1153
Lazy moochers
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2025
1153 points (98.2% liked)
Memes
51785 readers
1504 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
You support this alternative with completely a completely different dynamic and incentives??
Another win for pithy internet hypocracy gotcha debatelord!
It was a reasonable follow up question, governments are corporations after all and they stated they oppose all landlord/renter situations
no
When you’re ready to be a communist we will be waiting
Since when is communism against administration and social planning? Since when have Marxists said governments are corporations? This is deeply silly.
Communism has always been against government because that would create class division
No, it would not. Marxists do not recognize management positions as distinct classes, as they don't necessitate different relations of ownership. Marxists oppose the state, which is made up of the elements of society that perpetuate class oppression, but not administration or management.
"Government" is not a class.
Those in government make up the ruling class
If you have government then the ruling class will use it to maintain their power and oppress the worker
No. The state is a representative of the ruling class. In capitalism, the state is an extension of the bourgeoisie, in socialism, the state is an extension of the proletariat. The state ceases to exist when class ceases to exist, and class ceases to exist when all property is sublimated into collective ownership across all of society. Without a state, all that remains of government is what Engels calls "the administration of things." Social planning, management, accounting, and administration are core functions of large scale production and society that will remain into communism.
I really don't know why you're so confident in your stance.
Socialism isn’t communism
Socialism is a step towards communism where they haven’t gotten rid of their government yet, it is thought that society needs to be set up to be able to run as a utopia before it can reach such
To have full equality everyone needs to make decisions together - direct democracy basically
If you have a select few making decisions (think like 1 group) then they will always become the oppressors
Incorrect.
Socialism has the state, because socialism isn't global, and still has private property in the process of being sublimated from the private sector into the public. You cannot simply stroke the pen and legalize full public ownership, the conditions for social ownership and planning need to be developed and built gradually. As there is still private property, there is still the bourgeoisie and proletariat, and thus the proletariat contains ownership of the state to oppress the bourgeoisie.
Communism exists when all property has been sublimated. There's no need for the elements of society that existed under socialism to keep the bourgeoisie in check, so these wither away, but the development of large scale industry that necessitates administration, management, and planning continues to exist. There's no state, but there remains "government."
Marxism is anti-utopian. Communism is not a utopia, it isn't a formula to create outright. Communism is compelled economically through the development of socialism. As management and administration remains, there is still equal, collective ownership. Complex methods of democracy are built up during socialism, it would be economically impossible to have direct democracy for every single decision to be made in a global economy, hence the need for social planning, administrations, and managers.
You are making a dramatic error by conflating anarchist analysis of hierarchy with Marxist analysis of class, and thus you confuse what Marxists want with what anarchists want. Unless your point is that Marxists aren't communists, of course, but that's just deeply silly.
I really suggest you actually read Marx if you want to speak as though you know what Marx actually advocated for, rather than just assuming Marx was an anarchist with different methodology.