The Six Nations have been using a form of communism, not Marxism, for somewhere between 15,000 to 25,000 years. Works pretty well for them. Aboriginal Australians have done the same for roughly 60,000 years.
Sure, they had what Marxists call “primitive communism,” but they don’t now. They’re as captured by capitalism as we.
I’d say capitalism is the short lived and failed economic system, considering that it’s about 400 years old and rapidly failing.
I doubt it will fall on its own any time soon, especially if no one builds something to replace it.
“Primitive communism” is a derogatory term with racist undertones. The dismissiveness towards existing methods of collectivism is IMO one of the biggest flaws of Marxist theory. The establishment of an intelligentsia is an idea rooted in this paternalistic arrogance. If Marx had acknowledged the Russian peasantry as an important political class the Russian revolution might have gone very differently.
“Primitive communism” is a derogatory term with racist undertones.
I suppose it is a problem, thanks to “primitive” often meaning “subhuman.” It’s not that the people were primitive, but the pre-capitalist & pre-industrial-revolution means of production.
It isn’t just the wording that’s problematic, it’s the way Marx was dismissive towards the existing methods of collectivism and horizontal organizing. Yes, subsistence farming is a “primitive” mode of production, but the way peasants and indigenous people organized and collectivized resources is not irrelevant to modern industrial modes of production. Marx dismissed the way peasants and indigenous people collectivized resources as “primitive” and argued in favor of centralized power structures. I believe this to be a mistake.
As I said, no such organizing has successfully fended off capitalism for more than a few months, not in the last 150 years. It could work, under some sort of ideal conditions, but not under the material conditions of contemporary history.
It baffles me that marxists will dismiss anarchist ideas using the exact same talking points that liberals use to dismiss communism.
Communism also failed to fend off capitalism - and before you say b-but actually the USSR lasted a really long time, ask yourself if the USSR at any point actually lived up to the ideals of the revolution. We should be focusing on finding new solutions that work, and being dismissive of anarchist ideas doesn’t help.
That is true: in quite a few cases—most in fact—it only lasted about 70 years. Cuba has lasted about that long and is still standing, and China even longer. Vietnam, North Korea, and Laos are also still standing.
Fending off imperialism, “the highest stage of capitalism,” is no mean feat. They’ll do almost everything in their power to crush socialism. The imperial core countries are in decline right now, so it may get easier should the trend continue. They’ve significantly deindustrialized themselves, and they’re losing their grip on the periphery states.
We should be focusing on finding new solutions that work
Sure, but no other solutions have worked so far.
being dismissive of anarchist ideas doesn’t help
I mean, show us a win and you’ll have our attention, otherwise I don’t see why we shouldn’t be dismissive. Seize the state and fend off imperialist forces for an appreciable length of time through horizontal organizing.
Communism also failed to fend off capitalism - and before you say b-but actually the USSR lasted a really long time,
The USSR being couped didn’t stop it from sponsoring revolutionary movements around the globe until the coup. The US still hasn’t defeated places like Cuba. In this sense the project still lives on.
ask yourself if the USSR at any point actually lived up to the ideals of the revolution.
This is one of the tests of reading Marx, somehow it’s nearly always evident if someone use the term “primitive” about level of development or is just spewing racism. Problem is that liberals, ultras and such cannot differentiate between the two, but i guess it’s their problem.
I dissuade Party members from putting down people who do not understand. Even people who are unenlightened and seemingly bourgeois should be answered in a polite way. Things should be explained to them as fully as possible. I was turned off by a person who did not want to talk to me because I was not important enough. Maurice just wanted to preach to the converted, who already agreed with him. I try to be cordial, because that way you win people over. You cannot win them over by drawing the line of demarcation, saying you are on this side and I am on the other; that shows a lack of consciousness. After the Black Panther Party was formed, I nearly fell into this error. I could not understand why people were blind to what I saw so clearly. Then I realized that their understanding had to be developed.
You know this meme ain’t what you think it is, when you notice what Huey holds in his hands while correctly talking to libs.
And even without it, it still isn’t this case, i’m perfectly ok to explain the definition when question arise. I’m not ok to stop using marxist vocabulary to explain marxism.
Sure, they had what Marxists call “primitive communism,” but they don’t now. They’re as captured by capitalism as we.
I doubt it will fall on its own any time soon, especially if no one builds something to replace it.
“Primitive communism” is a derogatory term with racist undertones. The dismissiveness towards existing methods of collectivism is IMO one of the biggest flaws of Marxist theory. The establishment of an intelligentsia is an idea rooted in this paternalistic arrogance. If Marx had acknowledged the Russian peasantry as an important political class the Russian revolution might have gone very differently.
I suppose it is a problem, thanks to “primitive” often meaning “subhuman.” It’s not that the people were primitive, but the pre-capitalist & pre-industrial-revolution means of production.
It isn’t just the wording that’s problematic, it’s the way Marx was dismissive towards the existing methods of collectivism and horizontal organizing. Yes, subsistence farming is a “primitive” mode of production, but the way peasants and indigenous people organized and collectivized resources is not irrelevant to modern industrial modes of production. Marx dismissed the way peasants and indigenous people collectivized resources as “primitive” and argued in favor of centralized power structures. I believe this to be a mistake.
As I said, no such organizing has successfully fended off capitalism for more than a few months, not in the last 150 years. It could work, under some sort of ideal conditions, but not under the material conditions of contemporary history.
It baffles me that marxists will dismiss anarchist ideas using the exact same talking points that liberals use to dismiss communism.
Communism also failed to fend off capitalism - and before you say b-but actually the USSR lasted a really long time, ask yourself if the USSR at any point actually lived up to the ideals of the revolution. We should be focusing on finding new solutions that work, and being dismissive of anarchist ideas doesn’t help.
That is true: in quite a few cases—most in fact—it only lasted about 70 years. Cuba has lasted about that long and is still standing, and China even longer. Vietnam, North Korea, and Laos are also still standing.
Fending off imperialism, “the highest stage of capitalism,” is no mean feat. They’ll do almost everything in their power to crush socialism. The imperial core countries are in decline right now, so it may get easier should the trend continue. They’ve significantly deindustrialized themselves, and they’re losing their grip on the periphery states.
Sure, but no other solutions have worked so far.
I mean, show us a win and you’ll have our attention, otherwise I don’t see why we shouldn’t be dismissive. Seize the state and fend off imperialist forces for an appreciable length of time through horizontal organizing.
The USSR being couped didn’t stop it from sponsoring revolutionary movements around the globe until the coup. The US still hasn’t defeated places like Cuba. In this sense the project still lives on.
Yes, in many ways. In some ways it did not.
This is one of the tests of reading Marx, somehow it’s nearly always evident if someone use the term “primitive” about level of development or is just spewing racism. Problem is that liberals, ultras and such cannot differentiate between the two, but i guess it’s their problem.
Man I wish.
You know this meme ain’t what you think it is, when you notice what Huey holds in his hands while correctly talking to libs.
And even without it, it still isn’t this case, i’m perfectly ok to explain the definition when question arise. I’m not ok to stop using marxist vocabulary to explain marxism.