- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
On May 5th, 1818, Karl Marx, hero of the international proletatiat, was born. His revolution of Socialist theory reverberates throughout the world carries on to this day, in increasing magnitude. Every passing day, he is vindicated. His analysis of Capitalism, development of the theory of Scientific Socialism, and advancements on dialectics to become Dialectical Materialism, have all played a key role in the past century, and have remained ever-more relevant throughout.
He didn’t always rock his famous beard, when he was younger he was clean shaven!
Some significant works:
Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Manifesto of the Communist Party (along with Engels)
And, of course, Capital Vol I-III
Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don’t know where to start? Check out my “Read Theory, Darn it!” introductory reading list!
Well, there we have a disagreement. I don’t think people press on like indicates a careful consideration of the argument and understanding of the argument presented. Look at how popular some of e.g. Elon musk’s dumbest posts are.
I am judging the comments as their display some understanding and you are probably right that there is a bias in the dataset.
In the end of the day, my argument boils down to, Do you believe that the average person saying “capitalism is human nature” uses your definition of capitalism? Or that they are just vaguely reference something that they don’t really want to argue?
If they’re mis-using terms why should they not be corrected? Capitalism isn’t “trade” by any acceptable definition. Ppl should be educated and enlightened, not dumbed down to.
They should be corrected but you should correct them and not just tell them that it is only 500years old as it ignores the misunderstanding and avoids having a proper conversation.
Saying “technically capitalism is only 500 years old and human societies are much much older, what exactly do you mean when you say capitalism?” Is encouraging communication, understanding and knowledge seeking.
Saying “it is only 500 years old” sounds like you tell them that it is 500 years old as a theory and not necessarily as a practice. Which is obviously not the point that the person is interested in, as they would be interested in the age of the practice and not theory. So they perceive you as dodging the claim with a distraction. (Important: I am not saying it is older as a practice but that someone could easily understand it as that)
I don’t see anyone here discouraging communication, and we’ve provided links that should help ppl get past the misdefinitions.
The response in the meme is. That is my point. If I would think you guys didn’t want to teach, I would argue that given your desire to teach, you should be care to approach something like “capitalism is human nature” more carefully and generously than in the meme as you could change some minds with it.
I have no way of knowing the average, but without doubt there is a large school of economic thought that believes we have arrived at the “most optimal” form of society. It’s the whole notion behind “there is no alternative.” These people fully acknowledge Capitalism as it truly exists, not as commerce, but believe it to be all there can be.
Some do confuse Capitalism for Commerce, but that’s a much weaker argument and thus less interesting to debunk, pretty much no academic uses those terms as such. Yet, these very same academics will claim Capitalism is itself Human Nature as it in their eyes epitomizes the ability to trade, which earlier societies did not in the same capacity.
This is a very interesting thread. Thanks.
When I think of the statement “capitalism is human nature”, my interpretation is more along the lines of:
If you create human society and let it evolve in an un-constrained manner, there is a large probability that you will at some point pass through a period of capitalism.
This is not about it being “optimal for society” but is rather a meta-stable state that is easy to arrive at given a simple set of rules and initial conditions. “Human nature” refers to those rules and initial conditions. It doesn’t mean that it is a good thing, it is not unavoidable, and it is not likely to represent a global optimum or the final point in human society’s evolution.
I’m not saying that I think that this is the general interpretation. It is just how I interpret it.
You’re 90% of the way to the Marxist concept of Historical Materialism, actually. Have you studied it prior to writing this?
Edit: also, good work on Mander! I don’t participate in it much, but it’s a very cool concept. I love specialized instances, and think that that’s the true benefit of Lemmy as a platform, not endlessly making large general instances in a race to best replicate Reddit.
I have read some books that maybe cover some of these topics tangentially, but I have not studied the source material. I do want to, so thank you providing a list of resources to check out!
When I go through Lemmy and see discussions on theory, my views tend to align quite strongly with those of socialism. I do see there are a lot of controversial takes when it comes to historical figures, but if I am being honest those discussions are well outside my depth. I wish I knew more about history so that I could get more value out of that. So, if you know of any interesting history books, I am interested.
And thanks for the feedback! I figured that aligning an instance with my own personal interests would make more sense as I can make more valuable contributions and I find the content interesting.
