this is a Dengist way of thinking
You are an immaterial idealist.
I found an unsourced claim that Stalin didn’t want to continue being leader and was voted in anyways.
Can someone give details or source so I can look it up?
Can you please ask this question on >>>/edu/
so I can come back to this on the weekend ?
>>1566344>if the end goal of communism is the abolition of all states globally
ok how do you get to that point?
good luck coodinating revolutions internationally without the power of a state when we can't even get it done in our own countries.
>>1570380>Can you please ask this question on >>>/edu/ so I can come back to this on the weekend ?
is india socialist
What is your definition of socialist?
Is there a place I could access economics and history courses from the PRC?
moving towards socialism
Is the way physics work compatible with materialism (monism), as the rules of physics are still relevant even without human observation?
Yes? Why shouldn't they be?
Because, quantum physics. Quantum mechanics are more probabilistic than deterministic in relation to classical mechanics.
>>1577691>>1578024>more probabilistic than deterministic
both are compatible with materialism
>even without human observation
the "human observation" has nothing to do with physics, its just that to observe something we have to interact with it.
quantum physics is very unintuitive and pretty complicated, if you're not a specialist of the field I'd avoid making statements about it or using it to justify some philosophical position, pop science and sf is now just using it as sf magic
you're wrong about everything.
probabilistic and deterministic are not the same thing. materialism posits that everything is matter and follows laws - deterministically. but quantum physics posits that some things are random and depend on measurement. how can you explain that with materialism? you can't.
physics is not just observing stuff, it is changing stuff. when you measure something in quantum physics, you change its state or result. this is called the observer effect. how can you say that human observation doesn't matter in physics? you can't.
quantum physics shows us things that we can't understand or explain with materialism, like non-locality, entanglement, superposition, uncertainty, and more. these are not sci-fi magic, they are real things that have been tested and proven. how can you ignore quantum physics for philosophy? you can't.
your reply shows that you don't know anything about quantum physics or materialism. you should stop talking about them or using them for your arguments, unless you have studied them properly.
Its part of the cult of fascism to constantly obfuscate the fact that youre a fascist. Its somewhat of a secret society - or used to be.
The libertarian party for example used to be ran expressedly by white supremacists, including ron paul, ringing the call for "states rights" in pathological, eternal reaction. Ofc it was rebranded by "actual" lolberts and so the real players moved on, including richard spencer.
Whenever you ask someone if they are a bigot, they will always deny it too. There are no proud public racists, which is the weakness of the right - they have to operate as a "silent majority". Its cowardice. Even the most vile homophobe for example will deny his homophobia under a veil of moralism - or will deny the concept of hate speech under the category of "free speech".
Everything is impersonalised as an institutional discourse, which is how the right use the liberal system to legitimise their positions.
Is watching vtubers compatible with socialist and communist values? what are the implications of supporting vtubers that are in an agency? the line between ethical consumption and crowdfunding your entertainment blurs
Ideally yes but do you really believe a world revolution would have happen after the establisment of the RSFSR? Any attempt at a full scale war against capitalist powers would've failed so bad it's not even funny
ok thank you you might be right but why did you write it in such an schizo way
the state of this board lmao [spoiler]I've been here for a week[/spoiler]
>>1580226>Is watching vtubers compatible with socialist and communist values?
You mean workers controlling the means of production? I don't see a contradiction, only a waste of money and poor taste. Might as well be buying crack, use that money to help finance the revolution.
Can we make a Turkish general?
Stalin help us, another imbecile has appeared.
Why do people strawman ideologies they dislike ?
Is their ability to argue so weak that it can't complete against the ideology they oppose at full strength , so they need to beat a crippled and flawed version of it to prove their point?
Surely steelmanning would be a better tactic where they dismantle an ideology they dislike at full strength (or even an idealized version of it that is stronger than it actually is) . Because if you can prove the steelman of an ideology is wrong then you have conclusively buried the issue.
you're exactly the kind of retard that shouldnt run his mouth about quantum physics
Different particular readings, correct or incorrect interpretations take hold of particular groups of people, parties, ideologies, sciences who come out with different conclusions, thus making those different groups, different even if they stem from the same point, it's like evolution, is homo sapien and the Neanderthal the same just because they come from a monkey?
>>1581031>how would you respond to this literally who on twitter.com?>3 reposts<wow, even deranged twitter people can't even be bothered. better go post it to letypol!!
Have some self respect anon and -don't- respond, here, on twitter, or even mentally which you have apparently been furiously doing since 4pm yesterday.
were any fascists actually influenced by hegel?
i did not know that.
ᴉuᴉlossnW and especially Giovanni Gentile were both inspired heavily by Hegel. I was actually wondering if Gentiles interpretation of Hegel holds any weight or there are responses to it.
I ignore it/block the person,I'm not a psychologist
don't actually engage just troll and harass they seem like a funny target to cyberbully
Is there any value to be found in anti-politics? Or is it all just weirdos who think government should be run "like a business"?
Didn't the bolsheviks become popular cause they didn't do realpolitik?
im pretty sure brest-litovsk was realpolitik
afaik inverse is true, bolsheviks were extremely effective at realpolitik>>1581379>Is there any value to be found in anti-politics?
WHY DID MARX HAVE TO EXIST WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY
"I call Marx “triple-faced,” because with his particularly grasping spirit he laid a claim on exactly three tactics and his originality no doubt resides in these pan-grasping gests. He encouraged electoral socialism, the conquest of parliaments, social democracy and, though he often sneered at it, the People’s State and State Socialism. He encouraged revolutionary dictatorship. He encouraged simple confidence and abiding, letting “evolution” do the work, self-reduction, almost self-evaporation of the capitalists until the pyramid tumbled over by mathematical laws of his own growth, as if triangular bodies automatically turned somersaults. He copied the first tactics from Louis Blanc, the second from Blanqui, whilst the third correspond to his feeling of being somehow the economic dictator of the universe, as Hegel had been its spiritual dictator. His grasping went further. He hated instinctively libertarian thought and tried to destroy the free thinkers wherever he met them, from Feuerbach and Max Stirner to Proudhon, Bakunin and others. But he wished to add the essence of their teaching as spoils to his other borrowed feathers, and so he relegated at the end of days, after all dictatorship, the prospect of a Stateless, an Anarchist world. The Economic Cagliostro hunted thus with all hounds and ran with all hares, and imposed thus-and his followers after him—an incredible confusion on socialism which, almost a century after 1844, has not yet ended. The social-democrats pray by him; the dictatorial socialist swear by him; the evolutionary socialists sit still and listen to hear evolution evolve, as others listen to the growing of the grass; and some very frugal people drink weak tea and are glad, that at the end of days by Marx’s ipse dixit Anarchy will at last be permitted to unfold. Marx has been like a blight that creeps in and kills everything it touches to European socialism, an immense power for evil, numbing self-thought, insinuating false confidence, stirring up animosity, hatred, absolute intolerance, beginning with his own arrogant literary squabbles and leading to inter-murdering socialism as in Russia, since 1917, which has so very soon permitted reaction to galvanize the undeveloped strata and to cultivate the “”Reinkulturen” of such authoritarianism, the Fascists and their followers. There was, in spite of their personal enmity, some monstrous “inter-breeding” between the two most fatal men of the 19th century, Marx and Mazzini, and their issue are ᴉuᴉlossnW and all the others who disgrace this poor 20th century."
anon, what are you talking about?
Is this OC?
militant quasi-blanquist party cadres calling themselves marxists take control of single states in bourgeois nations that are still embedded in a global capitalist framework, giving rise to "AES" this is still superior to a default bourgeois state, but it is not admittedly the fantastical "everyone everywhere does revolution at once and immediately abolishes the state"
we must not be left-fukuyamists (if you will) and imagine that history ends with revolution
This is what Bakunin actually said:>As far as learning was concerned, Marx was, and still is incomparably more advanced than I. I knew nothing at that time of political economy, I had not yet rid myself of my metaphysical aberrations, and my socialism was only instinctive. Although younger than I, he was already an atheist, a conscious materialist, and an informed socialist. It was precisely at this time that he was elaborating the foundations of his system as it stands today. We saw each other often. I greatly respected him for his learning and for his passionate devotion- thought it was always mingled with vanity- to the cause of the proletariat. I eagerly sought his conversation, which was always instructive and witty when it was not inspired by petty hate, which alas! was only too often the case. There was never any frank intimacy between us- our temperaments did not permit it. He called me a sentimental idealist, and he was right; I called him vain, perfidious, and cunning, and I also was right.>Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Oekonomie, by Karl Marx; Erster Band. This work will need to be translated into French, because nothing, that I know of, contains an analysis so profound, so luminous, so scientific, so decisive, and if I can express it thus, so merciless an expose of the formation of bourgeois capital and the systematic and cruel exploitation that capital continues exercising over the work of the proletariat. The only defect of this work… positivist in direction, based on a profound study of economic works, without admitting any logic other than the logic of the facts - the only defect, say, is that it has been written, in part, but only in part, in a style excessively metaphysical and abstract… which makes it difficult to explain and nearly unapproachable for the majority of workers, and it is principally the workers who must read it nevertheless. The bourgeois will never read it or, if they read it, they will never want to comprehend it, and if they comprehend it they will never say anything about it; this work being nothing other than a sentence of death, scientifically motivated and irrevocably pronounced, not against them as individuals, but against their class.
dont you claim to be a leftcom lol>>1582092
pretty good but forgot that marx was jewish and secretly allied with the rothschilds
Also Pannekoek himself claimed to be Marxist lmao
idk what bizarro world pancakes guy is coming from but i have never heard of a leftcom that is not a marxist
holy fucking based
>>1582111>*sigh* just the inevitable and violent demise of Marxism as a political ideology, or whatever
Sounds to me like you're on your own. Just because there have been some new discoveries that have discredited Marx doesn't mean that Marxism itself is discredited.
Why do reactionaries (i'm thinking /pol/ types) love transparent/ironic false flagging so much? Like the whole
>Hey trans xisters! Fucking Nazi chinletS are so annoying right? Anyway, black lives matter.
Replies I see on 4chan all the time. What is the material and ideological reason they make posts like this at such regularity? It's like it goes beyond simple parodying their idea leftists and is instead some kind of ritual for reinforcing their own strawman of what any critics of their reactionary views are?
The very foundations of the Marxist ideology is utter shit, from the very beginnings of Marx's hapless writings it has been nothing but borrowed ideas from greater men and statist ideals bound to fail once implemented. I am surprised every Marxist did not immediately disavow their despotic ideology once Bakunin's predictions of a Marxist state came so beautifully to fruition from 1917 to 1991.
"…Marx, at his best points in Capital, crawls out of the Hegelian mud and tries to examine the economic patterns of his time in plain terms of individual incentives (albeit largely preempted in most important respects by Smith, Proudhon, the Ricardians, et al.). But in privileging the economic he applies almost no such microscope to the state, which is basically just taken as captured and shaped for the benefit of the bourgeoisie as a class…"
What has Marx contributed to Socialism? What fundamental ideas of Marx that were not borrowed from the same free thinkers he oft sneered at are worth the consideration and implementation by the Anarchist? What original quotation of Marx beyond the most infantile policy has been anything but discredited by the trials of the many Marxist states?
Literally nobody has ever said this ever. Lenin and Trotsky were masters of realpolitik
this is worse than Agent Kochinski
>>1582143> What fundamental ideas of Marx that were not borrowed from the same free thinkers he oft sneered at are worth the consideration and implementation by the Anarchist?
i like how it’s assumed you’re worth appealing to
no, your idealist ass isn’t worth shit and no one cares if you do or don’t find marxism appealing
>>1582143>it has been nothing but borrowed ideas from greater men and statist ideals bound to fail once implemented.
That's pretty much most philosophers in general. Secondly, Marx and Engels started to develop more theories surrounding the state post-fall of the Paris Commune, with Engels himself writing that even the "state" of the Paris Commune couldn't necessarily be defined as one- and rather it should be redefined as "the commune" itself.
> I am surprised every Marxist did not immediately disavow their despotic ideology once Bakunin's predictions of a Marxist state came so beautifully to fruition from 1917 to 1991.
In what way? Is the Paris Commune not a marxist experiment? I swear to god, anti-marxists love to throw around the word "totalitarian" and "despotic" without any hint of context, or like to think this applies to Marxism as a whole.
>What has Marx contributed to Socialism?
His analysis of Capitalism and how it's lead to our current economic misfortunes? >What fundamental ideas of Marx that were not borrowed from the same free thinkers he oft sneered at are worth the consideration and implementation by the Anarchist?
Bakunin for one. He straight up translated Marx's capital and still used it as an important text to analyse capitalism itself. This isn't the own that you think it is. >What original quotation of Marx beyond the most infantile policy has been anything but discredited by the trials of the many Marxist states?<Marx is discredited because of ML states
>>1582150>In what way? Is the Paris Commune not a marxist experiment?
uh… no> I swear to god, anti-marxists love to throw around the word "totalitarian" and "despotic" without any hint of context, or like to think this applies to Marxism as a whole.
The context was the USSR, the perfect example of Marxists devolving into a new bureaucratic class of intellectual elites, ignoring and disregarding the needs of the masses, driving Russia into disrepair. The despotic USSR was the result and direct consequence of the implementation of Marxist theory.>His analysis of Capitalism and how it's lead to our current economic misfortunes?
Marx was not the harbinger of anti-capitalism, as much as Marxists want you to think that. This is yet another example of the deification and transmutation Marx and his ideas into some godhead and definer of leftism, socialism, and anti-capitalism. He was not.
Marx's critique of Capitalism, i will admit, was the best of Marx, but critique of Capitalism in the same manner of Marx, existed in some form or another, independently throughout Anarchist movements at the same time. Anti-capitalism was far from a Marxist conception. Disregarding Das Kapital, the Anarchist can no doubt still come to the same fundamental conclusion of anti-capitalism from Anarchist works at the same time, no need to read Marx at all.>Marx is discredited because of ML states
They're at best defensive organizations. I think socialists, communists, anarchists, etc. should still work within them.
A labour union could be class collaborators but its not inherent to what is basically just an organization unit of proles
Of course they can be class-collaborationist, and pretty much all labor unions after the New Deal or with 1st world social democracy are.
A key part of fascism for example is that all labor unions that are not subservient to the state get brutally suppressed and a state-sponsored union is created that abides by whatever the state says.
Its a way to spread a basic level of class-consciousness by getting people to think of themselves as "workers" and getting people involved in some forms of organization amongst themselves, but if you read your Lenin and Luxemburg, they pointed out over a hundred years ago that its only a basic level of class-consciousness that will not threaten capitalism itself, and therefore these organizations perform with the idea that they just need to make their demands heard but that they need to, at the end of the day, make a compromise with the bourgeoisie.
starting to think that among both self proclaimed anarchists & communists, at a certain point you hate either anarchists or communists so much you become a cryptofascist
its an issue of strategy and always has been. both movements have their particular historical characteristics & we can argue over that and over strategy (the latter is more productive but inevitably jncludes the former), but completely insane for anarchist to revel in the "defeat of marxism", because in that case, guess what, youre closer to winning than you have been in 200 years, what is there to show for it? to be even handed, communists really shouldnt talk big game about pragmatism and then act like the intra-left warfare in catalonia, against the black army, etc is something to be flaunted and not something to at the very least, if you are convinced it was absolutely necessary, be mourned as a great tragedy
Pretty much this. Besides, it's not as if any of us were in these battles/revolutions of the 20th century and a lot has changed since then.
yes the USSR did some pretty rancid things, but its collapse was hardly a net positive to international socialism or the spread of communism and there are still policies that should be absolutely praised- even if they were contextual for their time.
But to outright hate Marx and Marxists because of this is just bogus.
theyre not collaborationist but their scope tends to be limited to reform and immediate struggles
For the socialist revolution to prevail, it is my honest belief, that Marxists need to be thoroughly and efficiently eradicated. A socialist revolution cannot succeed under the current political climate of the west, the meekish and weak Marxist hegemony must be toppled as for true revolutionaries to succeed. To be a pragmatist, in my eyes, is to be the most ruthlessly anti-marxist one can be. The matter of liberation against the state, capitalism, can only come once the socialist movement has been liberated from those within, Marxists. There will come a day, I hope, that western Anarchists truly (violently) continue the struggle laid out that day in 1872.
Original argument:>>His analysis of Capitalism and how it's lead to our current economic misfortunes?
