• LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    Communist can run a society that is not yet achieved communism. Not sure if you’re being purposely dense or not.

    Also, currency does not define a society as capitalist. We’ve have currency long before capitalism ever existed.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        To be clear, primitive Communism and Marxian Communism are just about polar opposites, one is the smallest unit of society and the other the largest and most vast, one full decentralization the other full centralization.

        • melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          the core “from those who have to those who need” is still in common, and it is a form of classless stateless society, even if it doesn’t really scale and we can’t get back there from here.

          plus, there are alternatives to marx. he wasn’t infallible.

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

            That isn’t the “core,” of Communism. It’s more of a side-effect and possibility only truly achievable in Upper-Stage Communism.

            There are alternatives to Marx, but I’m not convinced of any of them.

            • melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              okay. I’m not really convinced by most of what marx had to say. a lot of it seems like it was really far sighted, but doesn’t quite ring true in 2025. some of it seems pretty solid. dude could seriously write though, when he wasn’t actively trying to be bland for the respectability, and was proof that people in the 19th century didn’t have to be pieces of shit.

              im looking for a classless stateless society where the point is human flourishing and resources are distributed with an eye to fairness and the long term well being of all people. I think there are better/worse and more/less stable ways to get there, but if it’s stupid and it works, it wasn’t stupid.

              assuming that’s roughly your goal and we’re both alive to see it, I’ll bet you a cup of (probably extinct by then) coffee my way gets there first?

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

                Well, I would say Marx has generally been proven spot-on. He didn’t predict the way Imperialism would function, or what impact that would have on revolution, but we have Lenin for that. What, exactly, did you think was wrong with what Marx wrote? I find it puzzling that you say he seems focused more on the far-flung, when it was the opposite, he focused on analyzing Capitalism and arming the Working Class with the knowledge of how to overcome it by knowing its laws.

                Either way, I bet Marxists end up correct, the PRC is the world’s most developed Socialist state and it’s also becoming the world’s power as the US and EU crumble.