Great! If you want to learn more about Dialectical and Historical Materialism specifically, my two favorite works are Elementary Principles of Philosophy by Georges Politzer, and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Friedrich Engels. The ProleWiki article on Dialectical Materialism is also quite good if you just want an overview, it’s a much faster read and will get you the general idea, but not the depth the other two sources would give.
I bring up DiaMat and HistMat specifically because of your statements here:
The key inferences of Historical Materialism, oversimplified, are that each mode of production paved the way for the next. Capitalism largely arose from Feudalism. Over time, a bunch of quantitative shifts, such as improvements in technology, production, and buildup of wealth, result in qualitative shifts in the Mode of Production. The steam engine, for example, allowed factories to be set up in cities, focusing on commodity production and close living quarters, as opposed to being more spread out and largely agricultural due to being tied to the land. Capitalism is a very natural point to reach, but also has its own quantitative shifts that lead to Socialism overtaking it.
Human Nature, therefore, is malleable. It depends on the material conditions humans find themselves in, these structures and externalities are what drive change to new ideas, the old gives birth to the new. Capitalism is as much Human Nature as Socialism, as Feudalism, as Communism, as tribal hunter/gatherer societies, yet what was considered “human nature” has changed and will change yet again based on all of these modes of production.
As for history, this is a much deeper subject. If you have a specific subject you’d like to learn about, I can field some suggestions, but for a short and general historical contextualization of Socialism as it exists in the real world, there’s no better work I’ve found than Blackshirts and Reds. Dr. Michael Parenti isn’t so much a Marxist himself as he is a pro-Marxist. He supports Communists and Socialists globally, while not being some fifth-level grandmaster Marxist-Leninist. As a consequence, his writing is much more approachable for non-Marxists, and does a great job walking through why someone would support, say, the USSR, Cuba, etc while giving nuanced critique of the successes and failures of Socialism historically. His 1986 lecture is also a fantastic companion piece.
If you’ll forgive the tangent, I also want to point out that people often over-focus on the issues of ghosts. People love discussing if x event was justified, y person “good” or “bad,” z country “truly” Socialist or “betraying” socialism, but these aren’t generally as useful as studying history so as to discover what challenges and successes are universal or local to Socialism. Socialists tend to adopt the stance of trying to learn what works and what doesn’t work critically, while non-Socialists tend to boil all of Socialism down to purely the mistakes made by Socialist leaders, building up “legends” surrounding these figures in an attempt to discredit Socialism entirely. That can be why you find yourself seeing controversial claims, a large part of defending Socialism is defending it from the unjustifed attacks those opposed usually jump to, rather than the more useful critique of Socialism as it truly exists. You’ll find that the best critique of Socialism in the real world comes from Socialists, and we Marxists are not afraid of genuine critique. Rather, Marx himself advocated for the “ruthless critique of all that exists.”
With that all being said, that should be good to get your feet wet into theory if you want! If you prefer, I can also offer different recommendations on more specific topics in theory or history. I’m no expert, but I’ve read a good fair bit myself and as such have works I’m fond of, and ones I think you can save til later, if you so choose. Hope that helps!
One teeny tiny final note, I also like Why Marxism? as an introduction for why we should even study Marxism specifically. Roderic Day breaks down the importance of Marxism as a scientific framework useful for understanding humanity, how we got here, where we are going, and how to best take advantage of that knowledge.
Thanks a lot for taking the time to write out such a thorough reply! I have ordered a copy of Blackshirts and Reds (I really prefer reading printed books) and have begun checking out the links.
My not-very-developed perspective is: When I think of capitalism as a ‘metastable’, I think that this meta-stability is achieved by allocating some resources to keep the masses just comfortable enough to remain somewhat pacific and complacent. It is not essential to achieve this globally, but it is somewhat important locally. So those who have accumulated more can simply apply the more violent and extractive practices abroad while things locally are OK.
The thing is… The pathway to leaving a meta-stable state involves first hopping out of that stability. In practical terms this means shaking things up and pissing off those who are interested in maintaining the status quo and who have the means to cause a significant amount of pain. If successful, for example, by means of a violent revolution, there is no guarantee of landing in a better spot. Furthermore, a violent revolution can potentially distribute power unevenly to those willing to exercise violence.
