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 developmenthttps://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 negativeany proof? any example from reality? or just you making shit up?
>>2760701nice 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
>>2760706we 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 conclusionthe "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 crumbleas 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
>>2760716you 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 labourThe economic is what is necessary imposed in the final instance.
>>2760725in 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
>>2760731you 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.
>>2760742Told 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 akshualytake your meds
>>2760751Porky is revolutionary because they still have agency, unlike proles who will onlu ever see themselves as embarrassed millionaires or embarrassed labor aristocrats
>>2760745Marx 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?
>>2760751Its the peasants (e.g. lumpen) who are most reactionary.
>>2760753The 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>>2760753For 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.
>>2760760And then you have a whole section of the third world’s bourgeois that formed the pro warsaw anti colonial parties like MPLA, ANC, and INC
>>2760694I don't OP maybe kill yourself
>>2760716>marxism is wrong!>well no marx actually said->I DON'T CARE WHAT MARX SAID!move this crap to siberia
>>2760716>the issue is that capitalists can forestall the contradiction in the value form for other contradictions that ARE economicDrop a book on this if so
>>2760888>I DON'T CARE WHAT MARX SAID!where did i say that? that excerpt is about base and superstructure and for marx the base still always wins out at the end. im pointing out that the base is not 1 dimensional and the political and economic are extremely continuous entities. if that paragraph it would be because i am trying to raise up the importance of the superstructure, but that is not what i am doing! i am talking about economics !!
>>2760890the book i posted in the op also veblen. i dont even go as far as these guys as i do not want to completely reject value in my analysis but also as another poster alluded to lenin was already gesturing in this direction too
excerpt from nitzan's book:
>But once we get rid of the fiction and move to the real world where prices represent not utility and productivity but power, these imperatives immediately break down on their own terms. ‘Productive efficiency’ (minimum inputs per unit of output) no longer implies ‘economic efficiency’ (minimum cost per unit of output), and ‘economic efficiency’ no longer means ‘maximum profit’. In this imperfect context, it makes perfect sense for capitalists to impose ‘inefficient’ techniques: their very inefficiency is the power leverage through which profits are generated.>Let’s illustrate this principle with more contemporary examples. Take transportation. On the face of it, a well-designed public transit seems much more conducive to human welfare and the natural environment than private transit. Yet, in the US and elsewhere, capitalist transportation has tended to move away from the public and toward the private. And the reason is not hard to grasp. Public transportation resonates with the integrated operation of industry and therefore doesn’t sit well with regular flow of business profit.>This is perhaps the reason why early in the twentieth century the automobile companies bought and dismantled 100 electric railway systems in 45 US cities (Barnet 1980: Ch. 2). And it is also why these companies have long shunned any radical change in energy sources. The electric car, first invented in the 1830s, predates its gasoline and diesel counterparts by half a century, and for a while was more popular than both (Wakefield 1994). But by the early twentieth century, having proved less profitable than the gas guzzlers, it fell out of favour and was forcefully erased from the collective memory. Then came intolerable pollution, which in the 1990s led the state of California to mandate a gradual transition of automobiles to alternative energy. Complying with the new regulations, General Motors had its engineers quickly develop a highly efficient electric car, the EV1. But fearing that this gem of a car would undermine profit from their gas guzzlers, the company’s owners, along with owners of other concerned corporations in the automotive and oil business, also invested in an orchestrated attempt to defeat the California bill. When the regulation was finally overturned, every specimen of the EV1 was recalled and literally shredded (Paine 2006).>A similar pattern emerges in the setting of broad electronic standards. In theory, the goal of such standards is to have as many different electronic components and processes resonate as seamlessly and effortlessly as possible. In practice, though, the debate is not over industrial resonance but business profit: it is not the technical blueprint that matters, but who will control it. The production of digital audio tapes (DAT) in the early 1990s, for instance, had been postponed (to the point of making the technology outdated) because several large firms could not reach a consensus regarding its effect on recording profits, a saga that has since been replayed in the ‘format wars’ over digital versatile discs (DVD) and high-definition optical discs.>These examples can easily be extended. Other broad industrial diversions include the development by pharmaceutical companies of expensive remedies for invented ‘medical conditions’ instead of drugs to cure real disease for which the afflicted are too poor to pay; the development by high-tech companies of weapon technologies instead of alternative clean energies; the development by chemical and bio-technology corporations of one-size-fits-all genetically modified vegetation and animals instead of bio-diversified ones; the forced expansion by governments and realtors of socially fractured suburban sprawl instead of participatory and sustainable urbanization; the development by television networks of lowest-denominator programming that washes the brain instead of promoting its critical faculties; and so on.>Of course, as we repeatedly noted the line separating the socially desirable and productive from the undesirable and counterproductive is inter-subjective and contestable. But taken together, these examples nonetheless suggest that a significant proportion of business-driven ‘growth’ is wasteful if not destructive, and that the sabotage underlying these socially negative trajectories is exactly what makes them so profitable.>[…]During the depth phase of the 1970s and 1980s, differential accumulation was led by a ‘Weapondollar–Petrodollar Coalition’ made up of large oil companies, armament contractors and OPEC, and was backed by the United States and several European governments that supplied arms to the Middle East and encouraged high oil prices.11 The central accumulation mechanism of this coalition was the ongoing cycle of Middle East ‘energy conflicts’ and ‘oil crises’. The basic logic of the process was simple enough. Rising petroleum prices brought massive profits for the oil companies. They also generated huge petrodollar revenues for local OPEC governments, who were only too eager to spend them on expensive weaponry in preparation for the next war. As a result, the Middle East during that period became the world’s largest market for imported arms, absorbing over one third of the global trade. The big arms contractors of course loved this arrangement, and various US administrations – from Nixon’s and Ford’s to Bush Sr.’s and Jr.’s – supported it with equal zeal. Indeed, what better way to fight communism, divide and rule the Middle East, and enrich your corporate friends – all in one stroke and without spending a penny?>The consequences of this process were nothing short of dramatic. Rising oil prices threw much of the world into a deep stagflationary crisis, conflict bloomed everywhere, and there was even the occasional flirt with nuclear exchange. The Weapondollar–Petrodollar Coalition, however, thrived, while the other members of dominant capital – although hit by the stagnation – ended up benefiting greatly from the consequent inflation (revisit Figure 16.3).>The distributional consequences for the oil and armament companies are vividly illustrated in Figure 17.3 which measures their share of global market capitalization. As the chart shows, during the 1970s and 1980s, this group of firms became one of the world’s most valuable. With plenty of wars and soaring oil prices, its fortunes multiplied; and by 1981, after the onset of the Iran–Iraq wars, it accounted for nearly 14 per cent of global market capitalization. ‘War profits’ were clearly the way to go.notice how in these examples the dynamics are very clearly contrary to production rather than pro-production. what should be the basic logic of capital has been flipped on its head. this would seem to be possible because of the dynamics of "fictitious capital" which has come to dominate our economic system, accentuating a selection for cannibalism
like i said i think the author might go too far in just saying that capital is power rather than value. i would say that value represents a particular contradiction amongst others
>>2761099>if that paragraph*if that paragraph was relevant
The dialectic is simply brown vs white. Look how much you guys drool over “anti imperialism” ie browns doing a capitalism.
IF ITS BROWN FLUSH IT DOWN(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
>>2760694>the fundamental flaw of marxism is that it is built around the idea of ONE contradiction being the motor of capitalism's developmenno it isnt lol
>namely what is manifest in the value formand iff it were that wouldnt be it
>capitalists realized that the first contradiction was no longer tenable to work with and so they moved to the other twoindividual capitalists dont "realize" shit. monopoly capital/imperialism has already been analyzed this isnt news.
>tell me where i am wrong in this analysisyou are just describing imperialism with value form bs. probably because you have some kind of ultra brainworms about the soviets being hecking authoritinos. just drop this crap and read lenin the work has already been done
>>2760702>In the premise (see above text) and in the conclusion (techno-feudalism is a non-scientific conclusion). this, plus if its true then we have barbarism and marxism is still correct it just ended in the common ruin of contending classes instead of world revolution
>>2760731>if western monopolies had their way they'd be fine just having 0 competition and sitting on their asses all day.did you forget about crisis of overproduction? if they do that workers dont make enough wages to buy what they produce, which eventually includes food. then they riot
>the country that is actually making a concerted effort to plunge the rate of profit down by developing the productive forces is chinaand what do you think happens to america imperialist when tanzania and bangladesh have a minimum wage of $25 an hour because of chinese nuclear reactor powered economy? this is why lenin says ultraimperialism is false, there is no imperialist peace. like i said individual capitalists dont realize or make decisions, the ones who do get proletarianized and the ones who just act ruthless drive the others to ruin.
>>2761136>crisis of overproductioncannibalism works against this see pic rel
>and what do you think happens to america imperialist when tanzania and bangladesh have a minimum wage of $25 an hour because of chinese nuclear reactor powered economy?monopoly capitalists just increasingly eat each other alive instead of bullying weaker nations. i actually do think there could be a major crisis because western nations dont actually produce anything and rely on imperialism but when this leads to socialism or some sort of class collaboration is not at all clear since the contradiction which this is caused by is primarily inter-capitalist conflict leading to local deindustrialization. maybe with the periphery countries having superior productive forces though they can capitalize on the west and that is the future
>probably because you have some kind of ultra brainworms about the soviets being hecking authoritinos. just drop this crap and read lenin the work has already been donewhat the soviets did makes perfect sense from this outlook. i will actually do this to see how nitzan and lenin can be bridged
>>2761364Sorry, but these theories are always in the category of "not even wrong". What this author is describing (in a very convoluted way, and in a way, which presents this information as
new information, instead of reformulating things already known to Marx). is that capitalism never can operate at 0% or 100% because in both extremes there is no possible way to re-create the conditions to extract surplus (because it either gets consumed fully by either class). The exact percentages can be found by some combination of empirical data and interpolation. But it's nothing special. It's another discovery that there's a sweet spot how much unemployment is good for business. None of this matters once there is no labor market (everyone is employed) because the structure collapses.
>>2760753I don't think you can have a simple binary of the capitalists being revolutionary and then reactionary. I think there has been a gradual and uneven fascization of the capitalists and an uneven development of the proletariat. Many good revolutionary communists have come from a bourgeois background. And the revolutionary potential of the proletariat only really started coming into its own around about the October Revolution.
Of course, the capitalists have generally become extremely reactionary by 2026. But the historical development of the capitalists from revolutionary to reactionary was uneven and complicated.
>>2760694The fundamental flaw of Marxism is its crappy ontology. Touted by its followers as an unironic theory of everything, it cannot explain the most important thing: existence itself. Marxism, like much of modern Western thought, collapses the question of existence into a science of existents, of material objects and how to manipulate them for various base ends. It winds up sharing the exact same metaphysics as capitalism. Despite setting out to critique classical political economy, Marx wound up accepting some of its basic assumptions: labor theory of value, humans as rational individuals, humanity driven by infinite needs, human wants can be satisfied through increasing productivity etc. Since Marxists, like their capitalist bretheren, collapse all thought into a mechanical science of objects, they wind up producing the same colonization of life by production and rational management resulting in a marginally better form of totalitarianism than the one we enjoy under neoliberal fascism.
>>2761449Oh boohoo, you hate the good parts of capitalism and love the bad parts. We should abolish the gemeinshaft and establish a rational ordering of production. The community and the family are some rapey and culty bullshit.
>>2761383the point is that they can and have made active decisions in order to try and keep this sweet spot and they continue to do so, and it isnt obvious that even if imperialism were to vanish they wouldnt continue with sabotage and competitive selection out of crisis
>>2761449marxism is not mechanical materialism. there are existential elements to his thinking that were even recognized by gentile
>>2761364>maybe with the periphery countries having superior productive forcesyeah i think it was reasonable for a period after the ussr fall to say everything was doomed. but i think the evidence is in chinas investments in africa and future world population growth projections alone basically cement the 22 century as communist. theyre gonna single handedly restart the engine of history and btfo third worldists by proletarianizing the labor aristocracy
>flaw of marxism
Nah, I think marx is 100% right and whatever you will say is probably some sort of pseudo rambling trying to "update" or "deboonk him"
Nitzan and Bichler are reactionaries that ought to be shot
>>2761516Marxists might deny that their materialism isn’t mechanical, by that they mean it is dialectical. However, Marxists see the world as just an aggregate of material objects governed by natural laws, which they attempt to study dialectically. This worldview still reduces life to rationally manipulable objects ripe for human exploitation. Marx agreed with the classical economists that human individual needs are infinite. They can only be met with more and more productivity. The environment becomes a resource to be exploited in the name of increasing productivity until eventually you wind up exhausting the entire planet in the name of infinite growth. This is the ideology of bourgeois capitalism and Marx fails to escape it.
>>2761516>the point is that they can and have made active decisions in order to try and keep this sweet spot and they continue to do soYes, the bourgeoisie will offset the frop by any means. Again, nothing new.
>>2761631thank you anon, you helped me better grasp why china is so important in this equation. it makes me think maybe whether a next step in western leftism is to somehow accentuate actual production, a true accelerationism if you will in opposition to land's fatalism
>>2761136>workers dont make enough wages to buy what they produce, which eventually includes food. then they riotas long as the current proportion of the population starving/driven into crime into eventually get arrested annd used into slavery in prison is tolerable,you can just wait for them to die/be removed from society,that's entirely manageable
>tanzania and bangladesh have a minimum wage of $25 an hour because of chinese nuclear reactor powered economy? will never happen because the chinese economy will keep growing and making any actual possibility of growing an economy (or god forbid a manufacturing economy) will approach nill,as buying from china will be cheaper than setting up an unprofitable factory
>>2763154>will never happenthat would be true if china was capitalist. but their undermine their own profit and build at a loss just to develop people to compete with the west
>>2761099>The production of digital audio tapes (DAT) in the early 1990s, for instance, had been postponed (to the point of making the technology outdated) because several large firms could not reach a consensus regarding its effect on recording profitsI'm an audio nerd so I want to rectify this passage: the production of digital audio tape technology wasn't postponed at all, however what was halted was the
widespread adoption of the standard.
DATs were used a lot during the 1990s, but by a very specific crowd: musicians, music producers and engineers, etc.
The reason why it didn't hit the consumer market is that, unlike analog tape, digital tape technically allows a perfect replication of a signal across several generations of copies.
With analog tapes like cassettes, the more you copy a signal, the more the subsequent copy degrade it and make it more noisy.
But copying an analog signal from one medium to another is relatively easy, for physical reasons (it's just a continuous electrical signal in the end) and this bothered record selling companies a lot.
The piracy craze from corporations started with the cassette copying culture between friends in the 1970s-1980s, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music.
With digital media like DAT, you can implement DRM though, and that's exactly what Sony, the biggest DAT manufacturer at the time but also a big record label, did.
Basically in most cases you could only make one copy of a DAT to another DAT, then this DAT copy wouldn't be copyable. There were systems to circumvent this, but you had to buy specific machines for this which weren't common until much later.
Between this DRM, the fact that most people were fine listening to either CDs which had the same quality as DATs, or cassettes just like people nowadays don't mind listening to low bitrate MP3s, that there were very few albums being released on DATs, and that DATs meant buying new expensive equipment once again, there was little impetus for actually adopting the format at a consumer level.
So, the author was actually right in a general sense to prove his point, just a little wrong on the details, and my autism kicked in.
I have read the rest of the thread and there are interesting ideas there and there, notably that Marxists tend to underestimate conceiving capital as power, but otherwise I don't really have a horse in the race, go on friends.
>>2763358China is capitalist. I don't know why people here think they are basically anti-capitalist warriors playing 4D chess, but the Chinese proletariat has a serious unemployment problem right now, especially young people, also cost of living issues in big cities like Shanghai. The Chinese state is just better at capitalism than the West, but capitalism is a global system with systemic issues, and by no mean they have done away with capitalism or are planning to do so seriously.
t. Posting this from China.
>>2763609>the Chinese proletariat has a serious unemployment problem right nowthat doesnt make it capitalist
>capitalism is a global systemalso doesnt make china capitalist
>no mean they have done away with capitalismyou can be capitalist and communist. communism is the real movement to abolish the present state of things. china is a workers dictatorship in a transitional stage building the material foundation to enable the higher stage of communism. that is communist
>>2763717>china is a workers dictatorship in a transitional stage building the material foundation to enable the higher stage of communism. that is communistTell that to the Chinese workers who serves burgers at McDonalds. Visiting China is almost disappointing at first when you realize how little difference there are between daily life there in tier-1/2 cities and in the West. Chinese capitalists are just trying to get a short-lived advantage on Western capitalists by developing automation more, end of the story.
>>2763731it doesnt matter what individuals think. its determined by the class character of the state. china is a dtop, end of story
>>2763739I love how the DotP defined by the /leftypol/ vanguard who never traveled beyond 100 miles from their mom's house is having a bourgeoisie, wage labour, endemic unemployment among zoomers, barely enforced labour rights that allow employers to discriminate against workers aged more than 35, high rents relative to wages in tier-1 cities, American chains like McDonalds, KFC, and Apple everywhere around the country, or simply having money in the first place instead of labour vouchers.
It's too bad because China has legitimate good aspects that doesn't exist in the West, both domestically and regarding international relationships, but you want to pretend it's something way more radical than it is. You just look like deluded fools, that's too bad, but that's your loss.
>>2763717>you can be capitalist and communist. You can be jewish and a negro, Lassalle
>>2763751>yeah i love how revisionism defined by the /leftypol/ vanguard who never traveled beyond 100 miles from their mom's househow about you fuck off
>>2763923he's right though?
the fundamental flaw of marxism is that it attempts to create a classless egalitarian society via a traditional hierarchical top-down power structure, i.e. a vanguard party with leaders and followers. you can't build a free society with top-down authoritarian thinking, people need to be conditioned for autonomy not obedience; they need to free their minds before they can free themselves.
>>2763963
that's leninism though
>>2763991all the various flavors of marxism suffer from the same core contradiction, trying to cheat the laws of nature with a clever formula that will somehow create a free self-governing society by way of a top-down system of control. marxism is a centrist position for people who want freedom but don't want the personal responsibility that comes with full fledged anarchism, a halfassed soft option for wishy washy faggots.
>>2764024pretty sure not only have the productive forces have exceeded that of quantity and quality, but by such a large margin all of this is irrelevant
>>2764048considering that people were living without electricity and indoor plumbing until a couple of years ago i think you might be underestimated the size of the chinese population and relative level of development the party started with
>>2764053that's true almost everywhere, most of china's population were living with that since the 80s and 90s, there is always outlierss in large enough countries
>>2764061and yet they are not now while its still true almost everyhwere. whats the difference? and at what point did "productive forces have exceeded that of quantity and quality"? 1980? 99? 2020? when they eradicated poverty? when the first telephone wire was laid?
>>2764070when any good could be sufficiently produced in quality and quantity, we have the technology and means to produce anything we need
>>2764058Its not, if one thing is just true and the other false it resolves as such. False things may still be maintained even if they are false because sometimes humans maintain false things in spite of truth.
>>2764143>when any good could be sufficiently produced in quality and quantity, and when was that? what year?
>we have the technologyokay but what about china?
>>2764827why bother engaging? by that logic our ancestors had the technology and means to produce everything they needed in form of fist axe and flint stone.
>>2764984>why bother engaging?so make them actually think and justify their claims. what materially constitutes "enough productive forces?
how does a dtop mitigate uneven development within domestic borders? how much can they even? is it possible? what is an acceptable level of inequality vs speed of development? does that change depending on the severity of shortages? is it okay to impoverish people for ten years if there is a shortage of absolute essential basics like rice to import combine harvesters and train engineers?
in a world of global imperialism is having food and shelter enough? was mao wrong about needing two bombs and one satellite? should you put nuclear defense about income inequality? do people need internet? are cell phones considered a human need? are public trains basic infrastructure?
should you press the full communism button before electrification of the whole country? should you eliminate markets before every home has indoor plumbing and flush toilets? is water sanitation infrastructure more important than adherence to ideological purity?
ultras in developed nations never think about any of this they just project their insecurities about authoritarians and universalize their experience with cops/teachers/parents and developed infrastructure in the imperialist core to the periphery ignoring material conditions saying "we have enough" to imply they do too but choose to be mean out of preference or their evil nature rather than necessity. if "we have enough" and communism is international maybe the priority for such complainers should be overthrowing their own imperialist government and sharing their productive forces instead of critiquing those who are barred from their use?
>>2760753>>2760745I think Marx overestimated or underestimate capitalisms ability to overcome crisis and or possibly the need for capital to fully mature before the ability to transition to a new mode of production occurs. I also think we’re getting close to that transition and entering capitalism final crisis. The collapse of the American empire means the collapse of the capital of capital. Now that crown might change over to china but we’ll start seeing socialist revolutions and new economic models and dynamics emerge. I think decentralized manufacturing and energy production is going to be big too. Maybe I’m to optimistic and that anon that said we will live under police state social democracy(which is still an improvement imo) but capitalism itself as a means of class rule is coming to a close. First on the global level and then local level. It’s to untenable and the future ruling class will be technocrats prolly from the ranks of the labor aristocracy.
>>2764058I think that's more of a caricature of the dialectic. It's more that something can be "false" but also express something real or be internally coherent even if it breaks down.
>>2760716>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 capitalizationEmpirically, this is wrong. The bourgeoisie generally don't want crises (depends on the crisis, but they tend to create unpredictability, which can be expensive to manage), they absolutely do not want stagflation (and they're willing to fuck over everyone else to ensure it doesn't happen, see Paul Volcker's tenure at the Fed), and they usually don't want war (depends on the industry they're involved in, the particulars of the war, and how they're positioned in relation to it).
>>2764058That isn't how dialectic works in Hegel or Marx. The equations are abstractly juxtaposed, and "synthesis" isn't equivalent to adding the two equations together then dividing them by two.
Thesis-antithesis-synthesis was actually Fichte (at least in one of his many different presentations of the Wissenschaftslehre). Hegel actually criticized Fichte for it, although it's true that Hegel has sometimes been taught this way despite that.
>>2765453idk why but the site was not letting me put one of the links i wanted to …? anyways aside from those graphs i got from another blog, here is another example given by the casp folks
https://capitalaspower.com/2023/09/bichler-nitzan-the-capital-as-power-approach-an-invited-then-rejected-interview/>In ‘Going Global: The Great U-Turn in South Africa and Israel’,111 we argued that, by the 1980s, the dominant capital groups in the two countries had grown too large for their respective home markets, and that in order to continue their differential accumulation, they had to break through their ‘national envelopes’ and go global. However, conflict-related sanctions and boycotts on the two countries made significant outward capital movement difficult if not impossible. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, the global stagflation of the 1970s and 1980s provided their dominant capital groups with a massive differential windfall: global inflation multiplied the price of gold many times over and in so doing boosted the differential profit of the South African conglomerates, while the depth-driven conflicts of the Middle East caused military production and exports by the Israeli holding groups to thrive. And as long as these differential boosts continued, a large chunk of the capitalist ruling classes in the two countries remained seated on the fence. They wanted the conflicts to end so that they could go global, but with their depth-driven differential accumulation being so lucrative, they were willing to wait. It was only with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the opening for business of the former Communist Bloc, the rise of emerging markets and the consequent global shift from depth to breadth that they finally got off the fence to openly support the end of Apartheid and reconciliation with the Palestinians. And it were these inner realignments of the elites, we argued, that tipped the balance in favour of the U-turns and serve to explain why the two U-turns were, at least initially, relatively peaceful. It seems that, when it comes to the accumulation of power and the associated creordering of the world, the ups and downs of inflation, just like the amalgamation of ownership, are anything but neutral. the fundamental flaw of Marxism is that naming your world view and identity after another man is homo-idolatry. On another note, ACAB also includes therapists.
>>2760716>i am pointing out that the core dynamics of how the system operates isnt simply on the axis of wage labourcool, you're in agreement with marxism then as was demonstrated above. late stage monopoly capitalism, or imperialism, is in a different stage of development than capitalism of the mid to late 19th century. no one disagrees with you there either; that's why MLs exist.
what are you actually saying? can you demonstrate how these are flaws with marxism and not just problems you invented in ur head
i thought the fundamental flaw of marxism was no food no iphone economics 101 transformation problem mud pies teleology big gubbermint
>>2760694> 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.
>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 technologyMarxist theory already acknowledged that the destruction of the productive forces and endless wars was the bourgeoisie's logical reaction to the falling rate of profit and other endemic crises of capital.
vid related is crucial
>>2770531best chapter of a great book
Unique IPs: 35