The thing to understand about Christianity is that it was originally a reaction against the Roman empire and then got co-opted and integrated into it. As a result, ever since like the 4th century Christianity has been about basically the opposite of what Jesus talked about. It turns out all that stuff about turning the other cheek stops being relevant if the emperor has his soldiers paint crosses on their shields while they’re out conquering and enslaving the Gauls. Of course, you can keep all the mythological stuff, who cares, but anything relevant to politics or the material world mysteriously seemed to reverse once they entered the halls of power.
The carrot of being accepted into the empire was matched with the stick that if you didn’t go along with the imperial-approved form of Christianity you’d be burned at the stake as a heretic. Any sects still clinging to anti-imperial sentiment get hunted down and exterminated just like when they were being fed to lions, but it’s the Christians doing it to each other now, so you don’t even have to get your own hands dirty. This approach worked way better at suppressing dissent than just trying to ban Christianity altogether.
Of course, a lot has changed over the centuries. And originally it wasn’t perfect or anything either. But imo, it was when Rome Christianized that Christianity Romanized, and ever since its real values have had more to do with Rome than with Jesus. The meme’s, “moneyless, classless, stateless” ideal of heaven is a relic of the original teachings that gets shunted off to the purely mythological side, where it not only doesn’t matter, but also occupies a place in their brain that could have otherwise been sympathetic to making good things happen in the material world. That’s already resolved, there’s no need to worry about it, there’ll be pie in sky when you die.
Great writeup comrade, I also wanna share this really interesting article from Roland Boer, going over this history a bit, and also outlining the historical intersections of communism and christianity.
lots of unironic communists on lemmy?
Yeah, it was literally created by communists
Libs when free, open source, distributed and community supported platforms are not made by people who love capitalism and corporations 🤯🤯🤯🤯
Yep! Lemmy is primarily developed by Marxist-Leninists, and is generally structured in opposition to Capitalist networks. It allows Communists to form our own spaces without corporate censorship.
Which is why it’s a big irony when people come to Lemmy to complain about communism/socialism.
Like, man, you are on a decentralized network run by volunteers who don’t want to be monetized. You want to enjoy the benefits of socialism but at the same time complain about how bad it is and promote capitalism.
Yep, but that’s just how it is, and why I focus on outreach all the same.
You’re fucking incredible, Cowbee. I’ve watched you spend literally days patiently and politely responding to dozens of confrontational, probably bad-faith posters in thread after thread with nothing but solid information. I really admire it.
Thanks, I really do appreciate it! At the end of the day, I try to only speak on what I know, so that helps me not get frustrated if someone comes in in clearly bad-faith, haha.
just wanna second what @moonmelon@lemmy.ml said. you’re awesome.
i’d say “keep up the good work” but like you deserve a break.
Thanks for the kind words, and don’t worry! I do take frequent breaks, that’s why I made a Hexbear alt in the first place, haha.
Unfortunately, yes. Ignore the downvotes from the the mad people, and prepare your blocklist. It’s your right, after all.
Or… perhaps… talk to people and try to understand why they think the way they do. Who knows, maybe you’d hear something that makes sense. Just an idea! :D
I spent enough time in my teens and early 20’s doing that. I grew out of it when I got smarter and more jaded.
I don’t think communism is a moneyless system. Pretty sure people paid money for things in the USSR. Have there been any communist countries without money?
Communism is a post-Socialist society, it must be global, highly developed, and have full public ownership, or close enough to those. The Soviet Union was, instead, Socialist, ie an economy where public ownership is the principle aspect. That being said, there were attempts at Cybernetics, and moving beyond money. These are actually incredibly interesting, and anyone interested in Socialism should look into those attempts.
If you want to learn more about Socialism and Communism, I recommend checking out my introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list.
Marx mentioned
I do be mentioning Marx
There is also the great Documentary by Plastic Pills Project Cybersyn & The CIA Coup in Chile
Oh shit, I need to watch that! Thanks, comrade!
It’s great, it goes further into how post coup the nascent proto-neolib ghouls went down to examine cybersyn and essentially stole the whole idea behind it which eventually became the model for just in time supply chains at places like amazon and walmart. Oh what could have been.
Interesting, and heartbreaking, of course. I never knew about the link to JIT from Cybersyn, I’ll have to give that a watch. Thanks!
I mean that stuff wouldn’t emerge for the next couple decades, but you can certainly see where the capitalist vampires saw it and went “damn that looks real efficient, bet if we made a privatized version we’d make more money than god”.
Of course as we know it was only so efficient because of its socialized nature which made such supply chains less prone to disruption as the computational power could be used to centrally monitor supply chains between all sorts of different nationalized industries, that could then be allocated in an agile manor so as to minimize any one industry or population running out of materials or basic needs. It was so efficient materials could even be reallocated mid route. It was a really sophisticated system and could serve as a blueprint for large scale socialized economies.
