|
Intro Hi there. A lot of people curious about the recent developments of our time led to a flurry of activity in the Cool Zone thread, being encouraged to post and participate, and by witnessing the absolutely atrocious things done against themselves and/or their fellows in protest and resistance, became radicalized in opposition to the establishment. Naturally, as it has happened in generations of leftists before, all manners of questions arise. That thread, being extremely dynamic, means that some queries end up being addressed superficially when good answers can provide useful information and important context to situate the newcomer into this new point of view. However, as it has happened in generations of leftists before, the matter of helping people along in that sense is something that, unfortunately, is a mess of inherited bad habits and poo poo presumptions which serves only to hinder and placate vanities of exclusivity instead of actually helping others. I firmly believe that going "GO READ [X]" is no good answer to someone who came up in earnest. There is a better way to communicate and educate. The goal of this thread is quite simple: ask anything related to leftist matters. There are no stupid questions. Of course, as long as you are sincere, earnest and in good faith about it, I will do the same and invite the others willing to answer to remember that as well. But we are going to do something different here. I did post somewhere in the Cool Zone thread that the important distinction of pedagogy in this subject is to use theory, not show. This is not a theory discussion thread, nor a book recommendation thread, this is to bring questions and from them bring out discussions, which hopefully will lead to more questions. This will be, personally, the approach I am going to take. What a socialist education is for? I feel that the better process of such an education effort has to be fundamentally collaborative and done in an active, dynamic manner, which by itself will inspire others to go after the books or do what they feel is best to further their own learning. Ultimately, as great pedagogues like Paulo Freire said on the matter, a socialist education has to be an education towards understanding of the world and society one lives in and thus provide the potential for liberation, to allow one to know their social condition and circumstance and be able to do something about it. Even though in my limited experience in that regard, this has led to all sorts of fascinating discoveries from the people engaged in this process: I saw a former convict become a militant socialist drag queen who organizes a theatre group; a 70-year old widow become a feminist writer and author; amateur footballers organize their union; hardcore labor movement men understand how themselves cannot use socialism to excuse for bigoted behavior and become better men as result, and so on and on. (this might show up so) What are your qualifications? None. Literally. I studied political economy and associated classes to completion during my time as an econ student, but I quit the course, so I have no academic credentials. On the other hand, this made my learning much different than the usual route. I have been engaged with leftist activism and education for 8 years now, which given the feedback I have received even here, seems to resonate well when I try to explain stuff to people. Also, it is one hell of a contradictory, inane bullshit to be elitist and academic about stuff meant to bring everybody into a better condition. Which brings us to... Some helpful suggestions to steer this well: This is meant to the more experienced folks. You will deny, but I know you. I know the twitching of a tankie ready to go off and the anarchist who wants to poo poo all over a decent answer because it didn't address something they feel precious about it. Take note. No dogmatism. Why the gently caress you would want to defend some supposed sanctity in regards to writings and authors when none of them would act in such a way (and many have expressed that they did not wish to be taken as holy)? It helps nobody. Red dogma is poisonous. People are more important than theory. Make this your mantra. If somebody here decides to get organized in a way that screams completely against your view of theory, don't be that loving rear end in a top hat. They might discover means none of us have realized yet, and experimentation is absolutely fundamental in this regard. Practice and theory, theory and practice. There is a reason why this is such an important saying in leftist history. If you learn a lot but don't go to anything, all of it is ethereal in your mind. Likewise, doing action without method leads to nowhere. An encouragement I often make is, for example, when you go to a protest, go talk to people. Learn from others and share what you know. Become more articulate and capable as result. Strengthen your solidarity. Comradeship is the cornerstone of socialism, after all. --- Edit, 14/06/2020: BTW, didn't make this explicit earlier on when making the thread, but if you feel you have a gigapost about some subject that makes for an interesting read, a curious take you have been working on a while or simply that posting something that can be read by others makes for good practice towards understanding and expression of some idea, please, go ahead! (A suggestion, if that is the case: try to put it in your words as much as possible, as if you were talking to someone in a very informal manner. You can be surprised with how much more you can get from your comprehension by doing so, as well as developing better communication.) --- and remember: whatever you have, 
dead gay comedy forums has issued a correction as of 17:06 on Jun 14, 2020 |
#
?
