Marxist thought

[Cryptowen]

5 minutes ago, Silent Member said:

Zeff, you should talk about iddems and other nice things instead of this here shitshow, we all know your opinions on China by now and I doubt continuos posting of them is going to make us woke.

yeah i mean in general threads like this aren't going to convert anybody. at best they're a way to score style points with ppl who are already in your camp but imo that's not gonna happen here, all the non-joke posts in this thread are teal deer

[zero]

^ agree. these sorts of discussions are interesting food for thought, for sure. keeps the gears turning. but end of the day, this is all just online fodder. crap to spew out and read when bored at work from home jobs. I used to think all the rah rah rah communism stuff being promoted here was slightly offensive. but then it's like none of this shit will ever happen, so just let him run with it. most peeps here seem to be pretty open minded and like meh, whatever. boobas. 

[Satans Little Helper]

On 4/25/2021 at 6:00 PM, usagi said:

I wish there was a way to make this thread and the unintellectual thread crash into each other resulting in posts from both mixed together out of order.

 

also, from now on this thread is about marx memes

[zlemflolia]

8 hours ago, Valleyfold said:

Works pretty good for me because I live in a nordic country. The situation in the states looks pretty bad, but if that’s impossible I don’t see how a plan that’s a million fold more extreme and unattainable would be achieved. 

>works pretty good for me in one of the most privileged regions on earth, the only place where my plan has actually worked.  just keep trying my plan, surely in a couple centuries it will work for you too

you have no idea what youre talking about

also i think you guys should maybe check who made this thread. it wasnt me

[zlemflolia]

you people are very pathetic privileged first worlders.  a great example of how the first world proletariat has zero class consciousness to speak of

Edited April 27, 2021 by cyanobacteria

[dingformung]

classism is ableist

[zlemflolia]

nordic social democracies are imperial exploiters of the third world and must be destabilized by the third world revolution before they themselves can achieve socialism.  they are being suckled at the nipple of third world workers and only through having it removed can they achieve maturity as a civilization

[Silent Member]

[zlemflolia]

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/09/20.htm

Some people think that the bourgeoisie adopted “pacifism” and “democracy” not because it was compelled to do so, but voluntarily, of its own free choice, so to speak. And it is assumed that, having defeated the working class in decisive battles (Italy, Germany), the bourgeoisie felt that it was the victor and could now afford to adopt “democracy.” In other words, while the decisive battles were in progress, the bourgeoisie needed a fighting organisation, needed fascism; but now that the proletariat is defeated, the bourgeoisie no longer needs fascism and can afford to use “democracy” instead, as a better method of consolidating its victory. Hence, the conclusion is drawn that, the rule of the bourgeoisie has become consolidated, that the “era of pacifism” will be a prolonged one, and that the revolution in Europe has been pigeonholed.

This assumption is absolutely wrong.

Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that “pacifism” signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, “pacifism” is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront.

Secondly, it is not true that the decisive battles have already been fought, that the proletariat was defeated in these battles, and that bourgeois rule has been consolidated as a consequence. There have been no decisive battles as yet, if only for the reason that there have not been any mass, genuinely Bolshevik parties, capable of leading the proletariat to dictatorship. Without such parties, decisive battles for dictatorship are impossible under the conditions of imperialism. The decisive battles in the West still lie ahead. There have been only the first serious attacks, which were repulsed by the bourgeoisie; the first serious trial of strength, which showed that the proletariat is not yet strong enough to overthrow the bourgeoisie, but that the bourgeoisie is already unable to discount the proletariat. And precisely because the bourgeoisie is already unable to force the working class to its knees, it was compelled to renounce frontal attacks, to make a detour, to agree to a compromise, to resort to “democratic pacifism.”