Response:>Marx was not the harbinger of anti-capitalism, as much as Marxists want you to think that. <Misses the argument. Takes highlighting contradictions that lead to capitalism failing, to just being against capitalism
>This is yet another example of the deification and transmutation Marx and his ideas into some godhead and definer of leftism, socialism, and anti-capitalism. He was not. <Hot air
>Marx's critique of Capitalism, i will admit, was the best of Marx<Pretend setup to look as if they're acting in good faith
>, but critique of Capitalism in the same manner of Marx, existed in some form or another, independently throughout Anarchist movements at the same time.<A continuation of the error done above in misreading anfems argument. Reiterate with an example:<Labor theory of value, not created by Marx, was developed by him by tieing value to labor power, and how the work is inherently exploitative.<Guy didn't even bother putting an example.
>Disregarding Das Kapital<Ignoring that he has made other valuable works
>the Anarchist can no doubt still come to the same fundamental conclusion of anti-capitalism from Anarchist works at the same time, no need to read Marx at all.<No examples<No argument to how the anarchist framework would conclude to those ideas<Just great man theory, but for the anarchist collection, or some anarchist writer that will be pinned as the true revolutionary to worship.
And that's just 1 point. >>1582172
It's amusing, at least with le commies you can point to the ussr's long existence, what do anarchists have other than being able to maintain a railroad without a manager?
Lmao, shitposting aside – other than the terminally online, no anarchist would adopt this approach.
Did you not get that when I referred to anti-capitalism, I was referring to Marx's highlighting of the contradictions that lead to Capitalism failing? >Pretend setup to look as if they're acting in good faith
I am not acting in good faith, nor do I pretend that I am acting in good faith. I do not respect people who disagree with me.>A continuation of the error done above in misreading anfems argument.
I did not misread "an"fems argument, you simply misinterpreted what I meant by anti-capitalism, construing my use of the term anti-capitalism into a narrow definition. Somewhat understandably, but still.>Just great man theory, but for the anarchist collection, or some anarchist writer that will be pinned as the true revolutionary to worship.
A marxist (or marxist defender), lecturing me on great man theory??!!
bait thread on main board that has been up for over 5 hours
who are you quoting
There's a difference between industrial unions and bureaucrat-reformist unions.
Use the latter to agitate into the former (until you get banned from the second).
Use the boosted former in conjunction with you revolutionary communist party
Provide a better tactic. Protip: you can't.
>>1582172>For the socialist revolution to prevail, it is my honest belief, that Marxists need to be thoroughly and efficiently eradicated. A socialist revolution cannot succeed under the current political climate of the west, the meekish and weak Marxist hegemony must be toppled as for true revolutionaries to succeed. To be a pragmatist, in my eyes, is to be the most ruthlessly anti-marxist one can be. The matter of liberation against the state, capitalism, can only come once the socialist movement has been liberated from those within, Marxists. There will come a day, I hope, that western Anarchists truly (violently) continue the struggle laid out that day in 1872.
I hate nearly everyone on this board, but I'm struggling to figure out how this would help anything in practice. Identifying friends and enemies not from practice at the time but from doctrine seems like it'd be exactly the opposite of "pragmatic," and it would make the anarchist condemnations of Marxism-Leninism's excesses and massacres of anarchists entirely hypocritical.
direct actions and workers councils
individualist, idealist, basically liberal >workers councils
sure, but they first need to manifest organically through revolutionary struggle. Historically that has taken place via
communist agitating, mass
work, militant industrial unions, and mass action
Nettlau spitting frfr
Still a marxist but we must not be blind to Marx's shortcomings and errors personal and political. And as usual I more and more view the anarchists as better comrades that many self-declared marxists, as seen by the sorry state of other anons in this thread, completely incapable of critical thought, just seeking to shout down and supress discomfort, dogmatically committed to repeating past failures as some sort of futile homage to their long dead idols, and revelling in state violence and cruelty to vicariously feel strength and victory. What a sewer.
>>1582247>if you dont humor a faggot like op you lack critical thought>muh idols<retards still stuck in the marx v bakunin petty squabble
Red Terror is good
Allow me to talk everyone through OP's thought process in creating this thread:
>Well, that was the last of the methamphetamine. What to do now? My allowance doesn't come in for another few weeks, so I can't get any more just yet.
<I need a hit of something, and fast!
>I know, how about I make a bait thread on Leftypol for the (You)s? Brilliant!
>But what will I post about? Hmm… well, I guess I could post about how China is revisionist, or how Stalin was bad… No. Too obvious, and I'd get shouted down immediately then ignored.
>Katyn? The Soviet archives? getting a bit stale, to be honest.
<I Know! I'll pretend to be an Anarchist and make a post about Marx himself. My intellect truly knows no bounds!
Also "European socialism" lol
Bakunin would have been a part of the Waffen SS if he was alive during WW2.
BASED European Socialists fighting against Asiatic-Judeo-Marxism
But wasn't the realpolitik position to continue WWI?
Is blanquism the only way forward or is that opinion cynical?
What evidence do you have that it's a way forward?
And yes, typically thinking there's only one true way is cynical and counterproductive.
Very nice, now lets see the anarchists revolutionary results and parties.
Also pannekoek was a marxist you actual inbred royalspawn.
No man in history will ever make people seethe as much as Marx did, and I think he would be very amused if he was aware of it.
for example, Joran Peterson crying
mods really need to crack down on schizoposting
It's not cool or "based," it's fucking annoying
I dunno, try actually reading a book instead of going off blog post screeds
Yeah I was thinking about that today, I think he'd probably be amazed how much fury he/communism inspires.
History's biggest troll.
The worst thing about Marx is the he didn't have much understanding or respect for philosophy and his followers mimic this willfully ignorant attitude to this day.
"…hitherto only interpreted the world.." - ONE OF THE WORST STATEMENTS ABOUT PHILOSOPHY FROM A MAJOR INTELLECTUAL FIGURE EVER
Why? He's right.
>>1582253>I Know! I'll pretend to be an Anarchist and make a post about Marx himself. My intellect truly knows no bounds!
This is something I hate about radical politics in general, whenever you say something against the majority (Marxists in this case) you get a screeching choir of>BAIT BAIT BAIT, LARPER, NOT REAL, TROLL, FED, PSYOP, FBI, REEEEEE
If its bait, why is it so based?
your posts are indistinguishable from right-wingers
much like worker-owned co-ops
>just fucking dump 100 posts from a bait thread into QTDDTOT
way to go mods
It's better than leaving trash OP's up. If they will not delete them it is the next best thing.
Solution: stop replying to shit threads. The jannies are never going to fix it for you.
>>1582406>literally spend all his youth wanking about one of the hardest to read philosopher>create a fan club before going beyond hegel>he didn't have much understanding or respect for philosophy
what the fuck are you talking about ?
>ONE OF THE WORST STATEMENTS
lol, I'd say one of the best
they could, and they should have nuked that shit thread
lmao this shit is the dumbest the rebuttal I see on this sit just cuz anyone of us could just bring up a million examples of ML parties betraying the revolution and most don't cuz we don't treat political analysis like sports teams with historical dates
Why are the Jannies on this site on an unending crusade to merge all minutely frivolous threads into retarded thousand-comment long megathreads? Talk about overmoderation, but what can you expect from M*rxists.
>>1582416>your posts are indistinguishable from right-wingers
Or are you too braindead to distinguish between Anarchists and right-wingers?
Nobody wants a front page full of slide, and bait/fun posts anon, it only means one comes to the website, sees a bunch of trash of weirdos trying to amuse themselfes and so leave.
Presumably the answer would be to stop making shitty OPs/Make better OPs.
Also you sound about 14 and this is an 18+ website please go away.
What the fuck happened to Anarchists? Why are you genuinely on Marx's dick? You do not deserve that black flag.
>>1582526>what happened to anarchists!
Kid. Anarchists used to be able to read and engage with Marx without acting like a moralising child. The more pertinent question would be, 'what is happening to anarchism?'
At my worst i feel like there is no anarchism with people like you at the helm, but at my best i think that not everyone is like you 'people' and the 'people' like you will not actually commit anything and just grow up to a normie 'apolitical' life. So, idk the answer exacty.
calling this guy an anarchist is liking calling leninhat a marxist leninist
Cool, but him and people like him do call themselves anarchists, and leninhats marxist-leninist, as absurd as they seem to usat least at times
probably older and not so insane and internet-poisoned people.
What does that mean for what Marxist-Leninism or Anarchism?
also anon, is there really any reason to bump this trash?
Nothing good probably.
>>1582537>What does that mean for what Marxist-Leninism or Anarchism?
fuck if I know having weird dickheads create a personality replacement out of a political program is something im sure every ideology.
>also anon, is there really any reason to bump this trash?
Nothing good probably.
I know very little about international relations but would it be possible to have Ukraine remain a neutral country under neither NATO nor Russian control?
Not really, that was supposed to be the situation after the USSR breakup but neither side really stuck to it. Basically nature abhors a (power) vacuum.
>>1582529>Anarchists used to be able to read and engage with Marx without acting like a moralising child.
When exactly is this time when Anarchist used to be able to engage with Marx without acting out? Without literally explicitly saying that his ideas were harmful and destructive to society? It definitely wasn't when Marx was alive, Bakunin was the strongest critic of Marx we've ever had. So when was it? Since the beginning of Marx's writings there have been Anarchists that have laughed and decried him. If you do not deem those attacks on Marx's fundamental philosophy the same as you define my acts as acting like a "moralising child" then I think you have a unusually selective way of judging Anarchist criticism.
Its funny how your worst thoughts are my best, I think I'm far gone from apoliticism, as much as I hope I wasn't. Sectarianism is a virtue, a virtue that must be upheld by violence.
I am 100% sure that anonse doesnt mean that but I will clarify anyway. Marx was against philosophers because the system he breathed his life into was supposed to overcome philosophy. Remove it as purely teoretical activity one does to entertain (this isnt a correct word) themself. Hence famous thesis in thesis on feuerbach.
>>1582615>Its funny how your worst thoughts are my best, I think I'm far gone from apoliticism, as much as I hope I wasn't. Sectarianism is a virtue, a virtue that must be upheld by violence.
holy shit guys anarchist leninhat dropped
If the soviets were so 'based' why did the red army stop at 1/2 Berlin? Why did they not have some self respect and march to Paris? To re-utilize the system of cattle cars and camps for the bourgeoisie, the reactionaries and their collaborators?
The infrastructure, the manpower and the political chaos was there for the final conflict and they threw it all away.
Is there a way i could simulate the Chinese or Cuban internet? I know a complete list of blocked sites and IPs would be a lot to ask but maybe there's a general sketch of what is or isn't allowed? I want to experiment to see how my mental health is affected by a more restricted Internet.
because the USSR was already exhausted by the fight against the Nazis, there was no appetite for a second war against the capitalist world
As a former /pol/tard I'm trying really hard to debunk all the racist psuedoscience I've been fed over the years but I'm still a little stumped by Australian Aborigines (especially considering I've never actually met one), is their autism score and behaviour really a result of material conditions alone? Do genetics play any part at all? Any good reading material about the subject?
That was a brainlet thing to do to give the capitalist world time and peace to grow themselves and re-position to a way they could win. I mean what were the french going to do back then? They were fucked already, and if france got stomped you can bet the UK would have stayed at home without the resources to invade.
and history seems to prove this.
>>1585014>he believes in autism score - not only, but racial autism score - unironically.
fuck off. go back. etc. etc.
autism score can be trained, is directly correlated to education level, is very reliant on culture, and is anyway supposed to be calibrated on an homogeneous population where 100 is the median level.
so you should realize how fucking stupid judging Australian Aborigines with it sounds
Oh yeah just turn away anyone even remotely interested in leftism, yeah that'll get people on your side
So people claiming they're less developed/missing link, etc are just basing it on Eurocentric beauty standards? (that and being uneducated retards with no class analysis)
https://pumpkinperson.com/2021/12/12/the-iqs-of-australian-aboriginals-adopted-by-whites-part-i-picture-vocabulary/>When raised in their own communities, unmixed Australoids seem to average about autism score 47 on English Picture Vocabulary (3.53 standard deviations below the white mean). But when raised in white homes they likely average autism score 90 (0.66 SD below the white mean). Thus this racial gap appears at most, only 19% genetic.
What's the flaw in methodology?
>>1585436>Nooo you can't turn away the far-right you have to get them onside because they are based!!!!1
shut the fuck up you special needs child.
Not because they're "based" but because they're coming from a place of genuinely trying to shed themselves of their reactionary views, stop being such a sperg
>>1585495>genuinely trying to shed themselves of their reactionary views,<but I'm still a little stumped by Australian Aborigines (especially considering I've never actually met one), is their autism score and behaviour really a result of material conditions alone? Do genetics play any part at all? Any good reading material about the subject?
You willing idiot.
So point them in the right direction so they can actually read something scientific instead of just mindlessly regurgitating /pol/ infographics
Anyone who believes this extreme fringe trash, or gropes to find reasons to continue to believe it, as the OP, they are to far gone anon, fuck them.
Denn der Anarchismus ist das Werkzeug krimineller Außenseiter, die den Staat und ihre Eltern hassen. Sie sind keine Kommunisten, und das Gleiche gilt auch für Trotzkisten und Revisionisten.
will never work
Nobody likes to be out-lefted.
Mostly because the CIA utilized anarchism to act as an obscurantist front to attack the marxists "from the left" in america for a while. Of course actual anarchism is anti statist even if it requires allying with marxists, perhaps especially if it requires allying with marxists, but sectarians dont like allying with anarchists because mainly theyre conservatives of some variety, perhaps patsocs, perhaps tankies, who dont enjoy the weed smoking lumpen image of anarchists, or perhaps because their tactics are ineffective, as seen with CHAZ. On the flipside, anarchists dislike marxists because theyre misled by CIA propaganda about the USSR or believe marxists are a bunch of prudes who want to control everything everyone does.
For reference: im an anarchist
It isn't, stop using fbi.gov.
Speaking as an African-American who was radicalized to anarchist thought in 2018 and has since developed more Marxist tendencies, I think it really does have to do with newer, younger leftists being disillusioned with hiearchy. We have had very weak and ineffective leadership (in the States) basically our whole lives and so the idea that we can govern ourselves and eliminate the corrupt bureaucracies and states altogether is very appealing to someone constantly under the heel of "unjust hiearchies" (your boss, even your parents). The issue is certain people don't really grow out of this and assume this surface level analysis as their entire political identity. It doesn't help that this was also weaponized historically as shown here >>1585977
and you have a lot of distrust in online spaces toward people with these beliefs.
I'm talking out of my ass omw home from work but that's my answer. Feel free to tear me a new one if I'm wrong.
theyve had a couple revolutions and are carrying out some conflicts notably in latin america,yyj
Marx wrote quite a lot for his distaste in anarchism and its shortcomings. Anarchism is centered around the individual which was a regression in thinking of politics conceptually between class conflict. Anarchism as a political movement is an expression of a very particular petite-bourgioise consciousness that was arising when peasants were first encountering the horrors of captialism but still wanted to keep their tiny land ownership even though rural production was vastly inferior to the productivity of large scale factories and doesnt really grasp why the proletariat is the class that can lead to the abolition of capitalism and begin the transition into communism. Worth noting that all the anarchists in the 19th and early 20th century were huge Anti-Semites. Make of that as you will (anarchists will tell you to ignore it or that it's not important to their ideology while Marxists have a framework to explain why jews were intrinsic to anarchist philosophy).
theyve had a couple revolutions and are carrying out some conflicts notably in latin america,yyj
These points are all true, but a lot of people also miss the forest for the trees in that there is more to anarchism than "fuck hierarchy maaaannnn." Just because anarchy is often the first step for baby leftists doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people who also end up there because of specific problems they've identified in other tendencies. And then of course you have people who are in it for the wrong reasons, aesthetics or something. In the same way that marxism attracts weirdos who don't actually care or get it, anarchy does it even more because there's not an explicit canon to hold people to. Unfortunately marxists often suffer the opposite problem and fall into dogmatism, which is also a major source of sectarianism between
>>1585991>sectarianism between marxists as well as between marxists and anarchists
sorry meant to make it clearer that this is also a source of sectarian conflict
among the anglophone/western left, because it is a reality that the vast majority of post-ww2 anarchists have aligned with liberalism over historical communism, and contemporary western anarchists especially often embody liberals going through a phase where they take their beliefs to their logical conclusion. i.e., "radlibs"
in the rest of the world, anarchism is either seen as an outgrowth of the aforementioned western anarchism, or it is seen as at odds with the socialist or quasi-socialist or socialist aligned developmentalist regimes that have historically provided a high water mark of national sovereignty & basic development of public services. in some places, notably latin america, where anarchism has historically been associated in some form or another with the peasantry (often this was simply the characterization of peasant revolts as anarchistic), there is a degree of genuine chauvinism towards anarchism as backwards facing
not necessarily condoning or condemning any of this, thats simply my best attempt at a neutral answer
council communism is basically the closest u can get to anarchism while being marxists, its basically syndicalism but with historical materialism
>Go to any anarchist space and you'll see about half the people there are autistic and trans, and have extreme family issues and/or are on multiple medications. Those are the kinds of people modern anarchism attracts and for a good reason too.
