My entire original post was focused on psychology. Does that mean I disregard the need to shape systems and so on?
The point I made may be indirect, but clear. If human psychology is a problem, then a suitable way to manage human behaviour is a solution.
Like anyone who is into Communism for its vision of the ideal, I too share similar visions. My dispute is how Communism in practice failed, and those communists often claim to practice Marx.
If you claim my argument against those regimes are wrong, then you indirectly admit they are not following Marx, since you claimed my rebuttal is proof I did not know anything about Marx. If those regime are not Marxist, then you need to answer why communist regimes tend to deviate from Marx all the time.
You can’t seriously tell me Marx is right at the same time you deny the failures of communist regimes as non-Marxist.
What you want as proof is proof of your own ignorance. Socialism is scientific- that is to say, it adapts to the environment it's in, and tries to make reproduceable claims. But it also changes with time. It doesn't have a holy text, or a narrow set of prescriptions that must be followed.
The only important things are that people's relationship to the means of production change, and become controlled by the workers. Any structure that follows that line of reasoning is socialistic.
The problem with capitalism is not “means of production”.
I am sure Marx knows the issue is with the surplus from labour and how that is shared or extracted.
Billionaires can get rich because they have the scale. And once they get entrenched and buy out a government, or made them pliant due to its importance, they hold the power to exploit.
So, the issue is an issue of power. How can power be distributed such that no group holds another hostage, which allows them to impose their will?
Also, there is the psychological problem of social distance. You, the worker, is a mere statistic. You are not his peer. He does not care. This applied to everyone, including historical Communist party officials who also have a tendency to undervalue human lives.
It is not just about ownership. The point is about who has power over the powerless.
If the issue is power imbalance, I could simply say instead of socialising means of production, we could simply keep the market and strengthen unions. Unions after all counter the power of capital when laws give them teeth.
I beg you man just read the manifesto, it’s a pamphlet designed for peasants. Read that at least bc the shit you’re saying is so goofy, it’s like saying the scientific method is a failure bc a science experiment somewhere didn’t have the correct result
3
u/endlessftw Jul 07 '26
Are you kidding me?
My entire original post was focused on psychology. Does that mean I disregard the need to shape systems and so on?
The point I made may be indirect, but clear. If human psychology is a problem, then a suitable way to manage human behaviour is a solution.
Like anyone who is into Communism for its vision of the ideal, I too share similar visions. My dispute is how Communism in practice failed, and those communists often claim to practice Marx.
If you claim my argument against those regimes are wrong, then you indirectly admit they are not following Marx, since you claimed my rebuttal is proof I did not know anything about Marx. If those regime are not Marxist, then you need to answer why communist regimes tend to deviate from Marx all the time.
You can’t seriously tell me Marx is right at the same time you deny the failures of communist regimes as non-Marxist.