[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)
Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!
[ Return / Go to bottom ]

File: 1774863700440.webp (135.18 KB, 3600x3600, cover-e1598446804642.webp)

 

the fundamental flaw of marxism is that it is built around the idea of ONE contradiction being the motor of capitalism's development, namely what is manifest in the value form. this is merely the contradiction between proletariat and capitalist. but of course there is the contradiction between the capitalist and the capitalist, as well as the contradiction between the form of bourgeois institutions and their actual content insofar as they are in a material relationship with the capitalist class

what we have seen is that after the falling rate of profit has progressed a certain point, capitalists realized that the first contradiction was no longer tenable to work with and so they moved to the other two. this has resulted in a qualitatively distinct transformation of the development of capital. in the contradiction of the value form, still working within the logic of value, the only salient variable is productivity. however, in capitalist vs capitalist and capitalist vs government power relations they no longer need to concern themselves with such things. it does not matter that the rate of profit is zero or even negative if you just fucking kill your competition and have the govt print infinite money. the solution to capital's first contradiction really is just have more war and sabotage everyone else whilst introducing financialization bullshit. look at netflix. they actively undercut blockbuster whilst losing money just to push their opponent into bankruptcy. that is just what is normal now, cannibalism

this is why ofc there will be no revolution because the contradictions at play have nothing to do with prole cattle. they are just pawns in the larger game. in the context of disputing wages, there is a clear connection between one's class position and what is the natural progression with respect to how to address things. in such contexts, class consciousness is something very simple to promote. this is not the case when its having a war with the national bourgeois of another country, or heck in the future two megacorporations just fucking killing each other mafia-style. that is what will happen btw. the iran war will crash the economy and corporations will capitalize on the chaos to balkanize western states into feudal shitholes. then eventually you will have these "freedom cities" hurling drones at each other and any prole cattle that thinks of objecting to this will be preemptively executed why palantir technology

tell me where i am wrong in this analysis, i fucking dare you, i fucking beg of you. where am i wrong?

>>2760694
>the fundamental flaw of marxism is that it is built around the idea of ONE contradiction being the motor of capitalism's development
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm
<According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form. There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents (that is, of things and events whose inner interconnection is so remote or so impossible of proof that we can regard it as non-existent, as negligible), the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary. Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree.

>>2760694
>tell me where i am wrong in this analysis, i fucking dare you, i fucking beg of you. where am i wrong?
In the premise (see above text) and in the conclusion (techno-feudalism is a non-scientific conclusion). What will happen is that you'll get a police state social democracy as the bourgeois state starts encountering financial troubles and starts to crumble forcing the working class to organize to survive - you will see a working class movement even if it won't call itself this. A party will emerge from the disconnected circles already existing, there will come about a time when one will have to reach out to all other to convene a congress. The question isn't whether this will happen (it will) but how to effectively and as painlessly as possible lead the merging of socialism and the movement and how to organize the proletarian republic.

>>2760694
>it does not matter that the rate of profit is zero or even negative
any proof? any example from reality? or just you making shit up?

>>2760701
nice job op, your first sentence is already wrong faggot
>>2760694

>>2760701
>>2760708
>bbut marx said the superstr-
no you dont understand. the issue is that capitalists can forestall the contradiction in the value form for other contradictions that ARE economic. it isnt that there are new ideologies or cultural movements that add noise to the whole thing. the basic dynamics are not linear

im not saying that "well marxists dont care about black queer people's rights" or whatever i am pointing out that the core dynamics of how the system operates isnt simply on the axis of wage labour

>>2760706
we see empirically that after every crisis, monopolies only grow stronger. in fact the most powerful bourgeois WANT crises, staglation, wars, etc because the chaos allows them to advance their capitalization. on the other hand, with all these crises, where have all the communist revolutions been? after the great depression all we saw was fucking fascism!! do you have any example in reality for your position? are you not the one that is making shit up?

>>2760702
>techno-feudalism is a non-scientific conclusion
the "non-scientific conclusion" that we are actively heading to right now with the technocrats leading the most powerful administration on the planet explicitly saying "this is what we are doing"
>bourgeois state starts encountering financial troubles and starts to crumble
as the state crumbles why would it not lead to fascism when all of the corporations have superior capitalization and organization to random disorganized pissants? this is of course assuming the state would actually fall on its face and not just get liquidated

File: 1774869648172.jpeg (8.86 KB, 202x250, images.jpeg)

So your criticism is that the primary antagonism is inter-capitalist and not yet capitalist versus proletariat? Indeed, as Marx writes in the manifesto, the progress of capital is a war of private property against itself, facilitating the destruction of a middle class, from whence comes the communist struggle. So then, capital is still at war with itself, but this does not mean that Marx was inconsiderate of this fact, even if his followers are ignorant of it. So then, would you frame the contemporary conflict as big (international) capital versus small (national) capital, like Lenin does?

