All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society.
public functions will lose their political character
That doesn’t mean politics will end, just that administrative functions like constructing and maintaining sewage systems, electrical grids, hospitals, will be cleansed of politics.
But those activities include non-economic politics. For instance, a hospital being allowed to conduct abortions is not within the realm of Marxist theory, but it is a part of politics.
If intersectional liberation is necessary, then can you judge communist nations for not abiding by that? If a communist nation doesn’t offer gay marriage or the ability to choose ones gender, by what rights is there to critique this? Can I say a country isn’t truly communist if I can’t get married to someone of my gender?
Some AES do and some don’t. Some haven’t resolved those contradictions yet and they should be criticized for it. That’s why we use the the term Actual Existing Socialism and not True Perfect Socialism.
These countries are socialist projects, projects that fall within the social revolution, to use Engels term. All AES have broadened democracy comparative to before their projects began and work toward the resolving of contradictions. Just because they haven’t been resolved doesn’t mean those projects arent socialist.
Criticism is the beginning for formulating beneficial change. The first step in the scientific method is defining the problem.
Communism advertises itself as being rational, so I expect it to be able to try to address these problems.
And I haven’t said anything about Communism in general to mean it can’t get implemented, but that there has to be an understanding of what may be deficient as a way to strive towards something greater.
If a political or economic system can’t address and change potential issues, should it be a system that continues to be adopted?
I don’t understand what you mean to say socialism can’t address and change potential issues. Socialism is when the working class have overthrown the previous economic apparatus and secured proletarian democracy, it doesn’t mean heaven on earth is created, it means the work has finally just started.
Taking power is step 1. The mechanism for change and addressing of issues as they arise is democracy, specifically democratic centralism. If you want to say socialist countries are behind in certain progressive social liberties, that’s perfectly valid to say. What’s not valid is to say this is somehow a failing of proletarian democracy, but rather, we should look why countries are the way they are. Every socialist country around today (Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK) was colonized between 100-120 years ago. That’s going to have a lasting impact that will take a while to dismantle, even when a communist party has taken power. That’s what we mean when we say there are contradictions that haven’t been resolved yet.
I think a problem that comes along with these definitions is that we interpret socialism as meaning “expanded democracy to enfranchise the proletariat.” That proletariat might be just coming out of the yoke of being a colony, that proletariat might have widespread bigotry, who knows. An early project of the USSR was criminalizing antisemitism since pogroms had been so common. The USSR would also sometimes have pro-natal policies relating to population growth, where abortion rights were restricted. That was a direct consequence of Tsarist Russia being so behind in industrial development compared to the rest of the developed world.
Engels wasn’t a prophet, we don’t worship at the altar of Engels and Marx. They had good ideas, but they weren’t infallible.
This is why most Marxists today are Marxist-Leninists. Because while Marx and Engels wrote a lot of theory, it was just that, theoretical. With the Russian revolution, the Bolsheviks were able to put their theory into practice, some stuff turned out the way they thought it would, other stuff they predicted didn’t happen at all. So the important thing isn’t just theory, but putting that theory into practice and seeing what works and what doesn’t work. It’s always important to exist in the real world, not in an idealistic fantasy. If our ideal system doesn’t work in reality, we must alter it so it does, even if that means it is no longer the hypothetical perfect utopia it once was. “People living better lives” is still “better” even if it isn’t “perfect.”
I’m just listening to Engels when I say that.
That doesn’t mean politics will end, just that administrative functions like constructing and maintaining sewage systems, electrical grids, hospitals, will be cleansed of politics.
But those activities include non-economic politics. For instance, a hospital being allowed to conduct abortions is not within the realm of Marxist theory, but it is a part of politics.
intersectional liberation is necessary to communism, which is itself “the doctrine of the liberation of the proletariat”
This is some “Marx never considered X” shit at this point. Its a 200 year long intellectual tradition - it has been considered
If intersectional liberation is necessary, then can you judge communist nations for not abiding by that? If a communist nation doesn’t offer gay marriage or the ability to choose ones gender, by what rights is there to critique this? Can I say a country isn’t truly communist if I can’t get married to someone of my gender?
Some AES do and some don’t. Some haven’t resolved those contradictions yet and they should be criticized for it. That’s why we use the the term Actual Existing Socialism and not True Perfect Socialism.
These countries are socialist projects, projects that fall within the social revolution, to use Engels term. All AES have broadened democracy comparative to before their projects began and work toward the resolving of contradictions. Just because they haven’t been resolved doesn’t mean those projects arent socialist.
Criticism is the beginning for formulating beneficial change. The first step in the scientific method is defining the problem.
Communism advertises itself as being rational, so I expect it to be able to try to address these problems.
And I haven’t said anything about Communism in general to mean it can’t get implemented, but that there has to be an understanding of what may be deficient as a way to strive towards something greater.
If a political or economic system can’t address and change potential issues, should it be a system that continues to be adopted?
I don’t understand what you mean to say socialism can’t address and change potential issues. Socialism is when the working class have overthrown the previous economic apparatus and secured proletarian democracy, it doesn’t mean heaven on earth is created, it means the work has finally just started.
Taking power is step 1. The mechanism for change and addressing of issues as they arise is democracy, specifically democratic centralism. If you want to say socialist countries are behind in certain progressive social liberties, that’s perfectly valid to say. What’s not valid is to say this is somehow a failing of proletarian democracy, but rather, we should look why countries are the way they are. Every socialist country around today (Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK) was colonized between 100-120 years ago. That’s going to have a lasting impact that will take a while to dismantle, even when a communist party has taken power. That’s what we mean when we say there are contradictions that haven’t been resolved yet.
I think a problem that comes along with these definitions is that we interpret socialism as meaning “expanded democracy to enfranchise the proletariat.” That proletariat might be just coming out of the yoke of being a colony, that proletariat might have widespread bigotry, who knows. An early project of the USSR was criminalizing antisemitism since pogroms had been so common. The USSR would also sometimes have pro-natal policies relating to population growth, where abortion rights were restricted. That was a direct consequence of Tsarist Russia being so behind in industrial development compared to the rest of the developed world.
Its a 200 year long intellectual tradition informed by real life AES projects which spark new theory.
But sure you’re the only person who’s ever realized that we should continually evaluate theory
I’ve never said I’m the only one to realize that we should continually evaluate theory. It just seems like I’m the only one doing so here.
I read Engels’s article here and I’m discussing it within the context that I read it.
Engels wasn’t a prophet, we don’t worship at the altar of Engels and Marx. They had good ideas, but they weren’t infallible.
This is why most Marxists today are Marxist-Leninists. Because while Marx and Engels wrote a lot of theory, it was just that, theoretical. With the Russian revolution, the Bolsheviks were able to put their theory into practice, some stuff turned out the way they thought it would, other stuff they predicted didn’t happen at all. So the important thing isn’t just theory, but putting that theory into practice and seeing what works and what doesn’t work. It’s always important to exist in the real world, not in an idealistic fantasy. If our ideal system doesn’t work in reality, we must alter it so it does, even if that means it is no longer the hypothetical perfect utopia it once was. “People living better lives” is still “better” even if it isn’t “perfect.”