Jun 10, 2020 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
reserved
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2020 17:55
|
|
|
reserved (just in case)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2020 17:55
|
|
|
One time I was at work & everyone was bitching about mgmt loving up & I was like "we should get to vote on the moron decisions our boss makes" and everyone started getting uncomfortable and the conversation stopped. So uhh... any tips on democratizing the workplace and why that would be good
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
Critical support for this thread! Maybe in a hundred pages I can post this tweet again and the thread will be ready for it. https://twitter.com/easytolo/status/928904924745826305
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
SniperWoreConverse posted:One time I was at work & everyone was bitching about mgmt loving up & I was like "we should get to vote on the moron decisions our boss makes" and everyone started getting uncomfortable and the conversation stopped. Unionizing is going to be a prerequisite to having the power to democratize, otherwise management is just going to fire you, ignore you, or, if you're lucky, give you pittance to make you shut up. You need to talk to people and figure out everyone's feelings and what they want/need, and figure how on board they might be on board for a union. It's a combination of information gathering and commitment building. I recommend listening to this ep of CTH (the only ep I'll recommend) https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/288-so-you-want-to-start-a-union-feat-brace-belden-21019 starting around 6 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
Throughout the civilised world the teachings of Marx evoke the utmost hostility and hatred of all bourgeois science (both official and liberal), which regards Marxism as a kind of “pernicious sect”. And no other attitude is to be expected, for there can be no “impartial” social science in a society based on class struggle. In one way or another, all official and liberal science defends wage-slavery, whereas Marxism has declared relentless war on that slavery. To expect science to be impartial in a wage-slave society is as foolishly naïve as to expect impartiality from manufacturers on the question of whether workers’ wages ought not to be increased by decreasing the profits of capital. But this is not all. The history of philosophy and the history of social science show with perfect clarity that there is nothing resembling “sectarianism” in Marxism, in the sense of its being a hidebound, petrified doctrine, a doctrine which arose away from the high road of the development of world civilisation. On the contrary, the genius of Marx consists precisely in his having furnished answers to questions already raised by the foremost minds of mankind. His doctrine emerged as the direct and immediate continuation of the teachings of the greatest representatives of philosophy, political economy and socialism. The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or defence of bourgeois oppression. It is the legitimate successor to the best that man produced in the nineteenth century, as represented by German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism. It is these three sources of Marxism, which are also its component parts that we shall outline in brief. I The philosophy of Marxism is materialism. Throughout the modern history of Europe, and especially at the end of the eighteenth century in France, where a resolute struggle was conducted against every kind of medieval rubbish, against serfdom in institutions and ideas, materialism has proved to be the only philosophy that is consistent, true to all the teachings of natural science and hostile to superstition, cant and so forth. The enemies of democracy have, therefore, always exerted all their efforts to “refute”, under mine and defame materialism, and have advocated various forms of philosophical idealism, which always, in one way or another, amounts to the defence or support of religion. Marx and Engels defended philosophical materialism in the most determined manner and repeatedly explained how profoundly erroneous is every deviation from this basis. Their views are most clearly and fully expounded in the works of Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and Anti-Dühring, which, like the Communist Manifesto, are handbooks for every class-conscious worker. But Marx did not stop at eighteenth-century materialism: he developed philosophy to a higher level, he enriched it with the achievements of German classical philosophy, especially of Hegel’s system, which in its turn had led to the materialism of Feuerbach. The main achievement was dialectics, i.e., the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest and most comprehensive form, the doctrine of the relativity of the human knowledge that provides us with a reflection of eternally developing matter. The latest discoveries of natural science—radium, electrons, the transmutation of elements—have been a remarkable confirmation of Marx’s dialectical materialism despite the teachings of the bourgeois philosophers with their “new” reversions to old and decadent idealism. Marx deepened and developed philosophical materialism to the full, and extended the cognition of nature to include the cognition of human society. His historical materialism was a great achievement in scientific thinking. The chaos and arbitrariness that had previously reigned in views on history and politics were replaced by a strikingly integral and harmonious scientific theory, which shows how, in consequence of the growth of productive forces, out of one system of social life another and higher system develops—how capitalism, for instance, grows out of feudalism. Just as man’s knowledge reflects nature (i.e., developing matter), which exists independently of him, so man’s social knowledge (i.e., his various views and doctrines—philosophical, religious, political and so forth) reflects the economic system of society. Political institutions are a superstructure on the economic foundation. We see, for example, that the various political forms of the modern European states serve to strengthen the domination of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat. Marx’s philosophy is a consummate philosophical materialism which has provided mankind, and especially the working class, with powerful instruments of knowledge. II Having recognised that the economic system is the foundation on which the political superstructure is erected, Marx