Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 08:37:55 No. 670236
To add I've seen plenty of support of this book from Marxists and communists who say how he explains the history of Marxists is factual and it's one of the best book to read for knowledge of Marxism but to just not take the criticisms seriously and only read for the historical overview.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 08:40:33 No. 670238
>>670234 Then he never understood marxism
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 08:41:39 No. 670240
>>670238 Some of the best Marxist intellectuals said his understanding of Marx is legit. You don't have to agree with what he says but I've never seen anyone doubt his understanding.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 08:58:40 No. 670248
Not a Brainlet, Just a humanist.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 09:12:13 No. 670257
>>670234 I didn't know he was a communist but I've heard good things.
What are the main arguments if its possible to paraphrase?
Ismail 2022-01-02 (Sun) 10:59:04 No. 670310
I've read a bunch of works by Kołakowski, including Main Currents.
While he's well-read on Marxism, this doesn't prevent him from making faulty arguments. For example, he asserted in one article that Marx's theories are tantamount to "a society based on compulsory brotherhood," whereas capitalism for all its faults "developed spontaneously and organically" and therefore lacks the "totalitarian serfdom" supposedly inherent in Marxism.
Which is a a silly argument since Marx explicitly wrote that communism is not an "ideal" to impose on society, and that the material conditions for communism are made possible by the development of humanity's productive forces.
Kołakowski is also quite capable of putting his brain on autopilot, e.g. his "analysis" of Lenin crudely portrays him as an elitist and fanatic.
>>670257 >What are the main arguments if its possible to paraphrase? His main argument against Marxism is one used by pretty much every other critic, that it is a collection of "Messianic fantasies" and that communism can only be realized "by a despotic system of government."
His other criticisms are similarly standard stuff you can read anywhere else.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 11:00:56 No. 670312
>>670310 >and that communism can only be realized "by a despotic system of government." Is he wrong about this at least historically so far. I can't think of any Communist systems that didn't fit this description.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 11:11:20 No. 670316
>>670312 OP's mask came off quick
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 11:14:15 No. 670318
>>670316 I'm sorry I'm not brainwashed can acknowledge the existing socialist systems weren't libertarian paradises.
Ismail 2022-01-02 (Sun) 11:36:20 No. 670328
>>670312 A while back I wrote an article on the differences between a utopian conception of communism throughout the ages and how Marx and Engels conceived communism, and I used the infamous Jonestown settlement as a particularly "extreme" example of the pitfalls of utopian thinking. You can find the article here:
https://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=102313 As I said, Marx and Engels did not view communism as an "ideal" to impose on society. They used terms like "crude communism" and "barracks communism" to ridicule such a notion.
If you ask me, I do think that the USSR and the bulk of other socialist countries in the 20th century did slip into some utopian thinking in response to economic and political problems (e.g. the constant fixation on making sure citizens adhered to "communist morality" while many of those same citizens were busy obtaining scarce goods via black markets or by paying bribes to receive services; such efforts to inculcate "communist morality" culminated in self-defeating measures like Gorbachev's anti-alcohol campaign.)
But I don't think there is anything in Marx, Engels, or Lenin that dooms communism to (as Kołakowski puts it) a "totalitarian serfdom" established by a "despotic government."
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 11:46:17 No. 670336
>>670328 You seem to be the smartest and most level headed Communist I've talked to. I've never seen anyone else bring up Marx on Barracks communism which I've always thought goes against the beliefs of every modern communist I've talked to.
While I have you what in your eyes would a realistic Communist system look like compared to what has already existed already and where and how do you foresee this system coming about if it ever will?
Ismail 2022-01-02 (Sun) 11:55:42 No. 670342
>>670336 >While I have you what in your eyes would a realistic Communist system look like compared to what has already existed already and where and how do you foresee this system coming about if it ever will? Marx and Engels themselves did not attempt to write what a "realistic Communist system" would look like, since they presumably knew that any such attempt would most likely look as strange, outdated, and/or unrealistic to subsequent generations as the communist systems written up by utopians like Gerrard Winstanley, Morelly, Robert Owen, Étienne Cabet, etc.
I think pretty much any Marxist would reply that it is up to the working-class, in the course of its own experiences, to figure out the ways and means for building a communist society. To quote Marx, "No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society. Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation."
