Late-Stage Communism must be global, so no, it hasn’t existed yet. The USSR and PRC are examples of Socialist countries governed by Communist parties trying to bring about Communism.
For about 30 years from around 1950 the American government believed communism was so liable to spread that their only option for maintaining a capitalist world hegemony was direct intervention in communist countries and countries with strong communist movements. See: domino theory. They even worried about it domestically which was part of the motivation for McCarthyism.
The contradictions of capitalism are universal and inherent to the system. Much the contrary, as soon as the major seats of global financial capital are defeated I don’t see why the unwashed masses of the world would wait very long to seize power. As the system currently stands, comprador colonial governments only maintain stability because they can buy weapons and maintain large armies thanks to the imperialist powers.
If by Imperialism you mean millitant expansionism, no. If by Imperialism you mean the form of economic extraction practiced by countries like the US, also no. The basis for the abolition of borders isn’t one of legalistic matters, but economic redundancy. Borders become more and more unnecessary in more and more interconnected economies, and even become a barrier on progress, ergo they will wither over time much the same way the state would.
It’s an ideological competition between different ways of organizing society. We have a western model of capitalist organization and the socialist model advanced by China. The western model is visibly failing in every regard right now, so there is every reason to expect that more and more countries will look to Chinese model as a result.
There won’t be a moment where the “abolish capitalism and the state” button is pressed. That’s not how these things works. They are intractable society wide slow changes like a glacier that move slow but cannot be stopped. Was there a moment where feudal kings pressed the “abolish feudalism” button and the rich became the new rulers? No, it was a hundreds year long process of lurching progress
The abolition of the state isn’t a legalistic choice, but a result of the abolition of class. The abolition of class is an economic result, not a legalistic choice either.
I think you’re confusing the state with all government and structure, which isn’t what Marxists are talking about when we speak of the withering of the state.
Also I read some of your other link as well, but it went into tangents about elite friend groups and while it was interesting I felt like watching one of those 2 hour videos about speedrunning where you get a huge infodump but are not sure what to take away from it.
Not exactly. The economic foundations for the abolition of class are in the increasing socialization of production and the decay of market forces lending themselves to collective planning and cooperative functions. That’s the extreme oversimplification, but as these classes fade away so too do the mechanisms of enforcing them via the state. In China’s case, as long as they continue to combat corruption and focus on developing the productive forces, they will regularly develop further along the Socialist road, erasing the contradictions remaining from Capitalism until Communism is achieved globally.
As for the Tyranny of Structurelessness, it’s about why formalizing structures is necessary. I brought it up specifically in the context of vanguardism, the implication being that formalizing a vanguard is better than letting informal elites guide a movement without democratic structures in place.
People will always want more, Communism isn’t a vow of poverty, it readily acknowledges that production will continue to improve when Humanity has become Capital’s master, rather than its slave.
There’s something qualitatively different between the poor man’s desire for money and the rich man’s desire for money. The poor man has a functional, material desire for money that arises from his physiological needs. Through a dialectical process, money (and commodities more broadly) has gone from an intermediate that is used to satisfy needs, use value, into an end in and of itself. The ideological fetishization of money is what leads to the rich man desiring more money, and the fact that capital exists as a means to do so is what allows the lifestyle of endless greed to even exist. Acquiring capital and living in service of that capital, with the goal of making it multiply further, is what drives the capitalists.
Therefore, what is needed to abolish both of their enslavements is to kill both their masters, who is one and the same, and is called capital.
Late-Stage Communism must be global, so no, it hasn’t existed yet. The USSR and PRC are examples of Socialist countries governed by Communist parties trying to bring about Communism.
Does a global expansion require imperialism? Getting the entire world to sign up before dissolving sounds pretty mission impossible.
For about 30 years from around 1950 the American government believed communism was so liable to spread that their only option for maintaining a capitalist world hegemony was direct intervention in communist countries and countries with strong communist movements. See: domino theory. They even worried about it domestically which was part of the motivation for McCarthyism.
Spreading revolution is not imperialism. Imperialism isn’t just “when I invade another country” it has a specific economic meaning
The contradictions of capitalism are universal and inherent to the system. Much the contrary, as soon as the major seats of global financial capital are defeated I don’t see why the unwashed masses of the world would wait very long to seize power. As the system currently stands, comprador colonial governments only maintain stability because they can buy weapons and maintain large armies thanks to the imperialist powers.
If by Imperialism you mean millitant expansionism, no. If by Imperialism you mean the form of economic extraction practiced by countries like the US, also no. The basis for the abolition of borders isn’t one of legalistic matters, but economic redundancy. Borders become more and more unnecessary in more and more interconnected economies, and even become a barrier on progress, ergo they will wither over time much the same way the state would.
It’s an ideological competition between different ways of organizing society. We have a western model of capitalist organization and the socialist model advanced by China. The western model is visibly failing in every regard right now, so there is every reason to expect that more and more countries will look to Chinese model as a result.
I feel like the Chinese model is already way too far into pragmatism to ever idealistically flip the switch to abolishing their state at the endgame.
There won’t be a moment where the “abolish capitalism and the state” button is pressed. That’s not how these things works. They are intractable society wide slow changes like a glacier that move slow but cannot be stopped. Was there a moment where feudal kings pressed the “abolish feudalism” button and the rich became the new rulers? No, it was a hundreds year long process of lurching progress
The abolition of the state isn’t a legalistic choice, but a result of the abolition of class. The abolition of class is an economic result, not a legalistic choice either.
I think you’re confusing the state with all government and structure, which isn’t what Marxists are talking about when we speak of the withering of the state.
So if everyone gets rich we have Communism?
Also I read some of your other link as well, but it went into tangents about elite friend groups and while it was interesting I felt like watching one of those 2 hour videos about speedrunning where you get a huge infodump but are not sure what to take away from it.
More developed and socialized productive forces = less scarcity = less need to use the state to enforce some kind of order = classes wither away
Love the difference in style between our answers, lmao. I like yours more!
STEM nerds vs humanities nerds
Not exactly. The economic foundations for the abolition of class are in the increasing socialization of production and the decay of market forces lending themselves to collective planning and cooperative functions. That’s the extreme oversimplification, but as these classes fade away so too do the mechanisms of enforcing them via the state. In China’s case, as long as they continue to combat corruption and focus on developing the productive forces, they will regularly develop further along the Socialist road, erasing the contradictions remaining from Capitalism until Communism is achieved globally.
As for the Tyranny of Structurelessness, it’s about why formalizing structures is necessary. I brought it up specifically in the context of vanguardism, the implication being that formalizing a vanguard is better than letting informal elites guide a movement without democratic structures in place.
Okay but how does it solve this im14andthisisdeep Facebook meme?
People will always want more, Communism isn’t a vow of poverty, it readily acknowledges that production will continue to improve when Humanity has become Capital’s master, rather than its slave.
There’s something qualitatively different between the poor man’s desire for money and the rich man’s desire for money. The poor man has a functional, material desire for money that arises from his physiological needs. Through a dialectical process, money (and commodities more broadly) has gone from an intermediate that is used to satisfy needs, use value, into an end in and of itself. The ideological fetishization of money is what leads to the rich man desiring more money, and the fact that capital exists as a means to do so is what allows the lifestyle of endless greed to even exist. Acquiring capital and living in service of that capital, with the goal of making it multiply further, is what drives the capitalists.
Therefore, what is needed to abolish both of their enslavements is to kill both their masters, who is one and the same, and is called capital.