Right, assuming you want increasingly complex machinery and supply chains predicated on a framework of institutional hierarchy that necessarily recreates individual concentrations of power. That’s like, the largest issue with unenaxmined Marxism that most contemporary Marxists and other communists have with it.
If you’re using “contemporary” to refer to the majority of modern Marxists globally, it’s the opposite. Tossing aside the improvement of production as both a natural and necessary process tosses aside some of the core foundations of Marxism. I want to know what you consider to be “comtemporary” and what you consider to be “unexamined.”
What the vast majority of Marxists believe is that hierarchy isn’t necessarily a good thing or bad thing, but can be done in good and bad ways. Moreover, Marxists believe it is necessary to have full centralization of the Means of Production into the public sphere in the long run, not decentralized networks of cooperatives or communes, as these only really replicate petite bourgeois relations and leave open the path to competition and Capitalism.
Fundamentally, to rapidly build up the productive forces so that everyone’s wants and needs are met with as little labor as necessary, we must stick to being an interconnected, global economy, and must do our best to understand the laws of centralization so as to make this global system democratic and equitable.
OK so you don’t think hierarchy is a barrier to actualizing post-scarcity, while I definitely do. Doesn’t sound like we’re moving each other off our respective stances.
I am a Marxist, not an Anarchist, so I am more concerned with class than hierarchy, and believe centralization is both natural and necessary, and therefore should be studied so as to be as democratic and equitable as possible. There isn’t really a Marxist reason to reject all hierarchy, given that management and direction are necessary instruments of large-industry, itself the mechanism by which post-scarcity can be achieved to begin with.
Over time, it’s possible technology will get rid of some of this necessary hierarchy, and habit and tradition replace firm structures, but that’s a long way away and thus less important to discuss.
I am very familiar with your perspective. Like I said we fundamentally disagree on centralization and hierarchy. Put simply, we have different theories on the nature of power. I believe you have a naive and under-developed understanding of power, which then necessitates a few fallacies in your perspective - Specifically that centralization and hierarchy are necessary for complexity (A naturalistic fallacy), and that those things can be “eased out” systemically over time (Like one believing they could dismiss Cthulhu back to the void).
To give an example, a smartphone requires a massive logistical chain and incredibly complex production wkth armies of labor arranged. There is not a non-hierarchical way to produce a smartphone. I added a clause suggesting that, perhaps, technology like a non-LLM and legitimately complicated AI could handle a lot of that direction, but humans will still have to keep them in check.
If we keep production in small cooperatives and communes, you can’t really make smartphones or high speed rail or complex energy grids. Further, these cells will eventually have greater differences, leading to competition and absorption of the smaller cells and the re-introduction of hierarchy.
I find it naive and under-developed to take this “utopia-building” approach, where you try to build a perfect society outright and legalistically, as though the problemsI listed won’t surface if we try hard enough.
If I’ve misinterpreted your views, then I apologize, but you haven’t given me much to go off of. What kind of Marxist do you consider yourself? What is a “contemporary Marxist,” what’s an “unexamined Marxist?” I’m a Marxist-Leninist, it’s by far the most common form of Marxist globally and has the richest historical experience, and thus over time what does not work has been learned from and what does has stuck around.
Isn’t Marxism-Leninism the one branch of communism that has far and away the most real world proof that it’s particular style does not work for bringing about a utopia? Not to be one of those “communism doesn’t work just look at the USSR” goons, but very clearly the continued embrace of hierarchy and it’s power creep is largely what aborted that project in a matter of decades (Having to coexist in a world with capitalism sure didn’t help, but no communist project gets the option not to).
Number 1, Marxism is anti-Utopian. As in, against the old “model builders” of Fourier, Saint-Simon, Robert Owen, and the like. Marxism instead is what Marx called “scientific,” it focuses on analyzing the laws and trajectories within societal movement and Political Economy. When I ask what branch of Marxism you consider yourself, it’s so I can get a feel for what general “lines” you agree with, or if you even consider yourself a Marxist in the first place.
