/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Once you understand that Mao was the greatest revolutionary opportunist nationalist of all time, everything makes sense.
And I do not say this as an attack on Mao. I admire this aspect of him. I wish Africa, India and Latin America had their own Revolutionary Opportunist Nationalists half as competent as Mao.

>>2645164
>I know marxist's economic theories, but they don't explain as to why the new institutions that would emerge from the old ones wouldn't be better.
the question youre asking is, why wouldnt wages rise? they do, but they rise in proportion to declining profit, since labour takes a greater share in the product than capital. the issue with this is that this is proportional to the employment of capital, which leads to greater unemployment. so wages increase, profits decline, and so does employment, which is why innovation disrupts markets. in the general sense, capitalists also conspire to destroy capital as a means to raise profits or rents. marx describes this in the communist manifesto, bukharin describes this in "theory of the leisure class". thus, labour can only sustain employment where capital is subsidised. as a basic hypothetical, if all welfare and subsidies were cut off, would markets boom or bust? so then, in a free market, unemployment increases, sales lower, and profits fall.
>why couldn't both parties collaborate rather than face off ?
the rise of wages means a decline in profits and vice versa. the collaboration is onlyna compromise born from class struggle.
>For instance, shouldn't you say "workplace democracy" rather than "abolishing private property"
but marxists believe in abolishing private property:
<In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
>Same goes for the dictatorship of the proletariat, the exploitation theory etc.
what is to be misinterpreted, exactly?

>>2645173
He straight up admitted that he made everything up, legend

>>2645173
They have them. They are just US aligned. Wait, like Mao. Damn.

>>2645222
>the question youre asking is, why wouldnt wages rise?
I'm not. This isn't about the economic rules that Marx observed (and that are discutable but I digress), this is about what comes "after".
Let's say profit-driven capitalism becomes unsustainable, why would the next "step" or institution necessarily be worse or as bad ? Perhaps, and although this is idealistic, we could have recognition-driven capitalism, where individuals compete to satisfy society the most in exchange of recognition or other "rewards".
I mean, we have institutions that have evolved because their original purpose was unsustainable. And these changes have resulted in imo positive gains.
For instance, dvd stores couldn't have profits in light of the internet, and so they evolved into _other_ forms, like subscription-based movies. Unless you're a nostalgic millenial or what-have-you, you're probably going to recognize this as "better" than before.

>the collaboration is onlyna compromise born from class struggle.
What makes the struggle worth it then ? Why shouldn't the proletariat and the bourgeoisie mutually agree on say, guaranteed jobs, cheap goods for necessities, free institutions etc.

>but marxists believe in abolishing private property
Property isn't private if the collective decides upon it

>what is to be misinterpreted, exactly?
Mhmm, what could make people confuse dictatorship of the proletariat with a regular dictatorship ? It's as if the word's been used in their life to say "=bad"…

>>2645164
>2. Why can't the state and different class interests agree on a mutual interest.
<However, in the face of revolutions or class conflict, why couldn't both parties collaborate rather than face off ?
You said it youself. The state is a tool of the bourgeoisie. More than that, it's the only way that it can function. You see this in drug cartels, which are states themselves inside bigger conventional states. So the existence itself of a state is part of the class conflict.
>3. (and a bit more practical) Isn't the whole marxist linguo counter-productive to the ideal you hold ?
<For instance, shouldn't you say "workplace democracy" rather than "abolishing private property", given the sentence's long history of being misinterpreted ? Same goes for the dictatorship of the proletariat, the exploitation theory etc.
This is more of a semantics and propaganda question. Marxist linguo tries to be objective. Terms like dictatorship of the proletariat predate the fetishization of the word "democracy" that went on at the end of the 19th century. And it describes perfectly the system, opposing the current dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Your question also points to the biggest problem of revolutionary socialism. Pic related. That we really don't want "workplace democracy". We want to abolish wage labor. Build a socioeconomic system that makes it impossible and pointless. But this movement died in the 1920s. Since then the left, everywhere on Earth, has only been about class colaboration and worker benefits.

Hello OP. You'd probably get better answers on /edu/, but here is fine as well.

>1. Why does the dialectical movement have to worsen the proletariat's lives
Lower profit margins mean higher labor exploitation to keep those enterprises afloat. Better financial management only exists insofar as it mitigates the falling rate of profit and class antagonism.

>2. Why can't the state and different class interests agree on a mutual interest.
No offense to you but this question took me by surprise. Under what circumstances would the bourgeoisie, or any dominant class for that matter, make compromises to the dominated class? As far as I know, the only answer is *threat of violence*. The bourgeoisie will give treats to the working class only if they materially benefit from doing so or if they feel threatened (the development of welfare states in Europe could only happen with the threat of revolution, when the USSR was just around the corner to support popular revolts). And even so, the former depends on cohesion from the most dominant sectors of the bourgeoisie and long-term planning. Long-term planning is not possible in a free, financialized market with profit motive. As an example, you're probably familiar with the idea that UBI would increase consumption and therefore benefit some sectors of the bourgeoisie, but since it is viewed as a net-negative to the most powerful fractions of the bourgeoisie (due to inflation, decreased dependency on keeping a shit job, higher taxes etc), it just can't happen.
The other way around is true. There is no benefit for the proletariat to settle. The bourgeois are a net-negative to everyone. Pardon the moralizing language, but the word "parasite" describes them well. If the workers can leverage the abolition of the bourgeoisie, there is no compromise that would materially benefit the proletariat more than said abolition.

