/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2806901
>Marx observes many times in his work that a new stage of history can only emerge when the time is right
and then he also observes, that in 1871, this was signaled by the paris commune
and then lenin observes, that in 1917, this was signaled with the petrograd soviets
idk

Because it makes bourgs and reactionaries butthurt lolz

>>2806905
Well yes, and they were both wrong as we now know. I guess the question is, how do we know when the material conditions for the existence of the new superior order have truly matured? Could we even know?

>>2806901
The classes are always struggling, Marxism is just the struggle made known (conscious), the struggle continues even if all knowledge of Marxism would be eradicated just as gravity would still exist even if Newton never 'discovered' it

>>2806911
>and they were both wrong as we now know
In what way where they wrong and in what way do we know that? And who's we?

it's called historical materialism not historical determinism,and if we wanna fight with quotes,communism is "the real movement" and not about "establishing" something

>>2806915
I'm not sure this is relevant.
>>2806917
>In what way where they wrong
The productive forces of capitalism have continued to develop considerably, so capitalism had not fully developed in Marx and Lenin's time.
>And who's we?
Really dude? Why are you doing this to me?
>>2806920
>it's called historical materialism not historical determinism
But Marx does at the very least imply that there are minimum conditions for progress into the next stage. No? Also, I'm not "fighting" anyone, this isn't an epic YouTube refutation of Marxism.

>>2806901
Marx and Engels supported the idea that a socialist revolution should be carried out as soon as possible without waiting for capitalism to develop “on its own” and destroy the peasantry. Lenin’s policy of worker-peasant alliance, developing of agricultural co-operatives and using state-capitalism as a transition from semi-feudalism and undeveloped capitalism to socialism is in accordance with Marx and Engels.

<We, of course, are decidedly on the side of the small peasant; we shall do everything at all permissible to make his lot more bearable, to facilitate his transition to the co-operative should he decide to do so, and even to make it possible for him to remain on his small holding for a protracted length of time to think the matter over, should he still be unable to bring himself to this decision. We do this not only because we consider the small peasant living by his own labor as virtually belonging to us, but also in the direct interest of the Party. The greater the number of peasants whom we can save from being actually hurled down into the proletariat, whom we can win to our side while they are still peasants, the more quickly and easily the social transformation will be accomplished. It will serve us no reason to wait with this transformation until capitalist production has developed everywhere to its extreme consequences, until the last small craftsman and the last small peasant have fallen victim to capitalist large-scale production.

<Engels, The Peasant Question in France and Germany

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/peasant-question/ch02.htm

This is what Lenin said in 1923:

<Infinitely stereotyped, for instance, is the argument they learned by rote during the development of West-European Social-Democracy, namely, that we are not yet ripe for socialism, but as certain “learned” gentleman among them put it, the objective economic premises for socialism do not exist in our country… “The development of the productive forces of Russia has not yet attained the level that makes socialism possible.” All the heroes of the Second International, including, of course, Sukhanov, beat the drums about this proposition. They keep harping on this incontrovertible proposition in a thousand different keys, and think that it is decisive criterion of our revolution… You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, and then start moving toward socialism? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical sequence of events are impermissible or impossible?

<Lenin, “Our Revolution” (1923)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm

Lenin reiterates that it is feasable and necessary to implement measures of proletarian state-control, which is not socialism, but a step towards it:

<Under no circumstances can the party of the proletariat set itself the aim of “introducing” socialism in a country of small peasants so long as the overwhelming majority of the population has not come to realise the need for a socialist revolution.

<But only bourgeois sophists, hiding behind “near-Marxist” catchwords, can deduce from this truth a justification of the policy of post poning immediate revolutionary measures, the time for which is fully ripe; measures which have been frequently resorted to during the war by a number of bourgeois states… the nationalisation of the land, of all the banks and capitalist syndicates, or, at least, the immediate establishment of the control of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, etc., over them… which are only steps towards socialism, and which are perfectly feasible economically.

<Lenin, The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution (1917)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/tasks/ch09.htm

Have you forgotten what Marx wrote about what communists are in the manifesto?

<The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

<The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

<The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

[…]

<The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

<Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

[…]

<When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

<In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II: Proletarians and Communists

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

>>2806928
>a socialist revolution should be carried out as soon as possible without waiting for capitalism to develop “on its own” and destroy the peasantry.
And yet in the Ruzzian thread you stated something along the lines that capitalism is ought to be developed after an anti-imperialist struggle in the third world.

Can the socialist NAO button be pressed or not?

>>2806901
national revolutions happen all the time and should happen, but the odds of long term change (a communist revolution in a country in africa or latam would hardly usher in a new stage of history) are slim compared to global revolutions, which like marx says can only happen when the time is right