>>2760716
you don't know what the rate of profit is, nor why it tends to fall, do you?

>>2760716
>isnt simply on the axis of wage labour
The economic is what is necessary imposed in the final instance.

>>2760725
in order to compete with other capitalists they need to increase productivity via automation but as automation is fixed capital as opposed to variable capital it is no longer a vector of surplus value extraction

but if we look at reality capitalists are fine not actually automating things and just enforcing artificial scarcity bullshit or completely monopolizing their respective markets thanks to cycles of crises that destroy their competition without needing to actually develop the productive forces at all

the country that is actually making a concerted effort to plunge the rate of profit down by developing the productive forces is china. if western monopolies had their way they'd be fine just having 0 competition and sitting on their asses all day. that is the capitalist's ideal and they just need to be the last person standing to achieve it

>>2760723
>So then, would you frame the contemporary conflict as big (international) capital versus small (national) capital, like Lenin does?
yes lenin made a positive step in realizing this reality that the contradiction shifted away from dealing much with the proletariat. yeah sure it is still there insofar as 3rd worlds proles are exploited, but that is not the fundamental issue here. when imperialist relations between nations fade away, capitalists are still going to try to sabotage and eat each other alive but now any pretension to national form would be gone

i think with china since the govt has real sovereignty it is actually able to use crises to nationalize assets when the time comes. western nations though are not going to down this route. the logic of power accumulation there is different

>>2760731
you conflate so much shit in your pseud attempt to 'debunk' marx, i can't be bothered untangling that shit.

according to you westoid porkies solved every contradiction of capitalism thus monoply will rule eternal.

>>2760742
Told you, capitalists are still the revolutionary class and have been since 1789. They actually command resources, unlike proles.

>>2760745
>porky is revolutionary by being reactionary akshualy
take your meds

>>2760751
Porky is revolutionary because they still have agency, unlike proles who will onlu ever see themselves as embarrassed millionaires or embarrassed labor aristocrats

File: 1774873402688.jpg (50.76 KB, 496x481, An-Unfinished-Revolution-f….jpg)

>>2760745
Marx considers the bourgeoisie as revolutionary from the period of about 1650-1820, which is also the time where classical economy emerges. After this period, the ascendant bourgeoisie then become reactionary, by valuing profits over productivity. In terms of world-history, he claims that the US War of Independence (1776) was bourgeois, but that the Civil War (1861-5) was proletarian (famously praising Lincoln). You can see some errors in this estimation, since the movement from agricultural capital to industrial capital, is the movement of the ascendancy of the bourgeoisie (e.g. derived from the medieval "burgher", or city-dweller; capitalism begins in the country but then moves to the town, whence industry usurps agriculture). So the Civil War was a bourgeois revolution, while if we look at the War of Independence, it was still semi-feudal (the "farmer" being a Jeffersonian ideal). So I would criticise Marx on that point. What do you think of later developments, such as the monopolies of the late 19th century leading to bust-ups and eventually, the New Deal? Is this a new phase in bourgeois development?
>>2760751
Its the peasants (e.g. lumpen) who are most reactionary.

>>2760753
The 19th century through WWII is the time classical fordist industry was the world’s Dutch Tulip, the postwar boom with mass media created an entirely pliant labor aristocratic proletariat which itself consented to moving the Tulip status from factories to real estate (this is the core of the neoliberal turn).

>>2760745
>>2760753
For context on proletarian movements, Lenin cites the English Chartists (1832-48) as the first real workers movement, which is in tandem with the Continental revolutions of 1848. After this, there is a decline, along with mass immigration from Ireland, which Marx from 1869-70 claims has incapacitated the English working class. We see Fascism as a phenomenon also arise in the 1890s in France following the murder of Italian immigrant workers, leading to the neologism of "National Socialism" in 1898 by Maurice Barrès. So then, the internal antagonism of labour manifested as a driving force for a new chauvinism, which grew into Fascism. Moishe Postone claims that Fascism also emerged to manage the contradiction between industrial and financial capital, glorifying hard labour against the idleness of "Jewish" bankers. We can see then, a reactionary tendency in the proletariat (which is still motivating much politics today), while Lenin conversely sees that the movement of capital is what drives contemporary progress by driving immigration. So then, the proletariat in seeking to protect national labour turn to chauvinism, while capital retains an international character.


Unique IPs: 7
[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]
[ Return / Go to top /