I appreciate your apology, it does explain quite a few of what I percieved as erratic and irrational antagonisms. I will state that had you not come in, intentionally or not, by directly assaulting my character, I would have generally been far more charitable.
I know you said you don’t wish to reply, and if not that’s fine and I understand. However, given that we have clarified that the hostility in this conversation was based on a fundamental misunderstanding in tone and intent, why not talk about our ideas, like you said you wanted? We can start fresh.
What about our difference in opinion is so fundamental that we can’t come to some level of agreement? Again, I’ll state that, regardless of the actions of individual voters, whether or not these voters are mobilized in general depends most heavily on the campaigns run by the two parties. The changes in the 2024 Harris Campaign compared to the successful Biden 2020 campaign can at least be considered a large determining factor in the changes in voting sway, no?
Secondly, I do think it’s important to analyze if voting reform would actually meaningfully change society, and if it’s even feasible to achieve without revolution in the first place. Marxists have very good reasons to be revolutionary exclusively.
The only circumstance under which I would support a revolution is if the government simply ceases to function (which it may, now, under Trump - who knows? But I don’t wish to bank on that possibility, nor do I wish to cause a non-functioning government simply to justify a revolution; that’s no better than Republicans grinding everything to a standstill then claiming that their ability to do so is evidence that the government isn’t working.) The pragmatic stance is to vote for the better of the candidates who can reasonably win elections while directing effort towards changing the reasons why we only have two candidates to choose from.
Revolution that isn’t supported by the majority of people is simply imposing a viewpoint on people who do not want it, and even if it would ultimately be better for them in the long run, it’s no better than Christian Nationalists trying to impose their viewpoint on everyone else.
If it is supported by the majority of people, it should be able to be resolved via the democratic process. What’s stopping that right now is the two-party system that we’re stuck in, and that can’t be resolved without voting reform, so that’s where I’m choosing to direct my efforts. It’s not that it will single-handedly change society, but it’s the first step in a process that will, theoretically, allow new, more progressive and left-leaning parties to rise to relevance.
There have been multiple states that have had ranked-choice voting on their ballots (including mine), but they largely haven’t passed, so I would argue that yes, it is feasible to achieve it without revolution, but thus far it seems that people don’t understand why it’s needed (and therefore it’s a matter of getting the word out and raising awareness), or they simply disagree with it and want to maintain the status quo (and if that’s honestly the majority opinion, and it’s not just a perception or information problem, then so be it - that just means that we’re in a minority and we shouldn’t be forcing the majority to bend to our viewpoint any more than they should be forcing us to bend to theirs.).
Look, I think we agree on a lot of things. I support many socialist views; capitalism is an awful system, corporate greed and income inequality and money in politics are some of the biggest problems with society and some of the biggest inhibitors to change. However, I don’t think communism is a viable solution. In my opinion, the ideal solution would still allow accumulation of personal wealth, but would distribute wealth based on how much good a person has brought to society, rather than on how much of a sociopath they’re willing to be to get it. I believe most people are greedy and I believe most people are motivated by personal gain moreso than anything else. Not everyone, obviously, but most people, and I think the only way we’re going to get people to abandon the ‘Fuck you, got mine’ attitude is by rewarding behaviors we want to reinforce, which capitalism obviously does not do.
If we take your “revolution should only be supported if the government ceases to function” stance to its logical conclusion, that means you are against the American, French, Vietnamese, Cuban, Russian, and Chinese revolutions, right? Even if previous conditions were misery, because the government still functioned, they should have stuck with it? I don’t agree that the pragmatic stance is to continue voting democrat, because disparity is rising and Capitalism is crumbling. Democrats will not support policies that could endanger their own power, and that extends to Capitalists. I think you confuse “pragmatic” for “easy.”
Secondly, Marxists are revolutionary, not Blanquist. Revolution requires the support of the masses. Secondly, this revolutionary shift in power cannot be held at the ballot box, because the Capitalist State supports the bourgeoisie. The only candidates you can vote for and the only parties allowed anywhere near power are the ones that serve purely the interests of Capital. That’s why not only is voting reform extremely difficult to get, but also would not change the necessity of revolution.
