- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
On May 5th, 1818, Karl Marx, hero of the international proletatiat, was born. His revolution of Socialist theory reverberates throughout the world carries on to this day, in increasing magnitude. Every passing day, he is vindicated. His analysis of Capitalism, development of the theory of Scientific Socialism, and advancements on dialectics to become Dialectical Materialism, have all played a key role in the past century, and have remained ever-more relevant throughout.
He didn’t always rock his famous beard, when he was younger he was clean shaven!
Some significant works:
Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Manifesto of the Communist Party (along with Engels)
And, of course, Capital Vol I-III
Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don’t know where to start? Check out my “Read Theory, Darn it!” introductory reading list!
I’m not making an argument based on ethnicity, but mode of production. You yourself admit that those tribal societies no longer fit what we were talking about as Hunter/Gatherer societies, but are now being swallowed by the very same Capitalist machine, in fact to greater degrees thanks to the evils of settler-colonialism.
A hunter/gatherer society cannot make a helicopter, that’s just a fundamental fact. If you move onto large industry capable of creating helicopters, you are no longer in the stage of “primitive communism.”
From what I can tell, they’re doing the anarchist nostalgic idealization / fetishization of the past. Usually goes along with idealizing poverty, defeat, and religious “self-sacrifice”, on the terms that this is more “pure” and moral than the modern day with its modern production methods, science, technology, and gasp ability to feed millions of people with labor-saving technology.
When indigenous peoples do start taking up the mantle and uplifting themselves out of poverty by industrializing (Vietnam, China, DPRK, etc), then these same anarchists denounce them for the “betrayal”.
While I agree that that’s the tactic drag is going for, I believe the purpose behind it is less innocent than that, drag has admitted elsewhere to intentionally trying to get banned from Lemmy.ml “while sharing leftist history.” The intent is to portray the Marxist position as racist.
You’re making a circular argument. You’re saying the distinction between “primitive communism” (can we avoid using 200 year old terms that belittle indigenous people?) and industrialised communism is meaningful, BECAUSE tribes aren’t “primitive” anymore. That’s an argument going in circles.
Drag is arguing at the level of meaning: drag says you can draw the distinction, but your reasons for doing so are bad and you shouldn’t. The reliability of a measure is irrelevant if its construct validity is in question.
That’s not my argument, actually. My argument is that tribal production based on hunting and gathering is entirely different from large scale industrialized economies, and to try to say they are more similar than different is missing the forest for the trees.
But all your arguments are based on technology and scale differences. You haven’t named any differences based on principles of economic organisation. Drag says technology and scale aren’t meaningful differences in this context.
Industrial production requiring complex networks of management, labor specialization, robust power grids, machinery, and more are entirely different from small communes. The economic organization is entirely different because of the different mode of production and level of technology.
Indigenous societies had complex networks of management and labour specialisation. Robust power grids and machinery don’t change whether something is communism or not.
You’re saying they’re different because they’re different. This argument is going around in circles just like your logic.
Having a robust and extensive power grid isn’t the only requirement for Communism, but as Communism is based on large production and social planning, it is still a requirement.
You are saying a fish and a tree are the same thing because both are alive.
It’s not. It’s based on worker ownership of the means of production.
Public ownership is certainly another key aspect, yes. The form that public ownership exists in necessitates large scale industry in order to achieve production of the global economy along a common plan, as it emerges from the foundations laid by Socialism, as Socialism emerges from Capitalism, Capitalism from Feudalism, and more, all the way back to tribal production.