I doubt the person you’re replying to would disagree that the advent of capitalism is in fact what brought liberal democracy into existence. The point though is that such progress is unsustainable under a capitalist system and that it will result in various crises, war, and fascism. Therefore we do need to find a way to move past capitalism if we want even the possibility of creating a better world.
Growth isn’t a problem when it’s sustainable. However, there are natural limits to how far and how fast technological development and resource extraction will allow us to grow the economy.
Additionally, competition within capitalism forces the wealthy to seek out any and all means of growth. If they do not they actually risk all of their wealth becoming devalued. This drives innovation but it also is the driver of imperialism, exploitation, environmental degradation, all of which grow the economy.
When growth because less attainable due to various natural constrains, the wealthy start to cannibalize the systems that keep society stable. Again, they can’t help themselves. If they don’t their class position is threatened as some other capital owner beats them to the limited profits that come from privatization and austerity.
This usually results in mass unrest across all the various classes in society. That includes some of the middle classes who also rely on exploitation to maintain their standard of living. In response to threat of social unrest, the wealthy usually align themselves with right wing authoritarians that claim to be able to bring order to the chaos and renew growth through imperial expansion. This kind of politics is often supported by some of the downwardly mobile middle classes. That’s how we get fascism.
If you have to defend Nazi’s because the SC will give them a more favorable decision then the legal system is already fucked beyond repair.
You’re incredibly gullible then. You literally think that a billionaire donating to a foundation that he still controls and operates counts as giving his money away.
The Gated foundation is a PR and lobbying machine that’s clearly done its job in your case.
Is there a difference between someone like Jeff bezos and Bill Gates though?
Yes, Bill Gates has better PR. That’s literally it. He’s not actually trying to do good at this stage in his life. It’s a testament to the power of his wealth that you think otherwise.
I would say not all millionaires are bad because not all of them gain their wealth through exploitive practices. Plenty of them are just retirees that have worked all their lives and shouldn’t have to work anymore anyways.
On the other hand, it’s literally impossible to become a billionaire without exploiting a truly absurd number of people. It’s that scale of exploitation that makes billionaires categorically a plague on society. If you can’t see that then you’re certainly not left leaning in any sense.
The funny thing is that even the Gates Foundation is actively causing harm on a massive scale. It’s funding charter schools as a way to kill public education, pushing for circumcision in Africa without a meaningful scientific basis for such a program, or lobbying against vaccine patent waivers. People forget about that because it also is the PR arm of the Gates empire.
No no, I think they mean the Bill gates that lobbied heavily to keep RNA vaccine technology private despite the fact that it was developed using public money and could save millions of lives.
Well Marx used the term “dictatorship of the proletariat” to describe how a transition would work in opposition to what he saw as the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”.
However, if you’re talking about people like Stalin or Mao, you’ll find self proclaimed communists with a wide variety of opinions on the subject. That’s in part because gets difficult to sort propaganda from the truth of the matter. I also mean both western and communist propaganda. To have a guy going by “Joe Steel” as the leader of your republic of socialist workers councils isn’t exactly a subtle attempt to get buy in from working class people.
Yes, most communists and especially Marxists believe communism must necessarily be fully democratic. It’s certainly true though that there is much debate about what types of democratic structures to use. Although most communists would probably agree that it would require a lot of trial and error to find an ideal system.
That said, communists generally seek to disenfranchise owners of capital from the decision making process up until the point they no longer exist as a class. Therefore in the transition to communism, full democracy may not be realized. This is the given reason for why Marxist Leninist countries generally suppress opposition parties but may allow for political affinity organizations around identity groups that suffer under capitalism, ie worker, youth, women’s organizations, etc.
He’s not a fascist but that doesn’t mean he’s really any better than one. The logic Biden is using to defend US support of genocide abroad is the same logic fascists use to oppress domestic populations. In either case, people are needlessly murdered. The only difference is where it’s taking place.
Communist theory explicitly tries to dispel the idea that political and economic structures are separate things. As such, communists intend to create democratic structures that can distribute resources in place of undemocratic market relationships which empower owners of capital.
Liberalism on the other hand believe that market relationships are inherently democratic. Therefore they may think that any attempt to replace them with a planned economy are undemocratic regardless of how such planning would be decided upon.
You’re right, nobody has ever cared about Marx. No communist revolutionaries anywhere have ever called themselves Marxists. If they did, then their projects must have surely collapsed by now. That’s because Marx was very clear that his political theories were not made to be adaptable or revisable based on new information and changing conditions. No, that would be far too scientific for someone we can agree was clearly an idealist.
This is under the assumption that there is a surplus in society that can satisfy the needs of everyone. Marx’s point is that technological development and industrialization could make this possible. As such, the need to motivate people to work harder is not necessary.
Prior to such a surplus existing, the distribution of goods would be more akin to “From each according to their ability, to each according their contribution”. That ensures people are motivated to maximize their productivity as long as that’s still necessary.
I think what people don’t fully understand is that Marxism is meant to be scientific. That means that there will likely be many imperfect and failed attempts at building a socialist society before one comes along that is stable enough to outlast outside interference from capitalist states.
As such, most people I know who like the USSR are also it’s biggest critiques. Unfortunately, there is so much misinformation about the USSR that most discussions about it online are just about delineating truth from propaganda.
Tell me you haven’t read Marx without telling me you haven’t read Marx.
Seriously though, Marx is like the guy you go read if you want a ruthless critique of idealism. I’d go so far as to say it’s the reason his theories became so popular in the first place.
The existence of state run social services and regulations does not mean a country is not fully capitalist if you’re using Marx’s understanding of what capitalism is. Additionally I think there is a misconception that communism depends on altruistic behavior. It really doesn’t.
Things got much worse for most citizens of the USSR after it collapsed and state industry was privatized. Life expectancy dropped pretty severely. It shouldn’t be surpassing that anyone who suffered under that economic collapse would tell you the USSR was better.
I think you’re confusing two different tendencies.
Small parties that do not have a social base can become insular. If they do not realize that their limitations are set by external factors they can turn inwards and become cult like. You see that a lot in Maoist groups in western countries where there is no peasant class their brand of politics can mobilize.
On the other hand successful socialist parties that come to take power end up having to defend it from various reactionary forces, both external and internal. Being put on the defensive causes these parties to seek resiliency through centralized decision making.
That said, I don’t think either of these tendencies are unique to Marxist parties. Also, Marxism is meant to be scientific so learning from past experiences is key to avoiding the mistakes of other Marxists.