Thirdly, on your analysis of why voting reform like RCV is not more widespread, it isn’t because it isn’t popular. RCV is a carrot on a string, too small in scale to ever impact anything, but just close enough that you have hope for it. Even insidiously, achieving RCV nationwide still won’t stop the inevitable crumbling of Capitalism! Many other nations have RCV and yet still have nothing but right-wing establishment parties in power, because RCV fundamentally doesn’t enact change, it just sounds like it could.
Fourth, you make no mention of how or why you believe Communism to be “unviable,” yet fully back a system where distribution is based on arbitrary “goodness” in society. Communists argue for practical, labor-time based economic planning that can be calculated, tracked, measured, and adjusted using real world technology, and moreso argue for doing so only in areas of industry that have already advanced to monopolist syndicates and can thus be centrally planned after being publicly owned. Where is this “goodness” you speak of calculated? By what measure?
Fifth, Humans are not inherently greedy, nor would that be a problem for Socialism and Communism in the first place. Rather, human ideas are shaped by their material conditions and their definite social relations, Capitalism highlights greed and rewards it more. The Base reinforces the Superstructure, ie the Mode of Production reinforces and projects the laws, culture, and values of society, which in turn reinforces the base, slightly changing each other over time as society develops and progresses. Humans will not appear so greedy in a publicly owned economy.
Ultimately, all of your criticisms of Communism are incredibly common for those who have not read theory, as all of the ones you raised specifically were already answered over a hundred years ago. More questions have been raised since then, of course, but I think you would gain a ton from reading the theory list I made, some highlights that directly answer your questions are:
Reform or Revolution
Wage Labor and Capital and Wages, Price and Profit
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
The Principles of Communism
The State and Revolution
And as an added measure that isn’t in my reading list, Prices in a Planned Economy for more information on what Marxists advocate for with respect to how to economically plan.
I think it’s almost amazing how you were able to touch on many different common areas that have been thoroughly answered by Marxists over the years quite definitively, and I mean no offense by that. I really do recommend you give it a try.
I appreciate your apology, it does explain quite a few of what I percieved as erratic and irrational antagonisms. I will state that had you not come in, intentionally or not, by directly assaulting my character, I would have generally been far more charitable.
I know you said you don’t wish to reply, and if not that’s fine and I understand. However, given that we have clarified that the hostility in this conversation was based on a fundamental misunderstanding in tone and intent, why not talk about our ideas, like you said you wanted? We can start fresh.
What about our difference in opinion is so fundamental that we can’t come to some level of agreement? Again, I’ll state that, regardless of the actions of individual voters, whether or not these voters are mobilized in general depends most heavily on the campaigns run by the two parties. The changes in the 2024 Harris Campaign compared to the successful Biden 2020 campaign can at least be considered a large determining factor in the changes in voting sway, no?
Secondly, I do think it’s important to analyze if voting reform would actually meaningfully change society, and if it’s even feasible to achieve without revolution in the first place. Marxists have very good reasons to be revolutionary exclusively.
The only circumstance under which I would support a revolution is if the government simply ceases to function (which it may, now, under Trump - who knows? But I don’t wish to bank on that possibility, nor do I wish to cause a non-functioning government simply to justify a revolution; that’s no better than Republicans grinding everything to a standstill then claiming that their ability to do so is evidence that the government isn’t working.) The pragmatic stance is to vote for the better of the candidates who can reasonably win elections while directing effort towards changing the reasons why we only have two candidates to choose from.
Revolution that isn’t supported by the majority of people is simply imposing a viewpoint on people who do not want it, and even if it would ultimately be better for them in the long run, it’s no better than Christian Nationalists trying to impose their viewpoint on everyone else.
If it is supported by the majority of people, it should be able to be resolved via the democratic process. What’s stopping that right now is the two-party system that we’re stuck in, and that can’t be resolved without voting reform, so that’s where I’m choosing to direct my efforts. It’s not that it will single-handedly change society, but it’s the first step in a process that will, theoretically, allow new, more progressive and left-leaning parties to rise to relevance.
