In fact, capitalism appeared with what is referred to as civilization; at the same time as money, work (as in remunerated work and employer-employee relationship), ownership and property, professions, education, science and separation of knowledge into separate branches and disciplines.
So did the entity called state, so did society (prior to civilization, humans organized in communities, not societies) along with social hierarchy and, according to Marx, religion as well.
Agreed.
Personally, I may consider reflecting on the first point (capitalism) as the basis for sort of a critique of civilization sui generis, relative to the question of whether man did not in fact live a more authentic life in pre-civilizational times, ie during most of their existence (by a very large margin) as homo sapiens sapiens. Essentially due to being non-alienated by wage bondage, ie living the way he is supposed to, as opposed to civilized and thus alienated life, which according to Marx runs counter to human nature.
But that more authentic life, had it continued, would have prevented technological innovation.
Now I must take issue with Marx's rejection of the second and third items - state and religion, as mere super-structures of Capital...
The second item - State - I agree with Marx.
The third item - Religion - perhaps Marx was influenced by the European Renaissance which seeked to remove the oppressive and corrupting things from the then European understanding of Christianity. He should have reflected that some past religions, or at least their originators and preachers, spoke about social, economic and political justice and advancement. For example Prophet Jesus preached against the wrongs done by the traditional money lenders and then Prophet Muhammad created an entire set of progressive socio-economic laws. Just yesterday I spoke of Communism and Religion in
this post of mine, a reply to another member.
Nonetheless, Marx's contribution to the realm of ideas is not particularly easy to counter nor does it lack basic structure (even though to himself, he contributed strictly nothing at all, but only formalized what he claimed every alienated human being is aware of deep in their guts).
Agreed.
His ideas reach far beyond the simple "myth of the good savage", and anyone seeking to debunk them will need to accomplish some very serious cognitive work. Which in some ways can be disconcerting if one isn't really on the same page.
Hmm.
Another interesting fact to note is that many if not most of those who speak about Marx didn't actually read his works, neither his major one (I don't blame them, given how voluminous the latter is), nor his secondary ones (including his correspondence with Engels, which is pretty important to study).
Well, I myself purchased his Capital some years ago from a secondhand bookshop. IIRC it had two thick volumes. I expected it to have philosophy but when I open them all I saw were numbers so stopped reading them.
Hence the many misconceptions about "Marxian" thought (since he himself categorically rejected any notion of "Marxism").
I see.
Basically, what Marx believed in or rather, what he believed is bound to be the destiny of mankind, is a return to the pre-civilizational, communist community, consecutive to an inevitable proletarian revolution brought about by material dialectics (and every person is a proletarian, to simplify, except for the capitalists and to some extent the non-conscious lumpenproletariat).
In other words: no more state, no more remunerated work, no more wages, no more ownership of the means of production, no more property, no more money, no more schools and universities, no more organized religion, no more hierarchy. Just like all our ancestors used to live, no matter our origins - some slightly longer (Germanic peoples, Native Americans, etc), and some less so.
1. Did he really say "no more schools and universities" ?
2. About "no more State" the Jamahiriya political system in pre-2011 Libya was a Direct Democracy system where the people ruled directly without parties and Western-styled parliaments. My user-name is my understanding of a person who propounds that system. Hugo Chavez was a friend of Gaddafi and he adapted the Libyan system for Venezuela. Gaddafi did not use the word "Communist political system" do describe the Libyan system maybe because Communism has become associated with Atheism and that would have perhaps made it difficult to convince the Libyans to accept the system but later would have made it difficult to convince other societies in the East and the Global South that this system is worth adopting, but Gaddafi did write an essay that asked "Has Communism arrived yet ?".
3. About "no more money" I don't know if money can be abolished despite technological advancements like 3D Printing but I have proposed an economic system in
this thread which ensures that there is no economic disparity, no economic classes. Please do read the OP and the subsequent discussion and leave your comments there.
A look at Roman texts describing the lifestyle of Germanic tribes at the time when the latter crushingly defeated the Roman legions is quite instructive, insofar as it precisely reflects Marx's vision of the communist community.
OK.
Which by the way, also implies that the former Soviet states were nowhere communist. The concepts of communism and state are intrinsically antinomic. Marx would doubtlessly have denounced them, along with their pretense that socialism is the first step in a transition from capitalism to communism. To Marx, these would have represented yet another dialectically determined manifestation of Capital, and would have been akin to state capitalism.
Politically, I suppose the plan of the USSR was to establish a base from where to convince at some point the entire world to become a Stateless Communist entity. Hence the USSR supporting leftist movements and countries outside of its territory in the hope of them being being able to capture leadership of their countries or able to influence neighboring countries. A global link up.
Economics-wise, perhaps the USSR's economists weren't able to come up with a no-money system or even a simplified form of money. I don't know about this aspect of the USSR.
feudal rule is basically similary structured like communism in fact the russians are the best example just look at how they turned into small thiefdoms with their oligarchs and so on its just how communism was supposed to work coming out of european feudal concepts
1. AFAIK the oligarchs in Russia who got created after the dissolution of the USSR got mostly removed by Putin. Russia is much less chaotic than in the 1990s. I don't think the post-USSR oligarchs had anything to do with Communism. The dissolution wasn't the end intention of the creation of the USSR and the post-USSR were just crooked people who took advantage of their own high positions in the USSR times or the high positions of their family and friends.
2. Communism was a social, political and economic evolution from European and general human feudal concepts.
3. Please read my mention of Libya above.
and the chinese model is for example not real communism to begin with its way to much based on chinese concepts which allowed it to become this weird hybrid trying to find harmony between the two extremes for example is chinese and russia couldnt do it during communist rule because its european
Please read the below section.
i would call china today chinese revolutionary socialist konfuzian peoples government and yes its way longer than the simple label of communism
Today's China is Communist only in name. No ideological empathy for others in the world. It is a highly selfish country which wants to use other parts of the world for its own enrichment and becoming a superpower. Internally it has an un-Communist economic system which has elements like stock exchanges and allows the environment for Chinese to gamble in the stock exchange, lose money and commit suicide even by jumping into a steel furnace.
I don't see what harmony balancing the Chinese "Communists" are doing.