Number 2, Marxism-Leninism is the branch of Marxism that has seen the most success, and has actually succeeded in bringing real revolution and real improvements for the working class. Cuba, Vietnam, the PRC, Laos, DPRK, and former USSR all hold to a Marxist-Leninist line, with their own unique characteristics driven from their unique circumstances.
Number 3, I don’t agree with you when you say “embrace of hierarchy” and “power creep” aborted “the” project in a matter of decades. For starters, there are several Marxist-Leninist states that have not fallen, and learned from the lessons of the USSR. Secondly, the dissolution of the USSR had nothing to do with “power creep” nor “hierarchy,” and was driven instead by numerous complex factors:
Liberal reforms that gave the Bourgeoisie power over key industries
A firm dedication to planning by hand even as the economy grew more complex and computers too slow to be adapted to the planning mechanisms
A huge portion of resources were spent on maintaining millitary parity with the US in order to dissuade US invasion
80% of the combat done in World War II was on the Eastern Front, and 20 million Soviets lost their lives, with no real economic support from the West in rebuilding despite taking the largest cost of war
An enclosed, heavily sanctioned economy relied on internal resource gathering, closed off from the world market
Countries like the PRC have taken to heart what happened in the USSR. As an example, the PRC shifted to a more classically Marxist economy, focusing on public ownership of only the large firms and key industries, and relying on markets to develop out of private ownership. This keeps them in touch with the global economy without giving the bourgeoisie control of key industries, and thus the bourgeoisie has no power over the economy or the state.
Further, Marxism-Leninism is the most advanced and adopted line globally among Marxists. There are fringe branches that mostly exist in the west, such as Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (also called Gonzaloism, not to be confused with Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought), but these have no successful revolutions.
What do you consider important when judging a Marxist strain as “successful” vs “unsuccessful?” I keep a reading list, infographics I’ve found, data, sources, etc going over different aspects of Marxism-Leninism and AES states, but rather than just regurgitate what I know and shower you in links, I’d rather know from you what drives your understanding of success and failure so we can find common ground.
Right, assuming you want increasingly complex machinery and supply chains predicated on a framework of institutional hierarchy that necessarily recreates individual concentrations of power. That’s like, the largest issue with unenaxmined Marxism that most contemporary Marxists and other communists have with it.
If you’re using “contemporary” to refer to the majority of modern Marxists globally, it’s the opposite. Tossing aside the improvement of production as both a natural and necessary process tosses aside some of the core foundations of Marxism. I want to know what you consider to be “comtemporary” and what you consider to be “unexamined.”
What the vast majority of Marxists believe is that hierarchy isn’t necessarily a good thing or bad thing, but can be done in good and bad ways. Moreover, Marxists believe it is necessary to have full centralization of the Means of Production into the public sphere in the long run, not decentralized networks of cooperatives or communes, as these only really replicate petite bourgeois relations and leave open the path to competition and Capitalism.
Fundamentally, to rapidly build up the productive forces so that everyone’s wants and needs are met with as little labor as necessary, we must stick to being an interconnected, global economy, and must do our best to understand the laws of centralization so as to make this global system democratic and equitable.
OK so you don’t think hierarchy is a barrier to actualizing post-scarcity, while I definitely do. Doesn’t sound like we’re moving each other off our respective stances.
I am a Marxist, not an Anarchist, so I am more concerned with class than hierarchy, and believe centralization is both natural and necessary, and therefore should be studied so as to be as democratic and equitable as possible. There isn’t really a Marxist reason to reject all hierarchy, given that management and direction are necessary instruments of large-industry, itself the mechanism by which post-scarcity can be achieved to begin with.
Over time, it’s possible technology will get rid of some of this necessary hierarchy, and habit and tradition replace firm structures, but that’s a long way away and thus less important to discuss.
I am very familiar with your perspective. Like I said we fundamentally disagree on centralization and hierarchy. Put simply, we have different theories on the nature of power. I believe you have a naive and under-developed understanding of power, which then necessitates a few fallacies in your perspective - Specifically that centralization and hierarchy are necessary for complexity (A naturalistic fallacy), and that those things can be “eased out” systemically over time (Like one believing they could dismiss Cthulhu back to the void).