There have been multiple states that have had ranked-choice voting on their ballots (including mine), but they largely haven’t passed, so I would argue that yes, it is feasible to achieve it without revolution, but thus far it seems that people don’t understand why it’s needed (and therefore it’s a matter of getting the word out and raising awareness), or they simply disagree with it and want to maintain the status quo (and if that’s honestly the majority opinion, and it’s not just a perception or information problem, then so be it - that just means that we’re in a minority and we shouldn’t be forcing the majority to bend to our viewpoint any more than they should be forcing us to bend to theirs.).
Look, I think we agree on a lot of things. I support many socialist views; capitalism is an awful system, corporate greed and income inequality and money in politics are some of the biggest problems with society and some of the biggest inhibitors to change. However, I don’t think communism is a viable solution. In my opinion, the ideal solution would still allow accumulation of personal wealth, but would distribute wealth based on how much good a person has brought to society, rather than on how much of a sociopath they’re willing to be to get it. I believe most people are greedy and I believe most people are motivated by personal gain moreso than anything else. Not everyone, obviously, but most people, and I think the only way we’re going to get people to abandon the ‘Fuck you, got mine’ attitude is by rewarding behaviors we want to reinforce, which capitalism obviously does not do.
If we take your “revolution should only be supported if the government ceases to function” stance to its logical conclusion, that means you are against the American, French, Vietnamese, Cuban, Russian, and Chinese revolutions, right? Even if previous conditions were misery, because the government still functioned, they should have stuck with it? I don’t agree that the pragmatic stance is to continue voting democrat, because disparity is rising and Capitalism is crumbling. Democrats will not support policies that could endanger their own power, and that extends to Capitalists. I think you confuse “pragmatic” for “easy.”
Secondly, Marxists are revolutionary, not Blanquist. Revolution requires the support of the masses. Secondly, this revolutionary shift in power cannot be held at the ballot box, because the Capitalist State supports the bourgeoisie. The only candidates you can vote for and the only parties allowed anywhere near power are the ones that serve purely the interests of Capital. That’s why not only is voting reform extremely difficult to get, but also would not change the necessity of revolution.
Thirdly, on your analysis of why voting reform like RCV is not more widespread, it isn’t because it isn’t popular. RCV is a carrot on a string, too small in scale to ever impact anything, but just close enough that you have hope for it. Even insidiously, achieving RCV nationwide still won’t stop the inevitable crumbling of Capitalism! Many other nations have RCV and yet still have nothing but right-wing establishment parties in power, because RCV fundamentally doesn’t enact change, it just sounds like it could.
Fourth, you make no mention of how or why you believe Communism to be “unviable,” yet fully back a system where distribution is based on arbitrary “goodness” in society. Communists argue for practical, labor-time based economic planning that can be calculated, tracked, measured, and adjusted using real world technology, and moreso argue for doing so only in areas of industry that have already advanced to monopolist syndicates and can thus be centrally planned after being publicly owned. Where is this “goodness” you speak of calculated? By what measure?
Fifth, Humans are not inherently greedy, nor would that be a problem for Socialism and Communism in the first place. Rather, human ideas are shaped by their material conditions and their definite social relations, Capitalism highlights greed and rewards it more. The Base reinforces the Superstructure, ie the Mode of Production reinforces and projects the laws, culture, and values of society, which in turn reinforces the base, slightly changing each other over time as society develops and progresses. Humans will not appear so greedy in a publicly owned economy.
Ultimately, all of your criticisms of Communism are incredibly common for those who have not read theory, as all of the ones you raised specifically were already answered over a hundred years ago. More questions have been raised since then, of course, but I think you would gain a ton from reading the theory list I made, some highlights that directly answer your questions are:
Reform or Revolution
Wage Labor and Capital and Wages, Price and Profit
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
The Principles of Communism
The State and Revolution
And as an added measure that isn’t in my reading list, Prices in a Planned Economy for more information on what Marxists advocate for with respect to how to economically plan.
I think it’s almost amazing how you were able to touch on many different common areas that have been thoroughly answered by Marxists over the years quite definitively, and I mean no offense by that. I really do recommend you give it a try.