this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
143 points (83.9% liked)
Memes
50658 readers
685 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Late-Stage Communism must be global, so no, it hasn't existed yet. The USSR and PRC are examples of Socialist countries governed by Communist parties trying to bring about Communism.
Does a global expansion require imperialism? Getting the entire world to sign up before dissolving sounds pretty mission impossible.
If by Imperialism you mean millitant expansionism, no. If by Imperialism you mean the form of economic extraction practiced by countries like the US, also no. The basis for the abolition of borders isn't one of legalistic matters, but economic redundancy. Borders become more and more unnecessary in more and more interconnected economies, and even become a barrier on progress, ergo they will wither over time much the same way the state would.
Spreading revolution is not imperialism. Imperialism isn't just "when I invade another country" it has a specific economic meaning
It's an ideological competition between different ways of organizing society. We have a western model of capitalist organization and the socialist model advanced by China. The western model is visibly failing in every regard right now, so there is every reason to expect that more and more countries will look to Chinese model as a result.
I feel like the Chinese model is already way too far into pragmatism to ever idealistically flip the switch to abolishing their state at the endgame.
The abolition of the state isn't a legalistic choice, but a result of the abolition of class. The abolition of class is an economic result, not a legalistic choice either.
I think you're confusing the state with all government and structure, which isn't what Marxists are talking about when we speak of the withering of the state.
So if everyone gets rich we have Communism?
Also I read some of your other link as well, but it went into tangents about elite friend groups and while it was interesting I felt like watching one of those 2 hour videos about speedrunning where you get a huge infodump but are not sure what to take away from it.
More developed and socialized productive forces = less scarcity = less need to use the state to enforce some kind of order = classes wither away
Love the difference in style between our answers, lmao. I like yours more!
STEM nerds vs humanities nerds
🤗 (which one of us would be which, though? Lol)
Not exactly. The economic foundations for the abolition of class are in the increasing socialization of production and the decay of market forces lending themselves to collective planning and cooperative functions. That's the extreme oversimplification, but as these classes fade away so too do the mechanisms of enforcing them via the state. In China's case, as long as they continue to combat corruption and focus on developing the productive forces, they will regularly develop further along the Socialist road, erasing the contradictions remaining from Capitalism until Communism is achieved globally.
As for the Tyranny of Structurelessness, it's about why formalizing structures is necessary. I brought it up specifically in the context of vanguardism, the implication being that formalizing a vanguard is better than letting informal elites guide a movement without democratic structures in place.
Okay but how does it solve this im14andthisisdeep Facebook meme?
People will always want more, Communism isn't a vow of poverty, it readily acknowledges that production will continue to improve when Humanity has become Capital's master, rather than its slave.
Vow of Poverty can be pretty powerful in the early to mid game (levels 1-9) due to the exalted feats and bonus stats being higher value than could be purchased on magic items.
Lmao 😂
Greed is boundless for some. If anything Capitalism is the perfect example of this. I don't see how having enough will fix it for them.
When I look at the open-source community the way altruistic projects reach sustainable success is with a beneficial dictator which is authoritarian but has correct intentions.
I don't really see how that's a problem for Communism. People go without megamansions all the time in Capitalism, and it isn't just those who can afford them that want them. Satisfying a much larger quantity of needs is a good thing.
Sure but how can Communism prevent someone from trying to acquire more wealth than they need?
I don't think the idea of Communism that exists in your head is the same understanding of Communism that Marxists have, if that's the question you're asking. Could you explain how you think someone would go about "trying to aquire more wealth than they need" in a Communist system to begin with, and why it would be an issue?
I'm trying to understand where the differences are in our understanding so I can better get across what I'm talking about, I'm not trying to insult your intelligence or anything.
Sure, so I'm completely unfamiliar with the whole Commune structure and am wondering how wealth would be acquired and distributed. Are people rewarded for their labor and how does ownership work?
Depends on the level of development of Communism, and we won't know what is applicable to when until we get there. Communism isn't a Utopia invented by Marx, but a prediction for the future based on analysis of politics and economics throughout history and the present, ergo we have to develop into it and see where it actually takes us.
In general, though, with a fully publicly owned and planned economy, people would be rewarded for their labor, yes, but it might take the form of labor vouchers, a different form of currency, etc designed to not be transferable to others in the economy individually, but with the social fund as a whole. This system of varying "prices" can be solved for using various feedback loops called "cybernetiks."
I recommend reading Prices in a Planned Economy, it's a useful intro to how to think about abolishing the commodity form.
Comrade Cowbee already followed with great responses but I want to add that we usually forget to factor in why would someone want more?
That's easy to answer currently because we live in a capitalistic world where individualism and greed are taught to us since we are little and are constantly hammered into our heads. We must consume, we must have more, etc.
That will not be the case in a communist society. At that stage of development, these capitalistic ideals would not be alive in the collective consciousness of people. So, while today we can ask why wouldn't someone want more, someone from that future might ask why would I want more if I already have everything I need?
General said founders will also has a business mind instead of just blind fanaticism.
There's something qualitatively different between the poor man's desire for money and the rich man's desire for money. The poor man has a functional, material desire for money that arises from his physiological needs. Through a dialectical process, money (and commodities more broadly) has gone from an intermediate that is used to satisfy needs, use value, into an end in and of itself. The ideological fetishization of money is what leads to the rich man desiring more money, and the fact that capital exists as a means to do so is what allows the lifestyle of endless greed to even exist. Acquiring capital and living in service of that capital, with the goal of making it multiply further, is what drives the capitalists.
Therefore, what is needed to abolish both of their enslavements is to kill both their masters, who is one and the same, and is called capital.
There won’t be a moment where the “abolish capitalism and the state” button is pressed. That’s not how these things works. They are intractable society wide slow changes like a glacier that move slow but cannot be stopped. Was there a moment where feudal kings pressed the “abolish feudalism” button and the rich became the new rulers? No, it was a hundreds year long process of lurching progress
The contradictions of capitalism are universal and inherent to the system. Much the contrary, as soon as the major seats of global financial capital are defeated I don't see why the unwashed masses of the world would wait very long to seize power. As the system currently stands, comprador colonial governments only maintain stability because they can buy weapons and maintain large armies thanks to the imperialist powers.