Wake me up when they stop the endless tilting at imaginary counter-revolutionary windmills and actually do that. Somehow there’s always some pesky boogeyman that requires benevolent repression. Absolute fantasy that class could ever fade when guns and politicians exist.
“Administrators” are your trickle down “Job Creators”
Class is not administration, and there has never been global socialism to begin with so there hasn’t been a point free from capitalism’s antagonization.
If a group of people calls the shots they have inherent power and form their own class. You write this problem off via a bedrock axiom starting that a vanguard party is and always will be representative of the proletariat masses. That’s fundamentally impossible, humans don’t organize or behave like that on historical time scales.
If a new political force cannot supercede their control and externally correct value drift then your system cannot evolve. If you can’t correct for that other than by saying “better representation will emerge” then you’re flat out anti-revolutionary; a reformist in wolf’s clothing.
Administration in socialist countries is not as simple as “a group of people that call the shots and form their own class.” Administration is economically compelled by large-scale production, and is to be made accountable via robust systems of democracy. Further, in collectivized production, there isn’t the same mechanism built-in for profits and creating whole industries for luxury for the few like there is in capitalism.
To the contrary of your point, systems must evolve, there isn’t a way to stop it. Everything is in motion, and history builds up. There are no static systems, you don’t enter the same river twice, yada yada. It’s not about “better representation emerging,” it’s about deliberately understanding how the structure of the mode of production impacts how society is run.
What comes after this fabled stateless society? If it isn’t a stable system with no possible need for correction then what prevents the re-emergence of states?
The benefits of states are self evident: your immediate group benefits from the use of force to leverage and exploit others. The benefits of remaining stateless are entirely intangible and abstracted.
When a catastrophic event forces your hand, subjugation of your neighbors may be the only way for your populace to survive. One solar flare or meteor or mega volcano and your carefully plotted administration is in the shitter. It’s survival of the ruthless and we’re off to the races again.
This archaic attempt at dissecting the complexity of human existence into a mathematical and controllable roadmap is absurd. Wake up, it’s not the 19th century; we’ve known better for a while now. Let’s fix the world we have instead of having you spending 12.7k comments naval gazing about ideology and which tin pot dictators need our “critical support”. I pray to God you’re at least cashing a paycheck for that drivel.
The basis of the state is class society. The state did not exist in communalism, nor would it exist in communism. Society will continue to evolve and change in communism, yes, but production will not see the re-emergence of classes just as we are not going to see the re-emergence of creating fire with hand-drills.
The state is not an independent force, it is thoroughly enmeshed in the relations of production. In a collectivized economy, there is no economic basis for the state. Your comment is just a mischaracterization of me and Marxism in general. I never said there was a clear roadmap, but I do agree, it is the 21st century. We have learned better than liberalism, and know that socialism works better than capitalism. I don’t get paid to be a communist, I pay dues.
That’s a lot of words to abstract and obfuscate the reality that HUMAN HISTORY BEGAN STATELESS. These power structures weren’t schemed up in prehistory by some mustache twirling villains, they are emergent when humans embark on the task of organizing larger and larger groups to fulfill the needs of a sedentary civilization. You can’t eliminate one and keep the other.
Just waving a socialist wand to reset the class hierarchy doesn’t change anything. We still have the same naked apes extracting the same finite resources on the same planet.
[Here’s where you respond by citing dead philosophers and social theorists or the inbred revisions of their theory]
None of this is based in any actual hard science. Hell, the ink wasn’t even dry on Darwin’s work while Marx and Engels were writing the magnum opus of their foundational theory. They had no idea what the human animal really is or how it functions. Lenin wrote and died long before the seeds of game theory were planted or any mathematical modeling was explored. Mao et. al wrote and died before massive leaps in biology, ecology, physics, information theory, etc…
At every step along the way the theory becomes more divorced from reality and clings to pedigree for authority. We have an incredible amount of knowledge to build on but you’re stuck clinging to a twisted knot of circular logic because of who wrote the first draft. It is, as the post says, political theology fermenting in real time.
Declaring that humans must behave differently by slightly reorganizing them or putting different labels on who owns what is pitiful. You’d laugh at someone citing the old testament for social theory but uncritically do the same with a work so far removed from the modern politics that it may as well be from 0 C.E. Saying “X wouldn’t happen because [I’m declaring] there’s no incentive for X” is as ludicrous as “Breaking X commandment degrades society because [I’m declaring] it’s against human nature”.
The fact that you pay dues only makes every comment more pitiful. You are truly a lost soul grasping for higher meaning, wandering into each post to peddle your pamphlets on the Good Word. Go touch some grass and develop your own thoughts.
I outright stated that human history began stateless, I said communalism was stateless, ie tribal society. I didn’t abstract or obfuscate anything. As production grows it centralizes, and over time this will result in democratization and collectivization as the workers and owners conflict with each other until production is collectively run and planned. This isn’t some absurd idea, it’s based on the trends we observe in capitalism and what we know of socialism.
The rest of your comment is an incoherent rant against a strawman you invented, I suggest you take your own advice you gave at the end.
this will result in democratization and collectivization as the workers and owners conflict with each other until production is collectively run and planned
There is absolutely zero, zilch, nada proof that this is an accurate projection. But here you are just stating it as fact and declaring you’ve won. This entire political theory was couched in the industrial revolution, where growing masses of workers were the only way to extract and process what was thought of as a functionally limitless bounty of resources.
Well it’s now the 21st century. A technological explosion has fundamentally fractured all assumptions a political theorist might have made 200 years ago.
We know an incredible amount about the limits of our world; what resources are left to be exploited and what it will cost. Unlike 100+ years ago, we already have far more human bodies than are needed to handle the job, the excess only diminishing the value and leverage of other workers.
Workers in key industries already rarely share a physical working environment. Humans do not form close connections and necessary camaraderie without constant and prolonged proximity, no matter how many memes are passed.
All practical communication channels are monitored and censorship is trivial. AI (as silly as we view it now) will usurp control of narrative and popular opinion, putting it directly in control of those who own the infrastructure.
Automation, drones and robotics are rapidly displacing workers and have the near term potential to become functionally self sufficient.
In the same stroke the ability to identify, locate and suppress dissent has been formalized and streamlined. A soldier in 1917 Moscow might have hesitated to pull the trigger on a civilian 10m away, vanishingly few will hesitate to click a the disintegrate button on an anonymous undesirable thousands of miles away.
Human behavior and control has been studied and honed to a fine point. In the past we only knew that a populace behaved better with alcohol and bread and circuses. Now we’re fine tuning access to information, entertainment, pricing and propoganda in real time and often at an individual level.
If that’s not enough, provide the perfect simulacra of contentment via biochemical prescription. We’re not as far off from this as people think, the study of the human brain is ongoing.
The promise of human gene modification will bring a physical reality to the classes. The haves will produce offspring fit to resist the ecological wasteland we’re making; the billions of have-nots will spiral to irrelevance.
What about this shows a likely march to a socialist utopia? How is that more likely than a quiet, gradual culling as we slip into technocratic neo-feudalism? And when that collapses with the relentless grind of entropy, why would our atrophied class consciousness not slide is back to tribalism?
How can a theory built on the broad rational collective goals of entire classes be distilled to predict the self-serving (and often irrational) behavior of the few hundred who will control the future? The answer is irrational faith in ideology, revising the sacred texts to ensure we must be on track to Rapture communist utopia. You have absolutely no footing to make these projections.
As for my last part being a strawman, it emphatically is not. We’ve literally had this conversation several times and I’ve seen you argue a dozen more. Every response you have is a regurgitation of some link to a blog or official party-sanctioned rhetoric. Pointing out any hypocrisy or an official “AES” policy that explicitly runs counter to your stated socialist messaging gets shut down with genetic fallacies or shifting blame to capitalism. You have never provided any outright criticism or even questioning of any party policy or messaging, there’s not an original thought in your post history.
Wake me up when they stop the endless tilting at imaginary counter-revolutionary windmills and actually do that. Somehow there’s always some pesky boogeyman that requires benevolent repression. Absolute fantasy that class could ever fade when guns and politicians exist.
“Administrators” are your trickle down “Job Creators”
Class is not administration, and there has never been global socialism to begin with so there hasn’t been a point free from capitalism’s antagonization.
If a group of people calls the shots they have inherent power and form their own class. You write this problem off via a bedrock axiom starting that a vanguard party is and always will be representative of the proletariat masses. That’s fundamentally impossible, humans don’t organize or behave like that on historical time scales.
If a new political force cannot supercede their control and externally correct value drift then your system cannot evolve. If you can’t correct for that other than by saying “better representation will emerge” then you’re flat out anti-revolutionary; a reformist in wolf’s clothing.
Administration in socialist countries is not as simple as “a group of people that call the shots and form their own class.” Administration is economically compelled by large-scale production, and is to be made accountable via robust systems of democracy. Further, in collectivized production, there isn’t the same mechanism built-in for profits and creating whole industries for luxury for the few like there is in capitalism.
To the contrary of your point, systems must evolve, there isn’t a way to stop it. Everything is in motion, and history builds up. There are no static systems, you don’t enter the same river twice, yada yada. It’s not about “better representation emerging,” it’s about deliberately understanding how the structure of the mode of production impacts how society is run.
What comes after this fabled stateless society? If it isn’t a stable system with no possible need for correction then what prevents the re-emergence of states?
The benefits of states are self evident: your immediate group benefits from the use of force to leverage and exploit others. The benefits of remaining stateless are entirely intangible and abstracted.
