People calling for absolute and unconditional support for Iran, as "communists", is extremely retarded. I suppose being a dumbass makes it hard to be a marxist, so that's not really surprising.
I checked, Lenin's corpse is actually spinning from all of these out of context quotes of his being used to justify anti communist positions.
And I find it really fucking funny that these American cunts say that you can't talk about other countries but don't see the irony in Americans controlling what is being said about other countries.
44 replies:
[deleted]
It's not just twitter. The situation is presented as a dichotomy, and this dichotomy itself is contained entirely within the bourgeois system. Every call for the sovereignty of the Iranian state, of the Iranian people, is a tacit call for the subjugation of the communist movement in Iran. The proletariat will never have it's revolution in Iran if it is to wed itself always to the Iranian state.
And the leftists here are a joke if they think that them calling for "support" will end up with any direct material outcome. They join in the chorus if bourgeois pacifism and will remain a small voice within that.
[removed]
Obviously the question of supporting one sclerotic government over another is easy to dismiss but that is beside the point.
It's besides the point because that isn't the point I'm making, dummy.
I expect you will erase my comment because it's not gassing you up personally and I will laugh if you do that.
lol alright laugh away
Or afterwards. Possibly up to 30,000 leftists executed in 1988. And it's likely those involved still operatelevels of power within Iran:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_executions_of_Iranian_political_prisoners
Communist parties, trade unions and independent worker's organizations are banned and members of such are flogged and imprisoned.
Honestly, watching these twitter ‘socialists’ is like watching a tragic comedy, except none of the characters are enjoyable
These people think that socialism is when the US doesn’t like you. Probably because they insist of viewing the world through a lens of global struggle, rather than class struggle.
I checked, Lenin's corpse is actually spinning from all of these out of context quotes of his being used to justify anti communist positions.
I'd say they should actually read socialism and war, but they would probably just end up reading their own opinions into it anyways
They could read the one they're quoting from but they don't actually care about communism. I wonder why they don't just drop the pretense but I guess they must want to make a career out of it.
Obviously any communist or really anyone claiming to be progressive can't endorse US intervention in, or war with Iran. That said, what does "support" even mean in this context? Is the PSL sending material aid to the Islamic Republic? Unless you have the Ayatollah's Venmo, don't come asking me to "support Iran."
Why are the comments always [Removed], so annoying.
The student movement during the revolution had the slogan, "East nor West". Iranians don't want to be in either sphere though their youth are very westernised.
What do students have to do with communism?
Nothing. They rejected it is the point.
Are you associating the Eastern Bloc with communism?
At the time, Iran was being pulled by both the USSR and the US.
I know about the geopolitical implications of the Islamic revolution. I was asking if you thought the students rejected communism because they refused to align with the USSR.
Ok, I see your question. If they wanted greater freedoms which the clerics promised them by way of secularism and liberal freedoms they were used to under the Shah as well as, economic redistribution of oil wealth then yes, it's fair to say they rejected Communism.
That still does not answer my question.
Why don't you tell me the answer you're looking for?
A simple yes or no suffices completely, no need to weasel around the issue.
How is being detailed in response equal to skirting the issue? If people can't understand the question it answers maybe they should rethink their question?
This isn't the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The question was perfectly clear and easy enough to answer by either yes or no. Fuck off.
If by “detailed in response,” you mean “so vague that you can’t gain any glimpse of understanding,” then yes, you were detailed.
[removed]
?
[removed]
Pew pew
Curious that there has been almost no chatter at all regarding the fact that the Iranian government shot down a plane carrying 176 people, including iranians. I've had my share of arguments with people online as well, in one instance someone claimed that Soleimani was an "antifascist martyr", again the left with their endless fucking rituals. It's all so tiresome to be honest.
Where is this current chatter?
The Spectacle is all around us.
Apparently you need to spell out the sarcasm.
The Spectacle is an ill deinfed phenomenon that is all around but requires a degree in critical theory and situationism to understand, yet sarcasm remains a mystery.
Is it a spectacle if it's mindless trash anti-imperialist rhetoric said by alienated wet yutes tho
I'm sorry, but I don't really care for the opinion of some situationist cuck who posts to /r/criticaltheory
[removed]
If you need to have someone to tell you how to live your life then there are places that you can go to for that.
18 replies:
The most eye boggling part of the film was when they travelled to China, and we saw the shit conditions they were working in. Then to see the union being like ‘oh we all work together and have 100% density’.
That shit was upsetting as tbh
Then to see the union being like ‘oh we all work together and have 100% density’.
Which union was that? A Chinese one?
Ah yes. It was the Fuyao workers union based at the Fuyao glass factory in Fuqing, Fujian Province, China. I’m abstracting a little, but the union secretary was making points of ‘for workers to be successful the company must be successful’, and that ‘unions and companies work together like cogs’. I find the structure of labour unions in China interesting, where they are directly attached to a company for the purpose of labour relations, with party cadre watching over. Which probably isn’t necessary now anyway in SOE’s anyway.
The differences between unions in different countries is interesting and a topic little discussed. Americans don't know how lucky they are with their unions. In Europe the state has taken over the function of many unions. They have to go through state controlled labor bazaars, safety at work is now a matter of the state and its law almost exclusively, etc. But any plan that involves bringing the workers into co-management, be it directly or through the union, is a distinctly backward step aimed at destroying the independence of organized workers.
You should check out some of the other things we've been posting here in regards to unions in China. It is a subject we're investigating at the moment.
I think I’ll hang around! I’ve been starting to study labor relations between workers and unions in different states, as I began to question trade unions in my country and the relationship they have to capital and how that affects us as workers. I’ve found worker protests in isolation really interesting and how they organise.
I’ve found worker protests in isolation really interesting and how they organise.
It is important not to elevate to the rank of cardinal virtue what is mere necessity, a fallback position, though.
Workers as a class can only succeed in associating, isolation is precisely what is to be overcome. If workers in some circumstances are forced to fight outside of unions, then this must not be celebrated in its immediacy. The goal is to unite the class around its independent objectives. This means that all manifestations of class struggle ought to be taken into consideration - both inside and outside of unions -, as well as the specific conditions and limitations that they correspond to. The immediacy of isolated struggles is to be positively resolved through association. This centralisation sharpens the class as such and allows the objectives of the overall fight to naturally come to the forefront: the property question, which communists always emphasise.
Of course the same applies to the immediate reality of unions as well - there's a discussion on this in the other thread about healthcare on the front page right now.
“We have some extremely diligent workers, but most workers are there just to make money”
Jesus Christ, we’re not even allowed to just show up and do the work anymore. We have to enjoy it (or at least pretend), all for our employers comfort. The way the guy says it like it’s so shameful too... you’d think he was from another planet.
Remember to always work with a smile!
[removed]
The future is yesterday and today... A Chinese company has been manufacturing shoes in Jefferson City, Tennessee for years. FIT moved in, when BAE Systems moved out.
5 replies:
Stalin should listen
How was he anti-semitic? Used to be tankie, but don't know what you're referencing.
doctors plot
Night of the Dead Poets
Do we know when this speech was given?
This topic of unionized healthcare vs state granted healthcare is interesting for us because it exposes people's real feelings. The opposition to the small example we've given, the bizarre abstractions and projections, is pretty laughable.
One is a demand fought by the working class, in their organizations, against the bourgeoisie, the other is one granted to all classes in society.
So let's get to the facts. The Bernie M4A is being marketed as a cost saving measure for the bourgeoisie. On medicare4all.org, for instance, it says
Astronomical health care costs and lack of access continue to drive individuals, families, and businesses past their breaking point while insurance companies continue to soak-up billions of health care dollars as millions of children’s basic needs go unmet.
And many people whole heatedly believe that the savings to the bourgeoisie will trickle down to the workers. Just a few examples from reddit
M4A should remove healthcare from labor costs and create higher wages and more gainful employment.
and
If M4A is enacted the money spent by the employer is the same, except instead of health insurance it would go to a different benefit or wages. M4A would make it easier to negotiate better wages
And from this article
Union leaders reacted angrily when Sanders, at a town hall, told its members that their employers would save $12,000 per employee under Medicare for All, and that they’d see that money in their paychecks.
[...]
It’s not clear where the $12,000 figure came from, but the Sanders Medicare for All proposal would require employers to return any savings in health care costs back to their employees in wages or other benefits.
And further, Sanders wishes to bring the workers into management
Workers should not feel like cogs in a machine. I want workers to be able to sit on corporate boards so they can have some say over what happens to their lives.
These are all things that will disarm the working class. Where the working class draws its strength is its association. We can complain forever about union leadership and their lack of initiative, their kowtow to the bourgeois norms, but this only highlights the need for a communist party.
What we have to deal with here is the class terrain. The problem is not that healthcare is expensive. Most healthcare in the US probably isn't as expensive as the health care in most European countries which take significant chunks out of your income. The problem is that people are unable to save to pay for health care, which means that wages are not high enough and the only way to get higher wages is to unionize.
Questions of price control is the concern of the petite bourgeoisie.
Secondly, people are abstracting over the fact that those in the Culinary Union voted to support to Bernie, blowing over that they also want to keep their health care.
213 replies:
[deleted]
Most likely CTH or one of the other psychotic ‘communist’ (read: social-democratic) subs
sorry what does CTH stand for?
ah, thanks
Why would we brigade you guys?
Isn’t it obvious? This post is a critique of Bernie Sanders, the patron saint of CTH.
We're all pretty aware you guys don't believe in electoralism. Which, ultimately, neither do most of us
How can you not believe in electoralism and still spend time, energy and money supporting Bernie Sanders?
It feels like the more strategic decision, at least to a lot of us. I very much agreed with OPs position in 2016, but now I really don't see how ignoring this mass movement of people to instead hold meetings with the same 20 people is going to accomplish. I support Bernie Sanders as a step forward, while also trying my best to understand and prepare for the revolution that must come.
Having thousands participating in mass action is good practice and will expose the power that the working class holds, and having a more moderate (to a literal communist) president feels like a better way of achieving that then a perfectly articulated article in "Socialist Worker" that is only ever sold to people who already agree with you
It feels like the more strategic decision, at least to a lot of us.
It is a strategic decision, namely in that it has nothing to do with communism, and is not a means to it either. Communism is nothing else than the independent labour movement itself. The association of the proletariat develops from a mere means to an end in itself, and thus we arrive at "communist society".
Campaigning and voting for politicians that represent interests directly opposed to those of the self-movement and self-regulation of labour are not a means to communism at all.
I very much agreed with OPs position in 2016, but now I really don't see how ignoring this mass movement of people to instead hold meetings with the same 20 people is going to accomplish.
It seems the problem is that you project your misguided activity from 2016 onto communists.
I support Bernie Sanders as a step forward, while also trying my best to understand and prepare for the revolution that must come.
A step forward towards what? Because it surely is not communism. No revolution "must come" if there is no independently fighting proletariat, no matter how much you apparently "understand" it and "prepare" for it. You are the walking contradiction that is characteristic of the petty bourgeoisie, in that you throw yourself behind interests opposed to communism, yet claim to adhere to it. It reminds one of what Marx said about Proudhon:
Like the historian Raumer, the petty bourgeois is made up of on-the-one-hand and on-the-other-hand. This is so in his economic interests and therefore in his politics, religious, scientific and artistic views. And likewise in his morals, IN EVERYTHING. He is a living contradiction. If, like Proudhon, he is in addition an ingenious man, he will soon learn to play with his own contradictions and develop them according to circumstances into striking, ostentatious, now scandalous now brilliant paradoxes. Charlatanism in science and accommodation in politics are inseparable from such a point of view. There remains only one governing motive, the vanity of the subject, and the only question for him, as for all vain people, is the success of the moment, the éclat of the day. Thus the simple moral sense, which always kept a Rousseau, for instance, from even the semblance of compromise with the powers that be, is bound to disappear.
Your stance is just as paradoxical.
Having thousands participating in mass action is good practice
What is the social position of these "thousands"? What action are they engaging in? Practice for what?
and will expose the power that the working class holds
Why not instead practically strengthen the power of the working class?
and having a more moderate (to a literal communist) president
We argue for the dictatorship of the proletariat, not a communist president. The latter would be pointless.
feels like a better way of achieving that then a perfectly articulated article in "Socialist Worker" that is only ever sold to people who already agree with you
Again, it seems like you project your Trotskyist doings onto communism.
With their inability to conceptualise any political activity beyond electoralism the ‘Berniebros’ reveal more about themselves than they realise
Communism is nothing else than the independent labour movement itself. The association of the proletariat develops from a mere means to an end in itself, and thus we arrive at "communist society".
Not from CTH, I'm incredibly curious where you get this conception from. From what I've read, Marx certainly supported labor movements and labor aims, but I get no sense that the 'association' developed in the labor movement is to in any direct sense form the basis for communist association. Is this conception from later thinkers?
Is this conception from later thinkers?
No:
When communist artisans associate with one another, theory, propaganda, etc., is their first end. But at the same time, as a result of this association, they acquire a new need – the need for society – and what appears as a means becomes an end. In this practical process the most splendid results are to be observed whenever French socialist workers are seen together. Such things as smoking, drinking, eating, etc., are no longer means of contact or means that bring them together. Association, society and conversation, which again has association as its end, are enough for them; the brotherhood of man is no mere phrase with them, but a fact of life, and the nobility of man shines upon us from their work-hardened bodies.
Or:
Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle.
The first attempt of workers to associate among themselves always takes place in the form of combinations.
Large-scale industry concentrates in one place a crowd of people unknown to one another. Competition divides their interests. But the maintenance of wages, this common interest which they have against their boss, unites them in a common thought of resistance – combination. Thus combination always has a double aim, that of stopping competition among the workers, so that they can carry on general competition with the capitalist. If the first aim of resistance was merely the maintenance of wages, combinations, at first isolated, constitute themselves into groups as the capitalists in their turn unite for the purpose of repression, and in the face of always united capital, the maintenance of the association becomes more necessary to them than that of wages. This is so true that English economists are amazed to see the workers sacrifice a good part of their wages in favor of associations, which, in the eyes of these economists, are established solely in favor of wages. In this struggle – a veritable civil war – all the elements necessary for a coming battle unite and develop. Once it has reached this point, association takes on a political character.
Economic conditions had first transformed the mass of the people of the country into workers. The combination of capital has created for this mass a common situation, common interests. This mass is thus already a class as against capital, but not yet for itself. In the struggle, of which we have noted only a few phases, this mass becomes united, and constitutes itself as a class for itself. The interests it defends become class interests. But the struggle of class against class is a political struggle.
[...]
The working class, in the course of its development, will substitute for the old civil society an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power properly so-called, since political power is precisely the official expression of antagonism in civil society.
And there are a lot more passages like that.
[removed]
Association and union in both of these paragraphs does not seem to mean exclusively association and union in the "labor union" sense.
Yes, it does not refer to trade unions alone, but to the association of labour as such. Historically, cooperatives, factory councils and soviets are other examples of forms this can take on.
It seems that our association in general develops the proletariat, not necessarily a specific form of our association.
What is "our association in general"? When I'm talking to you, I don't do that as a proletarian for the purpose of defending my immediate interests against the bourgeoisie. What Marx is talking about is not some abstract "association as such".
What this means, perhaps to our horror, is that even our association online, on r/leftcommunism or twitter or wherever, for the purposes of discussing theory, is a form of association that too develops the proletariat.
You're retarded if you think that.
I can see now, however, how labor unions are one example of or space for association.
I don't think you have understood anything. You seem to be thinking very abstractly.
[removed]
Association becomes the end. No longer are they there for memes, but for each other.
lol jesus christ
You're one of those specimens that can read as much as they want and still not understand a thing of it. It's not worth to waste everyone's time by replying to your long-ass drivel featuring random italicisation. Utter brain damage.
When communist artisans associate with one another, theory, propaganda, etc., is their first end. But at the same time, as a result of this association, they acquire a new need — the need for society — and what appears as a means becomes an end.
There is also the famous "real movement" quote, but you've probably heard that one enough.
The "thousands" you talk about are mostly from the ranks of the petit bourgeoisie, because Sanders is the candidate that represents their interests. That they are able to sway the working class to go against its interests is due to the weakness of the labour movement. Sanders is no closer to communism than Trump or any other bourgeois candidate, and by saying that he is you betray a lack of understanding of even basic features of communism. Voting for him isn't "mass action" it's the opposite, it's workers buying into the belief that a state bureaucrat can solve their problems, thereby sacrificing their resolve to fight for independent class interests.
No-one here is suggesting a retreat to insular so-called "socialist" magazines, all of which are petit bourgeois anyway. The proletariat has to fight for itself against all factions of the bourgeoisie, using its own organs.
[removed]
It isn't a class specific movement. It is just a large variety of people with bourgeois and petty bourgeois acting as spokespeople, as is customary for the eunuchs of bourgeois culture.
Thanks for the correction
For further information on how thoroughly antithetical to communism Sanders' programme is, it is worth looking into it directly. A good example is this page, on "Corporate Accountability and Democracy":
We will give workers an ownership stake in the companies they work for
A measure that lots of corporates have long since identified as helpful for disciplining their workforce, and which they realised in subsidised purchases of stocks for employees. The Trump administration considers something similar. Do you know who also was extremely fond of employee ownership? Ronald Reagan. Or here, 22:53, you can hear the Carter administration pondering over the same ideas for "a healthier industrial climate". In other words: a pacified proletariat.
break up corrupt corporate mergers and monopolies
Fighting big capital, the wish of a powerless middle class threatened by it with proletarianisation.
and finally make corporations pay their fair share.
What is a "fair share"?
In America today, corporate greed and corruption is destroying the social and economic fabric of our society
If only capitalists obeyed to the moral conscience and decency of the petty bourgeois! Self-restriction for the good of all classes is the order of the day here. Fighting against corruption also is a typically petty bourgeois concern, as it disturbs the otherwise supposedly just workings of capital. And the complaint about the destruction of the "social and economic fabric of our society" is nothing else than bemoaning the decline of the middle class and the increasing hatred of the proletariat.
For too long, these greedy corporate CEOs have rigged the tax code, killed market competition
If only we could tax the middle class back into existence! It's also funny that there's whining about the killing of competition. It does not mean anything else than complaining about big capital ousting small capital.
Today, the richest 10 percent of Americans own an estimated 97 percent of all capital income – including capital gains, corporate dividends, and interest payments. Since the 2008 Wall Street crash, 49 percent of all new income generated in America has gone to the top 1 percent. The three wealthiest people in our country now own more wealth than the bottom 160 million Americans. And the richest family in America – the Walton family, which inherited about half of Walmart’s stock – is worth $200 billion and owns more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of the American people.
To speak of wealth inequality is again to speak of capital concentration - a fact which the petty bourgeoisie loathes, because it means its expropriation.
Instead of using their massive profits to benefit workers and our society as a whole, corporate America has pumped over $1 trillion into stock buybacks to reward already-wealthy shareholders and executives since the Trump tax plan was signed into law.
The key phrase here is again "our society as a whole", abstracting from class and talking about the nation.
Those who control these behemoth corporations have only one allegiance: to the short-term bottom line. What happens to their employees, what happens to the environment, and what happens to the community in which their firms function matters very little.
The reproach that corporations only have an interest in the short-term bottom line here has the content of reasserting the long-term interests of the industrial capitalist vis-à-vis the short-term interest of finance capital. If only all corporations paternalistically took into account the welfare of their employees, their immediate environment and the communities!
These are not really American companies – they are companies currently located in America at most, and increasingly aren’t even incorporated here but instead merely selling here. Tomorrow, if the economics made sense to them, they could be located in China – and already they are incorporating in offshore tax havens like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands to avoid paying U.S. taxes.
Make America Great Again! The problem expressed here is that the transnationalism of capital is in contradiction with the aim of propping up a national middle class that safeguards capital from the proletariat.
The establishment tells us there is no alternative to unfettered capitalism
"Unfettered capitalism". So the alternative then is "fettered capitalism". Whatever happened to "democratic socialism"?
that this is how the system and globalization work and there’s no turning back. They are dead wrong.
They are right in saying that there is no going back to the conditions that prevailed in the period after the Second World War.
The truth is that we can and we must develop new economic models to create jobs and increase wages and productivity across America.
What is meant by an economic model? Jobs and increased wages for whom? And since when exactly does the proletariat have an interest in increased productivity?
Instead of giving huge tax breaks to large corporations that ship our jobs to China and other low-wage countries, we need to give workers an ownership stake in the companies they work for, a say in the decision-making process that impacts their lives, and a fair share of the profits that their work makes possible in the first place.
A stake in the companies they work for, so that they stay bound there and have no interest in associating across companies, and so that they cut back on their interests as workers. Also, what's "a fair share of the profits"? Communism is about conquering the entire value in the economy, not just some meagre share of surplus value.
If workers had ownership stakes in their companies and an equal say on corporate boards:
- Corporations would be far less likely to shut down profitable factories in the United States and move abroad;
- CEOs would not be making over 300 times as much as their average workers; and
- Companies would be far less likely to pollute the communities in which workers live.
I wrote about these schemes to draw workers into management here.
Study after study has shown that employee ownership increases employment, increases productivity, increases sales, and increases wages in the United States.
What a great sales pitch, Mr. Sanders! Increased productivity and sales, I'm sure you'll find your buyers.
This is in large part because employee-owned businesses boost employee morale, dedication, creativity and productivity, because workers share in profits and have more control over their own work lives.
Great: higher morale, dedication and creativity in the workforce at the disposal of the bourgeois. Happy wage labourers are good wage labourers.
By giving workers seats on corporate boards and a stake in their companies, we can create an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent.
"We can create", "for all of us" - abstracting from class, appealing to society at large and not the proletariat.
Under this plan, corporations with at least $100 million in annual revenue, corporations with at least $100 million in balance sheet total, and all publicly traded companies will be required to provide at least 2 percent of stock to their workers every year until the company is at least 20 percent owned by employees.
Thereby making these workers petty proprietors.
Under this plan, 45 percent of the board of directors in any large corporation with at least $100 million in annual revenue, corporations with at least $100 million in balance sheet total, and all publicly traded companies will be directly elected by the firm’s workers – similar to what happens under “employee co-determination” in Germany, which long has had one of the most productive and successful economies in the world.
The German system of co-determination is the exact hellhole of asphyxiating class collaboration that I described in the post I linked above.
Establish a U.S. Employee Ownership Bank. Under this plan, a $500 million U.S. Employee Ownership Bank will be created to provide low-interest loans, loan guarantees, and technical assistance to workers who want to purchase their own businesses through the establishment of Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) or Eligible Worker-Owned Cooperatives. In order to be eligible for assistance under this plan, the ESOPs or worker coops would need to be at least 51 percent owned by workers.
Proudhonism's credit schemes and Lassalleanism's cooperatives through state aid combined! What did Marx again have to say about these two?
And this shit just goes on, and on, and on like this. It's hard to express just how disgustingly anti-communist this is.
It's astounding how many self ascribed "communists" are also the most fervent Bernie Bros.
which means that wages are not high enough
American workers haven't seen a real increase in their wage since the 70s. The wage increases we have seen have been largely to the middle class.
Stupid socdem trying to be a socialist here. What do you guys support? Like not as in theory you read but as in actual actions you take and movements you join. I'm not trying to do a gotcha but am genuinely curious.
edit: I got 6 replies all dodging the question, as to what you guys do besides reading theory.
edit: I got 6 replies all dodging the question, as to what you guys do besides reading theory.
That's a plain lie. You've been given straightforward answers.
Is it so difficult to understand what a communist party does? Do you want us to spell out how it works to walk up to a picket and to tell the workers that you can represent their independent interest, since you clearly don't have an idea of what class struggle is? Do you need a manual on how to negotiate based on need? How to fight the bureaucratic leadership in unions?
The movement is communism. The actions should be in service of communism. Shilling for Bernie Sanders and his programs that are rooted in middle-class interests is not that.
I'm asking the question in good faith precisely because I'm interested in what these actions are because I want to pursue communism as well. What actions do you guys take besides reading theory?
The communist movement is precisely the proletarian class fighting for its interests. In doing so, it moves from a state of disunity, to one of increasing association, clarifying its goals and becoming more powerful and able to take on the bourgeoisie.
In order for the class to progress, it has to fight for its own interests, separate from the interests of the petit bourgeoisie middle classes. For example: universal healthcare is a program that helps the petit bourgeoisie, so the communist position is not to support M4A, but rather to agitate for higher wages so that workers can afford health insurance. This position clearly demarcates proletarian interests, and in doing so, "trains" the working class to fight for itself. Another example in this vein is the communist position on housing issues, which you can read about in an Engels pamphlet: "The Housing Question".
So if you're a worker, you can help the movement by organising and unionising your workplace, and pushing for proletarian interests in that way. If you're not a worker, then the only way to contribute is through the communist party, the organisation which is capable of leading the working class and clarifying its goals by scientifically studying the situation as it stands and stood in the past, and fighting to overcome it.
[removed]
Personally I think union stuff is good. I'm asking because you guys seem hyper critical of any actual action people take, so I'm curious what you folks see as an alternative worth pursuing.
How can you square a support for a militant working class, using its organs, calling for the communist party, with being critical of people taking action? Do you think voting and giving money and time to millionaires to be doing something?
Surrendering one's own interest and praying that the capitalist state takes care of it doesn't seem particularly active to me. We argue for workers fighting for their interests independently, through their class organs.
What do you guys support?
You're asking this in a thread discussing supporting the working class in their trade unions? Oh jeez, reading really seems to be a huge problem. Or maybe it's lead in the water. How about campaigning with the petty bourgeoisie on that?
I was a part of the organizing committee to unionize my workplace, then on the bargaining committee for our contract negotiations, now a shop steward.
If we had Medicare for all we would have been able to demand much higher wages for our workers, giving them control of more of the surplus value of their labor and bettering their material conditions.
This isn't how wages work. You're trying to paint this picture where the worker takes in a share of the profits, exactly in the same way that the landlord or finance capital does. You're a good example of what is wrong with union leadership in that you've somehow become so enamored with bourgeois norms that you think of compromise and cohabitation with the bourgeoisie.
[removed]
This is how cucked unions work.