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 12:02:08 No. 670345
>>670342 You don't have any ideas of your own? I myself am not a communist because I've never heard any real alternatives to capitalism or any alternative to the Marxist-Leninist states of history that made any sense. I can't see my self subscribing to an ideology that has no actual system in place. "We will see what happens when we get there" seems to just lead to a repeat of the previous Marxist-Leninist systems. Those who want power are usually the ones that shouldn't be in power and they always seem to find the most efficient way to gain power in such a situation.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 12:09:52 No. 670349
>>670345 Assuming you're a wagie or some other kind of proletarian how would you envision the alternative to capitalism and how would you build it if you were put in charge of the project?
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 12:11:13 No. 670352
>>670350 Name one that wasn't and we can talk about how libertarian they were lol
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 12:12:49 No. 670353
>>670352 Stalin era Soviet Union
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 12:14:07 No. 670356
>>670352 >libertarian >despotic Real life isn't a Paradox videogame
Ismail 2022-01-02 (Sun) 12:24:25 No. 670364
>>670345 >You don't have any ideas of your own? I'm sure I could, given enough time, write a document titled "How I'd Like the World to Look" and implore everyone to believe exactly as I do and leap into the wondrous society concocted entirely in my head, but that wouldn't be good Marxism.
Well, I have two replies to that.
1. Most attempts to make some sort of socialist/communist "blueprint" of how society ought to look tend to result in heavily regimented societies because, in effect, utopians look at existing capitalist society and simply envision rearranging everything so that society instead fits their preconceived ideal. This is very different from Marx and Engels who anticipated that the workers, in the course of their own struggles and amid rising productivity, would find the means for building communism rather than relying on an individual "great man" to elucidate what communism "ought" to look like.
2. Whatever failings of socialist countries in the 20th century, I don't see how their problems can be blamed on the lack of a 19th century author writing detailed blueprints. Engels for instance wrote that Robert Owen's Book of the New Moral World contained "the most clear-cut communism possible. . . the most comprehensive building project of the future communist community, with its groundplan, front and side and bird's-eye views." Yet all you need to do is read Owen's Book to realize he offers few useful instructions for anyone living in the 20th or 21st centuries.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 12:28:10 No. 670367
>>670364 Why call yourself a Marxist or Communist then? Why not just subscribe to the new ideology of the future that will likely be unrelated to Marx and Communism?
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 12:30:30 No. 670369
>>670367 why do you think he isn't a communist or marxist
Ismail 2022-01-02 (Sun) 12:37:10 No. 670378
>>670367 Because Marx and Engels were not utopians, and I think their analyses of history, economics, philosophy, etc. were essentially correct. So I see nothing wrong with considering myself a Marxist.
And I consider myself a communist because, being a Marxist, I argue that communism is more or less the logical outcome of the development of humanity's productive forces throughout history. As capitalism enters into ever greater crises amid its growing productivity, the working-class is compelled to do away with the capitalist mode of production and build communism.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 12:48:30 No. 670389
>>670381 >I think pretty much any Marxist would reply that it is up to the working-class, in the course of its own experiences, to figure out the ways and means for building a communist society.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 12:53:46 No. 670391
>>670381
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 13:02:11 No. 670400
>>670389 >Wasn't TANS written as basically a policy proposal for the USSR while it still existed? Correct
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 13:05:41 No. 670402
>>670391 >I'm barely a social democrat let alone a socialist and I don't take Cockshott seriously at all. What are your problems with him?
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 13:11:55 No. 670409
>>670402 The lack of working models in any capacity. How do you expect to implement world communism when you can't even show it working in any capacity whether it be a simulated economy or on a local single firm level. Once he builds the programs that will be used to implement Communism (never going to happen) then we can talk about it. Before that it's nothing but theory and meaningless equations.
Just to be clearer because people don't understand what I mean. It's also possible I have a lack of understanding of his plans. Let's say we have a small town of 25 people with 3 different firms. Under Cockshott's system this small town would be self sustaining. The planning will work on the local level through computers connected to each other. Why doesn't the program that local firms would use to plan their local town exist? Why isn't he working on this? Where is this program these 3 firms would install to plan their local 25 person town program?
