/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>Was Marx "Revisionist" when he revised himself?
This is why its necessary to decouple Marx from Marx-ism:
<The materialist conception of history has a lot of them nowadays, to whom it serves as an excuse for not studying history. Just as Marx used to say, commenting on the French "Marxists" of the late [18]70s: "All I know is that I am not a Marxist."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_05.htm

>>2803940
To be fair, Engels did use scarequotes there

Because a lot of Marxists are mentally religious and use Marxism as a replacement for loteral supernatural nonsense. Thus, the same rigid pleading to a holy text and originalist fallacies crop up despite the supposedly secular nature of the ideology.

>>2804140
In your estimation is there a difference between Marxism and Communism

>>2804140
>>2803940
>>2803913
>The essence of the “new” trend, which adopts a “critical” attitude towards “obsolete dogmatic” Marxism, has been clearly enough presented by Bernstein and demonstrated by Millerand. Social-Democracy must change from a party of social revolution into a democratic party of social reforms. Bernstein has surrounded this political demand with a whole battery of well-attuned “new” arguments and reasonings. Denied was the possibility of putting socialism on a scientific basis and of demonstrating its necessity and inevitability from the point of view of the materialist conception of history. Denied was the fact of growing impoverishment, the process of proletarisation, and the intensification of capitalist contradictions; the very concept, “ultimate aim”, was declared to be unsound, and the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat was completely rejected. Denied was the antithesis in principle between liberalism and socialism. Denied was the theory of the class struggle, on the alleged grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society governed according to the will of the majority, etc.
<What is To be Done?
Welcome back, comrade Bernstein.

>>2804144
A careful reading reveals nobody ITT so far has called Marx "obsolete and dogmatic", but rather points out that Marx and Engels were anti dogmatic

>>2803913
Revisionism doesn't mean the literal dictionary definition of the word. Most of the time it's used in the left it refers to Bernstein and the various reformist trends in the Second International, which led to the ruin of socialism in 1914. Marx was dead when this happened. Please open a history book before making this thread.

>>2804150
Marx(ists) = Materialist Dogma

>>2804154
OP read the definition from Marxists.org, not a standard English dictionary. Nobody's defending bernstein or the social-patriotic mistakes of the 2nd and 2nd-and-a-half international. What's being pointed out is that any sort of flexibility in contemporary Marxism over 110 years later is slandered as "revisionist" even when it has nothing to do with Bernstein, or his mistaken doctrines.

>>2804156
This isn't a thread for defending idealism

>>2804188
Lenin answered your libshit socdem concern trolling by retorting yes we are dogmatic >>2804144

>>2804191
Yes and that's precisely the problem. You claim to be scientific yet refuse to change your worldview no matter how things change because youve decided some guy nearly 200 years ago figured our human civilizati9nal progress perfectly forever.

I don't even think Marxism is a "method", not any less so than "darwinism" when it comes to the conception of biological phenomena. Far from an abstract and pre-determined protocol for directing though and action (a "method") Marxism is the organic and concrete conception of political and thought phenomena as arising from an economic class dimension. This is of course a brief and abstract definition itself of what Marxism is, but I'm trying to make a point. Just as species are what they are because of mutations coupled with environmental constraints, so society and its political structure is what it is because of the constraint of class interests, relations, etc. and their dynamics.

So, to pretend a single doctrine that emerged from a specific time and place, by the hand of a specific person etc. can have universal validity even before applying it to reality is to bear an almost religious level of irrationality, abstraction and formalism. Marxism is not a doctrine, although doctrines can be Marxist. Marxism is a scientific and philosophic outlook and a real concrete way of addressing practical socio-political issues in a non redundant way. An irreversible and indispensable conceptual innovation which truly organizes socio-political phenomena into sound relations of cause-effect and other categories, and truly provides the way to change it in an optimal way for the first time in history.

>>2804200
We change our worldwide when the conditions change. Now tell, is there a country today whose bourgeoisie doesn't appropriate the surplus value produced by its workers? No? Then Marx's critique is just as valid today as it was back then since we live under the same social order.

>>2804208
That part isn't the part that's wrong. The part that's wrong is the proclaimed inevitability of communism and fall of capitalism (capitalism has time and again proven resilient to threats) and the class essentialism of the dictatorship of the proletariat (and the resulting delusion that the state will ever "wither away").

>>2804191
Marxism isn't "materialist dogma" because Marxism is anti-dogmatic. The idea that Marxism is "dogmatic" is a charge leveled by idealists and pointing that out isn't "socdem concern trolling" unless you think Engels and Kim Il Sung were both socdem concern trolls.

>>2804318
They ARE obsolete - actually, that's the wrong word. It presumes the linear progression of history that Marx subscribed to, which is wrong. It's not "obsolete", it was simply delusional to begin with. Wishful thinking, if we're being charitable.

DOTP just means you can like vote and shit, and a system where the working class has an actual say it what happens, to the point where the bourgeois no longer enjoys impunity.
There can be degrees to this, and therefore a transitional phase between the domination of one class over the other. It's an "obsolete" term only in that it's too broad and easily deconstructed in the face of contemporary political forms, etc.
As far as "anti-revisionism" is concerned, if your entire political opinion rests on some pillar proclaiming the necessity of civil war and putting that above every other political action, then you're just some rigid internet communist NPC and not a real thinker.

no one actually argued the point they instead called this guy a bernsteinite, despite the fact nothing of this has anything to do with bernstein other than making the logical conclusion that the marxists call anything they don't like revisionism, claim they are anti-dogmatists, despite continuing to believe antiquated ideas from 100 years ago or more is true, since one of their favorite guys said it was, and that it continues to be true because of this

>>2804144
>>2804154
>>2804208
Bernstein wasn't wrong because he questioned Marx's theories, he questioned Marx's theories and just so happened to be wrong. Proximity to the writings of Marx and Engels is, unto itself, an extraordinarily lousy metric for truth. Pretty much every successful socialist movement in the history of the world has, in some way, deviated from, or "revised" what those two wrote back in the 19th century.

