• frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    23 hours ago

    the initial argument only applies to Utopian Socialism anyway – fighting for your personal interest is exactly the point of communism, destroying all the enemies of the working class

    • lugal@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Depends on the definition. Kropotkin, who self identified as anarcho communist, wrote a scientific book literally called Mutual Aid

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        You’re misinterpreting Scientific vs Utopian Socialism. Kropotkin was a Utopian, not a Marxist. Marxists use Scientific Socialism to refer to the creation of Socialist Society as an evolution upon Capitalist society, whereas Utopianism refers to people “spontaneously” adopting a system after being convinced of it, ie waiting on someone to magically think of a perfect society and directly building it, instead of looking at Socialism as another stage in human development.

        I suggest reading Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

      • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        That’s my point. It’s all about doing self-interested things like mutual aid. Mutual defense is in my self-interest. A dairy co-operative is in the farmers’ interest. Zebras move in herds because it is in their mutual self-interest.

        The initial comment is saying communism is about self-sacrifice, against human nature. Kropotkin (I’ve read the book three times btw) convincing makes the case that it’s the opposite of self-sacrifice: about pursuing our natural mutual interest according to our evolutionary imperatives. Kropotkin would say that ruthless competition is against our evolutionary nature and imperatives because it disadvantages survival.

    • bufalo1973@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      It’s not “destroying all the enemies of the working class” but “destroying classes so we end up being working class”. The idea (as I understand it) is that working class is the one that creates things while bourgeois class is only a parasite. So everyone should be creating something and not sucking the blood of others.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Close. Neither case is fully correct

        Communisn is the doctrine of the conditions of the abolition of the Proletariat

        -Engels, The Principles of Communism

        The bourgeoisie doesn’t create value, the proletariat does, correct, but dogmatic class warfare is anti-Marxist. Class warfare must service the overthrow of the Bourgeoisie via smashing the Bourgeois state, and replacing it with a Proletarian state that withers away as it untangles class contradictions. You cannot create Communism by killing all of the bourgeoisie, but by wresting their power as Socialism emerges from Capitalism.

    • MissJinx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 hours ago

      You don’t tho because you still have people in power. Even if it’s a policeman. That’s enough