devoted his greatest attention to the study of this economic system. Marx’s principal work, Capital, is devoted to a study of the economic system of modern, i.e., capitalist, society. Classical political economy, before Marx, evolved in England, the most developed of the capitalist countries. Adam Smith and David Ricardo, by their investigations of the economic system, laid the foundations of the labour theory of value. Marx continued their work; he provided a proof of the theory and developed it consistently. He showed that the value of every commodity is determined by the quantity of socially necessary labour time spent on its production. Where the bourgeois economists saw a relation between things (the exchange of one commodity for another) Marx revealed a relation between people. The exchange of commodities expresses the connection between individual producers through the market. Money signifies that the connection is becoming closer and closer, inseparably uniting the entire economic life of the individual producers into one whole. Capital signifies a further development of this connection: man’s labour-power becomes a commodity. The wage-worker sells his labour-power to the owner of land, factories and instruments of labour. The worker spends one part of the day covering the cost of maintaining himself and his family (wages), while the other part of the day he works without remuneration, creating for the capitalist surplus-value, the source of profit, the source of the wealth of the capitalist class. The doctrine of surplus-value is the corner-stone of Marx’s economic theory. Capital, created by the labour of the worker, crushes the worker, ruining small proprietors and creating an army of unemployed. In industry, the victory of large-scale production is immediately apparent, but the same phenomenon is also to be observed in agriculture, where the superiority of large-scale capitalist agriculture is enhanced, the use of machinery increases and the peasant economy, trapped by money-capital, declines and falls into ruin under the burden of its backward technique. The decline of small-scale production assumes different forms in agriculture, but the decline itself is an indisputable fact. By destroying small-scale production, capital leads to an increase in productivity of labour and to the creation of a monopoly position for the associations of big capitalists. Production itself becomes more and more social—hundreds of thousands and millions of workers become bound together in a regular economic organism—but the product of this collective labour is appropriated by a handful of capitalists. Anarchy of production, crises, the furious chase after markets and the insecurity of existence of the mass of the population are intensified. By increasing the dependence of the workers on capital, the capitalist system creates the great power of united labour. Marx traced the development of capitalism from embryonic commodity economy, from simple exchange, to its highest forms, to large-scale production. And the experience of all capitalist countries, old and new, year by year demonstrates clearly the truth of this Marxian doctrine to increasing numbers of workers. Capitalism has triumphed all over the world, but this triumph is only the prelude to the triumph of labour over capital. III When feudalism was overthrown and “free” capitalist society appeared in the world, it at once became apparent that this freedom meant a new system of oppression and exploitation of the working people. Various socialist doctrines immediately emerged as a reflection of and protest against this oppression. Early socialism, however, was utopian socialism. It criticised capitalist society, it condemned and damned it, it dreamed of its destruction, it had visions of a better order and endeavoured to convince the rich of the immorality of exploitation. But utopian socialism could not indicate the real solution. It could not explain the real nature of wage-slavery under capitalism, it could not reveal the laws of capitalist development, or show what social force is capable of becoming the creator of a new society. Meanwhile, the stormy revolutions which everywhere in Europe, and especially in France, accompanied the fall of feudalism, of serfdom, more and more clearly revealed the struggle of classes as the basis and the driving force of all development. Not a single victory of political freedom over the feudal class was won except against desperate resistance. Not a single capitalist country evolved on a more or less free and democratic basis except by a life-and-death struggle between the various classes of capitalist society. The genius of Marx lies in his having been the first to deduce from this the lesson world history teaches and to apply that lesson consistently. The deduction he made is the doctrine of the class struggle. People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be until they have learnt to seek out the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises. Champions of reforms and improvements will always be fooled by the defenders of the old order until they realise that every old institution, how ever barbarous and rotten it may appear to be, is kept going by the forces of certain ruling classes. And there is only one way of smashing the resistance of those classes, and that is to find, in the very society which surrounds us, the forces which can—and, owing to their social position, must—constitute the power capable of sweeping away the old and creating the new, and to enlighten and organise those forces for the struggle. Marx’s philosophical materialism alone has shown the proletariat the way out of the spiritual slavery in which all oppressed classes have hitherto languished. Marx’s economic theory alone has explained the true position of the proletariat in the general system of capitalism. Independent organisations of the proletariat are multi plying all over the world, from America to Japan and from Sweden to South Africa. The proletariat is becoming enlightened and educated by waging its class struggle; it is ridding itself of the prejudices of bourgeois society; it is rallying its ranks ever more closely and is learning to gauge the measure of its successes; it is steeling its forces and is growing irresistibly.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
