No.1215849[Last 50 Posts]
>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. 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".
I'll be here for this
I see you've also watched FinBols new video.
My god you are arguing about some useless shit.
>>1215860>No it is saying if a system is not changing, it is in equilibrium.
Which is complete nonsense.
Terrible haircut but at least he doesn't dress like a hobo.
this is a 2500 year old philosophical debate which has been made totally irrelevant by the discoveries of modern physics. Marxism is indifferent to philosophy and your post is incoherent.
build of a concentration camp victim
Your retarded and your anaylsis is taking Bukharin completely out of context. Im not gonna bother disproving you though since you seem to have made up your mind so any attempt to argue a point will result in you sticking your head in the mud.
You are entirely right comrade
Fortunately comrade Stalin had him executed before he could do any more damage to the science of Marxism
Nah he's actually pretty chunky you can see his stomach sticking out. Only an american would think he's skinny.
Remind me why is arguing over a forgoten revisionary that only HOI4 fans wuld remember important
This. Stalin saved the USSR by executing the liberal (and also his own life since Bukharin was going to assassinate him). >>1216534
Dengists care about him, he was one of the 'Marxists' that was most important to Deng.
>>1216564>Dengists care about him
Dengists are liberal chinese capy lovers ho role play as socialists .
no thats his shirt, its normal for shirts to not be 100% tight.
If Lenin or Stalin were alive they would think that China is the best example of the DotP.
>He basically says that, if a system is in "equilibrium", it supposedly stays like that forever until something forces it from the outside.
Wasn't this essentially the situation with feudalism? It was extremely stable, and was only really overturned due to the emergence of new, unforeseen factors like contact with the Americas and the invention of industrial technologies. There wasn't much internal dynamism that could have upended it as a the dominant mode of production from 500-1500.
Varg Vikernes reading his account of the events of Oslo during his trial, 1994, colourized
Why would Stalin support China when he got rid of Bukharin who was way to the left of Deng.
i feel as though the only reason this retard is even relevant in the modern day terminally online political discussion space is because of retard video game mods
>>1216534>Remind me why is arguing over a forgoten revisionary that only HOI4 fans wuld remember important
Because of autism. Because of a lack o any f real power in their lives.
The dialectical method is part of Marxism.
You don't have to use dialectics to express these concepts.
Many of the same concepts can be found in mathematics and physics like for example set-theory or phase-changes.
Maybe it's time to compile a list of the relevant theory-bits and make Marxism more accessible in the modern age.
Dialectics allows for proper understanding of social and economic struggle, change, revolution etfc.
"proper" here is just a qualifier that means "in line with the theory I approve" and does not translate to anything verifiable
>>1216871>Bukharin who was way to the left of Deng.
Please read Deng Xiaoping. Even if you disagree with him he still was applying Marxism-Leninism, unlike Bukharin who completely rejected it and sided with the fascists against Stalin.
A proper understanding of reality and actually accomplishing anything, narco.
>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
>All rest, all equilibrium, is only relative. - Engels
These statements (that you quoted) are perfectly consistent. Equilibrium exists, but it is only relatuve. Expand the picture (or in the words of Bukharin introduce an external force) and the system is no longer at rest.
Anyway yeah Bukharin deserved execution.
Tell me his most important work that will convince me he was secretly advancing Marxism through reactionism and I will read it.
every time i read Deng its bureaucratic crap. theres nothing interesting or marxist in what he says
Stalin's soviet union failed so Bukharin was proved right in the end. Its a good thing that you Stalinists are always destined to fail at everything you do. Everytime a "anti-revisionist" party attempts something resembling a political movement it falls flat on its face into infighting or personality cults, history is with the true marxists and the Stalinists will reap the execution they sow when they side with counterrevolutionaries to preserve there dogmatic attatchment to 100 year old dictators.
>>1218075>Stalin's soviet union failed so Bukharin was proved right in the end.
Flawless logic. Paris Commune failed so Marx was wrong.
Good to know that most "antistalinist" arguments are essentially anticommunist arguments slightly repainted.
>>1218084>Flawless logic. Paris Commune failed so Marx was wrong.
Marx never helmed the Paries Commune did he retard?
>Good to know that most "antistalinist" arguments are essentially anticommunist arguments slightly repainted.
Except Stalinists are the anti-communists when they repeatedly sabotage real revolutionaries with help from there FBI handlers. Same goes for Maoist freaks and the rest of the "anti-revisionist" ilk.
>>1218085>Marx never helmed the Paries Commune did he retard?
Stalin wasn't in charge for the last 30 years of USSR either. It took longer to break it than to build it.
>Except Stalinists are the anti-communists when they repeatedly sabotage real revolutionaries with help from there FBI handlers.
Funny considering it was "real revolutionaries" like Trotsky who repeatedly collaborated with prokies and fascists.
>>1218075>Soviet union failed therefore Hayek was proven right.
Wow, being a rightoid is so fun!
Everyone who criticized SU (regardless of the reason) were proven right when it failed, of course. Even if they claimed opposite things. Don't you know?
>>1216380>Marxism is indifferent to philosophy
>>1218086>Funny considering it was "real revolutionaries" like Trotsky who repeatedly collaborated with prokies and fascists.
My source: my ass and Grover Furr's
Rare good leftypol post
>>1216534>that only HOI4 fans wuld remember
Way to out yourself as someone who gets his history playing hoi4 lmao
Lol, i literally posted the telegram transcript where Trotsky agreed to cooperate with HUAC. What does Furr has to do with that? Are trots so assblasted by him that they have to curse his name all the time wherever it's relevant or not?
>>1218375>nooo you can't use platforms freely given to you to propagate communist ideas!
The HUAC rescinded their invitation after it became clear that Trotsky was going to use the platform to call for an international workers movement against World War II. He wasn't able to testify much of anything because of this.
That is a complete bullshit, how would he be able to use it for that? it's not like it was gonna by live on prime time tv. They would just held a private hearing and use what they wanted from what he said. Do you even understand what HUAC was and how it worked?
And cooperating with rabid anticommunists is not something communists would do. Fuck, the single fact that they made an invitation is rpetty much telling you what kind of communist Judas Trotsky was.
And that's just the tip of it, let's not forget the lavish rewards porky press was given to him for his articles about communism, russian revolution and Stalin. Including from people like Hearst who was called "fascist number one in America" at the time.
rootless cosmopolitanism moment
>>1218375>What does Furr has to do with that?
What does Trotsky have anything to do with the original post lmao
>>1218394>Lenin was rootless cosmopolitan
Sure, manipulating german nazis to strike capitalist nations first instead of USSR to force those porkies fight against fascist is the same as snitching on other communist to HUAC. Cope harder.
Whatever "real revolutionary" you were talking about, he was most likely in cahoots with Trotsky, so it had everything to do with the post.
I'm sure letting Greek communists get slaughtered by fascists and British royalists to please his capitalist allies was also completely necessary
Stalinist reading comprehension
I like that you ended up proving the original guy right by having absolutely by only being able to impotently seethe about irrelevant historical figures lmao
*by having absolutely no political views besides seething impotently about irrelevant historical figures
To avoid being nuked. USSR just got out of being on the worst end in the most bloody war in history of mankind and didn't yes had the nukes to defend themself. They had little choice. Who forced Trotsky to go and snitch before HUAC?>>1218409
History already prove Bukharchick wrong by the results of collectivisation in USSR and the results of dengoid policies in porky China. And the only thing you can do is helplessly cry about "stalinists". Intergration of kulaks into socialism my ass.
>>1218429>helplessly cry about "stalinists"
More like ridicule, it's not as if stalinoids have any relevance to be a threat to anybody lmao
How rich. The red-garbed social democrat who can't help but to detest every successful implementation of socialism is calling those who have materially implemented an alternative to capitalism, lifting hundreds of millions from poverty, as having no political views.
It was the eternal backstabbers to the socialist movement like Trotsky and Bukharin who never held a consistent line, whether that be the hypocrite Trotsky claiming he was always a Bolshevik or Bukharin shifting from being firmly on the left opposition to the right opposition, its those who you deny reality to defend who are opportunists and against socialism.
Stalin is literally a red-garbed social democrat if even that lol
>lifting hundreds of millions from poverty
Neolib spotted, post discarded
>>1218444>noooo it failed in the end, so it was doomed to fail from the start, Margs and Valdimir Stalin are proven wrong with FACTS and LOGIC
Neither did first capitalist countries. Spartacus also lost. You couldn't evne pretended to be some sort of leftcom or trot for even a couple of minutes before outing yourself as rightoid troll
Definitely not doomed from the start, but Stalin put it in the grave for good
Your mistake is thinking Stalin was Spartacus and not Thermidor
Also you're speaking to like 4 different people as if it's one guy you schizo lmao
imageboard pseuds always have to pretend that it's only one guy disagreeing with them
>>1218454>everybody who doesn't jerk off to 20th century LARPing is a rightoid
the 20th century is fucking dead, anon. The revolutionary movements it birthed are mostly dead. The material conditions that informed them are dead.
Move on. Update your fucking theory.
It's not about "updating" theory, it's about bringing it back to its revolutionary roots
The moment Marxism-Leninism came about and ossified into state doctrine, it lost any and all revolutionary potential, and its only moments of relevance was in third-world national liberation movements who only used it to denote their association with a political bloc rather than being in any way faithful to the ideas of either of its namesakes. Now that said political bloc is gone, Marxism-Leninism is completely useless, as proven by ML's complete inability to do anything but protect the honor of long-dead retards and have exactly zero involvement in the workers movement.
Whether Stalinoids like it or not, the 20th century is over, and its lessons have not been kind of Stalin. His only historical contributions to socialism are by negative example and his only claim to relevance is his status as a Russian nationalist symbol, which honestly more than anything speaks to what his role as a "revolutionary" was. Trotsky, Bukharin and other critics of Stalin and the Soviet Union simply had more of worth to say and more relevance to actual revolutionary movements, the former is absolutely HUGE in Latin America and even the rest of the world, and hell even Pancake-man and Lasagna-man are infinitely more useful to study at this point in time. Time will pass, history will move on, new revolutionaries will rise and the opportunists and counter-revolutionaries like Stalin will be forgotten, it's just how it goes
he was newton/atomism pilled.
Read On The Opposition and Problems of Leninism.>>1218512
Said "Old Bolsheviks" (really just bolsheviks in name) were organizing with fascists and plotting to violently dismantle the USSR by offering Ukraine, Belarus, the Far East, etc to domination by foreign capitalists, a goal they killed countless for with their wreaking activities. They were scum, fuck them all.
Really incredible how anyone even midly opposed to Stalin turned out to be a Trotskyite-fascist wrecker, and they only needed a little bit of brutal torture to confess to it!
I, too, prefer to immerse myself in fantasy
Stalinoids aren't known for critical thinking skills
Well, Stalin held the correct line and those who maintained their mistakes despite constant corrections from 1928 to 1934 would obviously hold idealist ideas as Bukharin did (shown in the OP) that culminated over time until they sided with fascism. It wasn't an overnight thing. And they didn't all agree with Trotsky. For example, Radek disagreed with Trotskyism but still joined the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre due to being utterly defeated ideologically by Stalin. Left with nothing, he sided opportunistically with Trotsky who had secret sabotage organizations within the USSR with funding and support by foreign governments such as the German fascists.>they only needed a little bit of brutal torture to confess to it!
Not a single scrap of evidence that Bukharin was tortured. Even liberals admit this.
>>1218646>Well, Stalin held the correct line
Did Stalin hold it because it was correct, or was it correct because Stalin held it?
I think there was also a racism component as motivation for their treachery. Many of the supposed “Old Bolsheviks”, like many “Marxists” were and are to this day, were western chauvinists who took Marx’s translation of the ideas of communism into terms westoids could understand as the end all be all of communism, and the fact that the revolution was successful in Russia and not in the “homeland of the master race” Germany completed flew in the face of their established dogmas. Like racists usually do when confronted with reality though they just doubled down, Tukachevsky outright admitting that the “Russian race” was “perverting” communism and needed to be eliminated so that “real socialism”, ie Nazi Germany’s pagan death cult, could flourish. The Trotskyites of today are just a continuation of western chauvinism
Go back to twitter
Are you a threat to capital anon?
Literally how? He was the greatest opposition to the nomenclature
I sorry to tell you this anon but I am brazilian and Trotsky is not well received in socialist circles, Stalin got more clout.
is this a joke post or did somebody actually spew this filth LMFAO
Never used it and the few screencaps I've seen of MLoids with 50 flags in their bio spewing the dumbest shit known to humankind convinced me to never do it ever
Yes, I buy socialist commodities instead of capitalist commodities and make sure to debunk Trotskyite-fascist propaganda against comrade Stalin on reddit as much as I can
Being a hypocrite is no justification for your bitch fits. It doesn't matter if that other anon is wrong, you haven't done anything either, therefore you simply can't argue against them from this angle
Socialist commodities are a thing too btw. As long as the wages are determined by collective interest
Well if you take the eternally online lingo out of it that makes a good point. Racism was a problem in the early socialist movement and it isn't unreasonable to suggest or believe that it was one of the causes for the inner party dissent in the USSR
Modes of production have a round about way doing things when they're young, untested and from unstable foundations anon
The Old Bolsheviks just hated having a leader that was POC (Georgian) and neurodivergent (retarded), which is why they plotted against Stalin
Industrialization and collectivization are necessary for socialism. Socialism (scientific) is only possible and desirable under industrial society for it's ease in production and development which makes bourgeois positions unnecessary and even dangerous
You are bring needlessly uncharitable anon. I'm not even agreeing with that other anon.
Atlanticist can’t comprehend a world where “subhumans” achieve socialism, what else is new
>>1218744>From the historical point of view the only serious argument pleaded in favor of the fatal dissolution of the commune of the Russian peasants, is as follows:>By going far back, we find everywhere in Western Europe common property of a fairly archaic type; it disappeared everywhere with social progress. Why should it succeed in escaping the same fate only in Russia?>I reply: Because in Russia, thanks to a singular combination of circumstances, the rural commune, still established on a national scale, can gradually extricate itself from its primitive characteristics and develop directly as an element of collective production on a national scale. It is only thanks to the contemporaneity of capitalist production that it can appropriate from it all its positive acquisitions without passing through its hideous vicissitudes. Russia does not live isolated from the modern world; neither is it the prey of a foreign conqueror, like the East Indies.>If the Russian admirers of the capitalist system deny the theoretical possibility of such an evolution, I would put to them the question: In order to exploit machinery, steamships, railroads, etc., was Russia forced, like the West, to pass through a long period of incubation of machine industry? Let them further explain to me how they managed to introduce in their midst, in the twinkling of an eye, the whole mechanism of exchange (banks, credit societies, etc.), whose elaboration cost the West centuries?
I'm literally from the former Warsaw Pact you self-hating burgershart faggot lmao
Every ML party that isn't an obscure sect are just glorified succdems, completely detoothed and useless, with their only praxis being zerking off to Great Men instead of actually engaging with the proletariat. I've taken shits more consequential to the workers movement than Stalinoids lmao
>>1218429>History already prove Bukharchick wrong by the results of collectivisation in USSR and the results of dengoid policies in porky China. And the only thing you can do is helplessly cry about "stalinists". Intergration of kulaks into socialism my ass.
<one country descended into abandoning any semblence of communism aka putin russia
<while the other descended into capitalism but at least still technically larps with a supposed marxist leninist party, superstructre and etc intact
anon if you think stalin was more right than burkharin than i
Fuck me if you all absolutely have to navel-gaze over philosophers and other humanities writers at least pick a fucking 21st century writer speaking to 21st century concerns. Tell me about David Graeber or Elinor Ostrom or Erik Olin Wright. Fuck me, I'll take another goddamn Cockshott thread. Not some fuckoff who's been dead for nearly a century.
This, kind of
No, historical debates absolutely do matter to communists if only to inform strategy and tactics, but perhaps people here should realize absolutely no prole has ever given a single fuck about the Trotskyite-fascist lies against comrade Stalin and dedicating their efforts to deboonking them only matters to the other deranged individuals just as obsessed as you are lol
are they in the room with us right now, anon, spreading lies about dead countries no worker gives a fuck about
Stalin was one million times the person you’ll ever be and is honored by billions across the world, you disgusting lowlife bottom feeder. Try saying this shit in China and see how long you last
We've got 4000 year old stories that are still being read and resonate today, 2 centuries are barely a blink of an eye comparatively
Theoretical and historical debates related to the biggest revolutionary crisis of the past few centuries are *absolutely* relevant to the modern communist, nothing has changed about the nature of capitalism since then except in appearance. Not that the Stalinoid project of defending Great Men from criticism on the internet is any less useless, but completely abandoning even confronting historical reality in favour of worshipping academics is just as retarded, though I suppose it makes sense if you subscribe to the ideology that has been irrelevant since its inception and that has no actual historical legacy or prospects for the future, anarchism
>>1218792>MUH CHINA<the china where deng admired burkharin
>>1218792>Stalin was one million times the person you’ll ever be and is honored by billions across the world
Not relevant to whether or not I get food on my table.
>Try saying this shit in China and see how long you last
I don't live in China, not an issue.
least cucked stalinoid
That's not what I'm saying in the slightest. I'm not telling you to abandon any consideration of wider historical context or of any kind of foundational conceptual framework, I'm telling you to fucking stop fetishizing century-old shit at the expense of looking at what is happening NOW
my god a very intelligent anarchist take
>>1218801>stop fetishizing century-old shit
Is this meant for the people carrying Lenin and Stalin portraits at their rallies as if anyone ever gives a fuck or what do you actually count as fetishizing
Graeber and the other dudes you mentioned aren't any more relevant to the present workers movement than Bolsheviks that died a century ago, frankly they're even less relevant on account of being academics
>>1218813>Is this meant for the people carrying Lenin and Stalin portraits at their rallies as if anyone ever gives a fuck
>or what do you actually count as fetishizing Graeber and the other dudes you mentioned aren't any more relevant to the present workers movement than Bolsheviks that died a century ago, frankly they're even less relevant on account of being academics
Holy mother of fuck, that's not the point being made at all. I'm agreeing with the other anon that fetishizing old philosophers is pointless and irrelevant to the people you're trying to win over, and that if you actually want to fucking discuss theory, then at least fucking talk about shit that's directly relevant to 21st century issues or is up to date. The actual names don't matter, they're fucking examples
holy hell how is this incredibly basic-ass point hard to understand
You forgot to add de gaulle
>>1218860>the state serving capital is the same as capital serving the state
Do you think socialism is when business and money don’t exist and everything is free?
Where do correct ideas come from? Do they drop from the skies? No. Are they innate in the mind? No. They come from social practice, and from it alone; they come from three kinds of social practice, the struggle for production, the class struggle and scientific experiment. It is man’s social being that determines his thinking. Once the correct ideas characteristic of the advanced class are grasped by the masses, these ideas turn into a material force which changes society and changes the world. In their social practice, men engage in various kinds of struggle and gain rich experience, both from their successes and from their failures. Countless phenomena of the objective external world are reflected in a man’s brain through his five sense organs — the organs of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. At first, knowledge is perceptual. The leap to conceptual knowledge, i.e., to ideas, occurs when sufficient perceptual knowledge is accumulated. This is one process in cognition. It is the first stage in the whole process of cognition, the stage leading from objective matter to subjective consciousness from existence to ideas. Whether or not one’s consciousness or ideas (including theories, policies, plans or measures) do correctly reflect the laws of the objective external world is not yet proved at this stage, in which it is not yet possible to ascertain whether they are correct or not. Then comes the second stage in the process of cognition, the stage leading from consciousness back to matter, from ideas back to existence, in which the knowledge gained in the first stage is applied in social practice to ascertain whether the theories, policies, plans or measures meet with the anticipated success. Generally speaking, those that succeed are correct and those that fail are incorrect, and this is especially true of man’s struggle with nature.
In social struggle, the forces representing the advanced class sometimes suffer defeat not because their ideas are incorrect ! but because, in the balance of forces engaged in struggle, they are not as powerful for the time being as the forces of reaction; they are therefore temporarily defeated, but they are bound to triumph sooner or later. Man’s knowledge makes another leap through the test of practice. This leap is more important than the previous one. For it is this leap alone that can prove the correctness or incorrectness of the first leap in cognition, i.e., of the ideas, theories, policies, plans or measures formulated in the course of reflecting the objective external world. There is no other way of testing truth. Furthermore, the one and only purpose of the proletariat in knowing the world is to change it. Often, correct knowledge can be arrived at only after many repetitions of the process leading from matter to consciousness and then back to matter, that is, leading from practice to knowledge and then back to practice. Such is the Marxist theory of knowledge, the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge. Among our comrades there are many who do not yet understand this theory of knowledge. When asked the sources of their ideas, opinions, policies, methods, plans and conclusions, eloquent speeches and long articles they consider the questions strange and cannot answer it. Nor do they comprehend that matter, can be transformed into consciousness and consciousness into matter, although such leaps are phenomena of everyday life. It is therefore necessary to educate our comrades in the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge, so that they can orientate their thinking correctly, become good at investigation and study and at summing up experience, overcome difficulties, commit fewer mistakes, do their work better, and struggle hard so as to build Leftypol into a great and powerful socialist imageboard and help the broad masses of the oppressed and exploited throughout the world in fulfillment of our great internationalist duty.
do you really think the debate between materialism and idealism has no relevance today? where do correct ideas come from then?
Anarchists are fans of moral relativism so to them “good ideas” are entirely based on vibes
I'm literally a materialist, anon. I'm not taking issue with materialism, I'm taking issue with you just relying on lazily letting the words of others speaking for you instead of doing the actual work of defending shit yourself
It's a pet peeve of mine and it annoys me every time I see people do it here
Well it does depend on the anarchist. Some are materialists, and many are dialecticians, some ancoms are even marxists.
I just don't see how you can expect to change the world without a correct understanding of where it is and how it got there. We need to have a consensus on material reality from which to base any disagreement and different applications will apply to different conditions.
This board is for communists not liberals.
i would rather make people argue with text than intentionally twist my meaning. people on this board are big fans of highlighting one word and using it to dismiss the entire post so it is not really worth the effort to put things in your own words.
>>1218962>I just don't see how you can expect to change the world without a correct understanding of where it is and how it got there. We need to have a consensus on material reality from which to base any disagreement and different applications will apply to different conditions.have a consensus on material reality from which to base any disagreement and different applications will apply to different conditions.
