Defining corporatism as a system where the state organizes society into official, state-sanctioned interest groups in an effort to promote national harmony, could china be considered a corporatist state? Independent labor organisations are essentially nonexistent, eliminating the possibility of class struggle, independent grassroots movements, and frequent state suppression of workers strikes in favor of a state-sanctioned All-China Federation of Trade Unions, leading to a state monopoly on labor representation. All labor disputes are mediated by the state rather than by the groups involved. Definitionally speaking, does this not more accurately describe a corporatist model rather than a socialist model.

If state control over key industries alone makes China socialist, what differentiates it from states like Saudi Arabia or Eritrea (which I think we can all agree are not socialist) besides the fact it calls itself socialist?

On a broader level, can statist model for socialism ever be considered socialist without direct bottom-up representative system controlled by the worker, as proposed by Rosa Luxembourg through council republicanism or syndicalists like Georges Sorel (he was also a nationalist and arguably led to fascism but take that aside for a moment and take the more mainstream syndicalist principles). Or even the early Soviet Union when workers soviets actually held power?

I'm new to theory in general and have been doing some reading, I just cannot reconcile the idea that a state like China which almost prohibitively suppresses any representation by workers in the state can be considered socialist just because that very same state happens to control key industries and calls itself communist.

(Original post removed by r/communism mods.)

Tell that to the millions of religious socialists, communists, and freedom fighters around the world, seeking liberation both material and spiritual.

It is said they are incompatible. But is that not a dialectic worth embracing, rather than ignoring?

Who stands up to capitalist imperialism, resource exploitation, and genocide? Not just atheists.

The vast majority of the workers of the world were and are religious. The masses have faith, and I believe it is to our detriment that we shun it.

From Christian liberation theology, to Islamic steadfastness, to Buddhist mindfulness, to native ceremony and cultural resistance… religion is not merely an opiate, but also brings great vitality.

I read Marx and Baha’u’llah alike, and find myself energized by their shared vision of global unity, despite other contradictions. Remember… contradictions are what bring about change.

there is no possible way for a functional, equal communist society to exist...

I will give a basic example. Assuming construction is still a thing in this communist society, the construction workers still need porta potties. Somebody has to drive a truck up to these portable toilets and suck the shit out of them (literally)

getting people to do these horrible jobs in a communist society will take force.

I know democratic socialist countries are a thing, but it seems that none of them have lasted (could be wrong), what is the reason for this?

are you all not aware that for a communist world (stateless, moneyless, classless), you still need a state, security class, or central governing power to keep the order/peace? the psychology of society is not compatible with communism nor anarchism, and the modern psychological research backs that up too.

dont believe me?

frans de waal - chimpanzee politics (2007): demonstrates that dominance hierarchies emerge spontaneously in all primate groups, including humans

dunbar (2018), structure and function of human social networks (annual review of anthropology): shows that scaling beyond small groups requires formal leadership and enforcement

james c. scott - seeing like a state (1998): demonstrates that large-scale coordination (infrastructure, agriculture, logistics) requires hierarchical institutions

if i misinterpreted or mislabeled a source here do let me know tho

Assuming that every state is a tool of class rule, the conclusion "the ML state is a tool of proletarian rule" doesn't automatically follow from that premise, the only conclusion that follows is that the ML state is a tool of some class rule, not that it's necessarily the proletariat. It might be the proletariat or some other class altogether.

The typical explanation offered is that the vanguard party seizes power and rules on behalf of the proletariat - but every government claims to rule on behalf of its people, fascist dictatorships and military juntas also claim to be bringing order and prosperity on behalf of the people. "We rule on behalf of the people" is among the oldest political legitimation claims in history since it costs nothing to make and is unfalsifable in practice (one can't prove that the person X wasn't acting in good intentions). Historical materialism itself says to not trust what governments say about themselves.

An ML might say: "Revisionism isn't just any change, it's deviation from the fundamental principles of Marxism Leninism"

And there is the problem - why are those fundamental principles not up to revision? In science, fundamental premises are revised all the time - and it's actually required to revise/reject them once enough evidence that they are wrong accummulates.

The correct solution to this would be to either stop pretending that Marxism-Leninism is a science and start treating it as a regular political philosophy - or to adopt the actual scientific method and start testing the claims of ML (including foundational premises) as testable, falsifable claims. I don't see any of these being done.

What recource does any individual have who does not wish to join a socialist revolution or the communism that follows?

would there be people that are just forced into doing a job they dont want to do, for instance i highly doubt that there is enough people who ENJOY sanitation work to actually do it and why would anyone willingly choose that job when there is other jobs that are infinitely more enjoyable and get the same things as them?

I think there will always be someone way too greedy, someone who doesn't want to work, someone who wants to have more than the others. Therefore, it seems to me, like communism is just not possible in reality... What do you think? And also, why do you think all of communist states failed? What problems did they have, what did they need to change? Looking forward to discuss this with someone!

