partial_accumen comments on They don't need you to be pro-fascism, just anti-communist

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago* (2 children)

Regarding freedom of speech, Marx observed that there is no such thing as freedom of speech in class society.

I already replied to this and you are apparently ignoring Marx was speaking of a historical point in time. Not an on-going directive of state sponsored suppression of voices.

Socialism is necessarily still within class society, and ergo capitalists must be oppressed by the state, lest they overturn it. In communism, there can be actual freedom of speech, because by that point class has been eradicated. Marx fully aligns with my analysis of class society, this is part of the theory of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” of the proletariat as the masters of society.

Again, Marx and others said the "dictatorship of the proletariat" temporary state to enact a change, not a permanent state of repression of the people. Marx and Engels said they recognize the need for "revolutionary Provisorium" a temporary, extralegal period following a revolution against the old ruling class. TEMPORARY.

The same applies to assembly and association. The working classes should be able to do so as a class. Capitalists should not be able to do so, nor should those that work against the interests of the working class.

This is so much worse than I'd imagined a take on Marx's work. This is a twisting of the words and ideas. I'm horrified that someone that identifies themselves so strongly as a socialist champions this dark version.

Earlier you said you identify as a tankie. I agree with you that you are, and you fully meet my definition of one too. I had always wondered where the strong support for authoritarianism came from from tankies. I have a much better understanding now. Its the narrow reading of steps needed to enact change twisted into a permanent state of revolution resulting in the permanent suspension of civil liberties leaving only enough room for a single group think lest the state come down for saying otherwise.

This has been a very enlightening conversation. I'm rattled by this and am concerned about how this authoritarian reading would influence otherwise progressive Marxian socialist implementations in the future. I do thank you for taking the time to talk to me and share you views, but frankly they're terrifying.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

Marx indeed was responding to a historical point in time: class society. You are confusing socialism with the abolition of class, and therefore arguing against the dictatorship of the proletariat and for a "state of all classes," a class collaborationist take that goes directly against Marx.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is indeed temporary, it lasts precisely as long as class society exists, and class society exists as long as there is production and distribution that is not yet collectivized globally, and still longer than that. It is not a "permanent repression of the people," but a temporary repression of capitalists and reactionaries. Again, you reveal your class collaborationist reading of socialism by pretending it's the people repressed by socialism, and not the capitalist class.

The removal of "civil liberties" applies specifically to the capitalist class and those that oppose the working classes. Just like those civil liberties are de facto removed from the working class in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, so too are they removed from the bourgeoisie in the dictatorship of the proletariat. No society is permanent or static, this is a fundamental law of dialectical and historical materialism.

I'm honestly confused by how someone could take away such a class collaborationist reading of Marx and shudder at opposition to the bourgeoisie having any political power. If you think oppressing the bourgeoisie is terrifying, and democratizing society for the people is terrifying, I'm confused at how you could consider yourself a socialist at all.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[+] partial_accumen@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 weeks ago

Rule 3 is as follows:

No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, anti-communism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.

Class collaborationism is liberalism, not Marxism. Rejecting the Marxist theory of the state as a dictatorship of the ruling class of society, be it workers or an owner class, is liberalism, not Marxism. The mod removed you correctly. Marx would not support your distortions of his theories in order to cry crocodile tears for the bourgeoisie that is stripped of their ability to organize against socialism, nor your feigned fear of the most basic Marxist analysis I gave earlier.

Trying to draw a historical analogy to when Marx was censored by the capitalist state when you yourself are vulgarizing Marxism in a socialist community is a bit silly. Censorship was never the problem, it was the class that held the power of censorship, the capitalist class. The moderators here are not capitalists, nor do they represent the capitalist class. You were removed by a worker for violating the rules of the comm.

We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.

Karl Marx

Marx clearly knew what the stakes in building socialism were. He knew that just as capitalists are the dictators of capitalism, so too will working people be the dictators of socialism. The bourgeoisie should never be allowed to form coherent political power in socialism. That does not mean we have to be cartoonishly evil or anything towards them, just that we have a historic duty to prevent them from regaining control by any means necessary to do so.