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 13:16:53 No. 670415
>>670409 >Why doesn't the program that local firms would use to plan their local town exist? Probably because he hasn't gotten funding to create it. What do you expect him to write it all on his own?
>Before that it's nothing but theory and meaningless equations They're not meaningless. Iirc he calculates the amount of computing power and data storage that will be necessary to plan an economy of a particular size, then shows that we have the capacity to handle this amount of data and calculation.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 13:21:50 No. 670423
>>670415 >Probably because he hasn't gotten funding to create it. What do you expect him to write it all on his own? First off if I'm not mistaken he doesn't seem to be focusing on this really. I've seen him make a few half assed attempts but he seems to be waiting to die without really attempting to build what he needs for his life work. If it was me it would be the only thing I focused on. Also how hard is it? There are guys who write a million lines of code by themselves. He has all the Cybersoc communist followers who could him. How big of a program is this? Surely you could build something working or at least start the process.
That's great now show implement in on a scale of three firms. How hard could that be. Three firms.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 13:29:42 No. 670425
>>670367 The new ideology of the future likely will be communist, just a communism that reflects the 21st Century
The biggest problem with this board and most western leftists is that it’s basically a historical LARP board, just this constant obsession with debating the past, or present geopolitics you have no power over, or pretending like revolutions 100 years ago have a continuing eternal relevance to the present day to the point of damn near pretending 2021 is 1917
This board has a serious problem with refusing to face the problems of the 21st Century, you want to LARP about the past so you don’t have to face the future
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 13:38:18 No. 670433
>>670389 > Wasn't TANS written as basically a policy proposal for the USSR while it still existed? Have you considered that’s exactly the problem with it?
Why are you orienting your politics around advice for a country that no longer even exists?
Don’t you think this might be part of the problem with modern day western “Marxists”?
Like, why do you care about policy proposals for the late Soviet Union, exactly? In what way is this relevant or even useful for a nascent communist movement in the West? Our problem isn’t currently trying to run some anemic and decaying socialist state, our problem isn’t even leading a revolution, our current problem is just trying our best to help build and fight alongside a new labor movement in general. You’re saying people need proof that socialism works, but don’t understand the real meaning of this, and don’t really mean it anyway considering you’re just discussing these things with already like-minded people.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 13:47:58 No. 670444
>>670409 Aren't methods of cybernetic planning already used by corporations the size of countries like Amazon and Walmart ?
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 13:49:46 No. 670449
>>670444 No they have semi-centralized like system but all their planning is based on market prices. How do you plan when prices and money are abolished? That's the problem Cockshott has to solve. He says he has but no programs exist.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 13:59:33 No. 670465
>>670449 iirc There's one written in an old dialect of something or other and the poor man is trying to recreate it in Julia
It's really a historical relic unless you smart young lads help him rebuild it I don't blame him for abandoning it for a while to write
How The World Works It's a magisterial work and could probably be considered his magnum opus and legacy unless others build on his work in TANs and show that it works in practice not just theory
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 14:51:05 No. 670553
>>670433 Cybernetic socialism wasn't just for the Soviet Union, in the 70s Allende was trying to do similar stuff in Chile as well, and it would probably have been a rousing success if they had been better prepared to fend off counter revolution by the neoliberal Pinochet.
I think that cybernetic socialism is applicable in many countries that have the technical capacity to implement it and the defense to repel capitalist attempts at destroying alternative economic models. After-all it's a very universal system, that does not have many other dependencies then the ones i already listed.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 16:13:00 No. 670726
Alot of these polack types are religious and they flocked to Marxism not as a form of knowledge like any scientist does, buy as some sort of set of beliefs to subscribe to; like tenets of a religion to be followed. When this retard stopped "believing" in Marxism, it was because he never considered Marxism as a form of analysis based on our modern conditions, but because he looked at it as a religion with commandments. You'll realize that many of these "philosopher" types are just hardcore religious people who use philosophy in a sophist way. If the entire scientific community was ignored tomorrow and pretty much abandoned by power and we were told that the sky is not blue and that oxygen and nitrogen is not what we breath, then philosophers were swallow this shit up.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 16:41:24 No. 670782
>>670310 >Kołakowski is also quite capable of putting his brain on autopilot, e.g. his "analysis" of Lenin crudely portrays him as an elitist and fanatic. That was more or less my own impression. When he's more patient or giving to the writers, he does convey a legitimate understanding of Marxism, but he sometimes gets carried away or makes grotesques of thinkers.