And this is bad because…..?
Correct. Anarchists today are more concerned with looking "moral" than they are with what actually builds revolution.
It's not surprising how V–sh and others see China and Russia as being bigger enemies to humanity than America, because their anti-state socialist approach naturally leads them to thinking western imperialism is somehow "nicer" than eastern imperialism.
Their drawn to anarchism because of their personal issues. Every anarchist space I've been in since 2013 has been full of people with mental health, gender, or family issues. Many of them have the emotional intelligence of middle schoolers.
It's because anarchists actually want to build a stateless, classless, society. While what most communists want is a totalitarian socialist state that they can use to kill the people they don't like.
Anarchists and Communists cooperate all the time in actual organizing work, the divide only exists in pseudoorganizing spaces including online and in small sects/affinity groups that do not share a legitimate community of interest and are actually just a form of maladjusted social life for theory nerds. My advice to you is to get involved in legitimate organizing work (union, tenant union, or mass-political (not sect-political or electoral, for example extinction rebellion, )) before you try to study much political theory.
Incompetent people who are so bogged down with their own mental bullshit are often times reluctant to organize.
I'm a 39-year old Xennial who remembers when anarchist groups in America were primarily made up of hardcore punks, red-diaper grandbabies (people whose grandparents were in CPUSA during its heyday and grew up on leftism), radical vegans and straightedgers, and people who didn't give a fuck. Post-Occupy all of that changed very suddenly and anarchist scenes were dominated with pink-haired grad students and heavily medicated Aspies.
this is true. easily some of the people i trust & respect the most are anarchists, even if we dont agree about the overall vision for the world. a good rule of them if youre in a country with no real communist movement is: if the people youre working with think of "long term" as "after the revolution" instead of "when we become a notable presence in the communities we are trying to build a presence in", drop them or readjust the strategy if you can.
okay but i missed the "extinction rebellion" recommendation. do not involve yourself with them lmao, that is likely entrapment/controlled opposition, and at best they are misguided eco-liberals
>>1586029>rule of them
*rule of thumb
Amongst egoist lines, sure- but to paint anarchism under one brush (and to use engels laughable strawman arguments of anarchism) is entirely regressive.
>Anarchism as a political movement is an expression of a very particular petite-bourgioise consciousness that was arising when peasants were first encountering the horrors of captialism but still wanted to keep their tiny land ownership even though rural production was vastly inferior to the productivity of large scale factories and doesnt really grasp why the proletariat is the class that can lead to the abolition of capitalism and begin the transition into communism.
This is a critique that is clearly taken out of context. The reason why peasant communities resisted such productivity was because it would mean that the very lands they lived on would be privatised and given to capitalists- their communities- which arguably they were able to manage themselves within Europe, would be uprooted. https://monthlyreview.org/2022/10/01/marx-and-engels-and-russias-peasant-communes/
Peasant resistance and communal forms of living have often been supported by anarchists, as well as their more communal forms of living- the "petite-bourgoise consciousness" is horseshit, considering there has been a history of horizontalist resistance amongst the peasantry- not only going as far within feudal societies but ranging from the Makhnovists, the Zapatas and the Neo-zapatistas. https://roarmag.org/essays/mexico-other-commune/https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution#toc6
To suggest that anarchism is petite-bourgoise is a dumb strawamn and only founded on pure cope. But that's not even getting into Engels strawman arguments which have been thoroughly debunked my various anarchist orgshttps://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/punkerslut-on-authority-a-response-to-friedrich-engelshttps://archive.is/PO5fh https://libcom.org/article/authority-revisited
>Worth noting that all the anarchists in the 19th and early 20th century were huge Anti-Semites. Make of that as you will (anarchists will tell you to ignore it or that it's not important to their ideology while Marxists have a framework to explain why jews were intrinsic to anarchist philosophy).
And Marxists within the 19th and 20th century were also raging homophobes yet you don't wish to discuss that either. Two can play at the game of bad faith organisation- despite the fact that contemporary anarchists regularly call out bakunins anti-semitism. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/zoe-baker-bakunin-was-a-racist
Not to mention, Anarchists within the 20th century actually aided Jewish communities and armed them to resist pogroms. >but what of the pogroms committed by other anarchists
They were court martialled and shot by the anarchists themselves. https://libcom.org/article/anti-semitism-and-makhnovistshttps://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/1927/11/anti-semitism.htm
I suppose we should also dismiss the various anarchists who happened to be jews such as Emma Goldman or Murray Bookchin prior to him becoming a communalist.
Yet interestingly enough, I don't see So-called Marxists willing to condemn the USSRs homophobia and their justifications of it being "bourgoise decadence". Neither do I see Marxists willing to condemn Engels for his anti-slavic comments
<But at the first victorious uprising of the French proletariat … the Austrian Germans and the Magyars will gain their freedom and take a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will scatter the Slav Sonderbund [alliance], and annihilate all these small pigheaded nations even to their very names. The next world war will not only cause reactionary classes and dynasties to disappear from the face of the earth, but also entire reactionary peoples. And that too is an advance.' (F. Engels, The Magyar Struggle, January 1849)
<Peoples which have never had a history of their own, which come under foreign domination the moment they have achieved the first, crudest level of civilisation … have no capacity for survival and will never be able to attain any kind of independence. And that has been the fate of the Austrian Slavs. (Engels, Democratic Pan-Slavism, February 1849)
Are Marxists also willing to dismiss Engels more euro-centric and utterly laughably debunked anthropological takes as well?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBFvxkvpi2w
The problem is with Marxist critiques of anarchism- much like anarchist crituques of Marxism- is that they fail to specify which strain- are you talking about the Anarchism of Bakunin or Proudhon. Because the former criticised the latter who was in turn criticised by Kropotkin.
Because anarchism lacks a centralised/cohesive ideology in so far that it is the rejection of state power and oppressive hierarchy- Marxists can't actually form proper critiques on it.
100% due to the change from Gen Xers to Millennials.
Gen Xers and Xennials pretty much had to raise themselves. Their boomer parents were total fuckups and they were the ones who bared the blunt of it all, e.g. Gen Xers and Xennials being the first major children of divorce. That resulted in them gaining a strong sense of independence and dynamism that Millennials and Zoomers largely lack, since Millennials (my gen) and Zoomers were so heavily coddled when we were kids that we have no fucking clue how to survive without crutches.
>while Marxists have a framework to explain why jews were intrinsic to anarchist philosophy
wait, what? I'm familiar with bakunin antisemitism ands marx's comments on the jews in his early works but what are you referring to here?
And again, how is this a bad thing?
Considering anarchists often show solidarity with the mentally ill as well as victims of DV (which can also be children)- and a lot of these behaviours and problems can be attributed to the heirarchical structure of the nuclear family, capitalism, patriarchy etc. I'd say these people are right to join them.
Again, how is this a moot point? >>1586017>Incompetent people who are so bogged down with their own mental bullshit are often times reluctant to organize.
I can literally say that about any socialist org under the sun- this isn't a problem limited to anarchism alone. <but anarchists can't organise
They can organise in such a way that FBI operatives can hardly touch them.
Meanwhile it's ironic that Marxists are so willing to fedjacket anarchists in spite of the FBI having a hand in their circles as well- including that of the black panther party.
>That resulted in them gaining a strong sense of independence and dynamism that Millennials and Zoomers largely lack, since Millennials (my gen) and Zoomers were so heavily coddled when we were kids that we have no fucking clue how to survive without crutches.
I see that a lot. It's basically a move from anarchists being people who fetishize edginess and sabotaging the system to anarchists being people who fetishize vulnerability and demand hugs 24/7.>>1586045>Considering anarchists often show solidarity with the mentally ill as well as victims of DV (which can also be children)- and a lot of these behaviours and problems can be attributed to the heirarchical structure of the nuclear family, capitalism, patriarchy etc. I'd say these people are right to join them.
Have you worked in activist spaces with people who have severe mental health issues? They usually make everything all about themselves without giving much thought to working with the external.
>I can literally say that about any socialist org under the sun- this isn't a problem limited to anarchism alone.
Whataboutism doesn't work here.
>They can organise in such a way that FBI operatives can hardly touch them.
The anarchists you're referring to weren't the anarchists of today. People back then didn't base the crux of their anarchism on their personal emotional issues like they do today.
If you're talking about what happened post-Occupy it's important to know that was the time when mainstream liberals began heavily appropriating from anarchism. Occupy was in a sense when anarchist concepts began spreading to the mainstream and liberals picked it up because that's what they always do. Add in the fact many of those comrades from the Occupy movement went into academia once the whole thing fell apart and became the pretentious grad students and academics of the mid 2010s.
more lib genfaggotry
How is it lib? Are you suggesting Gen Xers and millennials didn't face different material conditions?
All politics is fundamentally programmatic. By programmatic, I mean it is social activity aimed at the realization of certain goals (a program) by some particular means (praxis). The development of the program and of the praxis is governed by theory. Marxism and Anarchism are both theories. Both Marxism and Anarchism are forms of "scientific socialism" which uphold a nearly identical "maximum" program - The abolition of class society, and with it money and the state. Some differences may exist, for example: Marxists may push for the fusion of town and country in their maximum program, and anarchists for the elimination of all forms of subordination, but these additional programmatic points are secondary to the abolition of class society.
The major difference between the Marxist and Anarchist theories is that they don't result in different maximum programs, they result in different types of praxis (means to an end). Anarchists maintain that the method of achieving communism is the abolition of the state, while Marxists see the seizure of the state and its withering into a non-hierarchical "general administration of things" over the course of a historical epoch as the strategy. The debate between these plans of action is robust and historical. It does not bear repeating in a 5000-character post, but should be studied seriously by anyone interested in politics.
Where does the antagonism in the online left come from? The online left, anarchist and marxist, has the same maximum program. Neither the anarchist nor the marxist online left have any significant current praxis. Instead, both groups are left to look for causes of failure in the worker's movement. Having no actual exposure to the worker's movement or direct experience of it's failures, both groups try to find theoretical problems in theories they have never performed an experiment with.
This places the online leftist in a theoretical fantasy land. He directs his activity towards a particular manifestation of a static doctrine, and engages in intellectual masturbation trying to defend it from unqualified detractors rather than to make it work in real life. He stays up late at night arguing about the minutae of theory. Questioning why the theory didn't correspond perfectly to the reality, why the praxis didn't happen or failed. The new theory then aims itself to make reality correspond to its facts. This inversion of cause and effect begins to accumulate in the mind like dental calculus. In the final hour of his sanity, he inverts theory as the mother of praxis. He inverts his detractors from within the workers movement as petty bourgeois. He inverts the real and the imaginary, and becomes insane.
There are many such cases on the internet. Agent Kochinski, the widely acclaimed speaker, writer, journalist, and political analyst Caleb Maupin, many anons on this site, etc. This leads to leftist infighting on the internet that legitimately dwarfs "outfighting" - class struggle - by an order of magnitude in online spaces. Anarchists loose this fight online because they are more likely to attempt to fight the capitalists directly (not necessarily effectively). The largest anarchist organization in the USA is a union that organizes shitty jobs, bargains and administers collective bargaining agreements, and is connected to cells of adventurist riot-starters. The largest communist organization in the USA is a book club cult. And I am saying that as a legit, Stalin loving communist, not an anakiddy. This is why anarchists are losing the culture war on leftypol.
I think I almost lost brain cells the moment I saw a Zionist hasbara IG page post about "mutual aid."
>>1586049>Have you worked in activist spaces with people who have severe mental health issues? They usually make everything all about themselves without giving much thought to working with the external.
I have and I do, and usually these spaces are actually focused on transformative justice as well as providing therapy and material aid for people who are often in major waiting lines or can't afford psychiatric help. A lot of transformative justice spaces for instance are actually organised by anarchists. Your critique is moot.
>Whataboutism doesn't work here.
It does if you think this problem is exclusive to anarchists and anarchists alone.
>The anarchists you're referring to weren't the anarchists of today. People back then didn't base the crux of their anarchism on their personal emotional issues like they do today.<Domestic Violence, Abelism, lack of proper care towards the mentally ill are just personal emotional issues and are not by products of patriarchy, statism and capitalism
So anarchist spaces are just group therapy sessions, I get it.
Aside from the reasons people already listed here, a lot of modern anarchists don't read theory, even anarchist theory, and don't usually branch out more than a "fuck the system" mentality. This leads to a lot of them never growing out of their previous held liberal opinions, and sometimes even leads into opportunism.
I could maybe explain this better if I wasn't very tired rn.
>>1586017>Post-Occupy all of that changed very suddenly and anarchist scenes were dominated with pink-haired grad students and heavily medicated Aspies.
The 2008 crash normalized lumpen culture because not even normies could afford to get married, have kids and have a "regular" career.
It's worse than that. Most anarchists are moral fanatics and highly, highly pretentious people.
Thank god everything you're talking about is sad westoid shit without wider relevance. I can't imagine how you get up in the morning and face the sun
>>1586065>transformative justice is just group therapy>discussing the origins of DV and abelism is just group therapy>deliberately ignoring facts and resorts to downplaying this.
Just because you got BTFO and don't give a shit about domestic violence survivors doesn't mean you have to be a douchebag.
I may as well call marxist reading groups "group therapy sessions" based on your dipshit analysis.
Perhaps you can actually read some pamphlets?
This type of shit is coming for china and india too as the forces of production develop to a comparative stage
Who said I don't care about domestic violence?
>I may as well call marxist reading groups "group therapy sessions"
Kek, most of what my group does is on-the-ground organizing. We helped organize an eviction defense two months ago and frequently work with unions. We organize protests against rent increases among many other things.
Have you done anything similar?
What makes your transformative justice sessions different from professional therapy from a trained, licensed therapist?
>>1586073>>1586086>Who said I don't care about domestic violence?
You did when you said>>1586049>Have you worked in activist spaces with people who have severe mental health issues? They usually make everything all about themselves without giving much thought to working with the external.
and >Incompetent people who are so bogged down with their own mental bullshit are often times reluctant to organize.>>1586009>Their drawn to anarchism because of their personal issues. Every anarchist space I've been in since 2013 has been full of people with mental health, gender, or family issues. Many of them have the emotional intelligence of middle schoolers.
>i'm a 39-year old Xennial who remembers when anarchist groups in America were primarily made up of hardcore punks, red-diaper grandbabies (people whose grandparents were in CPUSA during its heyday and grew up on leftism), radical vegans and straightedgers, and people who didn't give a fuck. Post-Occupy all of that changed very suddenly and anarchist scenes were dominated with pink-haired grad students and heavily medicated Aspies.
The fact that you're willing to wittle down mental health issues- most of which have their origins in trauma- trauma often caused by DV and label it "just personal issues" speaks not only to your abelism, but also just that you don't really seem to care.
You come off to me as the kind of guy who'd walk into a psych-ward and go "jeez, why are all these mentally ill people here".
When you're an org that actually aids in promoting the rights and expressing solidarity for queer, or disabled people, is it any surprise that queer and disabled people will join them?
>Kek, most of what my group does is on-the-ground organizing. We helped organize an eviction defense two months ago and frequently work with unions. We organize protests against rent increases among many other things.
Cool, so does the IWW and tenant unions here in Aus. You're nothing special anon.
>Have you done anything similar?
I actually am part of a queer self-defence group founded on anarchist principles that also aids people fleeing DV scenrarios while also teaching others how to fight. If you're lucky to join any in Aus, who knows, maybe you might actually learn a thing or two- provided you don't get socked in the jaw for being an abelist douche and downplaying DV yourself>>1586091
Most of these transformative justice are often founded by psychologists and liscensed therapists who aid in the process- especially regarding certain issues regarding DV and trauma. Secondly, unlike conventional therapy- these activities are usually spontaneously organised and don't require a massive waiting list and actually try and find the route of the problem- including examining capitalism and patriarchal control in regards to DV.
I hate Anarchists. I fully admit my hatred is irrational and just based on gut instinct from interacting with Anarchists in my life.
I hate how all of their organizations are called boom kapow pizza
I hate how you tell them about the atrocities and brutal abuses committed on North Korea until it finally got nuclear ICBMs and they just say something like "oof" or "oh dang"
I hate how their brilliant system of mutual aid simultaneously produces them "just not having the mental energy" to do me a small fucking favor, or to clean up after themselves in the fucking kitchen.
I hate how proud they are of literally never opening a fucking book or joining a party and how curiously self-centered they turn out to be.
Mentally ill people need professional help from trained therapists.
