[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


What is high stage communism? Statelessness, moneylessness, classlessness with the removal of wage laboring to a surplus taking class. It's supposed to be without commodity production… The world is only seen the lower end, the phase on the attempt there. The question is why did we expect high stage results, in low stage material conditions? Anons we know why it's "left" anti-communism

To me it's quite clear high end communism can ONLY occur after we have won internationally. The correct position is in one nation, till all nations, till nations aren't a thing! The correct position is classlessness before statelessness! YOU CAN'T ELIMINATE THE STATE WITHOUT ELIMINATING CLASS! Class isn't a domestic relation it's a international one. You can remove the national Bourgeoisie, only to have a intensified battle with the international Bourgeoisie. AES literally couldn't remove the state, because as we all know the state is a tool of a class to dominate the other. Victory over class is the victory over the state's existence.

So this gets me to a problem in our messaging. We are selling to people the world of the higher stage. We are telling them why capitalism must be removed. Revolution then what? Well nothing but surviving HAS to be the answer till international victory is won. Marxist need to get anarchist set straight. People need to know how hollow the anarchist vision is. To promise statelessness before classlessness is as infantile as it can get! To close to promise statelessness, without explaining classlessness has to come first undermines us!

TLDR? Classlessness is a must to statelessness! Opposing opinions are infantile!


Finally a thread focusing on the important issues!!!


To expand being OP

Let's look at situations then give diagnosing!
the international revolution WILL NOT HAPPEN SIMULTANEOUSLY. This is a matter of fact revolution occurs in places to be spread, it doesn't happen all over at once. To expect places with different material conditions to react like uniform material conditions is anti-dialectical. This means we will* have a remaining capitalist sphere and ours! Cold war if not hot is the state of the lower stage. I'd go as far as to say it's what defines the lower stage to begin with. At that point there is to be one expectation, do the best you can do, survive and don't turn revisionist. Their is no separation that can occur from the hegemonic relations of capital. So hense we can't expect results we can ONLY see after the hegemonic relations of capital are defeated.


Hell yeah dude if there's anything that will win the proles over it's black vs red arguments about order of operations. That's the beating heart of class struggle for the average prole right there.


So we can defeat the state something made by class dynamics while the class struggle is still live? Yes please tell me why I'm wrong open ears.


Yes which would remove our class enemy, which would remove the reason to have the state. I literally made this thread to point out we have to destroy the bourgeoisie before we can the state. Then your out here >>14862 acting like I'm just wanting an arbitrary order of operations request. Yes classlessness before statelessness. Read the title ;)


Since the state is a bureaucratic-military elite machine for class domination, it cannot be used for liberation. Such a supposed “workers’ state,” however it comes into existence, would only result in a new ruling class of bureaucrats, exploiting the workers as if the state was a capitalist corporation or set of corporations. This was predicted by Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin, way back in the beginning of the socialist movement. History has more than justified the prediction.

Instead, the anarchists propose that the workers and oppressed organize themselves through federations and networks of workplace assemblies, neighborhood councils, and voluntary associations. They should replace the police and military with a democratically-coordinated armed population (a militia), so long as this is still necessary. Such associations would provide all the coordination, decision-making, dispute-settling, economic planning, and self-defense necessary—without a state. It would not be a state, because it would not be a bureaucratic-military socially-alienated machine such as had served ruling minorities throughout history. Instead it would be the self-organization of the working people and formerly oppressed.



I love the state, I love systems of control.


Where anarchists are right is that historical communist movements have not necessarily focused much on actually transforming society. But proposing entirely new organizational forms (or in some cases totally eschewing organization) is a bit throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think focusing too much on organizational forms is maybe asking the wrong question. If it's a matter of "how did such and such revolution fail" there's a lot more too it than the pure structural bureaucratic minutia.


Reducing analysis to the level of what the state should or should not do is very much anarchist logic and ignores the various ways in which structures of power outside of the state dominate our lives.