To give an example, a smartphone requires a massive logistical chain and incredibly complex production wkth armies of labor arranged. There is not a non-hierarchical way to produce a smartphone. I added a clause suggesting that, perhaps, technology like a non-LLM and legitimately complicated AI could handle a lot of that direction, but humans will still have to keep them in check.
If we keep production in small cooperatives and communes, you can’t really make smartphones or high speed rail or complex energy grids. Further, these cells will eventually have greater differences, leading to competition and absorption of the smaller cells and the re-introduction of hierarchy.
I find it naive and under-developed to take this “utopia-building” approach, where you try to build a perfect society outright and legalistically, as though the problemsI listed won’t surface if we try hard enough.
If I’ve misinterpreted your views, then I apologize, but you haven’t given me much to go off of. What kind of Marxist do you consider yourself? What is a “contemporary Marxist,” what’s an “unexamined Marxist?” I’m a Marxist-Leninist, it’s by far the most common form of Marxist globally and has the richest historical experience, and thus over time what does not work has been learned from and what does has stuck around.
Isn’t Marxism-Leninism the one branch of communism that has far and away the most real world proof that it’s particular style does not work for bringing about a utopia? Not to be one of those “communism doesn’t work just look at the USSR” goons, but very clearly the continued embrace of hierarchy and it’s power creep is largely what aborted that project in a matter of decades (Having to coexist in a world with capitalism sure didn’t help, but no communist project gets the option not to).
Number 1, Marxism is anti-Utopian. As in, against the old “model builders” of Fourier, Saint-Simon, Robert Owen, and the like. Marxism instead is what Marx called “scientific,” it focuses on analyzing the laws and trajectories within societal movement and Political Economy. When I ask what branch of Marxism you consider yourself, it’s so I can get a feel for what general “lines” you agree with, or if you even consider yourself a Marxist in the first place.
Number 2, Marxism-Leninism is the branch of Marxism that has seen the most success, and has actually succeeded in bringing real revolution and real improvements for the working class. Cuba, Vietnam, the PRC, Laos, DPRK, and former USSR all hold to a Marxist-Leninist line, with their own unique characteristics driven from their unique circumstances.
Number 3, I don’t agree with you when you say “embrace of hierarchy” and “power creep” aborted “the” project in a matter of decades. For starters, there are several Marxist-Leninist states that have not fallen, and learned from the lessons of the USSR. Secondly, the dissolution of the USSR had nothing to do with “power creep” nor “hierarchy,” and was driven instead by numerous complex factors:
Liberal reforms that gave the Bourgeoisie power over key industries
A firm dedication to planning by hand even as the economy grew more complex and computers too slow to be adapted to the planning mechanisms
A huge portion of resources were spent on maintaining millitary parity with the US in order to dissuade US invasion
80% of the combat done in World War II was on the Eastern Front, and 20 million Soviets lost their lives, with no real economic support from the West in rebuilding despite taking the largest cost of war
An enclosed, heavily sanctioned economy relied on internal resource gathering, closed off from the world market
Countries like the PRC have taken to heart what happened in the USSR. As an example, the PRC shifted to a more classically Marxist economy, focusing on public ownership of only the large firms and key industries, and relying on markets to develop out of private ownership. This keeps them in touch with the global economy without giving the bourgeoisie control of key industries, and thus the bourgeoisie has no power over the economy or the state.
Further, Marxism-Leninism is the most advanced and adopted line globally among Marxists. There are fringe branches that mostly exist in the west, such as Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (also called Gonzaloism, not to be confused with Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought), but these have no successful revolutions.
What do you consider important when judging a Marxist strain as “successful” vs “unsuccessful?” I keep a reading list, infographics I’ve found, data, sources, etc going over different aspects of Marxism-Leninism and AES states, but rather than just regurgitate what I know and shower you in links, I’d rather know from you what drives your understanding of success and failure so we can find common ground.