They shouldn't be in political spaces until they've managed to deal with their trauma effectively.
Group therapy isn't a substitute for real political organizing.
>>1586098>Secondly, unlike conventional therapy- these activities are usually spontaneously organised and don't require a massive waiting list and actually try and find the route of the problem- including examining capitalism and patriarchal control in regards to DV.
You do crystal healing and reiki too?
i thought you were dixiebolshevist
the figure of the 'Jew' takes the role of the big Other who is a rupture with the social harmony of classes. This was very common in romantic anti-capitalist thought as it served as an explanation for why utopian vision of capitalism by the petite bourgeoise was having such horrific effects on the mass population. Instead of seeing the social antagonism between the capitalist's and proletariat as immanent to the relations of capitalism and its reproduction, they supplant the antagonism with an object that is outside of capitalism itself which can take the form of the 'jew', or the 'state'. It's necessary for this big Other to exists for ideology to function, you can quite easily identify the 'big other' in discourses where they try to demonize a group of people such as "sjw' or 'MAGA Republicans'. Marxism is a break from this ideology and understands that the ideal society of Bakunin where every rural farmer can produce their own commodities and exchange with each other is really an expression of his own ideal society of the petite-bourgeoise projected onto the future.
Gen X had a lot of trauma too. They just handled it differently. Gen X counter-culture was very angry (punk, grunge, gangsta rap, industrial noise music, outsider art) which is usually an expression of trauma.
Millennials and zoomers OTOH deal with their trauma by behaving like children.
So basically, the "Jew" of the 19th century is the "autistic queer" of the 21st.
>>1586102>Mentally ill people need professional help from trained therapists.
Who are usually in these anarchist spaces and actively help.
>They shouldn't be in political spaces until they've managed to deal with their trauma effectively.
Why do you think we have therapists there in the first place- considering that capitalism and statism care little for actually providing meaningful psychological aid and said psychological aid is nigh unaffordable- this is a requirement. Seriously, what kind of an organiser are you?
>Group therapy isn't a substitute for real political organizing.
That would actually imply that this would be "group therapy". Again, considering that capitalism keeps meaningful health care behind mass amounts of bearaucracy and pay gates, these organisations are important.
Abelist douchebag that you are however, you don't care about that. >>1586104>no argument
Read the pamphlet or better yet, read this https://www.creative-interventions.org/about-ci/
In my 30s. As I get older I keep ping ponging between Marxist and Anarchist ideas, looking for some kind of synthesis that seems impossible. Am I just crazy? It seems crazy that we tear each other down.
>>1586108>Gen X had a lot of trauma too. They just handled it differently.
By comitting acts of DV, emotional repression and trying to "toughen up"
>Gen X counter-culture was very angry (punk, grunge, gangsta rap, industrial noise music, outsider art) which is usually an expression of trauma
Hmm yeah, i wonder where that trauma came from?
>Millennials and zoomers OTOH deal with their trauma by behaving like children.>>1586112
>>1586037>Amongst egoist lines, sure- but to paint anarchism under one brush (and to use engels laughable strawman arguments of anarchism) is entirely regressive.
I actually can and I will. I don't care about the different flavors of anarchism because they are all founded on flawed premises.
>>1586116>By comitting acts of DV, emotional repression and trying to "toughen up"
What makes you think this?
I don't see how your New Age woo bullshit has any place in a political space. If you want to do therapy sessions, fine. But political spaces are for organizing. If you can't handle being politically active and need someone to baby you then you have no business bringing down people who are actually willing to be active.
Imagine thinking millennials and zoomers don't commit domestic violence.
>>1586128>I don't see how your New Age woo bullshit has any place in a political space.
Why do you feel the need to delibaretely downplay meaningful political organisation? Are you this utterly booty blasted that you feel the need to act like a chauvanist? But then again, seeing as you don't actually care about mentally ill people and consider them a bane to political organising i shouldn't expect any different.
>If you want to do therapy sessions, fine. But political spaces are for organizing. <aiding victims of dv and people who have been failed by the capitalist system regarding mental health and forming groups to aid them ISN'T organising.
>If you can't handle being politically active and need someone to baby you then you have no business bringing down people who are actually willing to be active.<aiding disabled people by buidling orgs to help them isn't organising.
Glad to see you don't know what you're talking about. >>1586132
Never said they didn't. But comparatively they're a lot better at recogognising intergenerational trauma and combating it as opposed to just letting it slide. >>1586126>he doesn't knowhttps://aifs.gov.au/resources/policy-and-practice-papers/intergenerational-transmission-maltreatment#how
Malatesta, my beloved.
So I want to do a generalized critique of Anarchism without disrespecting the tendency in its entirety. Let me try to explain as best as I can.
State vs Antistate
Ultimately the biggest wedge between Marxists and Anarchists is the issue of the State. A lot's been written about this split already, but I'll try to summarize the major points briefly.
Marxists (especially Marxist-Leninists) hold that the State is a tool for class domination. Just like any other tool, it's ultimately just an extension of the wielder. You can use a hammer to build a house or to cave in a person's skull. To the Marxist Left, a state is a necessary aspect of the revolution.
>To support their point, they'll often cite Engels quote ("A revolution is the most authoritarian thing you can do."
>They'll cite State and Revolution by Lenin as the fundamentals of their argument
>They'll argue that the State exists because it's ultimately the most efficient form of human organization
Anarchists, for their part, view the State as an inherently oppressive and authoritarian institution (more on that later). They think the working class can't use it because ultimately the State would just attempt to seize power for itself. Instead they prefer what they term "horizontal" forms of organization. Things like direct democracy or in some cases unanimous decision making. I imagine some might prefer even looser forms of organization.
I'd like to apologize if I'm not giving as clear a descriptor of Anarchism, I'm not overly familiar with their literature.
To Anarchists the USSR and other Marxist States were inherently oppressive institutions. They'll argue that the USSR castrated the power of the workers and was ruled by an oligarchic elite of party bureaucrats. In addition, the USSR played a major role in crushing both the Ukrainian Black Army and the Catalonian Anarchists. Finally, even in Non-Socialist Countries there's been ambient conflict between Anarchists and Marxists, ranging from competing for control of the socialist movement to actual violence.
The Marxist case is that Anarchists are, to some extent, naive. We got to see a test case, supposedly, of Statism vs. Anti-Statism in the form of the Russian Civil War: the state won. In Spain, while Anarchists would argue that the Communists "stabbed them in the back" the USSR was ultimately the only ally in the Republic's corner. That Anarchists split from the Republic and essentially wanted to act independent of Soviet leadership may have doomed the Republic to failure.
Historically some Anarchist groups have interfered with Marxist activism, decrying them as "Red Fascists" and viciously critiquing Socialist States as repressive.
Since the rise of Neoliberalism, Socialism had to retreat in Western society to the fringe. The death of the USSR signaled the end to Capitalism's biggest competitor. We're living in the age of neoliberal decay.
Since 2008 at least, the Socialist movement has been clawing itself back to relevancy, especially among the youth. A new generation of Socialists are emerging from the wreckage of 40 years of neoliberal chaos. Given we've lost so much in that time, we've had to go through something of a microcosm of Leftist history in an even shorter amount of time. It's heartening to remember that just 20 years ago, "Socialism" was still a dirty word among American society. Now it's competing with Capitalism in terms of popularity among the youth, and I've no doubt it'll surpass it.
The development of your typical millennial/zoomer from 2008 onwards has been about the gradual rediscovery of the Socialist movement. In the Obama years, many of them likely started off as pseudo-Keynesian liberals. There was a general feeling that Wall Street fucked up, and the State had to step in and regulate things. However, when Obama failed to transform into anything more than another neoliberal, Occupy sparked a radicalization among tons of young people. From then on, I think, the newest generation began to explore ideas of alternative economic systems. Social Democracy, specifically in Scandinavia, seemed like the only tangible example of this vague "Socialist" upswell. It wasn't enough for the State to regulate the market. In some cases it needed to flex greater control over the economy, and manage the profits of the upper classes towards social good rather than individual hedonism.
Time passed and the Bernie Sanders campaign in 2016 galvanized broad segments of progressive youth. It gave a figurehead to what were once isolated individuals. Suddenly there was a singular point for all this energy, to coagulate around. Even though he lost, you had the DSA emerge as a central point to bring more segments of the public into its orbit. Then Trump emerged, and the sheer Right-Wing psychosis that followed him galvanized people further. I suppose it can be said that Trump and Elon Musk being public clowns and objectively stupid, while still retaining billions of dollars and being politically untouchable, stripped the mask off of Capitalism more than the repulsive bailout Wall Street got after 08. To many people, the lie of Capitalism was stripped away; it wasn't a "smart" or "efficient" system that couldn't be done away with, it was a profoundly stupid and inefficient nightmare that had to be overthrown.
So now the question becomes: how do we overthrow it. And it's here that I think there's been renewed conflict between Anarchists and Marxists. Even if they don't realize it, they're jostling for leadership of a growing Socialist movement. Whether that takes the form of "horizontal" orgs like unions or community councils, or "verticle" orgs like political parties or parallel states.
the eternal anarcho-gotcha:>we iz 628296 different tendencies so u can't criticize my special tendency
Are you sure you read your own source, anon?
Because yes, I have and I would actually say that's a valid critique but i don't think it reaches the same conclusion you do. Because in the very same source you posted: Debord writes: >The strength and the weakness of the real anarchist struggles resides in its viewing the goal of proleterian revolution as immediately present (the pretensions of anarchism in its individualist variants have always been laughable).
This is a pretty clear dunk on anarcho-individualists- so I don't see how he's "criticising anarchism as a whole". So the fact that he's able to distinct the tendencies is far from "criticising anarchism as a whole" other than it has various tendencies which can make a movement more abstract than concrete.
However, Both Debord and myself seem to argue that its biggest curse is simultaneously its biggest blessing.
Because there is no monopoly on Anarchism- it allows it constantly to consistently experiment and allows for greater discourse, while also being flexible with elements of praxis. Although I wouldn't consider myself an illegalist- I do think it has tactics that can certainly be applicable- yet i doubt anyone would call me a revisionist or a utopian like you would in a marxist reading group. It's that freedom of plurality that allows most disagreements and differences to actually be talked out and examined. I'd say thats hardly a "assumption that the adequate forms for this passage to practice have already been found and will never change". Which is ironic coming from a marxist- considering the various shitflinging that Socialist states did to eachother.
This is one of the reaons why Marxist critiques in general are pretty bad- and its sad that Debord seems to be the one to actually give any valid one- but he himself doesn't look into other anarchist tendencies individually beyond that. He just sees it as a jumbled weave- being able to distinguish between collectivists and individualists but never going in further depth as to what makes them tick. Would he even bother looking into the distinctions between a platformist, an insurrectionist, or the qualms between an-coms and an-syns?
Because Im not sure if you know this, anarchists themselves have also had squabbles and fights amongst themselves.
That's not even beside the point that MLs consistently have shitflinging fights as well and major ideological differences within their own tendencies- from Hoxhaists, Maoists and Titoists, yet I wouldn't be foolish enough to make sweeping generalisations of MLs as a whole. >>1586247>conveniently forgetting marxism has multiple tendencies as well
You gonna contribute anything or be a smarmy cunt?
For me its basically comes down to they don't read. The only anarchists that make sense are anarcho-communists. You absolutely have to have a grounding in Marx and dialectical and historical materialism. Lenin, Stalin and Mao naturally follow from that. You can't really disagree with them on theory even if you disagree on practice. I think its possible to still be an anarchist or prefer anarchism after all that but its not up to preference it depends on the material conditions and democratic consensus. If it happens to be the case that the material conditions are right for anarchism, such as in a highly developed imperialist country, and the majority of people support it, then I think maybe you could speed run the withering away of the state during the revolution without a transition period. I would prefer that too I just don't see it happening but would still support any anarchist movement that gains mass support. Outside of that its just a lot of not really understanding the world or how things work and you end up having to spend hours explaining things that were settled decades or even centuries ago. Anarchism without Marxism just ends up being utopian idealism and its exactly as frustrating as dealing with liberals or conservatives.
You know how i was talking about valid critques of anarchism?
This is one of them.
Define cybercommunism. Workers plan != planners/intelligentsia plan. >>1586222
The state is problematic from the simple law that Marx called the main law, the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. I think it is ignored by young marxists simply as a capitalist law. But the law is about surplus value, that is used to upgrade the means of production. If state is in command, it does so by taking suplus value and using to command what it wants. If so, there is tendency of rate of surplus value to fall. so the state will see similar problems that bourgeois see, of finding more suplus value for commanding.
The command from the bottom, thus universal development of a worker, that as I understand anarhcists demand, is not just a wish, it is necessary for the abolishmend of this law of capitalism.
Cockshottism. Have you read Towards a New Socialism? It's like Democratic Confederalism but better and more based in the present material conditions.
Ego prevents that.
Love my anarchist comrades just don't like them punching left on Marxists
If by "debunked" you mean make an absolute ass out of himself and get consistently refuted then sure he absolutely "owned the anarkiddies" epic style
I was more interested in Debord's thoughs on second internationale and critique of Marxism if anything, hence I glossed over anarchism critique and remembered that>hey! he did write something about it!
>This is a pretty clear dunk on anarcho-individualists- so I don't see how he's "criticising anarchism as a whole".
While line you highlight is for sure dunk on anarcho-individualists, the rest is about anarchist movement as a whole. Notice that in the next sentence he starts with>From the historical though of modern class struggles colectivist anarchism […]
I.e Debord says that anarcho-individualism is not worth criticizing, so he will move onto anarcho-"collectivism". And I will kinda focus on the bit I highlighted>Anarchism remains a merely ideological negation of the State and of classes, namely of the social conditions of separate ideology. It is the ideology of pure liberty which equalizes everything and dismisses the very idea of historical evil.
This bit is a moment of "dunking" for me. I bet you do know fair amount of marxism, so you know "German Ideology" and realise the implications of that sentence. Or maybe I am overstating it?
>Because Im not sure if you know this, anarchists themselves have also had squabbles and fights amongst themselves. >That's not even beside the point that MLs consistently have shitflinging fights as well and major ideological differences within their own tendencies- from Hoxhaists, Maoists and Titoists, yet I wouldn't be foolish enough to make sweeping generalisations of MLs as a whole.
I do realise that, but I don't think any anarchist will say what I am about to say. I am old fasioned in this regard.
There are no multiple tendencies, only one correct one (and I am not sure if I am correct either) which is approximated by most successful model of theory we do have. If we really call marxism a science then method of getting to the truth has to be falsifiable. I think revolutions are the great filter. All three whom you mentioned are outgrowth of leninism, because leninism passed the "great filter" as opposed to ways of second internationale. Neither Hoxhaists nor Trotskytes do not have a revolution to call their own, they are dead off-shoots. Maoism _can_ claim a revolution that was even repeated, but yet it wasn't able to consolidate itself.
>>1586309> Neither Hoxhaists nor Trotskytes do not have a revolution to call their own, they are dead off-shoots.
Hoxha threw the Nazis out of Albania in a revolution.>Maoism _can_ claim a revolution that was even repeated, but yet it wasn't able to consolidate itself.
Hoxha's critique of it.
>>1586322>Hoxha threw the Nazis out of Albania in a revolution.
That was a war with bigger players and he was just a front.
Cool, but Hoaxhism was entrenched repetition of leninism, it doesn't bring anything new to the table and it wasn't repeatable. It suceeds in the same places where leninism suceeds, it's not extension of it, but repetition.
I am. But my flag is also an ancom flag as you can see
if its pure leninism then it just proves that revisionism is necessary since albania isnt standing
The shitflinging mostly happens online, irl people are a lot more reasonable. I'm very sympathetic to anarchism (I don't see why a political and managerial strata would ever willingly surrender their social status and wouldn't just perpetuate their privileges at the expense of everyone else when they've got the state and all the guns to back themselves up)
and while I wish more would read Marx, the anarchistic strains of Marxism (libertarianism, autonomism, etc.) seem like they pick up the weaknesses of both while getting the strengths of neither. It's also not easy to find much good anarchist writing from the last 75 years and they tend to use a lot of jargon specific to their own niches: kyriarchy, catalysis, rhizomes, not to mention a lot of spiritual stuff that tends to get thrown in randomly.
Disclaimer, I am operating under the assumption that "revisionism" is revision of the method. Not revising the ideas themselves. Under that assumption, hoxhaist experiment was revisionism, because it dogmatically stood in place when theory was progressing forward.
This is my point though. Leninism is, so far, a correct method of waging a revolutionary struggle. It was reproductible, but it had it's share of errors which can be seen plain as day (purges "from above" instead of "from below", Hilferdingian errors of economy, to name a few) and which have to be corrected.