SniperWoreConverse posted:One time I was at work & everyone was bitching about mgmt loving up & I was like "we should get to vote on the moron decisions our boss makes" and everyone started getting uncomfortable and the conversation stopped. Labor organization starts from "do we have an union". If there is one, contacting them to ask for help can be tremendously useful since the particulars vary so much from place to place, and they must have at least some level of institutional knowledge and practice to tell you what you can and cannot do in terms. If there is no union, then organization comes from scratch. Obviously, things are much harder that way, but also provides the opportunity of having straightforward localized action without having to rely on an union, and this can be important to consider if the union in question is a "conciliatory" one (i.e. they cozy up to bosses). Regardless of that, however, the most critical element in my own opinion is: are your colleagues interested and willing to make the effort towards organization? When someone proposes an action and the rest goes "ehh...", the spirit is definitely absent in that regard. Especially if you are a lone voice. In such a situation, I disagree with the idea of bringing arguments and "being reasonable" as if this is an university debate because what happens is that you get a good response and agreement, but no engagement or mobilization. Instead, what some accounts suggest - to great success - is to engage your colleagues with good rhetoric. The most straightforward way to do so is to ask them what they think, what they want, what would be a good move, what would they do to deal with the problem. This is a more nuanced approach that requires more time and repetition, but has great effect. As psychotherapy and psychoanalysis show us, being asked such things is a challenge, which forces the person to bring out what is their thinking process about the issue. In the angle we are dealing with here, what you are likely to see is reply is a lot of ideological thought, which is probably the root cause of why they go "eeeeh..." To demonstrate: "What would you do?", "Well, I think some sort of appraisal system should exist in order to deal with management doing stupid things", "How could that be implemented?", "...Maybe we should talk to them? Aw, what I am saying, sorry, this is dumb as gently caress". The underscored is ideological thought. The colleague came up with a proposition but shot it down immediately because, in our example here, they know that management would not accept that suggestion, but immediately takes defeat as guaranteed without considering other alternatives of action. Such alternatives, of course, fall in the wrong side of their perspective: they are wrong, useless, impossible, whatever adjectives one can come up for them to not be really grasped as actual things that can be done. So you wait a while, complains come up, then you ask again. Repeat. What has to be done here is to positively challenge them through rhetoric and make them come up with their own answers, until they stop shooting themselves down when doing so. When they start to realize, through this continued effort, that they have solutions, they have avenues of approach, and they are ready to deal with these things in a practical manner instead of disregarding what can be done and make "impossibles out of possibles". This is what other thinkers would call raising class consciousness. I think all of them (or at least almost all of them) agree that it is the fundamental imperative of labor organization. Without class consciousness, people default to circumstances as they are in the present, which is determined especially by ideology.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
Hi, thanks so much for making this thread! I am trying to learn more about Marxism in the current crisis. I have a really dumb question, so thanks for making this space for me to ask it: What is the Marxist view of art and music? I feel like some of my resistance to Marxist ideas comes from hearing stories about how artists and musicians were treated in situations where Marxism became dominant... but that could be part of my American perspective. Sorry if this is hopelessly succ, it's not a troll.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
BonfireOfTheAnimes posted:What is the Marxist view of art and music? I feel like some of my resistance to Marxist ideas comes from hearing stories about how artists and musicians were treated in situations where Marxism became dominant... but that could be part of my American perspective. No problem, hopefully I'll be able to help  So, I am going to rework the question a bit to help clarify a couple of things: what we call "Marxism" is a socio-political theoretical framework based on the work started by Karl Marx (but not limited to him), and it is not a political system by itself. Countries that underwent revolutionary processes (Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc) or were reorganized into socialist/communist systems by force or influence (such as Eastern Europe after WW2) based on this theory. The historical context you mentioned there, however, is better addressed separately (imho) so we don't mix it up too much. But yes, there is a relation, not exactly linear, but it is there. There is a whole sub-field of Marxism devoted entirely to art, which is called Marxist aesthetics. It is the home of some of the most absolutely "intellectual of the local café" people to ever live in this Earth, I mean, just look at this guy  Louis Althusser doing peak Parisian left intellectual there Jokes aside, they did great stuff. Basically, they wanted to understand how and why art is influenced by the material conditions of its time, as well as the artistic process itself and after a while, how technology plays a part on all of this. From that abstract groundwork, actual artists started to develop techniques and methods that worked with Marxist concepts, especially towards fostering class consciousness. Two great examples in that regard are the theatre works of Bertolt Brecht and Augusto Boal, the latter developing a technique called Theatre of the Oppressed: a psychodramatic method in which the spectator of the play is progressively encouraged towards participation and involvement until they become themselves the actors and protagonists. That said, let me try to work with an example that I feel it is kinda practical to get the overall gist of it and frontloaded as gently caress. Can Avengers: Endgame be considered a work of art? A lot of people would probably say that, well, yeah duh. It has some basic level of technical craft, the actors are acting (if they are good or not it is another problem), a considerable portion of the audience felt the need to talk about it and analyse it and of course, the last resort argument