Lastly, it is also not true that “pacifism” is a sign of the strength and not of the weakness of the bourgeoisie, that “pacifism” should result in consolidating the power of the bourgeoisie and in postponing the revolution for an indefinite period. Present-day pacifism signifies the advent to power, direct or indirect, of the parties of the Second International. But what does the advent to power of the parties of the Second International mean? It means their inevitable self-exposure as lackeys of imperialism, as traitors to the proletariat, for the governmental activity of these parties can have only one result: their political bankruptcy, the growth of contradictions within these parties, their disintegration, their decay. But the disintegration of these parties will inevitably lead to the disintegration of the rule of the bourgeoisie, for the parties of the Second International are props of imperialism. Would the bourgeoisie have undertaken this risky experiment with pacifism if it had not been compelled to do so; would it have done so of its own free will? Of course, not! This is the second time that the bourgeoisie is undertaking the experiment with pacifism since the end of the imperialist war. The first experiment was made immediately after the war, when it seemed that revolution was knocking at the door. The second experiment is being undertaken now, after Poincaré’s and Curzon’s risky experiments. Who would dare deny that imperialism will have to pay dearly for this swinging of the bourgeoisie from pacifism to rabid imperialism and back again, that this is pushing vast masses of workers out of their habitual philistine rut, that it is drawing the most backward sections of the proletariat into politics and is helping to revolutionise them? Of course, “democratic pacifism” is not yet the Kerensky regime, for the Kerensky regime implies dual power, the collapse of bourgeois power and the coming into being of the foundations of proletarian power. But, there can scarcely be any doubt that pacifism signifies the immense awakening of the masses, the fact that the masses are being drawn into politics; that pacifism is shaking bourgeois rule and preparing the ground for revolutionary upheavals. And precisely for this reason pacifism is bound to lead not to the strengthening, but to the weakening of bourgeois rule, not to the postponement of the revolution for an indefinite period, but to its acceleration.

It does not, of course, follow that pacifism is not a serious danger to the revolution. Pacifism serves to sap the foundations of bourgeois rule, it is creating favourable conditions for the revolution; but it can have these results only against the will of the “pacifists” and “democrats” themselves, only if the Communist Parties vigorously expose the imperialist and counter-revolutionary nature of the pacifist-democratic rule of Herriot and MacDonald. As for what the pacifists and democrats want, as for the policy of the imperialists, they have only one aim in resorting to pacifism: to dupe the masses with high-sounding phrases about peace in order to prepare for a new war; to dazzle the masses with the brilliance of “democracy” in order to consolidate the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie; to stun the masses with clamour about the “sovereign” rights of nations and states in order the more successfully to prepare for intervention in China, for slaughter in Afghanistan and in the Sudan, for the dismemberment of Persia; to fool the masses with highfaluting talk about “friendly” relations with the Soviet Union, about various “treaties” with the Soviet government, in order to establish still closer relations with the counter-revolutionary conspirators who have been kicked out of Russia, with the aim of bandit operations in Byelorussia, the Ukraine and Georgia. The bourgeoisie needs pacifism as a camouflage. This camouflage constitutes the chief danger of pacifism. Whether the bourgeoisie will succeed in its aim of fooling the people depends upon the vigour with which the Communist Parties in the West and in the East expose the bourgeoisie, upon their ability to tear the mask from the imperialists in pacifist clothing. There is no doubt that events and practice will work in favour of the Communists in this respect by exposing the discrepancy between the pacifist words and the imperialist deeds of the democratic servitors of capital. It is the duty of the Communists to keep pace with events and ruthlessly to expose every step, every act of service to imperialism and betrayal of the proletariat committed by the parties of the Second International.

[brian trageskin]

imagine the fun we would all have if zeff ruled the world

[dingformung]

think of it!

[zlemflolia]

any one of us would make better rulers of the world than the current ones.  imagine if the bloated first world military budgets could be immediately cut and put towards building sustainable infrastructure in third world countries and to help them form socialist governments capable of resisting imperialism.  imagine if the militaries of the world were instead put to work on this infrastructure instead of murdering innocent afghani farmers.

imagine if all proprietary technologies and "intellectual property" were made completely free and open and all medical technology was available to the people of all countries.  imagine if the economy was reformulated to meet the needs of the people first, even if those people are poor and incapable of paying enough to help generate profits.  the fact that you are all seemingly content going about your lives having fun is pathetic and despicable

[chenGOD]

17 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

indeed the ussr suffered famines, as they had throughout the lifetimes of those regions.  the primary cause is collectivization? hilarious, the primary cause is clearly the kulaks literally burning grain and murdering cattle in the fields

Throughout the lifetime of those regions? Prior to those events the biggest famine in the industrial era was in 1891-92, which primarily impacted areas around the Volga, and then spread to the Urals (includes a tiny bit of Kazakhstan) and the Black Sea (which includes some of southeastern Ukraine). The famine had some impact in the Ukraine and Kazakhstan, but it is certainly not indicative of constant famine. In fact, prior to that famine, Russia was a large exporter of grains and cereals, much of which came from Kazakhstan. So no, there was not a record of suffering famine historically in those regions.