While I agree on principle, in practice the conditions have to be just right for this to happen, that is to say there must not be an opposition organized well enough to kill the democratically coordinated population. The problem is that military, bureaucratic and state structures are the result of a lengthy evolution toward the most efficient forms of organization designed to maintain the order and fight off or destroy their opposition and they are determined to do so.
You can't hope to win a fight against a professional army backed by an industrialized power with democratically coordinated tribes, you need to compromise on those ideals, because if you want to win you need a chain of command at the tactical level for the soldiers, you need clerks to organize the logistics, you need a comprehensive strategy designed by skilled people, you need workers in the factories churning ammunition, you need glowies and merciless people to chase the counterrevolutionaries, bottom line is you need that bureaucracy and military machine or you're gonna get killed. That's why in the real world anarchists who were half successful did compromise, spaniards voted for their officers but they had a chain of command and a military apparatus all the same, they tended to use imperative mandates rather than trusting political power on individuals but at the end of the day they still got that state they desperately hated but needed for their war effort.
That said it's good practice to seek new forms of organization better suited to anarchist and communist ideals, and who is to say that developing these will not unexpectedly yield efficient and effective means to fight states and capitalism in general? For example the practice of voting for officers in modern armies originated in revolutionary France and they beat all of Europe with it.


During a time of war, itsno bullshit
. voting on shit doesn't even make sense. You want those who actually know tactical info to have a top down structure to enforce the response to that info.


File: 1683886636655.jpg (21.56 KB, 400x400, homket.jpg)

The framing of a 'primary economic class division' is one of the least appealing parts of Marxism to me. One is not primary to the other, and cannot be so. All class divisions are interrelated, and also must fall apart in unison, because they all are the product of the same drive: power, control, hierarchy. The myopic focus on a single one form of hierarchy ignores the fact of the interrelatedness.

Can you have a stateless society with economic classes? Obviously not. Can you have an economically classless society with a state? Clearly that's a no. The formation of the state is identical to the concentration of means of production in the hands of an elite class. So why say one is primary to the other? This whole discourse seems like an excuse to ignore a set of material problems in favour of another that is personally beneficial to you, or that you have sanctioned.

We are all going to be killed due to the catastrophic knock-ons of climate change in a few decades. Global society has no future any way. Why do you insist on continuing with these pointless delusions that a 'global workers revolution' will happen? It is out of touch. History is plural, that goes also for the future. There will always be pockets of striving for anarchy. The fact that a global revolution will never happen is no excuse for not taking action now. 'True communism/anarchy' will never happen. This does not imply surrender.


If you read between the lines, ordinary people will tell you plainly what the problem is. And it's not 'immigrants'. Nor is it these philosophical ideas of 'class', but bureaucracy (which is the visible alienation). Bureaucracy and alienation in all its forms are the major concern today for people. People can only be spurred into action through their own passion, if you refuse to even try to appeal to the passions you've already lost the ideological struggle. I hate optics, and I'm not talking about optics, I'm talking about an understanding that it is people that make revolution, when people wish to and have a vehicle through which to express their own will. That is, through direct action. Revolution starts on the factory floor.

One can *directly* fight alienation, but one cannot directly fight these abstract notions like 'the bourgeoisie'. In this regard, Marxists *themselves* immediately fall into idealism.


blessed numbers


the libidinal drive is a material force.


not rejecting class– everything is class, but rejecting myopic focus on a single class division, which is idpol.


File: 1683887393505.png (34.09 KB, 220x306, ClipboardImage.png)

Great posts. You have your moments.


precisely! all this abstract shit like 'using the state to defeat da bourgeoisie' immediately turns the visceral material struggle into one that is idealistic.


you miss the point. for most people, 'the bourgeoisie' isn't something they materially encounter. they encounter specific bourgeois people, who play into a materially alienating system that lowers their quality of life. You cannot get people mad about 'the bourgeoisie'. You can get people mad about their individual problems, and form groups based on solidarity. But 'lets put a bunch of people in charge of the state to fix it' is a mere perpetuation of bureaucracy, and they have no idea what the bourgeoisie even is outside of vague academic philosophy. material problems must be materially dealt with.


>Alienation is an idea
Go read Marx.


material forces drive people, so let's look at what's actually driving people, and not merely what we *think* is driving them. people actually will tell you what is driving them, and saying 'no you are wrong you just dont get it' and refusing to listen is just shooting yourselves in the foot and making yourselves look even more antiquated and pointless.

yes, they don't really understand what they themselves are intending to say, but what they are intending to say is they fucking hate the bureaucracy and alienation they encounter on a daily basis which they *see* is being caused by a system of mass irresponsibility. they want to feel like they can effect some change in their lives. that is the immediate issue. not 'the bourgeoisie'. the bourgeoisie phenomenologically-speaking comes later through theoretical understanding. but a practical demolition of capitalist labour relations with the bourgeoisie has to come from an engagement with the reality of those people's lives and through a nuanced understanding of what those people in particular need to resist. the 'state' is like 'the bourgeoisie' in this regard. bureaucracy is not the state.

alienation is the state-of-powerlessness and bureaucracy is mass irresponsibility.


