Previous thread: >>1946727
Dump all the seemingly pointless, dubious, and frivolous questions that don't deserve their own shitty threads.
Got a question that's probably been asked a million times before? You're in the right landfill, buddy. Post it here.
Threads that otherwise might go in here will eventually find themselves become merged to this thread.
>>2177927MOMMY I DONT DO RULE I WANT TO SAY GUCK AND ZHIT I AM ADULT MOMMYE
IF SUCKCIALISM IS SO DOG WHAI CUBAAAA HOMOFASHA!!!!??
sorry tankanon have a nice day >>2178176>Do you guys think it would be a viable strategy to destroy the far right by fanning the flames of the most retarded antivaxx takes imaginable?No because reactionaries aren't the only ones who fall for antivaxx shit (for instance plenty of working class people are skeptical of vaccines in the USA either out of miseducation, or out of real experience of discrimination, like the Tuskegee Experiments), and the people who fall for antivaxx shit aren't the only ones who suffer for it (immunocompromised children not old enough to form opinions about vaccines come to mind)
> None of the antivaxxers will ever be able to admit that their "persecution" was for nothing so they NEED to believe the depopulation Bill Gates bullshit. "I'm so glad the vaxx will soon kill everyone I disagree with. I can stay home and play video games for the rest of my life and inherent the earth!" And "The vaxxies all betrayed me by taking a shot. They all deserve to die and will shed on me if I get too close!" Are really useful for rightwing retards to believe because those beliefs encourage them to be inactive and to alienate others. An inactive and isolated fascist is almost as good as a dead fascist.reactoids are paper tigers whether or not they believe stupid shit
>>2180053>Marx said that labour produces value the value of a commodity is the socially necessary labor time required to produce it. if someone sits around doing useless labor all day they do not produce value or surplus value. furthermore if they use antiquated methods to produce something that is already produced with equal quality using automated methods, they are not going to make very much money because they are not using the average methods for their society at its current level of development.
>it is the creative application of labour to objects that gives them their value correct.wrong
>So in that case why do capitalists always come up with ways to automate production?capitalists don't "come up with ways to automate production." professionals do. scientists. engineers. mathematicians.
> If labour is the source of valuea utopian slogan marx fought against
marx did not believe that "labor is the source of all value" in the simplistic sense that labor alone creates value. Instead, he argued that abstract collective labor in its relationship to the means of production production of commodities within a capitalist system produces value and surplus value, which is appropriated by the capitalist . marx said that the value of a commodity is determined by the socially necessary labor time required to produce it, which accounts for the labor power used in its production. He also distinguishes between labor power, which is the capacity to labor sold as a special commodity by the worker to the capitalist, and labor itself. he also emphasized the exploitation inherent in capitalism, where the value created by workers exceeds the wages they receive. this difference is surplus value, and it is extracted by capitalists as profit. marx recognized labor as central to value but highlighted the exploitative dynamics and social relations of production that shape how value is appropriated.
>why do they want to get rid of lots of it?a machine is a product of past labor AKA "dead labor." therefore automating jobs is not getting rid of labor. it is simply replacing living labor (what marx calls variable capital) with "dead" labor (what marx calls "constant capital").
>Does it come down to wagesYes. If you own means of production, you own conditions of production. if a bunch of workers make a machine, you pay them a wage, but you as the capitalist get to own it, and all products produced with that machine in the future belong to you. the problem arises when the socially necessary labor time required to produce a commdity drops, making it vastly cheaper. orthodox economics calls this a problem of oversupply. marx calls this a crisis of overproduction, because he emphasizes labor time rather than supply
I'm oversimplifying but this is the gist.
>>2180081dungeon meshi is from 2014
leftypol is from 2013
but idk when alunya was made
>>2184362read rajani palme dutt's book "fascism and social revolution"
short answer: no, no
>>2186582>Capitalists seek automation in order to reduce the wage billyes, of course
>this is needlessly nitpicking.I think anon was making the distinction because capitalists are often credited as Tony Stark style mavericks and geniuses who single-handedly do the technological labor required to automate things themselves. Like they just walk onto the factor floor, do a bunch of wizard math in their heads like gif related, and then conclude from the sheer force of their own giant brain what kind of changes need to be made. The apologetic nature of that kind of rhetoric needs to be dismantled. Capitalists seek automation to reduce the wage bill but they aren't responsible for the labor of innovation that makes it possible. Also the reduction in the wage bill is offset by the reduced price of commodities.
>>2187169the political economy thread has a reading list.
>>>/edu/ has readling lists and a PDF thread
>>2199109Yeah but their American Jews so they get reeducation till they knock off the zionism. Theyll be forced to watch Seth Rogan movies and jon stewart till re them back to appropriate American jewish behavior. Same with the christian zionist. Idk what to do with them, maybe 10 hours of loopimg mlk speeches because zionisim is the least thing wrong with them.
Mods this is a shit.
>>2206615Eating ass is actually brilliant for your immune system.
Since I've started eating ass I've noticed a miraculous improvement in my gastrointestinal system. No more cramping, diarrhoea, constipation or nausea. There was probably an imbalance of probiotic bacteria in my colon. Fecal transplants are now a medical therapy for numerous GI disorders.
I would encourage everyone to eat ass regularly. It could change your life.
>>2207061The commodity here is
change in location.
<The result, whether men or goods are transported, is a change in their whereabouts. Yarn, for instance, may now be in India instead of in England, where it was produced.
<However, what the transportation industry sells is change of location. The useful effect is inseparably connected with the process of transportation, i.e., the productive process of the transport industry. Men and goods travel together with the means of transportation, and their traveling, this locomotion, constitutes the process of production effected by these means. The useful effect can be consumed only during this process of production. It does not exist as a utility different from this process, a use-thing which does not function as an article of commerce, does not circulate as a commodity, until after it has been produced. But the exchange-value of this useful effect is determined, like that of any other commodity, by the value of the elements of production (labour-power and means of production) consumed in it plus the surplus-value created by the surplus-labour of the labourers employed in transportation. This useful effect also entertains the very same relations to consumption that other commodities do. If it is consumed individually its value disappears during its consumption; if it is consumed productively so as to constitute by itself a stage in the production of the commodities being transported, its value is transferred as an additional value to the commodity itself.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch01.htmIn general, a service is not really that different from a physical item. The service is just like a physical item that gets consumed immediately.
>>2210636You can ask that also about people running vital infrastructure: Should train drivers be allowed to strike? This could be solved by some positions being filled only with special employees of the state that have certain privileges and duties; so the people entering the field would know in advance about not having the right to strike and having perks like a secure income.
>>2210659Repeating a question already answered here:
>>2209050>>2210853A scab is a strike-breaker. Nationality is irrelevant.
>>2210865Materials and tools are means of production. A machine making a product is a means of production. The machine casing is part of the machine, so it's part of the means of production. Picture a machine that needs protection from rain, so it's only used indoors. You can think of the building as providing the casing for the machine. This necessary casing is part of the means of production. Does this answer your question?
>>2210882Depends.
>>2210886In general stalling the delivery of something is not by itself considered theft.
>>2210905It is a strike of sorts. Been done in Japan. (I have seen German journalists propose that to train drivers on strike. But the train drivers, ticket sellers, and ticket checkers are distinct jobs.)
>>2210920Is preaching austerity to the masses while also calling them Hitler good strategy for socialists? Hmmmmmm I'm skeptical.
>>2210923No.
>>2210924Yes.
>>2210925Depends.
>>2210933Let me put it this way: We better be quick with the revolution. There is not much stored in the supermarkets. So if the deliveries stop they will run out in less than three days.
>>2213048Marx 1818-1883
Nietzsche 1844-1900
Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto when Nietzsche was 3 years old. He finished Capital Volume 1 when Nietzsche was 23.
>>2187053>and the dissolution of class divisionsBut worker self-management is a prerequisite for dissolution of class divisions. Like, by definition of class used by Marx
No, seeds of new system have to be built within the old just as capitalism built up inside feudalism. In other words prefigurative politics
>>2215164leftypol.org##.thread:has(.subject:has-text(/\/ukr\//i))
leftypol.org##.thread:has(.subject:has-text(/\/usapol\//i))
leftypol.org##.thread:has(.subject:has-text(/\/uspol\//i))
>>2218662in feminism it traditionally describes the roles biological women are coerced to adopt i.e. gender, but i prefer to use it refer to the notion that sex = gender or more broadly that a woman is something you
are, a belief some transhumanists hold as well. womanhood doesn't manifest as "gender not sex" under patriarchy, both cis and trans women are defined in relation to their biology. notice the betrayal cliche in trap or reverse-trap content, the characters appearance
ought to reflect their genitals. gender divorced from sex cuts across biology to defang the oppression of the female sex, it is the runaway cultural detritus of patriarchy accelerating its own inevitable dissolution.
>>2187154>Is “pussy” or “vagina” considered an insult regarding “weakness” in Russian and Soviet culture as it is in the west?No, but gendered insults do exist. Something like "Чо хнычешь как баба?" does strongly imply that crying is what a woman does, not man.
>I was wondering because women in the USSR were tough and strong and the stereotype may not be as prevalent.We live under capitalism for more than 30 years already. Most of the egalitarian sentiments from USSR era are things of the past unfortunately.
>>2219935>Are all American politicians evilYes
>How do they justify itThey get paid enough money to never have to worry about anything ever again
>>2224078depends how you define "free will". We are materialists so we dont believe in soul and shit like that, and yes this mean in practical term the world is a long chain of cause and consequences including your decisions
Most people mean "free will" like "ability to make decisions" and thats what the human brain is all about, so in that sense yes we have free will.
but its more a philosophical/semantic debate than a communist one. Christcoms exist after all.
>>2220709because I reported them
>>2220711having dozens of 1 word post trying to break word filters is not quality and deserves to be deleted
>>2226262No. Adam Smith wrote about it in the 1700s and it has always been happening increasingly since the neolithic revolution.
>>2226265By appealing to the common situation in capitalist society which is exploitation. The organization or individual employing you only employs you so long as the results of your labor earns them more money than they pay you. This is the simplest way to put it but obviously there's more to it than that.
>>2226274No, I don't think so. Specialization has always existed, whereas workerism is a specific form of revisionism that emerged in the Italian left. It meant glorifying the worker, but the problem with that approach, is that it ignores the question of the class conscious proletariat, and uplifts those workers which are not yet class conscious, and may be reactionary, or even aspire to being bourgeois. So it is a kind of aimless machismo. At least that is the main criticism I have heard of it. I have also heard the criticism that workerism only praises labor that produces surplus value (like factory workers) while ignoring labor that does not produce surplus value (like a nurse tending to the sick and dying).
>>2226277In the sense of people having difficult jobs which require a lot of education and training? Probably not.
>>2226282Barbara Ehrenreich writes about the "professional managerial class" and other authors dedicate a lot of ink to "labor aristocracy." That being said I think these subclasses that emerged in the imperial core are not petty bourgeois necessarily. They form a layer of insulation between the wage workers and the bourgeoisie. However you often see professionals aspiring to own their own practices and firms, so there is an element of petit bourgeois aspiration among the professionals.
>>2226287I think that might be overstating it but I can see why someone might say that.
Are you one person asking all these questions? Are you trying to fill up the thread fast?
>>2226288I am just asking questions. This is what this thread is for. Sure, they are bad and shallow questions that dont allow for discussions.
How do we stop people with identifying with their job and start identifying with their class. I mistakenly thought that workerism and professionalism is when people identify with their jobs and professions and not with their social class.
>>2226265identify common interests but be aware of the semi-proletarian/petite-bourgeoisie's everpresent trickeries
>>2226274accusations of workerism are outright attack on proletarian supremacy
>>2226290reducing class down to a "job" is class collaborationist bourgeois thinking
>>2226292>>2226293please put all your questions in one post.
>stop people with identifying with their job and start identifying with their class.job, i.e., social division of labor, denotes class
>>2226292what do you think of my previous answers?
>How do we stop people with identifying with their job and start identifying with their classEugene V Debs has a great answer to this
https://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1905/classunionism.htm> I mistakenly thought that workerism and professionalism is when people identify with their jobs and professions and not with their social class.it may very well have more than one definition; I gave the one I am most familiar with.
>>2226304https://www.google.com/books/edition/Anarchy/j1spAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22workerism%22&pg=RA5-PA11&printsec=frontcoverThe earliest usage of "workerism" I can find is from Russian anarchist newspaper attacking the Communist Party. Accusations of workerism have historically been used by the bourgeoisie to slander Communist States.