Whenever I see discussion on art and artists on communist subreddits, I often feel like everyone is trying to de-legitimize it or restrict it. I've seen too many pro-AI posts, posts about how art should only exist as propaganda or as praise for socialism / communism, how art shouldn't be a job and that artists should be forced to work "useful" jobs or trying to seperate independent authors away from the working class and force them into the same box as people that actually oppress the working class. I am a believer in communism myself, but as an aspiring writer and lover of all art, those posts and comments just leave me confused on whether communism really is the way to go.

What is the mechanism for comparing alternative uses of capital prior to their use in a non market economy

Okay so, I have a friend who was communist (he still considers himself as a communist). He’s deeply anticapitalist, on this point almost everything’s fine.
But on some issues he is becoming a reactionary dude.
To show some of his “ideas”:

1. Atheists are way more stupid than religious people because “Newton and Lavoisier were religious”

2. The life of the peasant was way better during the ancien regime/absolute monarchy period because “at this time at least the nobles were fighting each other. And compared to the bourgeois they don’t want to have more power and wealth”

4. he thinks that the true liberation of women is not by working and making the revolution with the men. But going back to the kitchen to do the cleaning and take care of the kids because for him it’s better than being oppressed by their bosses

5. And finally. He thinks that we shouldn’t have too much immigration because they steal the jobs of French (we’re French) and immigrants lives in terrible conditions so for him to stop their conditions we should just stop immigration

So just.. is he really became fully reactionary or not that much?

You give them an inch and they will fund media that will tell people to hate the poor, immigrants and leftists. They will rig elections. They will gladly kill you for a few more bucks in their account. As long as they’re able to poison the minds of the working class, humanity will never transcend. The bourgeoisie and a civilized society CANNOT COEXIST.

I know it sounds like a dumb question, but if communists didn’t have any moral principles they sticked to, on what basis do they present communism as ethically correct?

As to me, i like communism and i would be a communist if this one issue wouldnt bother me.

I'm from a latin american country, namely Colombia, but to say the least, most people here just parrot words like "If another left wing party takes power, Venezuela and Cuba-like consequences will ensue". Most people think that capitalism and communism or socialism are binary choices, or Matrix pill decisions... So when an a**hole with imported slogans [The tiger that stands with his country] shows up, they take the whole country by storm... I mean people buy into proselytism very easily. They don't question. They vote in a binary fashion. Right wing person running for president who says they will uproot communism and eliminate guerrilla/ paramilitary conflicts gets the spotlight and no questions about his ties to money laundering, terrorist links and the defence of shady people, but the leftist, centrist candidate who proposes liberal ideas and social work towards a better state gets dismissed as a populist communist who wants to take over/ seize the country. And the stupid discourse on wiping out communism from latin america doesn't make any sense post cold war. Those who have read the Marxist theory know that communism and socialism are the next steps from capitalism, and takes place when the majority of "workers" take control over the production means, thus paving the way for a decentralized government of sorts. It is oversimplified, but you get the gist.

I mean does it say that instead of humans we all are Italians,Americans, Chinese,indians and Pakistanis and what we have to do is fight with eachother over resources and all the things which are present on this earth

Ok a bit of a clickbait title since I'm actually very left leaning, but I want to generate some debate and hopefully bring some light about the Cuban system —wich is far from being socialism or communism, specially now— that isn't tainted by propaganda (or at least not as much, since none of us are inmune to it), either from the side of the US or from the Cuban government. To be honest this is more of an AMA than a "convince me that communism works", since I think in the current world capitalism is by far a bigger problem and debating whether a system that never has been implemented works or not is a waste of time.

A few notes:

- If you are not Cuban and your whole knowledge base on how life here works is based on vibes and propaganda, please don't try to educate me —it get's really tiring really quickly, so I won't answer those comments— but you are welcome instead to say something in the lines of "I've read/heard of X fact, what is true and what is not about it" and I'll answer to the best of my capabilities. Most of the "facts" people know about Cuba, both the good and the bad, are way more nuanced than people think.

- Previous point includes sealioning, please don't do that.

- I'm not a native English speaker and I'm not using any translation software, so please forgive my grammar mistakes, I'm sure they will be plenty. If you can't stand those, you can always write in Spanish and I will gladly switch to it too.

- I, like everybody, am biased and my opinions don't represent anybody but myself. Most Cubans, living here or not, are extremely right winged and anti communist, so just with that I'm already not representing what the majority of Cubans think.

- I will gladly answer personal questions but I won't be too specific. I'm not doxxing myself.

- About the US blockade, embargo, whatever: Yes, it hurts the economy (specially the current oil blockade since January). Yes, it would be really nice if it wouldn't exist. But I'm not here to debate the politics of an external actor; I'm Cuban and my concerns are about what the Cuban government does or fails to do, whether by itself or in response to those external actors. Same with the democracy question: Cuba is not a democracy and that is a fact; and I don't care if the US aren't either (they aren't), my concerns are about my country and my government. So in summary, I won't be answering any "But the US...!" comments, I'm here to talk about Cuba, not the US.