I can't believe I have to say this on a Marxist sub, but wages do not come out of the surplus value. Labor-power is a commodity, much like any other raw material commodity that a capitalist puts into the production process first in order to create surplus value. Suggesting that it comes out of the surplus value, that you even think that, puts you on the terrain of the bourgeoisie and their petty bourgeois lackeys.
[removed]
You’re both right in different contexts.
Uh, no. Only I'm right.
[removed]
Do you understand what class struggle is?
[removed]
Feeling a bit attacked here...
What do you expect? lol Us to welcome into our bosom the asinine opinions of morons?
There seems to be this belief that socialism is a zero sum game. All or nothing. Capitalism or nazis.
Lol how does this even begin to address the fact from me talking about wages and how no one here seems to understand how exploitation, wage-labor and surplus-value operate?
[removed]
If someone couldn’t buy diapers lady year and they can buy them now that feels like a pretty systemic change to that worker.
Seems to me that's more of an issue of wages not being high enough.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
The user's on this sub like to emulate u/dr_marx 's behavior without any kind of knowledge
Could Mr All-Kinds-Of-Knowledgeable please explain how "bettering the material conditions" of the workers in general is a goal communists should always subordinate themselves to? Because this is exactly what the logic of "M4A is good because it would better the material conditions of the workers" requires -- it requires this "bettering of the material conditions" to be preferable in abstract, regardless of what the proletariat needs to give up in any particular circumstances in order to achieve it.
Upholding this kind of a principle would be the best way of assuring that the proletariat remains always subordinated to various "improvers of the condition of the working class". A fact which clearly reveals what you and your buddy who might as well be a Python script are really after here.
[removed]
[removed]
You know what they're trying to say. If businesses don't have to purchase healthcare, then there is a higher limit on the amount of wages workers can demand. Obviously they won't be able to capitalize on all of this, but some will.
lol this is tantamount to advocating cutting tax for businesses
Woke trickle down economics
That's not what trickle down economics is. Trickle down economics is the idea that tax breaks will create jobs. The idea is that businesses that pay less in taxes will reinvest more. I'm not saying anything about investment, I don't think free healthcare will increase it.
I'm just saying that the passage of free Healthcare will dramatically reduce wages by removing the benefit of health insurance. Workers will have more bargaining power as they will attempt to negotiate to increase wages to their former value. Some workers will be successful or more likely will find a halfway point. This is especially true for unionized workers, who know the value of their health insurance plan and will fight to convert that lost value into wages.
free Healthcare will dramatically reduce wages by removing the benefit of health insurance. Workers will have more bargaining power as they will attempt to negotiate to increase wages to their former value
what? making things worse will make it better somehow?
Workers will have more bargaining power as they will attempt to negotiate to increase wages to their former value. This is especially true for unionized workers, who know the value of their health insurance plan and will fight to convert that lost value into wages.
Why? This sounds like some crazy convoluted logic outside of the topic here. The issue was raised because what we have here is a proletarian solution to a problem, using their institutions, and on the other, a politician coming in who advocates for a more efficient capitalist state and less expensive workforce, with programs that will affect the whole of society, not just the working class.
What does increasing the bargaining power even mean? The bourgeoisie is going to fight the workers just as hard against wage increases whether they are giving them healthcare or not. "Decreasing the wages" by getting rid of healthcare is a dream scenario for the bourgeoisie, and they aren't just going to give up the extra profits to the workers.
No, but if the workers previously had the bargaining power to maintain the pre-M4A wages, then there is no reason they wouldn't attempt fight for the wages they had before. I'm not saying the bourgeoisie are just going to give up their new profits, but everyone will know that concerns of feasibility or threats of insolvency are no longer relevant. As unions will no longer have to negotiate Healthcare, so they can spend more energy on fighting for other wage increases. The majority of wage increases over previous decades has been devoted to Healthcare. With M4A, workers can fight for higher wages instead of Healthcare.
there is no reason they wouldn't attempt fight for the wages they had before.
There is no reason to say that they can't fight for higher wages now and better health plans.
everyone will know that concerns of feasibility or threats of insolvency are no longer relevant
They are already irrelevant. If you think that the bourgeoisie will be incapable of coming up with new lies as to why they can't raise wages, you are delusional
It's not the fact they can't come with new excuses, it's the fact that workers will know that any excuse they make is bullshit. That incentives them to struggle because they know that their jobs won't be outsourced when they win higher wages.
It's not the fact they can't come with new excuses, it's the fact that workers will know that any excuse they make is bullshit.
Workers already know that these excuses are bullshit
That incentives them to struggle because they know that their jobs won't be outsourced when they win higher wages.
Workers in industries prone to outsourcing will still run the risk of being outsourced for increased union action. M4A would slightly reduce the risk at best.
That incentives them to struggle because they know that their jobs won't be outsourced when they win higher wages.
how's undergrad going?
That incentives them to struggle because they know that their jobs won't be outsourced when they win higher wages.
When you truly need something, you don't give a shit about such a potential prospect. More, the labour movement itself can do away with that threat by linking up internationally.
No, but if the workers previously had the bargaining power to maintain the pre-M4A wages, then there is no reason they wouldn't attempt fight for the wages they had before.
When your so communist you oppose wage increases
What makes you think this will lead to wage increases? I suppose you also think corporate tax cuts will also lead to wage increases?
If unions do not have to negotiate for healthcare it frees them up to negotiate for things like better wages. Universal healthcare will only increases the collective bargaining position of unions. Being a Marxist who is opposed to universal healthcare has gotta be the most contradictory thing I have ever seen. I understand it's not the elimination of wanted labor, but let's get a win for the proletariat
If unions do not have to negotiate for healthcare it frees them up to negotiate for things like better wages.
Unions can only do 1 thing at a time guys
Because that is how it works you can either negotiate for healthcare or increased wages.
Right and if you don't have to negotiate for healthcare then you can negotiate for increased wages. Thats my point lol
What the actual fuck. That is not how it works you can negotiate for a variety of things. If the bargaining committee is so brain-addled they can't negotiate more than one item then you have a lot of issues going on.
[removed]
No I'm not we just discussed it in our last bargaining committee and ratified the agreement with a vote. Are you even in a union? Because it seems like you are just reading random news stories and extrapolating bullshit.
[removed]
I'm not in the UAW I'm in a union and we discuss healthcare on the regular you jackass. Honestly I don't believe you are in any union but merely a kid pretending you are because reasons. That you don't even know how a bargaining committee works shows what a stupid LARPing fuck you are. Teachers strike more than most professions in the United States so I really doubt what you are saying at all. This is some of the dumbest shit I have ever fucking read.
[removed]
LMFAO There is no argument here there is a kid pretending he is in a union yet talking about the UAW and unable to even understand how a bargaining committee works. That you think you owned anyone shows how fucking far up your own ass you are. Anyone with an iota of union experience can tell you are talking out of your fucking ass and it is hilarious. You are not fooling anyone but yeah think you won.
[removed]
You need to go reread my original comment since you seem borderline illiterate. I find it funny you are so obsessed with the UAW did Jacobin run an article on it? Since you don't have any actual experience it makes sense that you are latching on to this instance and think you are making a point when you are not.
Of course it eats up time everything eats up time that is the huge part of the bargaining committee is that it is a group of people dedicating their time to being eaten up arguing with the company kind of the fucking point. That you don't seem to get that is funny though. That you think it will be cured by M4A is even funnier like GM and shit won't be telling workers they don't need to be paid more because healthcare is now covered by the government? Yeah that is exactly what will happen. Then the the committee will be wasting all the time they were before arguing for pay increases like they were already doing.
[removed]
Because you can negotiate more than one thing. I can't speak to UAW as I am not in UAW so I have no insight into it. That they chose that position might be that is specific to their union that you are trying to make it into a national thing shows once again that you have no actual experience in a union and are using one specific instance to extrapolate a national policy from it. If you know people in UAW why the fuck are you not pestering them about it? How is anyone supposed to answer for a union they have no membership in? What a dumb goddamn line of questioning.
[removed]
LMFAO You just go on to prove you have never been in a union with more of this bullshit. Goddamn dude stop LARPing. Fucking A. I will say this I have worked in places with no union and places with a union and I will take a union shop 10/10 times no matter what. That dumb fucks like you think unions are ruining workers is beyond goddamn insanity and shows an utter divorcement from reality and the working class.
[removed]
There is something fucking funny about you dorks claiming people are aesthetic communists because they don't support class collaboration. The only people into the aesthetics are jackasses like you who are barely able to string together a thought and think if you obfuscate enough someone will just nod at the dumbassery pouring out of your mouth at a rapid pace. Honestly, if anything is aesthetic it is supporting a bourgeois political candidate and labeling it as revolutionary or radical activity while pretending you operate in a union.
[deleted]
What do you want? How do you want it to happen? Who do you want to be involved?
Establishment of a communist party that is able to put forward the general interests of the proletariat in all its organs, so that it can win on its own class terrain, to the exclusion of all other classes.
Why should I care about what you support if I will never have affordable healthcare and a living wage.
If you have higher wages, affording healthcare is not a problem. More, you can fight for both wages and healthcare by associating with other workers.
Why should I care about unions if they dont support the wellness of all?
Because the "wellness of all" includes both the petty bourgeois and the bourgeois. The particular interests of the union leadership can be easily overcome through the association of the proletariat, aided by the communist party.
Power corrupts.
If you took this phrase seriously, then what would it tell you about Sanders? But of course it is nonsense, a lame anarchist formalism. There is no necessity that causes unions to act in a certain way, you just need capable people.
Your basic mistake is that you consider "bargaining power" to be a fixed magnitude that you have no capacity effecting, when in reality it is determined by the absolute number of workers involved, by the degree of their unity, their association across crafts, companies and industries, their combativeness, the size of the strike fund, as well as by the capability of union leadership.
You merely look at the situation as it presents itself to you immediately, and in an isolated example at that, and declare it a necessity around which you need to work. It might very well be that some present negotiations proceed this way, but then the task of communists is to intervene and change that, rather than to accept it as given and operate within the margins demanded by capital.
You are trying to argue in favour of M4A on the basis of the limited bargaining power on the part of the unions, at a time when US unionisation rates are historically low. Can't you see how ridiculous this is? Why are you more interested in reducing costs for the bourgeoisie within the limits that the capitalists can enforce based on the current balance of power, instead of overcoming these limits altogether? Unionisation rates have been dwindling for decades while real wages have simultaneously been stagnating, and you argue in all seriousness that the lack of M4A is what prevents higher wages for the proletariat. Glancing at countries with universal healthcare might cure this folly.
And the lack of M4A is certainly not the reason for the low unionisation rates either - if anything M4A might decrease membership. I'm not saying that pure unionisation rates tell the whole story either: Scandinavia shows that a high degree of unionisation need not be of value in itself. The point is to look at the entire picture.
If we had Medicare for all we would have been able to demand much higher wages for our workers
So you're already modelling your negotiation margins according to the wishes of capital, and not the needs of the workers. This means you conceive of your role as being a mediator who tells the proletariat what it can supposedly only work with, so it cuts back on its own interests. This is precisely one of the problems of trade unionism that can be overcome through further association, aided by the communist party. Instead of working to offset the balance of power between capital and labour through a higher degree of unionisation, which is what limits your bargaining power currently, you desire to reduce costs for the bourgeois. It is absurd that after decades of declining union membership coinciding with stagnating real wages you try to paint the lack of M4A as the central issue.
With the same logic you could argue for health and safety regulations at work being cut down. Eliminate railings! They only cause costs that diminish what workers can demand!
More, you should read Capital, so you know what wages are, and how they are determined.
giving them control of more of the surplus value of their labor
I wrote this already elsewhere in this thread, but maybe it's helpful to repeat it here: Communists fight for the conquest of the entirety of value in the economy, not some meagre share of surplus value.
bettering their material conditions.
You should read the chapter on socialist and communist literature in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, specifically the section called "Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism". It directly comments on what you espouse.
Dude what? Have you ever had to deal with American healthcare?
No, it's not a communist programme at all, but statements like
Most healthcare in the US probably isn't as expensive as the health care in most European countries which take significant chunks out of your income.
Are completely and utterly unhinged, and reveal that you have never had to enter the insurance market in the US and deal with medical issues.
Are completely and utterly unhinged, and reveal that you have never had to enter the insurance market in the US and deal with medical issues.
It's not. The problem is that most people can't save up money, with many recent studies repeating that fact. In European countries it is taken as a flat tax from your pay check. They are already saving up except that it isn't in their own bank account.
The costs are just in different leagues
Not for the productive working class. Ending up in a 40%+ tax bracket as a construction worker in Sweden for example. Imagine paying 30k tax on a 70k salary
Okay so you'd be paying 30k in taxes, a fraction of which is going to healthcare, vs the USA where the average person spends 10k a year on healthcare. Overall it still costs the worker more
The "average person" is dead. If that abstraction has any meaningful content, it denotes the middle class. But communists are interested in the proletariat.
Your assumption that it is only a fraction is wrong. 25% of the Dutch government spending is on healthcare. Another 25% is on (unemployment) benefits. It is not a small fraction at all.
That is literally the definition of fraction my guy
Yeah everything smaller than 1 and bigger than 0 is a fraction, but what you meant is the colloquial sense a fraction which means something very small. 25%, or 1/4, is not a fraction at all but quite significant.
[removed]
Berners just want capitalism [...] with new lies to make it look like it's working
The problem with capitalism is not that it's not working, but with what it is as such. What you probably conceive as its failings is just its normal state of operating.
The middle class mentally assigns bourgeois society the function of generalising its own petty condition. When this imaginary task embarrasses itself when compared to reality, they conclude that reality is dysfunctional, rather than examining whether their idea of it was wrong. This then leads down the powerless path of contemplating how reality ought to be constituted instead in order to fulfil this vain wish, with the corresponding search for a subject which is to grant it.
The issue that is that Bernie isn't a communist and wishes to preserve the bourgeois order.
He's good at making it look like he doesn't. That's why a lot of people like him. Hell that's why a lot of people liked trump.
If anything, aren't you even a little bit curious what's gonna happen to bernie stans' heads when he wins and nothing changes for 4 years again.
As someone who lives in a country with universal healthcare, I can tell them exactly what will happen: an initial uptick in working conditions, followed by a sharp reaction and decline as employers adjust their mechanisms of surplus-value extraction to the new arrangement. In the UK, tens of thousands have died as a result of austerity in recent years. The labour movement is utterly decrepit. Child poverty is at its highest level in decades. M4A is not the panacea its proponents think it is
The problem is not that healthcare is expensive. Most healthcare in the US probably isn't as expensive as the health care in most European countries which take significant chunks out of your income.
It clearly is. It doesn't take "significant chunks out of our income". In fact I will use my french pay slip to showcase it to you. There is a withholding (not sure of the word) of 20% of my wage in total (19.6% exactly). Half of it isn't for healthcare but stuff for the retirement or for the unemployement benefits... If you only take the percentage of my wage that is about healthcare, it's about 8% ( 8,1% exactly). I don't pay anything else for healthcare. How much do you pay in healthcare compared to your wages, it is more than 8% ? Keep also in mind that I don't have any student debt beacause college is free.
In what world is 8% not a significant chunk?
In the First World. A World where every countries except one have "Medicare for All" and where insulin doesn't cost 1000$ a month which for the record, is way more than 8% of my wage. A world where people doesn't rely on Gofundme to pay for their healthcare.
Also I'm curious, how much do you pay in healthcare private insurance compared to your wages ?
Why are you all so interested in the price of commodities?
The distribution of this surplus value, produced by the working class and taken from it without payment, among the non-working classes proceeds amid extremely edifying squabblings and mutual swindling. In so far as this distribution takes place by means of buying and selling, one of its chief methods is the cheating of the buyer by the seller, and in retail trade, particularly in the big towns, this has become an absolute condition of existence for the sellers. When, however, the worker is cheated by his grocer or his baker, either in regard to the price or the quality of the commodity, this does not happen to him in his specific capacity as a worker. On the contrary, as soon as a certain average level of cheating has become the social rule in any place, it must in the long run be leveled out by a corresponding increase in wages. The worker appears before the small shopkeeper as a buyer, that is, as the owner of money or credit, and hence not at all in his capacity as a worker, that is, as a seller of labour power. The cheating may hit him, and the poorer class as a whole, harder than it hits the richer social classes, but it is not an evil which hits him exclusively or is peculiar to his class.
And it is just the same with the housing shortage.
And it is just the same with the cost of health care.
One could add another passage:
Let us assume that in a given industrial area it has become the rule that each worker owns his own little house. In this case the working class of that area lives rent free; expenses for rent no longer enter into the value of its labor power. Every reduction in the cost of production of labor power, that is to say, every permanent price reduction in the worker’s necessities of life is equivalent “on the basis of the iron laws of political economy” to a reduction in the value of labor power and will therefore finally result in a corresponding fall in wages. Wages would fall on an average corresponding to the average sum saved on rent, that is, the worker would pay rent for his own house, but not, as formerly, in money to the house owner, but in unpaid labor to the factory owner for whom he works. In this way the savings of the worker invested in his little house would certainly become capital to some extent, but not capital for him, but for the capitalist employing him.
[...]
Incidentally, what has been said above applies to all so-called social reforms which aim at saving or cheapening the means of subsistence of the worker. Either they become general and then they are followed by a corresponding reduction of wages, or they remain quite isolated experiments, and- then their very existence as isolated exceptions proves that their realization on a general scale is incompatible with the existing capitalist mode of production. Let us assume that in a certain area a general introduction of consumers’ co-operatives succeeds in reducing the cost of foodstuffs for the workers by 20 per cent; in the long run wages would fall in that area by approximately 20 per cent, that is to say, in the same proportion as the foodstuffs in question enter into the means of subsistence of the workers. If the worker, for example, spends three-quarters of his weekly wage on these foodstuffs, then wages would finally fall by three-quarters of 20 = 15 per cent. In short, as soon as any such savings reform has become general, the worker receives in the same proportion less wages, as his savings permit him to live cheaper. Give every worker a saved, independent income of 52 talers a year and his weekly wage must finally fall by one taler. Therefore: the more he saves the less he will receive in wages. He saves therefore not in his own interests, but in the interests of the capitalist. Is anything else necessary in order “to stimulate in the most powerful fashion the primary economic virtue, thrift?”
What does this tell us about healthcare?
Well here is the problem. People here are either too stupid or too invested in stupidity to understand this. This is the sort of thing they'll call dogmatic because they don't understand it.
The fact that almost everyone in this thread assumes that wages come out of the surplus value (even writing that gives me a headache) probably goes a long way to explaining the huge amounts of nonsense and petty bourgeois positions being put forward.
user reports:
1: tax agency shill
Good one.
[deleted]
The party is the result of actual human activity. https://www.reddit.com/r/leftcommunism/comments/f2xnw9/interesting_union_flyer_in_regards_to_health_care/fhmeed0/
People are attempting to build it in the real world, actually attached to a labor movement. It’s sad to see comments like this as a gotcha moment lol really shows where your class interests lie.
It wasn’t meant as a gotcha. I want to know where to look and what to look for but I realized I should pose the question when I can phrase it more eloquently.
Unfortunately it requires people who understand what is required and a culture to promote that; two things sorely lacking in the US.
I’m not from the US. This is a global struggle, isn’t it?
Yes, but it has to begin within the confines of individual nation states. And unfortunately again, this is a world wide problem but as it stands, we can't comb the whole world and investigate every group.
When you say “people who understand what is required”, do you have specific people in mind or is it more a sketch of who these people should be?
It's both. Pretty much every single communist and socialist party in existence in the world is composed almost entirely of students and other members of the petty bourgeois classes. This has a detrimental effect on the party, for obvious reasons. Especially when the people have never had real jobs and lack any real life experience, and in essence, have no idea what it is that they're doing.
[deleted]
I take it you consider yourself one of the people with the understanding and experience communism needs?
No. The benefit of the party is that it is a collective organism. I rely on others just as much as they rely on me (in theory that is). This is the culture aspect that I mentioned, and it is difficult to get this going and to maintain it. Personalities tend to get in the way.
In regards to experience, that already is out there. There has been over 200 years of the communist movement.
Is there any way for me, or anyone else, to make any goddamn difference?
There is nothing to say that you can't join a party or a trade union. It's just that they're likely to a pointless waste of time out of which you gain experience in recognizing pointless wastes of time. It is possible that you'll meet like minded people, other contacts and so on, and it is possible that you could move on from there.
[removed]
agree personally I think not having to worry about family members and friends having healthcare disarms the working class.
Provided you're a worker and healthcare is a need for you: Why would you, instead of fighting for either higher wages so that you can afford it, or fighting immediately for healthcare itself, perhaps for both, surrender by merely resorting to casting a vote or even going as far as campaigning for a millionaire politician, and hoping he gets to enact some lousy compromise that nets you a few crumbs?
I also think the employer having the power to cut off healthcare benefits with snap of a finger like they did to the striking GM workers is more empowering to the working class than having universal healthcare (you can tell that puts the workers in a better bargaining position).
The workers' isolation is the problem here, not the fact that their healthcare is not provided by the state. Here, Engels describes a similar situation with regard to housing:
Long before the struggle between Bismarck and the German bourgeoisie had given the German workers freedom of association, the English factory, mine and foundry owners had had practical experience of the pressure they could exert on striking workers if they were at the same time the landlords of those workers.
Isn't it curious that in the same pamphlet, he also argues against the state providing housing? The reason is that housing is a need that transcends class. Engels instead aims for further association of the proletariat; class struggle. How class struggle can amend a housing shortage has been explained here.
having to worry about losing your job or being unable to quit or switch jobs when you're miserable because you worry about losing your coverage is especially most empowering to you as a worker.
Three "worries" and a "miserable" in three sentences - sounds more like someone is afraid of losing their petty social standing.
you can tell by the fact that in European countries where they have universal healthcare the labor movement is in a much worse position than the labor movement in the US where they don't have universal healthcare.
You have no clue about the conditions in Europe if you think the labour movement is strong there. Additionally, many of the policies concerning co-determination which Sanders proposes are in place there, and they do their part in pacifying workers.
you can also tell that medicare for all is actually beneficial to the bourgeois that's why they're overwhelmingly supporting it and lobbying to get the bill through in congress.
You do realise that the bourgeoisie is fractured in its economic interests itself? Big capital and small capital; commerical, industrial and finance capital; exporting and importing industries - I could go on like this. In countries with plenty of parties, these interests are each represented by a party. In countries with few parties, they take on the form of factional struggles within these parties themselves.
edit: u/DrRedTerror can't reply since i got banned cause' god forbid anyone interrupts while you guys defend private health insurance using marxist phraseology. funny enough these arguments are against pretty much all social pograms. you actually managed to convince yourselves using marxism that dismantling the welfare state is better for the working class. keep that up and i'm sure you'll have great careers ahead.
I like how singularly determined you are to be this stupid. It's really something.
[deleted]
They're being sarcastic.
[removed]
You don't have to read Marx to not be a moron.
[removed]
[removed]
Who is attacking communism? Pretty sure most of us know what communism is and "ensure the working class remains sick and poor to accelerate revolutionary fervor" is not it. But hey maybe American Republicans are just better leftists then me.
Who is attacking communism?
All the Sanders supporters in this thread do, whether they know it or not.
Pretty sure most of us know what communism is
Pretty sure you don't.
"ensure the working class remains sick and poor to accelerate revolutionary fervor"
No one argues this.
But hey maybe American Republicans are just better leftists then me.
No one is interested in "who is the better leftist". The question is about communism, nothing else.
[removed]
That isn't the issue. The point is that there are class orientations and there are these degenerate plans of the bourgeoisie to make capitalism more efficient, to reduce the costs of labor and to disarm the working class and its institutions, by people with latent petite bourgeois ideas trying to associate themselves with the communist movement.
[removed]
Wage slavery would surely be more tolerable with M4A, universal childcare, 15$ minimum wage, teacher pay raise, access to Education, ect. If you want to deny Bernie would greatly benefit the material conditions of the proletariat be my guest, but I would ask you to please get your mind out the 19th century please
[deleted]
This is what happens when you don’t read books
People can read hundreds of books and still say stuff like this.
People do read hundreds of books and still say stuff like this.
Would all of these things not benefit the working classes material conditions?
Wage slavery would surely be more tolerable with M4A, universal childcare, 15$ minimum wage, teacher pay raise, access to Education, ect.
Slavery would surely be more tolerable if the masters could be convinced to give us less beatings and a bit more food! Actively fighting them to wrest concessions away from them, and ultimately do away with slavery, is out of the question!
If you want to deny Bernie would greatly benefit the material conditions of the proletariat be my guest
All sorts of policies "benefit the material conditions of the proletariat" in the abstract. This is not what communism is about.
but I would ask you to please get your mind out the 19th century please
Would you please get your mind out of petty bourgeois nonsense?
Lol who said that is the goal of the communist movement? No shit that my life would be better under m4A but to pretend it is a communist demand or a thing that communists should support is laughable. If people read 25% of what us posted in this sub they wouldn’t make dumb statements like this.
I’m saying this as someone who at one point didn’t read shit either.
I didn't say that it was a communist program, but why should a communist not support it? I don't understand how a communist could not support such a clear material benefit to the workers. The first people funded movement that directly challenges bourgeois hegemony in America.
I have read Marxist literature and I would say if you take their disdain for electoral politics so seriously in the 21st century you haven't been paying attention. If your waiting for a communist revolution in America then you'll die waiting. You will be a arm chair communist while the workers change their livelihoods the only way they can, which right now is electoralism
Did you even bother to read the original post?
Yes I did and what they OP fails to neglect is that Bernie wants to empower unions and that M4A will drastically improve their bargaining position for better wages
I suggest you reread the post carefully.
The first people funded movement that directly challenges bourgeois hegemony in America.
From the M4A website
A single payer system dramatically reduces administrative bloat by reducing billing complexity. The increasing complexity of our fragmented health care system is a primary driver of increasing costs. In fact, we currently spend an unnecessary 503 billion annually in bureaucratic costs. Medicare for All will simplify our system by eliminating fragmentation and ensuring more seamless, efficient, and streamlined administration.