When a catastrophic event forces your hand, subjugation of your neighbors may be the only way for your populace to survive. One solar flare or meteor or mega volcano and your carefully plotted administration is in the shitter. It’s survival of the ruthless and we’re off to the races again.
This archaic attempt at dissecting the complexity of human existence into a mathematical and controllable roadmap is absurd. Wake up, it’s not the 19th century; we’ve known better for a while now. Let’s fix the world we have instead of having you spending 12.7k comments naval gazing about ideology and which tin pot dictators need our “critical support”. I pray to God you’re at least cashing a paycheck for that drivel.
The basis of the state is class society. The state did not exist in communalism, nor would it exist in communism. Society will continue to evolve and change in communism, yes, but production will not see the re-emergence of classes just as we are not going to see the re-emergence of creating fire with hand-drills.
The state is not an independent force, it is thoroughly enmeshed in the relations of production. In a collectivized economy, there is no economic basis for the state. Your comment is just a mischaracterization of me and Marxism in general. I never said there was a clear roadmap, but I do agree, it is the 21st century. We have learned better than liberalism, and know that socialism works better than capitalism. I don’t get paid to be a communist, I pay dues.
That’s a lot of words to abstract and obfuscate the reality that HUMAN HISTORY BEGAN STATELESS. These power structures weren’t schemed up in prehistory by some mustache twirling villains, they are emergent when humans embark on the task of organizing larger and larger groups to fulfill the needs of a sedentary civilization. You can’t eliminate one and keep the other.
Just waving a socialist wand to reset the class hierarchy doesn’t change anything. We still have the same naked apes extracting the same finite resources on the same planet.
[Here’s where you respond by citing dead philosophers and social theorists or the inbred revisions of their theory]
None of this is based in any actual hard science. Hell, the ink wasn’t even dry on Darwin’s work while Marx and Engels were writing the magnum opus of their foundational theory. They had no idea what the human animal really is or how it functions. Lenin wrote and died long before the seeds of game theory were planted or any mathematical modeling was explored. Mao et. al wrote and died before massive leaps in biology, ecology, physics, information theory, etc…
At every step along the way the theory becomes more divorced from reality and clings to pedigree for authority. We have an incredible amount of knowledge to build on but you’re stuck clinging to a twisted knot of circular logic because of who wrote the first draft. It is, as the post says, political theology fermenting in real time.
Declaring that humans must behave differently by slightly reorganizing them or putting different labels on who owns what is pitiful. You’d laugh at someone citing the old testament for social theory but uncritically do the same with a work so far removed from the modern politics that it may as well be from 0 C.E. Saying “X wouldn’t happen because [I’m declaring] there’s no incentive for X” is as ludicrous as “Breaking X commandment degrades society because [I’m declaring] it’s against human nature”.
The fact that you pay dues only makes every comment more pitiful. You are truly a lost soul grasping for higher meaning, wandering into each post to peddle your pamphlets on the Good Word. Go touch some grass and develop your own thoughts.
I outright stated that human history began stateless, I said communalism was stateless, ie tribal society. I didn’t abstract or obfuscate anything. As production grows it centralizes, and over time this will result in democratization and collectivization as the workers and owners conflict with each other until production is collectively run and planned. This isn’t some absurd idea, it’s based on the trends we observe in capitalism and what we know of socialism.
The rest of your comment is an incoherent rant against a strawman you invented, I suggest you take your own advice you gave at the end.
There is absolutely zero, zilch, nada proof that this is an accurate projection. But here you are just stating it as fact and declaring you’ve won. This entire political theory was couched in the industrial revolution, where growing masses of workers were the only way to extract and process what was thought of as a functionally limitless bounty of resources.
Well it’s now the 21st century. A technological explosion has fundamentally fractured all assumptions a political theorist might have made 200 years ago.
What about this shows a likely march to a socialist utopia? How is that more likely than a quiet, gradual culling as we slip into technocratic neo-feudalism? And when that collapses with the relentless grind of entropy, why would our atrophied class consciousness not slide is back to tribalism?
How can a theory built on the broad rational collective goals of entire classes be distilled to predict the self-serving (and often irrational) behavior of the few hundred who will control the future? The answer is irrational faith in ideology, revising the sacred texts to ensure we must be on track to
Rapturecommunist utopia. You have absolutely no footing to make these projections.As for my last part being a strawman, it emphatically is not. We’ve literally had this conversation several times and I’ve seen you argue a dozen more. Every response you have is a regurgitation of some link to a blog or official party-sanctioned rhetoric. Pointing out any hypocrisy or an official “AES” policy that explicitly runs counter to your stated socialist messaging gets shut down with genetic fallacies or shifting blame to capitalism. You have never provided any outright criticism or even questioning of any party policy or messaging, there’s not an original thought in your post history.