To expand, maoist "extension" was trying to correct some of them and you can synthetise some correct theories from it (not the universality of PPW though, sorry Gonzalo) to make party building and waging a struggle more viable.
Because most online leftists are radical liberals either of the socdem or tankie variety and can't adequately critique the concept of sovereignty
Like with the original liberal revolutionaries their true enemies aren't the other sovereign powers they compete with, but the people that genuinely believe in their stated objectives
Do you have a coherent critique of Anarchism tho, or is your critique that it (communism) is naive and you leave it there?
Personally when I was an idiot teen I was a stalinist and when I grew up and actually got a job I became an anarchist
That is the autocrat way
There's a reason they need to burn books and shoot intellectuals
Some are very annoying, keep going on about evil totalitarianism and real socialism like liberals
If they do their own thing why would I have a problem with them
>>1586262>Anarchists are wrong because<Because they disagreed with me<<Also if you read the OG texts including the God and Savior of Marxism, Ioseb Dzhugashvili, you uhhh will definitely never stray from or critique our specific interpretation of someone else's interpretation of someone else's interpretation of the world
So to be a tankie one must be childishly credulous? Sounds about right.
Most of the active revolutionary left is anarchist in some places because the "communist" parties are busy with the bourgeois electoral circus and trots, MLs, maoists etc are book reading sects who are too busy taking stances on geopolitical issues in their newspapers. Meanwhile anarchists organize into communes, cooperatives, squats and are the fighting vanguard of protests.
>The Eurasianist fucktard fascist
I rest my case
>What did your hero Makhno get up to other than butchering and enslaving peasants because Christian children bullied him as kid? Now, who’s word is more reliable?
Also the sheer irony of saying this while upholding Joseph fucking Stalin lmao
I prefer MLs that don't pretend like they don't despise peasants, like half this thread
Reactionaries. Look at them, literally becoming indistinguishable from anti-communist libs the moment anarchism is mentioned >>1585970
>>1585998>the vast majority of post-ww2 anarchists have aligned with liberalism over historical communism
The absolute irony of saying this when most marxists today envision contemporary china as a socialist state
>>1585964from a ex-anarcho communist burger's perspective:
The reason is that anarchism is where a lot of current MLs started off their political evolution and its associated with liberalism (and crypto liberals like Vaûsh) and the whole early 2010s occupy wall street era. Basically the failure of OWS in the minds of a lot of left wing millennials discredited the idea of decentralized political action and made them turn towards vanguardism. Plus a lot of the reason people considered themselves anarchists and not marxists was due to the tankie/USSR stigma and reflexive anti communism in general american culture. And once you get over that mental hurdle you realize Marxism is actually pretty comprehensive theory of explanation of history, economics, and guide to political action.
Personally I started getting attracted to Marxism by reading shit like the 'anarchist FAQ' and noticing in the economics section they quoted Marx a ton and plus I started getting interested in crisis theory after the financial crisis of '07/'08, and if you want to, for the most part, study serious left wing economic theory its mostly Marxists.
Essentially anarchism is sort of the emo phase of leftie politics, and induces similar retrospective cringe.
Plus there are some Marxist tendencies like libertarian marxism and communization type leftcoms who are very similar to ancoms anyway.
I'll add to this: the whole anarchistic idea of prefigurative politics i.e. making the political movement anti-hierarchical ended up being people LARPing direct democracy in Zuccotti Park in front of bankers rather than doing some more effective form of direct action that could actually leverage or force real material concessions. Keep in mind the american OWS was a lot less militant (other than in certain areas ex: Oakland, CA) than its European (esp. southern European) counterparts what with the movement of the squares, the indignados, etc.
This may be shocking but since Anarchism is decidedly not basically like a bunch of personality Cults centered on basically reverent scholasticism for like dead people
Anarchists don't reject Marx out of hand because Anarchists don't automatically reject people for simply not being Anarchists lmao
>Science is western
>Not believing in magic spirits is western
>Brushing your teeth is western
>Washing your balls is western
>Butthole flag is chiming in
Might as well just nuke the thread now, we're in for 50+ posts of this guy making shit up and everyone else trying to explain common sense to him
I am the anon who says `marxism is scientific and you can test theory in class struggle`. Please notice the "eurasian" flag. Your run of the mill ML generally doesn't think like this.>>1586377
eh, it depends. Where are you from anon (general country, not exact city)? Because if we are talking "western" stuff, then there is pretty viable critique of "movementism" being a failed strategy (as seen in Occupy times) which presupposes that many small movements will eventually coalescence into one big movement which will sweep the reaction away (Tiqqun style, so even pre-Occupy).
>>1586390>then Deng, and now Xi leads the world in the most advanced form of communism.
I won't argue primarily, because the path of ChRL was the one of ZSRR (without the whole beaurocratic capitalists being removed bit). I will just note, that restauration of capitalism in ZSRR didn't start in the '80, but back in the '60. We will then argue pointlessly about minutiae of the issue, go back and fourth about Hilferding and his contribution (only not consciously) and so on. Thank you.
So just report him and ignore him retard instead of smugly replying to him that he's a butthole and giving him more reasons to spam replies?
I don't think Eurasian anon is the typical ML, only other religious ML I know of is like Caleb Mooping
Allow me to give some advice that I think is very helpful especially for those relatively new to leftism
>Do not get caught up in labels
>Do not hyperfixate on theory, nor adopt it as a form of dogma. Avoid getting stuck in the past.
>What some leftist thinkers said/wrote and what they did could be very, very different.
>Do not get encumbered by vernacular or rhetoric
>Avoid getting in battles with other lefties on the above or trying to out-left or be the one true solution or whatever else.
>Aesthetics and drawing from historical movements for inspiration can be fun in-group activities, but don't mistake them for something useful in and of itself.
>Seek pragmatic solutions and avoid getting tangled by those who fixate on purity testing, some theoretical contingent, or otherwise at the cost of actually making an improvement, even if not the perfect overnight solution some would prefer.
>No matter what you see in online or other niche communities, realize most people do not share lefty ideologies and especially the vernacular and aesthetic . However, many of them will agree with at least some of your principles and can be brought over to seeing them more favorably, if you take the time to meet them where they are.
All of the labels, theory, and vernacular are of their time , their situation, the viewpoints of their authors etc. Instead, focus on what you want to accomplish, look at the current situation and how best you can engage with that in order to move things in the right direction. Be open and discuss things. Not everyone will see them as you do - avoid the tribalism and isolation by aesthetic, vernacular and the like that is getting increasingly popular on the edges regardless of political alignment. Think about why you want to be a leftist and why you think its the best solution for what problems. Many approach leftism as (as much as they hate to admit it) as a surrogacy for a religion (and some lefty philosophies were specifically designed to emulate and subsume the features and cultural place of previous religions and fit it into their conception of socialism); avoid falling into these pitfalls or those who support them.
Don't worry so much about picking a label or belief; a lot of the "hate" you mention is that definitions have changed over the years and frankly there was the equivalent of a lot of old chat room faction fighting hundreds of years ago where someone thought X and another though Y, X and those who supported him said that Y was (reactionary, counterrevolutionary otherwise bad etc), and sometimes Z would take advantage of this to move in and try to take power and claim that Z-ism was the TRUE meaning of (thing), while knowing that it was more of a power struggle than anything else.
There's no reason to rush. Learn, but realize that even within these communities there are sometime significant biases. Ultimately, just look at how you want to practically and realistically make things better in the current moment, look for how you can do that and think of all sides of an issue. There's more, but I think that's a start.
This is what most people entangled in practical work come down to. For example, our party did co-work with syndicalists, regular anarchists, once even trots, despite being "normal" ML party. It was necessary and we were wary of possible differences in strategy/organisational principles, but it worked out.
As far as I remember, anarchists were only surprised by the fact, that a) we asked them to do the talk about experiences and possible self-criticism after the thing, b) that everyone from their side showed up (which was cute tbh, I personally thought they will be more numerous, because we are technically smaller).
does anyone know if someone has tried to synthesize anarchist and marxist theory and praxis? I honestly don't see why you can't have both "horizontal" and "verticle" form of organizing within the same organization. I just wish we could all get along
butthole flag lol
basically my policital journey from ancom to just communist since I read more theory and realized I liked every tendency
>>1586530>I honestly don't see why you can't have both "horizontal" and "verticle" form of organizing within the same organization.
Isn't it just demcent? I mean democratic centralism is not two smart words but relation between those two and there are times where democracy is more important aspect and times where centralism is more important aspect.
Are you telling me that left-unity is a every day reality that exists and practically cannot be avoided no matter how much the freaks online cry and screech about le ebil anarchists?!?!
Jokes aside, everyone knows anon.
The kind of people who you feel needs to be told this will always ignore it because to them having teams they can either support on the internet and or cry and seethe about on the internet is more important to them than you know… overturning the present state of things and ending the final conflict.
You are literally preaching to people who are not 'do not want to know' but 'know and simply do not care'.
These are Spectacle Gremlins, this is the better way to think of them than wasting your time, they are barely even at all to be considered human, maybe even 'less human' than the bourgeoisie because at least they react within their own class interests at times.
My bad, I didn't mean to imply that Anarchism is "naive or childish". Though your posts in this thread are the ur-example of bad faith wrecker shit online anarchists typically get up to. Which is why I usually have your flag filtered.
This needs to be pointed out more.
>>1586530>does anyone know if someone has tried to synthesize anarchist and marxist theory and praxis
I mentioned it earlier but libertarian Marxists and autonomists somehow end up with the worst aspects of both (like spontaneism and millenarian thinking) without any practical benefits.
im ex-anarchist that entered into it through democratic confederalism. i later started talking to ancomms and they showed me how rojava is really nationalist stalinists that collude with american imperialism, and they were not wrong. i later got disillusioned with bakhuninism and the fact that a lot of these ancomms were unable to come to any kind of unity of theory or action, which is hillarious but also pretty common in anarchist spaces. for all the talk about no hierarchy in the here and now there always was hierarchy in all the orgs i was in. there was an informal pecking order that never go formalized and all the democratic procedures were more or less for show ( with a few exceptions ) and were easily circumvented by people with strong personalities. in an org like that, and more generally in any kind of organization based on volunteer labor, if you are the one doing the most work, theoretically, practically, whatever, and you choose to withhold your labor when things are not going the way you want it to go, you have a lot more leverage than if you are one of many lazy "members" that do nothing and complain and plot all day to discredit people who do actually do the work.
and yes, there are many trans and neurodiverse people in anarchist and also in marxist spaces. actually people gravitate to orgs like that because it relieves their alienation and also because many marginalized people find themselves on the poorer side of things. with marxist orgs the focus is on class at least, whereas with some anarchist orgs multiple forms of non-class-based struggle are accepted. that was another reason why i had to give up on some of these anarchist orgs. I'm not saying they are all like that, though. some syndicalists really get down and organize syndicates and direct actions on a class basis, councilists are cool in theory.
really, at this point, my main gripe is that the ones that do do the materialist analysis and have concluded the same conclusions as marx and are willing to do unity of action/theory and have a platform ala makhno are still hostile towards calling that a party and becoming leftcoms but that doesn't mean that we can't do some things together on a unity of action basis, even if we do disagree on longer term goals and theory
*although I should say not all libertarian/autonomist organizations are bad, and having a Marxist grounding is definitely a plus regardless
>>1586575>From the people who literally blame Khruschev and the CIA for the Soviet government destroying itself mostly to kill its welfare system
Movie theater projection
Also OWS were largely not anarchists, is that genuinely hard to comprehend?
Like sure if you're a fringe weirdo that overestimates the influence of radical leftist ideologies in 1968+55 then I guess I can see why you would think the fringes of OWS were the uhhh commanding heights of the movement, but it was in many ways largely spontaneous and the Marxists also utterly failed to be worth a damn in that moment
It's an anomaly in the English-speaking world, simply because most anarchism happens and happened outside of the Anglosphere and nobody bothered to translate it all.
A lot of things do get translated anon (and pretty good machine translations are at hand to everyone), just the kind of people who use leftypol would rather not see it so do not seak it out.
>>1586098>>Who said I don't care about domestic violence?>You did when you said<>Have you worked in activist spaces with people who have severe mental health issues? They usually make everything all about themselves without giving much thought to working with the external.>and <>Incompetent people who are so bogged down with their own mental bullshit are often times reluctant to organize.
Those are completely non-sequitur to your claim. Like, completely
. This is (in a medical context) derailment, and if this happens every other conversations, it's inflammatory and disruptive.
And that's a part of why it's difficult to accommodate everyone, when certain anti-social issues like narcissism and certain thought disorders are respectively parasitic or antagonistically derailing to important conversations. There people still have value to the movement, of course these issues don't make them useless, but some of them just shouldn't be in a typical position in an organisation that wants to work and be more than a social group. What I mean is, a person with severe NPD may actually be most effective if planted as a saboteur ('wrecker') in fascist groups.
>since it (in my eyes) holds similar goals of freeing the working class from an oppressive bourgeois class
The end goal of any form of communism is inherently anarchistic. Marx ultimately advocated a moneyless, classless, stateless
society, and if I'm not mistaken, the later re
definition of 'communism' derived from this.
The point being, that long-term goals of 'freeing the working class from an oppressive bourgeois class' don't differentiate the Marxism-Leninism-Maoists from anarcho-communists. What differentiates them is how they try and enact the change. And both these ideologies have seen successes - while M-L ideologies haven't really freed the working class yet, they have succeeded in seizing power in circumstances where anarchist ideologies haven't (such as big industrialized countries that later became superpowers). So I absolutely support anarchistic methods as applied to Zapatistas and REJUVE, and even things like cell-based antifascism activities where decentralization is an effective defense against sabotage, even if there is a likely efficacy cost. But in the situations most internet users are in, I consider anarchist strategies to be ineffective and idealistic prefigurative politics, like >>1586441
mentioned. And when life and death is on the line, effective methods matter.
Yeah but that's not unique to anarchists, as a lot of marxists also are moral fanatics and pretentious. Difference is that anarchists tend to have a gripe with anything deemed "hierarchal" while marxists will idolize anything to do with previous AES states.
I wouldn't even argue the main problem with anarchists is the obsession with morality, but more of the root of it. Which is a lack of reading theory, as I had already stated, and thus split into different groups of thought which usually have nothing to do with class… but usually have to do with going against some type of authority. Which is how you get weird groups such as anarcho-nihilists, egoists, ect. But more often they just stay with their previous liberal positions and don't change them much.
Agent Kochinski is an extreme example…. But I have seen anarchists act similarly to him, with having no real coherent beliefs, or just staying with the liberal status quo.
Marxists consider any and all harsh critiques of themselves from other leftists to be "bad faith"
Sorry you sometimes have to encounter people who don't trip on their dicks for you and your idols dude
V*ush is such a transparent radlib that it almost feels disingenous to call him an anarchist as part of a critique of anarchist. Which I think is true, its a bad basis for a critique, at the same time that a whole lot of self described anarchists do undeniably have essentially the same beliefs as v*ush. I think this does get to an important part of why anarchism has the reputation it does, and how that reputation is related to reality:
calling yourself an anarchist is simply much less provocative in most of the world than calling yourself a communist. it seems like an extreme but safely obscure ideology that is easy to explain as some kind of quirky form of anti-authoritarianism, which is synonymous with being "anti-bad" in much of the world. this certainly was not true in the late 19th/early 20th century, hopefully it will not be true in the future, but in our own lifetime in most of the world (there are notable exceptions), calling yourself an anarchist is just less of a commitment to inviting opposition compared to calling yourself a communist. this makes it very easy for non-committal liberals to have a radical phase where theyre a little (or a lot) louder and opinionated, but so far as theyre around other left-liberals they dont need to worry about fundamentally alienating people or wrestle with their beliefs. of course this is not true of the sorts of anarchists that will refuse to live in a gentrified neighborhood and will cut off friends who become landlords, but for every one of them in the west at least theres 10 that will just say "no ethical consumption under capitalism" or some meme to that effect to excuse it and talk about how they/their friends actually do it ethically.
this is of course also true to communists to a real extent, but there is still a greater commitment involved in voluntarily taking on a far more contested legacy that has been synonymous in the west with "the enemy" for so long. being a more surefire controversial position certainly attracts its own particular type of antisocial weirdos, but all things considered theres simply considerably lower stakes for claiming to be an anarchist compared to claiming to be a communist
>>1586664>being a more surefire controversial position certainly attracts its own particular type of antisocial weirdos, but all things considered theres simply considerably lower stakes for claiming to be an anarchist compared to claiming to be a communist
I agree. Anarchists want to attract more moderate types and self-styled communists want to talk to more radical types. Everyone needs a community.
Quote for me where in your reply you actually came back with an actual good faith correction or critique to what i said homie cause i must've missed it. Or are you just gonna continue to project upon me your own childishness?
Strasserists are German and Nazbols are Russian, that's it basically.
Both share in that they're irrelevant ideologies that barely even exist.
Polpotism is authoritarian primitivism
Why do you care about this. It’s the same strand of reactionary garbage you’d expect.
Anarchism has no serious answers to the questions of attaining power, keeping said power, developing its society towards its end goal. There's 2 types of anarcho communism. The theoretical kind, similar to leftcom stuff, never worked or became big irl, crushed instantly as soon as it's implemented. And there is actually existing anarchism, aka the kind that lasts more than 2 years, which is defacto indistinguishable from Marxism. It had an army, it has prisons, they kill the enemies of the people in a dictatorship of the proletariat, it has a central authority, but they all call it different things. And it still collapses after several years because it's unable to organise against capitalist incursions.
But I guess I'm the west most people hate anarchists because they don't want to join an org, if they are in an org they don't want to follow group consensus, they don't want to read books by people who actually took state power and wrote on how to do so, they are extremely sectarian, they oppose hierarchy which in practice means they have a lot of informal hierarchy which is at high risks of power abuses and puts vulnerable people at risk, and on personal levels a lot of pot smoking hippy types with very awfull politics (like abolishing the age of consent) identity as anarchts and hang in their spaces.
In the first world west, meaning anything richer than Spain, anarchists are lifestylists with no connection to working class conciousness or politics, it's mostly rich kids, and the anarchists with ties to working class politics, if they ever manage to actually organise shit, become more similar to Marxists the more effectively organised they are.
So I short, they are a bunch of people who claim to share the same goal as you, yet are endlessly sectarian, unwilling to put in the work, do not have a coherent worldview or ideology that you can challenge with yours to try and reach a higher truth, and all in all are impossible to work with because in the end, anarchism is an individualist lifestyle and this very fact makes it so their focus on the self clashes with their focus on the class.
These reasons are the same reason why people hate sectarian trotskiists, leftcoms or Stalinists. Most of them are unable to articulate their differences in actual concrete politics, and just say <person in history> bad, or <concept bad> despite pretty much most Marxists agreeing already.
>And are there other ideologies that cherry pick beliefs and policies from both the extreme far left and right?
That was, to some extent, what OG Fascism claimed itself to be
Man, I always get really fucking sick of anarchists shaming other activists for not willing to get arrested or commit the holy political strategy that is civil disobedience. Things like that are not an option if you do not have wealthy lawyers for parents or if you have an actual fucking job to tend to.
All the more proof that anarchists are more separated from working-class-interests than anyone else.
Because the only legitimate reason people insert themselves into normie ideologies or even far right or far left ideology is because they look for who is the winner or at the very least who is somewhat established in the grand scheme of things, their cultures, official political parties, memes, history, numbers of people in the group and comradery. But if youre going into one of these groups youre accepting as a prerequisite great compromise in every situation unless youre a swaying grifter doing it for money (essentially 99% of politicians). Look at how if youre not a staunch supporter of Israel then youre not allowed a platform as a republican conservatard or if youre not a diehard transhumanist blm worshiper than youre not a real democrat and canceled from every platform. I can maybe accept a tiny bit of compromise among like minded autists but with every major group its always to much compromise for me. That puts me in a place of irrelevance like you said but atleast it's honest.
That's a valid interpretation I suppose. I tend to root Fascism as a general cynicism within the Left that emerged after WWI. To this extent, I think the frequent threads on here asking how and why Fascists think what they do might in fact be a revival of that cynicism.
I dont disagree with that interpretation either. There certainly is a rise in intelligent fascists who hate liberalism but also have scepticism to socialism, which is mostly born from an undying idealism i think, which is the marker of all fascist reactions. Fascism is a revolution of its time. I think whats remarkable about marxism is how ahead of its time it is.
Dont focus on labels, just focus on what seems to be true.
What is the difference between Stalin's theory that full socialization can only occur in countries where >capitalism and the concentration of production have advanced far enough both in industry and agriculture to permit the expropriation of all the means of production
and Deng's theory of "productive forces?"
How do Marx's theories apply to fiat and token currency, as compared to the former gold standard?
You answered your own question>>1588942
This is what I know from reading chapter 3 of Capital Vol I:
In one way, fiat is hugely beneficial to capitalists as it means that an armed state has control of the money supply
In another way, fiat is a progressive force toward communism because gold was always an illusory commodity that cast a shadow over the true sources of value, labour and natural resources.
In yet another way, gold still has a monetary value in every currency. Its characteristic as a universal equivalent is still totally there. X amount of gold will always be worth Y American dollars, even though the value of the dollar is not pegged to the supply of gold. The American dollar itself is a commodity with no use value that is thus a universal equivalent. The supply of American dollars is intended to "steadily" accumulate over time. This makes me further question American Libertarians when they accuse fiat of being "worthless" in comparison to gold because a state has control over its supply. Was this not true of gold? Gold mines were still being discovered when the gold standard existed. The supply of gold likewise "inflated." How? Because of the imperial conquests of the state of course! "Inflating" its gold supply by carving up colonial territories in search of fresh gold mines. The gold standard, after all, could only be determined by a record of the extant gold on the earth — which could only ever be the gold in the possession of the imperial states.
Haiti were the original rebels that bucked slavery and imperialism first, 200 years ago. They've been fucked over ever since for showing strength, the imperialists could never allow them to succeed in any way in case anyone else got ideas.
>Eli5 it to me
one graph go up while the other goes flat. idk what you're really after OP but you should probably get your eyes checked
How are they doing this? Sanctions? 3k seems africa tier. Tourism enough could have made it better.
More specifically, France forced Haiti to compensate it for losing their slaves and the debt took over 120 years to pay off; by the time that was done, the Americans had sunk their claws into Haiti, directly running the country for 19 years, then installing the Duvaliers. The "help" from the International Community has not stopped since.
What's the material explanation of Somali migrants having unemployment rates as high as 80% in Europe?
Most asylum seekers are uneducated people who can't find a job in Europe where low skill industrial manufacturing doesn't really exist anymore. When we talk about immigrations we need to specify what kind of immigration we're talking about due to the unique economic conditions of Europe
I have a question about Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR.
Stalin goes from supporting the following platform on the law of value under socialism in Section 3:
>If profitableness is considered not from the stand-point of individual plants or industries, and not over a period of one year, but from the standpoint of the entire national economy and over a period of, say, ten or fifteen years, which is the only correct approach to the question,
To contradicting it entirely in the Reply to Notkin:
>it would be mistaken to conclude from this that the profitableness of individual plants and industries is of no particular value and is not deserving of serious attention. That, of course, is not true. The profitableness of individual plants and industries is of immense value for the development of our industry.
What am I missing here?
Stalin’s platform on the law of value under socialism in Section 3 of Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR is based on the idea that profitability should be measured not by the individual performance of plants or industries, but by the overall development of the national economy over a long period of time. He argues that this is the only correct approach to the question, because it takes into account the social and historical factors that influence the production and distribution of goods under socialism. He also states that profitability is not an end in itself, but a means to achieve higher goals, such as increasing the productivity of labor, improving the quality of products, reducing costs, and satisfying the growing needs of society.
However, Stalin does not contradict this platform in his Reply to Notkin. He does not deny the importance of profitability from the standpoint of the entire national economy and over a long period of time. He only clarifies that this does not mean that profitability from the standpoint of individual plants and industries is irrelevant or unworthy of attention. He explains that profitability from this standpoint is also valuable for the development of industry, because it reflects the efficiency and rationality of production, and it disciplines and motivates the managers and workers to improve their performance. He also warns that ignoring profitability from this standpoint can lead to serious consequences, such as waste, losses, stagnation, and crisis.
Therefore, Stalin’s views on profitability under socialism are not contradictory, but complementary. He recognizes that profitability has different meanings and functions depending on the level and perspective of analysis. He also acknowledges that profitability is not a static or absolute concept, but a dynamic and relative one, that changes according to the conditions and objectives of socialist production. He tries to balance between the macroeconomic and microeconomic aspects of profitability, and between the short-term and long-term effects of profitability. He does not reject or abolish profitability under socialism, but he redefines and regulates it according to the principles and goals of socialism.
reserve army of labour
What do the fuck rightoids mean by woke? Like is it term for idpol or are they talking about gay rights? I've never seen an actual definition, it just seems like a term they throw it around and that doesn't really have any meaning other than they don't like that particular thing they are bitching about.
The way I see it it's cultural marxism reworded
Anything that makes the slaves wake is woke
The pseudo-profit rate is an indicator that the administration can decide not to follow, but deciding against it needs a justification. It's OK to follow it for short-term tweaks, but it tells you nothing about which big strategic changes to undertake.
Stalin warns of overly comparmentalized decisions. Big capitalist firms that try to maximize their overall profit don't do that if they want to maximized their overall profit. (It can even make sense for a small company to make more holistic decisions. Suppose you have a stand selling salty pretzels and something to drink. You can think of these things as competing with each other. So each thing you sell has to justify its production price by its selling price then. But you may have higher profit overall if you sell the pretzels at no profit because high pretzel consumption leads to people drinking more.)
Basically what >>1590369
said, despite sounding like a chatbot.
I drink coffee in the morning, and tea in the afternoon. I look forward to both every day. I am in the USA, where no coffee can grow, and no tea is cultivated.
In a socialist world, free from imperial exploitation, could i still have my coffee and tea?
man planned economies must've been a real pain in the ass back then maybe the CyberSocs are onto something with all the AI/computer planning In a better world we'd be posting on an OGAS forum ig
Maybe, if there's a war or something going on, you might only get the cheap stuff at best.
How would it work? Would i pay labor vouchers to have it imported? Would it be as cheap as it is now or more expensive since it would no longer be a cash crop for the global south?
It would probably be more expensive, and the government would take care of importing it themselves by trading it for something your country produces and the South doesn't have enough of. It would be very inefficient if every worker needed to buy a tea dropshipment from China every time.
I feel like an idiot, but someone on this very board posted what they felt was definitive proof that Stalin was in fact the opposite of an autocratic leader with a cult of personality. The story was that some Soviet academic with objectively reactionary opinions (literally saying the white army should have won, iirc) and when this came to the attention of Stalin, he basicallty let him do as he wished, or at least pardoned him. At any rate he wasn't silenced or sent to le gulag.
Does anybody know what I'm talking about?
What I mean is, I feel like an idiot that I can't find it. It was in the replies of another thread but I can't remember which one.
Is Hasan Piker actually leftist or just another milquetoast succdem
leftist is a meaningless term. he doesn't seem to be a commie from what I've seen of the man
I don't think the distinction really matters here anon.
However he does combat american main stream media propaganda about places like DPRK and Vietnam and China to his young and otherwise extremely impressionable audience. As well as financially and publicly advocate for trade unions in his own country.
He identifies as a 'leftist' and not as a socdem (he openly rejects the socdem label). He has an anti-imperialist edge, having grown up in Turkey and he's probably the most pro-China and anti-nato out of any major 'leftist' content creators but he doesn't go full multipolarista because he considers American domestic news more relevant to his mostl American audience. He has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the growing Amazon labor union. He welcomes M-Ls in his community and will drop some radical points here there has invited the PSL people numerous times while at the same time shitting on the democratic party while still shepherding for some elements for it like AOC. He sees his stream as an entry point to leftism for the uninitiated and not as a full-blown theory book club.
It's up to you whether you see in him as another opportunist larper reformist or whether you think having such a voice as one of the biggest streamers on the Internet within a new media space that is still extremely hostile to even lukewarm socdemism.
consider it important'
I would describe Hasan Piker as a fellow traveler who sits on the fence between the contemporary Social Democrats and the broader, Marxist Left. He defends Social Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez but has also advocated that people join PSL in-addition to PSL. Some astute Leftypol users may have noticed by now that DSA and PSL have very different politics.>>1591371>He welcomes M-Ls in his community and will drop some radical points here there has invited the PSL people numerous times while at the same time shitting on the democratic party while still shepherding for some elements for it like AOC. He sees his stream as an entry point to leftism for the uninitiated and not as a full-blown theory book club.
This is pretty accurate. He does try to not be partisan. I remember while ago he was giving some praise to r/antiwork but then he was appalled and pissing and shitting and throwing up when someone pointed out that the subreddit is anti "authoritarian socialists." He then would say something like… Anarchists… He seemed restrained that he didn't want to openly condemn them.
He has had PSL member Mike Prysner on his podcast for an interview (https://youtu.be/mINrc2ns_6I
). He has reacted to some of Prysner's speeches and public call-outs, as well. https://youtu.be/E43Vqz-uEgQ https://youtu.be/PBeAbhKizyE
Hasan is many things but one thing he is not is an ultra. He seems to be familiar with some amount of Marxism. He also admits that he is not a revolutionary, that he is not part of a revolutionary party, that he is not an organizer, and that he is "just" a political commentator and idiot twitch streamer. He is very self-deprecating, which might not be what a communist should be doing if they want people to trust them, but on the otherhand, neither he nor a communist should claim to know everything about anything. Still, he has a dedication to the facts that other ostensibly "leftist" streamers do not seem to have. Agent Kochinski's "resolute" and "dedicated, exhaustive" research consists of him starring at a Wikipedia article and uncritically repeating everything he reads there, on the spot, and his method of critique is non-existent.
Agent Kochinski seeks only to expose imperfection, which works in his "debates" where his microphone volume level is higher than his opponents because he is the one streaming the event, so he can just talk over his opponents when they are saying something correct, for example, Midwestern Marx's Eddie Liger did a debate with Agent Kochinski and Agent Kochinski really did not have any good arguments. In lieu of good arguments, Agent Kochinski would try to poke holes into the timeline whenever Eddie Liger would explain the origins of the current proxy war in Ukraine, Agent Kochinski would try to play these games where he would demand verification on explicitly named dates, names, and exactly phrased quotes, like a typical pedant. Oh, you named a treaty where you got one word in the name wrong? You are Cancelled, Sweaty. Someone else - I think Noah from MWM - drew attention to the fact that many of Agent Kochinski's claims could only be taken as true if taken at face value, if considered without historical material context, as an absolute moral principle, which was why Agent Kochinski in that debate with MWM got all excited when he was asking Eddie Liger of MWM if "Russia had invaded Ukraine," like he was about to score this big moral point. It is so tedious. Someone could have argued that Saddam Husein was morally corrupt for invading Kuwait but if you asked why Kuwait and Iraq were separate countries in the first place, or who trained Iraq's scientists, or why Iraq had a nuclear research program in the first place (here's a hint, the U.S. funded it when Saddam was an ally…), or when Saddam was accused of gassing the Kurds, someone could ask WHO HAD GIVEN HIM THE BLOODY ARMAMENTS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! Agent Kochinski would let all of these points go over his head. If you asked Agent Kochinski if the Iraq War was bad, he would say yes, but he has also argued that the U.S. pulling out of Afghanistan is bad because the Taliban are chauvinists, because they oppress women and minorities, but if you pointed up that the Afghan National Army under the puppet Afghanistan government had literally defended and covered for serial pedophile rapists and that they were protecting opium grow operations that the Taliban would actually stop after they had seized power… If you pointed out any of that, Agent Kochinski would turn around and call you a chauvinist, etc., for supporting the Taliban by saying one nice thing about them and saying bad things about the "obviously progressive" forces of the American military… Fuck Agent Kochinski, opportunist scum!
We should be very careful in continuing this language of the digital-entertainment market, for 'community' is not what this is, even if a simulacra of community is what these entertainers are proporting to sell. They are products and the 'community members' are then customers or consumers.
I think it is important personally to be clear about this language.
>>1592808>We should be very careful in continuing this language of the digital-entertainment market, for 'community' is not what this is, even if a simulacra of community is what these entertainers are proporting to sell. They are products and the 'community members' are then customers or consumers.>I think it is important personally to be clear about this language.
You are correct in the sense that communicative networks are at their root advanced property relations. Social media, online pornography repositories, online game servers, etc., are all manifestations of communicative capitalism. The software applications/ online web services/etc that we call social media are an ingenious device to capture value, user data, which could be anything from the data that is in a user's profile (their age, height, date of birth, their profile picture), their posts, whether consisting of gif sets taken from a popular television show, or a gallery (known on Instagram as a carousel) of professionally taken photographs, clever short-text quips, jokes, etc., an audio file, or a video, etc. The data is a commodity, produced with human labor. It is not merely a use value. The data does not exist only for its use value on social media. After all, why would the communicative capitalists need these messages and notes. Rather, for them, the use value of the data is its alienable property, it's capacity to be alienated, to be exchanged, in the case of social media, its capacity to be presented to other users, that they discover, that they may Like or Reply to, something that even if they do not "React" to with buttons, they are having an impression with, since even the amount of time that they look at the post is recorded so that the algorithm can best decide in the future what is most relevant to show the user.