of aesthetics: did it make you feel something? If yes, then it must be art. That is what some contemporary neoliberal thinkers feel about the matter and welp, debate is over and wait a loving minute. Did that "work of art" came to be from a legitimate creative impulse? An authorial vision shared by a large number of worker-artists who dreamt of a beautiful Thanos CGI apparition and the destruction of the possibilities of any goddamn different non-superhero movie to ever happen again? An extremely elaborate cinematic tour de force that can only be realized as such when perceiving the perverse element of these movies, a critique and subversion of Hollywood and American cinema executed in a level that Pasolini himself could only dream of? Of loving course it is not. Avengers: Endgame and every other goddamned Marvel movie got made for a very simple reason: to make money for investors. Because way, way, waaaaaaay before any sense of "artistic context" can be established, movies require producers and financing, from which they are going to require a profit. From there, why these producers choose certain actors and directors without primary concern for their technical skill, their craft and/or talent? Why the actors and directors receive far more compensation than all the other workers involved? Are the hundreds of others involved in the production not responsible for the success of that endeavor? However, the far more important question is... How does that affect us all, when we become consumers of a product rather than spectators of art? How are we influenced by that? What changes in ourselves in reaction to that process? Because, ultimately, as the production of mass culture becomes increasingly captured by corporations and thus by capitalism itself, are we not degraded by the loss of aesthetic appreciation through being forcefully transformed into consumers and shoppers of culture, rather than being spectators and admirers? The above is a quick mash-up from some of the greatest hits of modern Marxist aesthetics, and I *think* it covers at least some of their general concern, which I hope gives you a feel of things from their point of view. Thanks for reading
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 05:48
|
|
|
How do Communism and Socialism differ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 05:54
|
|
|
I'd be interested to hear some takes on how marxism or socialism generally would look in practice in the United States if, over the next let's say 5 years, we somehow started to see mainstream acceptance that capitalism was not working and that we needed to change to a more robust system. Given our level of technology, the "standard" of "living" that people in this country expect, our raw materials and laborforce, what kinds of changes are we talking about?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 06:03
|
|
|
oh gently caress yeah, bookmarked, can't wait to kramer my way in here to ask stupid loving questions and get some good rear end answers
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 06:14
|
|
|
Cuntellectual posted:How do Communism and Socialism differ? Conveniently, I had made a post about that the other night at the cool zone. If you want more details, please ask! pogi posted:I am a baby brained leftist, what are the different strains of leftism? What's significant about being a trot, vs being a maoist, etc? dead gay comedy forums posted:gigapost warning
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 06:15
|
|
|
BeefThief posted:I'd be interested to hear some takes on how marxism or socialism generally would look in practice in the United States if, over the next let's say 5 years, we somehow started to see mainstream acceptance that capitalism was not working and that we needed to change to a more robust system. Given our level of technology, the "standard" of "living" that people in this country expect, our raw materials and laborforce, what kinds of changes are we talking about? I think this depends on how the transition from our current state of affairs to a future, socialist one is achieved. Like, if everyone started voting at the ballot box for socialists, and elected representatives agreed to it, you'd be on one path. But if there was an insurrection trying to establish socialism that somehow prevailed through violence, you'd be on a very different path. Even talking in terms of 'reform' vs. 'revolution/insurrection' simplifies things to a caricature of how they'd play out in reality. I think if you asked your question with more detail about how socialism ends up coming to power, it'd be possible to sketch out, in broad outlines, what things might look like and what threats and opportunities would be present for further development. But without knowing any details about how the transition occurs, it's hard to answer with anything more specific than 'it depends,' which is a lame answer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 06:36
|
|
|
Hey OP, thanks for making this thread and taking the time to make effort posts/responses. I’ve been mentally putting together a sort of “contemporary theory” (ie last 10-20 years) effort post as well. My plan was to start an entire new thread about this, but it seems like it may fit here as part of a more general theory thread . Would you prefer to keep this thread focused on classic/foundational Marxism and that general sphere, or is it cool to talk about contemporary leftist thought and reading as well? Keeping in mind that a lot of newer theory is less immediately accessible to noobs and may actually make understanding of certain concepts more ambiguous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 06:44
|
|
|
Reserving this post for a bit on accelerationism
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 06:53
|
|
|
BeefThief posted:I'd be interested to hear some takes on how marxism or socialism generally would look in practice in the United States if, over the next let's say 5 years, we somehow started to see mainstream acceptance that capitalism was not working and that we needed to change to a more robust system. Given our level of technology, the "standard" of "living" that people in this country expect, our raw materials and laborforce, what kinds of changes are we talking about? Unfortunately, I think any honest thinker wouldn't be able to give a detailed answer about that because it deals with a lot of speculatives, which is something that good leftist historians/geographers/etc avoid like plague (and they are right to do so). What I feel comfortable in saying about that is that nobody knows the methodology of how those changes would be carried out, and one of the few constants of such experiences in history is that there is a lot of experimentation. In such a scenario, what would be very unique is that such transformation happens in the economic core, in a country that has lots and lots of developed and implemented capital even if it is in a dilapidated state. This is what a lot of people expected to happen in Germany when the first world war started to look bad for them; famously, Lenin wrote "What Is To Be Done" when his hopes for that scenario fell apart and the USSR had no chance of getting aid of material means to catapult its economic development.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 07:05
