Reading the communist manifesto made me realise the flaws in Marxist thinking as well.
Don’t misunderstand me, Marx was right about a lot of things and still is. Das Kapital is still 80%-90% relevant and accurate but the parts Marx is incorrect about (that capitalism naturally trends to socialism and the worker will have necessarily poorer conditions under capitalism) are addressed through other political philosophers who built upon his and Engels’ work.
Socialism as a political ideology has evolved considerably. Tankies are stuck at a point in time and it’s sad they stand in the way of a socialism without authoritarianism.
I’ve decided to answer your, likely rhetorical, question from your first comment and this one in one comment instead of two:
Perhaps the tankies are making you question some deeply held beliefs you have and that’s making you uncomfortable?
You’re not wrong here. Even if my views don’t differ that much in many ways from even the lemmygrad or hexbear users (at least on economical terms) there’s still some topics that I just do not share their views on (You mentioned their stand on authoritarianism) and it does make me uncomfortable because very often you either have to 100% agree with them or are instantly excluded.
In the end, I’m usually hopping on to see memes to give my brain some distraction, enjoy some good banter or laugh at some quality memes and not see yet another online civil war unfold.
And for the last I’m often just too tired to participate in after 8hrs of work
You’re not understanding me. I’m not reproaching communism and vindicating liberalism. Im saying that to really understand communism, a serious study of Marx’s work and the labor movement is needed. The rejection of Marxism-Leninism comes from an understanding of how it arose as an opportunist counter-revolution current in the context of the defeat of the world communist revolution, not some vage objection to “authoritarianism”.
the parts Marx is incorrect about (that capitalism naturally trends to socialism and the worker will have necessarily poorer conditions under capitalism)
The conditions of the worker is more wretched and slave-like than ever, especially in some countries. This is obvious to anyone paying attention who doesn’t have some petty bourgeois adgenda to peddle. As for the former, your statement reads to me like a personal fantasy wishing that Capital has finally overcome the class struggle via social democracy- a hilarious thought considering how badly social democrats have stabbed the labor movement in the back repeatedly for over a century.
other political philosophers who built upon his and Engels’ work.
I don’t know who you’re even talking about. There have been plenty of opportunist hacks that tried to graft their bullshit onto Marx, like Kautsky. But Lenin dealt with him and people like him already, so that requires no further comment.
I see it like this, the manifesto was a call to arms for the factory workers of Europe; join our revolution and your life will improve.
And some did, and their lives did improve for a while, but most importantly the majority of workers (ie European workers who didn’t have a revolution) did not join and their conditions still improved (WHS laws, working hours, sick leave, PTO, pension, healthcare).
How does Marx explain this? This shouldn’t be possible according to Marx.
When I was saying people have built on Marx I was alluding to revisionists like Bernstein.
He points out that self interest is a motivating factor, once a worker has a certain level of condition then they are no longer willing to risk that in a revolution, capitalism has effectively satiated them. Revolution is no longer possible in this situation.
This is the western world I see today, a lot of people who aren’t willing to risk what they have to get something better.
My solution (which isn’t really mine) is to appeal to their self interest, sure it’s nice now, but it would be even better under socialism etc.
The entirety of Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme is related to this subject. He explains it in excruciating detail. Also, the experiences of the opportunism of the second and third international explains it.
The working class does, from time to time, capitulate to opportunism and sacrifices the long term goal for the revolutionary socialist transformation of society in favor of short-term gains. This opportunism arises most of all in cases of desperation. The bourgeoisie has no qualms about exploiting this by granting short-term concessions, which it knows it can claw back at a later date when the situation is more favorable, in order to avert a revolution and preserve their privileged class positions. However communism is not just about immediate results.
The answer to this is the Communist Party, the working class organized into a political party and the repository of knowledge and experience for the working class. It’s given rise by the interests of the working class materializing into a precise consciousness. The communist party fights against opportunist degeneration by sticking to the historical invariant programme of the communists and draws lessons from past successes and defeats.
I don’t think you get to say ‘hey those nice things you got while under capitalism will disappear at some point - source, trust me bro.’
That arguably hasn’t eventuated for western workers as we haven’t returned to the original or worse conditions than when we were at at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
Too few are interested in dying to improve their conditions further which disarms any vanguard party.
I don’t know much about Hegel, but the bit I do know makes me very skeptical about historical materialism. Socialist philosophy is better without Hegel IMO, yes I assume you disagree with this strongly.