>For example, the hard hat riots in the 1970s in the USA were thoroughly reactionary and defended US imperialism in vietnam. The workerist conclusion would be to defend those actions because "workers did it and workers are always right"No one really does this. The proper understanding of "workerism" is as form of bourgeois slander against proletarians; a way of resisting proletarian supremacy and mitigating the power of the proletarians
>>2226325>No one really does thisI see it happen a lot on here actually. For example in USApol every day there's a guy who says "everyone getting deported is petit bourgeois, Trump is defending the American worker from gusanos and scabs, real workers support Trump" etc. You saw the same thing with the hard hat riots in the 70s. Real workers are patriotic and support American imperialism, etc. etc. People opposed to American imperialism are all pencil necked petty bourgeois over educated dandies, etc. This is quite common in the imperial core.
> The proper understanding of "workerism" is as form of bourgeois slander against proletarians; a way of resisting proletarian supremacy and mitigating the power of the proletariansOK so what is the better word for the thing I'm describing, where people defend the most reactionary and class-unconscious section of the workers as the "true" revolutionaries against the actual class conscious proletariat? Fascism?
>>2230190Am okay with self defense, arms, and training.
It's preferable to being murdered but still not desirable.
Thanks.
>>2224944>when you deliberate and have mixed feelingsThe old fashioned version of the argument is that "free will" is having unique feelings, impulses, and surely computation too about the mind.
Of course this isn't really opposed to determinism which is the view that human actions are determined.
>>2231331At the minimum many social democratic policies like free college, single-payer, green new-deal, etc. target primarily the middle-class.
Shifting discourse to the left also helps move policy away from people who might want to oppress you, and undermine these policies which benefit the middle-class.
Worker control of the means of production would also be in your interest, it would permanently remove many people who wish to oppress you.
>>2231353Wonder if it might make you less happy to realize you're oppressed, lol.
It probably depends on how it's channeled, e.g. do you go and build community and solidarity with it or do you sit depressed in an armchair.
Just guessing though.
>>2231399>couldn't workers also wish to oppress me?Not as a worker, or a middle-class person, maybe in other ways though.
You could make the argument that many of these ideas come from above, which is often what anti-idpol leftist do.
The oppressive structures are all related to them, or descended from a common cause.
They'd look at all the billionaires lined up behind the US President, or Murdoch (as a prime example) or the Koch brothers (another one) and say these people have had an extensive influence on public opinion.
(Am speaking of America because this is most familiar to me, but am certain there are examples of the rich promoting conservative politics in your own country.)
>>2233213It's more like 6-10 times, and they're still probably spending most of their money on
housing, car, gas, food; (especially if they work in a major metro) you know necessities.
>>2233223>>2233221Am not joking, if you pick San Fransisco:
Median Home Price: Approximately $1.35 million.
Annual Mortgage Payment: Ranging from about $94,600 to $118,600.
You have to make a whole lot more than the federal minimum to even come close to living there.
>>2230794genderswapped Hugo Chavez
Context:
https://danbooru.donmai.us/pools/6355Also, have moe Stalin, Mao, Castro and Gaddaffi as bonuses
>>2233232if you work in tech you theoretically have to live in SF though.
regardless let's not engage in 'PMC' bullshit, just saying that lots of people spend money on things they don't need. one of my coworkers spends £300 per month on taxis to and from work, whereas I live a similar distance and just walk (we make minimum wage)
>>2216570"Tariffs are the prelude to war, the diplomatic note announcing the declaration of hostilities."
I found the quote, but I can't source it for the life of me. Google books, Google scholar, LLMs, MECW, none of it has helped.
>>2237203Think the rough argument is those that hold the power aren't stupid enough to be boiled like a frog.
The history of Latin America and the Middle East rife with this over even relatively minor things.
Given this with imperialist support, but you still need some local group to support for that to work.
>>22378534chan got closed down. This is an anonymous forum. VPNs are easily accessible. You do the math.
Nobody wants Nazis to be here. Not even other Nazis.
>>2237853>why does leftypol welcome so many rightypol ideasIn part because of the belief that by engaging with them it's possible to change the minds of those that also possess similar beliefs. In another part it is a development resulting from other leftist forums like r/socialism or hexbear where you are immediately banned for not adhering to site orthodoxy on various issues.
It's a stance that has at times been beneficial and arguably successful and at others severely annoying because it's essentially a never ending conflict against rightist bullshit, and in recent times arguably less beneficial due to the decreasing amount of people left to effortpost contrary viewpoints from positions of authority.
This might deserve it's own thread, dunno. What's the principled Marxist position on immigration. Just posted in
>>>/labor/734 that Marx thought that Irish reduced wages. But he thought it was worse that it divided the working class in the fight for higher wages. The article linked also thought there might be an imperialist negative pressure to immigration. So that NAFTA in harming native agriculturalists created immigration pressure. What's all this mean for policy though? Obviously one can continue to oppose it on the basis of the violence committed. Is the idea just to ignore the negatives and focus on organizing?
>>2240671Got anything that criticizes Social Anarchism and the modern movement?
I don't think anything you recommended was useful at all. What you recommended either doesn't accurately tackle the critique of the time or reflect the strain I'm talking about in the current movement.
>>2240835it wasn't "rad fems" it was 1 single bourgeois woman from the united states who wanted to make female emancipation and suffrage in bourgeois society the
primary issue of the international workingmen's association. It wasn't that Marx was opposed to female emancipation, it was that he did not think true emancipation was possible under bourgeois society. Woodhull was a reformist and a business owner. The idea of "rad fems" (who are reformist and liberal but not necessarily bourgeois in their class character) wouldn't exist until much later. The excerpt you are thinking of from a book written by a liberal American in the 1990s after the fall of the USSR so I honestly wouldn't trust the way it frames that event.
>>2240879I don't think you quite understand. Most of the anarchists I speak with today understand and agree with Marx on dialectical materialism. Anarchism just doesn't only take class into account and directly critiques power.Are you just saying anarchism is not proletarian because it challenges your world view? How is anarchism bourgeois?
I'm not sure you quite understand what I'm asking for or what anarchism is.
>>2240879Anarchist and communist share the same goal - a classless, stateless, and moneyless society. We disagree with communist only in the details; primarily over whether a state remains necessary in the transition towards communism or if it is possible to dissolve the state prior to achieving post-scarcity.
If you don't think a classless, stateless, and moneyless society is possible then you're not a communist, though perhaps you could belong to some other strain of leftist (read: anti-capitalist) thought.
>>2241279you're just a retard getting mad at a strawman
pro imperialist retard like you are loosing though, which is exactly why you're the ones crying, so its all fine for me if you seethe impotently about multipolarity while accusing people of holding beliefs they dont have
>>2241295The idea of a "sufficiently large vanguard" as the DotP almost sounds workable.
To be clear my problem isn't with vanguard, or democratic centralism, but vanguard as DotP. This may sound ridiculous, but could the vanguard as DotP just be the voting half of the proletariate?
>>2241800>>2241851Just can't manage to make the leap.
Seem to be able to support everything but the vanguard as DotP.
Well, that and an unprovoked (non-defensive) violent revolution.
Guess this is pretty radlib or fedpilled.
>>2241864>Well, that and an unprovoked violent revolution.This probably doesn't amount to much.
You conduct action, and then the cops are called.
All the sudden you've got people trying to violently oppress you.
You can either run or fight, or whatever, depending on circumstance.
It really does just come down to the singular point of the
vanguard as DotP.
>>2240903anarchism is bourgeois. you are anti-communist. read stalin. do you have anything of meaning to add?
>>2241126>Most of the anarchists I speak with today understand and agree with Marx on dialectical materialism.They must pretend to comprehend broadest principles of scientific socialism to appear as posture true socialists to deceive proletarians. You have failed to study Karl Marx's scientific analysis of anarchists and their bourgeois nature.
>Anarchism just doesn't only take class into accountanarchism is not science nor socialist. you make big mistake by comparing scientific socialism with anarchism. anarchist groups are comprised of the bourgeoisie, as explained by Stalin.
>Are you just saying anarchism is not proletarian because it challenges your world view?anarchism undermines proletarian dictatorship. anarchism undermines proletarian thought.
>How is anarchism bourgeois?Read Stalin for a comprehensive analysis of scientific socialism and anarchism.
>I'm not sure you quite understand what I'm asking for or what anarchism is.You fail to realize that anarchism is a specific socio-historical phenomenon and not some idea.
>>2241126>Anarchist and communist share the same goal - a classless, stateless, and moneyless society.Wrong. the goal of anarchism is to destroy proletarian states.
>We disagree with communist only in the details; primarily over whether a state remains necessaryThe existence of a state is essential question of revolution, not a detail. Read Lenin.
>>2242268I don't need to make any argument. Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin dedicated countless hours towards doing so. The reactionary nature of anarchism is not debatable.
>it's not a flattering look to just go making up nonsense.Every historical example of anarchism defies proletarian supremacy. It is not for nothing that international socialist congresses adopted the decision not to admit the anarchists. A wide gulf separates socialism from anarchism, and it is in vain that the agents-provocateurs of the secret police and the news paper lackeys of reactionary governments pretend that this gulf does not exist. The philosophy of the anarchists is bourgeois philosophy turned inside out. Their individualistic theories and their individualistic ideal are the very opposite of socialism. Their views express, not the future of bourgeois society, which is striding with irresistible force towards the socialisation of labour, but the present and even the past of that society, the domination of blind chance over the scattered and isolated small, producer. Their tactics, which amount to a repudiation of the political struggle, disunite the proletarians and convert them in fact into passive participators in one bourgeois policy or another, since it is impossible and unrealisable for the workers really to dissociate themselves from politics.
>>2245237For what it's worth, most university students I know are incidentally part-time workers.
(I mean this next question sincerely and without knowing the answer)
Why does it matter what class they are?
What's it called when, one baits the opposition, possibly using plants and complicit media, into purposefully adopting up bad positions? Say, how the bourgeoisie often amplifies radlibs to the point that everyone to the left of them feels compelled to tail the liberals, in order to smuggle in a little bit of class consciousness.
Examples would be
>The lightning-rod effect forced upon the elite university campuses for BDS >The focus on the deportation of Khalil Mahmoud who was most likely a UK glowie plant to begin withhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/13/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-british-government-work>The media circus around BLM, celebrity drama and small time unionizingOver the actual issues of IMO the extreme centralization of power in the executive and permanent state of exception that was justified since the PatriotAct at least, and ICE having those ridiculous powers because of it, for example.
>>2246422Thanks comrade. I was definitely going to use that extensive anarchist FAQ but I hasn't thought of the marxists.org glossary.
>reddit*sigh* I know, I noticed too.
>>2248405systematically condemning people for either side of these stupid arguments is fascistic.
Incest is wrong, but it's wrong in the same sense as eating paint.
On the other hand, it's none of your fucking business what consenting adults are doing behind closed doors. Acting like people are immoral for having consensual sex is the BEHAVIOR of someone who's been eating paint.
The only correct decision is to shut the fuck up. just block them if you don't like them. you are free to curate your online experience, but you are not free to harass random people for shit that doesn't impact your life in any capacity.
>>2251520Wrote about this recently here
>>2250918.
>>2265530>totalitarian.only retarded liberals would believe that dogshit, if he controlled everything all his post war reforms would be introduced instead of repealled.
> set back worldwide socialism by decades.the only relevant piece of socialism was propped and expanded by stalin, rendering your cope meaningless.
>>2265619>he wanted to hecking join the axis.false, MR was a reaction to munich pact, AKA western encroachment and letting nazis rearm and take czechoslovakia, an soviet ally, with help from poland.
totaly justifiable and the funniest move he could have pulled in the nations that denied a defense pact with him.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html >>2266620>>2266373> why cant change be a change for the worse?This is why instead of "progress" and "change" we often see Marxists talk about what is "historically necessary." Historically necessary means something very specific. It doesn't mean "good." For example Stalin said slavery was historically necessary to pull humans out of primitive communism:
>If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be evaluated not from the standpoint of "eternal justice" or some other preconceived idea, as is not infrequently done by historians, but from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or that social movement and with which they are connected.
>The slave system would be senseless, stupid and unnatural under modern conditions. But under the conditions of a disintegrating primitive communal system, the slave system is a quite understandable and natural phenomenon, since it represents an advance on the primitive communal systemSource:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htmThis doesn't mean he's saying it's "good." The "progress" here is not the progress of whig history, but the progress of contradictions playing out.
>>2266695Do you mean slave consciousness the way Nietzsche means slave morality or do you mean class consciousness among slaves, or something else? If class consciousness among slaves, then yes. We have Roman servile revolts, Nat Turner, Haitian Revolution etc. as proof of that.
