I feel like I understand communist theory pretty well at a basic level, and I believe in it, but I just don't see what part of it requires belief in an objective world of matter. I don't believe in matter and I'm still a communist. And it seems that in the 21st century most people believe in materialism but not communism. What part of "people should have access to the stuff they need to live" requires believing that such stuff is real? After all, there are nonmaterial industries and they still need communism. Workers in the music industry are producing something that nearly everyone can agree only exists in our heads. And they're still exploited by capital, despite musical instruments being relatively cheap these days, because capital owns the system of distribution networks and access to consumers that is the means of profitability for music. Spotify isn't material, it's a computer program. It's information. It's a thoughtform. Yet it's still a means of production that ought to be seized for the liberation of the musician worker. What does materialism have to do with any of this?

  • DroneRights [it/its]
    hexagon
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well I sure disagree with everything you just said. I think it's reductive, simplistic, and appeals to problematic realist sensitivities. What does everything you just said have to do with communism?

    • BeamBrain [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      What does everything you just said have to do with communism?

      It's the entire basis of communist theory. Capitalism cannot be "fixed" because its basic structure consists of two classes with different relations to the means of production, the bourgeoise and the proletariat, who have diametrically opposed material interests. The way to resolve this contradiction is to do away with the parasitic capitalist class and reorganize society so that it consists only of workers.

      This is 101-level Marxism. If you don't agree with any of it, then, uh, you may be on the wrong site.

      • DroneRights [it/its]
        hexagon
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree with everything you just said and don't see how it depends upon the stuff I disagreed with

          • DroneRights [it/its]
            hexagon
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree, however, I think our perceptual interface matters

                • raven [he/him]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Precisely, how on earth are we supposed to have any kind of debate about this when your chaos magic keeps altering reality!?

                    • raven [he/him]
                      ·
                      edit-2
                      1 year ago

                      You're well past what I can keep up with here lol
                      I've read every word of this thread and understood maybe a third of it.

                      • DroneRights [it/its]
                        hexagon
                        ·
                        1 year ago

                        TL;DR: reality is bad and communism is good. Some communists think reality is part of communism. I think that's wrong and I was confused why they thought that. I've arrived at the conclusion that they just like reality and need an explanation of communism that fits into reality.

    • mah [none/use name]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      so you are not a marxist, bye lol :)

      i'm joking. but you really need to read about marxism.

      What does everything you just said have to do with communism?

      It's the very basics of our theory. and it's basically what i told you before.

      ofc, you can believe in socialism without being a marxist. You might be interested in reading Polanyi for example.

      • DroneRights [it/its]
        hexagon
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, I do understand everything you just said, I just think it's wrong and that a properly communist analysis would demonstrate that. Are you telling me that historical materialism is just one of multiple ways of arriving at communist conclusions?

        • BeamBrain [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Half an hour ago, you didn't know what historical materialism meant. You are in no position to tell anyone what a "properly communist analysis" would demonstrate.

          No investigation, no right to speak.

          • mah [none/use name]
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            i think they must be very young, no need to be hostile :)

            i find this whole discussion kinda cute to be honest...

          • DroneRights [it/its]
            hexagon
            ·
            1 year ago

            I knew what historical materialism meant, just didn't see what it had to do with communism other than Marx believed in it. I don't really understand Marx's thinking in associating the two, but this thread is helping. It seems like y'all are already materialists and just need a material analysis of class because you're not ready to understand the big stuff.

        • mah [none/use name]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Communism is usually associated with historical materialism, the theory that everyone here is trying to explain to you. However, there have been other forms of socialism before and after Marx. You might find interesting Henri de Saint-Simon and his theories, Paul Lafargue, or for another, more recent example of non-Marxist socialist, Karl Polanyi.

          If you don't believe in Marxism, that's okay. But you need to study it first, and based on your original post, it might require some more time, patience, and reading.

          • DroneRights [it/its]
            hexagon
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think you and a lot of people in this thread have confused disagreement for ignorance due to a failure of cognitive empathy. Which is understandable, because neurotypical cognitive empathy doesn't work properly on autistic people. I'll check out those sources you linked.

            • mah [none/use name]
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              lol, i see vast agreement in the answer you got. but you need to be a bit more careful and thoughtful. your ideas so far are a confused potpourri. you need to read what marxist theory and communism are, more than a few slogans. and this can be done just alone, with a book. perhaps start here: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/marx-a-very-short-introduction-9780198821076 (Marx: A Very Short Introduction - Peter Singer)

                  • Florist [none/use name]
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I can't comment on his work as a whole, but his Marx Introduction book includes some major misreadings of Marx https://medium.com/@rahuldandekar2000/annotating-peter-singer-on-marx-decaa8d1ae66

      • DroneRights [it/its]
        hexagon
        ·
        1 year ago

        it has been repeatedly proven that human beings respond to their environment with more intensity than their own minds

        And it has been repeatedly proven that I respond to science fiction with more intensity than soap operas. All you have identified is that our perceptual interface is more compelling than thoughts of our conscious creation, not that our perceptual interface comes from outside the mind.

        This has to be true, by necessity, for anything at all to make sense. Think about this: If you were never exposed to anything, ever, and had absolutely no senses, including pain or bodily sensations, since the moment you were born, how would you be able to formulate thoughts or take action? You couldn’t, there would be nothing to make up their content. This demonstrates that the material is essential to human thought.

        I don't find Hume's thought experiment as compelling as you do. If I accept your premise that senses are required for sensation, that still does not mean senses must be directed at the world. They could also be directed at other conscious agents, or at parts of the self.

        Regardless of if reality is real or not, our fundamental experiences are still defined by it, and that’s what the root of Marxist materialism is. Not a belief that metaphysics aren’t real, not a belief that physical matter is of a certain character or is even unassailable in it’s reality, but a belief that human beings are fundamentally altered and influenced by it.

        Sure, but if we were to abolish the social construct of reality, communism would still be plenty possible and the best way of doing things.