Competitive advertising can make up as high as 15 percent of an insurer’s operating costs, costs that will not exist under Medicare for All. A major source of waste in our current healthcare system is the 30 billion dollars annually spent by insurers on advertising. Private insurance will have nothing to advertise under Medicare for All, saving billions a year in costs that do nothing to improve health.
Something about a more efficient capitalist state seems at odds with the idea that it directly challenges "bourgeois hegemony" in any way.
Presidents come and go, but classes and exploitation remain.
If your waiting for a communist revolution in America then you'll die waiting.
This is a truism. We're advocating for strengthening the labour movement, not for waiting.
You will be a arm chair communist while the workers change their livelihoods the only way they can, which right now is electoralism
I doubt that the majority of people rallying behind Sanders are workers. Also, it's hilarious that you call others "armchair communists" while claiming that the only way workers can change their livelihoods is electoralism. Do you know what a trade union is? Weren't you boasting to another person about your experience with unions in this very thread?
[removed]
He already told you that communists don't support electoralism.
That's not exactly correct. Electoralism is one thing, but participating in elections is just a tactic like anything else.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
skilled labor unions are not for the betterment of the entire working class, just their members
How is a culinary union a skilled labor union?
Wins secured by labour unions tend towards extension by the dynamics of capitalist competition. Here Marx describes the effects of the Factory Acts, in a passage that is applicable also to union victories:
'There are two circumstances that finally turn the scale: first, the constantly recurring experience that capital, so soon as it finds itself subject to legal control at one point, compensates itself all the more recklessly at other points; secondly, the cry of the capitalists for equality in the conditions of competition, i.e., for equal restraint on all exploitation of labour.'
By engaging in more reckless exploitation at other points, capital stirs a more determined and united opposition against itself; by crying for equality in the conditions of competition, capitalists inadvertently tend to universalise (or at least extend) the victories of the workers throughout their branch of industry, and even into other branches.
This level of dogmatism and sectarianism is ridiculous. You think you'll ever accomplish anything (let alone communism) by never compromising and never seeking alliances?
Allies with who? The capitalist class? Interesting proposition you're making here.
What point do you think you're making here?
Deriding a group of people that is
is stupid tactics. Instead of running purity tests and trying to find ways to disavow each other, people on the left would be much better off by focusing on what common ground they have and how they can turn that common ground into policy. You know, like how every change in the real world ever is done. You think capitalism came about when a small group of capitalists somehow convinced the whole world to do everything exactly how they wanted it in one fell swoop? You think labour rights or any other progressive goal that has been realised came about by shunning everyone who doesn't share your exact vision of it?
Aside from the fact that communism is not about ideals but needs, we might reply with Engels:
The issue is purely one of principle: is the struggle to be conducted as a class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, or is it to be permitted that in good opportunist (or as it is called in the Socialist translation: possibilist) style the class character of the movement, together with the programme, are everywhere to be dropped where there is a chance of winning more votes, more adherents, by this means. Malon and Brousse, by declaring themselves in favour of the latter alternative, have sacrificed the proletarian class character of the movement and made separation inevitable. All the better. The development of the proletariat proceeds everywhere amidst internal struggles and France, which is now forming a workers' party for the first time, is no exception. We in Germany have got beyond the first phase of the internal struggle, other phases still lie before us. Unity is quite a good thing so long as it is possible, but there are things which stand higher than unity. And when, like Marx and myself, one has fought harder all one's life long against the alleged Socialists than against anyone else (for we only regarded the bourgeoisie as a class and hardly ever involved ourselves in conflicts with individual bourgeois), one cannot greatly grieve that the inevitable struggle has broken out.
Or Marx:
Just as the democrats abused the word “people” so now the word “proletariat” has been used as a mere phrase. To make this phrase effective it would be necessary to describe all the petty bourgeois as proletarians and consequently in practice represent the petty bourgeois and not the proletarians. The actual revolutionary process would have to be replaced by revolutionary catchwords. This debate has finally laid bare the differences in principle which lay behind the clash of personalities, and the time for action has now arrived. It is precisely these differences that have furnished both parties with their battlecries and some members of the League have called the defenders of the Manifesto reactionaries, seeking thereby to make them unpopular, which however does not worry them in the least, as they do not seek popularity.
On the matter of "right", here is an excerpt from the German Ideology:
As far as right is concerned, we with many others have stressed the opposition of communism to right, both political and private, as also in its most general form as human rights. See the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, where privilege, the special right, is considered as something corresponding to private property inseparable from social classes, and right as something corresponding to the state of competition, of free private property; equally, the rights of man themselves are considered as privilege, and private property as monopoly. Further, criticism of right is brought into connection with German philosophy and presented as the consequence of criticism of religion; further, it is expressly stated that the legal axioms that are supposed to lead to communism are axioms of private property, and the right of common ownership is an imaginary premise of the right of private property.
Likewise, the Holy Family on "progress":
the category “Progress” is completely empty and abstract
people on the left would be much better off by focusing on what common ground they have and how they can turn that common ground into policy
And what do you imagine this common ground between communists and social democrats would be?
You think capitalism came about when a small group of capitalists somehow convinced the whole world to do everything exactly how they wanted it in one fell swoop?
Don't exert yourself, this analogy you're constructing will never be apt. The fragment below also addresses the illusory conception of supposed shared goals you might hold.
The revisionist thesis establishes a fallacious analogy between the situation of the bourgeoisie in feudal society, where this class has unquestionably obtained growing economic power with the related ideological-cultural assets, and the “condition” of the proletariat in bourgeois society (where it is by definition without reserves, devoid of everything, disinherited). Such a vision denies as a whole the entire scientific analysis of “Capital”, the whole Marxist program of the constitution of the proletariat as a class (through its constitution as a party) and of its emancipation. This cannot be conceived as the rupture, the abrogation of legal ties enshrining an outdated relationship of social domination, if only because no legal principle obliges the proletarian to sell its labour power, the only commodity at its disposal and which has the particular character of generating surplus value. This point was brilliantly developed by Rosa Luxemburg in “Reform or Revolution?” (Part Two, Chapter 3: ‘The conquest of political power’):
“Bernstein, thundering against the conquest of political power as a theory of Blanquist violence, has the misfortune of labelling as a Blanquist error that which has always been the pivot and the motive force of human history. From the first appearance of class societies having the class struggle as the essential content of their history, the conquest of political power has been the aim of all rising classes. Here is the starting point and end of every historic period. […] Every legal constitution is the product of a revolution. In the history of classes, revolution is the act of political creation, while legislation is the political expression of the life of a society that has already come into being. Work for reform does not contain its own force independent from revolution. During every historic period, work for reforms is carried on only in the direction given to it by the impetus of the last revolution and continues as long as the impulsion from the last revolution continues to make itself felt. Or, to put it more concretely, in each historic period work for reforms is carried on only in the framework of the social form created by the last revolution. Here is the kernel of the problem.
“It is contrary to history to represent work for reforms as a long-drawn out revolution and revolution as a condensed series of reforms. A social transformation and a legislative reform do not differ according to their duration but according to their content. The secret of historic change through the utilisation of political power resides precisely in the transformation of simple quantitative modification into a new quality, or to speak more concretely, in the passage of an historic period from one given form of society to another.
“That is why people who pronounce themselves in favour of the method of legislative reform in place and in contradistinction to the conquest of political power and social revolution, do not really choose a more tranquil, calmer and slower road to the same goal, but a different goal. Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society they take a stand for surface modifications of the old society. If we follow the political conceptions of revisionism, we arrive at the same conclusion that is reached when we follow the economic theories of revisionism. Our program becomes not the realisation of socialism, but the reform of capitalism; not the suppression of the wage labour system but the diminution of exploitation, that is, the suppression of the abuses of capitalism instead of suppression of capitalism itself.”
You think labour rights or any other progressive goal that has been realised came about by shunning everyone who doesn't share your exact vision of it?
Achieving goals typically requires getting rid of the influence of interests that are working against you reaching those goals. And why are you assuming those are the goals of communists anyway? You made it seem like you were talking about a compromise, but it seems awfully like this compromise consists of all the goals of social democracy and none of the goals of communism. Go figure!
And what do you imagine this common ground between communists and social democrats would be?
Less control of society for the capitalists, more control for everyone else.
Don't exert yourself, this analogy you're constructing will never be apt:
Even if it's a bad analogy about capitalism (which I don't think it is and I don't think your quote proves it), you still have to admit that social movements that brought results weren't based on purity checks, infighting and exclusionary tactics.
but it seems awfully like this compromise consists of all the goals of social democracy and none of the goals of communism. Go figure!
That's the balance of power right now. It's a social democrat who has popular appeal and can win the presidency, therefore they get the most out of it. It would be ridiculous to suggest that a compromise between equals is the only acceptable outcome when one party represents the opinions of hundreds of millions and you represent just a handful of people. That doesn't mean that communist goals aren't advanced by social democracy at all. Gradualism in policies and increased class consciousness are not boons that should be scoffed at. If Sanders was so useful to the capitalist class and so useless to the working class as you imply, then capitalists wouldn't be throwing billions of dollars trying to thwart him and his movement.
Less control of society for the capitalists, more control for everyone else.
Capitalists would have the same, if not more, control over society. The working class will never be emancipated if it does not not organize as a class with the communist party. What you are proposing is a weakening and disarming of the class for some garbage about alliances and compromises with classes that are opposed to that.
If Sanders was so useful to the capitalist class and so useless to the working class as you imply, then capitalists wouldn't be throwing billions of dollars trying to thwart him and his movement.
Funny, do you think that capitalists are organized into one monolithic unit?
Well, we know what the movement that actually fulfills the goals of social democracy is.
I don't know what you're talking about
I’m referring to how fascism National Socialism fulfills the program of social democracy. Social Democrats like the one you replied to essentially fall into antisemitism without Jews; they still view capital as a cabal that is working against them in particular instead of a hegemony with diverse views. It’s still the socialism of fools, it’s just whitewashed for diversity-conscious liberals.
Edit for more precise language
I still have no idea what you're trying to say
Less control of society for the capitalists, more control for everyone else.
Do you realize that the state is an organ of the capitalist class? Transferring control from the hands of the capitalists to those of their state would achieve nothing. And who is this "everyone else"? The petty bourgeoisie with the proletariat on a leash, I presume? How about the proletariat takes over control over its own healthcare instead of ceding it to the capitalist state? Less control for the capitalist state, more control for the proletariat. How about we let that be the common ground?
you still have to admit that social movements that brought results weren't based on purity checks, infighting and exclusionary tactics
But they were! Of course I'm talking about excluding those interests which were opposed to bringing those results about. You're still operating under the false assumption that we're dealing with a common goal and not opposite goals.
That's the balance of power right now.
The capitalists are in power right now, we better give up and rally behind their candidates!
That doesn't mean that communist goals aren't advanced by social democracy at all.
You aren't being a very good salesman right now. I'm already ahead of your script. I already provided you with an explanation for why they aren't.
Gradualism in policies and increased class consciousness are not boons that should be scoffed at.
Because nothing "increases class consciousness" like ceasing to fight for healthcare on class basis and instead surrendering this area to the bourgeois state!
If Sanders was so useful to the capitalist class and so useless to the working class as you imply, then capitalists wouldn't be throwing billions of dollars trying to thwart him and his movement.
If Trump was so useful to the capitalist class and so useless to the working class as you imply, then capitalists wouldn't be throwing billions of dollars trying to thwart him and his movement.
"everyone else" is an abstraction that's not rooted in class. Communism is an explicitly class-based movement. It is the doctrine of the conditions for the liberation of the proletariat. It's not a scheme to improve the general welfare and divvy up surplus value.
It’s very clear you have no idea what communism is with this... barrage of jargon
[removed]
I understand your criticisms of Bernie
It does not seem like you do.
we can talk all day about the good and bad that he's done
Good and bad in relation to what? There is no such thing as an abstract category of good or bad as such. Marx once commented on this kind of thinking:
He [Proudhon] looks upon these categories as the petty bourgeois looks upon the great men of history: Napoleon was a great man; he did a lot of good; he also did a lot of harm.
You see the point?
but what ACTION do you actually suggest?
Is it so fucking difficult to at least read this very thread?
You either vote for him, someone else, or nobody at all.
So the entirety of what constitutes ACTION (written in capital letters!) to you is voting? It's interesting to me when people actively appropriate the meagre say in political matters the capitalist state lines out for them with such enthusiasm. It usually points to their powerless petty bourgeois social standing.
The way I see it, voting for him will improve the quality of life for many Americans
It has been established in this thread that:
I'm not saying the only action we can take is within the voting system, of course we should take action outside of it, that goes without saying. But the two are not mutually exclusive.
Who is "we" here? The two are not mutually exclusive should a communist party decide to run in elections for tactical reasons. This is not the case.
I'm simply asking what ACTION should be taken in regards to the election?
"Should be taken" in relation to what? No one here is particularly interested in telling you how to live your life. What do you mean by "ACTION" now? Voting for any particular candidate, respectively not voting at all? If we are talking about communism, then it should be obvious that all of the available candidates are opposed to it, meaning that if you're a communist actually worth the name, you won't vote for any of them. This follows logically from all that has been laid out here already.
I'm simply asking what ACTION should be taken in regards to the election?
That should have been clear from the answers given in this thread multiple times.
When we're all drowning underneath the flood waters because you fucks were too preoccupied with having a "real revolution" remember that you made this post and remember that you willingly chose to say fuck you to the only candidate that has a climate change plan with any real teeth. I'm sorry he's not "left enough" for you but while you sit here on your high pedestal regurgitating second rate Marxist theory to people that don't give a shit because they just want healthcare, there are people out there actually taking action and trying to acquire small victories for the people that need it.
The chances of a full rate armed revolution to overthrow the bourgeois in the next 20 years are slim to none. Accept that and fucking compromise or perish underneath your own unwillingness to realize that we don't have the fucking time to pursue class consciousness of the proletariat so that they can overthrow the ruling class. We'll all be dead by the time that could even remotely happen. There's not going to be a worldwide revolution if there's no world for it to happen on.
I swear, you all need to get off your entitled theory filled asses and recognize that we need to sacrifice our ultimate goals as communists and as anarchists and as leftists in general for the sake of the planet. If you can't recognize that than you are actively contributing to the extinction of our species. No one's going to care if this is "real Communism" and the fact that "Bernie just wants happy Capitalism" while the world is destroyed all around you. Seriously. Fuck off with this trite bullshit and actually help the working class instead of yelling online about how they aren't going far enough. This is what we have right now. We don't have the luxury of full revolution. And god knows we don't have the time.
When we're all drowning underneath the flood waters because you fucks were too preoccupied with having a "real revolution"
Oh no, you've exposed how powerful we are. A handful of people shit posting and trolling idiots has doomed the world.
remember that you made this post and remember that you willingly chose to say fuck you to the only candidate that has a climate change plan with any real teeth.
lol are you threatening me or something? Oh no, the Ghost of Christmas Past will come haunt me in my sleep.
sit here on your high pedestal
You sit on a high horse. Not on a high pedestal.
there are people out there actually taking action
I hear that you can vote from home now.
The chances of a full rate armed revolution to overthrow the bourgeois in the next 20 years are slim to none.
Not with that attitude lol
Accept that and fucking compromise or perish underneath your own unwillingness to realize that we don't have the fucking time to pursue class consciousness of the proletariat so that they can overthrow the ruling class.
Repent, sinner!
We'll all be dead by the time that could even remotely happen.
If it meant that you'd die because of me then I'd die happy. Now I'm glad that I sprayed all of that hairspray back in the 80s.
your entitled theory filled asses
lol
recognize that we need to sacrifice our ultimate goals as communists and as anarchists and as leftists in general for the sake of the planet.
Which Captain Planet character are you cosplaying as?
If you can't recognize that than you are actively contributing to the extinction of our species.
Now I'm going to go around and leave the doors of chillers open in grocery stores just to spite you.
No one's going to care if this is "real Communism" and the fact that "Bernie just wants happy Capitalism" while the world is destroyed all around you.
I'm not surprised that a soft-skulled new-age liberal retard doesn't care about real communism.
Seriously.
Bruh, seriously?
Fuck off with this trite bullshit and actually help the working class instead of yelling online about how they aren't going far enough.
How does one yell online on a text based website?
This is what we have right now. We don't have the luxury of full revolution. And god knows we don't have the time.
I'm not exactly sure where you think we're saying that this will result in a luxuriously full revolution.
When we're all drowning underneath the flood waters because you fucks were too preoccupied with having a "real revolution" remember that you made this post and remember that you willingly chose to say fuck you to the only candidate that has a climate change plan with any real teeth.
You're a moron if you think a Sanders presidency would do away with environmental destruction. The only way it can be dealt with properly is through communist action. This is explained in detail in this thread.
I'm sorry he's not "left enough" for you but while you sit here on your high pedestal regurgitating second rate Marxist theory to people that don't give a shit because they just want healthcare, there are people out there actually taking action and trying to acquire small victories for the people that need it.
The issue is not that Sanders is not "left enough". The issue is that he represents interests entirely opposed to communism. We are arguing for creating a communist party and for workers fighting for their needs through independent class organs. You tell them to submit their surrender through the ballot box, and pray that some bourgeois bestows some leftovers on them. I wonder who of us is sitting in an armchair here.
The chances of a full rate armed revolution to overthrow the bourgeois in the next 20 years are slim to none.
Therefore, we won't work towards it at all.
Accept that and fucking compromise
The issue is not with compromise as such, but understanding to distinguish between those compromises that are permissible for the labour movement, and those which are not. What you mean by compromise is nothing else than class collaboration. You think it's merely a matter of compromising on ideals, but communism is not an ideal.
or perish underneath your own unwillingness to realize that we don't have the fucking time to pursue class consciousness of the proletariat so that they can overthrow the ruling class. We'll all be dead by the time that could even remotely happen. There's not going to be a worldwide revolution if there's no world for it to happen on.
I wish people would always be this frank, it would make things a lot easier. Go and take your middle class angst somewhere else. If you understood bourgeois society, you would have understood that if anything, your call for class collaboration prevents a fight against environmental destruction. The association of labour immediately provides remedy against environmental destruction, as the cause of the latter lies in the estranged metabolism of man and nature through labour mediated by private property to begin with. There is no better and more effective environmental action than the independent movement of labour itself.
I swear, you all need to get off your entitled theory filled asses and recognize that we need to sacrifice our ultimate goals as communists and as anarchists and as leftists in general for the sake of the planet.
Entitled theory filled asses? What has been argued in this thread requires no reading, just a brain. Anarchists and leftists can get fucked. And who are you to tell communists and workers what they need to do? Go fuck yourself, and go cry in your petty bourgeois cave.
If you can't recognize that than you are actively contributing to the extinction of our species.
Boo-hoo, I'm cowering in fear before the Last Judgement. I hope I won't be punished for my sins!
No one's going to care if this is "real Communism" and the fact that "Bernie just wants happy Capitalism" while the world is destroyed all around you.
Reading your post makes me want the world to end faster.
Seriously. Fuck off with this trite bullshit and actually help the working class instead of yelling online about how they aren't going far enough.
We argue for the association of the proletariat, while you openly argue for it to renounce its interests.
This is what we have right now. We don't have the luxury of full revolution.
You heard them, proles? Back to work and bend over!
And god knows we don't have the time.
Raise your hand next time before sharing your shenanigans with the class.
You’re utterly detached from reality
When we're all drowning underneath the flood waters because you fucks were too preoccupied with having a "real revolution" remember that you made this post and remember that you willingly chose to say fuck you to the only candidate that has a climate change plan with any real teeth.
Do you really think the 10-15 people that frequent this subreddit, some of which are probably not even American, are going to have any meaningful impact on the result of the election in November?
less than 10% of the population are in unions, seems bougie
btw this is called sarcasm, you banhappy dipshits
Hot leftist take: unions are bourgeois
10 percent of what population?
And even less are communists.
btw this is called sarcasm, you banhappy dipshits
Sure is. Funny joke.
59 replies:
So what I have gathered you either can support America or Iran, beating workers is not only ok it is abjectly communist, revolutionary defeatism is for cucks, having a shitty garden is revolutionary, Nintendo dildos make people very defensive, and backwater shitholes are anti-imperialist while engaging with their halfassed attempts at imperialism. Did I miss anything?
Did I miss anything?
And apparently it is the duty of the communists to maintain the balance of power between the US and Iran in the same way that the Congress of Vienna sought to maintain the balance of power in Europe.
Ah yes the role of communists is to bring a balance of power for bourgeois states. Like comrades Metternich and Richelieu! What a moron that Lenin was trying to advocate for defeatism when he should have been tweeting to figure a way for a return to a perpetual status quo!
Iranian workers are getting lashed for striking, while in the US you have middle class cucks with Nintendo-themed dildo collections posing as communists when they attempt to create a community "garden".
More on recent activity of Iranian workers: https://en.radiofarda.com/a/workers-at-iran-restive-industrial-complex-on-strike-for-second-week/30685851.html
Do you know of any other good news sources for the middle east? The only other ones I know are Aljazeera and Labourstart Middle East, which updates pretty infrequently for some countries.
I often just use Google News to keep myself updated about the labour movement around the world. It works pretty well to use keywords like "labour", "workers", "strike", "union" and so on, and combine them with the respective region to get decent results. Otherwise it's too much of a hassle to remember all the relevant websites.
If you know about any other good sites consolidating news of the labour movement without too much political bullshit being included, let me know though.
Thanks, I'll try Google News.
Otherwise it's too much of a hassle to remember all the relevant websites.
Maybe you could put sites that you like into an RSS feed. They can be organized into folders however you want, like by region, and then you can search for keywords within those folders.
There is also /r/labor, but about 80% of the posts there are stupid leftist nonsense.
One of the idiotic things that American Middle classes believe is that they are indistinguishable from workers. Everyone that isn't as rich as Bill Gates is technically working class to them.
That's not only the US-American middle classes. It's their behaviour everywhere.
although it makes absolutely no material difference, it's always been funny to me that american politicians always frame their policies in terms of protecting the middle class, whereas in the UK the idea of a "middle class handout" is an insult. But everyone is still perfectly happy to defend the livelihoods of "small and medium enterprises" through attacks on labour rights, permanently delayed increases in wage, cuts to business tax and the like.
Do they? I would have said that mainstream American discourse distinguishes between middle class and working class. Most people identify as middle class, no matter how much wealth they have or what their relationship to capital is. Working class implies struggling economically; it is code for poor people.
[removed]
Lol why is my name in quotation marks? and of course we have a german complaining about dildos.
what do you mean while ?
do you think these people should lob for their government to somehow... intervene? or do you in some way condemn this spontaneous reaction of people whose friends are being unaccountably murdered
What the fuck are you even trying to say? It would be nice if people weren't so insecure and vague about shit.
how fucking dare you (OP, or both of you idk), elitist narcissist piglet thinking you are so much better than all the anti-imperialists, with your immaculate ability to stand on the left and simultaneously critique anti-imperialist governments, to disregard the wilful but righteous protesters in their legitimate cause in the US.
If there is an inplication in your comment, shut the fuck up about internal issues in anti-imperialist states. At some point you have to face the reality that these are an unpleasant necessity, for instance in providing food to VZLA. In these circles, there are numerous examples of infiltration designed to foster leftwashing - look for instance at Chuang's citations in regards to their position on HK. Social-chauvinism has been written about for 150 years for a reason.
to conclude; if you are implying something then shut the fuck up. If you aren't then I won't mind the poor framing of the comment, and thank you for the bit of education.
Also, what the fuck is that about cucks and dildo collections? Did you guys jump shit straight from gamergate or what?
Are you honestly suggesting that workers being flogged for striking is a good thing? The mind of a tankie!
Hi friend are you doing okay? :)
It seemed so strange that you would spam me with 5 comments, all of them being completely void of any thoughts. I briefly noticed that you only post insults or condescending garbage on here, so I thought I'd check on you. Let me help you out, my man! We can leave behind us this stupid Iran stuff.
lol are you serious? you're being so incredibly vague and yet outraged that you come across as complete fucking lunatic
So, to get to the bottom of this: are you seriously in favor of workers being flogged over striking?
how fucking dare you (OP, or both of you idk), elitist narcissist piglet thinking you are so much better
I'm already bored at you trying to tell me what I can and can't do. I really can't be bothered with clowns like you. Grow up.
anti-imperialists, with your immaculate ability to stand on the left and simultaneously critique anti-imperialist governments
I'm sure the Iranian government is shuddering in fear before users in this subreddit criticising them for flogging workers. Give me a second before I collect my CIA paycheck for linking to an evil propaganda website. Sometimes I forget that morons like you even exist.
to disregard the wilful but righteous protesters in their legitimate cause in the US.
I forgot that communists have to parasitically claim each and every petty bourgeois protest in the world for themselves in its immediacy. The fact that you talk in terms of "righteousness" and "legitimacy" about the needs of people is something else. Are you a government agency?
If there is an inplication in your comment, shut the fuck up about internal issues in anti-imperialist states.
"Anti-imperialist states", haha. The tiny internal issue of labour organisations being persecuted and workers being jailed and lashed. What makes you the moral instance determining who gets to talk about the actions of states?
At some point you have to face the reality that these are an unpleasant necessity
The bourgeoisie tells me the same.
for instance in providing food to VZLA
Is this a joke?
In these circles, there are numerous examples of infiltration designed to foster leftwashing
Which circles? What infiltration? What is "leftwashing"?
look for instance at Chuang's citations in regards to their position on HK
I'm not interested in that rag. But please explain what is objectionable about their citations, given that you have already brought them up as an example. Are they citing the evil CIA-backed China Labour Bulletin?
Social-chauvinism has been written about for 150 years for a reason.
Okay?
to conclude; if you are implying something then shut the fuck up.
How about no? How about you piss off to the "circles" you came from?
If you aren't then I won't mind the poor framing of the comment, and thank you for the bit of education.
If you shut up now, then I might not mind you having the audacity to bother me with this pile of shit you left here.
Also, what the fuck is that about cucks and dildo collections? Did you guys jump shit straight from gamergate or what?
Boo-hoo, no-no language being used! Meme brain can only link it to internet drama!
Give me a second before I collect my CIA paycheck for linking to an evil propaganda website.
This is a secret. Don't tell anyone. Btw, Russia, if you're reading this, we go for minimum wage.