>>2804191
No he didn't.

>>2804318
Shoutouts to people who reply to nonexistent posts.

>>2804409
All the geniuses who claim that Marxism needs to be revised always turn out to not understand it so well. That's why they avoid actually talking about this revision, because they cannot even explain how Marx was wrong.

>>2804580
The point is that these people aren't wrong because they attempted to revise Marx, they attempted to revise Marx and just happened to be wrong.

@2804424
@2804595

>>2804687
>Zimbabwe is an example of Chinese imperialism
Fuck off glowie that was 100% on the West.

Socialism with FDI austerity characteristics

>>2803913
Amazing how many words are wasted in this boring thread and others like it over an issue settled over a century ago. That said OP, sneaking in that Reagan quote at the end was very funny.

Anyways, here's Lenin:

Marxism and Revisionism

There is a well-known saying that if geometrical axioms affected human interests attempts would certainly be made to refute them. Theories of natural history which conflicted with the old prejudices of theology provoked, and still provoke, the most rabid opposition. No wonder, therefore, that the Marxian doctrine, which directly serves to enlighten and organise the advanced class in modern society, indicates the tasks facing this class and demonstrates the inevitable replacement (by virtue of economic development) of the present system by a new order—no wonder that this doctrine has had to fight for every step forward in the course of its life.

Needless to say, this applies to bourgeois science and philosophy, officially taught by official professors in order to befuddle the rising generation of the propertied classes and to “coach” it against internal and foreign enemies. This science will not even hear of Marxism, declaring that it has been refuted and annihilated. Marx is attacked with equal zest by young scholars who are making a career by refuting socialism, and by decrepit elders who are preserving the tradition of all kinds of outworn “systems”. The progress of Marxism, the fact that its ideas are spreading and taking firm hold among the working class, inevitably increase the frequency and intensity of these bourgeois attacks on Marxism, which becomes stronger, more hardened and more vigorous every time it is “annihilated” by official science.

But even among doctrines connected with the struggle of the working class, and current mainly among the proletariat, Marxism by no means consolidated its position all at once. In the first half-century of its existence (from the 1840s on) Marxism was engaged in combating theories fundamentally hostile to it. In the early forties Marx and Engels settled accounts with the radical Young Hegelians whose viewpoint was that of philosophical idealism. At the end of the forties the struggle began in the field of economic doctrine, against Proudhonism. The fifties saw the completion of this struggle in criticism of the parties and doctrines which manifested themselves in the stormy year of 1848. In the sixties the struggle shifted from the field of general theory to one closer to the direct labour movement: the ejection of Bakuninism from the International. In the early seventies the stage in Germany was occupied for a short while by the Proudhonist Mühlberger, and in the late seventies by the positivist Dühring. But the influence of both on the proletariat was already absolutely insignificant. Marxism was already gaining an unquestionable victory over all other ideologies in the labour movement.

By the nineties this victory was in the main completed. Even in the Latin countries, where the traditions of Proudhonism held their ground longest of all, the workers’ parties in effect built their programmes and their tactics on Marxist foundations. The revived international organisation of the labour movement—in the shape of periodical international congresses—from the outset, and almost without a struggle, adopted the Marxist standpoint in all essentials. But after Marxism had ousted all the more or less integral doctrines hostile to it, the tendencies expressed in those doctrines began to seek other channels. The forms and causes of the struggle changed, but the struggle continued. And the second half-century of the existence of Marxism began (in the nineties) with the struggle of a trend hostile to Marxism within Marxism itself.

Bernstein, a one-time orthodox Marxist, gave his name to this trend by coming forward with the most noise and with the most purposeful expression of amendments to Marx, revision of Marx, revisionism. Even in Russia where—owing to the economic backwardness of the country and the preponderance of a peasant population weighed down by the relics of serfdom—non-Marxist socialism has naturally held its ground longest of all, it is plainly passing into revisionism before our very eyes. Both in the agrarian question (the programme of the municipalisation of all land) and in general questions of programme and tactics, our Social-Narodniks are more and more substituting “amendments” to Marx for the moribund and obsolescent remnants of their old system, which in its own way was integral and fundamentally hostile to Marxism.

Pre-Marxist socialism has been defeated. It is continuing the struggle, no longer on its own independent ground, but on the general ground of Marxism, as revisionism. Let us, then, examine the ideological content of revisionism.

In the sphere of philosophy revisionism followed in the wake of bourgeois professorial “science”. The professors went “back to Kant"—and revisionism dragged along after the neo-Kantians. The professors repeated the platitudes that priests have uttered a thousand times against philosophical materialism—and the revisionists, smiling indulgently, mumbled (word for word after the latest Handbuch) that materialism had been “refuted” long ago. The professors treated Hegel as a “dead dog”,[1] and while themselves preaching idealism, only an idealism a thousand times more petty and banal than Hegel’s, contemptuously shrugged their shoulders at dialectics—and the revisionists floundered after them into the swamp of philosophical vulgarisation of science, replacing “artful” (and revolutionary) dialectics by “simple" (and tranquil) “evolution”. The professors earned their official salaries by adjusting both their idealist and their “critical” systems to the dominant medieval “philosophy” (i.e., to theology)—and the revisionists drew close to them, trying to make religion a “private affair”, not in relation to the modern state, but in relation to the party of the advanced class.

What such “amendments” to Marx really meant in class terms need not be stated: it is self-evident. We shall simply note that the only Marxist in the international Social-Democratic movement to criticise the incredible platitudes of the revisionists from the standpoint of consistent dialectical materialism was Plekhanov. This must be stressed. all the more emphatically since profoundly mistaken attempts are being made at the present time to smuggle in old and reactionary philosophical rubbish disguised as a criticism of Plekhanov’s tactical opportunism.[2]

>>2804920
Marxism and Revisionism (Contd.)

Passing to political economy, it must be noted first of all that in this sphere the “amendments” of the revisionists were much more comprehensive and circumstantial; attempts were made to influence the public by “new data on economic development”. It was said that concentration and the ousting of small-scale production by large-scale production do not occur in agriculture at all, while they proceed very slowly in commerce and industry. It was said that crises had now become rarer and weaker, and that cartels and trusts would probably enable capital to eliminate them altogether. It was said that the “theory of collapse” to which capitalism is heading was unsound, owing to the tendency of class antagonisms to become milder and less acute. It was said, finally, that it would not be amiss to correct Marx’s theory of value, too, in accordance with Böhm-Bawerk.[3]

The fight against the revisionists on these questions resulted in as fruitful a revival of the theoretical thought in international socialism as did Engels’s controversy with Dühring twenty years earlier. The arguments of the revisionists were analysed with the help of facts and figures. It was proved that the revisionists were systematically painting a rose-coloured picture of modern small-scale production. The technical and commercial superiority of large-scale production over small-scale production not only in industry, but also in agriculture, is proved by irrefutable facts. But commodity production is far less developed in agriculture, and modern statisticians and economists are, as a rule, not very skilful in picking out the special branches (sometimes even the operations) in agriculture which indicate that agriculture is being progressively drawn into the process of exchange in world economy. Small-scale production maintains itself on the ruins of natural economy by constant worsening of diet, by chronic starvation, by lengthening of the working day, by deterioration in the quality and the care of cattle, in a word, by the very methods whereby handicraft production maintained itself against capitalist manufacture. Every advance in science and technology inevitably and relentlessly undermines the foundations of small-scale production in capitalist society; and it is the task of socialist political economy to investigate this process in all its forms, often complicated and intricate, and to demonstrate to the small producer the impossibility of his holding his own under capitalism, the hopelessness of peasant farming under capitalism, and the necessity for the peasant to adopt the standpoint of the proletarian. On this question the revisionists sinned, in the scientific sense, by superficial generalisations based on facts selected one-sidedly and without reference to the system of capitalism as a whole. From the political point of view, they sinned by the fact that they inevitably, whether they wanted to or not, invited or urged the peasant to adopt the attitude of a small proprietor (i.e., the attitude of the bourgeoisie) instead of urging him to adopt the point of view of the revolutionary proletarian.

The position of revisionism was even worse as regards the theory of crises and the theory of collapse. Only for a very short time could people, and then only the most short-sighted, think of refashioning the foundations of Marx’s theory under the influence of a few years of industrial boom and prosperity. Realities very soon made it clear to the revisionists that crises were not a thing of the past: prosperity was followed by a crisis. The forms, the sequence, the picture of particular crises changed, but crises remained an inevitable component of the capitalist system. While uniting production, the cartels and trusts at the same time, and in a way that was obvious to all, aggravated the anarchy of production, the insecurity of existence of the proletariat and the oppression of capital, thereby intensifying class antagonisms to an unprecedented degree. That capitalism is heading for a break-down—in the sense both of individual political and economic crises and of the complete collapse of the entire capitalist system—has been made particularly clear, and on a particularly large scale, precisely by the new giant trusts. The recent financial crisis in America and the appalling increase of unemployment all over Europe, to say nothing of the impending industrial crisis to which many symptoms are pointing—all this has resulted in the recent “theories” of the revisionists having been forgotten by everybody, including, apparently, many of the revisionists themselves. But the lessons which this instability of the intellectuals had given the working class must not be forgotten.

As to the theory of value, it need only be said that apart from the vaguest of hints and sighs, à la Böhm-Bawerk, the revisionists have contributed absolutely nothing, and have therefore left no traces whatever on the development of scientific thought.

In the sphere of politics, revisionism did really try to revise the foundation of Marxism, namely, the doctrine of the class struggle. Political freedom, democracy and universal suffrage remove the ground for the class struggle—we were told—and render untrue the old proposition of the Communist Manifesto that the working men have no country. For, they said, since the “will of the majority” prevails in a democracy, one must neither regard the state as an organ of class rule, nor reject alliances with the progressive, social-reform bourgeoisie against the reactionaries.

It cannot be disputed that these arguments of the revisionists amounted to a fairly well-balanced system of views, namely, the old and well-known liberal-bourgeois views. The liberals have always said that bourgeois parliamentarism destroys classes and class divisions, since the right to vote and the right to participate in the government of the country are shared by all citizens without distinction. The whole history of Europe in the second half of the nineteenth century, and the whole history of the Russian revolution in the early twentieth, clearly show how absurd such views are. Economic distinctions are not mitigated but aggravated and intensified under the freedom of “democratic” capitalism. Parliamentarism does not eliminate, but lays bare the innate character even of the most democratic bourgeois republics as organs of class oppression. By helping to enlighten and to organise immeasurably wider masses of the population than those which previously took an active part in political events, parliamentarism does not make for the elimination of crises and political revolutions, but for the maximum intensification of civil war during such revolutions. The events in Paris in the spring of 1871 and the events in Russia in the winter of 1905 showed as clearly as could be how inevitably this intensification comes about. The French bourgeoisie without a moment’s hesitation made a deal with the enemy of the whole nation, with the foreign army which had ruined its country, in order to crush the proletarian movement. Whoever does not understand the inevitable inner dialectics of parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy—which leads to an even sharper decision of the argument by mass violence than formerly—will never be able on the basis of this parliamentarism to conduct propaganda and agitation consistent in principle, really preparing the working-class masses for victorious participation in such “arguments”. The experience of alliances, agreements and blocs with the social-reform liberals in the West and with the liberal reformists (Cadets) in the Russian revolution, has convincingly shown that these agreements only blunt the consciousness of the masses, that they do not enhance but weaken the actual significance of their struggle, by linking fighters with elements who are least capable of fighting and most vacillating and treacherous. Millerandism in France—the biggest experiment in applying revisionist political tactics on a wide, a really national scale—has provided a practical appraisal of revisionism that will never be forgotten by the proletariat all over the world.