|
|
|
I’m so glad that this thread is here now. thank you. do you folks have any suggestions for a how someone can get up to speed on Marxist, socialist, communist, whatever economic and political theory? I know next to nothing about any of this but I really want to learn. I’m tempted to just get Capital and start reading, but I wonder if anyone has suggestions for a more accessible route
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 07:06
|
|
|
TheSlutPit posted:Hey OP, thanks for making this thread and taking the time to make effort posts/responses. I’ve been mentally putting together a sort of “contemporary theory” (ie last 10-20 years) effort post as well. My plan was to start an entire new thread about this, but it seems like it may fit here as part of a more general theory thread . Would you prefer to keep this thread focused on classic/foundational Marxism and that general sphere, or is it cool to talk about contemporary leftist thought and reading as well? Keeping in mind that a lot of newer theory is less immediately accessible to noobs and may actually make understanding of certain concepts more ambiguous. , friendothe guidelines I suggested are more about engaging with questions and answers to help us collaborate, but all quality effortposting is welcome. I reserved the posts after the OP to eventually catalogue and index the good stuff for reference. (I should probably make an edit about that to encourage people that this stuff is very welcome)
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 07:09
|
|
|
dads friend steve posted:I’m so glad that this thread is here now. thank you. i've heard nothing but good things (except that it was written by a non-marxist) about 'the main currents of marxism' by kolakowski. it's an overview of the entire intellectual tradition, from marx in the 1800s to the late 20th century. it's like a thousand pages but covers a lot of ground. if you're just looking to get into marx himself, i can vouch for either reading capital alongside the (freely available on youtube) lectures by david harvey. or, you could check out the book 'marx's capital' by fine and saad-filho, which is an overview and condensed version of marx's most important work
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 07:12
|
|
|
dads friend steve posted:I’m so glad that this thread is here now. thank you. For the purposes of THIS THREAD, my suggested approach is different: there are no reading lists or a specific "programme" to follow, so to speak. My intended strategy is to help people bring themselves up to speed through whatever questions they might have and let this happen in a sort of organic way, exactly in order to not worry about reading that book or this article or this thing and let yourself feel comfortable to engage with whatever material feels most enticing. If you feel like reading Capital, do it! If you have questions or whatever, bring them up here, there are good posters who can certainly help out with that. What is important is to not feel obliged to read it, but rather, to feel interested and curious towards building a new perspective, a new understanding of the world that hopefully, will be of great value and help to you
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 07:26
|
|
|
So is the idea of "everyone is the equal, everyone puts in and gets their fair share" and so on accurate to the idea of communism or is that an outdated or inaccurate view of it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 07:47
|
|
|
Are there any states in the world today that you would consider "genuinely" socialist? And if so to what extent do you see them as models for socialism in the US/other western capitalist countries?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 10:55
|
|
|
How does one unionize and fight back in a work place against an international foe? Let's use, for example, Wal-Mart: How does one combat a company that has such a massive presence globally, and who is willing to go to almost any length to sniff out agitators with spies, fire anyone for any reason related to unionization, and if all else fails, is willing to shut down an entire store if it manages to unionize?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 10:59
|
|
|
dads friend steve posted:I’m so glad that this thread is here now. thank you. This: https://www.haymarketbooks.org/books/501-marx-s-capital-illustrated is a succinct introduction to the concepts of Capital, and I highly recommend reading that before diving into the Marx text.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 17:28
|
|
Cuntellectual posted:How do Communism and Socialism differ? 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 17:57
|
|
|
Sailor Viy posted:Are there any states in the world today that you would consider "genuinely" socialist? And if so to what extent do you see them as models for socialism in the US/other western capitalist countries? on the anarchist side, Zapatistas are a genuine socialist community (about 600k-800k inhabitants), as are Rojava (around 2 million). Anarchism requires a bigger buy-in from the population. But it's stateless, therefore it often happens when you want a socialist project that isn't a state (Rojava fits the bill). The Zapatistas have spent a while to expand to this size, and take education very seriously. A lot of their cohesiveness comes from their Mayan nationalism. Hard to say how viable for a western capitalist country it is. But the direct action and mutualism roots are doable within a capitalist state. For communism, Cuba is the least controversial socialist state in the world. It took a long time of fighting imperialism to get there, and it had the backing of a much larger nation-state. dex_sda has issued a correction as of 18:03 on Jun 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
