Nothing of that changes that calling Marxism „the one and only true/base communism“ is ridiculously wrong on several levels and absolutely not helpful for an „ELI5“ on communism.

And if you’re so concerned about leftist infighting you might just stop acting like there was an apodictic definition, that would certainly help. Someone already pointed out the irony to you hours ago, it seems you still haven’t realized that.

[–] Atheran@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's also not what I said, that Marxism is the one and only true communism. The fuck is that supposed to mean in the first place. For someone so intent on digging relics and using big words, you either can't read or refuse to do so. He asked what communism is, I mentioned Marx. Go ahead and mention Aristotle for all I care. Hell I didn't even mention Marx until you answered me.

As for the infighting you're the one with your knickers in a bunch because I answered Marx. I am not fighting anyone and the two people that disagreed with me, it was polite and we reached an understanding while in disagreement. You on the other hand put on a great show of that infighting. I'm done with that charade. Have a good day.

And the fact that you don't consider communism partly an economic system is baffling. From Marx onwards the entire idea of socialism and communism is based on the Capital.

[–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That’s also not what I said, that Marxism is the one and only true communism.

But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.

🥱

And the fact that you don’t consider communism partly an economic system is baffling

It’s rather baffling that you, considering orthodox Marxism „true communism“, would think that. What kind of „economic system“ did Marx promote? And where do I find that in the Manifest?

Are you referring to central planning? That’s a feature of Soviet style communism, it was invented at the beginning of the 20th century.

As a matter of fact, Marx actually had little to say about how a post-capitalist society should actually look like, besides some commonplace quotes like „production organized on the basis of common ownership by the nation of all means of production“, which is neither original nor chiefly communist.

describe a full featured system that covered it all

Yeah, and do you know what the system Marx wrote about was? It was capitalist society. Marx was an analyst.

If you knew what Marx actually wrote and thought, you’d find that he was heavily influenced by classic economists like Adam Smith and was rather fond of free trade (as were his peers).

Also you’re completely wrong about:

You can’t apply communist economic system principles to the capitalist market.

Again, you would need to specify what exactly you mean, but there’s not much that hasn‘t existed short of taking full control of the market. Pre-neoliberal Europe was quite heavily invested in state owned companies and production, France had for most of the post-war era what can be classified as centrally planned economy.

You on the other hand put on a great show of that infighting.

Another mistake you make: I’m not infighting. I’m merely calling out the bullshit you hand out as „ELI5“, because quite frankly you haven’t got the faintest clue about what you call „base or true communism“ in the first place.

G‘day.

[–] Atheran@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That only tells me that you're scouring Wikipedia and the Internet for surface reading to be feeding your imaginary conflict.

Marx supported free trade. That's true. Why? Because it would hasten the economic imbalance between the classes and help create a revolution. No, he was not Ben Shapiro of the 19th century. He thought that things must get worse before they get better and that free trade would make them worse.

You also mention how he was heavily influenced by Adam Smith. He critiqued him heavily in both Das Capital and the Theories of Surplus Value.

That's like saying Engels was a fan of Duhring because he wrote a doorstopper called Anti-Duhring. That's plain wrong and trying to murk the waters.

As for the central planning it was first established as a method from planned economy in social states by the Soviet Union, that's true. But its theoretical basis stems from Marx's work and words. “To my mind, the so-called ‘socialist society’ is not anything immutable… It’s crucial difference from the present order consists naturally in production organized on the basis of common ownership by the nation of all means of production.” that sounds familiar? Written in Marx's letters in 1890.

But no, I was not referring to central planning, but the abolishment of capitalist goals as surplus value, profit driven economy etc, that are most definitely based on his works. Yes, he was not the first to propose that "Oy, killing miners for scraps is bad and you're bad for doing it." but nobody before (to my knowledge) had done such an extensive work on the downfalls of capitalist economy and how something else could even be planned or work.

I'm getting tired of you using catchy article headlines and wiki skims to prove me wrong because you don't like Marx. In fact, I don't care if you do or not, or what type of communism you prefer. But stop spreading lies for the people that are not familiar with the subject.

In fact, I don't even care much about Marx. Of the big ones to speak on socialism/communism, I much prefer Engel's more philosophical approach than Marx's economic analysis. I find the analysis boring.

[–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, just to let you know before I block you utter , I was reading Marx when you were just a wet spot, and I actually do happen to „like“ him. But funny that you only now come quoting him, after I handed you half of the exact quote you’re giving. But I’m the one scouring Wikipedia 😂

[–] Atheran@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Resorting to personal attacks. Typical. Way to come up on top in an argument. Attack the person, not the argument.

And I don't. Give me philosophy over economics any time. That doesn't mean I don't see his value. And how comes you're still confused after giving me the quote already?