I strongly encourage ACTUALLY reading Marx and not just the facebook post equivalents that various influencers love to spout.
But, at a very high level: Marxism is largely built around communism (well, the other way around, but just roll with it). Which does have implications for governing and decision making, but is largely a socioeconomic system. So the better “opposite” would be Capitalism. Although, even that is a pretty reductive approach and is arguably wrong.
That said: Communism requires some form of centralized planning. And while there is nothing that says that can’t come from a true Democracy, it tends to favor republics which may or may not use democracy to select. The US, as the chuds so often like to exclaim, is a Democratic Republic (sort of) in that we use Democracy-ish to select our representatives.
Communism most certainly doesn’t require centralized planning - all it requires is a method of providing start up capital without giving away ownership.
It could be from local government taxes, federal coining of money, crowdsourced or some combination of these - you’d just need a mechanism of some sort to give loans to groups looking to start a worker-owned company. That’s the only requirement
There’s an infinite number of ways to slice it - centralized planning is super worrisome IMO because it creates a locus of power. But not only is it unnecessary, the same result
can be achieved far more effectively with a digital marketplace that matches buyers and sellers. You just have to remove incentives and power from the entities managing it - with a fairly small amount of money, you could host a standard system with an open and auditable code base
But you could also just design an open market without ownership of companies - that’s communism. You’d have to decommodify certain basic needs and shape incentives carefully, so it’s a bit more complicated than that… But not much
No, he’s into super-democracy. Democratize everything, including ownership and the workplace.
Lenin was the one who came up with the idea to centralize everything, Marxist-Leninists mistake the proletariat as better, when the truth is it’s all structural.
Marx differentiated two groups in different social classes and drew a straight comparison from feudal lords to the ownership class, and said “their interests are different from the rest of ours, and capitalism benefits them at our expense - including by giving them an unfair advantage in the political process”
Lenin took that to mean “the bourgeoisie are unlike the proletariat, they are uniquely evil”. Assuming that by overthrowing the nobility and oligarchs they could build the perfect state, he did the dumbest thing possible. He built the “ideal” system for someone who hadn’t studied sociology…a single, central view from on high.
In theory, that’s the ideal way to manage resources - you can see where there’s a surplus and where there’s a need, and respond appropriately.
In practice, he created a system that incentivizes and normalizes lying until you’re caught in the same way that a corporation incentives pushing morality and legality to the point you get backlash… It selects for the worst people to rise to the top
Add in the propaganda the US pushes about China and Russia being Communist (they’re both absolutely authoritarian but a form of capitalism by any informed definition), and you get a bunch of people who have no idea what they’re talking about (tankies) spreading a highly flawed conception of communism, or even just authoritarianism with some Marxist terms painted on
Marx would be the opposite of democracy.
Well, you convinced me. Guess I’ll read Marx to find out why.
I strongly encourage ACTUALLY reading Marx and not just the facebook post equivalents that various influencers love to spout.
But, at a very high level: Marxism is largely built around communism (well, the other way around, but just roll with it). Which does have implications for governing and decision making, but is largely a socioeconomic system. So the better “opposite” would be Capitalism. Although, even that is a pretty reductive approach and is arguably wrong.
That said: Communism requires some form of centralized planning. And while there is nothing that says that can’t come from a true Democracy, it tends to favor republics which may or may not use democracy to select. The US, as the chuds so often like to exclaim, is a Democratic Republic (sort of) in that we use Democracy-ish to select our representatives.
Communism most certainly doesn’t require centralized planning - all it requires is a method of providing start up capital without giving away ownership.
It could be from local government taxes, federal coining of money, crowdsourced or some combination of these - you’d just need a mechanism of some sort to give loans to groups looking to start a worker-owned company. That’s the only requirement
There’s an infinite number of ways to slice it - centralized planning is super worrisome IMO because it creates a locus of power. But not only is it unnecessary, the same result can be achieved far more effectively with a digital marketplace that matches buyers and sellers. You just have to remove incentives and power from the entities managing it - with a fairly small amount of money, you could host a standard system with an open and auditable code base
But you could also just design an open market without ownership of companies - that’s communism. You’d have to decommodify certain basic needs and shape incentives carefully, so it’s a bit more complicated than that… But not much
No, he’s into super-democracy. Democratize everything, including ownership and the workplace.
Lenin was the one who came up with the idea to centralize everything, Marxist-Leninists mistake the proletariat as better, when the truth is it’s all structural.
Marx differentiated two groups in different social classes and drew a straight comparison from feudal lords to the ownership class, and said “their interests are different from the rest of ours, and capitalism benefits them at our expense - including by giving them an unfair advantage in the political process”
Lenin took that to mean “the bourgeoisie are unlike the proletariat, they are uniquely evil”. Assuming that by overthrowing the nobility and oligarchs they could build the perfect state, he did the dumbest thing possible. He built the “ideal” system for someone who hadn’t studied sociology…a single, central view from on high.
In theory, that’s the ideal way to manage resources - you can see where there’s a surplus and where there’s a need, and respond appropriately.
In practice, he created a system that incentivizes and normalizes lying until you’re caught in the same way that a corporation incentives pushing morality and legality to the point you get backlash… It selects for the worst people to rise to the top
Add in the propaganda the US pushes about China and Russia being Communist (they’re both absolutely authoritarian but a form of capitalism by any informed definition), and you get a bunch of people who have no idea what they’re talking about (tankies) spreading a highly flawed conception of communism, or even just authoritarianism with some Marxist terms painted on
You mean as opposed to the free and fair two party capitalist democracy where Americans have to choose between two old men they don’t like?