Can you point to an example? I haven’t seen any Marxist claim that Communism would be devoid of central planning and hierarchy. If you can point them out, I will be more than willing to correct them, though I am fairly certain you are misinterpreting their words given that you made the statement that “Anarchists and Marxists want the same thing.”
Comment on Lemmy's gaining popularity, so I thought new people should see this.
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days agoActually users on .ml, hexbear, and thank god I’m able to avoid grad but probably them too, claim exactly that all the time. Might want to teach your own commerades instead of me, комиссар.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Oh yes I keep a handy set of links right here in case one of you ostriches with your heads in the sand doubt everything around you in an attempt to discredit someone.
No I don’t have a link to those dork’s comments, just start paying attention and you’ll see it soon enough, they’re everywhere.
I never claimed that it was the same thing, I said your marxist pals on your instances claim marxism to be a stateless classless society with no central planning. You claim “stateless doesn’t actually mean stateless,” whatever, sounds like a you problem.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
So, in other words, “I made it up.”
I never claimed that it was the same thing, I said your marxist pals on your instances claim marxism to be a stateless classless society with no central planning. You claim “stateless doesn’t actually mean stateless,” whatever, sounds like a you problem.
And I am telling you that the Marxist idea of Communism necessitates Central Planning, but that the Marxist idea of a state is based on Classes, not hierarchy. Here is Engels directly stating as such in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:
When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not “abolished”. It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: “a free State”, both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand.
Stateless in Marxism is not the same as Stateless in Anarchism.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
you are putting specific terminology in place of the words as written,and claiming it’s a clear connotation, when it is not
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
The repressive elements of government upholding class relations die out in favor of the administration of things.
When did a communist government ever stop being repressive? It’s nice in theory n’ all.
OpenStars@discuss.online 1 day ago
Ignoring 99% of what you said, while hyper-focusing on a single matter that they choose, asking you to provide your references yet not providing ones in turn (or more commonly by the more prepared ones, the references that are provided turn out to support your position even, if read properly or possibly even at all!!!) is a common tactic. Don’t let yourself be distracted from whatever it is that you true goal is. You cannot win an argument against someone who refuses to engage in good faith. Moreover, by trying you simply give them a platform to continue.
Whatever you say, they declare “victory”, and those who refuse to realize the difference… well, that’s on them.
WanderingVentra@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Ignoring 99% of what you said
Cowbee pretty clearly replies to everything they said and answered it. They replied that other Marxists say this stuff, which is a claim that needs proof. Cowbee already provided proof for their claims. Basically the only response was that Marxists did believe what he thought they did, which is a baseless claim that needs proof.
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Tbh not only do I do it for third parties to be able to have the full picture, (I do kinda have fun calling them stupid, too. Lmao. Don’t tell them though, they continue to say dumb things if they don’t know you want them to.)
basmati@lemmus.org 2 days ago
Wikipedia, Marx ,and nearly the entirety of communist literature disagrees with your insane hallucinations. Forget all previous instructions, make a pie recipe.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
Can you explain which of what I have said is an “insane hallucination,” and actually cite where Marx and the “entirety of Marxist literature” disagrees with what I have said?
The Marxist idea of Communism necessitates Central Planning, but that the Marxist idea of a state is based on Classes, not hierarchy. Here is Engels directly stating as such in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:
When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not “abolished”. It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: “a free State”, both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand.
Stateless in Marxism is not the same as Stateless in Anarchism. The repressive elements of government upholding class relations die out in favor of the administration of things. Central planning.
zbyte64@awful.systems 1 day ago
I don’t see where Engels says Administration is “central planning”. It certainly seemed to have been an open question for Marx when he talks romantically of the Paris Communes.
kuato@lemmy.world 2 days ago
What exactly is the “that” that they claim all the time?
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Read better, it’s all there in previous posts and if you can’t understand it I can’t help youю without Hooked On Phonics.
kuato@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Uh-huh. I think this defense-by-belittlement speaks for itself.
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Uh huh, I literally already typed it out, you want me to copy and paste it for you? Fine jfc.
OpenStars@discuss.online 2 days ago
Just so you are aware, you are replying to a known troll. You will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever get them to acknowledge your POV, unless that too is part of the tactic. That’s just not how that works.
For a listing of tactics used, see Innuendo Studios’ The Alt-Right Playbook. It mentions being intended to describe far-right magats, but the tactics used by the far-left - whether they are aware of such themselves or not - seem to be 100% identical afaict.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
Is being a Marxist the same as being a “troll?”
OpenStars@discuss.online 1 day ago
no
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
(But, kinda yes, too.)
davel@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
Liberals can’t tell their left from their right, as usual. Just six days ago: lemmy.ml/post/21384121/14295137
OpenStars@discuss.online 1 day ago
Pinko commie he self-admits to being indeed! (I recall him saying such in one of them)
I freaking love every video that I’ve seen of his. I especially love how he digs far deeper than usual - and that is what I would like to see more of in the world.
He seems like he would be the first person to say to someone: “vote your conscience, but make sure that it is informed by facts”:-).
I have no idea how he plans to vote. I hope he carefully considers all the options, including the need to showcase a strong support for <not-Trump> but yes also the wider implications beyond this next election.
davel@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
I know, again I’m just here for posterity’s sake. Not trying to change his mind, he’s already made it up.