The "Free" user of communicative capitalism generally:
- Produces the content that makes communicative networks interesting, novel, compelling
- Does so while conceiving of their content creation not as labor but as "expressing themselves" as an individual human bean
- Thus their activity and their labor here is conflated
For the "Premium" user of communicative capitalist formations:
- Also produces some of the content that makes the communicative network interesting
- Does so while conceiving of their content creation not as labor but as "expressing themselves" as a BRAND
- They pay to elevate their own content above the content of others, to get more followers, etc
- Their activity and labor are conflated but less so since they have likely internalized many of the assumptions of being a brand much easier (afterall, they likely pay for social media to get ahead), because they are using the communicative network as a platform for their own enterprises, for their own efforts at accumulating capital. This Premium user could be someone on a marketing team of a major corporation, running the account for the company, or it could be an amateur podcaster hoping to establish a brand, or someone looking to hype up their dropshipping business, or a fresh "comedian", etc
So the communities of the web are nothing more than formations of property relations. But so is the bourgeois "nuclear" family. So are bourgeois corporations. That material formation, that is ongoing in capitalist class society, was informed by the base economic interests being upheld and shaped by various superstructures, for example, the legal system, religion, bourgeois morality, etc., which was itself the product of previous iterations of class society.
>We should be very careful in continuing this language of the digital-entertainment market, for 'community' is not what this is, even if a simulacra of community is what these entertainers are proporting to sell.
We could say this of the capitalist, bourgeois family, too. But are you not going to refer to a family as a family because it was the product of class society? Perhaps among fellow communists, but you would find that you still have to meet other people where they are at.
Why havent fast food jobs been automated yet?
cheaper and more profitable to use people
also the profit (for big players) isnt really in the food preparation (which have been greatly dumbed down and optimized such that any undeducated retard can do it at high throughput) but in the real estate rent and in the food supply chain
soda sales are also a pretty decent money maker.
I did some digging and came to similar conclusions. Like I was reading this first hand account of workers taking over a workplace during the Spartacist uprising and while well intention-ed there was def millenarian thinking that got a ton a people unnecessarily killed. They genuinely thought the workers of the whole city would rise up to there aid and did stupid shit like guarding the printing presses and not digging an escape tunnel. interestingly the biggest examples I could find of Councilist/Autonomist style organizing in large scale practice now were from the Landless Worker's Movement in Brazil and Abahlali baseMjondolo in South Africa respectively. Both are vageuly similar in that there are massive land reform movements in rapidly developing nations that do a great deal of organizing among both the proleteriat and lumpen. Shit sounds fire af but I couldn't tell you why the similarities are there.
Why do multinational corporations go from expanding globally in neoliberalism to complete autarky in fascism?
Does the internet, its websites, applications that are conversational and user oriented, like social media e.g. tiktok, its content and comments or conversations, reflect the reality of a countries superstructure, social laws and phenomenon, culture… can we get an actual understanding of real culture from online, social media etc… does it truly reflect the culture or zeitgeist of a day and age?
What of this relation to Technology as a medium, how it shapes the superstructure and base or the base and superstructure in shaping Technology…and relate that back to culture and the above question.
I would appreciate a variety of answers, its interesting, can what is online really represent social trends that are real?
It does reflect the media component of the superstructure, but it does not necessarily reflect the "real culture"
It is influenced by two components of the base to different extents.
Average consumer fandoms or public political groups are influenced by marketing and propaganda companies.
Overly specific (less-profitable) fandoms, invite-only political groups, and hobby groups are more influenced by the lived material reality that is the base for the majority of the people.
Evidence for corporate influence in online groups used to be quite widely disseminated, but everyone involved in that already learnt everything they could and must've gotten bored with it.
Blatantly biased moderation teams and "new product/nothingburger" astroturf campaigns would be the most common example that people would find.
In all the other, less-discovered corners, people would have the space to note how these things were happening elsewhere, how they got banned from such places for discussing their broken products or things like m00t fucking a video games journalist, or how the latest version of anything seems to be the worse version.
Basically, the large sellout spaces talk about whatever's profitable or politically distracting, and the more hidden places have room to talk about the struggles between what's supposed to be and experienced reality.
(or they talk about sweet nothings in reaction to detach themselves from everything else)
What's the Communist word or phrase for someone who hates how shitty life is and doesn't think it will get any better?
Is that what "class consciousness" is?
All is well, for we are The Chosen ones. We will acomplish out of pure necessity in what previous generations have failed.
The past century was a nothingbuger,but things are finally heating up again🍿. The sun is very bright!
>>1594125>Does the internet, its websites, applications that are conversational and user oriented, like social media e.g. tiktok, its content and comments or conversations, reflect the reality of a countries superstructure, social laws and phenomenon, culture… can we get an actual understanding of real culture from online, social media etc… does it truly reflect the culture or zeitgeist of a day and age?
I would emphasise it does not reflect reality. This doesn't make it useless, just like studying television isn't, but it won't give you a realistic view.
In fact, one of the main reasons social media is considered harmful is it shows mostly only the posed, filtered highlights of people's lives, and edited imagery, making a normal human life seem substandard and depressed. And, like other comrade mentioned, popular 'influencers' and other corporate investment on the web heavily distorts it. So much is manufactured rather than organic.
How? What is the difference between the two theories I'm missing here?
That's what I meant. You answered your own question. There's no difference. "Dengism" isn't a real thing, it's a canard invented by Bourgeois academics
Some tard at work was going on about how mixed-race people have a much harder time finding organ donations because both white donors and black donors won't be as compatible. How true is this, and does it even matter?
>>1596022>. How true is this,
It is just made up anon.It's just racist rhetoric reflecting anxieties in the field from like 80 years ago.
Maybe you met a racist time traveler, did he have a timely southern USA accent? Has he asked you anything about your preferred hat size?
you forgot the anecdote that "a cornered fox is the most dangerous foe"
Why won't the shift in mode in production be top down instead of bottom up?
materials conditions and shit
Who is Bard?
From the top down is socialized
production, not socialist production under a DOTP. No communism without the revolution (which doesn't need to be bloody, contrary to what adventurists might tell you)
>>1596565<what's the difference?
socialized production is the necessary conditions for revolution but not a force guiding the revolution itself. this refers to metamorphoses in production such as:
- capitalists themselves advocating for a limitation of the workday (because even their child workers were getting too exhausted and sick, hurting profits)
- formerly spread-out proletarians concentrating and relying on each other under large factory operations (as opposed to small manufactures in the countryside)
- large economies of scale making commodities cheaper for the average proletarian
These are means, not ends. The conditions for revolution, but not the revolution itself. Marx (and Lenin, and many other Marxists after) consistently distinguish between these two.
In this Paul Cockshott lecture he discusses an idea proposed by Althusser (I think?) that evolving material conditions under Capitalism make revolution more likely
but not certain.<what else could happen other than communism?
la barbarie, mon amihttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luYdVkmiLZ8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3LXvZZoEEA
>>1596565>doesn't need to be bloody
right, it doesn't NEED to be bloody
buuuuuuuuuuuuuuut… the bourgeoisie is not going down without a fight! :^)
why do we call "red flags" bad
It comes from sailing, not politics. "Red flag in the morning, sailor take warning"
>>1596545>I assume the implication is the mode of production would shift to communism by necessity.
that is a faulty assumption. things are likely to just shift more to rentier capitalism, assuming RoP == 0 is even possible
And sport, anon.
At least this was always my assumption.
>>1596565>>1596565>doesnt need to be bloody
I guess you expect the porkies to just roll down and die when you ask nicely ?
What is drowning? What is fire? What is asphyxiating? What is buried alive?
Not everything has to be bloody you psycho freak.
So, I think we can agree with Marx, that revolution in the western world is a pipe dream, but at the same time we can say that his vision of democratic reform leading to communism is also fake. So where then?
This thread has too much truth for any other anon to respond to it.
Everything all at once
There's no truth. It's a professional philosopher's purposeful misinterpretation of Marxism to promote a line which has no danger to the bourgeois state and can be subsumed by it. It's a lickspittle political philosophy, of non-compromising peace.
Marx didn't understand that revolutions simply happen. He lived in a revolutionary age so he view them as inevitable. They kinda are, but the results aren't always progress towards classless society.
He said that democratic reform was the way. That was his final statement, but that's been obviously proven false. He denounced revolution in such an advanced society as 1800s Britain. Now most societies on earth are at least at that level.
boomp. Enlighten me leftypol scholars.
Yes, it's called the Common ruin of the contending classes.
I don't think he was wrong to abandon the idea of revolution. No one will revolt when their "material conditions" don't call for it. Never will an advanced society slip so much where revolution becomes a 'material" necessity. But then what? We can see that democratic reform leading to a communist society will never happen either.
Interesting but why hasn't it happened in a century or so? When exactly will it happen hismat wise?
I think scientifically socialismy we have to consider why such predictions have never happened before and why they supposedly will happen in the future.
Is this not a good question? when will the scientific stars align where they haven't since Marx died 100+ years ago?
Or maybe futurology is a complete joke and men make their own destinies or whatever.
How is "Paddy" wagon not a slur?
>>1599181>Marx once advocated for revolution, then denounced that and said democratic reform was the way
>>1599181>So we know that Marx once advocated for revolution, then denounced that<R.: It would seem that in this country the hoped-for solution, whatever it may be, will be attained without the violent means of revolution. The English system of agitating by platform and press, until minorities become converted into majorities, is a hopeful sign.<Dr. M.: I am not so sanguine on that point as you. The English middle class has always shown itself willing enough to accept the verdict of the majority, so long as it enjoyed the monopoly of the voting power. But, mark me, as soon as it finds itself outvoted on what it considers vital questions, we shall see here a new slaveowners's war.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/media/marx/71_07_18.htm
<“Well, then, to carry out the principles of socialism do its believers advocate assassination and bloodshed?”<“No great movement,” Karl answered, “has ever been inaugurated Without Bloodshed.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/media/marx/79_01_05.htm
Do immigrants have any revolutionary potential as people here were saying, and this is a genuine question I am open to be proven wrong. I always thought of them as believing in the greatness and opportunities of the country they are migrating too, ie believing in the 'american dream' and if you want to find proles with actual revolutionary potential you look to the heartland of the country where you will find few recent immigrants who are exposed to the actual conditions of the country.
>>1599667>But, mark me, as soon as it finds itself outvoted on what it considers vital questions, we shall see here a new slaveowners's war.
Socdems the world over have been learning this the hard way for over a century, and yet they still keep making the same mistakes.
Which of the eastern bloc nations was the most developed? I read a brief comment without detaio that east germany was far ahead of the ussr.
I dont think they do. Controversial opinion here, but they are 'imported' to discipline the native working class, either through wage depression or creating a reserve of the unemployed.
Paul Cockshott and Marx talk about this with the Irish migrations to England.
No one has any revolutionary potential. Your comparison is fundamentally flawed.
Might as well ask who has the most potential to Animorph or something.
Historically speaking in America immigrants were a hotbed of socialist radicalism. A lot of the most militant abolitionists were German 48ers, trade unions drew heavily on Irish, Italian, Polish, etc immigrants.
In Chapter 20 of Capital Vol I: what is the difference between the value of labor-power, the "price" of labor, and the wages? I can't wrap my head around it.
With wages, Marx refers to days or weeks or whatever, during which some part is spent working. The size of that part can chage. Price of labour refers to the price of an hour of work. The number of work hours can change.
So, the wage refers basically to what a specific worker can expect to earn, while the price of labour refers to how much a capitalist has to pay to any worker for an hour of work?
What about the value of labor? I included it because Marx appears to write about all three as distinct things in this chapter.
<Anti-Semitism is the rumour about the jews
>Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia no. 72
What did he mean by this?
STEM majors don't care about history and just take whatever narrative they were fed in public school. That just happens to be the anticommunist one. Humanities majors are required to actually investigate these events as their job
and some of them have enough interest and integrity to report more accurate accounts.
People interested in politics/history/society become socialists?… who would have thought?
Isn't this kind of the problem? History professors will study and preach about the wrongdoings of the past while people in STEM will be the ones running society on a daily basis. STEM people will therefore be valued more for their social beliefs, which you agreeably claim are total bullshit
Well what can we do? Either people are interested in making the world better or they aren't.
You've figured out for yourself why the right wing hates colleges so much.>>1600694
I agree, sadly, unless anyone has a better idea. STEM workers are the labor aristocrats de jour, and cannot be counted on to be revolutionary because there is too much material incentive for them right now. That should not stop us from recruiting the ever-increasing share of victims of the STEM system, however. Contract workers, temps, all the unpaid labor they're totally blind to (owning and maintaining their own computers, most of the time). Critical support to the STEM workers. Their time will come eventually, but then of course there will be another privileged caste of labour in their place.
not a terrible question but as CPUSAnon said we just need to merge these kinds of threads together. Also defense of the Boug without somesort of fake ass goofy ass religion/culture/race/nation to make into a replacement for personal identity is just what right liberterian Rand/Hayek/Mises/Thiel shit is. That kinda bs will never have a mass audience and only appeals to special kind of delusional and privileged.
It's not always appealing. It becomes appealing when the system fails. That's why reaction is the evil twin of revolution, or as Walter Benjamin put it "Every rise of fascism bears witness to a failed revolution"
Do you agree of disagree with the following statement?
It is possible to achieve meaningful progress towards socialist and communist goals without the use of violence in all but the most extreme of circumstances.
Collectively, or individually?
It's a very open question, but I believe that any significant attempt to harm the current structure will inevitably result in physical violence - even if not by socialists, then by porky in self-defense of their wealth. Consider the violent strikebreakers of historical unions and the mass, egregious state/police violence against BLM protests in the USA. We're far more radical.
Meaningful progress will invoke the use of violence by the movement. So I see no point in holding it as some kind of unethical or 👻>immoral👻 act.
Might as well attach breadvid-kinda-rel as you're hinting at ethics of violence in protest.
What the hell is that shit and why does she need so many costumes?
>>1602005>What the hell is that shit
A YouTube video exploring a philosophical concept.>and why does she [use] so many costumes?
It's a form of entertainment, very common among actors in video.
I gotta say it's more interesting than the typical slideshow of stock footage seen in most videos.
What exactly is meant by people who say that imperialism is the current primary contradiction, and why is it not the relationship between bourgeoisie and proletariat?
idk about that if Mao's tactics worked in China they can probably be applied in other similar contexts
I strongly recommend reading Imperialism by Lenin, it's quite brief and to the point, but basically Capitalism is in the process of decay, and as it decays it's going out kicking and screaming, trying to dig up any cheap labor and raw materials it can find. Yesterday it was China, today it is Bangladesh.
The gains of the workers in the first world are fleeting, as we have seen with social democracy in Europe and the "new deal" in the USA. The workers are temporarily compromised with as the capitalists flee to "underdeveloped" parts of the world, and they're distracted with toys and luxuries wrought by exploitation of the third world equally vicious and inhumane as the 19th Century Capitalism Marx studied. Those chickens, however, always come home to roost as we are seeing now. Industrial jobs in the Imperial Core disappear, leaving behind decaying "rust belt" towns. The already paltry rewards of social democracy are whittled away as the rate of profit continues to decline.
Every present-day issue facing the proletariat is colored by Imperialism. It is the cat that no one sees, to reference Henry George. This is why it's such a stab in the back for the AFL-CIO to endorse the USA's military aggressions overseas, since those "peacekeeping missions" are directly in service of the imperialism against the global proletariat, that in its turn impoverishes the core proletariat over time.
you could say the same or similar thing abt literally any commie ideology, labels and specific tendencies ain't shit just take the cool shit and good praxis and leave the rest in the past. I don't really see a point in being any kind of -ist unless its just Communist or Socialist all the tendencies are cool and have there own strengths and weaknesses.
Where can I read up on LaRouche thought? Online left spaces tend to be irrationally hostile toward this tendency, and I'd like a source that's not poisoned by the historical tankie butthurt
Maybe bring up how anprim would lead to 90% of the planet dying and how Ted was just a reactionary who didn't have a real political program for how to solve the issues he pointed out
But overall arguing with idiots is like mud wrestling with a pig
What's the simplest way to debunk "cold winter theory" and the like?
Ask him how to un-invent the atomic bomb.
Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, the Hindus valley, Mexico…
the problem with the protracted people's war doctrine is that the nation infrastructure and technology as well as relations with regimes that back their enemy like the US get's mostly ignored when they are absolutely vital information for the sake of believing ppw is a cure for all capitalism.
this is wrong and i say that other methods of organizing and educating the masses on our side are very lacking, a challenge for modern communists is theorizing and implementing new methods that answer those questions.
