain silly.

                Thinking that we’ll take down capitalism with some revolution and then go through a temporary period of single-party state socialism and then eventually move to communism is a weak ass half-thought out idea that’ll never wind up getting implemented in whole. So, I stand by my characterization there.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Thinking that we’ll take down capitalism with some revolution and then going through a period of single-party state socialism and then eventually moving to communism is a weak ass half-thought out idea that’ll never winds up getting implemented in whole. So, I stand by my characterization there.

                  Why do you believe it is weak ass and half-thought out? Have you read the texts I linked? I’m not even asking you to read every Marxist text by every major Marxist who ever lived, I just think currently you have very little idea of what you’re actually trying to talk about and would be better off getting some idea of what the source material actually states and see how it has panned out in context would be better than just resorting to ad-hominem and dodging.

                  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    Why do you believe it is weak ass and half-thought out?

                    Because it predictably goes the same way it always goes. You start with your “temporary period of single-party state socialism” after a half decade of bloodshed, and then the party never wants to give up power. So again you’re just following what some stupid asshole / dear leader wants to do and that’s never the real actual communism™.

                    You get “SocialismCommunism with Chinese characteristics” (aka fascism with a different name and aesthetic).

                    EDIT: It’s communism that supposedly has the chinese characteristics of being actually capitalism with an emperor…my apologies to the CCP.