Cuntellectual posted:So is the idea of "everyone is the equal, everyone puts in and gets their fair share" and so on accurate to the idea of communism or is that an outdated or inaccurate view of it? Are you asking if the representation of the communist ideal (key word here) has changed as time went by? Because I don't see how an ideal becomes outdated or inaccurate, because, well, it is an ideal: in that sense, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" works the same way as "From each according to ability; to each according to necessity". I feel that, however, the next question better addresses what you want to ask Sailor Viy posted:Are there any states in the world today that you would consider "genuinely" socialist? And if so to what extent do you see them as models for socialism in the US/other western capitalist countries? "Genuinely" is a complicated word because there are lots of leftists with their own schools of thought on those matters, so I can only answer for myself here. An important thing to tackle here as well is that the word "socialism", when used like in your question, can mean a lot of things at once. It can mean economic organization towards redistribution, to which the answer would be "yes of course", with examples such as the post-ww2 Labour government in the UK building one of the greatest welfare societies to ever exist. However, the same country was also still the greatest imperialist and colonialist actor to ever exist in human history. Isn't that contradictory to the tenet of equality in socialism? From this angle, I would say that no, the UK has not been a socialist country. (this is why, among other reasons, I feel an active process is so important, because a lot of that context and nuance is always assumed as a given during such discussions, and a lot of misunderstanding arises from that because there aren't many people who have been immersed to intuitively grasp what angle, what approach is being used at a given moment) Anyway, what I am going to assume here is that you mean societies that are striving towards the revolutionary ideal of communism: a classless society where all material wealth belongs in mutual property in a way that all its needs and most of its wants. In that regard and from what I know, I would say that Cuba remains the most "authentic". But, for example, I do have very little knowledge of how Vietnam is faring, which from the last time I learned anything about it has been to the left of China itself for a good while already. Communist theorists in the Far East have some very different takes on what constitutes "genuine" here. The Chinese Communist Party has some decades ago adopted a strategy that, from a theoretical standpoint, makes sense: let us speedrun capitalism. That is because in early Marxist theory, capitalist development was a prerequisite to socialism (which is prerequisite to communism). That was disregarded latter on as kinda stupid and Russia proved it to be the case. From what I am aware of, I believe that they (the Chinese communists) would answer this question with another more or less along these lines: why would it not be genuine, even if it appears to not be the case at this moment, since we are following a coherent ideological plan through state capitalism towards communism? IMHO, the closest to the ideal we've ever had was the early years of the Russian Revolution, in terms of a truly transformative rupture towards a completely new society, which had massive achievements in an extremely short timespan that as far as I am aware, have not been replicated ever since.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 18:12
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:on the anarchist side, Zapatistas are a genuine socialist community (about 600k-800k inhabitants), as are Rojava (around 2 million). Anarchism requires a bigger buy-in from the population. But it's stateless, therefore it often happens when you want a socialist project that isn't a state (Rojava fits the bill). The Zapatistas have spent a while to expand to this size, and take education very seriously. A lot of their cohesiveness comes from their Mayan nationalism. Hard to say how viable for a western capitalist country it is. But the direct action and mutualism roots are doable within a capitalist state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Reminder that you promised effortposts on a book about the Zapatistas I did, and I started writing the prelims
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:Are you asking if the representation of the communist ideal (key word here) has changed as time went by? Because I don't see how an ideal becomes outdated or inaccurate, because, well, it is an ideal: in that sense, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" works the same way as "From each according to ability; to each according to necessity". I guess a better way to put it would be that the argument I keep hearing is one side says "Communist countries have always ended up being failed states" and the other says "Real communism has never been tried." Would you say the various communist countries like the USSR, China, etc. were or were not 'sincere' attempts at communist countries? Ideas like universal healthcare, housing, basic income, etc. have been implemented to varying degrees and been generally successful as far as I can see (IE: Canada has long healthcare waits but I hear the US does too, on top of the US robbing people blind if they have the gall to get sick or injured) but the various 'real' communist countries haven't been much better off than capitalist countries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 00:15
|
|
|