At the time I basically said "he made a few points but ultimately I disagree with his conclusion" and he tried to send me some documentary and I ignored it. I think ignoring the conversation further was for the best.>>1605817
That's a good response
I had a buddy who was going down the NRx neo-feudal rabbit hole, and I successfully disuaded him from it by arguing that the conditions which allowed feudalism to exist were no longer present and were never coming back. I specifically mentioned how you can't un-invent the atomic bomb and the steam engine. Not only that, but there is no segment of society that would be driven to want something like that. The point to emphasize when talking to people who allow their anti-capitalist sentiment to manifest itself in reactionary ways (neo-feudalism, primitivism, etc) is that the only way out is through. Also, that any solution needs to have a social basis, some group in society that is naturally inclined to a particular solution by virtue of their position in the current system (like workers are for socialism).
>>1606269> the NRx neo-feudal rabbit hole,
I finished capital but I'm trying to understand bourgeois economics better, not because I agree with it, but because I want to understand the enemy, so to speak. But so much of it is really dull and seems deliberately obfuscated under layers of bullshit. Can someone please explain to me, in plain materialist terms, why so many currencies lose seigniorage, i.e. why the face value of a given metal currency ends up being less than the precious metal contained in it? If a coin is just a money-commodity, shouldn't its value be the socially necessary labor time required to mine it, mint it, and distribute it? But if it's worth less than just the raw material, why the hell is that? Just inflation? At that point wouldn't melting it down make it worth more, while also deflating the currency? I don't understand currency at all.
all very good points, I think I'll keep them in mind if I ever need to
>>1601329> and we do not deny that there are countries – such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland – where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means.
wild that he said this less than 10 years after the civil war
A coin or bill is not used up by a single act of exchange, it goes round and round. So it's not a drama when the face value is far below material cost. High material cost correlates strongly with high faking cost and those who issue a currency want that the cost of doing a convincing fake is above face value, so it should not surprise you if the face value of the legit specimen is below its material cost.
I know we had a similar thread about Japan earlier, but I also hear Botswana used by some people to make a similar argument of "countries can rise on their own, capitalism is fair and sound" country. Could anyone find me resources on their history and development, or are the sources on Wikipedia sufficient in this case?
who the fuck is Agent Kochinski
According to Marxist economics, price and value are distinct concepts:
Value: In Marxist theory, value is determined by the amount of socially necessary labor time required to produce a commodity. This is known as the labor theory of value. Value is measured in terms of the labor embodied in a product, and it represents the underlying, intrinsic worth of a commodity in a socialist or communist society.
Price: Price, on the other hand, is the monetary expression of value in a capitalist market. Prices are determined by supply and demand dynamics, which can fluctuate due to various factors such as scarcity, consumer preferences, and market competition. In a capitalist system, prices are not necessarily tied directly to the labor required to produce a good or service.
Marxists argue that in capitalism, there can be a disconnection between the value of a commodity (determined by labor) and its price (determined by market forces). This difference can result in surplus value, where capitalists extract profit from the labor of workers by paying them less than the value they create.
sounds good though the army doesn't need that many people - also, it would mean anyone over like 40 could vote yes with impunity since they would never be drafted in the first place.
>>1607478>Marxists argue that in capitalism, there can be a disconnection between the value of a commodity (determined by labor) and its price (determined by market forces). This difference can result in surplus value, where capitalists extract profit from the labor of workers by paying them less than the value they create.
Eeh you make it sound like profit is a fluke and not the norm when employing workers. Buying and selling between capitalists works like this: If one capitalist gets paid above value, the other capitalist pays that. Capitalists as a group together make profit. The dealings between capitalists cannot explain why capitalists as a group make profit. The way Marx uses the term value, the value of a worker is not equal
to what the worker produces with the tools and machines he does not own. In the language of Marx the capitalist still makes profit while paying the worker at value
Agent Kochinski is also known as "voosh" or "v*sh." It is the namesake for the Agent Kochinskiites, who are neoliberal Anarcho-NATOISTs.
I mean yes, the west's wealth is obviously built on slavery and the exploitation of the third world in general (among other things).
There’s over a 50% chance that this is fake, fuck you OP for not posting a direct link to the source
It's real and from Akufo-Addo's speech at the U.N., this is a summary from the U.N. on the speech:
>Recognizing that African countries do not seek to shirk the responsibility for the problems they face — that are of their own making — he also said that the world should not pretend that the continent’s present day economic and social conditions are not connected with historical injustices. “It is time to acknowledge openly that much of Europe and the United States have been built from the vast wealth harvested from the sweat, tears, blood and horrors of the transatlantic slave trade,” he emphasized, stating that it is time to bring the subject of reparations to the fore. While no amount of money will ever make up for the horrors, it would make the point that millions of “productive” Africans were put to work in the Americas and the Caribbean without compensation for their labour. Moreover, when slavery was abolished, slave owners were compensated for the loss of slaves — labelled as “property” and deemed to be “commodities” — he recalled, announcing that Ghana will hold a global conference on this matter in November.
>He also reported that African States are annually losing more than $88 billion through illicit financial flows, adding: “Yes, those monies too must be returned to the continent.” It is difficult to understand why the recipient countries are comfortable retaining such funds, while labelling those countries, from which the money is taken as corrupt, he asserted. To this end, he suggested that a joint taskforce of the African Union Commission and the OECD secretariat be charged to find ways of stopping those outflows. Noting that only 12 per cent of the Sustainable Development Goals targets are on track to be achieved, he emphasized: “It is within our capacity to turn things around.”
The part about stopping illicit financial flows is concrete, but I see some of this as more rhetorical than substantial, since he says that no amount of money can make up for slavery, but talking about reparations makes a "point." The slave trade was also a complex business in the colonial era, you can't sum it up a sentence. There was slave capture, slave transportation and slave trading – not all of which included white people, but also indigenous African tribes and kingdoms who engaged in most of the slave capturing, and the descendants of those accomplices are in Africa.
It was basically more cost effective to trade with chiefs who ruled African slave societies, and those chiefs didn't have a modern consciousness of a nation-state where the citizens are your fellow compatriots. So when asking for reparations, it can be, like… did white people not pay your ancestors enough for the slaves? You sold them too cheap? On the other hand, white people did occupy a dominant position in the supply chain and the power dynamics were very large, but using the slave trade is not necessarily the best entry point for criticizing the West for plundering the world's resources.
It does have a rhetorical effect, though, where Akufo-Addo says African problems are of their own making, but the Western countries have a responsibility too, and should treat them as equals in the world and not just a resource to exploit or take advantage of.
Learn to use /QTDDTOT/ you massive retard.
Have the claims of The Sword and The Shield ever been verified or debunked? I made an /edu/ thread on the book and got no replies.
Average living standards were the highest in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, followed by the richer SSRs (Baltics, European Russia, industrialised regions of Ukraine)
I mean, the overwhelming majority of the descendants of people who were enslaved are not in Africa and never will return to Africa, probably. The Africans in Africa today are mostly descendants of the Africans who were not taken away and enslaved and most of them look down with contempt on the Africans who were enslaved, as if it was their fault. There probably should be "reparations" on account of other things like European colonial natural resource extraction and all the other violence and immiseration imposed upon them, but not for slavery. Reparations for slavery should be for the African people in the countries where the slaves were taken and forced to work. Also reparations should ideally take the form of internationalist solidarity not just a fucking huge money transfer to their own ruthless capitalist ruling classes.
No it's just an empty political slogan. It's not a call to any sort of real action. It's just a way for people within a particular subculture to signal group affiliation. Ignore it.
it's bad for porky so good for us
It's good because it will distract the US from triggering WW3 in south china sea
i have a soft spot in my heart for natives and their "primitive communism" and like to know more about the pre-columbian history of where i live
As crappy as politics is, calling "land back" a political slogan is I think an insult to politics. It's like poetry. When I say: "Your momma so fat that blahblahblah" do you actually take it literally and then investigate the physical plausibility. No. You would be degrading yourself if you did that. Likewise with giving "land back" serious thought when the people who shout it give zero fucks about it.>>1610286
Really doesn't make sense to me to have a soft spot for "the natives". Some tribes held things in common, some owned slaves.
I don't think natives and others who say that mean that native americans should get the entire US. Instead, it's rather that the US government already agreed and also signed a contract to leave certain parts of the land to the natives, which they eventually took away from them thereby violating their agreement. Natives are still legally entitled to that land.
this is the real reason it's a foolish idea. It's reformism. You aren't going to get the genocidal bourgeois american government to honor its land agreements with indigenous first nations because they never have before. In fact, previous agreements were blatantly broken over and over which is how the first nations were continually pushed westward and genocided during manifest destiny. We're talking about a government that helped force Haiti to pay reparations to France for the crime of ending slavery.>>1610286>soft spot
idealism>>1610287>Really doesn't make sense to me to have a soft spot for "the natives". Some tribes held things in common, some owned slaves.
This isn't said often enough because it sounds cruel, but it's true. Treating first nations as a monolithic group when championing their struggle against settler colonialism is all too common, as is erasing their pasts and differences. Also reminds me of the revisionist trope that "Two Spirit" is the same as contemporary transgender identity.
Yes. It is very much feasible. Anyone who says otherwise simply cannot imagine a world beyond capitalism and property relations.
It's a form of 'national liberation' a means to an end, also weakens imperialism.
how exactly? explain, mr communism knower.
Anything that benefits BIPOC to the detriment of wh*te "people" is good in my eyes.
I’ll believe it’s feasible when there is a huge push to give Texas and half of California back to the mestizos.
nations are impotent under neoliberalism
>>1610289>You aren't going to get the genocidal bourgeois american government to honor its land agreements
Sure, I just wanted to correct a possible misunderstanding here. The demands of these groups are usually not as crazy as returning the entire land back to natives and whites fucking off back to Europe or whatever.
Yes, you just give the land back
There are 7.2 million Jews in Israel. They control the vast majority of industry and hold an unfathomable amount of PhDs. Is landback in Palestine feasible?
i'm not especially for or against it, i just don't see the practicality. at this point, the indigenous people of america have already been genocided, at least in canada and the us. you can't really just chase the crakkkers away because the indigenous communities of those countries are very small. sure, you could bring forward initiatives towards reviving indigenous culture and material restitution in the form of ending poverty and the exploitation of what little land they have left by capital in native american communities, but at this point, the damage has been done. you can't just unkill them or bring america back to the pre-columbus era
A lot of the dispossessed Palestinians are still alive.
What evidence is there they'll all return?
Support Palestinian land being returned to the Palestinians, no one bats an eye
Support Indigenous land being returned to the Indigenous peoples, society loses its mind…
Welcome to my dark, fucked up, twisted world, crakkker….
its more a sentiment than a practical political project
If Israel was a Christian country they’d all be anti-Palestinian.
So? What’s Palestine then? Is their struggle merely a moral statement too?
Anything that truly benefits "bipoc" benefits white folks in the long run too you divisive numbskull.
>Is it feasible?
Why wouldn't it be? Please give concrete examples.
>Like, is there any merit behind it?
Yes. Like with reparations it represents a recognition of the impact that the manner in which modern settler colonial states were founded directly resulted in current racial and class inequities. From that aspect, Landback is morally right. I don't think anyone here would argue otherwise.
However as others here have pointed out, a government that has so many times in the past broken it's treaties and deals with indigenous peoples cannot and should not be trusted. Even though some Landback affiliated groups have succeeded in raising money to buy large swaths of ancestral land for indigenous collective ownership (which itself is fucked up, because these people should not have to buy the land), over a long enough period of time (my estimate is 10 to 20 years), corporations will view the lack of development of this land and the refusal to sell from the rightful owners as offensive and obstructionist. And we all know the rest, through lobbying that view will become mainstream in politics, and through manufacturing consent it will become popular among the public. All this will be exacerbated by coming natural resource scarcity crises. And then the land will just be taken by force. Again.
Might does not make right, but it does make.
Any recommended sources about the roles of USA federal intelligence agencies in manufacturing or exacerbating drug crises?
Does having a mortgage or an IRA make one petty bourgeois?
Technically, you could say it's a form of capital investment. However IRAs generally replace union pension funds, and Paul Cockshott had a video in which he mentioned that mortgages are not genuine capital but a disguised form of rent (I think it was in his critique of the basic income).
Almost all communist parties support a two-state solution. Any Marxist worth their salt understands the absurdity of trying to go backwards.
There was a somewhat eye-opening discussion about this recently: yes, this is very much feasiblehttps://lemmygrad.ml/comment/424617https://lemmygrad.ml/post/693142>the American nation “owns” 98% of the land but occupies around a quarter of it. This land is owned only for the purpose of extraction which allows Americans to live far beyond their means. This territory, the majority of territory in the US and Canada, will be taken from them.
>>1610297>The demands of these groups are usually not as crazy as returning the entire land back to natives and whites fucking off back to Europe or whatever.
Good because I don't think I could support committing what would undoubtedly turn into one of the greatest crimes against humanity just to own the crackers.
Thanks for this info comrade
In short, what do each of the three volumes of Capital focus on? I understand that Capital Volume 1 discusses the trade of commodities ergo money and how it functions as capital, the concept of labor inherently creating surplus value even if paid for at its full exchange-value, centralization and accumulation of capital causing the capitalist to grain far more than the worker even at the best of times, even if the workers' share of income is growing on an absolute basis(again, optimistic case here) and how the increase of constant capital which initially(if applied in industries that produce necessities or the materials for them) decrease the value of labor-power and therefore increase profit, along with pushing any individual firm's goods below the socially necessary labor time, will eventually destroy the ability to create profit at all and lead to crisis.
Volume II starts(as far as I got before I decided I didn't understand what I read in I on the first go) with expanding on the circle of trade of commodities, revisiting the concept of productive capital that was only brushed on in the first volume in more detail, and I didn't get farther than that.
What is Volume III about? I know it discusses fictitious capital(things like stocks and bonds) but my knowledge ends there.
>Hence, we see that behind all attempts to represent the circulation of commodities as a source of surplus-value, there lurks a quid pro quo, a mixing up of use-value and exchange-value.
I think that this is a beautiful quote from Chapter 5 just for the fact that Marx BTFO'd the Austrian School four years before they were even born.
commodity owner can, by his labour, create value, but not self-expanding value.
He can increase the value of his commodity, by adding fresh labour, and
therefore more value to the value in hand, by making, for instance, leather
into boots. The same material has now more value, because it contains a greater
quantity of labour. The boots have therefore more value than the leather, but
the value of the leather remains what it was; it has not expanded itself, has
not, during the making of the boots, annexed surplus-value.”
I don't fully understand this passage. Why is the labor of the commodity owner any different from the labor of the proletariat?
For all intents and purposes, it's mandatory to have superannuation in Australia. So, if it were true, I don't know how useful that classification would be.
I don't think home ownership (even if it were outright and not partial through mortgage) is capital, at least if you're not renting out the property or using it for producing commercial goods and services.
>does [x] make one petty booj?
It's things like that which make broad, uncritical classification dangerous to take at face value and make sweeping assumptions with. And the worst part of that is when people react with a coping mechanism and make up some bullshit theory to workaround the contradiction, instead of reanalysing the basic assumption.
Marx is trying to explain the difference between the labor process and the valorization process.<The labor process is the activity of producing use-values, or useful things that satisfy human needs. The valorization process is the activity of producing exchange-values, or commodities that can be sold for money. Marx argues that the capitalist mode of production is based on the valorization process, not the labor process. The capitalist is not interested in the use-value of the commodity, but only in its exchange-value, or how much money it can bring in the market.<The labor of the commodity owner, or the independent producer, is different from the labor of the proletariat, or the wage worker, because the former owns the means of production (such as tools, materials, land, etc.) and the product of his labor, while the latter does not. The commodity owner can sell his product for more than it cost him to produce it, and thus make a profit. However, this profit is not surplus-value, because it is not based on exploiting the labor of others. The commodity owner can only increase the value of his product by adding more labor to it, or by improving the quality or quantity of his product. He cannot create self-expanding value, or value that grows by itself without any additional labor.<The labor of the proletariat, on the other hand, is exploited by the capitalist, who pays him less than the value he creates by his labor. The capitalist appropriates the difference between the value of the labor-power (the wage) and the value of the product (the commodity) as surplus-value. This surplus-value is the source of profit for the capitalist, and it is also what drives capital accumulation and economic growth. The capitalist can create self-expanding value by investing his surplus-value in more means of production and more labor-power, and thus increasing his production and his profits. The capitalist does not care about the use-value of his commodities, but only about their exchange-value, or how much surplus-value they can generate.
Unique IPs: 219