>3. (and a bit more practical) Isn't the whole marxist linguo counter-productive to the ideal you hold ?
It depends on the audience. If you're speaking or writing to an academic or militant audience, using Marx's terminology is useful to specify what you're talking about. "Workplace democracy" can mean a lot, while Aufhebung of private property refers to a specific proposal of a specific thinker. But overall I agree that Marx's terminology should be made more accessible, depending on who you are talking to, this is not really controversial between communists. And IMO the first chapter of Das Kapital would be much easier to grasp if the value of a commodity was presented as a tuple or something.

>>2645281
they are nowhere near Mao's competence, sorry

>>2645255
lmao, source? i wanna read it

>>2645312
1. I'm curious, too. To generalize: a commoditiy that gets automated, can be made into a new commodity, by adding complex things to it.. thus more labor, thus keep wage labor employed, thus keep the rate of profit higher.

>>2645381
Just in case.. it does not need to be something new, like OP thinks. Like a McDonalds slightly closer to your home, 30 min walktime Vs 10 min.

>>2645320
>You said it youself. The state is a tool of the bourgeoisie
Yeah I see. I think this is the core disagreement between us when it comes for state and class colaboration. Imo the state isn't necessarily bourgeois, even its current form today (might have to do from where I live too).

>But this movement died in the 1920s
You mean a non-marxist movement that wanted to abolish wage-labor ?

>>2645339
>Better financial management only exists insofar as it mitigates the falling rate of profit and class antagonism.
I think I'm starting to see the picture. It's not that contradictions ALL necessarily lead to a further degradation of the proletariat's life, but that those identified to Marx and inherent to capitalism do ?
Makes more sense desu, I had understood it as "all contradictions necessarily degrade the proletariat's life therefore a revolution is more and more likely to happen"

>As far as I know, the only answer is *threat of violence*.
Yeah, I'm saying that it is more beneficial for both the proletariat AND the bourgeoisie to slowly establish better and mutually interesting reforms than to have a revolution. You could technically say that on the long term this would lead to classes disappearing.

>If the workers can leverage the abolition of the bourgeoisie, there is no compromise that would materially benefit the proletariat more than said abolition
What about UBI, guaranteed occupations etc ? More over I think it comes down the feasability. I think that workers would have a better interest in say a greater expansion of welfare, more liberty in self-management, ubi, guaranteed jobs, housing etc whilst stil remaining in a capitalist framework, albeit highly regulated, then a socialist revolution where everything can go bad and become worse.
But you're going to reply to me saying that the bourgeoisie won't let itself be stripped of its power (and of its class status really) on the long term.

>>2645485
>on contradictions
The dialectical movements between classes lead to the benefit of one in expense of the other. There's no rule saying the oppressed class will always get the short end of the stick, it's just the most common scenario.

>it is more beneficial for both the proletariat AND the bourgeoisie to slowly establish better and mutually interesting reforms than to have a revolution
This is false. A proletarian revolution is strictly in the best material interests of the proletariat. There's simply no mathematical benefit to workers in keeping the bourgeoisie around.
There are historical periods in which capitalism is tolerable enough, and in such times the threat of revolution is low. But as labor exploitation grows and material conditions deteriorate (and they will deteriorate, as capitalism has already ceased to be progressive in much of the world), the more incentive workers have to seize the productive forces, and if class consciousness is widespread, a revolution of communist character is more likely.

>on the long term this would lead to classes disappearing
The only way for this to happen is for the bourgeoisie to lose property over the means of production. This means collectivization of the productive forces i.e. oppression by the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. Do you think the most powerful class, with the most leverage, the larger threat of violence, will give away their benefits for free?

>[welfare] comes down the feasability
Yes. A world with commodity production and private property where everyone has education, job security, few working hours, 150m² housing, satisfactory urban infrastructure, access to light industry commodities, and occasional luxury, is honestly an okay reality that wouldn't ever make me mad at society, even if it's nowhere near the realized potential of a post-capitalism world. It is, however, not feasible. For me to explain why it is not feasible would derail the thread and is a topic of very large scope, and then you'd go down the rabbit hole of Marxism to never return.

>a socialist revolution where everything can go bad and become worse
Communist experiences only really go bad when there is an excess of external sabotage: invasions, bombings, tariffs, sanctions, diplomatic isolation, assassination, coups, psyops etc. The communist revolution in Russia wasn't particularly violent at all if we strictly speak of the workers seizing the state, it only turned bad when the "Civil" War reaction happened. And when things go smoothly, they go real smooth. Cuba is a poor, stagnated nation but the working class enjoys a much better life than it did before the revolution, and it is much more developed than its neighbors such as Haiti. The USSR had an explosive development of productive forces and while life was much less luxurious for the white collars than in the US, the Soviet people had a higher quality of life than that of Russians under the Tsar. I won't comment on contemporary China as it is a controversial topic but Mao's China was also more advanced than before the revolution. I can't think of a socialist experiment that turned out worse than it was before a revolution, and countries that had their revolution betrayed suffered a lot in quality of life (see: Russia). There's also the fact that a lot of the luxury enjoyed by the West came from exploitation of colonies or massive injection of capital (Japan).