116
Communism is when there is justice for everyone (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/comics@lemmy.ml
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago* (6 children)

Oppression by the state is what I mean. The bourgeoisie are specifically that class that earns its income through the M-C-M' circuit of capitalist production. This class will still exist in socialism, it existed in limited factors in the Soviet Union, exists in the modern PRC, Cuba, etc. However, the existence of private property does not mean the bourgeoisie has control of the state. What matters is which class controls the principle aspects of the economy, the large firms and key industries. In the PRC, for example, those are overwhelmingly publicly owned and planned, even if there exists a bourgeoisie, and as a consequence the bourgeoisie is subordinate to the state and not above it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    But, and maybe this is a semantics argument then, I don't think we are in agreement by what oppression means. I'm just using the google definition. Are you using a different definition that makes more sense in the context of theory/academic circles? I am a layman, after all

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    I'm using it in the same way you likely are, I just think we have a different conception of how the state behaves. Essentially, depending on which aspect of the economy is principle, as well as who is in charge of the state, will determine which class is going to be represented by the state in disputes among classes.

    In an economy dominated by private property and a bourgeois state, there is no real democracy for the proletariat. The state is fully under the control of the bourgeoisie.

    In an economy dominated by public property and a proletarian state, the proletariat is in charge of where the economy is headed. The proletariat can sieze bourgeois property if it so chooses, the state can support labor unions, etc.

    This is because whoever controls the large firms and key industries controls the economy in total, as all depending factors rely on them. As small and medium firms grow, the proletariat can fold them into the public sector, as market mechanics cease to be as effective and central planning becomes far more efficient.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Okay, so what I'm saying is that the definition I'm reading cites "injustice" and "cruelty" as prerequisites.

    "prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control" (oxford)

    "the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control" (oxford)

    "mental pressure or distress" (oxford- but this is the third definition and seems like a much more general word that isn't really useful in these conversations when trying to define systems)

    "unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power" (merriam-webster)

    Merriam-webster then also has 2 more definitions similar to the oxford counterparts.

    "a situation in which people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom" (Cambridge)

    I stopped looking after that, but I think that's fair, no? So then if we DO agree about these definitions, do you really consider it cruel or unjust towards the hoarders of capital?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don't think it's "cruel" or "unjust," all it means is that freedom for the bourgeousie will be curtailed, speech will be restricted, and influence will be limited, rather than the proletariat which is oppressed by capitalist states. It's a flipping of the dictatorship of the bourgeousie to the dictatorship of the proletariat, ie the proletariat will have the political power, and the bourgeoisie will have little to none.

    I'm a communist, for clarity, I don't say this as a knock on socialism and communism. I think you're putting more of a moral spin on it than a materialist spin.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Okay, I want to dicuss this more later. It's interesting to me to think about something as taboo as limiting free speech, but I get what you mean. The power the bourgeoisie have to control the news and media and therefore public opinion is crazy. My first thought was limiting their twitter usage, which I do think would be wrong. But limiting their ability to manipulate twitter with money or other, similar tactics would fall under the same umbrella. (Hopefully Ninja edit: but should be prevented, I mean! They shouldn't be allowed to use their wealth to influence. But I don't think their literal speech should be restricted! Unless they break the rules or something and get banned or something ykwim)

    I know, I see the .ml 🀣

    I think the morals of it are important for the sake of optics in the least. If oppression implies a cruelty and injustice (at the very least in some minds, mine included, and probably most people given the dictionaries I read/bing search results) which is not associated with the movement, it might be better to not use those words. Fair?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    As far as optics are concerned, it's important to be honest. As Marx himself stated, when our times come we will not make excuses for the terror. That means not trying to "prettify" the task of revolution, revolution isn't a tea party. The tools the bourgeoisie uses to manipulate and control society in capitalism will be stripped from them and placed in the hands of the proletariat, and bourgeois property will be gradually taken from them. By rights, this is just, but it is also "authoritarian," or "oppressive." Nevertheless, this task must be done, and taken seriously, lest we fall to counter-revolution. At the same time, this will create genuine democracy for the proletariat.

    We can continue as much as you want!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent