I am interested in politics, and even tho i am not a communist, i am interested in what can be learned from it and i also want to learn more about political ideologies as a whole, instead of speaking out of my ass whenever someone mentions communism and potentially say some bullshit. What do you think?

Edit: thanks for all the answers! I swear i read them all, i just don’t know how to answer to each of them, but thanks for all the recommendations!

    • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
      1·
      2 days ago

      Yo Cowbee 👋. I was speaking more generally, if I’m being honest referencing a funny meme I remembered that went like

      “My cat after a nap | Greek Philosophy”

      “Oo biiiiiig stretch” 😂

      I’ll fully admit right away you’re more studied on all things communist-theory than I, but if you want my opinion, I think the always-controversial “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” phase was a reach that seemed to say “This is a really difficult problem and idk it’s the best I’ve got right now. Ship it!”

      I understand he was being somewhat poetic with his word usage, but even then I think he had to have understood not only how easily that could be misinterpreted, but also how much the mechanics of it relies on perfect variables, like a grand unified revolutionary worker class that are all aligned for the common good.

      I mean hey, I’m a Christian Anarchist personally. Will I get to see that society where everyone loves thy neighbor and mutually cooperates in love? Probably not in this mortal lifetime, but I think it’s a great goal to strive for. So I’m no stranger to lofty ideals! Haha.

      But as we’ve seen, revolutions are messy, and Marx’s words often got heavily twisted to justify a new ruling party that says “Now WE get to wear the boot!” Who have no interest in a fair society once they get to live in the palace and make the rules.

      From a purely poly-sci perspective, I think this is where the USA’s founders were brilliant, in setting up 3 branches of government chosen by and consisting of The People, whose job it was to look over the others and say “HEY, that’s not what we’re doing here. No king stuff. Cut it out.”

      …of course, that quickly went to crap when the 2 party system happened. But at its core, I still think it was a good idea. (Minus the “people” being landowners only thing.)

      But I don’t entirely blame Marx over it: It seems humanity will always have a percentage of shamelessly sociopathic grifters who crave control, and large groups of distractable followers who just want to be told what to think to avoid responsibility for thinking for themselves.

      This is a HARD problem to solve.

      When the first gets overwhelming access to sway the second, even the best devised political systems will come under immense strain. (Modern example: Facebook)

      So I guess I just saw it as a bit of a stretch that he assumed the Proles would majority unite in each others’ favor to suppress the tyranny of the ruling class, as exciting as it would be. I’m sure even back then, the working class has a bit of an infighting problem.

      Sorry I could usually be a LOT better with words, but, as a working class myself without ownership of land nor meaningful means of production. . . I’m kept quite busy. 😂 Thanks for hearing me out in any case!

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        6·
        14 hours ago

        The biggest problem I have with your analysis here is the idea that communist parties are simply a new boot, so to speak. The idea that any group that successfully gains political power, no matter the class character, will turn evil and start doing evil things regardless of the economic formation is a defeatist lie told to make the working classes fear socialism. Socialist countries have historically been tremendously progressive for the working classes, and they all have working class parties at the helm. This is really just workers getting organized.

        As for the US constitution, it was written of, by, and for the historical equivalent of billionaires. The progressive language betrayed the actual intent: create a stable shell by which capital would forever dictate the lives of the people. George Washington, for example, was one of the wealthiest slavers in the entire colonial society. They fought Britain both for taxation, and because Britain was posturing about banning slavery and banning expanding settler-colonialism, which the Iroquois people supported (which is why George Washington sent his army to commit genocide). This wasn’t because Britain was good, but because they had their own class interests opposed to the colonies.

        My point here is that the US constitution is a bourgeois constitution through and through. Why not skim through the USSR’s 1936 constitution?