>We may say of a system that it is in equilibrium if that system of itself, without the application of external energy cannot change its condition. - Bukharin147 posts and 17 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
The fuck is this? Is this not a complete an utter break from dialectical materialism? It seems completely anti-Marxist. Its saying that systems have no internal motion, there's nothing about unity of opposites or the inherent nature of internal contradiction. Instead, objects are primarily influenced from the outside. He basically says that, if a system is in "equilibrium", it supposedly stays like that forever until something forces it from the outside. Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. were very clear that motion is an inherent part of matter. Otherwise, you need some sort of 'original mover', aka God, to set matter into motion.
>A motionless state of matter is therefore one of the most empty and nonsensical of ideas - a "delirious fantasy" of the purest water." - Engels
>The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their "self-movement," in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the "struggle" of opposites. The two basic (or two possible? Or two historically observable?) conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation). In the first conception of motion, self-movement, its driving force, its source, its motive, remains in the shade (or this source is made external—God, subject, etc.). In the second conception the chief attention is directed precisely to knowledge of the source of “self” - movement. The first conception is lifeless, pale and dry. The second is living. The second alone furnishes the key to the “self-movement” of everything existing; it alone furnishes the key to “leaps,” to the “break in continuity,” to the “transformation into the opposite,” to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new. The unity (coincidence, identity, equal action) of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute. - Lenin
Bukharin here utterly breaks with Marxism. Objects develop fundamentally because of internal contradictions, which are absolute and constant.
>All rest, all equilibrium, is only relative. - Engels
And yet Bukharin still claimed to be "Marxist", but of course it seems obvious from this that he was only Marxist in name but not in actual beliefs. Indeed, he never had a good understanding of dialectics. He proclaimed himself to be a true Marxist and clouded his counter-revolutionary ideology in marxist-sounding rhetoric but was always an idealist in realty. Hence why he wound up turning against the revolution as early as the 1920s to destroy the USSR. Fundamental errors in his understanding of Marxism show constantly in his work and he never fixed his errors even after phony "repudiations".
How are they the same ?
China had a communist revolution and is ruled by a communist party, while SK and oG didn't/isn't.
The Chinese state and political system is mostly standard ML with new stuff build on top.
China is a huge civilizational power block while the other 2 are just normal countries.
The private sector in China doesn't control anything that could give them political power.
>>1219295>The private sector in China doesn't control anything that could give them political power.
Except for the means of production, distribution, and exchange?
He did name differences its just they were bad ones
DEATH TO AMERICA
A nonsense idea that exists only in the realm of theoretical “physics” named after and based on the nonsensical ideas of a known fraud? Yeah the establishment would pull that against dialectical materialism
Bose-Einstein Condensate has been produced experimentallyhttps://phys.org/news/2018-10-bose-einstein-condensate-space.html
I'm not really sure why you expect Engels to predict extreme states of matter physics 2 centuries after his time.
dude that looks like my vape pen lmao
>>1220114>American “science” is proof of anything
I weep for your ignorance
Clearly this is evil idealist sorcery and not the immortal dialectical science.
We are for scientific development, and at the same time we stand for Dialectical Materialism, which represents the most powerful and mighty of all forms of interpreting the world throughout history. The closest adherence to Dialectical Materialism, with the object of understanding the sciences unchained from bourgeois ideology: that is the Marxist formula.
Is the conception by Engels and this bourgeois scientific discovery "contradictory"? Yes, it is "contradictory." But this contradiction is a living thing and wholly reflects the Marxist dialectic.
>>1220219>we stand for Dialectical Materialism, which represents the most powerful and mighty of all forms of interpreting the world throughout history
very scientific and not at all cult like.
"christian scientists" do not say similar things about their doctrine, for example.>Yes, it is "contradictory." But this contradiction is a living thing and wholly reflects the Marxist dialectic.
The dialectic works in mysterious ways.
If given the choice between the science that socialism and civilization in general has relied on for millennia and the “science” invented by postmodernist naval gazers, I think the choice is obvious. Fantasy frozen particles which can pass through each is not dialectically correct in the slightest
This is the guy calling you a "Pedantic Leftcom" online
>oh you adhere to the scientific method?
>lmao cant even think for urself stupid dogmatist!
Feudalism wasn't some sort of freezing of time. Can we stop believing in the propaganda of liberal enlightenment propagandists from the 18th century that the Middle Ages were the "dark ages" and such nonsense.
Feudalism was indeed dynamic, with lots of contradictions. And it wasn't stable at all times, it nearly collapsed in the 14th century due to a never-ending war, economic collapse and a plague (sound familiar?).