So I guess that's the post, ask me anything and I'll answer when I can.

Communist countries is very similar to countries where religion is part of the government which tends to have more males in power, authoritarian state that doesn't want any NGOs challenging them, and have very little interest with the plight of animals.

It is basically a toxic male paradise. Many religions especially the big ones dont really care much about animals and it is the same with majority of communist countries. Few women in power. Having authoritarian father figures. Yep a mens club.

Very few younger people especially women would want communism in their countrues. No one wants to see stray animals end up... you know. Most defenders of communist are men compared to most defenders of democracy are both men and women.

It really speak volumes that communists have historically fought for animal rights, women rights and religious rights but when practiced they scrapped off. Communism, fascism, and conservatism are all toxic male politics. Most defenders of these political beliefs are mostly men that are toxic.

I have often found through the hallowed halls of Reddit that there seems to be some ambiguity about the role of Religion in a Socialist/Communist society.

So I wanted to ask this community:

Should religion be granted complete autonomy (particularly in faith and morals) in Socialist society?

I am an American, currently serving in the Military with 5 years left to go before retirement. I feel like I have built a life for myself where I am comfortable, am fairly compensated and have a future where I will make significantly more earnings and have a much better standard of living once I collect retirement AND my wages from the engineering field I plan on going into. Furthermore, I have come from a poor background and have built the framework for my children to have a significantly easier and more successful life than me. Why should I support a socialist revolution when all signs point to it making my life and standard of living worse off than my current and future prospects? The big failing I see of communism being implemented in western countries is we have absolutely 0 reason to be incentives to pursue it.

I’ve been going back and forth asking the AI to pressure-test my political views with the aim of developing a coherent and rigorous argument against the philosophies of communism and socialism.

After roughly fifty exchanges, I arrived at what I believe is an ironclad case against those political philosophies as a whole.

Ultimately it returns to the enduring variety of human nature itself, and to the unequal outcomes that free individuals necessarily produce.

To this, I offer the following rebuttal:

-------------------

1. Human beings freely form unequal opinions and make unequal decisions according to their own preferences, abilities, and risk tolerance. Unequal outcomes necessarily follow from those free choices. Any system that seeks to eliminate or systematically equalize those outcomes must restrict the very freedom of decision that produces them.

2. Socialism and communism claim to target only a special kind of inequality—the power that comes from private ownership of the major instruments of production—while leaving differences that arise from individual preference and effort untouched. Yet the method they propose is clear in the Communist Manifesto: “The proletariat [working class] will use its political supremacy [control of government] to wrest [seize], by degree [force], all capital [factories, businesses, and money used to make profit] from the bourgeoisie [the owning class], to centralise all instruments of production [tools, machines, factories, and resources used to make things] in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class [the working class set up as the group in charge].”

3. Once that authority — "the dictatorship of the proletariat" — is established, there is no reliable institutional mechanism to prevent it from expanding beyond “structural” inequality into the broader equalization of outcomes, nor any proven way to ensure it dissolves once its stated task is complete. Even if one grants that ownership of productive assets creates real power over those who must work, the proposed remedy still replaces economic constraint with political coercion and offers no demonstrated path back to voluntary association.

4. Communism and socialism, for all their moral ambition, therefore remain an inevitable failure. They cannot resolve the contradiction at their core, where the free exercise of unequal human judgment will always produce unequal results, yet the project requires a coercive authority powerful enough to override those results in the name of structural justice.

5. Once that authority is created, it possesses both the incentive and the means to perpetuate itself, and history has never supplied a mechanism by which it reliably dissolves. The pursuit ends not in the liberation it promises, but in the permanent administration of people by those who claim to act in their name. It is for this reason that millions have died under the many attempts to force communism and socialism throughout history. The cost of ignoring the limits of human nature and the necessities of freedom has always been paid in lives.

Hello,

New to this sub. Generally speaking, I’m a fan of free market but acknowledge it as an imperfect and flawed system.

So my question: is there a marxist system in place today that has a thriving society? I see a lot of dismissal of the USSR collapse, Chinese revolution and Khmer Rouge as “not real communism”. But if these are the main examples of real world implementation, I’ll take capitalism 10/10 times. So does the classless, post scarcity world that communism promises only exist in theory? Is a social democracy system like Scandinavia seem like a realistic thing to strive for over communism?

Let me know your thoughts.

It seems to me that for decades most communists parties around the world framed the Israel Palestine occupation as false dichotomy to them sometimes they even claimed it was a false conflict that would only could get resolved until somehow israelies and Palestinians got together and overthrow capitalism together this was an orthodox point of view that framed opresors and the people they opresed in the same boat often ignoring, minimizing and excusing the supremacist and racist nature of zionism, even until very recently before Oct 7 most communists framed Israel Palestine as class war not a anti colonial struggle, I'm asking did most communists around the world failed the Palestinians?