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?

  • BeamBrain [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    It’s the entire basis of communist theory. Capitalism cannot be “fixed” because its basic structure consists of two classes with different relations to the means of production, the bourgeoise and the proletariat, who have diametrically opposed material interests. The way to resolve this contradiction is to do away with the parasitic capitalist class and reorganize society so that it consists only of workers.

    This is 101-level Marxism. If you don’t agree with any of it, then, uh, you may be on the wrong site.

      • WithoutFurtherDelay [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If material reality (or, to hopefully bridge a terminology barrier, our perceptual interface) didn’t matter, that would mean that the struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie is fundamentally inane, and would suggest an entirely different approach other than communism is necessary.

          • WithoutFurtherDelay [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If you think it matters, and I have repeatedly suggested how treating the perceptual interface with respect would be identical to the function of Marxist materialism, what are we even arguing about?

            Idealism, the opposite of materialism, when translated to this new conception of reality, would just be believing that things we consciously make up matter more than our perceptual interface.