Not even what in talking about. For a collectivist philosophy, y'all sure spend a lot of time discussing specific individuals. I rejected mainstream historiography for this reason and here you guys are just acting like my high school teachers. History is important, one guy's inability to fully understand a philosophy is meaningless to me and every other asshole just trying to pay the bills. Get your shit together and let's talk/learn about the masses and how those histories shaped them, instead of you idiots just forming a bunch of "isms" and arguing amongst yourselves while I have to deal with a bunch of reactionaries, cause none of these discussions are actually relevant to us and our experience down here.
What are you fucking talking about.
Just stop arguing about one guy, you're acting like a bunch of coffee shop liberals exchanging quotes.
Its not just "one guy", his 'philosophy' was quite literally a massive threat to Diamat in the USSR and ended up culminating into disastrous assessments of how class struggle could be resolved.
Even if he was innocent in being in a bloc of Rights, he still deserved being gotten rid of for blatantly liberal ideology.
cope, he has muffin top
>>1220832>Feudalism was indeed dynamic, with lots of contradictions
Of course it had contradictions, but were they prevalent and intense enough to lead to a social revolution and a new mode of production? Clearly not in most cases, because it remained the dominant social order in Europe well into the 19th century, and even longer elsewhere.>And it wasn't stable at all times, it nearly collapsed in the 14th century due to a never-ending war, economic collapse and a plague
A collapse due to natural disasters like the Black Death or war isn't the same as a social revolution. If the feudal polities of the 14th century had collapsed, they would have probably been replaced by new ones with very similar relations of production. I don't think the forces which operate in capitalism to generate constant, existential crises are present in feudalism, at least not to the same degree. Feudal lords arent under constant pressure to squeeze ever larger surpluses from the people they exploit the way capitalists are, so they can settle into far more stable relations with them. There's a reason why it was the bourgeoisie and not the peasantry that ultimately led the anti-feudal revolutions.
The best argument against Bukharin is that he was the poster boy for Perestroika. If his ideas had been implemented the USSR would've been destroyed in the 30s.
labour aristocrat denying revisionist liberal pedo boy
>>1218510>Trotsky(…) is absolutely HUGE in Latin America
Ehh no, just a bit in Argentina, also some influences on early chavismo and that's it.
the bests argument for burkharin is that he influenced deng and thus was indirectly responsible for the rise of the modern prc
ironic how his ideals destroyed one country and lead to the rise of another
China's "rise" is fake. Unless if you think deindustrializing and allowing rampant speculation is socialist.
china rise is fake>fake
ive seen bad ultra takes but this is beyond the regular ones
> We may say of a system that it is in equilibrium if that system of itself, without the application of external energy cannot change its condition. - Bukharin
This isn't 'disagreeing' with Engels retard, it's just a reformulation of thermodynamic laws - I'm going to guess you've never taken a college class on physics. There is motion inside any system but water at an isothermal temperature isn't going to start boiling until you add heat.
Also bukharin was rad, reminder that Lenin had to write and research all of State Rev before agreeing with him on the question of the state against Kautsky.
I'd also like to add that to anyone who has read Capital
the idea of conservation of energy is literally core to his whole understanding of Value. Marx actually studied thermodynamics while he was writing Capital.
>>1279944>first argument was about deindustrializing and financial speculation<points out the flaws about it>but muh compound growth <…which shows that the maoist era investments kept growing even during the deng era
Maoist era investments are not synonymous with steel production. I have no idea why you posted that graph since it had nothing to do with my claims. The CPC even thinks they're overproducting steel and is causing problems with the national economy
>>1279952>CPC even thinks they're overproducting steel
ah so your argument has switched from deindustrialization to overproduction of industrial steel
>had nothing to do with my claims
steel is one of the sectors of an industrial economy but okay lets look at the other sectors shall we like overall manufacturing
these charts dont look like deindustrializing to me.
No, Mao is, dickhead.
>>1218434>Bukharin shifting from being firmly on the left opposition to the right opposition
anon, i have something to tell you about stalin that you might not be happy to hear
>>1215849>>We may say of a system that it is in equilibrium if that system of itself, without the application of external energy cannot change its condition. - Bukharin>The fuck is this? Is this not a complete an utter break from dialectical materialism? It seems completely anti-Marxist. Its saying that systems have no internal motion, there's nothing about unity of opposites or the inherent nature of internal contradiction.
bruh really doesn't know what the word "if" means lmao
But the condition is complete nonsense.
Stalin was never part of any opposition, unlike Bukharin who did indeed go from one extreme to the other in his bid for power.
Even if that were true, the OP is still interpreting a conditional statement as an absolute.
Rich for a Stalinist to attack others for going from one extreme to the other in a bid for power
Is it? Stalin never joined any oppositions and always supported Lenin and the party's line.
Unique IPs: 37