>>2266794i already discussed the concept of "necessity". the issue is that for something to be necessary implies teleology, since you are saying it has to happen. the issue of course is that you justify everything under the banner of necessity, the exact same way a christian calls their suffering part of "God's plan". its cope at the very least, and pure malice at most.
>progress isnt goodthen its tautological, as i have explained. how do you determine what is "more" or "less" progressive between two historical tendencies? the practical answer is that you prefer one choice and assign it with positivity, but this then makes history a pure particularity. if we are deferring to "necessity" and therefore universality, the good must exist beyond ourselves. but how can we determine this?
>>2266910a purposeful goal or final cause to something. it is often opposed in materialism, since its justification is held as a form of essentialism.
>>2266915yes
>>2266913>I dont think natural history is same as historyi dont think so either, yet humanity arbitrarily decides on when history "began" and how it will "end".
>>2266920because the example used for "progress" was "advancement" or forward movement, so i was applying these terms with regard to spatial direction. the typical telos is development by temporal direction however, like how life grows and matures in time.
>>2266921many people clearly have. why do you think we have the term "pre-historical".
>>2266925because they are opposite terms, and therefore negatively define each other. to go backwards is the opposite of forward movement.
>>2266928yes, so if history progresses, how do we determine its direction?
>>2266930okay, so what distinguishes history from pre-history?
>>2266796>i already discussed the concept of "necessity". the issue is that for something to be necessary implies teleology, since you are saying it has to happenhistorically necessary the way stalin uses it in the quote supplied by
>>2266794 does not mean absolute necessity, it means relative necessity. relative to what? relative to the advancement of the productive forces and the mode of production. certain things are historically necessary with respect to production, not absolutely necessary in general. Marxism is from the standpoint of class society, not from some idealist absolute standpoint.
>>2266946>relative necessitynecessity is always absolute; thats what makes it "necessary".
>the advancement of the productive forces and the mode of productionso USA going to the moon before the USSR was more progressive since it showed greater technical ability?
>>2266947>Why do we need to determine its direction?we dont, if we dont believe in historical progress. but if we do, we have to understand "progress", as a directional term, in time and space.
>I dont think society can go back to being a slavery time or hunter gatherer timewhy not? this is the crux of the issue.
>>2266956progress = forward movement
forward movement toward what, exactly?
>>2266960right, but then this tautology cannot make distinction between progress and regress. progress is linear, not circular.
>>2266980physically, all bodies are determined
history however, is an abstraction
>>2266969>necessity is always absolute; thats what makes it "necessary".no…. relative necessity clearly exists. for example. if I want to run for president in my country, it's necessary that I be a native-born citizen above a certain age. But if I want to run for president in another country, there might be different requirements, or if I don't want to run for president it's not necessary at all.
>so USA going to the moon before the USSR was more progressive since it showed greater technical ability?No that is not what is being said at all. Anon was talking about historical necessity, not progress. Read the conversation again.
>>2267001yes, that still makes certain things absolute for different reasons
>>2266999>Anon was talking about historical necessity, not progress.whats the difference?
>>2267002>you are confusing relative necessity with absolute necessitywhats the difference?
>and progress with goodno, i am opposing progress with regress. you cant have one without the other.
>>2267005everything is always moving, that doesnt mean there has always beem history.
>>2266796>since you are saying it has to happenwell it does, but in the sense thats just cause and effects on a large scale (aka historical materialism).
>justify everything its not justification, its recognizing a process at work
>how do you determine what is "more" or "less" progressive between two historical tendenciesthe one that solve the contradictions of the present historical conditions and move toward a new situation more adapted to the newer system of social production faster than the other. Bourgeois revolution were progressive because they allowed for the new mode of production (capitalism) to develop faster than under the old feudal relation, because they gave the political power to the people who now controlled an increasingly larger part of the total social production (bourgeois), resolving the contradiction between their weak political power and strong economic power (and the inverse for nobles). Which is why monarchic restorations were regressive, because they delayed the inevitable ("necessary") evolution of the superstructure following the new basis of production
Communists see socialism as similarly resolving the contradictions of capitalism, with its tendency toward monopolization and consolidation into larger firms eventually stifling further development on one hand, and the periodic crisis giving opportunity for the exploited masses to seize control of the means of productions and move toward communism, hence "progress" is now clearly a desirable thing. Which is why "progressive" is often associated with "good".