The famine of 1921-22 was caused by a number of factors, including Bolshevik requisition policies which took grain from the peasants for nothing in return. This unsurprisingly caused discontent in the peasants who mostly sold their grain on the black market.  I'll note that in both the famine of 1891-92 and the 1921-22 famine, the Americans provided food aid.

The 1932-33 famine was largely caused because of Stalin's combined industrialization and collectivization efforts. Industrialization as part of the first five-year plan pulled many agricultural workers to the city, and collectivization (which again, for totally unknown reasons like not wanting to give up the product of your labour for nothing in return, was not popular), which among other things enforced a change in crop production, especially in the Ukraine.

With respect to the Soviet economy, you said:

On 4/25/2021 at 9:46 PM, cyanobacteria said:

the soviet union was at its time the most successful proletarian achievement in world history, achieving economic growth eclipsing capitalist powers of the time,

So, while the Soviet economy may have had better growth than capitalist powers in that short period of time (most of it is in the post WW2, which is clear if you look at the original statistics which can be found here under the historical statistics), in the longer run picture it is clear that Soviet growth could not exceed that of the US or Western Europe, as outlined in this paper: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/pp2011postprint.pdf

17 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

they already have open and fair elections.  look how well bourgeois representative democracy worked for the US in their most recent Presidential election.  a reality TV show host married to a porn star became president.  china would never be so stupid.

China does not have fair elections at any level. They don't have direct elections at the top three levels and at the local level, there is no party differential allowed. There is further evidence (PDF) that these local elections actually strengthen control by the central party, until the local election may contest centralized powe, in which case the central body will undermine local elections. There is also further evidence that for all the CCP talk of women's emancipation and quality, there is still a large barrier to participation of women in politics in China at the leadership levels.

The last election in the US actually removed that reality TV show host through a peaceful (mostly) transfer of power (compared to say Myanmar, a client state of China).

You keep saying stuff that is reasonably simple to prove as inaccurate or wrong. So yeah, I'm going to leave this thread now. I'm sure you will reply.

I will still be moving Marxist related stuff to this thread from other threads.

[Cryptowen]

Schumpeter's description of Syndicalism sounds pretty lit

Spoiler

Syndicalism is apolitical and anti-political in the sense that it despises action on or through the organs of traditional politics in general and parliaments in particular. It is antiintellectual both in the sense that it despises constructive programs with theories behind them and in the sense that it despises the intellectual’s leadership. It really appeals to the workman’s instincts—and not, like Marxism, to the intellectual’s idea of what the workman’s instincts ought to be—by promising him what he can understand, viz., the conquest of the shop he works in, conquest by physical violence, ultimately by the general strike.

i mean jk but this does correspond to a general trend I've observed with socialists I've met irl: either they're quite well educated & have read a lot of literature (at least, literature within a certain milieu) or they're crustpunks who always seem like they're looking around the meeting hall wondering where the molatov cocktails are at

[zlemflolia]

47 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Throughout the lifetime of those regions? Prior to those events the biggest famine in the industrial era was in 1891-92, which primarily impacted areas around the Volga, and then spread to the Urals (includes a tiny bit of Kazakhstan) and the Black Sea (which includes some of southeastern Ukraine). The famine had some impact in the Ukraine and Kazakhstan, but it is certainly not indicative of constant famine. In fact, prior to that famine, Russia was a large exporter of grains and cereals, much of which came from Kazakhstan. So no, there was not a record of suffering famine historically in those regions.

The famine of 1921-22 was caused by a number of factors, including Bolshevik requisition policies which took grain from the peasants for nothing in return. This unsurprisingly caused discontent in the peasants who mostly sold their grain on the black market.  I'll note that in both the famine of 1891-92 and the 1921-22 famine, the Americans provided food aid.

The 1932-33 famine was largely caused because of Stalin's combined industrialization and collectivization efforts. Industrialization as part of the first five-year plan pulled many agricultural workers to the city, and collectivization (which again, for totally unknown reasons like not wanting to give up the product of your labour for nothing in return, was not popular), which among other things enforced a change in crop production, especially in the Ukraine.

With respect to the Soviet economy, you said:

So, while the Soviet economy may have had better growth than capitalist powers in that short period of time (most of it is in the post WW2, which is clear if you look at the original statistics which can be found here under the historical statistics), in the longer run picture it is clear that Soviet growth could not exceed that of the US or Western Europe, as outlined in this paper: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/pp2011postprint.pdf

China does not have fair elections at any level. They don't have direct elections at the top three levels and at the local level, there is no party differential allowed. There is further evidence (PDF) that these local elections actually strengthen control by the central party, until the local election may contest centralized powe, in which case the central body will undermine local elections. There is also further evidence that for all the CCP talk of women's emancipation and quality, there is still a large barrier to participation of women in politics in China at the leadership levels.

