@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

Radical_EgoCom

@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social

Status: Libertarian Communist; Agnostic Atheist; Vegan

Pronouns: They/Them

Sexuality: Asexual

Likes: Libertarian Communism; Logic Anthropology; Psychology; Atheism; Veganism; Cats

Dislikes: Capitalism/any form of private ownership of the means of production; The state and all other unjust hierarchies

#cats #catsofmastodon #communism #anticapitalism #veganism #atheism

YouTube Channel: https://youtube.com/@AnarCat?si=FMLL2U6PuSvSLhjC

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Radical_EgoCom, to random
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

Libertarian Communists: When we say "give workers control of the means of production" what we mean is "give workers control of the means of production".

Authoritarian Communists: When we say "give workers control of the means of production" what we mean is "give the state control of the means of production".

That's the difference.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@peterg75
By "giving workers control over the means of production" what I mean is that instead of one person or a small group of people controlling and owning the means of production the entirety of the workers would have collective ownership of those means and have equal say in the managing of them.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@peterg75
I cannot explain everything in every small minute detail because doing so will require me to have knowledge that I currently don't have, but the best I can explain this is that any kind of decisions regarding the workplace as a whole would be made, through some form of direct democracy, by all of the workers collectively.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@Gigan @Grayox
No one died under communism because communism has never been achieved in the modern world. People died under state capitalist and state socialist authoritarian governments that people mislabel as communist because they don't know what communism is.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@Gigan @SouthEndSunset
There is nothing bad about the collective ownership of the means of production. I can, however, think of many things that are bad about one person owning the entire means production despite not doing any work, which is what exists under capitalism.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@Gigan @SouthEndSunset
Human nature is not inherently greedy and selfish because human beings possess an inherent capacity for empathy, cooperation, and solidarity, which when nurtured within equitable social structures, can create a collective ethos centered on mutual aid, communal ownership, and the pursuit of the common good, transcending the narrow confines of greed and selfishness perpetuated by systems of exploitation and inequality like capitalism.

Radical_EgoCom, (edited )
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@Cowbee
I understand Marxism and reject AES countries because they not only abandoned many of the core principles of communism but weren't even successful at achieving communism.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@Cowbee
Countries like the Soviet Union deviated from some core principles of communism, including classlessness by introducing a new bureaucratic class, statelessness (the withering away of the state as envisioned by Marx never happened), and a moneyless economy by retaining wage labor and currency.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@Cowbee
Achieving a global, worker-owned republic without class, money, or a state while capitalist states exist presents significant challenges. It would require widespread international cooperation, grassroots movements, and a shift in global consciousness toward socialist ideals. International solidarity, mass education and organization, and an immediate introduction of a communist economic model would make it much easier.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@Cowbee

  1. There was a Bureaucratic class in the Soviet Union that was above everyone else. Bureaucrats held significant power and privileges distinct from the working class, which led to a stratified society rather than the classless society envisioned by socialism.
Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@Cowbee
2. The concept of the "withering away of the state" in Marxism refers to the gradual dissolution of state institutions as class distinctions disappear and society transitions to communism. It does not necessarily require global socialism to be achieved first, and the expansion of state power and repression under regimes like the Soviet Union contradicted this principle.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@Cowbee
3. While it may be true that the Soviet government provided safety nets and controlled wages, the persistence of wage labor and currency contradicted the goal of achieving a moneyless and classless society under socialism. The gradual elimination of money and wage labor was indeed a complex process, but the Soviet Union did not achieve this goal.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@Cowbee
4. In the Marxist sense, statelessness does entail the absence of a government as a tool of class oppression. However, it does not mean the absence of any form of governance. The Soviet state, with its centralized authority and control, did not align with the vision of statelessness as envisaged by Marx.

Radical_EgoCom, to IWW
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

Are you experiencing job insecurity, burnout, high-stress levels, unaffordable healthcare, housing insecurity, debt burdens, social isolation, mental health issues, or poverty? You may be suffering from . An immediate extraction is recommended for your health and safety. If an immediate extraction is impossible at the moment, please contact your nearest chapter for further instructions.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@JamesTown_
You seem to be under the false assumption that poor people are at fault for their poverty, which is not the case at all. Such thinking as the kind that you're engaging in completely ignores the socio-economic structures of society that create poverty. Blaming poor people for being poor by calling them lazy is not only demeaning and rude, but it also doesn't solve the problem of poverty.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@JamesTown_
That's not what I mean. I told you what I mean, that is that the means of production should be controlled and managed by the workers.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@JamesTown_
I didn't say poverty was made up, but that the socio-economic structure of our society caused people to stay in poverty. You have a very flawed and simplistic view of poverty, so much so that you think that people can just live a traditionally conservative life and they'll not be poor, which isn't how anything in the real world works.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@JamesTown_
All workers in a workplace should have ownership of the means of production due to the very fact that they all contribute to the running and functioning of those means of production, and it isn't reasonable for only one person or a small group of people to have complete ownership of those means.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@JamesTown_
The system in Russia wasn't communist, it was state capitalism run by the Bolshevik Party, so that isn't even an example of communism failing, nor is it anything close to what I'm proposing. And you're blatantly wrong about workers not doing important work nowadays. Our entire society is run by workers, and if they stopped working even in part society would collapse.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@JamesTown_
I was referring to the Soviet Union, which was not communist, it was state capitalist, and workers didn't own the means of production, the state, which was controlled by bureaucrats, controlled the means of production.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@JamesTown_
The Soviet Union was state capitalist because the state, rather than workers or communities, owned and controlled the means of production. While the state claimed to represent the working class, it exercised centralized control over the economy, including production, distribution, and resource allocation. In practice, this centralized planning resembled aspects of capitalist control, such as hierarchies, wage labor, and competition, despite the socialist rhetoric.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@JamesTown_
The workers would work for each other and manage, produce, and relocate resources for each other for the sole reason that it's far more efficient to do it that way than for everyone to selfishly work only for themselves.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@JamesTown_
People can selfishly work for each other in a communist society as well. If collective responsibility and group collaboration are beneficial to people then even if they're selfish they would still engage in that behavior because it would benefit them.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@JamesTown_
If my country became communist right now then I wouldn't have to worry about rent because housing would be free, I would get depressed seeing people beg for money on the side of the road because everyone would be given the necessities for living (also people would have less incentive to steal because of this, which would make me feel safer), I wouldn't have to worry about getting injured or getting sick and having to go to the hospital because healthcare would be free.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@JamesTown_
In very simple terms, in a libertarian communist society, everyone works for everyone and everyone benefits from everyone's labor. Free things would be "paid for" by everyone's collective effort, but those people who are working get their compensation by having access to all of the products of the collective labor of their society.

Radical_EgoCom,
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social avatar

@JamesTown_
There would be no need to introduce money to a Libertarian Communist system since the principles of mutual aid, collective ownership, and decentralized decision-making would render currency obsolete, as goods and services would be distributed based on need and freely accessible to all members of society.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • megavids
  • tester
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • osvaldo12
  • ethstaker
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • ngwrru68w68
  • kavyap
  • GTA5RPClips
  • JUstTest
  • cisconetworking
  • InstantRegret
  • khanakhh
  • cubers
  • everett
  • Durango
  • tacticalgear
  • Leos
  • modclub
  • normalnudes
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •