/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2112316
It's not "entirely different", it has meaningless ideological distinctions from other segments of the compatible left, significant crossover in key figures and organizations, and serves to drive more engagement into the compatible left by giving them a convenient punching bag. Fuentes = Hinkle = Piker. You are all Twitch/Youtube grifter fascists. Democrats and GOP are fascists. Anarchists, MLMs, ML ultras, and Trotskyists are all fascists. Slap on a different t-shirt and change your stance on sexuality again, it doesn't make a difference.

Again, if you actually adopted Dimitrov's methods, or read Lukacs' Destruction of Reason or George Jackson's writing you would not be stuck repeating what you're told. But you just want to play around online.

>>2112184
>How is it fascism when Dmitrov already described fascism, it is when the state goes from covert to open class dictatorship
That was the official Comintern line adopted in the 1930s but it was a fairly narrow, simplified definition used as a means for political agitation in the context of the time. R. Palme Dutt also had a take like that but I think Gramsci and Togliatti were better among the Marxist theorists of fascism at the time but that's neither here nor there.

>>2112195
>Would genuinely be amused to see what the ACP explanation of the class character of grifters.
I'm trying to get the lumpenstreamer to take off. No success so far but just gotta keep at it.

>>2112275
>The point is it doesn't matter how you act in terms of discoursive propaganda, only the work you do for the party.
I think you're incorrect and that it does matter how you act in terms of propaganda because that has an effect on the cohesion and discipline of the party, which is an important function of propaganda (particularly in communist practice, although this is by no means exclusive to communists). That is true even if it is directed outward at non-party members or supporters. I hope this doesn't sound offensive but this is basic stuff.

>>2112312
>Picrel is about Lukacs analysis of fascism, it's quite literally just destruction of all reason and subordination of all thought to the impulses of one fascist dictator … Imagine a world ruled by Nick screaming orders at you from a televiewer.
I like Lukacs but honestly it doesn't sound much better when it's Haz screaming orders rather than Nick. He even says that shit, you have to obey him without question and blah blah blah. I think the ACP is an irrationalist group that comes out of toxic streamer fandom.

>>2112318
>What businesses?
Good question.

>>2112312
>their loyalties all lie in one place, the nation.
But this is itself reactionary ideology. What loyalties do these people have other than to their own class and their own financial interests? There is no "national" interests at all.
>>2112312
Lukacs definition is idealist. The Nuremberg trials were much more insightful, especially the statements of leading industrialists. Which made clear Hitler was doing their bidding.
Some of those same people also profited off and orchestrated the first war.

Irrationalist? The actions of the German oligarchs and their support for Hitler were motivated by rational self-interest. The petite bourgeois supporters of the NSDAP were likewise motivated by (class) self-interest. Against the communists who sought to collectivize their property (and free their wives and daughters from their patriarchal control) and the "jews" who they thought to be synonymous with both the bourgeoisie and the communists, And in the first case they also saw as a threat to their economic interests as small proprietors.
And whilst the Nazis were elitists so were most French revolutionaries, but especially the American Founding Fathers who sought to protect land owners from both free men and slaves alike.
Likewise the thinking of nations and people in biological terms was very run of the mill 19th century liberalism.

>>2112322
>Irrationalist? The actions of the German oligarchs and their support for Hitler were motivated by rational self-interest.
I'm not sure I agree because the economic system they were trying to defend was irrational and destructive. Marxism is also not a rationalist philosophy (my understanding) and the class struggle doesn't follow a rational process, only that class-based revolution is the identification of material interests and needs of a class with reason's criticism of the existing irrationality (to paraphrase a line from an article about contemporary irrationalism that I'm going to link…. now):
https://monthlyreview.org/2023/02/01/the-new-irrationalism/

Daniel Tutt read that article too and referenced it in his article on MAGA Communists:

>>2100629
<My rationale for taking part in this debate was influenced by the Marxist philosopher Gyorgy Lukács, who argued that fascism is an irrationalist epistemology that thrives on incoherent ideas. The Marxist sociologist John Bellamy Foster has argued that today’s left is witnessing the return of irrationalist theories and, like Lukács before him, Foster locates this return of irrationalism in the rise of imperialist wars and monopoly capitalism. Although I do not think the MAGA Communists are fascist in any clear sense of the term, I do believe that their movement poses a danger to the development of Marxism in our time. A Marxism that trades in openly chauvinistic, violent frameworks, and that theorizes Marxism as a warlike practice in the service of a new age of inter-imperialist warfare, is irrationalist. If it is successful, it will only further divide the wider left away from Marxism at a time when the practices of Marx and Engels are desperately needed for re-forging and organizing the working class. If irrationalist ideas are not openly debated and critiqued, they will only fester.

>>2112186
>never read George Jackson or Georg Lukacs
i dont think those definitions are mutually exclusive >>2112262
>Marx and Engels they foresaw Russia and Asia coming to the fore against this world system. Asia generally as preparing this future "world turning point"
what really where?
>>2112291
>>2112300
The main problem with ACP is trying to apply methods for different conditions to the most technologically advanced country in history, which leads them to thinking you can be patriotic towards the US. This is a pretty close parallel to Great Russian Chauvinism in the USSR. If the US went communist it wouldn't really need a NEP or Dengism the world imperialist system would collapse and there would be no external threat to catch up with. You could reindustrialize in a couple years but you wouldn't need capitalists to do it because you already own all the patents.
>>2112307
>You share the rigid definition of fascism
>You need to learn from Dimitrov's historical materialist analysis
The analysis applies perfectly. The US is at the point of monopoly stagnation and losing in expansionist wars that the only path left is to turn inwards to stop the falling rate of profit. Its either socialism or barbarism and the communists are not prepared to take power. If the working class accepts the brutal austerity then you might get to skip fascism and live in destitution instead, but if they fight back the state is going to take off the gloves and the people will lose.

The reason this is the best analysis of fascism is because it is an extrapolation of the core of Marx's theory, which is the tendency of the rate of profit to fall as capital concentrates into monopoly and technological innovation stagnates leading to a change in the ratio of constant to variable capital that heightens class contradictions and drives revolutionary upheaval.

>>2112325
>locates this return of irrationalism in the rise of imperialist wars and monopoly capitalism
now thats cooking with dialectics!

>>2112318
>What businesses?
For-profit organizations. Private capitalists who have funds at their disposal naturally still exert great influence, much more than "normal fund raisers" and "collecting dues". All the other parties just collect and sit on dues that people donate every month, they are sitting on millions and doing nothing except funding petit-bourgeois lifestyles in Academia doing writing and criticism
Basically take whatever productive skill you have or existing businesses and incorporate it into your party

It's important to note worker co-ops, syndicalism and "workers' councils for workers' councils sake" isn't Communist, because no one sector or portion of the economy takes precedent over another. Production has to be carried out according to a settled plan. Socialism is "ownership by the nation", but this is a gradual process
Worker co-ops existed in fascism funny enough, that's the realm of idealist socialism anyway

>>2112321
>Definition
Fascism isn't a definition, it is a irrational anti-idea. Dmitrov was characterizing it based on it's historical reality, that is the meaning of Marxist-Leninist analysis

>It does matter how you act in terms of propaganda because that has an effect on the cohesion and discipline of the party, which is an important function of propaganda (particularly in communist practice, although this is by no means exclusive to communists)
Jackson used to post a lot of coal like that 9/11 jews post, I've never seen anything like that happen again though. All forms of media is propaganda and different interests are boosting and controlling the "discourse".
99% of what Jackson reposts is pro-Russia, pro-Palestine, pro-China, anti WW3 etc. That also counts when it comes to "how you act" in the media
In terms of communist practice all the acp on social media have to be liking and reposting each other just to boost the algorithm and spread the message. The feds are doing the same thing to spread the opposite message

>He even says that shit, you have to obey him without question and blah blah blah
Do you think you aren't allowed to personally disagree with Haz and discuss your issue with everyone? It's the entire demcent process you have to obey actually since there is always internal dialogue, criticism etc inside the party too

>>2112322
>But this is itself reactionary ideology
The nation is a particular form that a definite community of people will take, ultimately the thing that unites them the most is labor, the economic life on a common territory. Land is the most fundamental means of production. "Without labor, blood dries up" basically kills the wignat. Without people, there are no classes

>Lukacs definition is idealist
That's true for all definitions, it's just the psychoanalytic description of the fascist mind. Really sad, anti-human social reject with murderious tendencies for revenge. Hitler's rise to power is what's concrete about fascism true, Hitler was backed by Royal Dutch Shell since the 1920s, had Wall Street members sitting on the board of IG Farben and other industrial cartels since the late 20s, and kept paying back debts to the BIS well into the height of WW2.
The Bolsheviks cancelled all the debt after the revolution, which is what set the imperialist war for revenge ever since. The war started in 1917 and never ended

>Irrationalist
Fascism is "self-interest" in the mind of Nick, who are you to tell him otherwise? Truth, certainty and rationality are separate things. Obviously the "jews" weren't synonymous with the bourgeois and the communists. The existence of class traitors like Zhou Enlai and Khrushchev proves that human nature is not based on "rational actors maximizing self-interest" even when it comes to class interests.
Fascism and anarchism both had their roots as mechanical critiques of marxism, following the letter of the word and missing the spirit. I agree 19th century liberal ideology and western philosophy is the root cause of this
Picrel 1 but look at what fascism actually did in each case… ᴉuᴉlossnW stole Dalmatia, colonized Albania and Ethiopia. Hitler invaded all of Western and most of Eastern Europe

>>2112325
<fascism is an irrationalist epistemology that thrives on incoherent ideas
>Marxism is also not a rationalist philosophy
It's a good point, you can't rationalize a real movement that sublates the present state of things, you have to witness the theory being put into practice for it to be true (picrel 2). That is my own criticism of idealist Lukacs

Marx says Communism is this, entirely different from Malthusian self-interest survival of the fittest ideology:
<All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majorityy

We have Alex Jones at home I see

>>2112340
I had to delete and re-post this cause messed up the quotes before

>>2112326
You can't a priori rationalize what fascism is (irrational), all you can do is differentiate between particular forms it takes throughout history and find the common content after the fact.
Only then you can conceptualize it - but your definition doesn't create a "checklist" for what is true capitalism/communism/fascism

You agreed with Dimitrov's analysis, the content of fascism is open dictatorship of finance capital whatever form it takes

>what really where
The entire thing about the asiatic mode/primeval Communism. It's still a process in history barely surviving the total besiegement of globalist Imperialism. Communism is the Asiatic mode on a higher technological basis, realized as a "common unity" between manufacturing, agriculture, vast infrastructure etc

>trying to apply methods for different conditions to the most technologically advanced country in history
Marxism-Leninism must be synthesized for each national reality. That has nothing to do with "Great Russian chauvinism", which btw was critiqued all through the period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_patriotism

If the US went communism, imperialism would be finished. Maybe they will try to run back to Canada and the UK, since that is the origin point of colonialism and capitalism that may be the final front of the final war

>tendency of the rate of profit to fall
The tendency of the rate of profit to fall shows that this reached a low point and has not historically recovered in 1929. Removing the gold standard removed that relation, since Marx's prediction was based on the relation of gold production to its role as a measure of value by weight

fascism results from the combination of two failures: the failure of imperialist expansion and the failure of communist revolution. this is correlated to but distinct from a reaction to the threat of communism, because its driver is profit. from the perspective of the capitalist the communists are just an excuse to further immiserate the worker

i dont think fascism being irrational and being the open terrorist dictatorship of finance capital are in meant to be in opposition. irrationalism can be the ideology of finance capital that justifies their terrorist dictatorship. to be rational they would have to accept that communism is in their interest as well. to delude yourself into believing infinite growth on a finite planet, that climate change wont get you too, that monopolist billionaires compete in a free market etc

>Marxism is also not a rationalist philosophy (my understanding) and the class struggle doesn't follow a rational process
p sure marx and hegel are both rationalists and that class struggle does follow a rational process too. idk if you mean why it happens or like the thoughts people are having while they are running around in the streets tho. rationalism usually means knowledge is derived from reason and is contrasted with empiricism, that knowledge is derived from experience. you could probably even find a way to extend that into the modern argument bw dialectics and positivism, or historically empirio-criticism, or even irrationalism. irrationalism isn't just believing crazy stuff either btw its the position that knowledge is derived from feelings.

>>2112325
It was "destructive" (to themselves) because they lost.
>>2112340
This makes it sound like those concepts are solidly defined. It's difficult for me to see how there can be a community if it involves people who live thousands of miles apart and do know or interact with one another. I see people clinging to this idea of a "nation" when it can easily be dropped.
There's social relations, there's people you work and interact with, there's your neighborhood, your city, all of which make up a tangible community. There's no need to cling to the idea of nations which is often simply used to obscure class and exploitation. Yes I know this is "unorthodox" and that Stalin wrote a pamphlet about this: I'm saying he was wrong.
Economic life may have a territorial aspect, social bonds don't necessarily.

>Really sad, anti-human social reject with murderious tendencies for revenge.
I'm not disputing this. But I am rejecting this idea that "fascism" is "irrational". It's deeply rational (to the oligarchs) which is what makes it dangerous.
In general I dislike attributing insanity and irrationality to one's enemies. I see liberals especially doing this. The small proprietor who thought the The Jews (as bourgeoisie and communists alike) were out to take his business wasn't irrational as much as he was wrong in assuming all Jews were communists/bourgeois. The irrationality is found rather in them assuming the non-Jewish bourgeoisie weren't out to get them too.

>Class traitors
I hate how this implies we ought to have any loyalty towards classes. We don't. The proletarian class struggle isn't about affirming ones class, or "opposing" the bourgeoisie. It's about the abolition of Capital and class itself. The American Oligarchs are as trapped by Capital as anyone else.
Likewise a communist prole is also acting "against their class" because they aim to abolish it.

>>2112345
What is the purpose of his post? Its very bland. Even people that believe that sort of nonsense would say "yeah dude we know so what?"

like this is all kinda why dialectical and historical materialism are the highest achievement of rational philosophy and why there is an analytical and continental divide and why western marxism retreated into empiricism and flattens communism and fascism into totalitarianism in an attempt to negate socialist experiments. the power of dialectics is in the historicization of concepts, instead of taken experience as given, it contextualizes the underlying assumptions inherent in language as a social tool and how the economics of production shape our understanding. irrationalism or empiricism on the other hand takes what is given from the small window of individual experience as an eternal unchanging truth, its anthem is that whatever they see around them is the natural order of things

>>2112340
>All forms of media is propaganda and different interests are boosting and controlling the "discourse" … In terms of communist practice all the acp on social media have to be liking and reposting each other just to boost the algorithm and spread the message.
That wasn't my point. There are different interests in society who are spreading propaganda, but it's not simply done for persuasion but strenghtening the morale of these groups' own supporters, and I don't think Jackson posting wild shit about sex trafficker Andrew Tate strengthens any movement other than the right, not even his particular group because people were like WTF and quit. But again, he can just post whatever he wants.

>Do you think you aren't allowed to personally disagree with Haz and discuss your issue with everyone? It's the entire demcent process you have to obey actually since there is always internal dialogue, criticism etc inside the party too
And they'll say "okay but we disagree" and then you have to shut up and get in line and they'll kick you out if you don't, I understand.

>>2112357
>Discord name
>Reply
Not-cult behavior

>>2112348
The perspective of the capitalist sees fascism as “rational” alternative. Both they and the fascists don’t see Communism as “rational”, because it goes beyond that “self interested” autonomous unit human nature theory. Class struggle inherently can’t be discussed individually, nor can Long durée analysis like historical materialism be distilled into individual "rationalism". That’s why the bourgeois only care about individual needs, not the collective

Fascists themselves take meth, colonize, enslave and act out their most repressed perverse urges. Those are the “fascist ideologues” that scream heil hitler and do the roman salute. Obviously they aren’t the real movement of fascism itself. Fascism never had any intellectual basis whatsoever, its sophistry
Also Lenin rejected positivism and vulgar Machian view in "Materialism and Empirio-criticism". A lot of knowledge is derived from feelings but that’s not the only source. The US wouldn’t be fascist until it overthrows constitutional order. A state is a tool of repression and domination of one class over another, in the form of a dictatorship. If imperialism successfully expands, negates and abolishes the asiatic mode, then they will switch to an open dictatorship anyway as they have no need to hide

>>2112325
>https://monthlyreview.org/2023/02/01/the-new-irrationalism/

>Approaching the problem of irrationalism from a Marxist perspective, Lukács in The Destruction of Reason traced its historical roots to the defeat of the bourgeois revolutions of 1848, followed by the emergence of the imperialist stage of capitalism beginning in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, leading to the First and Second World Wars. “Reason itself,” he argued, “can never be something politically neutral, suspended above social developments. It always mirrors the concrete rationality—or irrationality—of a social situation and evolving trend, sums it up conceptually and thereby promotes or inhibits it.”19 It is immanent critique, based on the scrutiny of changing historical conditions, that constitutes the essence of the Marxian dialectical method in the analysis of the development of thought.

>For Lukács, Schopenhauer was the originator of “the purely bourgeois version of irrationalism.”20 His magnum opus, The World as Will and Idea, published in 1819, was directed against Hegelian philosophy. Schopenhauer attempted to oppose his subjective idealism of the will to G. W. F. Hegel

>the German bourgeoisie shifted their allegiance from Hegel and Ludwig Feuerbach to Schopenhauer, who in the last decade of his life achieved widespread acclaim

>Schopenhauer’s genius, according to Lukács, was to pioneer the method of “indirect apologetics,” later perfected by Nietzsche. Earlier apologetics for the bourgeois order had sought to defend it directly, despite its manifold contradictions. In Schopenhauer’s new method of indirect apologetics, the bad side of capitalism (and even its contradictions) could be brought into the open. This was never attributed to the capitalist system but to egoism, instincts, and will, perceiving human existence in deeply pessimistic terms as a vice-ridden process of self-dissolution.

>Nietzsche died in 1900. The date was significant, since in Lukács’s view, Nietzsche was the “founder of irrationalism in the imperialist period,” which was then only commencing. The imperialist or monopoly stage of capitalism in Marxist theory began in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, but, in terms of Nietzsche’s life and work, only “the first shoots and buds of what was to come” in that respect were visible. Nietzsche’s genius was instinctively to capture a sense of what was to come and to develop the method of irrationalism for the new age of empire as a “mythicizing form” of analysis, made more obscure by the frequent use of aphorisms. It is this that accounts for the mesmerizing nature of Nietzsche’s literary style, which was at the same time a means of perfecting indirect apologetics.28

>Life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of what is alien and weaker; suppression, hardness, imposition of one’s own forms, incorporation and at least, at its mildest, exploitation.… If it is a living and not a dying body…it will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant—not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power. But there is no point on which the ordinary consciousness of Europeans resists instruction as on this: everywhere people are now raving, even under scientific disguises, about coming conditions of society in which “the exploitative aspect” will be removed—which sounds to me as if they promised to invent a way of life that would dispense with all organic functions. “Exploitation” does not belong to a corrupt or imperfect and primitive society: it belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function; it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will of life.31

>Here Nietzsche conflates appropriation—which, in classical political theory and in the work of thinkers as diverse as John Locke, Hegel, and Marx meant the process of acquiring property (and which, for Marx, ultimately involved production)—with actual exploitation. Moreover, in Nietzsche’s usage, exploitation was no different than expropriation (that is, appropriation without equivalent or reciprocity). Thus, in a sleight of hand, appropriation, which is the basis of life, becomes equated with exploitation/expropriation, which is not essential to existence, thereby shutting off any notion of an egalitarian or humane future. Moreover, Nietzsche ultimately grounds his view here in a biological determinism, which, he tells us, constitutes the “essence” of the “will to power.” In this way, his essentialism with respect to human nature differs from that of Thomas Hobbes only insofar as the latter, in the historical context of the seventeenth century, was a progressive rather than regressive thinker.32

>Lukács identified the growth of irrationalism with the imperialist stage of capitalism. This was conceived in the first place economically, along the lines of Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, as a system of monopoly capitalism characterized in terms of interimperialist rivalry and war in the struggle over colonies and spheres of influence. But it was Lenin, above all, according to Lukács, who translated the economic conception of imperialism into “the theory of the concrete world situation created by imperialism,” focusing on class politics and alignments between nations.61 Moreover, Lenin recognized that peace agreements in the imperialist stage were “inevitably nothing more than a ‘truce’ in periods between wars,” within a larger geopolitical struggle inherent to monopoly capitalism.62 The political aspects of imperialism thus permeated the culture of whole nations, generating what Raymond Williams in another context was to call “structures of feeling.”63 It was this that led to the interface of imperialism and irrationalism in the history of Europe from 1870–1945.

>During all of this time, the Western left has occupied a weakened position within monopoly capitalism at home while having an ambiguous approach to imperialism abroad, with the related submergence of the class struggle. It also suffered a major defeat in 1968. With the advent of the New Cold War, the hybrid war of the collective imperialism of the triad on the Global South, including the major emerging economies, has come fully to light.

>Under these circumstances, bourgeois irrationalism has come to define the dominant intellectual climate of late imperialism, reflecting the continuing destruction of reason.

>Here we see Hartmann’s “cosmic suicide” as the supreme manifestation of the intellect and the will suddenly reemerging in our time. Once again, the irrationalism, cultivated at the highest intellectual levels, that dominated the outlook of the West at the beginning of the First World War, is choking off all rational alternatives. To offer uncritical support for the goals of the imperial triad of the United States/Canada, Europe, and Japan, or to support a global NATO in the late imperialist context, is to identify with the irrational will to power at the imperial center of the world economy, leading either to the eternal return of exploitation/expropriation, or else Hartmann’s cosmic suicide.

>Today, Reason demands that both exploitation and expropriation, and the related exterminist tendencies of our time, be overcome. That can only be accomplished, as Baran noted in the 1960s, on the basis of “the identity of the material interests of a class [or class-based social forces] with…Reason’s criticism of the existing irrationality.” The source of such an identity of “material interests with a class” currently lies primarily in the Global South, and with those revolutionary-scale movements everywhere seeking to overturn the entire capitalist-colonial-imperialist system for the sake of humanity and the earth.

👍

>>2112352
Land is the most basic form of the means of production, social bonds and relations arise out of economic life and labor.
There is identity in small nation states that binds a group together based on language, common culture, and more. Economic life is key. There are multi-national states/civilizations with many groups that coexist collectively, that’s the antithesis of mass immigration in the west with no assimilation, just rootless cosmosoup.
Over time smaller powers group up into larger regional powers as the economy globalizes, now there are material premises to positively sublate the nation into a bigger community. Communism isn’t about “different minorities” but “upholding the majority” in this historical process

>In general I dislike attributing insanity and irrationality to one's enemies. I see liberals especially doing this. The small proprietor who thought the The Jews (as bourgeoisie and communists alike) were out to take his business wasn't irrational as much as he was wrong in assuming all Jews were communists/bourgeois.
>The irrationality is found rather in them assuming the non-Jewish bourgeoisie weren't out to get them too.
A lot of them aren’t aware because they just believe JQ propaganda, there is no rationality beyond that discursive horizon. Picrel is what communists should do, this doesn’t make them a “cult of the workers” just because they are correct

>I hate how this implies we ought to have any loyalty towards classes. We don't.
Communists are loyal to the proletarian class, not to “classes”
>The proletarian class struggle isn't about affirming ones class, or "opposing" the bourgeoisie
Materially that’s what it is, which overcomes these things in the dialectical struggle. Likewise a communist prole is only acting "against their class" insofar they are proletarianizing everyone, which is what finally abolishes the class distinction

>>2112357
It’s not just morale, it also controls the discourse by posting propaganda for people to consume. That’s disorganized which only causes problems when someone posts an opinion, someone else doesn’t like it etc
The point isn’t to react or engage with anything, just post and counter post propaganda
>And they'll say "okay but we disagree" and then you have to shut up and get in line and they'll kick you out if you don't, I understand
If the collective disagrees then case is closed, demcent has spoken. How communists do is debate and discuss internally instead of bowing to individual demands

>>2112359
It’s a litmus test for retards. Demcent is both “devoted faith” and “ruthless criticism”, which means it’s not blind faith

>>2112375
>Communism isn’t about “different minorities” but “upholding the majority” in this historical process … Communists are loyal to the proletarian class, not to “classes”
I don't think Karl Marx's view of the proletariat was about upholding the majority, because the proletariat was a minority in every country in his time except perhaps England.

>>2112380
>That’s disorganized which only causes problems when someone posts an opinion, someone else doesn’t like it etc
You're dodging. Posting JQ shit and Andrew Tate is not just an opinion, it's more like Black Hammer's "fuck Anne Frank" meme warfare agitprop strategy. I've seen it before and it ends in disaster. That's the strategy the ACP is using. But the Andrew Tate shit also reminds me of a punk attitude, which is basically how drug-addled reprobates learn from a young age that they can get the attention they so desperately crave by doing destructive and harmful things, which is now rewarded by social media platforms. It's foolish, egocentric, and this point, I'm just here to watch the car crash.

>>2112380
>If the collective disagrees then case is closed, demcent has spoken. How communists do is debate and discuss internally instead of bowing to individual demands
There have been countless cults and sects that have taken this rigid Zinovievist model of demcent (which developed during a factional dispute after the Bolsheviks had already won a civil war and seized power in Russia, not before) as their mantra and none of them have gotten anywhere except getting some of their own ass cheeks slapped red.

This clown thread still up?

>>2112403
it's got 5 posts left before it's full

>>2112481
Yeah I spec'd in blade and blunt, how could you tell?

I spec'd in gun

>>2112309
KEKEKEK

>>2112309
I refuse to take a party chaired by this psycho seriously

>>2112312
>The immediate goal is party businesses like in China, to grow and spread influence
Logically all parties have to function like corporations to survive in 21st century where capital is globalized
Okay, and then what? After growth, what is the plan?
>Moralism is still useful in a high-trust healthy society where everyone has sensibilities for what is normal and what is disgusting, like fake lies about Mao being senile
Tell that to Marx!
>Most people are based and don't like gambling either
Source? Because off-hand I can't find any data either way that's recent enough to still be relevant.

I want it to be clear that I don't want to hate the ACP, I just don't trust it. Every time I start warming to it, one of its key leaders acts like a retard like in >>2112309

>Communist parties will be fighting side by side with the worst anti-human scum because their loyalties all lie in one place, the nation.
Why does this never apply to other communists who don't share the exact same beliefs. I'll probably never join the ACP, but I'd be more than willing to work with them, because we do have a lot of mutual self-interests. But for some reason, I'm treated as a greater enemy than literal LaRoucheites because I went for a slightly different shade of red.

>>2112300
>"online" isn't fake.
Chronically online is tho.

Video games are an extremely popular, mainstream hobby in the United States, but if you started talking about Xcom with some random guy off the street, he'd probably give you a blank stare. For your average joe, "video games" means Super Mario Bros and Fortnite. Likewise, for your average joe, "the internet" means Mr Beast and Cr1tikal. Anyone with under 10m subs/follows/etc is to some degree niche, and the lower this goes the more niche it gets. Hinkle, the biggest ACP member in terms of cultural footprint, only has ~3m follows, which seems like a lot until you realize just how many people there are on the internet, and that this is 3m people from across the globe, not just the US and Canada where the ACP is active.

>>2112340
>For-profit organizations
_Which_ for profit organizations?
Why do you keep dodging softball questions?

>petit-bourgeois lifestyles
I can't think of anything more petit bourgeois then owning a small business

>It's important to note worker co-ops, syndicalism and "workers' councils for workers' councils sake" isn't Communist,
And owning a small business is?

>>2112347
>Communism is the Asiatic mode on a higher technological basis
>The tendency of the rate of profit to fall shows that this reached a low point and has not historically recovered in 1929. Removing the gold standard removed that relation, since Marx's prediction was based on the relation of gold production to its role as a measure of value by weight
Wut

>>2112364
>A state is a tool of repression and domination of one class over another
Doesn't this contradict
>The nation is a particular form that a definite community of people will take

>>2112375
>There is identity in small nation states that binds a group together based on language, common culture, and more.
Same as above

thread is full so I archived it

https://archive.ph/TKoRI

should be ready in a few minutes

>>2112686
Thanks. Tbh I'm considering starting a followup thread. It's a really interesting topic to me, and I think it warrents discussion beyond internet spectacle, although I'm not sure if the mods would like it, or if I even want to make magacom threads a Thing here to begin with.

>>2112650
>Wut
yeah me too. the first part makes sense but is a bit of a stretch no idea how the gold part fits into that

>>2112347
>That has nothing to do with "Great Russian chauvinism"
yeah im talking about american chauvinism being similar to great russian chauvinism not that americans are russian chauvinists. because americas place in the world is similar to russias place in the ussr. all the warnings about russian nationalism lenin makes apply to the usa. americans are not defending their nation against external oppression their nation is the external oppressor. ACP frames it like the US is being oppressed from outside by international bankers, rather than it being the home base of finance capital

>>2112347 >>2112352
>But I am rejecting this idea that "fascism" is "irrational". It's deeply rational (to the oligarchs) which is what makes it dangerous.
>You can't a priori rationalize what fascism is (irrational)
nah you can. i think you keep switching between colloquial definitions of irrationalism and what irrationalism means to philosophy. irrationalists can believe the source of knowledge is a feeling and still rationally deduce a path of action with reason from a faulty foundation, like that the nation constitutes a racial collective soul. and rationalists can analyze irrationalism from a reasoned foundation like ideology springing from the contradictions of the late imperialist capital dynamics of material production. calling them irrationalists in this sense isn't just to dismiss them or call them crazy its to correctly categorize their method of thought. fascism can and should be analyzed from both angles, this is dialectical.

the contention really seems to be whether the us is fascist, classically fascist, or some new type of managed bourgeois democracy. it really depends on whether you consider lynching and jim crow to be over or to have continued with the prison industrial complex and whether you think that constitutes "open" terrorism or whether the normalization of state violence and strategy of tension is still considered closed or hidden state terrorism. whether a particular state qualifies as fascist is separate from the analysis itself.

New thread here >>2112790

>>2112391
>I don't think Karl Marx's view of the proletariat was about upholding the majority, because the proletariat was a minority in every country in his time except perhaps England.
Communists are loyal first and foremost to the Communist party of course, but the party valorizes the proletariat generally speaking.
They can work with other classes like the masses of peasants in Lenin's time/Alliance Between the Workers and Exploited Peasants. But the proletariat is absolutely the majority in our time, and communists today must work with other "types" of people such as petit-bourg business owners and win them over.
Also Trotsky hated the peasants because he was an elitist idiot, that's where "fascism" originated according to him

>You're dodging. Posting JQ shit and Andrew Tate is not just an opinion, it's more like Black Hammer's "fuck Anne Frank" meme warfare agitprop strategy. I've seen it before and it ends in disaster.
Jackson isn't perfect in terms of what personal viewpoints and opinions X group of people believes to be correct and wholesome, but no one said he's incapable of changing opinions. Has he ever posted any more JQ shit after this?
The point is that yes, it is meme warfare. It's better to teach drug-addled reprobates an alternative that's not degenerate and destructive, which is Communism. That's why I understood + support the decision for Haz going on Fresh&Fit. So time will tell if you think it will "end in disaster", I am optimistic actually

>There have been countless cults and sects that have taken this rigid Zinovievist model of demcent
Why is it Zinovievist? The Bolshevik party and masses of people supported Stalin, only finks & failures in the bureaucracy like Trotsky and Zinoviev hated Stalin's popularity with the masses. You're literally complaining because ONE individual didn't get her way, which was to kick Jackson out of the party. Everyone else wanted him there at the end of the day, even those that didn't like Jackson's personal views

>>2112587
>After growth, what is the plan?
I'm not in the party so I can't tell you all their plans? Besides is it a good idea to post everything on a public board with multiple feds reading this right now?
When it comes to "What is to be done", the revolutionary movement must establish contact and a basis, among others, with the trade unions, but that's just one example. Praxis isn't "defined". All that's left is hold out, keep working and wait until WW3.

>Tell that to Marx!
>Source?
Marx wrote Communists do not preach morality at ALL. You're confusing that with morality being totally absent in society, either now or in the future. In the year 3000 if you show someone your anime porn people are going to look at you with disgust, who knows? Maybe they won't. Not the point. Do you really need a source for basic social sensibilities?

>I want it to be clear that I don't want to hate the ACP, I just don't trust it
No one asked you to trust them, just sit back and watch, don't partake in attacking and shitting it up. Because it's gonna be you side by side with groypers + nafo + real feds

>Why does this never apply to other communists who don't share the exact same beliefs. I'll probably never join the ACP, but I'd be more than willing to work with them, because we do have a lot of mutual self-interests. But for some reason, I'm treated as a greater enemy than literal LaRoucheites because I went for a slightly different shade of red.
There are no "shades of red", there is only Communism, sorry. No one is closed off to your beliefs, you still have to defend them in open discussion and debate when it comes to demcent. A lot of "Communists" only call themselves that as a form of identity politics. A "Communist" in reality is a laborer of a communist organization, theory into practice, praxis. i.e. I'm not a communist because I'm not in an org, I'm just an ML and aspiring communist

>>2112650
>_Which_ for profit organizations?
>Why do you keep dodging softball questions?
It can be any form of business. I don't know which ones they have specifically but I'm told there are already a bunch of them. Lenin wrote party members must start businesses in the form of coffee shops, bar houses, etc. This doesn't end there

>I can't think of anything more petit bourgeois then owning a small business
Academia is also a "petit-bourgeois lifestyle", the difference is they are unproductive and winning them over isn't worth it. If you get paid to obfuscate marxism and shit all over existing parties, then that's your prerogative. Those that are smart enough will already be supporting actual real communist parties like Cockshott. They have to win over themselves, but most of them are happy being a salaried employee of the system

>And owning a small business is?
If it's incorporated in a Communist party then it's a Communist business. Communists must win over small business in general to their side

>Wut
picrel. "Primeval Communism" still exists and is a process in history being negated by Imperialism. Communism is the restoration of that, not a "return to", but restoring Communal property on the higher technological and all round individual developmental basis

>>A state is a tool of repression and domination of one class over another
Doesn't this contradict
>>The nation is a particular form that a definite community of people will take
>Same as above
The nation isn't the state

>>2112816
>ACP frames it like the US is being oppressed from outside by international bankers, rather than it being the home base of finance capital
The US is being oppressed by finance capital capital too, it's an "outside" system that evolved from British Imperialism, using the US as a home base to terrorize the world. The US isn't "inherently" evil in this way
A lot of Americans think they are ruled by jews or aliens whatever. Banks is much closer to the truth. Social chauvinism means supporting your own nationalism in imperialist wars, so it's the role of the communist to articulate what they are trying to say, show them the nature of the globalist imperialist system they live under and how to oppose it.

Lenin knew Great Russian chauvinism had a ruling class and reactionaries that had committed great crimes, yet still acknowledge Great Russian proletarians had immense national pride. No different from the ACP's view. Just because there are chauvinists doesn't mean throw out all forms of patriotism. Marxists-Leninists believe in "socialist patriotism".

>irrationalists can believe the source of knowledge is a feeling and still rationally deduce a path of action with reason from a faulty foundation, like that the nation constitutes a racial collective soul. and rationalists can analyze irrationalism from a reasoned foundation like ideology springing from the contradictions of the late imperialist capital dynamics of material production
That makes sense. I was probably trying to say is Lukacs is much better at analyzing the mind and thought process of a fascist more than fascism itself.

>the contention really seems to be whether the us is fascist, classically fascist, or some new type of managed bourgeois democracy. it really depends on whether you consider lynching and jim crow to be over or to have continued with the prison industrial complex and whether you think that constitutes "open" terrorism or whether the normalization of state violence and strategy of tension is still considered closed or hidden state terrorism. whether a particular state qualifies as fascist is separate from the analysis itself.
That's very interesting
Fascism always starts from liberalism being reduced solely to its principle of nihilism and the destruction of all things, and when it comes to the US we are not there yet but very close. Pure hatred of other nations is already brewing, the consent is manufactured for total war against the world. The moment of WW3 would be the final nail in the coffin

>>2113391
>But the proletariat is absolutely the majority in our time
Source? Because that sounds off to me. The US has outsourced the vast majority of industrial labor, ironically to places like China and Vietnam. I know because I live in an area that was ravaged by it.

>Also Trotsky
What does this have to do with anything?

>Besides is it a good idea to post everything on a public board with multiple feds reading this right now?
I'd at least like a rough sketch! I have trouble taking seriously a party with no plans for bringing the gap between "gain support" and "win". No, I don't expect everything to be perfectly articulated down to the exact detail, but they should have something.

>Do you really need a source for basic social sensibilities?
It's still beyond the scope of communism.

>No one asked you to trust them, just sit back and watch, don't partake in attacking and shitting it up. Because it's gonna be you side by side with groypers + nafo + real feds
What?

>There are no "shades of red", there is only Communism, sorry.
Translates to
<Only my favored form of communism is real communism. Everything else is fake.
It's like evangelicals saying that catholics are satanists. My own politics owe just as much to Marx as those of the ACP, and in the grand scheme of things, we're not actually that far apart. Most of the differences come in the specfics; the nuts and bolts of how the party is structured. Does this make me any less of a communist? I don't think so.

>I don't know which ones they have specifically but I'm told there are already a bunch of them.
Sounds very sus to me.

>>2113617
>my favored form of communism is real communism
No one said it was a dogma, it's democratic centralism and autonomy for local Party organisations. There is universal and full freedom to criticise in struggle sessions, so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action; it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes difficult the unity of an action decided on by the party

>>2113617
Deproletarianized workers pay rent to+often work for the same capital entity and do not produce commodities. A lot of people now live in conditions analogous to peasantry. There still is a proletariat working in the spheres of material production for key sectors, infrastructure, resource extraction. Manufacturing is 15% of the US economy and half of that is "defense", we're talking about roughly 5 million prols left outside of it

>Translates to
><Only my favored form of communism is real communism. Everything else is fake.
There are no "forms" of Communism
Communism is the real movement to achieve working class power

>Sounds very sus to me.
Do you know what entrepreneurship is?

>>2113617
>Does this make me any less of a communist?
Are you in an organized communist party and how many hours do you work

>>2113849
>and autonomy for local Party organisations
How much autonomy? There's a big difference between a strong regional autonomy that allows communities to do what's best for them, and the kind of ceremonial regional autonomy that you get in, for example, the latter day United States.

>universal and full freedom to criticise in struggle sessions
Sounds good so far…
>so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action
Hmm…
>it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes difficult the unity of an action decided on by the party
And how does one determine what that is? If I bring up a key detail that throws everything off, does this not make difficult the unity of an action decided on by the party? Either way, it's mushy language. I know Marxists get mad when you bring up definitions, and in general I agree with them, but at the same time, there are situations where one needs to know precisely what one means, and procedure is one of them.

>There are no "forms" of Communism
>Communism is the real movement to achieve working class power
Maybe it's better to say "different forms of Marxism", which is objectively true. Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism, for example. You could argue which of these strands of Marxism is better, but you cannot deny that they're both solidly based in Marx and Engels' thought.

>Do you know what entrepreneurship is?
Do you know where the money's coming from?

>>2113391
>I was probably trying to say is Lukacs is much better at analyzing the mind and thought process of a fascist more than fascism itself.
I sort of agree especially with the way that Foster article was presented 90% of it was calling out different cultural theorists, which I skipped in my summary quoting it, frames it as more of a mental analysis. but Foster is a principled anti-imperialist and I haven't read that book from Lukacs so I dont know how much he focuses on imperialism but he gets big props for mentioning it at all and especially centering it as the source even if his analysis ends up mostly being psychological(not sure if it is). I think Lukacs was chosen for that article because he does not. I definitely think trying to analyze what fascists think while leaving out the capitalist dynamics that lead to fascism is a massive mistake and even active misinformation. trying to figure out a coherent message in the specific esoteric occult bs of this or that movement misses the point entirely imo. i actually really like the reframing done by certain people that the most dangerous fascist is the finance monopolist that arms the guy on the street and not necessarily the roving gangs themselves and its kind of inconsequential whether the CEO of IG farbin believes in aryan spirits hidden in tibet when what matters is them enslaving and working people to death because German expansion was blocked by the British empire.

I think for me, the biggest question mark is why party leadership has gone so hard on "populism" when their specific form of "populism" doesn't actually conform to popular opinion.

Like, 69% of Americans support same-sex marriage, and the number has been permanently above 50% since 2012. Why is the messaging super duper Trad shit when most Americans aren't that?

>>2113906
>How much autonomy
The ACP specifically has chapters for states and provinces, it's dynamic in terms of how it works

>And how does one determine what that is? If I bring up a key detail that throws everything off, does this not make difficult the unity of an action decided on by the party?
The politburo. You'd have to demonstrate how your key detail throws everything off, unity of action can't bow to subjective individualism.
Your criticism can't demand "overthrowing the entire system" to petty whims like the debunked farmer's thesis

>Trotskyism
Trotsky was a fascist, not to be sectarian but in an objective sense

>Do you know where the money's coming from?
Entrepreneurship. Jobs, employment

>>2113920
Argument

>>2113922
How many of those are working class? Are they divided into maga or non maga?

>>2113922
Fake stats. Anita Bryant was right, the gay lobby is a cancer.

>>2113941
>it's dynamic in terms of how it works
Okay, but how much autonomy do states and provinces get before the guys on top step in?

>Trotsky was a fascist
From all of the research I've done on him, he was an incredibly petty man who thought he knew better than anyone else and cared more about political ideals than practical reality, but definitely not a Fascist. It's important to note that you can't fully trust Soviet accounts of the guy, since he was an enemy, and they had just as much incentive to make him look bad as he did them!

>Entrepreneurship. Jobs, employment
Stop dodging the question. What entrepreneurship? What jobs? What employment? And be specific?

>>2113941
>Argument
the idea that the US was corrupted by the British is a Larouche thing and unfortunately tarnishes the based and accurate descriptor of "Anglo" but really the US was always more capitalist than Britain and there is no secret cabal of rothschild Saxe-Coburg-Gotha monarchs controlling the CIA from the shadows. new money around standard oil and us steel plus railroads is/was perfectly capable of being psychotically imperialist all on their own

>>2113942
I don't have any solid data for that, although I wish I did. I do, however know that support is lower in the Republican party, with acceptance of same-sex marriage being in the minority, albeit a very large minority at 46%, a large enough number that you can't go just go full-on kill the fags like you could in Russia, a state where acceptance of homosexuality genuinely is low. It's also worth noting that independents are generally much closer to democrats than they are Republicans when it comes to same-sex marriage.

Going off of anecdotal experience, as someone who lives in a solidly red district in the Rust Belt, most working class people I know are fine with gay people, so long as they don't act weird. Religious nuts exist but aren't the majority, and normal people think they're fags.

>>2113958
You know this how?

>>2113942
>How many of those are working class
Better question, is Haz working class? How about Hinkle?

>>2114071
>Better question, is Haz working class? How about Hinkle?
Are feds working class or intelligentsia?

>>2114063
>You know this how?
I was gay and then The Good Lord Jesus Christ showed me that homosexuality was anti-civilizational behavior so I decided to work on being attracted to women and i was blessed with a good wife. My issue was that I thought of myself as a woman, but I learned to love being a man, so it became easier to be attracted to women. I learned to love BEING the penis and BEING the penetrator so it naturally flowed from there.