Absolutely! It’s kinda surreal seeing Marx get vindicated, he predicted markets would eventually develop these kinds of technologies in order to deal with ever-increasing complexity in production.
Yes, which is why the USSR never once in its history claimed to have built communism. The best they claimed was “developed socialism” with promises to build Communism someday
something that I don’t get about communism: how do you prevent people from redistributing their wealth unequally over time?
I don’t really have any politic views because the discourse on it is so big and the issues so complex, but lean more towards socialism
By the time we reach Communism, that is, the Marxist vision of a fully publicly owned and planned world economy, distribution of wealth will likely be based on need. There is no necessity for equal wealth, as humans have very unequal needs. Equal ownership of property is certified through public ownership.
If you’re asking what’s preventing someone from starting a business, it would be the sheer difficulties of actually starting one that can compete with the highly developed productive forces in the rest of the economy. Communism isn’t so much about outlawing private property, as developing beyond it.
Communism is just people trying to create heaven on earth but without God.
OP is gonna get banned by the admins for implying communism is stateless
Why would OP be banned for that? That’s what Marx literally stated. Marxists and Anarchists have different views on what the state is though, and thus both how to get rid of it and the final structure, so trying to claim Marx was using the Anarchist definition of the state to try to take the stance that Marx was an advocate for decentralized cooperatives and communes as a solution is wrong, if that was your implication.
Marxists see the state as an implementation of class oppression, Anarchists see it as a tool of hierarchy. As a consequence, Marxists see Communism as a fully publicly owned and planned, democratic government, while Anarchists want decentralized networks of Communes. For Marxists, the Anarchist solution retains class distinctions as each commune only has internal ownership and thus class is retained, while for Anarchists the Marxist solution retains the state as it retains hierarchy.
This struggle over analysis drives the major distinctions between each major school of Leftist thought. That doesn’t mean we do not share a common anti-capitalist and anti-Imperialist struggle, but it does mean the strategies and ends are different. If it was simply a question of strategy and timeline specifically, there would not be as much friction outside of explicitly non-sectarian spaces.
You know Marx said this right? Like that’s the end goal.
Yes, I know communism is stateless. You shouldn’t be so willing to think other people don’t know what they’re talking about. You should be more charitable.
So why would they get banned? I don’t understand
Their belief is that Marxists are hypocritical for wanting public ownership of property and believing a government necessary for that, as they are of the belief that government and the state are the same for Marx, and rather than the “Administration of Things” that Engels speaks of, there would be a structure closer to Anarchism.
I’m aware they’re at least somewhat disingenuous. I’m trying to get them to spell out their beliefs and assumptions despite that.
Gotcha, keep it up, comrade 🫡
So you’re saying if the admins ban me, they’d be giving me exactly what I want, and therefore they shouldn’t?
I’m okay with you believing that. Even if you are choosing to reduce my entire personality to one event, weeks ago, which I’d mostly forgotten.
I’m not really saying much of anything beyond that you have a bone to pick with the mods, and that is the clearest explanation for why you made your original comment. I’m not trying to reduce you to anything, just draw on a similar situation from a few weeks ago.
The mods have never treated me unfairly, I have no problem with them.
Communism is stateless ?? LMAO. OP has no clue what communism really is
Communism is stateless, but not without government, or what Engels calls “The Administration of Things.” For Marx, the “state” is made up of the instruments of society that uphold class distinctions, such as private property rights, and special bodies of armed people for those purposes. Public ownership and socialized ownership quite literally makes those aspects of society redundant, and thus “whithers away.”
Yes, and eggs are perfect spheres in Vacuum. In real world, any and every attempt at communism will lead to a situation where government becomes an all encompassing over bearing State. that’s why Socialism is a far better and much more practical model than communism ever will be.
I think you’re a bit confused on terms, here, as well as history.
Socialism is just an economy where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, rather than private. It’s a transitional system towards Communism, because markets naturally cebtralize and create efficient networks for central planning all by themselves. Cuba, the PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, former USSR, etc are all examples of Socialism.
Communism, the point at which the entire global economy can be publicly owned and planned, has not been reached. There have been Communist parties in charge of Socialist economies, but Communism itself is still in the future.
I think if you’re going to be discussing the practicality of Communism and Socialism, you’d do well to familiarize yourself with the systems more. Socialism is not in opposition to Communism, and is a prerequisite for it. I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list if you want to become more knowledgeable about Socialism and Communism.
So it’s stateless but there’s a state according to the common definition but not according to a different definition that is less common. Got it.
Basically. Marx wrote in the 1800s, so there can be confusion from those who only keep a surface-level understanding of Marxism, say, by sticking to Wikipedia summaries. If you want, I can provide sources that help elaborate on what I’m talking about.