because materialists constantly have to reiterate the primacy of economic origins of social phenomena in endless counterweight to idealists. it ends up being almost self-vulgarizing but its difficult to present the more nuanced & accurate version without sounding like youre watering down and backpedaling. there is no contradiction between asserting that economic reproduction has ultimate causal primacy while still allowing for human subjectivity to be operative as an emergent property that has a degree of independence without being any difference in substance. a boulder, a hurricane, and a human mind are all purely material phenomena but they are distinct systems that emerge from more basic systems. that doesnt mean a boulder is identical to its constitutive elements arranged in any arbitrary way, a boulder is distinct because of the way its constitutive elements are actually arranged. water isnt "just" 2 hydrogen 1 oxygen, the arrangement of those atoms bonds, i.e. their relations to eachother, are what make water qualitatively distinct. in the same way that the human mind isnt "just" material in the sense of vulgar determinism, it is a qualitatively distinct system, distinct from other material systems, i.e. independent from other material systems. among the distinct qualities of the human mind are some degree of more or less unified phenomenal experience that includes a sense of agency and responsibility. that sense of being in control of ourselves isnt "illusory" any more than its transcendent, 'agency' is simply the name we give to the activity of the system that is us. we identify with it and attribute its activity to ourselves and we're not wrong to because what else would you be. the issue is when you take your spontaneous and inevitable identification with the phenomena of existing, and try to instinct that the contours of that experience must reflect some kind of metaphysical order to the universe. the experience of having a self isnt "false", what's false is assuming that the self-evidence of subjectivity indicates anything about the world beyond itself. theres no reason to assume that consciousness and subjectivity are anything other than just a quality of a certain material system, matter relating to itself in such a way. but we do pareidolia with everything, so its very hard to disentangle from the feeling that the universe in general must somehow correspond to our experience.

we cant stop presuming that there is some "realm of ideas" in a similar way to how you cant stop seeing a face in the knots of a tree that really look like a face.

but the insistence that there is no metaphysical corollary to our subjectivity (which is ultimately "only" a product of material systems) has no real bearing on whether or not we have subjectivity and can act.

"According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately
determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real
life. More 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…. Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for
the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic
side than is due to it. We had to emphasize the main principle vis-à-vis our
adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or the
opportunity to allow the other elements involved in the interaction to come
into their rights. But when it was a case of presenting a section of history,
that is, of a practical application, it was a different matter and there no error
was possible. Unfortunately, however, it happens only too often that people
think they have fully understood a new theory and can apply it without
more ado from the moment they have mastered its main principles, and
even those not always correctly. And I cannot exempt many of the more
recent ‘Marxists’ from this reproach, for the most amazing rubbish has been
produced in this quarter, too." —Letter from Engels to J. Bloch, London, 21–
22 September 1890

>>2806930
The anti-imperialist struggle is inseparable from following the principles of scientific socialism. Having state capitalism facilitates the socialization of the economy with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Pushing the bourgeois democratic state to its limits, leading to its collapse through class struggle, facilitates the communist cause. Failing to intensify the exploitation of workers facilitates class struggle if there is a fight for radical reforms that do not create complacency, standing in solidarity with workers worldwide and preventing capitalists from profiting and bringing chaos to the bourgeois state.

An anti-imperialist position allows various bourgeois states to develop, enabling communists to assume power. Because of the division and conflict between these capitalist states, sanctions cannot be properly applied against communists who seize power in a country during a communist revolution; therefore, a multipolar world is necessary.

Don't you understand that my position is to not tolerate finance capital co-opting the masses? A victory for finance capital does not signify a communist revolution because this depends on whether a vanguard has prepared the masses for a revolutionary situation; if sacrifices and suffering are necessary, there will be no tolerance for surrender, and traitors will be punished accordingly.

You should read the communist electoral programs in a bourgeois election before the revolution by Marx and Engels then:

<Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

<1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
<2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
<3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
<4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
<5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
[…]
<8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Now with the quote from "The Principles of Communism":

<Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:

[…]

<(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.

(iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people.

<(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.

<(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

<(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.

<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communism

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Now with the quote from "Demands of the Communist Party in Germany":

<5. Maintenance of justice shall be free of charge.

[…]

<10. All private banks will be replaced by a state bank whose bonds will have the character of legal tender.

<This measure will make it possible to regulate credit in the interests of the whole people and will thus undermine the dominance of the large financiers. By gradually replacing gold and silver by paper money, it will cheapen the indispensable instrument of bourgeois trade, the universal means of exchange, and will allow the gold and silver to have an outward effect. Ultimately, this measure is necessary to link the interests of the conservative bourgeoisie to the revolution.

<11. All means of transport: railways, canals, steamships, roads, posts etc. shall be taken in hand by the state. They shall be converted into state property and made available free of charge to the class without financial resources.

<12. In the remuneration of all civil servants there shall be no difference except that those with a family, i.e. with greater needs, shall also receive a larger salary than the others.

<Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, March 1848, Demands of the Communist Party in Germany

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm

Now with the quote from "The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier":

<B. Economic Section
[…]
<3. Legal minimum wage, determined each year according to the local price of food, by a workers' statistical commission;
<4. Legal prohibition of bosses employing foreign workers at a wage less than that of French workers;
[…]
<7. Responsibility of society for the old and the disabled;
<8. Prohibition of all interference by employers in the administration of workers' friendly societies, provident societies, etc., which are returned to the exclusive control of the workers;
[…]
<10. Intervention by the workers in the special regulations of the various workshops; an end to the right usurped by the bosses to impose any penalty on their workers in the form of fines or withholding of wages (decree by the Commune of 27 April 1871);
<11. Annulment of all the contracts that have alienated public property (banks, railways, mines, etc.), and the exploitation of all state-owned workshops to be entrusted to the workers who work there;

<Karl Marx and Jules Guesde, 1880, The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm

The socialist economy will begin when the dictatorship of the proletariat is established in your country and state capitalism is used to bankrupt all the bourgeoisie through public state competition against private enterprises to facilitate bankruptcies, occupations, collectivizations, nationalizations, and socializations until the bourgeois class is extinct, the petty bourgeoisie becomes impossible to exist, and the entire economy can be planned according to the work and needs of the workers without profit. Of course, this stems from the use of revolutionary terror against all those who deny the supremacy of the proletariat as the new ruling class that will abolish private property, abolish the anarchy of production, and abolish social classes.