>Classlessness before statelessness!
Without classes there is no state and vice versa.


so when you say 'alienation is an idea' this is wrong. alienation is the fact of powerlessness. Marx writes that the worker *is* alienated. not that they 'feel' alienated. the feeling of alienation is quite different to its facticity.


workers have a semblence of the truth. if they didn't they wouldn't be capable of resistance. the fact that you just think 'theyre wrong' and incapable of an expression of truth that's worth listening to proves you are out of touch.

>So now the bourgeoisie do not exist because the lumpen cannot define them. This is porky philosophy, the subjectivity and meaninglessness etc.

First of all I am not talking about the lumpen. Second of all make no mistake bourgeoisie exists. But it does not exist *for* the worker, not anymore. You cannot even begin to engage politically until you begin from the phenomenological position of the worker because an understanding of the worker's mind is what changes the worker's mind. The proletariat must come to recognise ITSELF as a class, which it currently DOES NOT. This can't come from mere abstract teaching, but through an engagement with struggle with their material experience and extrapolation to an understanding of the broader system through solidarity.

>It's as real as bureaucracy or heirarchy, or evil.

The German is Entfremdung, estrangement. Literally to become unacquainted with the product of labour. That is not a feeling, but a reality. There are other kinds of estrangement too. due to the warfare of other ruling classes which form a multiplicity.


On this, I think the question we should be asking to ourselves ought be, from where does class struggle arise? And the answer is simply from the struggle for power. So if we wish for meaningful class struggle, we must provide workers with the means to struggle for power (empowerment). I think that It is not really our jobs to *moralise* past that or go through 'proper theoretical teaching', much the same way as we should provide women, the colonised, and victims of the state with power without moralising about that power. If we truly believe in the doctrine of Marxism, then inevitably through the mere provision of the ammunition for class struggle (vehicles with which to attain power), the oppressed will of course figure it out. Trying to play tricks on history through negative cohesion etc doesn't work. They are not babies we need to coddle. They know what they need in their particular struggle better than we do.


>The German is Entfremdung, estrangement. Literally to become unacquainted with the product of labour. That is not a feeling, but a reality. There are other kinds of estrangement too. due to the warfare of other ruling classes which form a multiplicity.
It's madness or alienation


not sure what ur trying to say here. can u elaborate?


Madness is the opposite of alienation


Like schizophrenia vs accepting castration? sure you can see it that way.


without a state there's nobody to keep hunter-gatherers from ending the preconditions for commerce, there's no commodities a bourgeois can trade to a warlord the warlord can't just take from him.


What differentiates the political class from the politically inactive class? There are only so many seats at the table. Class is a flexible concept that immediately when some power differential distinguishes the social relations of any given two groups.

Full classlessness would require full statelessness, which is to say, it would require what Engels envisioned to be politics under totally realized communism: the monitoring and adjusting of production.


>that immediately
*rears its head


>The fact that a global revolution will never happen is no excuse for not taking action now
Yes it would be, no reason to be communist otherwise


No there is not gonna be a rapture


Ocalan's Democratic Confedearlism answers this question.
Anarchists: no clear objective
Scientific Socialists: clearly oppressive states
Read ocalan


It's not a rapture tho, just society getting better


revolution can never be 'global' because capitalism has never been truly global in the first place. as for whether we can have 'revolution in the "west"' (whatever west means), that's also a no. You don't have to give up hope for improving your life though or having pockets of anarchy.


Looking at this conversation it's so clear where the writing on the wall is for the human story. A Fascist beast will be unleashed by the 2030's 2040's it will consume mankind and will see billions dead by 2100. If not on the edge of complete extinction It's all so sobering to see that it's not that our ideology doesn't function, it's the process to get there that's doesn't. It's not that we can't run economies & improve standards of living. It's that the struggle to get their is too great. What must be done to win hands us an L we can't return from. Marxism didn't fail, revolution as a process has! Yet it's the only way it seems due to the forces of the bourgeoisie that mandate it. This is the even larger contradiction then the class struggle itself it seems. Climate change, the ever growing arms race, the consequences of globalization by imperialism. Have made this all so existential, we have a due date over us! Fuck I'm dooming I need to stop


>capitalism has never been truly global in the first place
youre tripping


Then there's 2050
Capitalist crisis every 10 years like clockwork


Beuaracracy is the tool of the bourgioise. Also regular people encounter landlords and employers every single day.


What is imperialism


Solution: do a lot of national revolutions

Unique IPs: 17

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]