this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
446 points (98.9% liked)

Comics

5870 readers
72 users here now

This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.

Rules:

1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules

2- Be civil.

3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.

4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine πŸ‡΅πŸ‡Έ . Zionists will be banned on sight.

5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.

Guidelines:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 42 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Unfortunately, this is ahistorical. Failures of pre-Marx Socialists such as Robert Owen came from the idea that you could convince Capitalists to do the right thing if you proved it with logic and reason. Marx developed upon this and learned that Mode of Production largely determines what ideas are acceptable, rather than the Utopian idea that Socialists had to wait for a "Great Man" privy to universal truths to defeat everyone in some grand Marketplace of Ideas.

To expand: Robert Owen ran semi-Socialist company towns with large expansions in protections, lower working hours, and high rates of profit. When he took his model to the other bourgeoisie, he was cast out of high society and publicly humiliated. The problem with Utopians like Owen is that they became obsessed with imagining some grand model that needed to be thought of and started, that a perfect system existed and simply needed to be discovered in the mind of Great Men to exist in Reality.

There have, of course, been Capitalists who have made concessions, but these were won through conflict and struggle, not logic and reason. Instead, Marxists take the stance that development drives what's acceptable discourse, and that the next system in development emerges from the current system. Ie, Socialism is brought about from solving the contradictions within Capitalism, as made necessary from the progression of Capitalism. Monopolies and large armies of industrial workers equips the Proletariat with the Means and Knowledge necessary to bring about Socislism.

Engels writes about this in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, I highly recommend this for those uninformed about Marxism. Engels is flowery in prose, but it's an essay that takes roughly an hour to get through.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

To expand: Robert Owen ran semi-Socialist company towns with large expansions in protections, lower working hours, and high rates of profit. When he took his model to the other bourgeoisie, he was cast out of high society and publicly humiliated.

Owens built a practical model for socialist economics, which reverberates into the modern day. He was living proof that these policies could create prosperous surplus over time, and his methods did get adopted in subsequent socialist governments.

But it's true. Simply proving out the mathematics of socialist economics isn't enough, because the practice still overly democratized political influence. For authoritarian capitalists, this wasn't seen as beneficial. Better to Rule in Hell than Serve in Heaven.

Engels writes about this in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

This feels like a big nut of it

But the perfecting of machinery is making human labor superfluous. If the introduction and increase of machinery means the displacement of millions of manual by a few machine-workers, improvement in machinery means the displacement of more and more of the machine-workers themselves. It means, in the last instance, the production of a number of available wage workers in excess of the average needs of capital, the formation of a complete industrial reserve army, as I called it in 1845, available at the times when industry is working at high pressure, to be cast out upon the street when the inevitable crash comes, a constant dead weight upon the limbs of the working-class in its struggle for existence with capital, a regulator for keeping of wages down to the low level that suits the interests of capital.

Not enough to be efficient. You need to be the guy doing the firing when the downturn comes, rather than the guy who is getting fired.

That struggle for power is what Capitalists cling to.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago

Owens built a practical model for socialist economics, which reverberates into the modern day. He was living proof that these policies could create prosperous surplus over time, and his methods did get adopted in subsequent socialist governments.

But it's true. Simply proving out the mathematics of socialist economics isn't enough, because the practice still overly democratized political influence. For authoritarian capitalists, this wasn't seen as beneficial. Better to Rule in Hell than Serve in Heaven.

Exactly, it isn't merely enough to create as close to a win-win situation as possible, control must be retained and the ability to further exploit retained.

[–] Overshoot2648@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I hate how Marx has become synonymous with Socialist thought despite the fact that Marx represents only the Bureaucratic side of Socialism and Proudhon and other Anarchist thinkers are ignored. Proudhon literally wrote Property is Theft.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Marx became mostly synonymous because Marxism is the only form of Socialism that has long-lasting historical relevance. Additionally, Marx built on Proudhon, as he did Smith, Saint-Simon, Owen, Hegel, Decartes, and more. Marxism was merely a culmination of Human development, not a grand revelation for a Great Man (as previously discussed with Owen and other Utopians). This is the kernal of why Marx denied calling himself or contemporary Marxists "Marxists," though with substantial time difference and common nomenclature we nevertheless call ourselves as such for the sake of common language.

The same goes for Lenin and other Marxists post-Marx himself, like Franz Fanon, Mao, Fred Hampton, Che Guevara, Thomas Sankara, Luxembourg, Einstein, Parenti, and so forth. None were magically imbued with Grander Knowledge, all were working with what had been discovered and learned up to their point of relevance.

There have been individual Anarchist movements, like Revolutionary Catalonia or the EZLN, but when it comes to making real impact Marxism has actually been implemented at scale.

I sympathize with Anarchists, of course, there are many great comrades among their ranks. However, it is undeniable that Marxism has played much the grander role in historical development, hence the greater importance and relevance to discussing said topics.

[–] gencha@lemm.ee 12 points 2 months ago

Okay. But where's the cost analysis for me giving them respect? I doubt it is worth a mere 53% performance increase in the common ranks.

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

A more accurate panel would be the CEO leaning over and whispering "I know how to run a business. This speaker is full of shit"