The last election in the US actually removed that reality TV show host through a peaceful (mostly) transfer of power (compared to say Myanmar, a client state of China).

 

there should be no surprise that in the course of revolutionary struggles and rapid industrialization bad things will happen.  you are ignoring the slow bleed of perils trickled down to us by the bourgeoisie.  is it a famine when the death is spread out over regions and over periods of time? when it's calculated by computers instead of people and accidents? when it's harder to point out?  point fingers all you want, the most fingers should be pointed at those choosing to avoid concrete improvements. 

explain to me how the richest countries have so many starving and homeless people.  how do you justify this for your capitalist ideology?

[zlemflolia]

9 minutes ago, Cryptowen said:

Schumpeter's description of Syndicalism sounds pretty lit

  Reveal hidden contents

Syndicalism is apolitical and anti-political in the sense that it despises action on or through the organs of traditional politics in general and parliaments in particular. It is antiintellectual both in the sense that it despises constructive programs with theories behind them and in the sense that it despises the intellectual’s leadership. It really appeals to the workman’s instincts—and not, like Marxism, to the intellectual’s idea of what the workman’s instincts ought to be—by promising him what he can understand, viz., the conquest of the shop he works in, conquest by physical violence, ultimately by the general strike.

i mean jk but this does correspond to a general trend I've observed with socialists I've met irl: either they're quite well educated & have read a lot of literature (at least, literature within a certain milieu) or they're crustpunks who always seem like they're looking around the meeting hall wondering where the molatov cocktails are at

what youre referring to your last sentence sounds like anarchists not trade unionists.  here's Engels' perspective on them

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

schumpeter also sounds like a bourgeois scumbag here, great paragraph to make you hate him even more.  degrading the working people into supposedly not being intellectuals, and claiming marxists are on his side in that caricature.  fuck this clown

Edited April 27, 2021 by cyanobacteria

[zlemflolia]

1 hour ago, chenGOD said:

I will still be moving Marxist related stuff to this thread from other threads.

interesting that you support targeted political censorship. can we move all capitalist ideological talking points to a capitalism thread?  as far as i know i only talk about marxism in political threads.  marxism goes very well in capitalist threads considering marxism is the dominant strain of anti-capitalist ideology

Edited April 27, 2021 by cyanobacteria

[Diurn]

talking about lodges are we? this type of discussions are just a scratch on the surface. The whole idea is to polarize mindsets, creating a solution and a problem at once. Is about control guys, liberal/libertarian ideas vs socialist/govnment ones. yo know

the devil is in the details

[zlemflolia]

Just now, Diurn said:

talking about lodges are we? this type of discussions are just a scratch on the surface. The whole idea is to polarize mindsets, creating a solution and a problem at once. Is about control guys, liberal/libertarian ideas vs socialist/govnment ones. yo know

the devil is in the details

your characterization of liberalism is very wrong given that it requires an authoritarian dictatorship of the bourgeoisie to even work, with a state to enforce private property rights

[Satans Little Helper]

[Diurn]

1 minute ago, cyanobacteria said:

your characterization of liberalism is very wrong given that it requires an authoritarian dictatorship of the bourgeoisie to even work, with a state to enforce private property rights

that's why I prefer Bakunin view, liberalism and anarchism are on the same line but lets relax, just keep the respect and tolerance on.

regards,

[zlemflolia]

2 minutes ago, Diurn said:

that's why I prefer Bakunin view, liberalism and anarchism are on the same line but lets relax, just keep the respect and tolerance on.

regards,

can you elaborate further on this, i haven't read bakunin.  why does he think liberalism/anarchism are "on the same line"?

[Diurn]

2 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

can you elaborate further on this, i haven't read bakunin.  why does he think liberalism/anarchism are "on the same line"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state

[Cryptowen]

I'm currently reading Kondylis & I kinda dig his idea that Liberalism starts off as a fairly rigid social codification implemented by the ascendant bourgeois class, but over a sufficient length of time it decays into a formless mass consciousness in which individuals of all classes become depersonalized units through which macro-level social forces endlessly produce complex (but ultimately insubstantial) cultural forms, trends, mutations etc

[zlemflolia]

6 minutes ago, Diurn said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state

Can you expand further? what does this have to do with your claim of bakunin's characterization of liberalism as being similar to anarchism? seems like a conflation of left and right anarchism