A natural complement to the economic and political tendencies of revisionism was its attitude to the ultimate aim of the socialist movement. “The movement is everything, the ultimate aim is nothing"—this catch-phrase of Bernstein’s expresses the substance of revisionism better than many long disquisitions. To determine its conduct from case to case, to adapt itself to the events of the day and to the chopping and changing of petty politics, to forget the primary interests of the proletariat and the basic features of the whole capitalist system, of all capitalist evolution, to sacrifice these primary interests for the real or assumed advantages of the moment—such is the policy of revisionism. And it patently follows from the very nature of this policy that it may assume an infinite variety of forms, and that every more or less “new” question, every more or less unexpected and unforeseen turn of events, even though it change the basic line of development only to an insignificant degree and only for the briefest period, will always inevitably give rise to one variety of revisionism or another.

The inevitability of revisionism is determined by its class roots in modern society. Revisionism is an international phenomenon. No thinking socialist who is in the least informed can have the slightest doubt that the relation between the orthodox and the Bernsteinians in Germany, the Guesdists and the Jaurèsists (and now particularly the Broussists) in France, the Social Democratic Federation and the Independent Labour Party in Great Britain, Brouckère and Vandervelde in Belgium, the Integralists and the Reformists in Italy, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks in Russia, is everywhere essentially similar, notwithstanding the immense variety of national conditions and historical factors in the present state of all these countries. In reality, the “division” within the present international socialist movement is now proceeding along the same lines in all the various countries of the world, which testifies to a tremendous advance compared with thirty or forty years ago, when heterogeneous trends in the various countries were struggling within the one international socialist movement. And that “revisionism from the left” which has taken shape in the Latin countries as “revolutionary syndicalism”,[4] is also adapting itself to Marxism, “amending” it: Labriola in Italy and Lagardelle in France frequently appeal from Marx who is understood wrongly to Marx who is understood rightly.

We cannot stop here to analyse the ideological content of this revisionism, which as yet is far from having developed to the same extent as opportunist revisionism: it has not yet become international, has not yet stood the test of a single big practical battle with a socialist party in any single country. We confine ourselves therefore to that “revisionism from the right” which was described above.

Wherein lies its inevitability in capitalist society? Why is it more profound than the differences of national peculiarities and of degrees of capitalist development? Because in every capitalist country, side by side with the proletariat, there are always broad strata of the petty bourgeoisie, small proprietors. Capitalism arose and is constantly arising out of small production. A number of new “middle strata” are inevitably brought into existence again and again by capitalism (appendages to the factory, work at home, small workshops scattered all over the country to meet the requirements of big industries, such as the bicycle and automobile industries, etc.). These new small producers are just as inevitably being cast again into the ranks of the proletariat. It is quite natural that the petty-bourgeois world-outlook should again and again crop up in the ranks of the broad workers’ parties. It is quite natural that this should be so and always will be so, right up to the changes of fortune that will take place in the proletarian revolution. For it would be a profound mistake to think that the “complete” proletarianisation of the majority of the population is essential for bringing about such a revolution. What we now frequently experience only in the domain of ideology, namely, disputes over theoretical amendments to Marx; what now crops up in practice only over individual side issues of the labour movement, as tactical differences with the revisionists and splits on this basis—is bound to be experienced by the working class on an incomparably larger scale when the proletarian revolution will sharpen all disputed issues, will focus all differences on points which are of the most immediate importance in determining the conduct of the masses, and will make it necessary in the heat of the fight to distinguish enemies from friends, and to cast out bad allies in order to deal decisive blows at the enemy.

The ideological struggle waged by revolutionary Marxism against revisionism at the end of the nineteenth century is but the prelude to the great revolutionary battles of the proletariat, which is marching forward to the complete victory of its cause despite all the waverings and weaknesses of the petty bourgeoisie.

NOTES

[1] See Studies in the Philosophy of Marxism by Bogdanov, Bazarov and others. This is not the place to discuss the book, and I must at present confine myself to stating that in the very near future I shall prove in a series of articles, or in a separate pamphlet, that everything I have said in the text about neo-Kantian revisionists essentially applies also to these “new” neo-Humist and neo-Berkeleyan revisionists. (See present edition, Vol. 14.—Ed.) —Lenin

[2] Lenin quotes from K. Marx’s afterword to the second edition of Volume One of Capital (see K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow, 1958, p. 456).

[3] Böhm-Bawerk, E.—an Austrian bourgeois economist.

[4] “Revolutionary syndicalism"— a petty-bourgeois semi-anarchist trend that made its appearance in the labour movement of a number of West-European countries at the close of the nineteenth century. The syndicalists saw no need for the working class to engage in political struggle, they repudiated the leading role of the Party and the dictatorship of the proletariat. They believed that by organising a general strike of the workers the trade unions (in France—syndicats) could, without a revolution, overthrow capitalism and take over control of production.

>>2804920
>That said OP, sneaking in that Reagan quote at the end was very funny.
finally, someone who is smart AND has a sense of humor

>>2804318
1: different anons
2: you have to say why the quotes are "out of context" and what the proper context is
3: just because a stupid person replies to the thread doesn't mean that was OP's plan all along. you can reasonably expect that to happen in any thread

>>2804191
>>2804144
>Lenin answered your libshit socdem concern trolling by retorting yes we are dogmatic
nowhere in that quote does lenin agree with the accusation of dogmatic, instead he deconstructs it.

but since we are having a "quote lenin" contest, here he indisputably concludes Marxism is NOT a dogma.

<It is precisely because Marxism is not a lifeless dogma, not a completed, ready-made, immutable doctrine, but a living guide to action, that it was bound to reflect the astonishingly abrupt change in the conditions of social life.

source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1910/dec/23.htm

the irony here is that any appeal to the authority of Lenin comes across as dogmatic, even when I am appealing to him saying that Marxism is NOT dogmatic. There is a tension here; the tension between appealing to the past, and using Marxism as a living method. This is the tension that is highlighted whenever any of the great figures of Marxsim have tried to elucidate that it is not a dogma, and meant to be applied contextually to the local and present situation

>>2805064
>you have to say why the quotes are "out of context" and what the proper context is
they will never ever ever ever do this lol, too much work.

>>2803034
>labor is not the main defining factor of the price of some product.
Marx never said that though. You are refuting what you imagine Marx said based on wikipedia, youtube, chatgpt summaries of Marx.

Let's read Marx together, shall we?

>Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power. The above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct insofar as it is implied that labor is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments. But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.

• Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875
  
  

Your understanding of Marx resembles the very same people Marx was criticizing. Today we have a huge problem with vulgar marxists who both treat Marxism as dogmatism while at the same time not even doing the reading. You are not guilty of being a vulgar marxist, but you are guilty of not doing the reading. Sadly the people arguing with you are mostly guilty of both, so it makes you more smug and bold when they reply.

>>2805134
If not labour, then what is "the main defining factor of the price of some product"?

>>2805088
Marxism being a living method does not mean that anything goes, that applying Marxism to the particularities of any one country or time means anything can be Marxist. The quote you cite is an incomplete one, probably because just one sentence after that Lenin states "Resolute resistance to this disintegration, a resolute and persistent struggle to uphold the fundamentals of Marxism, was again placed on the order of the day." He goes on to say in the same paragraph: "The “revaluation of all values” in the various spheres of social life led to a “revision” of the most abstract and general philosophical fundamentals of Marxism. The influence of bourgeois philosophy in its diverse idealist shades found expression in the Machist epidemic that broke out among the Marxists. The repetition of “slogans” learnt by rote but not understood and not thought out led to the widespread prevalence of empty phrase-mongering." It's not enough to repeat "Marxism isn't a dogma" as if such a mantra would itself make your own thinking non-dogmatic. Again, Lenin correctly criticizes the use of such slogans without grasping the full meaning.

Marxism is a living method that moves according to the needs and conditions of particular times and places. This doesn't mean that it doesn't have fundamentals that comprise its essence. Like how all matter is comprised of fundamental particles — if you remove a proton from a Carbon atom nucleus, it is no longer Carbon — Marxism and the socialist mode of production have fundamental features which if removed destroy their essence and make them something else entirely. There is a major difference between acknowledging this, citing others who have explained this fact in a definitive way (Lenin), and dogmatism. As a teacher, I don't need to reinvent my explanation of mitochondria or darwinian evolution each year to avoid being dogmatic. I cite others who have already produced insightful and engaging explanations of these concepts. The tension you gesture towards is a false one, constructing a dogmatic strawman to justify eclecticism.

>>2805140
it doesn't matter because the working class is exploited whether or not their labor is the main defining factor in the final price of a commodity. it is as simple and elementary as realizing that you can pay someone just enough to stay alive, even though they produce enough to keep several people alive. This is the basis of all exploitative systems so far: slavery, serfdom, wage labor. Only the particular forms of exploitation have changed to match the level of technological, political, economic, social, and scientific development.

But just so you say I didn't dodge the question: the answer is scarcity. The final market price is defined by scarcity. But scarcity is just a term for how much labor time it takes on average to find something and bring it to market, which are forms of labor that have to be done anyway. In the case of raw materials or finished commodities they have to be filtered, transported, refined, assembled. Even the most basic thing like a fruit which grows on a tree has to be found, plucked, transported. Labor.

>>2805147
>Marxism being a living method does not mean that anything goes
Of course not. You have to apply the method to the unique conditions, without being revisionist. The problem is people will accuse non-revisionism of being revisionism, and revisionism of being non-revisionism. Especially on here.

> The quote you cite is an incomplete one, probably because just one sentence after that Lenin states "Resolute resistance to this disintegration, a resolute and persistent struggle to uphold the fundamentals of Marxism, was again placed on the order of the day." He goes on to say in the same paragraph: "The “revaluation of all values” in the various spheres of social life led to a “revision” of the most abstract and general philosophical fundamentals of Marxism. The influence of bourgeois philosophy in its diverse idealist shades found expression in the Machist epidemic that broke out among the Marxists. The repetition of “slogans” learnt by rote but not understood and not thought out led to the widespread prevalence of empty phrase-mongering." It's not enough to repeat "Marxism isn't a dogma" as if such a mantra would itself make your own thinking non-dogmatic. Again, Lenin correctly criticizes the use of such slogans without grasping the full meaning.

I completely agree. There was an anon who asserted that Lenin said Marxism is a dogma, then quoted Lenin not saying that at all. Please check out the context of the conversation. The rest of Lenin's quote wasn't needed for the purposes of refuting that anon, since that wasn't the part that proved him wrong (nor would quoting it have proved him right, it would have simply made him feel like he had something to latch onto, something he could insist that he quote "proved" Lenin quote "told the shitlibs" quote "yes we are dogmatic". which never happened, I'm sure you can agree.

>Marxism is a living method that moves according to the needs and conditions of particular times and places. This doesn't mean that it doesn't have fundamentals that comprise its essence. Like how all matter is comprised of fundamental particles — if you remove a proton from a Carbon atom nucleus, it is no longer Carbon — Marxism and the socialist mode of production have fundamental features which if removed destroy their essence and make them something else entirely. There is a major difference between acknowledging this, citing others who have explained this fact in a definitive way (Lenin), and dogmatism. As a teacher, I don't need to reinvent my explanation of mitochondria or darwinian evolution each year to avoid being dogmatic. I cite others who have already produced insightful and engaging explanations of these concepts. The tension you gesture towards is a false one, constructing a dogmatic strawman to justify eclecticism.

You are completely correct and I wouldn't dream of arguing against any of this.

>>2804761
>Inequality.org has been tracking inequality-related news and views for nearly two decades. A project of the Institute for Policy Studies since 2011

>The Institute for Policy Studies is an American progressive think tank, formed in 1963 and based in Washington, D.C.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

>>2805149
>The final market price is defined by scarcity. But scarcity is just a term for how much labor time it takes on average to find something and bring it to market
So… Labour is the "the main defining factor of the price of some product", via scarcity?

>>2805176
Scarcity just means it takes more labor to bring to market. Marxism focuses on exploitation. Capitalism has already "solved" scarcity through technology, but repeatedly re-imposes it artificially. This is called "artificial scarcity." It can only happen because of private property, which as a social norm and legal institution allows the bourgeoisie to destroy abundance instead of redistributing it for use.

Commodities that exist in huge abundance have their prices drop until they are no longer profitable. This is called a crisis of overproduction. To solve the "problem" of non-profitability and abundance, the bourgeoisie have these commodities destroyed. This is why you see them, for example, pour milk down the drain to stabilize prices on a regular basis.

https://cepr.net/publications/how-dairy-monopolies-keep-milk-off-the-shelves/

This is not new. Fourier first realized the need for moving beyond capitalism in 1799 when the French government asked him to oversee the destruction of rice because prices went too low.

>>2805189
Right, but labour is "the main defining factor of the price of some product", you would agree?

>>2805176
Scarcity is just labor time from the standpoint of supply.
Labor time is just scarcity from the standpoint of exploitation.
The capitalist describes the same phenomenon from the supply standpoint
The worker describes the same phenomenon from the exploitation standpoint.

The capitalist wants to defend artificial scarcity and exploitation.

The worker wants to attack artificial scarcity and exploitation.

Artificial scarcity and exploitation are allowed because private property is not just the right to own something, but the right to destroy it to prevent others from having it.

>>2805193
it seems you are trying set a trap and get me to say something less careful than I would otherwise say, so just say what you want to get at.

>>2805198
>A trap
Where is the trap? If you dont know, just say so;
is labour the main defining factor of the price of some product?

>>2805166
See >>2804762 >>2804687
>>2805088
See >>2804144 >>2804208

yawn

>>2805195
Right, so it is correct to say that labour is "the main defining factor of the price of some product"?

>>2805213
>>2805209
I don't see how any of those posts you linked have anything to do with me pointing out that "inequality.org" is a US think tank

>>2805218
i gave a more careful answer than you want. now tell me why you think my actual answer is wrong. you want to box me into a false binary for a reason. I've been over this with you already. What would you say to a person who says "yes?" what would you say to a person who says "no?"

>>2805212
market price or natural price?

>>2805236
Either
>>2805235
>Careful
You are acting as if you are in danger
You originally said no, its scarcity, but admitted that scarcity is a product of labour - if scarcity is a product of labour, is labour not the first cause?

>>2805212
if you say price without specifying market price or equilibrium price you're just going to reset the entire conversation because we will have to once again explain the difference between equilibrium and market price.

>>2805243
>Either
There's a serious difference between them that cannot be ignored, and Marx does not ignore it in his analysis.

>>2805253
>>2805254
So give the cause of each.
What is the the main defining factor of market price?
What is the the main defining factor of natural price?

>>2803913
>static, unchanging
well thats not what revisionism means so not really relevant

>>2803913
>innovation
marxism isnt islam lol

>why all the controversy about "revisionism?
it means throwing away principles not simply adapting to material conditions

>>2805436
does innovation have some special meaning in the context of islam

>>2805262
>What is the the main defining factor of natural price?
socially necessary labor time, in production
>What is the the main defining factor of market price?
supply and demand, to the extent that it deviates from natural price

>>2805436
>well thats not what revisionism means so not really relevant
>it means throwing away principles not simply adapting to material conditions

well I'm glad you understand that. too bad a lot of others don't. also many seem unable to distinguish when principles are being abandoned and when an adaptive strategy is being used. that is how you get people on here who say socialism has never even been tried.

>>2805651
>socially necessary labor time, in production
>supply and demand, to the extent that it deviates from natural price
So would it be right to say that labour is the "the main defining factor of the price of some product"?

>>2805648
yeah its like their version of revisionism lol maybe closer to eclecticism or smth
except religion actually endorses dogmatism so…

>>2805659

Not necessarily. The labour theory of value =/= the labour theory of any singular product prices. That's volume one, chapter one of capital.

Really the main equality is total labour time = sum of all prices (ie. Sum (i=[1,n]) of ((pi)x(ui)), where pi is the price of item i & ui is the number of units produced, & n is total number of products. All these embedded in a given time period)

>>2805667
>The labour theory of value =/= the labour theory of any singular product price
>the main equality is total labour time = sum of all prices
So labour is the main defining factor of the price of all products, but not products in particular? What is "natural price" measuring, then?

>>2805675
That's a different anon. But I am the original anon you were talking to. Can you answer a question for once? How come when I write 3 paragraphs to you, you quote one sentence and ignore the rest, not even specifying whether you read it, agreed with it, or disagreed with it.

>>2805675
idk man you tell us what you think

>>2805678
>idk
Okay, so like I said, you should have began with that.
I guess we're done here.
>>2805678
So which was your last post, and do you know whether or not labour is "the main defining factor of the price of some product"?

>>2805684
>presuming the anon who finally told you "idk" is the same anon you were talking to all along
how convenient. so you aren't going to tell us what you think? you were just JAQing off all along and didn't care about the answers you got?

>>2805684
"the main defining factor of the price of some product"
is a phrase you have used, curiously in quotes. who are you quoting? Like what is even your goal with this conversation? What position are you trying to get people to arrive at?

>>2805253
anon can't say why the pic is wrong, only continue implying that natural price and market price are the same thing, which his misunderstanding hinges upon.

>>2805712
I got an answer; all prices are determined by the total quantity of labour - but what then determines products in particular? That is not answered. If all prices added together equal all labour, then it is sufficient to see labour as "the main defining factor of the price of some product", no?
>>2805717
>who are you quoting?
You should know if you have been following the discussion.
>what is even your goal with this conversation?
To get an explanation why labour either is or is not "the main defining factor of the price of some product". It was first answered "no", and "scarcity" was given as the cause, but then "scarcity" itself was given a cause in labour, yet this primary cause was not affirmed, and so we suffer this impotence to affirm the fact that labour is in fact "the main defining factor of the price of some product." Once this is admitted, the discussion can conclude.

>>2805754
>You should know if you have been following the discussion.
I have been. I never said "main defining factor of the price" it is a quote you use only .

>>2805754
> so we suffer this impotence to affirm the fact that labour is in fact "the main defining factor of the price of some product." Once this is admitted, the discussion can conclude.

because supply and demand cause price to deviate from value. marx was talking about value not price. you want to use the fact that prices deviate from value to prove marx wrong even though marx acknowledged prices deviate from values. that's the whole point of you deliberately confusing market and natural price and saying "price" in general and refusing to distinguish with them. because marx was talking about exploitation within the production process.

>>2805765
>I never said "main defining factor of the price"
I never claimed you did; but do you dispute it? If so, what is "the main defining factor of the price of some product", in fact? If it is scarcity, is scarcity caused by labour? If so, then is labour not "the main defining factor of the price of some product"?

>>2805193
>Right, but
you have admitted i am right now the "discussion can conclude"

(this is how you talk to people)

>>2805779
i dispute the fact that you aren't specifying what kind of price, and until I know what kind of price you want to know about, I can't tell what your game is. You won't say what your opinion is, you only ever JAQ off. At least try to give it to me like a flowchart

>if I say X
what does that prove
>if I say Y
what does that prove

use branched reasoning here instead of waiting with bated breath for me to bite your bait which relies on failing to distinguish between market and natural price

>>2805779
there are multiple kinds of price and multiple kinds of scarcity btw.

>>2805781
>you have admitted i am right
Sure, so does your statement "Scarcity just means it takes more labor to bring to market" then qualify the judgement that labour is "the main defining factor of the price of some product"?
>>2805773
>marx was talking about value not price
So would you simply prefer the statement that labour is "the main defining factor of the value of some product"?
>>2805785
>>2805789
There's nothing more to be said: >>2805149
>The final market price is defined by scarcity. But scarcity is just a term for how much labor time it takes on average to find something and bring it to market
What needs to be added, except a "yes"?

>>2805803
>So would you simply prefer the statement that labour is "the main defining factor of the value of some product"?
but it is. because value doesn't take supply and demand into account. value is just the value added in production. it is isolating the production process as an object of study. That's why if you ignore supply and demand, and just look at equilibrium prices, they are still different from one another, and the reason different commodities have different equilibrium prices is because they took different amounts of labor time, scarcity notwithstanding.

but again, "labor theory of value" is a misnomer. we are talking about a theory of socially necessary labor time within the sphere of production, not within the sphere of circulation.
>What needs to be added, except a "yes"?
because market price isn't value AKA natural price AKA socially necessary labor time, which is why I don't simply say "yes"

>>2805824
>but it is
So… yes?
>because market price isn't value AKA natural price AKA socially necessary labor time, which is why I don't simply say "yes"
So if I write that labour is "the main defining factor of the natural price of some product", you agree?

>>2805844
>So if I write that labour is "the main defining factor of the natural price of some product", you agree?
yes, of course because you specified natural price. did you think I was arguing AGAINST marx this whole time?

>>2805856
And natural price is the same as scarcity?

>>2805864
no it's the price form of socially necessary labor time

>>2805870
So scarcity has no relationship to natural price, and you would deny that "scarcity is just a term for how much labor time it takes on average to find something and bring it to market"?

>>2805885
it's the price form of socially necessary labor time, which takes into account the scarcity of the raw materials, since scarcity effects the labor time required to acquire and transport raw materials, but scarcity itself isn't the only factor in the natural price, because there is also the labor of assembling a commodity from its raw materials in the production process. And even in the case of something simple like a raw material, it has to be refined, purified, weighed, put into packaging, etc. So the final commodity is not just the labor time resulting from the scarcity, but also the labor time of the rest of the production process.

>>2805675

If I remember correctly, natural price is an abstraction borrowed from Adam Smith: Its what a product would be worth in labour time if it exchanged exactly for the labour time it took to produce it (including input materials & depreciation of capital stock) in a given place & time.

I was talking about market prices in general. Note though I am implicitly taking a tssi style interpretation of value theory. So there aren't necessarily equilibrium prices, just actual marlet prices at given times & places.

>>2805901
>So the final commodity is not just the labor time resulting from the scarcity, but also the labor time of the rest of the production process.
Right, so we're back at the same problem; since if labour is not "the main defining factor of the market price of some product", and scarcity is determined by labour, then neither labour or scarcity can explain anything. If supply and demand deviate from natural price, then what causes the different rates of supply and demand in relation to one another? What is the actual cause of market price?

>>2805918
>neither labour or scarcity can explain anything
I don't follow your argument. your premise doesn't support this conclusion
>What is the actual cause of market price?
supply and demand cause the market price, but when they cancel each other out you are left with a natural price which can only be the price form of the socially necessary labor time

>>2805906
i am the other anon responding to him and I think equilibrium prices have to exist, because if take into account that different commodities have different equilibrium prices, you can only explain that with the production process. at which point bourgeois apologists are no longer able to use the market price as a cope to say labor is compensated exactly what it deserves

>>2805989

Well in the TSSI framework, equilibrium is not assumed from the outset, it has to be shown to come about as a result of some kind of convergent convergent processes.

Ergo, prices of different commodities can change over time, and move with ranges or even diverge potentially. Movement of capital into & out of sectors (as well as potentially a tendency for profit rate equalization) among other things contribute to determining individual prices at given times & places.

Poor quality unfortunately, because the originals where taken down :(

>>2806029
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out

notice that >>2805088 responded to >>2804144, and the author of >>2804144 sought fit to redirect the author of >>2805088 to >>2804144 once again, because had no real counter to his own incorrect assertions being pointed out.

>>2806029
Let me start with the video:

>Poor quality unfortunately, because the originals where taken down :(

I finished watching this at the gym tonight. The audio and video quality was low, but I think I understood about 75% of it, and it has gotten my interest to look more into this. So, thank you for sharing.

>Well in the TSSI framework, equilibrium is not assumed from the outset, it has to be shown to come about as a result of some kind of convergent processes.

Isn't that how averages work in general? Isn't socially necessary labor time an average emerging from convergent processes in the sphere of production? Same with equilibrium price.

<The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time.

<Capital Vol 1 Ch 1

>Ergo, prices of different commodities can change over time, and move with ranges or even diverge potentially. Movement of capital into & out of sectors (as well as potentially a tendency for profit rate equalization) among other things contribute to determining individual prices at given times & places.

I don't see how that's necessarily mutually exclusive with the idea that the socially necessary labor time is identical to the equilibrium price.

>>2805987
>I don't follow your argument
Its not my argument, its your argument. You are attempting to entirely disconnect market price from natural price; labour from scarcity, supply from demand. Thus, nothing is explained. What are supply and demand measured by? What is scarcity measured by?

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/five1.htm
Engels says explicitly that “with each epoch making discovery even in the sphere of natural science [“not to speak of the history of mankind”], materialism has to change its form” (Ludwig Feuerbach, Germ. ed., p. 19).[6] Hence, a revision of the “form” of Engels’ materialism, a revision of his natural-philosophical propositions is not only not “revisionism,” in the accepted meaning of the term, but, on the contrary, is demanded by Marxism. We criticise the Machians not for making such a revision, but for their purely revisionist trick of betraying the essence of materialism under the guise of criticising its form and of adopting the fundamental precepts of reactionary bourgeois philosophy without making the slightest attempt to deal directly, frankly and definitely with assertions of Engels’ which are unquestionably extremely important to the given question, as, for example, his assertion that “. . . motion without matter is unthinkable” (Anti-Dühring, p. 50).[7]

>>2806197
>a revision of the “form” of Engels’ materialism, a revision of his natural-philosophical propositions is not only not “revisionism,” in the accepted meaning of the term, but, on the contrary, is demanded by Marxism

>We criticise the Machians not for making such a revision, but for their purely revisionist trick of betraying the essence of materialism under the guise of criticising its form


So… revisions aren't revisionism, but "betraying the essence" is revisionism… so why is it even called revisionism if it has nothing to do with revision and everything to do with "betraying the essence"?

And who has the authority how does one decide in practice whether something is merely a necessary "revision of form" or a "revisionist" "betrayal of essence"?

>>2806416
Well this depends on the situation since Lenin here is talking about betraying the essence of materialism but you can take any fundamental proposition of Marxism (proletarian dictatorship for example) and then betray its essence. What determines the correctness of a (scientific) revision? If the new theory is more sound than the previous one (has better predictability I'd say)

>>2806437
>>2806197
>>2806416
It's all increasingly based on vibes, especially after Gorbachev killed the USSR. You've got people who call you revisionist if you don't want to speedrun a repeat of the 20th century. You've got people who call you revisionist if you don't "critically" (lol) or uncritically "support" (cheer for) every bourgeois regional power against whatever the latest depravity of burger imperialism is, even if the burgers brought that regional power into existence in the first place. We live in Stalin's "blackest reaction" and nobody is bold enough to do the necessary "revision of form" because they're afraid of being accused of a "revisionist betrayal of essence". You have billions of people who sympathize with communism, but regard each other with hostility and suspicion, and accuse each other of being anti communists, while the bourgeoisie are much more unified, even if not perfectly so. There are people who even on here will accuse you of "quote mining" and "taking Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin out of context" while at the same time never saying what the proper context is because they don't agree even with each other. There are people who are very eager to accuse everyone of being "revisionist" but even 1 day of dealing with the actual contradictions of wielding political power after seizing it would turn them "revisionist" in a heart beat. Instead of "What is to be done?" we have a million "What isn't to be done."

As for "predictability" that is usually decided in a lab theory for "normal" science but we are talking about "revolutionary" science here which is historically MUCH more rare.

>>2806442
>As for "predictability" that is usually decided in a lab for "normal" science but we are talking about "revolutionary" science here which is historically MUCH more rare.
meant to say lab setting* here. and by more rare i mean much smaller sample size to decide what ideas have actual predictive validity. and it's harder to isolate independent variables, especially when you have so many unique local conditions. Like the American and Haitian revolutions were both "bourgeois" revolutions but very very different from each other, for example.

>>2806138

Ah I see the problem. Freeman deals with at one point in the video: In economics (both mainstream & marxian) equilibrium price is theoretically distinct from average price.

For example, in mainstream economics, the equilibrium price of a product is established by a constrained optimization problem (which is instantaneous).

The average price however is just an average of the market prices that prevailed over some period.

The socially necessary labour time on the other hand is the average labour required to produce a commodity in a given industry at a given time period. Its not a market price nor an equilibrium price in the neoclassical sense. Its measured in labour time and not in currency units.

That said even if you were to convert it into currency units using a monetary expression of labour time, it would still not necessarily equal the average market price nor even the abstract "equilibrium price'. This is so because market & equilibrium prices contain redistribute (labour) value across sectors due to a variety of factors (including potentially: profit rate equalization, differential rent, absolute rent, interest, royalties, taxes, subsidies, etc.)

>>2806507
OK thank you for the answers. You are basically the only person on here I've gotten to answer questions like these in MONTHS. All this time I thought equilibrium price = price of the labor content of the finished commodity, while any market price that deviated from equilibrium price = knock-on effects of "the market" having nothing to do with the production process.

>>2806507
SNLT still has to be transformed into a form of prices otherwise you're dealing with incomparable elements of society. The relative labor value differentials of bulk commodity goods should have strong correlation with their relative price differentials.

>>2805717
>Like what is even your goal with this conversation?
To ruin any productive conversation about Marxism.

>>2806537

So this a bit of an issue of contention because you have things like differential rent, where the price (converted into labour time by a melt) will be far in excess of the snlt.

Still, you have a point: The instant a good is sold its labour content becomes equal to that of its price in labour time equivalent. If this were not so there would be a problem with the accpunt wherein the cost of production of firms downstream would not be made up of the actual cost of their intermediate inputs & fixed capital depreciation.

>>2806526

You are welcome. I try my best with the limited knowledge I have (most of which is just undoing misconceptions & clarifying some basic concepts)

This place has deteriorated intellectually a bit over the years to be frank, though it was never an amazing bastion of theoretical discussion.

>>2807123

*accounting