You’re not wrong.
Reading the communist manifesto made me realise the flaws in Marxist thinking as well.
Don’t misunderstand me, Marx was right about a lot of things and still is. Das Kapital is still 80%-90% relevant and accurate but the parts Marx is incorrect about (that capitalism naturally trends to socialism and the worker will have necessarily poorer conditions under capitalism) are addressed through other political philosophers who built upon his and Engels’ work.
Socialism as a political ideology has evolved considerably. Tankies are stuck at a point in time and it’s sad they stand in the way of a socialism without authoritarianism.
I’ve decided to answer your, likely rhetorical, question from your first comment and this one in one comment instead of two:
You’re not wrong here. Even if my views don’t differ that much in many ways from even the lemmygrad or hexbear users (at least on economical terms) there’s still some topics that I just do not share their views on (You mentioned their stand on authoritarianism) and it does make me uncomfortable because very often you either have to 100% agree with them or are instantly excluded.
In the end, I’m usually hopping on to see memes to give my brain some distraction, enjoy some good banter or laugh at some quality memes and not see yet another online civil war unfold.
And for the last I’m often just too tired to participate in after 8hrs of work
You’re not understanding me. I’m not reproaching communism and vindicating liberalism. Im saying that to really understand communism, a serious study of Marx’s work and the labor movement is needed. The rejection of Marxism-Leninism comes from an understanding of how it arose as an opportunist counter-revolution current in the context of the defeat of the world communist revolution, not some vage objection to “authoritarianism”.
The conditions of the worker is more wretched and slave-like than ever, especially in some countries. This is obvious to anyone paying attention who doesn’t have some petty bourgeois adgenda to peddle. As for the former, your statement reads to me like a personal fantasy wishing that Capital has finally overcome the class struggle via social democracy- a hilarious thought considering how badly social democrats have stabbed the labor movement in the back repeatedly for over a century.
I don’t know who you’re even talking about. There have been plenty of opportunist hacks that tried to graft their bullshit onto Marx, like Kautsky. But Lenin dealt with him and people like him already, so that requires no further comment.
Hmmm well maybe we are talking past each other.
I see it like this, the manifesto was a call to arms for the factory workers of Europe; join our revolution and your life will improve.
And some did, and their lives did improve for a while, but most importantly the majority of workers (ie European workers who didn’t have a revolution) did not join and their conditions still improved (WHS laws, working hours, sick leave, PTO, pension, healthcare).
How does Marx explain this? This shouldn’t be possible according to Marx.
When I was saying people have built on Marx I was alluding to revisionists like Bernstein.
He points out that self interest is a motivating factor, once a worker has a certain level of condition then they are no longer willing to risk that in a revolution, capitalism has effectively satiated them. Revolution is no longer possible in this situation.
This is the western world I see today, a lot of people who aren’t willing to risk what they have to get something better.
My solution (which isn’t really mine) is to appeal to their self interest, sure it’s nice now, but it would be even better under socialism etc.
The entirety of Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme is related to this subject. He explains it in excruciating detail. Also, the experiences of the opportunism of the second and third international explains it.
The working class does, from time to time, capitulate to opportunism and sacrifices the long term goal for the revolutionary socialist transformation of society in favor of short-term gains. This opportunism arises most of all in cases of desperation. The bourgeoisie has no qualms about exploiting this by granting short-term concessions, which it knows it can claw back at a later date when the situation is more favorable, in order to avert a revolution and preserve their privileged class positions. However communism is not just about immediate results.
The answer to this is the Communist Party, the working class organized into a political party and the repository of knowledge and experience for the working class. It’s given rise by the interests of the working class materializing into a precise consciousness. The communist party fights against opportunist degeneration by sticking to the historical invariant programme of the communists and draws lessons from past successes and defeats.
Party and Class.
Yeah that’s where we disagree.
I don’t think you get to say ‘hey those nice things you got while under capitalism will disappear at some point - source, trust me bro.’
That arguably hasn’t eventuated for western workers as we haven’t returned to the original or worse conditions than when we were at at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
Too few are interested in dying to improve their conditions further which disarms any vanguard party.
I don’t know much about Hegel, but the bit I do know makes me very skeptical about historical materialism. Socialist philosophy is better without Hegel IMO, yes I assume you disagree with this strongly.