Removed by mod
What communism is not and what it is
Removed by modCommunism is not when the workers own the means of production or capital (Anarchosyndicalism, Market socialism, mutualism)
Communism is not when the state owns all capital (USSR, Cuba, NK, ML in general)
Communism isnt about building productive forces for some alleged future socialism (China, Vietnam, Dengism)
Communism is not about acheiveing "real democracy" (Anarchism, autonomism. libertarianism)
“Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.” ― Karl Marx
The present state of things are - the existence of the value-form, commodities and their exchange, wage-labor, private property : all of which are interlinked and cannot be abolished piecemeal. These are the categories that actually describe capitalism, this was what Marx uncovered.
The elimination of these things does not occur by imagining their replacement and working towards an ideal imagined society, but by working on the present premises. It is a movement, and the truths of the next society is uncovered by the movement itself, i.e. the knowledge of the concrete aspects of communism is discovered in practice.
Until there exists a movement, it is fruitless to engage in utopian theorizing and prattling about action or activism. The movement must arise from the working class itself and only itself, as it becomes conscious of itself and actively works to abolish not just the capitalist class but also itself.
Movements by working class people to reform capitalism, such as the DSA, most trade union activity, electoralism, "anti-imperialism" a.k.a allying with local bourgs against international bourgs, and all other such activity is not revolutionary and communists do not want anything to do with it.
It is true that truly revolutionary working class people are a tiny minority, and don't exist as a real movement anywhere in the world, but this doesnt mean that communists dilute their concrete goals and their theory to appeal to the masses. In this sense, we are anti-democratic and "authoritarian".
I've written all this because one of the principles communists have is they "disdain to conceal their views and aims". As unpopular as these views may be among leftists (which communists are not), they are nevertheless our actual views and principles that will not be changed.
You're really not if you disagree with the original post.
And?
Nothing, just wanted to mention it. It's good that you accept it, there are far too many anti-Marxist socialists masquerading as Marxists, and they misrepresent the actual views of Marxists.
I didn't accept any of your premises. Nice try though.
People have already addressed why your post isn't quite right. You haven't responded to them yet you keep replying to anyone else so I assume you're avoiding having a real conversation. Which shows that you're in it for the posting, not the theory. This means we don't have to take you seriously.
You obviously take these categories and labels quite seriously. You're broadcasting your insecurity about being a good Marxist by trying to project it onto everyone else. You act as if we should be deeply ashamed of not being a real Marxist and that if we don't agree with you we should stop calling ourselves that. But nothing is right, there are no actual consequences for crossing that line. Other than you just keep telling us we're not real Marxists. But we all don't have that insecurity about our posting. When you come across people not taking you seriously, you just keep doubling down and making the same accusations. Nobody cares.
Ultimately your goal is to make a big list of who's a good Marxist and who's a bad Marxist. If you're the one at the center of the discourse defining who's good and bad, then you can put yourself at the top of the good side. You can be the one true Marxist. Putting this much importance in deciding who's good or bad for responding to your posts isn't communism. It will never be communism. It has nothing to do with Marxism. It's you seeking validation. This is just a "be nice to me online or you're a bad Marxist" pathology.
So, once again, I am asking you to explain why this matters and why I should care and feel bad about not being in your special communism club.
You just disagreed with the original post, which outline the basic principles of communism. It's not complicated. My goal here is to explain our views and aims, that's all. I'm not going to tell you why you should care or feel bad, I'm simply stating facts. It is you who is bothered by these facts and asking for validation.
No it's your interpretation of what you think the principles are and you're applying them to the rest of us mainly against our will based on your whims such as "If you disagree with my post you're not a real Marxist." Your interpretations aren't facts. You should know the difference if you're trying to delve into theory. Definitely know the difference before you start dictating what everyone else is.
No really, re-read the Manifesto. It's written in plain english. There is an entire section which is a polemic against other socialists.
The Manifesto isn't your posts. There is a difference between the writings of Karl Marx and the posts you make commenting on his writings. You're saying that people who disagree with your posts are disagreeing with Marx. You and Marx aren't the same thing. Putting a quote in your post doesn't mean you're saying exactly what he said or that you're even understanding what he said. People have already pointed that out to you and you ignored it.
I'm going to stop replying now. I made my point. The thread has been removed anyways.
Show me a single quote by Marx where he disagrees with what I wrote in my original post.
deleted by creator
Yeah if you disagree with what Marx said, you're probably not a Marxist.
Are you Marx? Because that's the only way that disagreeing with this post is "disagreeing with Marx."
People are disagreeing with your interpretation of Marx, ya dingus.
What part of the original post do you disagree with?
Holy shit, get over yourself, dude.
That's what I'm trying to say. I don't give a shit about your OP.
So you dont give a shit about my OP but also it is a wrong interpretation of Marx? Try not to cop out and answer my question.