Cuntellectual posted:I guess a better way to put it would be that the argument I keep hearing is one side says "Communist countries have always ended up being failed states" and the other says "Real communism has never been tried." these ideas were only implemented to avoid socialist revolution in their home countries, generally. No capitalist country cuts hours out of the goodness of it's heart. Women's suffrage, equality, minimum wage... all these are the result of blood spilled from people who bled red. With that in mind, I think USSR and China were genuine attempts that went astray, quicker or slower. But Cuba has managed to thrive despite being relentlessly attacked (indirectly) by the biggest superpower on Earth, and now it is literally the only country on earth that is both 'developed' and has a sustainable carbon footprint. It's also communist. Various anarchist projects consistently end up working better than the nation-states where they operate - Zapatistas are thriving and communities around clamored to join them. So, you've got communities consistently doing better under socialism, you have genuine orthodox communist states that have not failed and not moved astray (arguably vietnam is another one in addition to Cuba, although personally I don't like the idea because sweatshops exist there and that's anathema to socialism imo), and you have a multitude of anarcho-communist projects all around the world. Whatever criticism you wanna do of the CCP (there is plenty to be done), China lifted a billion people out of poverty in just 20 years. And even societies outside of socialism improve because they don't want their neoliberal order upheaved by a people's revolution. So I guess my question is, what is your question? If it's just "can communist ideas work" the answer is an emphatic yes. As far as the driving idea of socialism is, it's equality. And it's decency and respect for the work and (most importantly) the worker. Since we live in a post-scarcity society (refer to The Conquest of Bread for a wonderfully put summary of how we could afford well-being for all), "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is a very succint way to put it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 00:36
|
|
|
Lot of real long posts being made. Someone tell me which ones are worth reading. I'm a busy man
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 00:38
|
|
|
What exactly is a Tankie?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 00:43
|
|
|
Renaissance Spam posted:What exactly is a Tankie? the term originated to refer to people who supported the ussr sending in the tanks to suppress either the 1956 hungarian uprising or the 1968 prague spring. im a little fuzzier on the latter and both are obviously controversial, but they were some combination of "agitation for autonomy and more direct worker democracy" and "liberals trying to undermine the communist project"; i tend mostly to be on the former view. since then it's become an amorphous insult you throw at people who are left and not anarchists, regardless of whether it's deserving or fitting
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 00:49
|
|
|
Cuntellectual posted:I guess a better way to put it would be that the argument I keep hearing is one side says "Communist countries have always ended up being failed states" and the other says "Real communism has never been tried." Some points have been made about countries like Cuba and China, but I also think it's extremely important to understand that basically every left-wing movement or state since 1945 has been subject to extreme pressure and violence from external forces, and the only states that tended to survive were militant, defensive and (justifiably) paranoid in how they conducted themselves. Vincent Bevins, author of "The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World" has been doing a bunch of interviews around the release of his book and makes a compelling case (from the interviews I've heard, haven't gotten around to reading the book yet) that any even vaguely left-wing party or movement that wasn't militant was brutally crushed by the international anti-communist movement that was solidified with US backing post WWII. Sukarno in Indonesia lead an incredibly popular, unarmed, democratic communist party (and was not aligned with the USSR) which had a long-term plan of capitalist development with a peaceful transition to socialism. He was removed from office in a vicious CIA-backed coup and at least 1 million people were killed or disappeared for their left-wing political beliefs, and another million were put in concentration camps for decades by the Suharto coup-government. Allende in Chile, was a democratically elected democratic socialist with no ties to the USSR. His movement wasn't militant and were working on building a national computer system for managing a planned economy (project Cybersyn) before a CIA backed coup came in and crushed them, and then Pinochet's goons systematically rounded up and killed or disappeared almost every leftist of note in the country. In very recent contexts, look at how the Worker's Party and Lula Da Silva, who were closest to soc-dems at their most radical while governing and managed to provide serious improvements to the lives of the working class without upsetting capital's apple cart much still got ousted from power via a US-backed judicial/parliamentary coup. Morales in Bolivia is another example. Part of the reason it's so easy to say "Communist countries have always ended up being failed states" or "Real communism has never been tried." is because there's been a 75 year long international project to destroy and undermine anything that even is remotely left-wing, and the survivors tend to have made compromises with their founding ideals to survive. It's incredible that Cuba has accomplished what it's been able to given the circumstances it's had to weather. ATP_Power has issued a correction as of 00:55 on Jun 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
Renaissance Spam posted:What exactly is a Tankie? It's a pejorative referring to hardline communists. It originated with members of the Communist Party of Great Britain who supported crushing the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the 1968 Prague Spring by the Soviet Union. e: f,b
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:the term originated to refer to people who supported the ussr sending in the tanks to suppress either the 1956 hungarian uprising or the 1968 prague spring. im a little fuzzier on the latter and both are obviously controversial, but they were some combination of "agitation for autonomy and more direct worker democracy" and "liberals trying to undermine the communist project"; i tend mostly to be on the former view. since then it's become an amorphous insult you throw at people who are left and not anarchists, regardless of whether it's deserving or fitting rudecyrus posted:It's a pejorative referring to hardline communists. It originated with members of the Communist Party of Great Britain who supported crushing the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the 1968 Prague Spring by the Soviet Union. Gotcha! I was unsure if it was tied directly to Soviet methodology or was more just a "hardline communist" perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
Thanks for making this thread, I hope it will be productive and not descend into poo poo flinging. It's looking good so far, I'll jump in if I can to help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 01:22
|
|
