I feel like I understand communist theory pretty well at a basic level, and I believe in it, but I just don’t see what part of it requires belief in an objective world of matter. I don’t believe in matter and I’m still a communist. And it seems that in the 21st century most people believe in materialism but not communism. What part of “people should have access to the stuff they need to live” requires believing that such stuff is real? After all, there are nonmaterial industries and they still need communism. Workers in the music industry are producing something that nearly everyone can agree only exists in our heads. And they’re still exploited by capital, despite musical instruments being relatively cheap these days, because capital owns the system of distribution networks and access to consumers that is the means of profitability for music. Spotify isn’t material, it’s a computer program. It’s information. It’s a thoughtform. Yet it’s still a means of production that ought to be seized for the liberation of the musician worker. What does materialism have to do with any of this?

  • mah [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    so you are not a marxist, bye lol :)

    i’m joking. but you really need to read about marxism.

    What does everything you just said have to do with communism?

    It’s the very basics of our theory. and it’s basically what i told you before.

    ofc, you can believe in socialism without being a marxist. You might be interested in reading Polanyi for example.

    • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, I do understand everything you just said, I just think it’s wrong and that a properly communist analysis would demonstrate that. Are you telling me that historical materialism is just one of multiple ways of arriving at communist conclusions?

      • mah [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Communism is usually associated with historical materialism, the theory that everyone here is trying to explain to you. However, there have been other forms of socialism before and after Marx. You might find interesting Henri de Saint-Simon and his theories, Paul Lafargue, or for another, more recent example of non-Marxist socialist, Karl Polanyi.

        If you don’t believe in Marxism, that’s okay. But you need to study it first, and based on your original post, it might require some more time, patience, and reading.

      • BeamBrain [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Half an hour ago, you didn’t know what historical materialism meant. You are in no position to tell anyone what a “properly communist analysis” would demonstrate.

        No investigation, no right to speak.

        • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I knew what historical materialism meant, just didn’t see what it had to do with communism other than Marx believed in it. I don’t really understand Marx’s thinking in associating the two, but this thread is helping. It seems like y’all are already materialists and just need a material analysis of class because you’re not ready to understand the big stuff.