The underlying issue seems to be that even though he's fairly good at tracing others' reasoning, albeit not perfect (as in the case of Adorno), he doesn't have his own intuition within the material.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 16:48:23 No. 670803
>1600 pages
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 16:58:54 No. 670822
>>670553 You’re still missing the point, mate
The problem with communism isn’t that we just don’t have a convincing enough argument to debate liberals with
The question of how to run a socialist state or communist society is
irrelevant at the moment, that’s the thing that needs to be understood
Making a political program makes sense, but political program in the sense of appealing to the masses and learning how to organize people and begin struggling for the class interests of workers
That’s why I said Cockshott honestly doesn’t matter, because he doesn’t have a revolutionary program, he doesn’t even have a political program to build up towards revolutionary action, he has policy proposals for a hypothetical socialist country that already exists
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 17:07:34 No. 670836
>>670310 >his "analysis" of Lenin crudely portrays him as an elitist and fanatic. Where's the lie
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 17:17:19 No. 670852
>>670822 Everything in this post is correct.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 17:34:03 No. 670879
>>670822 >The question of how to run a socialist state or communist society is irrelevant at the moment, that’s the thing that needs to be understood what's wrong with being prepared ?
what's wrong with having detailed and concretes answers to how socialism will look like,
You can't really think we should make shit up as we go, that never works.
Cockshott matters because cybernetic socialism is probably the best plan for organizing socialist economics, and he also matters because he contributed to materialist philosophy and Marxist economics
So we find another theorist for that, it doesn't diminish any of Cockshots work.
Are you on a crusade against cybernetic socialism ? Your arguments feel contrived.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 19:29:44 No. 671006
After thinking about this for over a decade, I have come to some conclusions.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 19:52:56 No. 671028
>>670822 Extremely rare good post from this flag.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 19:56:15 No. 671033
>>670310 >For example, he asserted in one article that Marx's theories are tantamount to "a society based on compulsory brotherhood," whereas capitalism for all its faults "developed spontaneously and organically" and therefore lacks the "totalitarian serfdom" supposedly inherent in Marxism. That sounds like a criticism being made by someone who doesn't understand Marx even a little bit.
Also cool to see Ismail posting here.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 20:19:42 No. 671064
>>670352 name a liberal democracy that isnt despotic
they just inflict their despotism on foreign targets; american prisons do forced labor, migrant laborers are subject to work conditions akin to the mythical gulags, the CIA is a secret police force, the mass slaughter that's become associated in pop culture with communist militaries sees itself expressed in actuality with the NATO interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, the west is filled with a million little propagandizing media outlets just like the USSR's "evil" newspapers.
Politics involves the use of force, no point in using the inability to imagine a politics without force as a gotcha against the side that's at least honest about what it intends to do
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 22:04:33 No. 671221
>>671064 No one cares what we do to other countries as long as I have the freedom to do whatever I want
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 22:19:01 No. 671227
>>671221 Do you tho have freedom to do whatever you want? And i'm not talking in terms of consumption, i mean in terms of choosing your life and labour.
If yes were do you live?
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 22:34:56 No. 671257
>>671221 Then no need to fake concern about "despotism" or "authoritarianism" or whatever, just say it's pure self interest.
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 22:56:09 No. 671281
>>671227 That's not despotic means though
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 22:57:07 No. 671282
>>671257 Yes it's self interest to think that I don't want to get sent to Siberia for saying I don't like the President
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 23:38:01 No. 671322
>>670352 >Libertarians Believe in a fairyland and are fundamentally wreckers. Liquidate them. “Libertarian Socialist” is a code word for “Larping Liberal”.
Anonymous 2022-01-03 (Mon) 01:23:56 No. 671466
>>670352 Lenin tried to implement as much democracy in the USSR as possible and his plan was to make the whole system democratic. What he did achieve (The Soviets and Unions) were democratic to their core.
Anyway, current Cuba is as much of a democracy as the USA is.
Unique IPs: 31