The entire "everybody acts in a way that is ultimately reducible to their material interests and the ideas they have are just distortions or window dressing" thing is one of the biggest strawmen ever made about communists. It's not that communists think people just follow their interests it's that the system forces people to act within the constraints of material interests. And morality all that good vs. evil shit exists mainly to hide and obscure that fact, that the core reality of capitalism is driven by profit, the competition for money and the harsh truth that without capital, you're left to struggle, that it isn't some natural, self-correcting system, it's man-made, and it runs on the logic of capital, accumulate or collapse.
>>2337969>the system forces people to act within the constraints of material interests. Their aggregate social class acting within their class's interests
>And morality all that good vs. evil shit exists mainly to hide and obscure that factthe history of humanity is the history of class war between bourgeois or proletarian morality
>>2340457well, this is an entirely reductive analysis.
in a darwinist world, there is always predator and prey.
>>2340467its not as simple as that. there is a reason why the bourgeoisie still remain to be the most revolutionary class in history, for example.
>>2340471china appears to be a bourgeois autocracy from what i have seen. how would you describe it?
>>2340475only when you limit your analysis of what comprises class relations and of how class relates to one's lived reality.
>>2340447Both the communist revolutions that created the Soviet Union and Maoist China were led and coordinated by focusing on domination by the proletariat class following what Engels said about peasants:
<We, of course, are decidedly on the side of the small peasant; we shall do everything at all permissible to make his lot more bearable, to facilitate his transition to the co-operative should he decide to do so, and even to make it possible for him to remain on his small holding for a protracted length of time to think the matter over, should he still be unable to bring himself to this decision. We do this not only because we consider the small peasant living by his own labor as virtually belonging to us, but also in the direct interest of the Party. The greater the number of peasants whom we can save from being actually hurled down into the proletariat, whom we can win to our side while they are still peasants, the more quickly and easily the social transformation will be accomplished. It will serve us nought to wait with this transformation until capitalist production has developed everywhere to its utmost consequences, until the last small handicraftsman and the last small peasant have fallen victim to capitalist large-scale production.
<Engels, The Peasant Question in France and Germanyhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/peasant-question/ch02.htm >>2340530nothing as simples as a string of words of course
>only when you limit your analysis of what comprises class relations and of how class relates to one's lived reality.no, always
Unique IPs: 18