Do people here think that bullet point quotations actually have any rhetorical value? Quoting a sentence and "refuting" it by dismissing it is something I haven't really seen since the Koch funded fascist youtube channels started to pop up. You're funny bro.
Hey listen Im all for a healthy old dispute but Ill provide what thou seek: leftwashing. Might just be an ironic circumstance that you correctly identify Chuang as a rag but unaware of that term.
But what I don't understand is that you ask me if In joking. Do you not share my view that pressuring states that are alligned with socialists/liberatories causes an increased risk of these states to end or weaken their support?
Do people here think that bullet point quotations actually have any rhetorical value? Quoting a sentence and "refuting" it by dismissing it is something I haven't really seen since the Koch funded fascist youtube channels started to pop up.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but I don't seek to refute you. I merely provide a bit of commentary for general amusement. It's fitting that you talk about YouTube channels.
Hey listen Im all for a healthy old dispute but Ill provide what thou seek: leftwashing.
And then we get Twitter! It is funny to see that academics and their acolytes make a sport out of inventing ever new terms that serve for creating an always perfectible moral vocabulary that can then be benevolently taught to the unwashed masses. Don't you feel like a clown when you go around and talk about "leftwashing" as if people were supposed to know what you are saying? I'm not even going to comment on the asinine content of the tweet itself. No one here rallies behind leftism, democracy or anti-authoritarianism.
Might just be an ironic circumstance that you correctly identify Chuang as a rag but unaware of that term.
It is very likely that I consider it a rag for different reasons than you do.
Do you not share my view that pressuring states that are alligned with socialists/liberatories causes an increased risk of these states to end or weaken their support?
We're talking in an internet forum. How is that pressuring anyone? I'm not concerned with the cause of nations, I'm concerned with the cause of the proletariat. I couldn't give less of a fuck about the concerns of the Iranian, US-American or Venezuelan state or bourgeois "socialists/liberatories".
incredulous that 1989 didnt hammer this lession into everybodies head. This shit is literally purity olympics. VZ isnt a bougie project, these are the people actually struggling to create a path forward. Be patient and be generous. How dare you to hold these fantasy standards above the heads of people? Do you have this little regard for human beings?
edit:
we need iran to thrive to provide the utility that they do, the hegemonic pushback and the direct aid, and we need iran to be protected from a fate that is immeasurably worse than now. With your attitude, both these objectives are denied. Why? Either you are the amazing creation of a pro-imperalist leftist, a psyop or you are so blinded by ideology that you are incapable of maneuvering the realities of this one shitty world that we have.
This is hilarious. You should stop calling yourself a communist. You can't even get a solid grasp on recognizing worker oppression; I bet you believe in socialist profit too. Highly unlikely you've ever read a text by Lenin, much less Marx.
Edit: lol, this tankie went into my PMs to link me to Left Wing Communism and shill for the unity of 'left wing communities', not realizing how much of an infant they are
He DMd me this:
Hi! I'd love to hear your issues with my position that anti-imperialists must be left standing in order to safeguard their allied actual leftist communities against the west.
I can't even parse what he's trying to say.
They're trying to say that when people discuss the flogging of workers in Iran on an internet forum, then they would effectively be calling for NATO to bring down the government - what they call "anti-imperialists" - there, which would be a problem, because this would cause the Venezuelan government - what they call "allied actual leftist community" - to collapse. And they're asking you why this would be wrong.
They sent me a personal message recommending some asinine book by an academic on Venezuela, saying that "the people" in that state would be weeping at my bitter disregard for them. They were saying that the country would be undergoing a "left-process", and that I was merely swallowing propaganda, which would be "heartbreaking".
After I told them to fuck off, said that the Iranian and Venezuelan proletariat weeps for their indifference, and linked them to the collected works of Marx and Engels, they tried to imply that I hadn't understood the critique of the Gotha programme - which is probably the only text by Marx that they've ever read. Fucking hilarious.
Edit: lol, this tankie went into my PMs to link me to Left Wing Communism and shill for the unity of 'left wing communities', not realizing how much of an infant they are
Unity, hmm?
Experience has shown that opportunism always infiltrates our ranks under the guise of unity. It is in its interest to influence the largest possible mass, and it is therefore behind the screen of unity that it puts forward its most deceitful proposals.
we need iran to thrive to provide the utility that they do, the hegemonic pushback and the direct aid, and we need iran to be protected from a fate that is immeasurably worse than now. With your attitude, both these objectives are denied. Why? Either you are the amazing creation of a pro-imperalist leftist, a psyop or you are so blinded by ideology that you are incapable of maneuvering the realities of this one shitty world that we have.
Holy moly.
incredulous that 1989 didnt hammer this lession into everybodies head.
Incredulous that you seem to think that people here cried when the USSR collapsed.
This shit is literally purity olympics.
No, it's called being a communist.
VZ isnt a bougie project, these are the people actually struggling to create a path forward.
It isn't a fucking "project" at all, it's a fucking nation state. Only an academic could talk about social developments as "projects" or "experiments" - as if the actions and wants of people were a function of the mind of intellectuals! Venezuela has its own national bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, proletariat and all the other layers too, like any other state on earth. The fact that you speak of "the people" there, abstracting from class, substituting it with the national community, shows what interests you have in mind. And then you're talking about "creating a path forward". A path towards what? The Venezuelan government certainly does not follow the communist programme.
Be patient and be generous.
Our bosses tell our union the same everytime we demand more pay!
How dare you
Did you learn this from that Greta girl?
hold these fantasy standards above the heads of people?
You have fantasies in your head when you tell people that the Venezuelan state fights for the communist cause.
Do you have this little regard for human beings?
I have an interest in the cause of the proletariat, of labour, which mediately means to care for humanity at large as well. The "human being" in the abstract does not exist. We live in class society. I'm not sure if you've noticed yet.
we need iran to thrive to provide the utility that they do, the hegemonic pushback and the direct aid and we need iran to be protected from a fate that is immeasurably worse than now.
Who are we? The Venezuelan state? The Iranian state? What is the proletariat's or my business with either of those?
With your attitude, both these objectives are denied. Why?
Because communists care about class struggle and not nations.
Either you are the amazing creation of a pro-imperalist leftist, a psyop or you are so blinded by ideology that you are incapable of maneuvering the realities of this one shitty world that we have.
It's interesting that you speak about ideology when you put forward all these wrong dichotomies.
I find it amusing that you prefer to respond to the more reasonable drredterror with this complete and utter bullshit than rather answer the question of you supporting flogging workers
we need iran to thrive to provide the utility that they do, the hegemonic pushback and the direct aid, and we need iran to be protected from a fate that is immeasurably worse than now. With your attitude, both these objectives are denied. Why? Either you are the amazing creation of a pro-imperalist leftist, a psyop or you are so blinded by ideology that you are incapable of maneuvering the realities of this one shitty world that we have.
So it's ok for workers to be flogged? The end result of stalinism, people. Defend a country where it's illegal to oppose the regime as communists.
How dare you to hold these fantasy standards above the heads of people?
Your life would infinitely improve if you just stopped pretending to be a communist out of some asinine psychological reason and left it to us experts. That way you'd have a lot more time to spend on your super mario dildos and your nintendo swtich.
Where are the flogged workers? I can't see them. Must be out of my sphere of influence and participation. Sucks! But hey! There is another thing I can do, and that is stand against any imperialist actions against Iran. Lucky me!
Im still here if you need someone to talk to. It's okay, I don't mind a person struggling with their own stuff to spam me with garbage.
I'm not exactly sure what you think you're getting out of this. No one thinks you're sane by this point. You're even coming across as a complete retard. You're actually now, after having been pressed on this question of flogging, denying that it happened? This isn't even the first time that it has happened nor is it exceptional in Iran. The fact is that that organizing as an independent working class is hampered by the regime there. So I reiterate, why are you even pretending to be a communist? It would do us a favor if you just ate your own shit and a room by yourself with your own nintendo dildos.
If you're actually a paid agent of Iran then hit us up. We'll switch over to your side for some cash.
Where are the flogged workers? I can't see them. Must be out of my sphere of influence and participation. Sucks!
Yeah, better to leave the Iranian proletariat helplessly shackled to the confines of the Iranian nation state. That will surely further the communist cause. One might wonder what you think the IWMA was for.
There is another thing I can do, and that is stand against any imperialist actions against Iran. Lucky me!
Standing against imperialist actions like people posting on Reddit about floggings, by replying on Reddit.
We are just one reddit post away from causing the complete collapse of the Iranian state, have mercy
What the fuck are you trying to say? lol Are you being so fucking vague because for you to say that it's okay for workers to be flogged over wages is ok is something that is too much for you to write publicly?
"Leftwashing" is when Western leftists demand we support protests abroad that are funded & used by the US to imperialize global south nations by rebranding those protests as having supposed "leftist" & "pro-democracy" traits. They've done this in Syria, Iran, China, Bolivia, etc.
Yeah, why don't you go fuck yourself? It's disheartening that white western liberals will say that we should support countries like iran, where communist parties and trade unions are illegal.
What the fuck is leftwashing? Are you seriously angry over someone saying that whipping workers is bad just because those whippings came from an “anti-imperialist country”(which is especially hilarious considering Iran’s actions in the Middle East, but I guess that’s good imperialism to you)
So you do have nintendo themed dildos?
What are you even trying to say?
If there is an inplication in your comment, shut the fuck up about internal issues in anti-imperialist states. At some point you have to face the reality that these are an unpleasant necessity, for instance in providing food to VZLA. In these circles, there are numerous examples of infiltration designed to foster leftwashing
Jesus this is embarrassing
At some point you have to face the reality that these are an unpleasant necessity, for instance in providing food to VZLA
Please tell me you are trolling with this.
do you think these people should lob for their government to somehow... intervene?
As if the only options are support the Iranian state or lobby the US to invade it. For a supposed communist, your line of thinking sure stays within neat, bourgeois confines.
what do you mean while ?
It should be clear what I mean with that. I was saying that both events happen simultaneously, and that they make for quite the contrast.
do you think these people should lob for their government to somehow... intervene?
Who are "these people"? The people at "CHAZ"? I don't think I ever said or implied anything about anyone intervening anywhere, but thank you for the interesting insight into your addled brain. Maybe try to think for once before you unwind your memorised passive-aggressive tirade.
or do you in some way condemn this spontaneous reaction of people whose friends are being unaccountably murdered
I'm not one to call for the foot to be put down on the petty bourgeois playground in Seattle. And what would it matter if I did? I was merely poking fun at the idea that there would be some relation to communism.
Who are "these people"? The people at "CHAZ"? I don't think I ever said or implied anything about anyone intervening anywhere, but thank you for the interesting insight into your addled brain. Maybe try to think for once before you unwind your memorised passive-aggressive tirade.
Is this seriously about chaz?
My initial comment was aimed at that, so I assumed they picked up on that.
When I read the initial comment I assumed it was a general statement on the BLM protests as a whole, not just CHAZ. But now that this user has gone off the deep end in their subsequent comments throughout this thread, I have no idea.
The fact that I referred to that stupid garden should have made it clear what I was getting at. After all, there was a lengthy thread on the protests themselves on the frontpage already. If I was being too vague still, a short question would have sufficed for clarification.
Oh sorry, to clarify, when I said "initial comment" I meant the person initially responding to you, not your comment. I now realize I worded that in an unclear manner.
regarding your other reply to me:
why on earth would you write this comment instead of reading the other I made, which comprehensibly stated my position
this one:
You went the distance to quote my full text, while only replying with insults and backpedaling. It was very comedic to come into the thread where you would berate and ridicule protestors, as If your mission to shed lights on the Iranian judiciary was in any way more important. These people are in a process of winning major change. You aren't going to do shit to Iran. The only way you have to impact Iran, is through an alliance with an aggressor state, which thought historical precedence will be much worse than what you currently oppose.
Also the seattlites are mostly anarch leaning radlibs. You fucking imbecile.
I'll have some of what this person is having. May the Lord take away the antinomies your mind has entangled itself in!
It was very comedic to come into the thread where you would berate and ridicule protestors
Yeah, I make fun of the people in "CHAZ". What's the problem with that?
as If your mission to shed lights on the Iranian judiciary was in any way more important.
From the communist point of view, the struggles of workers are more important than the adventures of petty bourgeois college kids - certainly.
These people are in a process of winning major change.
You mean having a Christiania within Seattle? If you're talking about the protests at large, then I don't see how police reform, which is what I assume you mean since I have to guess, is "major change" for meeting the needs of the protesting people.
You aren't going to do shit to Iran.
I'm writing here in my capacity as a private individual. Of course that does not mean that I "do shit to Iran". It's interesting that you see the concerns of the Iranian proletariat as a threat.
The only way you have to impact Iran, is through an alliance with an aggressor state, which thought historical precedence will be much worse than what you currently oppose.
I'm not interested in "impacting Iran". I'm interested in the lot of the Iranian proletariat, its needs and interests. "I" won't be impacting that either, unless through active participation in the communist party. Are you suggesting that the activities of Iranian proletarians are a function of US foreign policy?
comprehensibly stated my position
Are you high?
You went the distance to quote my full text, while only replying with insults and backpedaling. It was very comedic to come into the thread where you would berate and ridicule protestors, as If your mission to shed lights on the Iranian judiciary was in any way more important. These people are in a process of winning major change. You aren't going to do shit to Iran. The only way you have to impact Iran, is through an alliance with an aggressor state, which thought historical precedence will be much worse than what you currently oppose.
I repeat, are you high? Should we not report about it then? Lol is your problem actually that we touched a nerve when the topic of nintendo themed dildos came up?
Surely it would've been more pointed to bring up the so-called communists on reddit and twitter expressing "critical support for Iran" back in January after the Soleimani assassination.
That would have also worked, but I wanted to throw a jab at more recent events.
Maybe. It's anyhow a discussion, not a cheap rhetoric point to be thrown around like this. I believe this sub in particular has a great challenge in balancing regime critique and leftwashing.
Why don't you start discussing and stop making cheap rhetoric points? How is anybody supposed to know what the fuck "leftwashing" even means? Why don't you say what you mean instead of pussyfooting around?
What exactly are you upset over? Do you actually have a nintento themed dildo collection?
Do you have mental issues?
2 replies:
A true cyberpunk
God Bless the Hackers.
Thousands of scribblers are mobilised in these days to "celebrate" the centenary and a half of Lenin's birth and to show the "topicality" of his teaching. They are the ones who every day trample upon it and deform it, this teaching, after having transformed the great revolutionary into a "harmless icon".
"Those who recognise only the class struggle are not yet Marxists; they may be found to be still within the bounds of bourgeois thinking and bourgeois politics. To confine Marxism to the theory of the class struggle means curtailing Marxism, distorting it, reducing it to something acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is what constitutes the most profound distinction between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeois. This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition of Marxism should be tested..."
"The essence of Marx's theory of the state has been mastered only by those who realize that the dictatorship of a single class is necessary not only for every class society in general, not only for the proletariat which has overthrown the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical period which separates capitalism from "classless society", from communism. Bourgeois states are most varied in form, but their essence is the same: all these states, whatever their form, in the final analysis are inevitably the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The transition from capitalism to communism is certainly bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat. "
5 replies:
What will always boggle my mind are the peddlers of such things like settler decolonization and "actually existing socialism" who will actively recommend Lenin's works. What goes on in someone's head for them to reccomend something they have never read or have misunderstood so terribly? It'd be amusing if it wasn't so sad.
What texts are these quotes from?
Thank you.
5 replies:
In the 1950s, the International Communist Party undertook a world-historic task: unravelling the Russian enigma. Through a series of articles they attempted to grapple with the nature of the Russian revolution – “Dialogue with Stalin”, a one way conversation with Stalin and his “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”. Through a careful textual analysis, reference to Marx and Engels and the Marxist method, the ICP systematically reveals what is left unsaid but implied, by the admissions of the Stalinist bureaucracy: That capitalism had triumphed over the revolution.
fiiiiiiiinally. Thank you so much for this translation!
My most sincerest thanks for your work on the translation, it is a very enjoyable read.
My favorite excerpt so far:
In 1919 we bestirred ourselves together with Lenin (and Stalin) until exhaustion, to force down the stubborn social democrats’ and anarchists’ throats, that the means of production cannot be conquered on a single day and by coup, and that precisely because of this – and only because of this – the terror, the dictatorship, is necessary. And today, new textbooks on political economy shall be published, that the absurdity, that all products lose their character as commodities on the day on which a functionary ascended to the Kremlin presents some Stalin with a decree for signature, which expropriates the last chicken of the last member of the last kolkhoz, is accepted.
In another paragraph, Engels talks about the seizing of all means of production, which is why we now need to hear that the above cited “formula of Engels cannot be described as entirely clear and exact” [Stalin, p. 11].
By the beard of the prophet Abraham, that’s strong stuff! Friedrich Engels, of all people, the contemplative, calm, sharply defining, crystal clear Friedrich, master of the patience to get a holed ship going again and to straighten the historical doctrine; whose modesty and prowess are unreachable (behind the impetuous Marx, who occasionally might seem difficult to understand because of his far sight and excellent language, and because of this strength maybe – maybe – might be easier to distort); Engels, whose language is so fluid, and who by talent and because of scientific discipline doesn’t omit a necessary word, nor add an unnecessary one: of all people, one accuses him of a lack of precision and clarity!
One must put things into their place: We are not in the organizational office or in the agitation committee here, where you, ex-comrade Josef, might be able to persuade yourself to be able to have something on Engels. We are in the school of principles here. Where is the talk of the seizure of all means of production? Maybe there, where the talk is of commodities? Never. “Since the historical appearance of the capitalist mode of production, the appropriation by society of all the means of production has often been dreamed of, more or less vaguely, by individuals, as well as by sects, as the ideal of the future.”, reminds us Engels. Precisely because for us it is not a thing of an ideal, but of science, we cannot let a “more or less” clear, respectively unclear, pass.
Bordiga thrashes Stalin for, among other things, essentially doing what just Stalinists do now, that is quote mining and misinterpreting the words and context of the quotes from Marx and Engels, and how you can spin enough of it to support bullshit insofar as you sound vaguely Marxist.
I wasn't before, but I am now strongly religious. Whoever translated this is my god
Is this translated directly from italian or is it the translation of a translation?
5 replies:
But the miners say they aren't going to be pawns in anybody's political propaganda.
"We all agreed when we first started that we're not going to make this political and we're not aiming this at politicians. This is between workers and an employer. Nothing to do with politics," Willis said — a point he reiterated several times throughout the interview.
Quick! somebody lecture them on why they need to vote Democrat!
Why are you celebrating self-limitation?
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you think these people should be voting for Democrats?
Obviously not.
Your initial comment on the article does not give any analysis or perspective, but suggests that you posted it to vindicate your own political ideas in the face of people disagreeing with you. Such a gotcha is not interesting or productive.
That the workers in this case rejected becoming poster childs for the campaign of some Democrat candidate is in itself not particularly surprising, nor does it give an additional communist content to their fight - it is significant in that it is a step above bowing down to politicians or worse: not fighting at all. But it is not much more.
If you read the article, you see that these are workers of a single business - they are not associated across companies. Moreover, their stated objective is to get their missing pay after the mining firm employing them went bankrupt. Such strikes are very common in China for example, where especially migrant workers often are not paid regularly, and they also occur every now and then in the West for compensation when industry moves towards countries with cheaper labour.
When the worker quoted here says:
We all agreed when we first started that we're not going to make this political [...]. This is between workers and an employer. Nothing to do with politics.
- then they're merely proclaiming the fact that they are not struggling as a class, as Marx says in the Manifesto of the Communist Party:
Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle.
It is strong stuff for self-proclaimed communists to revel in the immediacy of this battle - after all, it lies even beneath the level of the economism criticised by Lenin, respectively trade unionism (or as some people call it to obfusciate what it is: syndicalism). This position rejects the need for the communist party, which the IWMA justified like this:
In presence of an unbridled reaction which violently crushes every effort at emancipation on the part of the working men, and pretends to maintain by brute force the distinction of classes and the political domination of the propertied classes resulting from it;
Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes;
That this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end — the abolition of classes;
Further, it takes pride in finding itself confirmed in the immediate expressions of this or that proletarian. But, as Marx explained in the Holy Family:
It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do. Its aim and historical action is visibly and irrevocably foreshadowed in its own life situation as well as in the whole organization of bourgeois society today.
The goal is to overcome struggles like this through further association with other workers, not to celebrate them - which is not to say that criticising attempts to coopt them for bourgeois ends is not useful; but it's not enough.
You're counterpoising a left opportunism, workerism, against a right opportunism.
5 replies:
More relevant than ever:
It is an inevitable manifestation, and one rooted in the process of development, that people from what have hitherto been the ruling class also join the militant proletariat and supply it with educative elements. We have already said so clearly in the Manifesto. But in this context there are two observations to be made:
Firstly, if these people are to be of use to the proletarian movement, they must introduce genuinely educative elements. However, in the case of the vast majority of German bourgeois converts, this is not the case. Neither the Zukunft nor the Neue Gesellschaft has contributed anything that might have advanced the movement by a single step. Here we find a complete lack of genuinely educative matter, either factual or theoretical. In place of it, attempts to reconcile superficially assimilated socialist ideas with the most diverse theoretical viewpoints which these gentlemen have introduced from the university or elsewhere, and of which each is more muddled than the last thanks to the process of decay taking place in what remains of German philosophy today. Instead of first making a thorough study of the new science, each man chose to adapt it to the viewpoint he had brought with him, not hesitating to produce his own brand of science and straightaway assert his right to teach it. Hence there are, amongst these gentlemen, almost as many viewpoints as there are heads; instead of elucidating anything, they have only made confusion worse — by good fortune, almost exclusively amongst themselves. The party can well dispense with educative elements such as these for whom it is axiomatic to teach what they have not learnt.
Secondly, when people of this kind, from different classes, join the proletarian movement, the first requirement is that they should not bring with them the least remnant of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices, but should unreservedly adopt the proletarian outlook. These gentlemen, however, as already shown, are chock-full of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas. In a country as petty-bourgeois as Germany, there is certainly some justification for such ideas. But only outside the Social-Democratic Workers’ Party. If the gentlemen constitute themselves a Social-Democratic petty-bourgeois party, they are fully within their rights: in that case we could negotiate with them and, according to circumstances, form an alliance with them, etc. But within a workers’ party they are an adulterating element. Should there be any reason to tolerate their presence there for a while, it should be our duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no say in the Party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time. That time, moreover, would appear to have come. How the Party can suffer the authors of this article to remain any longer in their midst seems to us incomprehensible. But should the Party leadership actually pass, to a greater or lesser extent, into the hands of such men, then the Party will be emasculated no less, and that will put paid to its proletarian grit.
As for ourselves, there is, considering all our antecedents, only one course open to us. For almost 40 years we have emphasised that the class struggle is the immediate motive force of history and, in particular, that the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat is the great lever of modern social revolution; hence we cannot possibly co-operate with men who seek to eliminate that class struggle from the movement. At the founding of the International we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. Hence we cannot co-operate with men who say openly that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves, and must first be emancipated from above by philanthropic members of the upper and lower middle classes. If the new party organ is to adopt a policy that corresponds to the opinions of these gentlemen, if it is bourgeois and not proletarian, then all we could do — much though we might regret it — would be publicly to declare ourselves opposed to it and abandon the solidarity with which we have hitherto represented the German Party abroad. But we hope it won’t come to that.
[removed]
[deleted]
[removed]
"You and others" isn't very personal, I don't speak for others. I didn't answer myself because I had trouble seeing what you were trying to accuse me of and why, I didn't think it would help to get into a debate about whatever it is, and I don't owe you a response whether you demand it or not.
I have difficulty understanding what 'young' has to do with it, to my knowledge I've never brought age into my comments, it is irrelevant. The message I quoted was intended for communists - it was a circular letter to the leaders of the communist movement in Germany. Marx's criticism of them is not that they are bourgeois, he says himself that people from the ruling class can become communists and provide the movement with "educative elements" if they "adopt the proletarian outlook". The problem was that some of them were "chock-full of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas." It is relevant today because a lot of leftists are also full of petty-bourgeois ideas, they "reconcile superficially assimilated socialist ideas with the most diverse theoretical viewpoints which these gentlemen have introduced from the university or elsewhere, and of which each is more muddled than the last" instead of "making a thorough study of the new science" i.e. reading Marx et al.
I did say that it was relevant today, not that it is relevant only for people on reddit today. Maybe you would agree that there are such people this applies to today on reddit. We don't really know who is behind posts on reddit but it is my view that if they have petty-bourgeois ideas they are most likely petty-bourgeois, to think that workers have such ideas seems a calumny to me - it isn't my experience. If they are workers with petty-bourgeois ideas for whatever reason that does not mean that we should pass over it in silence. I try not to go around simply declaring people to be "opportunist" anyway.
It is also relevant for other reasons but that is beside your point. Since you mention reconciliation perhaps we can agree that people should be more thoughtful in accusing others of things, that they should be more charitable to their interlocutors and try to hear them out instead of trying to dismiss them out of hand and so on. That seems to be what you are going for and I think it would be helpful if people on reddit heeded that sentiment.
7 replies:
Chen Weixiang’s case once again focused public attention on the plight of sanitation workers who struggle with low pay, long hours, dangerous working conditions and exploitative management regimes, exemplified by one company in Nanjing that forced workers to wear GPS trackers in order to monitor their movements and issue an alarm if they remained stationary on a break for more than 20 minutes.
Shit like this is my absolute worst fear
Yeah there was a post on here about how some workers became badly disabled after just a few months to a year of working at Amazon. Shit is seriously fucked. I'm lucky as hell that I have a fairly secure job that doesn't push my body to the limit every day.
Article I refered to if anyone is interested: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/11/amazon-warehouse-reports-show-worker-injuries/602530/
See also the CLB's 40 page review of 2019.
This is fairly interesting, reporting that many factory jobs are being eliminated. The report of work hours being increased in the face of an industry in crisis, in regards to tech, is pretty much standard. Socialism, huh?
Also in regards to China and the coronavirus, where is the call to fight against the sacred union to fight this man made disaster?
Also in regards to China and the coronavirus, where is the call to fight against the sacred union to fight this man made disaster?
