• Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Marxism is, as I am sure you know, an ever-evolving theory. If we look at these states dialectically, we can see unresolved contradictions that did indeed lead to collapse in the case of the USSR, but we can also point to rapid progress and enlarged social safety nets.

      I believe by “Libertarian Communism” you are referring to a far more limited government, yet you also appear to desire an elimination of money on an almost immediate timeframe. You also quote Marx, in the Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society as well as from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, yet reject Marx’s descriptions of what those accomplish and look like.

      Honestly, I believe you are making the same philosophical error as the metaphysicians, looking at a concept from one side devoid of the other, at a static, fixed point, rather than dialectically as it changes and resolves its contradictions. The USSR was making advancements, until it killed itself. We should learn from this, rather than reject it wholesale.

      • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        @Cowbee
        Libertarian Communism doesn’t advocate for a limited government, but for the complete absence of the government, rejecting the idea of a centralized authority altogether, seeking to create a society based on voluntary cooperation and collective ownership of resources. In my criticisms, I’m not just referring to the USSR, but to all of the attempts at authoritarian communism and how most of them collapsed, and how the only remaining 5 still have not achieved communism.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            So what’s the difference between Libertarian Communism and Anarcho-Communism?

            Either way, you’re being extremely vague. Communism is impossible in one country, it must be global, and as such it must be protected. What length of time is enough to suggest a Socialist state has “failed?” What metrics determine AES countries have “failed?” How quickly must they achieve global communism to be a success? These are rhetorical questions, you don’t have to answer them all, but they do point out more of your idealism, rather than materialism.

            Secondly, and the question I do want an answer to, what method do you believe can succeed in a measurably more successful way? Simply stating Libertarian Communism isn’t truly sufficient, as you have already said, Libertarian Communism has never once lasted more than a couple years, in Catalonia, or in Primitive times.

            • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭@mastodon.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              @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…

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  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.

                  • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭@mastodon.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    @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…