The Weekly Marxist: Opening the Dialogue

(Opening Applause, Augustus takes his seat)

Well, ladies and gentlemen, this show of mine is getting off to a rocky start most certainly. As a result, I will have to simplify some of the points I wanted to make here, but nevertheless, will examine and analyze the claims presented to the best of my abilities.

That said, let's get straight into it, starting with Luna:

"I can't deny that laissez-faire capitalism is a very flawed system, but we can't ignore that communism has its own flaws too. Human beings naturally require a hierarchy within society, and the idea of a society without having groups of people that are economically "superior" to others, I would say, wouldn't particularly work in human society -- which is why a communist democracy has been a concept that hasn't really been seen historically much. Communism is a good idea in theory, but in practice it really hasn't achieved its original intent, which is why I do not consider myself a communist. I would argue, though, that even though it, too, has some flaws, the Nordic model of social democracy is the best way to go, because it retains a free market while still maintaining protection and economic security for the people, so we don't see the issues that have begun in communist societies but also are able to mitigate the issues with current forms of laissez-faire capitalism.

There's my "counterargument," but just something I've always considered, really, and I don't mean to insult your political ideology in any way; I'm just explaining my own."

The best way to find a true Marxist, or leftist in general, is to find the ones who criticize themselves. We as Marxists are the first to recognize that our ideology is not without its flaws.

That said, humans have always lived in a hierarchy indeed, but it was not always exploitative. Cavemen tribes had a chief or leader, but until the rise of empires and civilization with need for mass labor and a growing aristocratic class, the lives of humans were generally Egalitarian.

Communism has also never worked in society, yes, but not because it cannot at all, rather, because capitalism and reactionaries have never given it the chance to. The Paris Commune was brutally crushed just months into its life, and the revolutions of the 20th century were met with bureaucracy that all surrendered to capitalism sooner or later, save for North Korea hiding in their little monarchic hermit state.

Nordic Social Democracy is a commonplace thought for the Scandinavian countries and their neighbors, but they cannot possibly be socialist, because for a country to survive in the global market, they need to be capitalist. Major corporations in the region, such as Ikea or Mojang, could not have expanded beyond the area without adopting capitalism as it is globally. Then of course there's the cuts to the social spending they do provide, so as to play their part in the NATO War Machine, whether in the criminal alliance or not.

In summary, while Marxism has never truly taken root, it is not on its own accord, but rather the actions of its enemies being far more decisive than those acting for the proletarian democracy, and any state in the modern age is far from what Marx envisioned.

Now, on to Lunoria, with multiple examples to cover:

"The Way I've always seen it, no government type is better than each other. Its a matter of what the government does not the system itself. For example I guarantee you if Stalin had never taken power America would not have nearly the amount of hate it did (and technically still does) towards the USSR and Communism as a whole really. Another thing is how the U.S. has never been fond of Dictators, and while yes there have been some horrible horrible ones that have existed, not all dictators were that bad. In fact there is one in particular that became a dictator yet still (for the most part) represented the people and brought prosperity to the region, I'm talking about Singapore. We actually have a term for this form of dictator, it is called a benevolent dictator. My final example for this topic is slightly controversial, Italian dictator from ww2 while a fascist, seemed to actually want to bring prosperity to Italy, and if he hadn't joined the Fascist Germans I can't reference, he may have been successful in that endeavor. The point is, hate the government not the system, hate the government not the people.

Rant concluded."

Before we can even begin, we must establish what government or state, and system are: In Marxist terminology, to sum it up, the system is the order of society, and the state is the political control methodology of that order. By those definitions however, they are inseparable: The state without the system has no control, and the system without the state has no protection.

Addressing a minor point, had Trotsky succeeded Stalin, of course the reputation of Communism would be greater. Was Trotsky a perfect person in leadership, absolutely not, but compared to Stalin, it's hard to argue it would have been nearly as bad as it turned out.

The idea that the U.S. has never been fond towards dictators however, is complete hypocrisy. The United States has backed up dictators in Latin America for the sole purpose of crushing the left, pseudo-ist and not, and across the Middle East and North Africa in response to the Arab Spring. A good example is Egypt, which had a successful popular revolution in 2010/11, only for the Muslim Brotherhood to take the military, with backing from the White House, to crush the revolution. America needs Egypt under its sphere or influence to keep control of the Suez Canal, and subsequently, the steady supply of oil coming from Arabia.

A benevolent dictatorship is a threat to the idea of democracy: If a country like that can exist, why don't others try it? You bring up Singapore, another key player in the global trade network. The government there is a one-party autocracy, with no alternative. The high-living cost and status of Singapore has left around 378,000 people in poverty, without the ability to live, or leave.

As for the Italian Dictator That Cannot be Named, his early life was actually that of a Trotskyist, but after seeing the garbage deal by the allies following World War I, and the inaction of the Third International and their parties, which had by that point abandoned all action outside the USSR, his nationalist views took over, his socialist youth having failed him, and he turned to fascism for answers, a process that is ongoing in many societies today.

From there, I amend your statement to the following: Hate the system for its exploitation, hate the government for its suppression, and entrust only the people to the powers of both.

 

Wow, that was still a lot of work, even with the ideas grinded down some. Our revision plans shall take effect the coming week. I hope you found what you read here informational at the least, and I encourage you all to continue sending us questions, or asking your friends and allies some to send us. We'll take them all with glee! And with that...

UNTIL NEXT TIME, THIS IS AUGUSTUS DEMOCRATICUS, REMINDING YOU THAT THE CHOCOLATE-CHIP COOKIES ARE COMPELTELY INNOCENT 👍, GOOD NIGHT ORBIS!

…

…

…

(QUICK QUE THE NEW OUTRO MUSIC!)