Ask the Nuevo Curso cucks. They will call anything a "sacred union", doesn't matter if it's petty bourgeois protesting against environmental destruction, or feminism.
I'm predicting that either my posting about it will either further it on into a real thing, or have it hushed up because I'm the one who mentioned it.
3 replies:
Among previous experience desired it listed "officer in the intelligence community, the military, law enforcement, or a related global security role in the private sector
Marianne Rawlins, principal at management consultancy Bradley Risk Management, told the BBC: "The job description implies labour spying, and that has been illegal in the US for 80 years. I expect that sadly it is pretty common among big corporations, but putting it is black and white for all the world to see looks like a mistake."
Seems like an oversight. A low level's fuck up? Lack of marketing concern despite their current "image"? I don't see why they didn't go through the normal backchannels to recruit spooks. Either way, now they will.
There's more information on the matter here, by the way:
86 replies:
I find it interesting that a trade union would counter pose their healthcare to Sanders universal healthcare, with something gained from worker militancy against the programs of state bureaucrats.
I wonder if it can be some sunk cost kind of thinking, that they've gone through all the effort to negotiate benefit deals. They aren't making the connection to the collective bargaining power of/ideological connection to a people's healthcare program, or the fact that they don't have to bargain for healthcare anymore means they can focus their efforts on other employment benefits.
It probably has more to do with them wanting to keep the workers reliant on their trade union for healthcare
You're missing the point. We can say what we want about why they put this forward, but the fact that this comes from trade union action over it being granted by Sanders in some petite bourgeois program of saving money makes it substantially more interesting.
And workers being in trade unions is better than workers not being in trade unions.
I agree with you. I just thought the 'sunk cost' argument was a bit ridiculous
Well that might play a part, but I would think that in the forefront of their minds is that they've managed to secure a high quality of healthcare, and anything else would be a step backwards for them.
Mainly I'm posting this because I don't think that most people really know quite how unique North American trade unions are and how much power they have in comparison to other places. I'd be hard pressed to point out where else a trade union gets you work and sorts your healthcare.
Mainly I'm posting this because I don't think that most people really know quite how unique North American trade unions are and how much power they have in comparison to other places. I'd be hard pressed to point out where else a trade union gets you work and sorts your healthcare.
It's especially interesting to me that US Americans would be so hostile towards unions as such, when their involvement in state affairs is much bigger in other countries, as for example in Europe.
Most European countries have some sort of co-determination laws in place, which means that union representatives sit in the supervisory board of companies, pocketing the corresponding salaries for the union bureaucracy. Together with the prevalence of works councils, this results in unions actively pursuing co-management, companyism: The unions abandon the immediate interest of the workers, and instead appropriate the interest of the industrial capitalist vis-à-vis finance capital for themselves in the first instance, and later, via social corporatism, submit to the interests of national capital. They no longer assert an interest opposed to that of the capitalists, but merely criticise them for not doing their job properly. The money unions accept from employers through co-determination also serves to employ a vast array of degenerate petty bourgeois humanities students, who have never worked a day in their lives and who spend their time working out Keynesian programmes to be put forward against state-imposed austerity.
It's a system designed for asphyxiation of any sort of independent initiative and militancy of workers. In Germany, workers were killed for their attempt to prevent the Works Council Act. It's sickening to see supposed communists today be conciliatory towards social democracy, and even speak favourably of such measures.
It's especially interesting to me that US Americans would be so hostile towards unions as such, when their involvement in state affairs is much bigger in other countries, as for example in Europe.
lol it might have to do with the majority of American leftists being unemployed students from petite bourgeois backgrounds, and are thus excluded from this organizations.
Which if anyone is playing along should be able to understand is that the removal of such things as healthcare, and the subjection of the trade unions, to the state makes perfect sense for degenerates who are looking for careers in politics. Away from class organizations and into the realm of individual politics.
Are student leftists relevant to this? Unions have been gutted by decades of class warfare, to the point of only 10% membership among the labor movement. In other words almost all workers are outside of unions and not due to their class position. Nevertheless they’ve organized an impressive string of strikes over the past few years.
I worded myself imprecisely in the initial comment, hence the confusion. I said "US Americans", when I really meant "some supposed communists from the US". These are not merely critical of the present state of unions, but they instead reject them wholesale. Others flirt around with joke organisations like the IWW, but shun investigating or contacting any proper unions. /u/dr_marx correctly inferred what I meant, but I should have been more clear. I wasn't talking about the low union membership in general, even though this is of course also an interesting question.
Got it, thanks. On the healthcare question, I will throw out my own anecdote, which is that at my old job I was a head steward for the local, and we had decent personal healthcare, but for dependents it was a ridiculous cost. "Luckily" the pay was low enough that for my family size I still qualified for Medicaid (like Medicare for poor people, but worse, but something) for my kids. Now I work two non-union jobs with no benefits and "unfortunately" no longer qualify as below the poverty line, so trying to get the Obamacare for our state, frustrated by the cost. I understand that universal healthcare is not a demand that centers class, but it would be amazing to take my son to the dentist. The proletariat (employed or not) are majority more in my situation or worse rather than in the position of the culinary workers leadership. This is one of many reasons why Sanders is more popular among workers than Klobuchar, who appears to be the culinary workers' pick based on the flyer in the OP (she is placed as best in "Good jobs" category. She is famously best at berating and assaulting her own employees).
"Luckily" the pay was low enough that for my family size I still qualified for Medicaid (like Medicare for poor people, but worse, but something) for my kids. Now I work two non-union jobs with no benefits and "unfortunately" no longer qualify as below the poverty line, so trying to get the Obamacare for our state, frustrated by the cost.
That fucking sucks.
I understand that universal healthcare is not a demand that centers class, but it would be amazing to take my son to the dentist. The proletariat (employed or not) are majority more in my situation or worse rather than in the position of the culinary workers leadership.
Yeah, this is clear. This is why it would be important to have a proper communist party in the US, which would be able to help workers associate more, and help generalise class-based solutions.
This is one of many reasons why Sanders is more popular among workers than Klobuchar, who appears to be the culinary workers' pick based on the flyer in the OP (she is placed as best in "Good jobs" category. She is famously best at berating and assaulting her own employees).
I'd assume no one here agrees with the union in that picking another bourgeois would be the way to go. The point was to show how social democracy is at odds with an independent, properly class-oriented labour movement.
This is why it would be important to have a proper communist party in the US, which would be able to help workers associate more, and help generalise class-based solutions.
100%. What do you think should be done today to help build such a party?
The party won't manifest itself from the bosom of the absolute idea, so if there is no one there willing to put in the work, it will forever stay non-existent. There is no secret magic recipe of how to bring about a communist party either, but I can provide you with a more or less abstract description of the process.
The first step is that capable people need to come together, people with a passion for communism. It is not possible to give an extrinsic yardstick of what would constitute suitable individuals. I can give you an idea of what the myriad of problems are, however. The influence of middle class ideology is something that needs continuous treatment in order to not lead to ruin. George Orwell in "The Road to Wigan Pier" once put it like this:
The first thing that must strike any outside observer is that Socialism, in its developed form is a theory confined entirely to the middle classes. The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies imagine, a ferocious-looking working man with greasy overalls and a raucous voice. He is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years' time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian leanings, with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting. This last type is surprisingly common in Socialist parties of every shade; it has perhaps been taken over en bloc from the old Liberal Party. In addition to this there is the horrible -- the really disquieting -- prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.
You need people who are not in it for the aesthetic, who do not live in the past, who do not investigate problems to revel in them, but to work towards overcoming them, who have a critical attitude and much more. Often it should be easy to see that certain individuals are unsuited from the outset. However, of course these aspects need not and cannot be present all at once from the beginning. But it will become apparent whether individuals are able to shed them and overcome their one-sidedness in the process of working together. Many of these traits simply can't be taught.
Some have problems in understanding what communism even is. This can stem from an unwillingness to study the matter, itself a symptom of a lack of passion, while in other cases people can read a book five times and still not grasp the meaning of it. You need clarity on trivial questions, such as what the proletariat even is, or the analysis of present conditions, going up to matter of how the labour movement tackles for example the housing question or environmental destruction. You can find a lot more samples if you look into older threads in this subreddit.
It is certainly not necessary that every member knows the collected works of Marx and Engels inside out, but they should be firm on the fundamentals, that is, the interests of the proletariat and the fact that these can only be advanced through association. This is more than can be said of at least 99% of self-proclaimed communists. With these gathered, you can start studying conditions, and then look to bring in contact disparate struggles of workers where they are actually happening in order to advance their cause, and further the development of the general movement.
Many groups forever stay at the level of self-clarification, suffer from "the usual formalism of secret societies" in that they draw up programmes and theoretical documents for no reason, while getting tangled up in ceaseless criticisms of and by other groups, have difficulties connecting with any worker organisation or just reject them outright, lack direction and more. In some sense, Lenin's "Left-Wing Communism" is helpful here, even with the provision that it needs the same kind of proper treatment that I indicated above.
Some have problems in understanding what communism even is. This can stem from an unwillingness to study the matter, itself a symptom of a lack of passion, while in other cases people can read a book five times and still not grasp the meaning of it.
It's worth emphasizing that in general, those who have no understanding often are elements from outside of the class, mostly from the "educated" classes. These people tend to then over abstract and intellectualize the most mundane of topics, due to their perverse predilections, and will always go and look for cover under those other great abstract subjects (such as petty nationalism, the people, the masses). This element needs to be stepped on.
I'm not saying that communist parties have to be composed of only workers. It's just that the majority of so-called communists have never had a job, and their parties are composed of only students.
I was going to ask the same question.
Most people I know in the US are either overworked (12+ hour days) or unemployed and unable to find adequate work. If not that, they're chronically ill (awful diets, poor healthcare) or severely depressed, or both. Suicide rates are high, and rising.
I could see the argument that many US workers are just too mentally/physically drained, which is a major factor preventing organization. Or afraid of losing their employer-sponsored health insurance.
These are things I can see that seem to be holding back organization at the moment.
Now, what positive actions could be taken to form a genuine communist party in the US? That I don't know, and would have to defer to someone more knowledgeable than me.
Though I think passing some form of Medicare for all program would be a major start, even if not related to a communist party. I can not stress just how sickly and mentally ill most Americans are. It is a huge hurdle to any kind of meaningful organization.
Most people I know in the US are either overworked (12+ hour days) or unemployed and unable to find adequate work. If not that, they're chronically ill (awful diets, poor healthcare) or severely depressed, or both. Suicide rates are high, and rising.
I don't understand how this is an argument. Do you think that people in 1850 worked less hours and were healthier? They didn't even have antibiotics.
Though I think passing some form of Medicare for all program would be a major start
Why? Social welfare programs like this didn't exist in a mass scale until after the second world war.
I don't understand how this is an argument. Do you think that people in 1850 worked less hours and were healthier? They didn't even have antibiotics.
Well in those days when workers got sick they would just die and quickly be replaced. Nowadays people can carry on working for years in a state of sickliness.
So you're saying that it is easier for a communist movement to emerge if workers are dying and being replaced quickly? Do you realize how insane that sounds? I think you're just trying to find an excuse to promote this as a communist position. You're either completely and stupefyingly ignorant, insane or just flat out idiotic if you think people weren't maimed, disfigured and disabled in higher numbers 200 years ago, through work and through disease, than people today.
So you're saying that it is easier for a communist movement to emerge if workers are dying and being replaced quickly?
Not really, I'm just trying to point out that what happens to the sick and injured has changed over time. I don't know enough to know how or if this affects a communist movement.
Obviously people were maimed, disfigured, etc. by work and disease in much higher numbers back then. But it was my understanding that in those days, due to any lack of legal protections, an employer would simply fire and replace any worker in an unskilled field who wasn't functioning at full capacity, assuming unemployment was low at least and they could easily be replaced. Such people would then be unable to find work, and would either have to be supported entirely by family (thus dragging down the family further into poverty), become beggars on the streets, or simply die of disease/infection/exposure/starvation. Whether they actually died or carried on living, their lives as workers were over if there was no job they could perform as well as a relatively healthy person.
It is possible I am misinformed though.
It is possible I am misinformed though.
I think it's more likely that you don't understand what communism is and insist on trying to associate it with petite bourgeois politics, to the point where you come up with ad hoc arguments such as the one above, where you have no idea what you are talking about and are just making assumptions. Pretty spot on, right?
and insist on trying to associate it with petite bourgeois politics, to the point where you come up with ad hoc arguments such as the one above, where you have no idea what you are talking about and are just making assumptions
Not really, I just thought it was worth considering that things have changed. I wasn't even trying to argue in favor of anything (unlike the other person above me in the thread); I know enough to know that that is best left to others who know more than me.
I don't understand how this is an argument. Do you think that people in 1850 worked less hours and were healthier? They didn't even have antibiotics.
This sounds really similar to the "there are starving children in Africa" kind of argument. Human suffering isn't a competition. Just because workers of 1850 experienced awful living/working conditions, doesn't make anyone living out of their car today (with cancer, unavailable health services, working for $10/hr) life conditions any more bearable.
You say "they didn't even have anti-biotics", while lots of working Americans effectively still don't today. So I don't understand what point was trying to be made with that. The existence of antibiotics as an invention doesn't magically make it available to all sick people who need it. You might as well have mentioned that "they didn't even have private jets", as if the existence of private jet planes alone has any effect on workers who will never be able to afford them.
Marx himself was chronically ill for large periods of his life. It would ingenuine to say that that it didn't slow his work.
My point is, people who are deathly/chronically ill, bedridden, depressed, won't have the energy to fight. And there are a lot of unnecessarily ill people in the US. If nothing else, having access to medicine and regular doctor visits would be a huge morale boost for working people. Morale is extremely low in the US.
Of course improved morale could swing in many directions (support for capitalist parties, or unions, or any number of goals). But ultimately, dead workers can't organize. It is a major pressing issue for US workers.
This sounds really similar to the "there are starving children in Africa" kind of argument.
"Sounds really similar" is one way of introducing completely unrelated ideas into statements. You must be very determined to read something into that post which was just not there.
Human suffering isn't a competition. Just because workers of 1850 experienced awful living/working conditions, doesn't make anyone living out of their car today (with cancer, unavailable health services, working for $10/hr) life conditions any more bearable.
You say "they didn't even have anti-biotics", while lots of working Americans effectively still don't today. So I don't understand what point was trying to be made with that.
You were the one pointing to the life conditions in the US as a major obstacle for the labour movement there. /u/dr_marx gave you a historical example to show that this is not the case.
The existence of antibiotics as an invention doesn't magically make it available to all sick people who need it.
Thank you for attempting to explain the concept of private property to communists.
You might as well have mentioned that "they didn't even have private jets", as if the existence of private jet planes alone has any effect on workers who will never be able to afford them.
Truly an apt comparison!
Marx himself was chronically ill for large periods of his life.
And yet he worked all his life to aid the labour movement.
It would ingenuine to say that that it didn't slow his work.
Weird that you can't read him write in support of universal healthcare, right?
My point is, people who are deathly/chronically ill, bedridden [...] won't have the energy to fight.
These usually can't work either, but somehow the US economy still exists. That must mean that the majority of US workers are not "deathly/chronically ill" or "bedridden".
And there are a lot of unnecessarily ill people in the US.
People are unnecessarily ill everywhere on the world due to the existence of private property.
If nothing else, having access to medicine and regular doctor visits would be a huge morale boost for working people. Morale is extremely low in the US.
Finally a reason for the "working people" (why not the proletariat?) to be more happy with their state! You sound like an officer complaining about the lack of discipline of his troops.
Of course improved morale could swing in many directions (support for capitalist parties, or unions, or any number of goals).
So what would be the significance for communism again? What is the necessity of shilling for social democracy, instead of directly engaging with the labour movement as it is with regard to communism?
But ultimately, dead workers can't organize.
Workers were dying at far faster rates in the past, yet the labour movement was stronger. This is a point that has been belaboured at length in this thread already.
It is a major pressing issue for US workers.
If this is the case, then they will be able to fight for healthcare on a class basis, instead of the petty bourgeois measure of universal healthcare being introduced by the capitalist state at best in an extremely watered down form.
Weird that you can't read him write in support of universal healthcare, right?
To be fair, Universal Healthcare in 1850 would have been an absurdity on its own terms. The field of medicine had barely advanced beyond professional quackery at that point. Bloodletting and surgical procedures with unwashed hands free at the point of service? You'd probably have better results with Universal Faith Healing.
I see your point, but the first national health insurance was already set up in the year of Marx's death in Germany, so it isn't completely absurd to talk about. Besides, we can draw analogies to other matters, such as the housing question.
Interesting, I had not heard of that. Thanks for the links.
You're welcome.
You say "they didn't even have anti-biotics", while lots of working Americans effectively still don't today. So I don't understand what point was trying to be made with that. The existence of antibiotics as an invention doesn't magically make it available to all sick people who need it. You might as well have mentioned that "they didn't even have private jets", as if the existence of private jet planes alone has any effect on workers who will never be able to afford them.
Unlike some other technologies, the mere existence of anti-biotics quite literally does benefit people who don't have direct access to them, because of herd immunity. Also the simple knowledge and implementation of sanitary practices/infrastructure has made even those without direct access to healthcare much safer from deadly diseases than people in the 19th century were. The "private jet" comparison isn't warranted.
What has any of that to do with what I have been saying? You should be lucky that you don't have mental health care because you'd be locked up. You're just repeating yourself and I've already made clear my answer. If you want to go whine about healthcare and landlords, or any other petite bourgeois concern, there are other places for you to go to.
Most people I know in the US are either overworked (12+ hour days) or unemployed and unable to find adequate work. If not that, they're chronically ill (awful diets, poor healthcare) or severely depressed, or both. Suicide rates are high, and rising.
I could see the argument that many US workers are just too mentally/physically drained, which is a major factor preventing organization.
[...]
Though I think passing some form of Medicare for all program would be a major start, even if not related to a communist party. I can not stress just how sickly and mentally ill most Americans are. It is a huge hurdle to any kind of meaningful organization.
I agree with /u/dr_marx in that I don't think that exhaustion is the reason for the lack of a strong labour movement in the US. You just have to read Capital, or Engels' "Condition of the Working Class in England" to see how crippled the English workers of the labour movement in the 19th century were. If there is no proper communist party in present conditions, then there won't be one with universal healthcare either - as can be seen in Europe.
You seem to be viewing this in too abstract terms - you imagine to bring the entire class into play all at once, but this is not how it works. You need to start with the elements that are already combative and help them in their struggles. Since this can only be accomplished by associating with other workers, it means that formerly non-combative elements necessarily and naturally join the movement gradually - of course subject to occasional setbacks.
Or afraid of losing their employer-sponsored health insurance.
Worry is a mood found mainly among the middle class, i.e. those that have something to lose, while the propertyless proletarian's condition produces passion. If these people are otherwise proletarian, they will be dragged into the struggle once the development of the more combative layers has proceeded further. If they are more on the side of the petty bourgeois, time will tell which side they will choose.
You seem to be viewing this in too abstract terms
They're also ascribing class politics to things that have no inherent class bias. It is like arguing that only the working class can solve climate change.
"Condition of the Working Class in England" is on my reading list. I'll have to bump it up, thanks for the reminder. I'm currently about halfway through Capital, so it's possible Marx writes more about English workers later. Though the section where he wrote about the increased number of fatal train collisions due to engineers passing out from 20+ hour shifts, was very enlightening on just how bad the working conditions were.
If there is no proper communist party in present conditions, then there won't be one with universal healthcare either - as can be seen in Europe.
I agree with this statement. So maybe I worded my previous post poorly, if it seems I meant otherwise. I think the adoption of universal healthcare in the US would be an indifferent move towards the existence of a communist party. What I meant more to emphasize was that millions of US workers having access to doctors to treat long standing chronic illnesses (many people currently unable to work due to such easily treatable, yet unaffordable illnesses) would be a huge morale boost -- if not to say anything of the obvious benefits of medicine on its own merits.
Now that morale itself could sway many ways. I think that morale could (but not necessarily) push more working people to realize they have power, as a lot of US residents are very apathetic, and feel isolated, that they have no power whatsoever.
No if that energy is actually funneled into worker organization, or just more support for capitalist parties and welfare programs, remains to be seen.
You need to start with the elements that are already combative and help them in their struggles.
This makes sense, and I agree. But are there combative elements in the US currently? If so, I'm not aware of them. I actually live in a historically union heavy area, but union engagement has been largely squashed by decades of propaganda and "at will employment" legislation. Any talk of organization gets a person promptly removed and fired.
I think I am just struggling to see what the next immediate step is in such a situation.
Worry is a mood found mainly among the middle class, i.e. those that have something to lose, while the propertyless proletarian's condition produces passion.
I agree with the sentiment for the most part, though its a bit hyperbolic.You do realize that health insurance is compulsory in the US, right? Its illegal to not have insurance, by penalty of fine, even if you can't afford it. I know plenty of propertyless and pennyless people, living paycheck to paycheck, afraid of losing access to employer health insurance, necessary for life-supporting medicnes such as insulin, because they (or their children) would die in days without it. If that makes them "middle-class" then I don't know what definition you're using for middle-class. I get the impression you don't understand how health insurance works in the US, or how its tied to labor. Employer-sponsored health insurance is a major bourgeois policy pushed in the US.
When your very ability to live is directly tied to your employer, I can't really see how this is as a uniquely "middle-class" issue separate from the larger labor movement.
So maybe I worded my previous post poorly, if it seems I meant otherwise.
This is what you wrote:
I could see the argument that many US workers are just too mentally/physically drained, which is a major factor preventing organization. Or afraid of losing their employer-sponsored health insurance.
These are things I can see that seem to be holding back organization at the moment.
Now, what positive actions could be taken to form a genuine communist party in the US? That I don't know, and would have to defer to someone more knowledgeable than me.
Though I think passing some form of Medicare for all program would be a major start, even if not related to a communist party. I can not stress just how sickly and mentally ill most Americans are. It is a huge hurdle to any kind of meaningful organization.
A "factor" is a category used by someone who wants to establish an arbitrary connection between two disparate phenomena. The notion that a lack of healthcare is a "major factor preventing organisation" is uncriticisable, since you're not establishing any determinate relation at all. You claim that somehow, healthcare is related to organisation, which to me gives the impression that you merely desire to somehow link Bernie Sanders' programme to communism. It doesn't help that you're completely indeterminate as to what you mean by "organisation" too.
I think the adoption of universal healthcare in the US would be an indifferent move towards the existence of a communist party.
So what is your business arguing in favour of it on a subreddit dedicated to communism, then?
What I meant more to emphasize was that millions of US workers having access to doctors to treat long standing chronic illnesses (many people currently unable to work due to such easily treatable, yet unaffordable illnesses) would be a huge morale boost
And since when exactly is communism about a "morale boost"? This sounds like the talk of a politician who is unhappy about the mood of the nation.
if not to say anything of the obvious benefits of medicine on its own merits.
Communism is not a scheme for improving the condition of the working class.
Now that morale itself could sway many ways. I think that morale could (but not necessarily) push more working people to realize they have power, as a lot of US residents are very apathetic, and feel isolated, that they have no power whatsoever.
If it doesn't lead to a push in the combativeness of the proletariat by necessity, then what's the point? More, a feeling of powerlessness is again a middle class sentiment, not a proletarian one.
No if that energy is actually funneled into worker organization, or just more support for capitalist parties and welfare programs, remains to be seen.
So you're arguing in support of a capitalist party and welfare programmes and wonder if that will lead to more support for capitalist parties and welfare programmes?
But are there combative elements in the US currently? If so, I'm not aware of them.
Then it might be time to look at the news every now and then.
I actually live in a historically union heavy area, but union engagement has been largely squashed by decades of propaganda and "at will employment" legislation. [...]
I think I am just struggling to see what the next immediate step is in such a situation.
Clearly the next immediate step is to shill for the Democrats, so unions are squashed even further.
Any talk of organization gets a person promptly removed and fired.
In the 1930s, unionists in the US were attacked and murdered by hired thugs and the police. In other countries they continue to do so today. That didn't and doesn't prevent them from accepting the risk. What does that tell you?
I agree with the sentiment for the most part, though its a bit hyperbolic.You do realize that health insurance is compulsory in the US, right? Its illegal to not have insurance, by penalty of fine, even if you can't afford it. I know plenty of propertyless and pennyless people, living paycheck to paycheck, afraid of losing access to employer health insurance, necessary for life-supporting medicnes such as insulin, because they (or their children) would die in days without it. If that makes them "middle-class" then I don't know what definition you're using for middle-class. I get the impression you don't understand how health insurance works in the US, or how its tied to labor. Employer-sponsored health insurance is a major bourgeois policy pushed in the US.
When your very ability to live is directly tied to your employer, I can't really see how this is as a uniquely "middle-class" issue separate from the larger labor movement.
This section to me just confirms that you're being dishonest and deliberately derailing this thread in order to further your social democratic agenda. You write this in reply to me, but you don't quote me in entirety. This is what I wrote:
Worry is a mood found mainly among the middle class, i.e. those that have something to lose, while the propertyless proletarian's condition produces passion. If these people are otherwise proletarian, they will be dragged into the struggle once the development of the more combative layers has proceeded further. If they are more on the side of the petty bourgeois, time will tell which side they will choose.
The bolded part, which you omitted, makes this entire section of yours redundant.
More, a feeling of powerlessness is again a characteristic of the middle class, not the proletariat.
Lol let's find out what this absolute dullard thinks of things. Here they write
In Karl Marx's time, the term "middle class" actually meant something more concrete. It was a term for people who were in the middle of the Bourgeoisie (business owners) and Proletariat (wage workers).
This gives me chills. This person claims to speak for Marx lol.
A "middle class" person may also be someone who owns businesses or stock as a primary income, but also does some wage work or spec work. Again, someone who is "in the middle" of doing labor, and profiting off others labor. They are neither fully proletarian or bourgeoisie.
This person should just stop posting about communism.
Petit bourgeois are one type of middle class. And not all landlords are necessarily Bourgeois, because they don't control production. Rent seeking is still shitty though.
If they're going to be this embarrassingly stupid online then they should at least openly admit to being a regular liberal and step over on to their side.
