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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This right there is why I recommended you read Critique of the Gotha Programme. Socialism being temporary never was meant to mean it was supposed to be a short term sacrifice, but an improvement on Capitalism and with the continual goal of improving production to get to the stage where Communism can be accomplished.
"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!"
It’s not that there’s a secret cabal that never wants to give up power, but that government cannot simply dissolve and become Communism. Marx was no Anarchist! There has never been a point in time that the entire world has been made up of Socialist Republics, free from Capitalist interests, and thus trying to say that every single Socialist state should have simply collapsed themselves into magical Communism is nothing but idealism and speaks nothing of the Material Conditions of society.
Socialism being temporary never was meant to mean it was supposed to be a short term sacrifice, but an improvement on Capitalism and with the continual goal of improving production to get to the stage where Communism can be accomplished.
That doesn’t happen either. You get “Communism with Chinese characteristics”. You get the USSR that falls apart and was never really communist to begin with. You get Cuba with great food and nice looking old cars, but in an otherwise isolated and somewhat dire state and in consistent poverty. You wind up with Russia with sham elections and an international alliance of creeps including North Korea. You get czars and emperors masquerading as “presidents”. It’s all a worthless facade: still authoritarianism but comrade-chic; dictatorship but by che guevara wannabes.
I don’t like capitalism either, and I think Marx’s critiques of it are well founded. He just doesn’t have a prescription: exactly like many other analysts throughout history and various wanton technocrats today.
I’ll stick with democracy until the cossacks come knocking at the door thank you very much, and I’ll do it while reading whatever I please instead of useless theory.
EDIT: I think the actual prescription is labor unions, worker protections, state administered social welfare and safety nets, etc…monopoly busting…all the new deal stuff basically. At least we have a historical example to point to of that shit working.
That doesn’t happen either. You get “Communism with Chinese characteristics”. You get the USSR that falls apart and was never really communist to begin with. You get Cuba with great food and nice looking old cars, but in an otherwise isolated and somewhat dire state and in consistent poverty. You wind up with Russia with sham elections and an international alliance of creeps including North Korea. You get czars and emperors masquerading as “presidents”. It’s all a worthless facade: still authoritarianism but comrade-chic; dictatorship but by che guevara wannabes.
So 1. You get drastic improvements on material conditions for the vast majority of people as opposed to life under the nationalist KMT
You get a doubling of life expectancy, massive increases in literacy rates, housing rates, free education, and consistent growth in a Socialist economy until it liberalized and collapsed
You get a functioning country doing the best it can for its people despite a brutal blockade designed to punish the people for throwing off their fascist dictator and slave society
Not sure what your point is here.
I don’t like capitalism either, and I think Marx’s critiques of it are well founded. He just doesn’t have a prescription: exactly like many other analysts throughout history and various wanton technocrats today.
He does, did, and I linked the sources. The fact that you’re ignoring this directly in spite of said sources is incredibly dishonest.
I’ll stick with democracy until the cossacks come knocking at the door thank you very much, and I’ll do it while reading whatever I please instead of useless theory.
Capitalism cannot be truly democratic, only Socialism can be. If you don’t want to read theory that is your personal choice to make, but that also makes all of your opinions of said theory worthless.
You’re right, he does have a prescription…it’s just one that doesn’t work in practice despite being tried over and over again for more than a century at this point.
Capitalism cannot be truly democratic, only Socialism can be.
Sure seems like this country at least gets a say in voting for who runs it, unlike many, many socialist examples (with great reading scores! yay!) where they are not only not doing that, but it is prohibited structurally (or behind the scenes through radioactive tea administration).
Also, don’t bend my ear with all the grand achievements of socialist countries that are decidedly not democratic and then pay lip service to democracy.
You’re right, he does have a prescription…it’s just one that doesn’t work in practice despite being tried over and over again for more than a century at this point.
It does and has worked. What do you believe is sufficient to decide if something does or does not work?
Sure seems like this country at least gets a say in voting for who runs it, unlike many, many socialist examples (with great reading scores! yay!) where they are not only not doing that, but it is prohibited structurally (or behind the scenes through radioactive tea administration).
Socialist countries do in fact have elections, voting, and so forth.
Also, don’t bend my ear with all the grand achievements of socialist countries that are decidedly not democratic and then pay lip service to democracy.
Why not? Why do you say Socialist countries aren’t democratic?
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.
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.
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.
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.
This right there is why I recommended you read Critique of the Gotha Programme. Socialism being temporary never was meant to mean it was supposed to be a short term sacrifice, but an improvement on Capitalism and with the continual goal of improving production to get to the stage where Communism can be accomplished.
"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!"
It’s not that there’s a secret cabal that never wants to give up power, but that government cannot simply dissolve and become Communism. Marx was no Anarchist! There has never been a point in time that the entire world has been made up of Socialist Republics, free from Capitalist interests, and thus trying to say that every single Socialist state should have simply collapsed themselves into magical Communism is nothing but idealism and speaks nothing of the Material Conditions of society.
That doesn’t happen either. You get “Communism with Chinese characteristics”. You get the USSR that falls apart and was never really communist to begin with. You get Cuba with great food and nice looking old cars, but in an otherwise isolated and somewhat dire state and in consistent poverty. You wind up with Russia with sham elections and an international alliance of creeps including North Korea. You get czars and emperors masquerading as “presidents”. It’s all a worthless facade: still authoritarianism but comrade-chic; dictatorship but by che guevara wannabes.
I don’t like capitalism either, and I think Marx’s critiques of it are well founded. He just doesn’t have a prescription: exactly like many other analysts throughout history and various wanton technocrats today.
I’ll stick with democracy until the cossacks come knocking at the door thank you very much, and I’ll do it while reading whatever I please instead of useless theory.
EDIT: I think the actual prescription is labor unions, worker protections, state administered social welfare and safety nets, etc…monopoly busting…all the new deal stuff basically. At least we have a historical example to point to of that shit working.
So 1. You get drastic improvements on material conditions for the vast majority of people as opposed to life under the nationalist KMT
You get a doubling of life expectancy, massive increases in literacy rates, housing rates, free education, and consistent growth in a Socialist economy until it liberalized and collapsed
You get a functioning country doing the best it can for its people despite a brutal blockade designed to punish the people for throwing off their fascist dictator and slave society
Not sure what your point is here.
He does, did, and I linked the sources. The fact that you’re ignoring this directly in spite of said sources is incredibly dishonest.
Capitalism cannot be truly democratic, only Socialism can be. If you don’t want to read theory that is your personal choice to make, but that also makes all of your opinions of said theory worthless.
You’re right, he does have a prescription…it’s just one that doesn’t work in practice despite being tried over and over again for more than a century at this point.
Sure seems like this country at least gets a say in voting for who runs it, unlike many, many socialist examples (with great reading scores! yay!) where they are not only not doing that, but it is prohibited structurally (or behind the scenes through radioactive tea administration).
Also, don’t bend my ear with all the grand achievements of socialist countries that are decidedly not democratic and then pay lip service to democracy.
It does and has worked. What do you believe is sufficient to decide if something does or does not work?
Socialist countries do in fact have elections, voting, and so forth.
Why not? Why do you say Socialist countries aren’t democratic?