Read on Twitter
One ridiculous thing I see often is persons saying that Communist ideology is flawed because it doesn't account for humans being selfish.
The persons who say this have likely never even read even a half of a Communist text.
The persons who say this have likely never even read even a half of a Communist text.
First of all, "Communism" itself isn't an ideology; it's a description of a type of society and economy. The ideology is Marxism.
Likewise, "Capitalism" isn't an ideology; the ideology for that is Liberalism (if you didn't know that, you have some reading to do).
Likewise, "Capitalism" isn't an ideology; the ideology for that is Liberalism (if you didn't know that, you have some reading to do).
So there's this misconception that Communists are idealists who think that the whole world can spontaneously change into something that functions with everyone being equal and getting along in perfect harmony.
That's not Communist ideology at all.
That's not Communist ideology at all.
Communist ideology emerged from Marx's model and idea of class conflict. It was always based on struggle and conflict, not on harmony.
He doesn't describe conflict as a bad thing.
He doesn't describe conflict as a bad thing.
Marxist ideology very well takes societal divisions into account, because the whole point of it is explaining why different persons in society want different things.
What was the basis of conflict between nobles and merchants? What is the basis of conflict between bosses and workers?
And the solutions aren't about having some compromise between conflicting forces; conflict ends when one side defeats another or when a system is overthrown.
And the solutions aren't about having some compromise between conflicting forces; conflict ends when one side defeats another or when a system is overthrown.
In liberal thought, a worker and a boss can easily negotiate and come to an agreement.
In Marxist thought, we understand the power imbalance between the boss and the worker, why the boss has an incentive to preserve that, and what to reasonably expect from the boss.
In Marxist thought, we understand the power imbalance between the boss and the worker, why the boss has an incentive to preserve that, and what to reasonably expect from the boss.
So we don't think that liberation will come from workers begging their bosses to treat them better or from oppressed groups begging for compassion from their oppressors. We believe in the violent overthrow of existing systems of oppression.
Not only that, we don't believe in some cute idea that a revolution is a one-time event that fixes everything.
Removing a class from power doesn't eliminate it from existing. Remnants of a defeated ruling class can remain, regroup, and take back power again (it happened).
Removing a class from power doesn't eliminate it from existing. Remnants of a defeated ruling class can remain, regroup, and take back power again (it happened).
So we also believe in doing what is necessary to keep those forces at bay until we can eliminate them by reorganising society to debase them of potential sources of power (which isn't an easy task and we know it).
There is also this misconception that we think that everything should be free and that people shouldn't work for anything.
This is the opposite of what we believe.
This is the opposite of what we believe.
Marxist writing was done in a time where people worked all day while remaining poor, and persons who did no work just collected profits (Capitalism, which still exists and dominates the world now).
The goal of Communists was to have the working class violently seize power and then use that power to brutally repress the Capitalists, not to hold hands and be in harmony with them, and not to simply tax them to fund free social services.
Socialism and Communism aren't about taxing the rich to fund government services.
In a Socialist economy, enterprises are publicly-owned (either owned by the state representing the workers or by the workers themselves).
In a Socialist economy, enterprises are publicly-owned (either owned by the state representing the workers or by the workers themselves).
Now, this isn't a thread to try to convince you to become a Communist.
I'm just asking that you at least make yourself aware of what Communists believe before speaking about it.
Criticise Communist ideology, but at least know what you're criticising first.
I'm just asking that you at least make yourself aware of what Communists believe before speaking about it.
Criticise Communist ideology, but at least know what you're criticising first.
If you don't know enough about something, learn more about it before making claims or speaking authoritatively about it.
If you haven't spent time and effort to understand what Communists believe, don't pull things out of your ass to pretend to know.
If you haven't spent time and effort to understand what Communists believe, don't pull things out of your ass to pretend to know.
Another thing: Marxism isn't just "Capitalism is bad, every oppressor is the bourgeoisie and all the oppressed are the proletariat" - it's more like "Capitalism is a specific system where conflict between Capitalists and workers are inevitable, and one must win by violence."
Marxism never defined Socialism and Communism as alternatives to Capitalism.
Marxism actually defined Capitalism as a progressive step from Feudalism, so some Marxist states had even advocating building Capitalism where it didn't exist before for the sake of development.