Communism is not a scheme for improving the condition of the working class.
I'm pretty sure that is is easier to train a dog than it would be to get these leftards to understand how this is a petite bourgeois programs.
Why are liberal morons like you attracted to communism?
Do you really not know why?
Can confirm, lol. Don’t forget the opioid epidemic, basically self medicating for these conditions.
I don't deny that having a universal healthcare would be an improvement in the lives of many, and I understand that it is inhuman in this day and age to have to forego your health due to its exuberant price.
But I don't think that this should be left in the hands of politicians. I think it would be unlikely for it to come about in a real meaningful way even if Bernie was president. I also don't deny that unions have their own interests and short comings either, but I find this one example to be interesting enough to post about it.
[deleted]
We have run the experiment of not having social democracy, and it's not as if that helped the communist movement somehow...
That was never the point. If communism is the end, then the means need to be in harmony with it. These bourgeois movements are all practically opposed to communism. They are no means to it.
Or to be more precise, communism is the labour movement itself, so social democracy does nothing for it.
Yeah totally. Sorry for this ridiculous sidetrack.
All good.
If the unions are being attacked by the state to the point that it consists of only 10% of workers that means we should just abandon them?
Why on earth would it mean that? I already said I was a union steward. Not following your logic at all.
I just thought the 'sunk cost' argument was a bit ridiculous
It's extremely idiotic. It's an instance of social democrats coping - when workers don't go along with their programmes, they ascribe misperceptions to them.
They aren't making the connection to the collective bargaining power
Yes they do. It's mentioned in flyers and in that quote I posted.
I wonder if it can be some sunk cost kind of thinking
Or perhaps workers simply don't have the same interest as the middle class?
They aren't making the connection to the collective bargaining power of/ideological connection to a people's healthcare program
What is the "collective bargaining power of a people's healthcare program"? And what do you mean by "ideological connection to a people's healthcare program"?
the fact that they don't have to bargain for healthcare anymore means they can focus their efforts on other employment benefits.
Apparently, one must imagine Sisyphus happy.
I think it's funny how all of the posts on this are being downvoted by someone.
Several sections of the flyer feature mock quotes from Sanders’ visit, during which he said Medicare for All is a way to fix health care for everyone, and employers will reinvest savings from the policy into workers’ salaries.
“Those politicians have never sat at our bargaining table or been on a 24/7 six years, four months and 10 days strike line,” the flyer reads.
Coming back to this thread, it seems that the Culinary Union rank and file largely broke with management and went for Sanders
And what do you think of that?
I'd imagine the 'upper management' of the Culinary union felt that M4A would threaten their control over the members of their union. For example, it's a lot easier to organize strikes w/o upper management approval knowing that your healthcare won't be cut off.
Are you incapable of understanding what you are reading or did you just ignore the rest of the thread to post this?
I'm reading through the rest of the thread now, I did just initially post this. No need to be so hostile, I was just sharing my initial thoughts on the matter. I think your points about Unions wanting to keep what they fought for and their position in collective bargaining/representing their workers are interesting. Sanders's plan would be an undercut to the gains made by the Culinary Union.
I'm reading through the rest of the thread now, I did just initially post this. No need to be so hostile, I was just sharing my initial thoughts on the matter.
Given that this subreddit is not exactly active, the thread being two weeks old and having much less comments than your average Reddit post, I would hope for people to read first before shitting up the comments with stuff that has been talked about already in detail.
my apologies
All good.
Do you really think that workers "largely broke" with "management" over the ability to strike?
Your point being?
After reading this, I am curious if there is financial benefit individual unions receive from healthcare plans, friendly employers at the hiring hall, or contracts put in place to lock in one particular healthcare provider. Im also guessing some unions could be looking at loss of dues received by members who are only signed up for healthcare benefits.
I’m not attempting to be claim malfeasance by labor organisers, but if there is some financial loss for unions with M4A, then I can see why some would oppose the policy. It does have the flow on effect of stifling rank and file organising, and militant worker organising, but I don’t think this is the main aim for these unions who see themselves as the bridge between worker and company.
None of that is relevant to the point of this thread. What we have here is an example, and there are many like this, of the class winning this concession on the class terrain in their class organization. Not one of being granted it by the capitalist state. Leftists would gladly abandon these organizations in support of Bernie, thus exposing them (if it really needed exposing) as being just petite bourgeois shills. The problems with trade union bureaucracy and leadership is extremely minor. The key ingredient missing here is a communist party that is able to act within these organizations against the bureaucracy and leadership.
Hello. So apparently the working class people inside the unions voted predominantly for Sanders.
I would like to request an explanation for how it appears that what Sanders is offering to them is more desirable than what the union is offering them.
The short answer is that it is because there is no communist party.
The longer answer is that I don't know why each individual member chose to vote one way or another. We haven't conducted a mass survey.
Presenting it as a rejection of their own union for Sanders offering them more seems extremely naive and simplistic. If we go by this we get a whole range of reasons. It isn't a question of being offered a more desirable health care, which doesn't seem true in the slightest.
The real issue, that I constantly seem to have to reiterate for some reason, is that this doesn't matter. The point of this thread was to show a class action conducted by a class organization against the bourgeoisie.
This becomes clearer when we look at what the Sanders program actual promises. Here, in this article is states that
Union leaders reacted angrily when Sanders, at a town hall, told its members that their employers would save $12,000 per employee under Medicare for All, and that they’d see that money in their paychecks.
The Medicare for All package is being sold as a cost reduction to the capitalist class, which it undoubtedly will be. However, the idea that these cost savings will then be passed on to the employee is laughably ridiculous.
A class action conducted by a class organization that went against the wishes of the class it's supposed to be representing.
I was being too generous in giving you the benefit of the doubt that this wasn't the asinine logic you were using. If they all went out and voted for Trump, would that be any better or worse? I don't think that any of the people involved there are communists and won't act accordingly.
It would be worse, but it appears to me that you wouldn't ask yourself why these working class people were voting for Trump, and would be fine with saying it was the ideas they have in their heads.
Much like now where you are saying that it is these damned ideas the working class of this union has in their heads, of solidarity with other people who don't have union healthcare, that causes it to fail to see how their trade union leadership and good communists like yourself know what's best for them and their friends.
Calling yourself Marx but your politics are Proudhon's 🥴
Do you have a learning disability?
Karl Marx would be rolling in his grave were he to see what you're doing with his name lol
We could solve the electricity needs of mankind for eternity if we hooked up Marx's spinning corpse to a generator, would he be able to read the stuff you peddle:
Socialism as a goal does not want to strip things into bare-bones necessities, but to structure society in a different way that benefits the working class.
Damn yeah, I guess that quote is devastating.
It is extremely stupid, which you would know, had you read Marx.
It would be worse
Neither is more advantageous for communism.
but it appears to me that you wouldn't ask yourself why these working class people were voting for Trump
We linked a post that discusses why some workers voted for Trump elsewhere in this thread.
and would be fine with saying it was the ideas they have in their heads.
The point would be to explain how these ideas get there.
Much like now where you are saying that it is these damned ideas the working class of this union has in their heads, of solidarity with other people who don't have union healthcare, that causes it to fail to see how their trade union leadership and good communists like yourself know what's best for them and their friends.
"Other people" is a nice weasel word to introduce non-proletarian strata into the equation. Clearly you don't have a problem with interclassist sentiments being present among the proletariat. More, are you so moronic as to think that we consider the main task of the communist party to be endowing people with "correct ideas" by means of education?
Calling yourself Marx but your politics are Proudhon's 🥴
It's obvious that you don't know shit about either Marx or Proudhon.
I'm under the impression that they believe that what ever people who work do then that must be communism. Any excuse to shill for Sanders.
As has been repeated ad nauseam, the important organisation here that is able to transcend the particular interests of union management is the party. What is significant is merely that the healthcare plan here is a product of class struggle.
And the momentary "wishes of the class" are simply irrelevant. Was the racism of the English workers against the Irish that Marx was writing about communist?
So apparently the working class people inside the unions voted predominantly for Sanders.
If workers vote for Sanders, then that must clearly mean that he is the communist choice! On the other hand, if they vote Trump, then that means that they're all closeted reactionaries that need to be abandoned. Do you see the problem with this logic?
It's not important what the opinion of individual workers, or even the proletariat at large, at a given moment is. A very neat paragraph by Marx on this topic can be found in the Holy Family, but I'm not going to reproduce it here, as it has been brought up often enough on this subreddit. So it is in order to quote him on another occasion:
I have always defied the momentary opinions of the proletariat.
Clear enough?
I would like to request an explanation for how it appears that what Sanders is offering to them is more desirable than what the union is offering them.
First of all, the customer-like manner in which you demand an answer is disgusting. How about talking like a normal person instead of "requesting an explanation" as if you were just approaching some counter? /u/dr_marx rightly stated that we don't know what happens in the minds of each individual worker, respectively what their reasoning was, but from the article they linked it is possible to draw some conclusions. Take this statement for example:
Health care is “the number one issue,” said Monica Smith, a Culinary Workers member since 1987 and an in-room dining server at the Bellagio, who caucused for Sanders.
“We have so many people that have walked that picket line — blood, sweat, and tears — for us. We’re going to be here to protect it, but I worry about other people that aren’t protected by unions. How do they get health care? What's the dollar amount that they have to go through? Do they have to worry about not being able to go to a hospital?”
From the outset, it is significant that the woman quoted here is a member of the union since 1987, which implies an aging workforce. More, given that she mentions money being a concern, I do not assume that she has sympathy for the middle class, but has non-unionised workers in mind. So, what she's here effectively lamenting is the low degree of unionisation, which prevents the union's own solution from being generalised for the rest of the proletariat, and which in turn leads her to embrace Sanders' proposal.
Given a communist party with a proper capability to act within unions however, a lot of the problems arising from the autonomous interest of the union bureaucracy which currently dissuade some workers from unionising would diminish. Also, even though an increasing rate of unionisation is of course to some extent in the interest of the communist movement, the party would pay attention to struggles happening outside of unions as well (Scandinavia shows that high rates of unionisation need not be of value in themselves). Finally, the success of workers' struggles always depends on the extension of the association of labour. Labour gets stronger with larger numbers and unification. Hence, helping already currently combative elements succeed by necessity implies further unionisation. All these aspects taken together would help US workers generalise class-based healthcare.
The essential difference here is that between achievements of the labour movement itself, and measures of the capitalist state. The old bourgeois catchword of "cheap government" is still how Sanders and his proponents argue for universal healthcare. The difference is that between social democracy and communism:
The peculiar character of social-democracy is epitomized in the fact that democratic-republican institutions are demanded as a means, not of doing away with two extremes, capital and wage labor, but of weakening their antagonism and transforming it into harmony. However different the means proposed for the attainment of this end may be, however much it may be trimmed with more or less revolutionary notions, the content remains the same. This content is the transformation of society in a democratic way, but a transformation within the bounds of the petty bourgeoisie. Only one must not get the narrow-minded notion that the petty bourgeoisie, on principle, wishes to enforce an egoistic class interest. Rather, it believes that the special conditions of its emancipation are the general conditions within whose frame alone modern society can be saved and the class struggle avoided. Just as little must one imagine that the democratic representatives are indeed all shopkeepers or enthusiastic champions of shopkeepers. According to their education and their individual position they may be as far apart as heaven and earth. What makes them representatives of the petty bourgeoisie is the fact that in their minds they do not get beyond the limits which the latter do not get beyond in life, that they are consequently driven, theoretically, to the same problems and solutions to which material interest and social position drive the latter practically. This is, in general, the relationship between the political and literary representatives of a class and the class they represent.
Another example to showcase this difference is how Marx, Engels and the IWMA considered cooperatives. They had praise for the cooperative movement that arose among workers independently of the middle class preachers calling themselves socialists, to the extent that it exemplified the desire of the proletariat to establish its dictatorship. They knew of the immanent limits of cooperatives though, which is why they pushed for the overcoming of this form of struggle within the labour movement.
On the other hand, they did not have the slightest sympathy for people like Lassalle who proposed to bring about cooperatives on a large scale through state aid. The underlying aim of such measures is always to pacify the proletariat. Lassalle's modern epigones are people like Richard Wolff. Bernie Sanders is the same when he argues in favour of the same co-management whose effects I already described elsewhere in this thread. "Communist society" on the other hand is nothing else than the development of the association of proletariat, the independent labour movement, to a certain level.
How about talking like a normal person instead of "requesting an explanation"
Alright: I used to believe leftcoms were in some way wise but I only see now that the only reason this was true was because you were pitted against the even stupider tankie brigade. On your own, you are completely and utterly listless, boring, whatever. When you see a trade union supporting a liberal as opposed to supporting a social democrat at the very least, you say that the trade union is correct, and then go on to say how a true communist party would be able to lead this trade union to the promised land. In addition you also don't even offer any class-based analysis of any sort to a person who asks why the workers would vote for this social democrat instead.
There is no communist party. I don't know why you two "doctors" keep mentioning that. Is it supposed to be some sort of rallying cry to create one? How, if losing your job means losing your healthcare? Is not universal healthcare preferable to privatized? Doesn't it improve the lot of the working class? To me you both seem like you're ignoring actual events and actions of the working class to continue preaching whatever it is you want to preach. I also don't see how either of you are more radical than this despised social democrat. The same social democrat who supports this national healthcare system precisely because it makes unionising easier. Seems a tad bit better than fantasizing about your perfect communist party that exists only in your mind, no?
So yeah, that was it - I saw a completely humorless guy who insists on doing weak insults to anyone who disagrees with him and I decided to challenge him on his "working class credentials" or whatever. I challenged him and he gave me nothing other than what you are giving me right now - a defense of union leadership that is out of touch with its own rank and file. Proving, to me, that you two are out of touch with the working class. In addition, I had a hearty laugh that both of you call yourself doctors and jump to the defense of the other. Left-communism, if this is what it is, is a joke.
There is no communist party.
lol got ourselves a real genius over here
I had a hearty laugh that both of you call yourself doctors
I wonder if you even know what the doctor thing is a reference to.
The fact that I would have to repeat myself, again, in this same thread, if I went through each one of your points kinda tells me that you've just came in here to shill for Bernie. Either that or you really do have a learning disability. It's okay to have one. My brother had one and we sent him to the funny farm, and now he's in charge of the coronavirus response.
When you see a trade union supporting a liberal as opposed to supporting a social democrat at the very least, you say that the trade union is correct
No, this is not what anyone in this thread has said, which you would know, had you read what has been written. The point was that the union's healthcare plan arose from class struggle. No one agreed with the union leadership in supporting any bourgeois, no matter if Sanders or someone else.
and then go on to say how a true communist party would be able to lead this trade union to the promised land.
The talk was of a communist party as such, not an imaginary "true" one. The "promised land" is something that religious quacks can dream of - the topic here is communism.
In addition you also don't even offer any class-based analysis of any sort to a person who asks why the workers would vote for this social democrat instead.
I'm not sure what you demand here. I provided an excerpt from Marx that explains what social democracy is. There is no necessity for any additional explanation.
There is no communist party. I don't know why you two "doctors" keep mentioning that. Is it supposed to be some sort of rallying cry to create one?
Obviously. You can continue to sit in your armchair and vote Sanders though, and imagine that you thereby advance the communist cause.
How, if losing your job means losing your healthcare?
This has been addressed in this thread already as well.
Is not universal healthcare preferable to privatized?
Preferable by what yardstick? The communist one is that of labour.
Doesn't it improve the lot of the working class?
The fact that communism is not a scheme for improving the condition of the working class has been mentioned in this thread before, and it's also elaborated at length in the Manifesto of the Communist Party. It is a petty bourgeois idea, intended to pacify the workers. Here, you can also read Engels on it, in a pamphlet whose topic can be seen as analogous to healthcare. The same garbage he criticises is what you argue.
To me you both seem like you're ignoring actual events and actions of the working class to continue preaching whatever it is you want to preach.
To me it seems like you desperately want to connect Bernie Sanders to communism.
I also don't see how either of you are more radical than this despised social democrat.
Yeah, it's obvious that you are utterly confused about communism.
The same social democrat who supports this national healthcare system precisely because it makes unionising easier.
You should perhaps ponder over what it means when the capitalist state acknowledges unions.
Seems a tad bit better than fantasizing about your perfect communist party that exists only in your mind, no?
Working towards establishing a communist party in the US so that workers' struggles can be centralised actually advances communism and is productive for providing proper healthcare. I don't see how voting for a bourgeois politician does either.
I challenged him and he gave me nothing other than what you are giving me right now - a defense of union leadership that is out of touch with its own rank and file.
This is - again - nothing that anyone in this thread put forward.
Proving, to me, that you two are out of touch with the working class.
Go put on your flat cap!
In addition, I had a hearty laugh that both of you call yourself doctors and jump to the defense of the other.
I hope you know what the "Dr." in the username references, but I'm not sure if you do.
The rest of your drivel is not even worth addressing.
I hope you know what the "Dr." in the username references, but I'm not sure if you do.
I'm actually curious about this. Mind explaining?
Well, Marx held the academic title of a doctor, even though he obviously never gave a shit about that. It's funny to play on that, given the audience on Reddit. His dissertation dealt with "The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature", and it's very much worth looking into, if you find the time:
The proofs of the existence of God are either mere hollow tautologies. Take for instance the ontological proof. This only means:
"that which I conceive for myself in a real way (realiter), is a real concept for me",
something that works on me. In this sense all gods, the pagan as well as the Christian ones, have possessed a real existence. Did not the ancient Moloch reign? Was not the Delphic Apollo a real power in the life of the Greeks? Kant's critique means nothing in this respect. If somebody imagines that he has a hundred talers, if this concept is not for him an arbitrary, subjective one, if he believes in it, then these hundred imagined talers have for him the same value as a hundred real ones. For instance, he will incur debts on the strength of his imagination, his imagination will work, in the same way as all humanity has incurred debts on its gods. The contrary is true. Kant's example might have enforced the ontological proof. Real talers have the same existence that the imagined gods have. Has a real taler any existence except in the imagination, if only in the general or rather common imagination of man? Bring paper money into a country where this use of paper is unknown, and everyone will laugh at your subjective imagination.
My username specifically comes from London parliamentarians, who used to refer to Marx as the "Red Terror Doctor". He mentions this in a letter to Sorge (page 277 in the link):
But more especially it was through him that, for months on end, I sustained incognito a cross-fire against that Russomane Gladstone in London's Fashionable Press (Vanity Fair and Whitehall Review), as also in the English, Scottish and Irish provincial press, unmasking his underhand dealings with the Russian spy Novikova, the Russian Embassy in London, etc.; it was through him, too, that I exerted influence on English parliamentarians in the Commons and the Lords, who would throw up their hands in horror if they knew that it was the Red Terror Doctor, as they call me, who had been their souffleur during the oriental crisis.
The ICP also recall that episode in their commentary on the 1844 manuscripts:
He did his doctorate in philosophy and commanded as a dictator (wrinkle your nose quietly about the word you hate) all of you, professors of business and economics of his time and ours, and the one still to come. You aptly called him Dr. Red Terror, and he didn’t mind; he was even happy about it.
Thanks a bunch for the in-depth explanation!
Again, you're welcome.
I hope you know what the "Dr." in the username references, but I'm not sure if you do.
Some cancers can’t be cured
Go put on your flat cap!
Fellow citizen, have you yet solved the navy bean problem?
13 replies:
First translation from the Croatian internationalists (Kontra klasa). Originally published on the Workers' Offensive website.
Another good article. It's always good to see texts from comrades in other parts of the world. Though I don't think this text is going to convince any of the rabid nationalists on the left to drop their nation-state fetish it is a concise and easy to follow summation of the communist argument against nationalism.
Yeah it probably won't but it was intended as a pamphlet more than anything. IMO we shouldn't even consider "converting" common leftists when writing these texts, the only people we should have in mind are workers.
[removed]
To clear this up, when I say leftist I don't mean your run-off-the-mill guy with a 'leftist' view of the economy or something like that. Most workers - in my experience - are economically to the left, if that makes sense. What I mean by leftist is someone invested in the "radical leftist" scene, be it as an active member of this or that organization or as an individual. At least where I come from, such people are rarely workers and are mostly in it for the aesthetics and a sense of belonging. And even if/when they are workers, they're not the workers we should (primarily) think about when agitating. That's my opinion at least.
[removed]
I'm kinda influenced by leftcom jargon, that is true, and leftist is oft used kind of derogatory in these circles from my experience.
Are you from Croatia/the Balkans? If so, please do show me these vast numbers of workers in various leftist grouplets (yea including leftcom ones, I know we're insignificant). I do admit though that what I wrote earlier is a somewhat eurocentric view (maybe even eastern-eurocentric) since I suppose there really are a lot of workers influenced by various leftist ideologies in other regions; India and Turkey come to mind, so I'm sorry for that.
[removed]
I don't think I understand what you're talking about, sorry. I explained what I meant by leftist already so...
Is this a Finnish left communist publication?
Croatian. I'm not aware of any Finnish leftcom groups tbh but I'd like to know if such exist :)
Ah I see, sorry I am not good at distinguishing languages
In the intro to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right Marx writes:
”As philosophy finds its material weapon in the proletariat, so the proletariat finds its spiritual weapon in philosophy.”
and
”The head of this emancipation is philosophy, its heart the proletariat. Philosophy cannot realize itself without the transcendence of the proletariat, and the proletariat cannot transcend itself without the realization of philosophy.”
Later in The German Ideology Marx writes:
”Where speculation ends – in real life – there real, positive science begins: the representation of the practical activity, of the practical process of development of men. Empty talk about consciousness ceases, and real knowledge has to take its place. When reality is depicted, philosophy as an independent branch of knowledge loses its medium of existence. At the best its place can only be taken by a summing-up of the most general results, abstractions which arise from the observation of the historical development of men.”
Does this mean Marx’s view of philosophy changed overtime? Did the theory of historical-materialism mark some kind of break with “philosophy proper”, its resolution being communism?
Finally is reading philosophy, such as the works of Foucault, Heidegger, and Deleuze, at all relevant to my study of communism or is critically reading them some irrelevant/wasteful hobby?
16 replies:
To understand what Marx is saying in the first two quotes, it is necessary to have an understanding of what philosophy even is. Most people will know that it means the love of wisdom. But its object, the knowledge of which it aims at, is somewhat different from that of the sciences. In science, the existence of its object is presupposed. Through concept, judgement and syllogism, science aims at demonstrating the necessity of its object, the necessity of what is. But since each science is preoccupied with a restricted circle of objects, it generally does not ponder over what it shares with all other sciences. This is a task of philosophy. It aims to show the genesis of an object of science, and the way in which thinking considers it. Science and philosophy both rely on a logical and actual necessity: what can be demonstrated to be necessary in mind must also be necessary in actuality. There is thus an inherent relatedness of philosophy and science.
Now, mankind does not merely think about nature scientifically - it does the same with relations between humans it has created itself: money, the state, the family - all of them condition the way in which we live. If these institutions were conscious products towards a certain end, they would not be in contradiction with needs and hence would not require inquiry about them. But clearly, even though these relations often collide with needs, they continue to exist. Simply rejecting them, with an "but they ought to be different!" or an "they should not be!", is not enough, as one will still be bound by them, whether one wants it or not. This contradiction between needs and the actuality of institutions gives rise to philosophy. Hegel puts it like this, in his "Lectures on the History of Philosophy":
It may be said that philosophising only commences when a people has left its concrete life in general, when separation into and difference of estates has emerged and that people approaches its fall, where a rupture has arisen between inner striving and external actuality, when the hitherto shape of religion etc. no longer suffices, when spirit announces indifference towards its living existence or dwells unsatisfied therein, when ethical life dissolves. Spirit flees into the spaces of thought, and, against the actual world, forms for itself a realm of thought. Philosophy is then the reconciliation of the ruin which thought has begun. Philosophy begins with the fall of a real world; when it enters the stage with its abstractions, painting grey in grey, then the freshness of youth, of liveliness, has already gone, and its reconciliation is reconciliation not in actuality, but in the ideal world.
Hegel thinks that thought is to blame for the rift between people's needs and the cruel ways in which their self-created but alien institutions force them to live (note here how the abstraction "people" ignores class). His solution also keeps within the mental realm, and it consists in philosophy. As one of few philosophers, he remarks something about the result of the activity in which he engages in, and he calls it reconciliation. This reconciliation is not, in Hegel's belief, a purpose to which he subordinates his activity, but what must inevitably arise from it. When we find out about the necessity of things, we become reconciled to them. We are supposed to be shown by Hegel that the reason inside our head is at work in the world; that it is merely concealed from us.
As Hegel says in the introduction to his "Encyclopedia":
Similarly it may be held the highest and final aim of philosophic science to bring about, through the ascertainment of this harmony, a reconciliation of the self-conscious reason with the reason which is in the world — in other words, with actuality.
Likewise, in the introduction to his "Philosophy of Right":
To recognise reason as the rose in the cross of the present and thereby to delight in the present - this reasonable insight is the reconciliation with actuality which philosophy grants to those who have received the inner demand to comprehend, and as well as to preserve their subjective freedom in what is substantial, to stand with their subjective freedom not in what is particular and contingent, but in what is in and for itself.
Hegel here employing a religious metaphor - everyday life as a cross to be borne, in which a higher meaning can be found - is no accident. The notion of necessity that philosophy aims to bring forth condemns the world to its suffering, but consoles those who share it in a spiritual community by way of them being united in considering themselves to know that reason is to prevail. However, "reason" here has no other content than whatever the relations corresponding to bourgeois rule engender. It is a manner of coping with the everyday treadmill - ideology. Correspondingly, Hegel can also call philosophy a theodicy at the end of his "Lectures on the History of Philosophy":
The ultimate goal and interest of philosophy is to reconcile the thought, the concept with actuality. Philosophy is the true theodicy, against art and religion and their sentiments, - this reconciliation of the spirit, namely the spirit that has grasped itself in its freedom and in the richness of its actuality.
Similarly, the final sentence of his "Lectures on the Philosophy of History":
That world history is this course of development and the actual becoming of spirit, under the changing spectacles of its stories, - this is the true theodicy, the justification of God in history. Only the insight, that what has happened and is happening every day is not only not without God, but essentially the work of himself, can reconcile spirit with world history and actuality.