I don’t think it is so much “Capitalism is great!” as much as “We are currently stuck in this system, it doesn’t work but at least I am one of the lucky ones, and so far there doesn’t seem to be a good plan to get out of this mess”. This is being complacent, and it is not ideal. But it is difficult to figure out how to not be complacent in a meaningful way without self-sabotage. I can see how to take specific actions to try to make the world around me a little better, but these are things that don’t shake up the system.
That makes sense. The type of criticism that I commonly see is that many of the historical examples of “socialism” are characterized by a leader imposing their will on a population, suppressing the media, and a leader and family living with luxury despite the population suffering. I don’t know how much of it is accurate and how much is propaganda. But I know reality is nuanced and there is probably a mix of truth and fiction in there. When I see a strong bias in either direction I am suspicious.
Regardless of what is true and what isn’t: when someone glorifies a leader, it is not clear to me if the person believes a different historical narrative than the common/western one (for example, the counter-narrative might be: ‘That was a complete fabrication! People were free to leave and there is no evidence of suppression of the press’), or if they accept the common historical narrative but believe the actions are justified (something more along the lines of: ‘yes, X did force the population to stay within the borders to protect the state and killed those lying propagandist journalists, all of this was justified.’). This is what I wish I knew more about. My knowledge of these people is superficial. I don’t know neither the commonly accepted narratives nor the alternate narratives (if they exist), I just see that people have very different opinions about Castro, Maduro, Stalin, Mao, Xi Jin Ping, Putin, and even Kim Jong Un.
You have already helped me a lot and given me many things to look at. If I make the effort to go through some of the material you already provided I will probably find many of the answers. Thanks!
Great! You’ll probably fly through Blackshirts and Reds, it’s a quick read.
Not to overload you, but this is 100% correct. This process is known to Marxists as Imperialism, in the Global North, concessions are often made in order to pacify the proletariat using the spoils expropriated from the Global South, a complicated process stabilized through bodies like the IMF, NATO, and US overseas millitary presense. Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism is the best text outlining how this process came to be from Capitalism specifically (colonialism and other forms of Imperialism of course predate Capitalism). I also recommend Alice Malone’s Concessions for how thst worked.
The consequence of Imperialism is that, rather than cropping up in the most developed countries like Marx initially predicted, Socialist Revolution occurs first in the Global South. That’s why a lot of rapid industrialization and millitarization to protect from outside threats has solidified in every surviving Socialist state.
Your holdouts regarding revolution, however, take a much longer time to study. Revolutionary strategy and tactics, historical applications, and more is more of a deep topic. I could simply link Lenin’s The State and Revolution as well as an abridged version of Lenin’s What is to be Done? but that’s an unsatisfying answer without familiarizing yourself with the history of Socialist struggles and victories, from a proletarian point of view, and not bourgeois. After you read Blackshirts and Reds, I can make other recommendations, in absence of that I will link Blowback, a podcast on US Imperialism and taking a sympathetic view of the victims of it, and the why behind the actions on all sides of, say, the Iraq War or Cuban Missile Crisis.
Regarding your section on not knowing if events are true, or if they are being justified, etc, this unfortunately as you already hinted is clouded in decades of Red Scare misinformation. Usually those upholding Actually Existing Socialism are less likely to outright fabricate information, but that does exist to a degree, usually among supporters of Gonzalo and Pol Pot (and these people usually have absurd claims about AES, and are nowhere to be found among Marxist-Leninist orgs, usually small isolated groups). There is no one-size fits all answer, each event, figure, etc has a different answer. Some may distort the quantities, some may distort the qualities, some may distort both. There’s no “one indisputable history of Socialism” I can recommend that covers all the countries and figures you listed, so if after finishing Blackshirts and Reds you have a specific country or figure you’d like to delve into, I can do my best to help.
And no worries! Sorry that the historical answer isn’t very satisfying, I’m not trying to dodge it so much as ask that you specify further if you want an answer that does such a question any kind of due justice. The history of Socialism is, as I said, hotly debated and frequently distorted heavily, Blackshirts and Reds is going to be a much better intro and give you good points to jump into other areas. Personally, I recommend starting with Cuba, as it’s usually easier to grasp historically, but the USSR and PRC are the two largest examples in history we can look to if you want to dive into the deep end.
Hope that helps!