There is also the idea of "advancement of history" where the increase in technology and productive force gives opportunity for more freedom from material constraints and a better social reality for most (which I feel is more debatable, and is more the liberal conception of historical progress)
>>2267893>slavery must happen? theres no other way?it certainly seems so, given so many different human societies everywhere had them. The social reality of early agricultural production seem to lead everyone to slave societies.
>because you are saying that its inevitable, therefore its better for it to happen now than laterthats your judgement, saying it is an inevitable stage of social development (and only for agricultural societies, some human communities stayed hunter gatherers and didnt need slaves, but when agriculture is developed then those agricultural societies eventually take over) is not the same as saying it is better now than later, thats your morale speaking, and morality isnt an objective fact
>right, so progress is "change"explicitly not, and I even provided you with a counter example with a regression. Similarly, USSR falling and those place going back to capitalism is also a regression.
>the value of "progress" its not about its "value", its a reality of a historical process, a chemical reaction naturally "progress" but it has no inherent "value"
why we associate progress with good is because communist think for most life would be better under communism than capitalism, hence why progressing beyond capitalism is seen as valuable, but you can make the argument that progressing toward agricultural society at all was disastrous. The thing is it is too late for going back, its not how history of human societies work.
>so why has it failed by many metrics it hasnt failed at all, what with creating superpowers from feudal shitholes, lifting millions out poverty and ignorance, carrying out massive industrialization, ending colonialism, but the conditions were apparently not good enough yet for the success to last. First french republic was also destroyed at first.
But just compare india and china today to see how effective and successful the communist model still is.
>all you are doing is making "progress" synonymous with goodness for rhetorics sake, not as a true inquiry.not at all, its not just rhetoric, I sincerely believe implementing socialism would be for the benefit of the vast majority, and thus that all progress towards it is good.
>if progress is changealready addressed, thats just your strawman
>where is the freedomI agree and thats why I called it a liberal idealist view. But technology certainly has the potential to improve lives (and in some case, like medicine, objectively does improve lives already), its just even more dependent on social progress and organization (hence why we pursue communism)
>we work longer today than serfs ever didto be fair, farm work was also back breaking, and their food was kinda shit and not very varied, and they were even more at the mercy of their master. But yes, capitalist society still suck.
>>2268615no
>>2268823to discourage protesters, challenge their resolve, train their security forces, and accuse them of violence themselves, and also allow arrests and prosecutions
>>2269731>they believe national liberation conflicts are bourgeois revolutions yes they mostly are (although many also had strong socialist elements), but this is still usually a net improvement for the people
>lead to the development of chauvinistic, right wing nationalismtheyd rather have a bunch of explicit comprador doing the bidding of their colonial masters?
>it splits the working class into factions for and against the national liberation strugglesounds retarded, nothing is as uniting politically as national liberation struggles
>there needs to be a united working class focused on the need for a class war, a proletariat revolution trying to get this without doing national liberation when its also needed is doomed to failure. You need to sell both.
cant speak for italians leftcoms, but most communist would agree national liberation is a needed first step
>>2270169You raise a good point. Most Italian LeftComs oppose national liberation on the basis that it's a type of bourgeois revolution, but they ignore even a bourgeois revolution can lead to greatly improved conditions, and they ignore that many national liberation movements are left wing or socialist to a degree even of not full on communists.
It's like they're unable of comprehending that you can have both national liberation and class struggle simultaneously, they think it's a one or the other choose which is a false dichotomy.
>>2270946i dont see how it has political content
ethically however, you can make the case
>>2276729use dictionaries. every time you want to get very-well versed in a topic, to the point of their respective professionals, without having a degree, pick dictionaries for such fields.
philosophy isn't that complicated when you get to know the words.
also, put the books in their historical context: Who are they addressing, what event are they addressing; that also works.
>>2325049I can't really summarize the progress of an entire field in a single article
>>2325061true, true. still, I'm optimistic
>>2348915Get the 1% wealth and allocate it to miserable.
Get 11% wealth and allocate to poor
If anyone disagrees, they get vacations to Siberia.
Problems werent
Unique IPs: 265