Or put differently, in his "Lectures on Aesthetics":
For, after all, philosophy has no other object but God and so is essentially rational theology and, as the servant of truth, a continual divine service.
Philosophy aims to accomplish by means of reason what religion does as mere belief. The content is the same, philosophy merely makes it accessible in a more satisfying way than religion, which does the same job for the "masses". Hegel is not a preacher, he invites us to critically examine the necessity of what he lays out, to be convinced by truth, on which he has no influence either.
His procedure looks like this: From the standpoint arrived at by following the road laid out in the "Phenomenology of Spirit", Hegel sets out to demonstrate the allegedly presuppositionless movement of pure thought in the "Science of Logic". The logical categories he gains in this endeavour are to create actuality out of themselves - reason producing the world. Hegel, in the introduction to the "Logic":
Logic is thus to be understood as the system of pure reason, as the realm of pure thought. This realm is the truth as it is without veil in and for itself. It can therefore be expressed that this content is the representation of God as he is in his eternal essence before the creation of nature and a finite spirit.
But it is impossible to arrive at an institution, or a characteristic of it, through empty logical categories themselves. For example, the abstractions "general", "particular" and "singular" will never lead to the practical separation of powers in a state on their own. Thus, Hegel is forced to think about various institutions as they already exist. We know that his central interest is not scientific - it lies not in the object in question itself, but in presenting it as an emanation of the logical forms he has uncovered. However, as these forms do allow for some accurate and novel ways of conceptualising the determinacy of actual relations, he attains some genuine insights nevertheless. For the rest, it is enough for him to take characteristics of the given institution known to everyone, and associate them with some convenient category of the "Logic". Presenting this patchwork as a continuous derivation gives his claim the semblance of being fulfilled; of profanely existing institutions actually being created from holy forms of thought.
To make this digression not even longer than it already is, and to wrap back around to your question, let's come back to the quotes you mentioned:
As philosophy finds its material weapon in the proletariat, so the proletariat finds its spiritual weapon in philosophy.
Generally, speaking of philosophy means to speak of Hegel, and to speak of Hegel also means to speak of philosophy (Hegel thinks he is no longer pursuing, loving wisdom, but has finally attained it). Hegel is the apex of philosophy, he is the furthest philosophy could go, the same way in which David Ricardo marked the highest point of political economy. Neither could go further than they did, because doing so would have meant coming into contradiction with the standpoint inherent to their disciplines and the interests to which those correspond: bourgeois society. I talked about this in more detail here.
What came after Hegel and Ricardo were regressions from what they had achieved - the Young Hegelians and the vulgar economists. To both, however, there are notable exceptions: Feuerbach and the Ricardian socialists, which, in continuing the previous work more consistently, indicate already a break with it, being half-way stuck between philosophy, respectively political economy, and communism.
When Marx talks about the proletariat finding "its spiritual weapon in philosophy", he refers to what Feuerbach has laid out. Marx, in a letter to Feuerbach from 1844:
In these writings you have provided — I don't know whether intentionally — a philosophical basis for socialism, and the communists have immediately understood them in this way.
But Marx's outlook already goes vastly beyond Feuerbach's. It is merely the concepts that he employs that are affected by the limitedness of the Feuerbachian standpoint, not the content which they are meant to express itself. Marx will make the former appropriate to the latter in the course of further self-clarification.
The next quote you produce reads:
The head of this emancipation is philosophy, its heart the proletariat. Philosophy cannot actualise itself without the sublation of the proletariat, and the proletariat cannot sublate itself without the actualisation of philosophy.
After what we learnt about philosophy earlier, it should be clear what it means to "actualise" it: the reconciliation it aims to bring about in thought is to be achieved in the practical, social realm instead. The need for reconciliation that gives rise to philosophy must cease through the practical healing which Hegel deemed impossible. The proletariat necessarily carries out this practical reconciliation, communism, when it fights for its independent class interests, and that's why Marx establishes the relation here. That is also why he can call the proletariat the "material weapon of philosophy" in the previous quote. Or, put differently in 1844:
Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.
Marx in 1843 is still verbally affected by coming to critical-scientific communism through the at this point not yet complete critique of philosophy. He is still to investigate the anatomy, the actual relations of bourgeois society by means of the critique of political economy - which is what he will turn towards as a result of his grappling with Hegel's Philosophy of Right.
From the same text that also contains your two quotes:
You cannot sublate philosophy without actualising it.
The same mistake, but with the factors reversed, was made by the theoretical party originating from philosophy.
In the present struggle it saw only the critical struggle of philosophy against the German world; it did not give a thought to the fact that philosophy up to the present itself belongs to this world and is its completion, although an ideal one. Critical towards its counterpart, it was uncritical towards itself when, proceeding from the premises of philosophy, it either stopped at the results given by philosophy or passed off demands and results from somewhere else as immediate demands and results of philosophy – although these, provided they are justified, can be obtained only by the negation of philosophy up to the present, of philosophy as such. We reserve ourselves the right to a more detailed description of this section: It thought it could actualise philosophy without sublating it.
When Marx here speaks of "sublation", he does not mean the mental operation of philosophy, which considers something sublated when it has dispensed with it in thought while leaving its practical existence intact. "Sublating philosophy" means not merely its theoretical elimination - already accomplished by critical-scientific communism - but it practically becoming superfluous.
See also, in the German Ideology:
“Let us, therefore, take a look at the activities which tempt” Stirner’s ancients.
“'For the ancients, the world was a truth,’ says Feuerbach; but he forgets to make the important addition: a truth, the untruth of which they sought to penetrate and, finally, did indeed penetrate” (p. 22).
“For the ancients”, their “world” (not the world) “was a truth” — whereby, of course, no truth about the ancient world is stated, but only that the ancients did not have a Christian attitude to their world. As soon as untruth penetrated their world (i.e., as soon as this world itself disintegrated in consequence of practical conflicts — and to demonstrate this materialistic development empirically would be the only thing of interest), the ancient philosophers sought to penetrate the world of truth or the truth of their world and then, of course, they found that it had become untrue. Their very search was itself a symptom of the internal collapse of this world.
So the "ruin" that Hegel speaks of, which philosophy was supposed to heal, was not begun by thought as he maintains, but is the consequence of a practical development. Hence, it can be done away with by "practical-critical activity".
The German Ideology, which you quote from too, is written down two years after the first quotes you brought up, in the course of which Marx produced two other important works of self-clarification: his critique of Hegel's philosophy in the 1844 manuscripts, and the Holy Family. In these, Marx demonstrates the procedure by which philosophy achieves its result, and consequently, why it is wrong. The objection to philosophy is not merely that it is conciliatory in thought while leaving actuality as is, but also more simply that it is false. After all, if philosophy did indeed provide proof of the necessity of bourgeois relations, reconciliation would merely be a side effect and could hardly be held against it. Marx does not essentially change his standpoint, he is just more clear about something that he did not have the proper concepts to express earlier on.
Did the theory of historical-materialism mark some kind of break with “philosophy proper”, its resolution being communism?
Communism does break with philosophy as such. To speak of communist philosophy would be like speaking of communist religion, or communist political economy. A complete absurdity. Critical-scientific communism has shown how religion and philosophy are wrong, as well as how they proceed and why they arise. If one has grasped communism properly, it is simply not possible to still be religious or to philosophise.
However, communism does not exhaust itself in attacking these in their partial aspect of being a mental error - by education, in the manner of the Enlightenment - but aims at their social, practical root. Communists treat philosophy as already done for before its final withering away will approach in communist society, while for the majority of the proletariat it might as well not exist to begin with. Coming to communism through the critique of philosophy rather than through immediate, economic, proletarian needs usually means that one is (petty) bourgeois, or aspiring to it. In this case, the need for reconciliation that gave rise to philosophising is transformed into passion for the proletarian cause, which can be furthered in the manner we've indicated here, or in the pinned threads on Sanders.
Finally is reading philosophy, such as the works of Foucault, Heidegger, and Deleuze, at all relevant to my study of communism
No. You don't need to read any philosophy to understand communism - not Aristotle, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel or Feuerbach. Reading Marx is completely sufficient. The philosophers you mentioned are, in conjunction with the bourgeoisie losing its revolutionary role, a degeneration from Hegel anyway. The little insights they might occasionally produce are already accounted for, at least implicitly, and these are not important for communism in any case. In a somewhat macabre comparison, one might say that philosophy is already dead, and we are merely witnessing the twitching of its decaying body in the works of later philosophers. It might still exist as form, but its content has long since vanished. The "putrescence of absolute spirit", a "decomposing caput mortuum" are the words Marx uses at the beginning of the German Ideology.
If you're interested in the relation of communism to philosophy in a more detailed manner than I expressed above, I recommend reading this book or the writings of Cyril Smith on the matter, albeit with the provision that both suffer from abstract humanism and don't grasp communism fully.
is critically reading them some irrelevant/wasteful hobby?
It is, when one has understood what philosophy is. One will also have lost the desire necessary for occupying oneself with it. If one nevertheless attempts to keep up the contradiction, then that usually means that the person in question is petty bourgeois and does not want to forfeit their social standing. What Marx said about Proudhon still rings true here. But you need not take me at my word for it - you can find this out yourself.
Thank you, I couldn’t have asked for a more comprehensive answer.
You're welcome.
A short follow-up: I made some edits to those two posts above, to make them as clear as possible. I also remembered that there's another quote, from the chapter on Saint Max from the German Ideology as well, which helps to clarify what I wrote above a bit more:
Owing to the fact that Feuerbach showed the religious world as an illusion of the earthly world — a world which in his writing appears merely as a phrase — German theory too was confronted with the question which he left unanswered: how did it come about that people “got” these illusions “into their heads"? Even for the German theoreticians this question paved the way to the materialistic view of the world, a view which is not without premises, but which empirically observes the actual material premises as such and for that reason is, for the first time, actually a critical view of the world. This path was already indicated in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher — in the introduction to the Contribution to the Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right and On the Jewish Question. But since at that time this was done in philosophical phraseology, the traditionally occurring philosophical expressions such as “human essence”, “species”, etc., gave the German theoreticians the desired reason for misunderstanding the real trend of thought and believing that here again it was a question merely of giving a new turn to their worn-out theoretical garment — just as Dr. Arnold Ruge, the Dottore Graziano of German philosophy, imagined that he could continue as before to wave his clumsy arms about and display his pedantic-farcical mask. One has to “leave philosophy aside” (Wigand, p. 187, cf. Hess, Die letzten Philosophen, p. 8), one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality, for which there exists also an enormous amount of literary material, unknown, of course, to the philosophers. When, after that, one again encounters people like Krummacher or “Stirner”, one finds that one has long ago left them “behind” and below. Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as onanism and sexual love.
What Marx describes here at the outset, the question as to how people got religious illusions in their heads, is the same question as to what causes the need for philosophy - see the aforementioned quote about the world of the ancients disintegrating due to "practical conflicts", and this material development being the only thing of interest. Additionally, when Marx here says that an empirical view is not without premises, then this is him taking a jab at the pretense of speculative philosophy to be presuppositionless - see my remark about Hegel's "Logic" above. Marx also explicitly says here that the problem with the exposition in his early works was mainly a matter of terminology, and not content. And finally, in the end he answers your question as to the relevance of studying philosophy.
[deleted]
How does communism relate to other "social sciences"
Irrespective of communism, the social sciences in the form in which they are taught at university are pretty much a joke that miseducate aspiring petty bourgeois quacks. They give the semblance of a technique of administration to the bourgeois. Some texts here address the topic, but they do not treat the matter exhaustively, and the general outlook of the group that is publishing them is deficient too (see here, for example). I also discussed this matter a bit here, in the post which I already linked in the initial comment in this thread.
like psychology?
I'm not particularly interested in psychology, hence I cannot say too much about it. Besides the link I provided above, there's also this text that I found worth reading, albeit also with substantial reservations.
Psychology is supposed to be the study of the human mind and behavior.
The "supposed to be" is key here. For the most part, psychology does not actually investigate subjectivity. It even explicitly avoids it with approaches like Behaviourism, that declare the content of consciousness to be unknowable to begin with.
Does communism through its critique of political economy bring us closer to reconciling psychology with other sciences?
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.
Or is psychology like philosophy, trying to tie real observable phenomena (suicidal gestures, dissociation, substance abuse) to meaningless abstractions (borderline personality disorder)?
It often seems to do so, but I don't know enough about the subject to feel comfortable opining on it in detail without further investigation.
Without knowing the answer to the first part, I'd say this; you're allowed to have hobbies. You're allowed to like things just because you like them.
You're right in that it would be idiotic to mandate that communists should not have philosophy as a hobby. By your own wording of "being allowed", you show the relation of morality to right, its thinking in the categories of permissible and forbidden, and thereby one reason as to why it does not have a place in the communist movement: one cannot demand the immediate presence of what is mediated, a result (cf. Bordiga before the Comintern about centralism).
Communists do not decree non-religiousness, rather non-religiousness is a property of consummate communists necessarily, as they know what religion is (note that I'm talking about communists here, and not society at large). In the same manner, a person capable of fully coming around to the communist standpoint will finally dispense with philosophy as a hobby, and if they are not capable of doing this, this means that they are likely stifled by their social standing which they do not want to give up, which is not expressing a moral condemnation of them, but merely an empirical fact. The same goes for appeals to morality themselves, of course.
If you thoroughly understand critical-scientific communism, you won't be religious:
In this discussion all the illusions of speculation are brought together.
[...]
Thus, for instance, after superseding religion, after recognising religion to be a product of self-alienation he yet finds confirmation of himself in religion as religion. Here is the root of Hegel’s false positivism, or of his merely apparent criticism: this is what Feuerbach designated as the positing, negating and re-establishing of religion or theology – but it has to be expressed in more general terms. Thus reason is at home in unreason as unreason. The man who has recognised that he is leading an alienated life in law, politics, etc., is leading his true human life in this alienated life as such. Self-affirmation, self-confirmation in contradiction with itself – in contradiction both with the knowledge of and with the essential being of the object – is thus true knowledge and life.
[...]
If I know religion as alienated human self-consciousness, then what I know in it as religion is not my self-consciousness, but my alienated self-consciousness confirmed in it. I therefore know my self-consciousness that belongs to itself, to its very nature, confirmed not in religion but rather in annihilated and superseded religion.
To a religious "communist", communism is philosophy. Like with Hegel, for them "reason is at home in unreason as unreason". They make a matter of mind what is one of practice. The problems that give rise to religion and philosophy, cannot be solved by either:
All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.
Apologies for necromancing an old thread, but I’ve found a challenger to the analysis provided in this thread that might be of use in filling out the edges of what’s provided here. I’ve kept my own commentary out of it, as you might prefer.
I’ve reproduced what the interloper has said below:
It takes a special kind of idiocy to come out with an interpretation of Introduction to a Contribution to a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right that's directly opposite to the one in the text.
[referring to the point beginning with “when Marx here speaks of sublation”]
it’s okay up to here, and then it delves into the depths of clownery. We begin with the separation of theoretical elimination and practical elimination, as if theory and practice was separable, and then we come up with an inane redefinition of aufheben. OP posts a quote that makes it very clear what the sublation of philosophy entails.
[referring to this quote]
The MECW translation is considerably better than the MIA translation, so I'll post that. Philosophy is "cancelled" - self-sufficient philosophy, which deals with a realm of thought either entirely independent of or preceding the material world, is done for. It is also "picked up", so an analysis of the laws of thought remains. Engels writes nearly the same thing almost 40 years later:
To figure out the "laws governing thought", you need to actually look at philosophy and critique it. Per Engels, again:
DrRedTerror takes the opposite of Engels' advice and dismisses philosophy as "already done for" in a desperate manner. The critique of philosophy is no longer necessary, since Marx did all that, innit?
Later on...
it's conspicuously missing Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, which is a shame because that one text answers the question.
Further on again:
Theoretical work is just as important as practical action, and if your theoretical work runs straight into an abyss i'm not going to give you the practical benefit of the doubt.
When asked to clarify what they meant about the definition of aufheben:
He redefines it to something meaningless... [Aufheban means] "both overcome and preserved". In marx and engels' dialectics, the "negation of the negation", what happens when a thesis and antithesis interact. The antithesis destroys the thesis but eventually re-establishes an altered form of the thesis on a more expansive basis. Engels gives a definition of the sublation of philosophy in Anti-Duhring which makes DrRedTerror's "this is completely different to sublation in philosophy, because it makes philosophy superfluous" look like the joke it is.
[the next Engels quote from the Anti-Duhring part 1]
Anything particularly noteworthy in this, positive or negative? I (and perhaps OP if they end up seeing this) might find a response interesting. In the case that you disagree strongly, I hope that I’ve provided a laugh as well as a criticism.
There isn't anything of value in this. That person plainly and simply does not have the faintest clue of what they're talking about. None of the quotes they produce even have the slightest relation to what I laid out here. In any case, if they had an actual argument that they'd be able to defend, they'd post it here.
Thanks.
They’ve had this opinion for a while, but I think they have their head so far up their ass that they see actually posting criticisms here as beneath them, considering they used this one thread as a reason to unequivocally dismiss the entire subreddit. Pretty typical self-labelled Internet Marxist/leftcom it seems.
I think they have their head so far up their ass that they see actually posting criticisms here as beneath them
I've noticed that a lot of leftists like to feign superiority up until the point when they are pushed to defend their position. Then they completely crumble, and start to whine and get defensive. It's bizarre. If they want to preserve that initial egotistic sentiment, then they can't afford to expose themselves.
Perhaps they’re never challenged properly due to associating with similar leftists who are also unable to defend their positions, so that all discussion they’re exposed to just pointless headbutting and they can keep up the act. Twitter and Discord have become very effective at creating social circles full of just that kind of person and giving them the social reinforcement needed to make them go into hysterics when someone has a serious and evidenced disagreement.
7 replies:
you cia or something
🕵️
Also helpful: https://www.labourstartcampaigns.net/
What's with the vaguely swastikish/Enronish logo?
It's because it's a CIA operated front for the Illuminati.
Who gives a fuck about their logo?
13 replies:
There are rage-inducing yellow press hacks currently out there, writing about how "we are all in one boat" and that "the virus does not discriminate". This is the reality in Germany right now: the biggest COVID-19 outbreaks are in meat processing plants employing migrant labour under terrible working conditions, as well as in social housing for poor people.
is it even worth distinguishing the "yellow press" from bourgeoisie media in general?
"Yellow", as in capitalist, in the past used to be distinguished from "red", for communist. An example is the "yellow" trade-union International of Amsterdam, as opposed to the "red" Profintern.
I wasn't aware that the term "yellow press" had different origins. I thought it only later started to mean tabloids, and I wanted to reappropriate the supposed original meaning. I was thinking of it in the sense of bourgeois media in general. That wasn't exactly helpful, as most people won't understand it, and a "red press" does not exist properly anyway.
fair enough. i've heard of yellow unions, and yellow socialism before, but i've only ever heard yellow press in the context of liberals complaining about the profitability and spread of complete misinformation. But misunderstanding aside, you are completely right. its noteworthy that in the UK, over 80% of news editors and over 50% of journalists were privately educated, compared to ~7% of the general population. Obviously this is a symptom as much as a cause, and merely mandating that private and state run news organisations hire more state educated people is not much of a solution, especially given that being state educated is no guarantee that someone is a worker.
Journalism in general is in a sorry state. There are of course millions of reasons for this: online journalism, a general decline in literacy and maturity, the fact that many writers merely rewrite what agencies present to them, them being utterly detached from the reality of ordinary people, and so on.
With a proper communist party, a corresponding press would also follow.
Besides the ICP's annual Communist Left publication, is there any at least halfway decent source of journalism today? I would be interested in reading more on current events from a labor-oriented point of view.
I find it useful to look at political journals every now and then, of all political stripes - liberal, conservative, social-democratic, you name it. Often what they say about each other is quite accurate, and the more you become acquainted with their limited views and proposals, the more you see the whole about the bigger questions of the time, and how labour is to tackle them. Aside from that, it's always good to know what the various factions of the bourgeoisie think. For empirical matters, it's also handy to look into published statistics by governmental or transnational institutions, as well as think-tanks.
You're right, it is important to know all the arguments of one's time to help better fight the wrong ones. For this reason and others, I've been considering a subscription to The Economist. Would you consider it worth it to purchase a subscription? It seems like a big journal for bourgeois opinions, but also for some empirical content on the state of the world. I don't want to waste that much money if I could get the same data elsewhere though.
I've been considering a subscription to The Economist. Would you consider it worth it to purchase a subscription?
You know, it's really very easy to pirate all the popular journals nowadays.
but also for some empirical content on the state of the world. I don't want to waste that much money if I could get the same data elsewhere though.
Your best bet for that would be a factbook, not a journal. The UN, IMF, CIA and all the major nation's departments of finance, commerce and labor regularly publish most statistics of relevance for free. They come with the same one-sided presentation that ordinary bourgeois journals come with, of course.
You know, I probably should've thought of both of those things sooner. These are very helpful, thanks
You're right, it is important to know all the arguments of one's time to help better fight the wrong ones.
I don't think fighting arguments is particularly important. What's important is the labour movement and how it can overcome the challenges it faces.
Would you consider it worth it to purchase a subscription?
No. I don't think it's worth it, especially given that it will present you a very one-sided picture. There's so much information on the internet for free, that I'd refrain from paying for anything unless you can find a particular piece of information nowhere else.
Thank you for the advice, I appreciate all the help you and dr_marx give out
You're welcome.
1 reply:
Would be funny if this actually lead to socialism by 2050.
15 replies:
So umm, to any new people visiting this sub, no one was doxxed, a public picture was reused in a meme. They just wanted an excuse to pull the trigger.
On top or this, the rape joke claim is a reference to red-rooster and is entirely unsubstantiated. He's been hated online for a long time and people just like having excuses to ban him. In fact the word "rooster" is banned all together on revleft.
Revleft is such a pile of garbage I got swept up in the LeftCom bans that happened there when the admin of the place got exposed as a DNC shill.
Was this part of the pre-election CTR surge or did it happen more recently, i.e. during the much-larger ShareBlue brigading that we've been seeing site-wide over the past few weeks
This was years, and years back. Their adminship used some fascists are infiltrating us excuse and that supporting or running as a democrat is a totally legit tactic.
deleted Whatisthis?
Not likely it was a long time ago and the video was circulating for a while but she cleaned up any mention of the behavior after the bans. I don't really care either to be quite honest. Rooster and others were banned along the same time.
Not a DNC shill. A democratic party city council member in NOLA or something. :100: Not a fan of even Bolsheys prolly.
That is right it was city council in NOLA. She was a real piece of work and still runs the Che store and Revleft last that I checked.
one of the mods was banned from multiple places for making rape jokes
that's just a straight up lie, i see bjorn keeps up his tradition of making shit up about the people he hates
Load of nonsense.
4 replies:
Maybe relevant here is that there was also just a wage increase at Volkswagen's plant here in Mexico after a strike was just about to begin, of course also in the context of concerns about the effects of the pandemic. Couldn't find English coverage of it but here's a Spanish article if anyone can read: https://www.eleconomista.com.mx/empresas/Volkswagen-de-Mexico-alcanza-acuerdo-con-sindicato-de-revision-contrato-colectivo-20200818-0034.html
Very cool - do they have a strike fund we can promote here?
I would be happy to contribute to the fund if they have one
3 replies:
Source, for the uninitiated - Great Moments in Leftism
[deleted]
Do you guys think people will shill for Syriza again, come the next election?
My thoughts exactly.
2 replies:
However, he also defended low wages, saying they help ensure firms invest in Ethiopia rather than countries where manufacturing is more established.
“If wages are high and investment doesn't come, new employment is not going to be created," Arkebe said.
“The livelihood of workers can improve when their productivity improves," Arkebe added, comparing the process to the "industrial revolution" in Britain and the United States.
At least they’re honest.
can
certainly not "will"
17 replies:
I'll try to provide a short write-up of the state of the Chinese labour movement - if somebody with more knowledge on the conditions in China can confirm/contradict some of the following points, it would be very helpful to hear about:
Apparently strikes in China are really frequent. The existing unions however seem to be completely integrated into the state, and are directly subservient to the CCP. Their leadership is almost entirely made up of members of the executive branches of Chinese companies, and they frequently dispatch armed goon squads to beat striking workers back to work.
Smartphones ease communication among workers, but at the same time the vast surveillance network of the CCP gives them trouble organising (it is however mostly the middle class that actively submits to and goes along with this surveillance system). Strikes seldomly go beyond single factories, and workers are not able to organise well across industries, let alone on a national scale.
There's a student movement comprised mostly of people stemming from rural regions (people who know poverty and who increasingly realise that they won't escape it by means of studying in Beijing), which tries to help workers associate, but it is being cracked down upon heavily. There have both been arrests as well as bans of further studies. The latter is also a very draconian measure: Often a whole family works to ensure the possibility of a child studying.
The CCP employs several measures to separate workers from each other. People born in China are registered in the Hukou system, identifying them as a resident of a certain area. Depending on which area this is, people are assigned rights: a Beijing resident will for example have the right to a job, which a rural resident does not enjoy. But since a lot of the jobs are in cities like Beijing, workers from rural regions are forced to move there too, without the securities come with a Beijing resident status. These workers often don't get paid, or only get paid extremely little. Wages frequently are below 100 dollars per month, with living costs within cities approaching Western levels.
Companies let workers live in containers on the company area, in order to keep wages down, as this measure eliminates the cost of transporting the workers to their job, as well as lowers the cost of living. There are also several hundred million superexploited migrant workers moving across the country. Working safety is often very low, and workers often need to work day and night. Construction workers are being hidden from their surroundings with large plastic planes, so that no one sees their toil.
The demands of workers are changing: Whereas in the past, many struggles were about equalising living standards across areas, or about actually enforcing the promised minimum wage, a lot of struggles now seem to be about wage increases, which when successful are often sacked by means of inflation in short time.
There have been attempts by informal Chinese workers' networks to reach out to American workers, which have been largely unsuccessful.