But getting people on board and defending your own political and philosophical positions means being able to make your own clear arguments to people yourself instead of just going "hey look at what this dead guy wrote, now take my word for it that he is correct"
it's a skill that frankly everybody here needs to work on, myself included
>>1218972> people on this board are big fans of highlighting one word and using it to dismiss the entire post
Usually these are words that warrant dismissing an entire post (if not an entire person).
random question: is avatarfagging allowed? i mean the flags do end up banning it redundant but still
Woof, hit a nerve huh
>>1218997>implying every social anarchist is a kropotkinist<(Nickelback voice) LOOOOK AT THIS ARRTTTIIICCCLLLE
See, this is what I'm talking about. You're not making an argument, you're just lazily copypasting shit that agrees with your sentiments without actually doing the work of making an argument as to why you think it's correct
so i take it your against dialectics then? i chose this in support of your post about marx, against the reactionary saying all anarchists are idealists. maybe its true and you are, and also wrong. have you even made an argument or just told people to stop talking?
Okay, no. Now you're basically trying to change the topic into something else entirely.
What I am saying is that it annoys the living piss out of me when people do lazy-ass shit where they just parrot shit instead of actually defending their own views themselves with their own reasoning and arguments, and I'm saying that such a level of intellectual laziness is rampant here.
And before you try and pull something where you go "ahahaha, well now you are trying to deflect from etc etc etc," go ahead and read the shit I initially posted, that's what I was saying and what I am currently saying.
And to be brutally honest, you're proving my point for me right now
I'm on the same topic as the thread OP. Dialectical materialism vs mechanical materialism(idealism).
My view is that the correct understanding of reality comes from dialectical materialism, and that all serious Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, and even Anarcho-Communists agree.
The reason in that post is that same reason that Engels explicates in Socialism Utopian and Scientific and the passage from Mao and its what distinguishes utopian idealists from communists. Idealist "materialists" conceive of the world as a static set of categories ready-made and unchanging that appear to them and that is just the way things are. It has no way to account for the historical development of things or for future revolutionary change. This leads to a moralistic conception of reality in which communism is a state of affairs or a checklist of good and bad things.
That's alll well and good, but it's not what I was complaining about.
Anyway I'm gonna drop this, it's starting to derail the thread
No, but the state must clearly be moving toward the goal of a classless society where business and money don't exist (but not everything is free). Modern day China doesn't exemplify this at all, private industrial capitals owned by billionaires continue to dominate an ever larger share of the economy. There is no meaningful democracy both inside and outside the CPC and the party has abandoned "Marxism" outside of rare quotations at nationalist anniversary events.
China is following the same developmental-capitalist model followed by countries like South Korea and Taiwan, which had heavy state investment and guidance under an official ideology of anti-communism. Going back further, the old German empire also had a state-centric developmental model. When WWI broke out some Marxists developed the theory of "organized capitalism" to justify supporting a German victory, for which they were savaged by the Bolsheviks.
mfw an actual good leftypol post that details the economic systems of china and its predesccesors
literal modern china is just a continuation of listian style economics, not marxist ones
>>1219034>My view is that the correct understanding of reality comes from dialectical materialism
sounds more like you are promoting doctrinal orthodoxy.
Materialists derive theory from the material world, not from sacred texts.
The language a of dialectics is old and very vague, we can find more modern and accurate expressions of these concepts in the sciences. We need not redefine reality as static for that. >>1219172
I would say that China does have a genuine socialist core that triumphed, state direction over the heights of the economy has grown significantly. The neo-liberals did attempt to establish a bourgeois dictatorship and they most clearly failed in China. I do not understand why you attempt to compare China to South Korea or the old German empire, those were marketably different systems
>>1219234>I do not understand why you attempt to compare China to South Korea or the old German empire, those were marketably different systems
different how anon
>>1219234>sounds more like you are promoting doctrinal orthodoxy.
sounds like you don't know what you are talking about or what words mean>Materialists derive theory from the material world
double for the above
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.
Unique IPs: 75