Marxism actually defined Capitalism as a progressive step from Feudalism, so some Marxist states had even advocating building Capitalism where it didn't exist before for the sake of development.
Marxist theory originated in Europe which was already industrialised, while the rest of the world wasn't industrialised.
Industrialisation meant that Europe had a large urban working class, something that most of the world didn't have.
Industrialisation meant that Europe had a large urban working class, something that most of the world didn't have.
But persons who have never studied Marxism for even 2 minutes of their lives will take this to mean that Socialist countries' development can only be as a result of rejecting Marxism.
If they read, they'd see that early Marxist-Leninist literature advocated for State Capitalism.
If they read, they'd see that early Marxist-Leninist literature advocated for State Capitalism.
So some see the success of China, or Cuba's reforms around private sector (without even knowing the finer details of how they have gone about these things or the ideological and practical reasoning for doing them), then just talk nonsense.
Some then offer some criticism of Socialism (which they know nothing about, so they don't make sense), and then think they're being smart by repeating some tired argument about how what we need is some "mix" or "balance" between Capitalism and Socialism.
This isn't a rejection of all criticism of Socialism or Communism. A lot of concerns about how Socialism works and how Communism would work are valid questions/concerns that exist even within the movements.
But criticism of a concept can only be valid if the person doing the criticism is actually familiar with and aware of the concept.
With that said, keep in mind that a lot of your perspectives of things like Communism, that challenge the ideology and power of the ruling class, are based on deliberate misrepresentation of those ideas by the ruling class.
Information is actually free, accessible, and out there. Others and I readily provide info on some things, and help to understand (if there's difficult terminology or a need for context when things were written before the 1960s).
Some of you just don't read. And fine, some of you aren't interested... but if you're not interested in learning about an ideology, understand as well that you have no right to criticise it. Your analysis will inevitably be flawed.
Marxism isn't about morality, and it isn't just about being opposed to Capitalism simply because we don't like it. Marxism is about analysing how society and the economy are organised, and how conflict between social forces produced new conditions.
In fact, the Communist Manifesto explains why European Capitalism was a progressive step from European Feudalism, why it is so efficient, what makes it unsustainable and prone to collapse or decay, and why it produces the conditions for Socialism.
TL;DR point 1: Read about something before commenting on it.
TL;DR point 2: Communists aren't idealists who don't account for human selfishness/entitlement or the fact that groups act in their own self-interests.
TL;DR point 2: Communists aren't idealists who don't account for human selfishness/entitlement or the fact that groups act in their own self-interests.
There's a reason that some specific things that are associated with individual "freedom" in Capitalist countries are repressed or restricted in Socialist countries.
This isn't because we are against individual freedom; we just have a different idea of what it looks like.
This isn't because we are against individual freedom; we just have a different idea of what it looks like.
"Free speech" for an individual to yell and ramble isn't the same as the power to disseminate information or manipulate public opinion through mass media.
You're free to run as a candidate in a liberal democracy, but you'll need money and the airwaves for a visible campaign.
You're free to run as a candidate in a liberal democracy, but you'll need money and the airwaves for a visible campaign.
"Equality before the law" is nice on paper but doesn't always work out in practice. How many rich persons have you seen gone to prison? They can afford the best lawyers.
Poor people who can't afford great lawyers can't easily take a case to court.
Poor people who can't afford great lawyers can't easily take a case to court.
What freedom do you have if you can't afford your basic necessities? What freedom do you have if you're starving?
Desperation will force you to do things that you wouldn't do otherwise. Poverty is coercive.
Desperation will force you to do things that you wouldn't do otherwise. Poverty is coercive.
Liberals literally believe in the freedom to starve. Not exaggerating there; Classical Liberals and neoliberals literally believe in the freedom to starve, if you read Hayek and other thinkers.
Liberalism yielded to welfare politics for the sake of stability, believing it would prevent social conflict from getting too bad and leading to revolution (which is different from Marxists who want revolution to eliminate the system rather than to perpetuate it's foolishness).
Ahh here's yet another thing.
Socialism is not about welfare. The government using taxes to pay for public services isn't Socialism.
Socialists have actually been critical of welfare politics.
Socialism is not about welfare. The government using taxes to pay for public services isn't Socialism.
Socialists have actually been critical of welfare politics.
Anyways, feel free to @ or DM me for sources on Marxist perspectives on any of these points because I usually deliver on that.