I’d qualify as an idiot by u/dr_marx’s standards, but I have lived in China for over a decade, so I’ll try my best to contribute something of (some) substance. I had to get some of the more obscure information about the Hukou off my mother and father who both grew up in rural China, so credit where it’s due. But overall, your points are more or less correct! I’ll only expand on what you’ve written.
Smartphones ease communication among workers, but at the same time the vast surveillance network of the CCP gives them trouble organising (it is however mostly the middle class that actively submits to and goes along with this surveillance system).
Since all foreign social media is not on the CCP’s whitelist, the app workers with smartphones frequently use to communicate with each other and with family (in a group) is WeChat. It was made primarily for the more bougie members of society, but the company which owns it (Tencent) has a monopoly on communications technology in China. The enterprise does collaborate with the CCP through a shared division. Paying for food, utility bills, and travel (for most workers, this would be via the train which gives passengers the option to stand for the entire 14-hour trip) can be done through this one app. Currently, the national and provincial governments are cracking down on profiles which aren’t linked to people on their federal database through the user’s personal photo, national identification number, bank card, or phone number. The CCP’s also claiming that users must provide personal identification in the name of “anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism”. There’s simply no efficient way for workers to use any communications technology without the CCP breathing down their necks.
There’s a student movement comprised mostly of people stemming from rural regions (people who know poverty and who increasingly realise that they won’t escape it by means of studying in Beijing), which tries to help workers associate, but it is being cracked down upon heavily.
Also true, as far as I’m aware. Most major cities are surrounded by farmlands. In the province where I live, Guangdong, the majority of people who work towards helping workers organize can be found primarily in the smaller cities. The crackdowns on any grassroots movements working in favour of proletarian organization by authorities have been very harsh, especially in Shenzhen. From what I’ve heard, they’ve also already begun confiscating the personal property of adult organizers.
The latter is also a very draconian measure: Often a whole family works to ensure the possibility of a child studying. […] The CCP employs several measures to separate workers from each other. People born in China are registered in the Hukou system, identifying them as a resident of a certain area.
Yes, the Hukou is absolutely crucial for any Chinese person, especially migrant workers, and so is the citizen ID card. The citizen ID card isn’t very different from the passport, except it’s used nationally. The CCP and some companies have also been dabbling in biometrics lately, at least more so than in the previous years.
But back to the Hukou. I can’t confirm the wage, but the rest about the Hukou system is correct. Chinese families would receive a little book (similar to a passport) as proof of one’s Hukou, and it includes the one’s name, place of birth, as well as other info stated in the Wikipedia page. One thing that the Wikipedia page doesn’t mention (or I haven’t been reading closely) is that it also includes the highest level of education achieved. When another child is born, a new page with information about the child will be added to the Hukou book by a division belonging to the local authorities. The Hukou book might also be required (in some instances) for employers to make their choice regarding migrant workers. For migrant workers with a rural Hukou, they wouldn’t be able to afford housing at a reasonable price if the city is different than their Hukou. Healthcare also becomes more inaccessible and expensive outside of what’s covered by company insurance (if anything at all).
I combined the comment about education with the one about the Hukou because, especially for migrant workers, they’re related. The point of raising money for children to receive a post-secondary education is that, if they’re allowed to study in a big city (namely Beijing and Shanghai) after doing exceptional on the national exam, they can change their Hukou to match the location of their post-secondary institution and the entire family can receive more rights and benefits. To my knowledge, this was the primary goal of many rural families five decades ago, and this is still the case now.
Many migrant workers can’t afford to bring their children with them because it’s difficult to enrol in a public school in a city different from their Hukou without paying some sort of fee or attending private school. Furthermore, the national exam after year 12 must be taken within the region specified in one’s Hukou. If the child of a migrant worker completes their secondary school education in a reputable school in Shanghai but sits their exam in Nanjing, then the literature sections (amongst others) will have content they’ve never studied in class before. They won’t be able to apply to a post-secondary institution in a big city regardless of how well they did in their Shanghai school since they would’ve scored much lower in the Nanjing exam. In low-tier post-secondary institutions (i.e., occupation prep colleges offering two or three year degrees), there’s no such thing as transferring to another institution or changing majors. Along with housing and healthcare expenses, this is one of the reasons why many migrant workers leave their children with grandparents in rural China. Many migrant workers can only afford calls with their family or visits a couple times a year.
Companies let workers live in containers on the company area, in order to keep wages down, as this measure eliminates the cost of transporting the workers to their job, as well as lowers the cost of living.
This is definitely true. As an example, construction workers are often required to either live in cargo containers or set up their own transportable plastic and metal cabins in construction sites. These cabins aren’t exclusive to construction workers by any means. I’ve also seen gas station employees and manufacturing workers occupy the same type of cabin. From what I can remember, one room is usually no bigger than nine to twelve standard British telephone booths (this was my cousin's sleeping area for a while), with the largest I've seen so far at around the size of a cargo container (I'm gaging this is from a short distance off the ground, though), but it really depends on the employer. They eat elsewhere. In bigger construction sites, these cabins would have more than one floor. Another example of shitty working conditions is that companies will rarely provide construction workers with (cheap!) face masks so there’s nothing stopping workers from inhaling the the dust particles tossed into the air in construction sites.
Low-wage workers are also often forced to work overtime if they want longer breaks. Workers often have to save up their vacation days for a short two week break with their family over the summer. The other breaks are mostly from national holidays.
Construction workers are being hidden from their surroundings with large plastic planes, so that no one sees their toil.
Absolutely correct! In most cases (construction for roads, public facilities, etc.), the city will erect a barrier around workers. They’re usually large, blue metal panels with a wave-like pattern for better stacking and transportation. Nobody would be able to see over it from either side without standing on a car and jumping.
edit: Adjusted size a bit. I got a chance to speak to my cousin who worked on a construction project and he said the ones which are about four telephone booths in size are typically "resting areas" away from the scorching sun or storage rooms for handheld tools.
Thanks a lot for the effort put into this very detailed and lengthy answer, this is exactly what I had hoped for.
It is of course a mundane statement, but the labour movement in China is of extraordinary importance, so any bit of information on it is helpful, especially with how difficult it is to get reliable reports. If there are any other developments that you hear about and that you deem noteworthy, it would be cool if you could post them here - I will do the same.
Will do! And thank you so much for your service to this sub.
I’d qualify as an idiot by u/dr_marx’s standards
The first step towards knowledge is to know that you know nothing.
I think you’ve begun to cure me of cancer, doctor. Thank you!
you seem to know a thing or two so i thought i'd ask.
are you familiar with chuang? if so what are your thoughts on it?
Just looking at the article that seems to be their poster child, you find passages such as this:
This first section covers the non-capitalist period, in which the popular movement led by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) succeeded in both destroying the old regime and halting the transition to capitalism, leaving the region stuck in an inconsistent stasis understood at the time to be “socialism.” The socialist system, which we refer to as a “developmental regime,” was neither a mode of production nor a “transitional stage” between capitalism and communism, nor even between the tributary mode of production and capitalism. Since it was not a mode of production, it was also not a form of “state capitalism,” in which capitalist imperatives were pursued under the guise of the state, with the capitalist class simply replaced in form but not function by the hierarchy of government bureaucrats.
This sounds much like the usual Ticktinesque claptrap that was criticised here just a few days ago.
If we read on, we find a more than muddled account of Chinese history, a variant of what might be called "Chinese exceptionalism", as well as an outlook that comes off as an amalgamation of Maoism and communisation, with the worst aspects intrinsic to these being present.
Their more empirical accounts of present day affairs might be of interest. But then again, who knows if they try to insert their weird politics into these? Also, you can get the same information without the accompanying annoying prose peculiar to all those "journals" in the China Labour Bulletin.
[removed]
[deleted]
It's really not that difficult to navigate the site: https://clb.org.hk/content/aboutus#aboutus-5
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Dr Marx here, curing the left of cancer. Let's look at one of Eden's most recent posts, a meandering and editorially terrible shit show. This is me not even trying hard. I'm a terrible doctor.
Lately, this person was called one of "the best contemporary Left Communist political leaders" even though this blog post displays zero connections with the communist left. In fact, it looks like more what passes for communization these days.
They start from, of course, a strawman and false premises
Lenin and Kautsky think that the problem is that the working class is limited to “trade-union consciousness” and as a result, cannot obtain “political consciousness”, which it needs to transcend capitalism.
Neither of them think anything because they're dead, and lenin never thought this his whole life with his opinion changing after 1905.
The reason why the working class is the revolutionary agent under capitalism is not only because the working class has its hands over the levers of the economy at the point of production (and also at the point of distribution, which is also very important), but also because (1) the mere self-defense and assertion of working class “greedy”, “trade-union”, “selfish” material-economic interests under a system of capital accumulation (for higher wages and less working hours, and struggling outside of both the trade unions and petitioning the capitalist state for higher wage laws), which is class interest positively posed, as well as (2) the anti-political and nihilist expression of the working class’s class hatred (workers rioting, looting, destroying or sabotaging private property; workers injuring or killing capitalists, politicians, police officers, military, and academics), which is just another form of material class interest albeit negatively and destructively posed, taken to their logical conclusions, (3) will inevitably bring the working class in direct conflict with the bourgeoisie and capitalist relations of production, by literally destroying capital or blockading the relative and absolute extraction of surplus value, sabotaging the ability of capital to valorize itself. fuck sake
The problems here are just mounting. We can tell because later on they repeat the exact same points.
Eventually the workers’ pursuit of their collective self-interest and class hatred comes into violent contradiction with the entire system of private property and alienated wage-labor. Economic crisis is a symptom of this conflict with the bourgeoisie and bourgeois relations; it is a sign that the bourgeoisie is beginning to place economic pressure on the working class in retaliation for its attacks on class society, and that bourgeois relations are beginning to creak and weaken from proletarian attack.
Economic crisis here is presented as a "symptom" of workers striking for wages. This really isn't true. But I'll get to the point later. Also, lol what the fuck is "alienated wage-labor"?
this part is him describing what will happen in a revolution
The counter-revolutionaries in the Academy and the political arena tell the working class to do this or that, or believe in this idea or that. The police and military pick up their guns and get tied up in all the various working class struggles taking place. The working class continues to follow its self-interest against its clear class enemies and thus engages in street fights against the police and military, and conducts the fullest suppression of the Academy and its ideas. The workers push farther and farther economically and the global economy begins to shut down more and more. The police and military are drained and saturated; as a result of the severe economic crisis, they no longer have the resources to fight the militant working class. Property rights lose all meaning, money loses its value, nothing can be valorized, nothing can be produced, production chains melt down, and capital flows cease.
communization in 2017
Finally, the spell of the capital-form completely breaks.
Spells and "capital-form"! The illusion is shattered at last!
Some but not all of the capitalists leave their workplaces, running off to various places in the world away from the angry and greedy militant working class. Various politicians and bureaucrats have long lost any sort of political power and now are declassed and toothless strata. The police and military, who have nothing left to defend, also bail out and either join the workers or drop out of society. At this point, consistent defense of their material self-interest leads the working class to seize collective control over the levers of production, so that they can get food, water, shelter, and other essential use-values. The working class will have to coordinate among different workplaces as well, because it is unlikely that one workplace will have the ability to produce all essential use-values. The communization process sparks up spontaneously in some regions, sometimes as a means of survival and sometimes as a spontaneous rejection of the forms of capitalist society. Communization implies collective planning and the rejection of barter; it also implies the weakening and gradual dissolution of social identities predefined by class society. Workers from various workplaces and regions link up in larger and larger collectives of workplaces, communization of one region leads to communization of another, the counter-revolution of the working class’s class enemies dwindles down to nothing, and the world approaches global communization.
Notice the distinct lack of communist party. Doesn't sound very left communist, does it? Sounds a lot more like a shitty communization parody.
the last couple of sections are totally bizarre it's like he's arguing for a weird automatic type of revolution
I want to note at this point that the purpose of Marx’s Capital was not merely to trace the development of the capital-form out of the value-form to show why abolition of the value-form is a prerequisite for abolition of capital, nor just to describe the laws of motion of capital, but also to show that due to the exploitation of the working class by capital, workers’ material interests are antagonistic with the interests of capitalists as well as with the capitalist mode of production. In short, one of its purposes was to show that due to capital’s existential necessity of extracting surplus value from the proletariat, if workers push their material interests far enough, along with capital in its tendency towards crisis being unable to accommodate these demands, then the capitalist mode of production will grind to a halt due to an inability to accumulate capital from this blockade of surplus value extraction.
This is david harvey levels of stupid. He's saying that workers should demand higher wages, not to demand the abolition of wage-labour. Although I'm sure he doesn't know this and would argue otherwise, being stupid and all.
The selfish, greedy, low, base interests of the working class will undermine capitalism, not principles of morality, justice, equality, or freedom
or lead to lynching and holocausts. Brexit therefore is totally a working class demand based around the workers greedy desire to have jobs that poles are taking. Has this person never watched the news, seen any interviews with people on the street, never had a job (of course they haven't, they're one of those in the "academy" that they claim to hate) or have anyone on their facebook who also doesn't write shit blog posts?
They argue for a bizarre type of revolution where the workers just come to revolution unconsciously, by actions they perform leading to capitalist crisis (which isn't a theory of crisis in Marxism). Instead of arguing for the adoption of such communist slogans as the abolition of the wages-system, Eden would have you having the slogan "fight for higher wages so as to prevent surplus value extraction", there by supporting trade unions and reformist parties. The logic here is all over the place, the whole post is all over the place.
This charge of them supporting an "unconscious", spontanous and mechanical revolution isn't the first time it's been levied at them. Look here on Critique of the Consciousness-Raising Model of Revolution (Supplemental Reading to Monsieur Dupont’s “Nihilist Communism”) where they say
[NOTE]: If you think this piece is advocating “doing nothing” or “historical determinism”, you need to finish reading the entire thing. Also, if you want to get an idea of what I believe are the tasks for communists today and in the future, take a look at both How Can We Move Forward? and Why Is Working Class Self-Activity the Transformative-Revolutionary Agent under Capitalism? (And Related Questions).
Presumably they wrote this amendment after they got their ass handed to them in this previous thread
It's pretty obvious with all of the little quotes ("revolutions are made by classes, not ideology", the constant repeating of "the real movement") is that they get all of their ideas almost exclusively from other users on reddit, then they mash them all up and vomit them out in long blog posts in a garbled fashion.
You can tell that this person has had zero practical activity. Can you imagine this turgid writing style, with it's constant back tracking, logical inconsistencies, redundant paragraphs and phrases in a pamphlet? I can't even imagine it for a crap paper. Who this is blog is directed at I have no idea. It's certainly not anyone who is a stereotypical worker nor is it anyone who knows anything about Marx or history. Feels a lot more like they're trying to argue against imaginary tendencies from reddit!
62 replies:
Is this a critique of him directly, or just of the notion that he's a leading figure in left commiunism?
yes
I want to note at this point that the purpose of Marx’s Capital was not merely to trace the development of the capital-form out of the value-form to show why abolition of the value-form is a prerequisite for abolition of capital, nor just to describe the laws of motion of capital, but also to show that due to the exploitation of the working class by capital, workers’ material interests are antagonistic with the interests of capitalists as well as with the capitalist mode of production. In short, one of its purposes was to show that due to capital’s existential necessity of extracting surplus value from the proletariat, if workers push their material interests far enough, along with capital in its tendency towards crisis being unable to accommodate these demands, then the capitalist mode of production will grind to a halt due to an inability to accumulate capital from this blockade of surplus value extraction.
This reminds me of the Trotskyist transitional program, the proposal that the working class should be led to make increasingly less fulfillable demands within capitalism until they are led to break with capitalism entirely. Trots don't view this as an unconscious thing, however.
/u/dr_marx Hilariously, Eden is a Brezhnevite now. I can show you a screenshot from Facebook if you like. Can't believe I ever found this guy's blog useful outside of the reading lists.
Can you show some facebook pics?
Could you expand on these points:
- that doesn't apply to actual history
- [...] merely hating the system doesn't mean anything nor is it a "class interest"
Specifically, I was hoping you could clarify what you mean in the first one, and, on the most basic level, I'd've thought "hating the system" would be a class interest.
Really? I'm lifting trying to get swole rn. Let's take the example of every major riot. They did not move beyond the barest level of just a reaction. Only leftoids who had nothing to do with them have made a big deal. The whole Arab spring did not lead to a socialist revolution. There's also the whole issue of riots aimed at minorities. Merely hating it without knowing it is stupid and goes nowhere.
Really? I'm lifting trying to get swole rn.
Dude-bro communism
Are you actually against the notion of someone exercising for physical improvement?
Lift-communism
Thanks for writing this instead of just being so dismissive as you were previously. You seemed to mistake my asking for clarification as to why you think Eden is so bad as me accepting their positions uncritically and/or defending them as some "communist left leader" as that other user claimed, which wasn't the case, I was just curious and prefer specifics to simply "cos they're dumb".
As for the stuff about consciousness, I agree a lot about the vulgar materialism and didn't read Eden in this way, perhaps projecting my own thoughts into them because I like how they seem to be making progress in learning. My own position is that material conditions don't produce any sort of consciousness at all. Unless you have changes in material conditions, changes in our situation that force us to become thinkers in order to figure out the changes in our position and world, people don't really think about the world and their position (with some exceptions*), everything is kinda taken for granted. A break in conditions kinda causes "mind" to arise, like a weapon or evolutionary adaptation or something, to understand the changing conditions. Then we can talk about class consciousness / false consciousness ("ideology") /etc. *The exception to this is, usually petty bourgeois / bourgeois almost pseudo-consciousness, where people are taught to "think" but their thinking is always corrupted by how most people, especially "philosophers" are taught to just think without reflecting on how their conditions of existence give them the privilege of being able to think, and how this position influences their thinking. Part of this kinda thinking also explains why you get the college leftist phenomenon where they think that you can just change people's consciousness to bring about revolution, and their elitism about proles being dumb and needing to be convinced, that they just eat up ideology etc. I say nope, there is no ideology at play, there is nothing there at all because there was no need for it to be. College leftists are taught in a way that makes them convinced that ideas can simply win combined with their pseudo-equality-moralism BS ("ideas won me over and I'm no better than them, so they should be convinced!") without thinking about the fact that their ability to think in this way, this disposition towards accepting ideas and acting consciously rather than how most proletarians don't have that "scholastic disposition" and opportunities to sit and think (thinking requires real leisure time, not this "leisure" time that is work to recuperate ready for the next day at the factory) and how their upbringing, which is often influenced by class as education and family institutions reproduce conditions of existence etc. Basically, materialism where conditions produce consciousness is true, but the material conditions determining the form and content of consciousness is what's vulgar, and it's changes in material condition that make people conscious at all.
Keep in mind, this is summarised to a huge extent so parts here might even seem a little vulgar but I'm writing a book which has a big focus on this shit and I'll be writing about it soon on my own blog, which you can check out unless you are so put off by the amount of shit blogs (which I agree most are shit) that you can't believe that any might have decent stuff worth reading. Maybe you like proper websites but sorry I'm actually poor and can't justify giving a week's money away just to get rid of the .wordpress web suffix.
Btw, I disagree about this "culture of accommodation" existing as you see it here, I think people usually are fairly critical and a lot of people getting annoyed by you, and me thinking you were a troll, is because you respond saying shit like "why are you getting upset?" but write comments that imply you are getting upset by things. I've changed my mind about you now as you hopefully can tell, but it might be worth reflecting on the attitude that people can infer from your comments, even if you think it's fine. I'm not saying at all that you should be less ruthless in your critique, but it might stop these kinda pitiful leftist type shitshows of a reddit threads if you used a different tone.
How's your blog called?
The last thing I wrote is kinda specific and written for sociologists and/or people interested in the work of Pierre Bourdieu (and countering a shit article by the new "journal" which Jacobin Mag are publishing) but here: https://unwelfarestate.wordpress.com/
It's pretty obvious with all of the little quotes ("revolutions are made by classes, not ideology", the constant repeating of "the real movement") is that they get all of their ideas almost exclusively from other users on reddit, then they mash them all up and vomit them out in long blog posts in a garbled fashion.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. I felt the same way reading this gem; take out the leftcom phraseology (muh "INVARIANT PROGRAM"), ignore the virtue signaling and distill down the basic points, and what you're left with is a vague set of basic principles that wouldn't at all be incompatible with most Trotskyists, Maoists, etc.
For instance:
There is, in short, the ongoing internal tasks of the communist nucleus of (1) maintaining our invariant program, while also (2) refining revolutionary theory and line, through the critical analysis of pre-existing communist literature, capitalism-in-itself, and current or historical struggles against it, (3) through uniting together all good-faith communists, as well as by (4) expelling all kinds of opportunists and chauvinists who are unwilling to amend their bad praxis.
^ i.e. what every fucking communist group in existence has always said. And usually with less pointless, meandering asides.
In fact I think this person would be right at home in the ISO, they should go join.
There's too much of a culture of accommodation around here. This is obvious trash from someone who doesn't seem to know anything but it's constantly posted and reposted. My impression is that they only read reddit comments and maybe commentaries on endnotes or what ever.
Lets be honest, a lot of us aren't exactly genius Marxists but at least were honest and don't act like it.
[removed]
Some of the takes? All of his takes are awful. It's amazing at how much complaining is going on here from people who don't seem to post here. Are you a part of this same god awful clique that only seems to write blog posts that have no point or any real content? Is this why you're so touchy about the subject?
Yes. I am clearly the touchy one here.
Go on, show me your blog so that I can laugh at that too.
[removed]
Using the same word twice in a sentence kinda shows how poor your language skills are.
[removed]
Pretty sure it's also a sign of poor language skills in French, mon ami. Maybe you could write for Eden as well. Are you going to make a point or continue with your bland complaining?
[removed]
Don't blame me. Someone asked for it. Besides, Eden is just an example of a whole trend.
No, I'm aware someone asked you to explain your position on their blog, it's just that I think you've gone off the rails a bit. This could've (should've) been educative, encouraging, and guiding, and instead it's insulting, caustic, and vain.
Edit: And u/Per_Levy (since you seem to be the presiding mod of this thread) why was my comment above this removed? Sorry, but there's no rules posted on the sidebar, so I don't really know in advance what might be a rule-breaking comment.
I think you've gone off the rails a bit
lol get to fuck. You're the only person who actually attempted a reply and now you're joining in the rest of this chorus of shit posters?
Little of column A, little of column B, I guess, but I'm not sure how any of my comments here are "shitposting." And what "chorus"? You argued with literally 2 people.
You argued with literally 2 people.
Then what the fuck are you complaining about?
I'm not "complaining" about anything. You were 'amazed' by the reproach and downvotes you've gotten, and I explained that, despite nobody really objecting to your thesis, it's actually not that confounding. Do let me know if I haven't laid that out clearly enough, though.
I'm amazed by the amount of people who appear to have nothing to do with left communism coming into a left communism sub to do nothing but complain. I'm amazed that I haven't been downvoted a lot more.
[removed]
How about you go fuck yourself? If you can't deal with me writing like this then I'm just going to lol when mean ol capitalists start torturing you. Oh I see, you're a weirdo religious "socialist". Why are you even here?
This place and its sister subs needs LESS of the exclusionary Leftypol sperglord vibe they have, not more.
This place and its sister subs needs LESS of the exclusionary Leftypol sperglord vibe they have, not more.
just look at sts to see where that would lead. also, dont you even dare compare our spaces to leftypol.
I'd like to be able to come here without seeing grown men say things like "MUH INVARIANT PROGRAM".
i never seen you around here, so what are you even talking about? besides what is "MUH INVARIANT PROGRAM" even suppose to mean in the context of anything here?
and one final note, this is not a democracy.
I mean, it is a direct quote of the original post in this thread.
its a quote from the critiqued blog post, yes, and?
It is not a quote from the blog, it is the way someone responded to the blog in this thread. It is the style of the critique, not what is being critiqued.
What are you even talking about? Are you trying to argue about "ideological purity"?
You should stop reading that blog. It appears to have given you brain damage. Trust me, I'm a doctor.
You need to shape up, skip. No one posts here for ever and suddenly all of you come creeping out of wood work.
You have a two week old account and behave like a child. Congrats on your superiority.
You have a two year old account and you're still a moron? lol who are you anyway and why should I care? If you have an actual problem then you can just say instead of complaining about how awesome I am.
Jeezus this is sad to watch
aren''t you missing that eden calls themself an ultra-leftist, not specifically a left communist?
aren't you only attacking the belief that someone else has of him being a left communsit figure, not eden's own claim of left communist greatness (as if there could be such a thing).
also i feel like you're cherry picking his article to make it seem more incoherent than it is, especially when its prefaced with
'A common thread throughout all of my works and throughout the currents that make up the ultra-left is a belief that the working class and specifically, working class self-activity, is the transformative agent under capitalism.
You may ask why I believe that the unhindered self-activity of the working class has the best chance out of all approaches to lead to communism (a classless, stateless, moneyless society is the negative content of communism and the real human community, in which all social barriers to the full development of human potentials no longer exist, is the positive content of communism). If you claim to be some kind of “radical” or at least “pro-working class”, you should be ashamed that I need to go out of my way to justify such things. Unfortunately, due to the grave influence on the workers’ movement of reformism, vanguardism, and various variants and tweaks upon those two models, it is not immediately obvious to most people, even “radicals”, that unhindered working class self-activity leads to communist society.'
also "This is david harvey levels of stupid. He's saying that workers should demand higher wages, not to demand the abolition of wage-labour. Although I'm sure he doesn't know this and would argue otherwise, being stupid and all."
that is a way to understand it, but im sure he's saying that they would push for their interests beyond wages because you also quote him saying
"(2) the anti-political and nihilist expression of the working class’s class hatred (workers rioting, looting, destroying or sabotaging private property; workers injuring or killing capitalists, politicians, police officers, military, and academics), which is just another form of material class interest albeit negatively and destructively posed, taken to their logical conclusions, (3) will inevitably bring the working class in direct conflict with the bourgeoisie and capitalist relations of production, by literally destroying capital or blockading the relative and absolute extraction of surplus value, sabotaging the ability of capital to valorize itself"
i feel like you're only left standing on his stance towards Lenin
"). Instead of arguing for the adoption of such communist slogans as the abolition of the wages-system, Eden would have you having the slogan "fight for higher wages so as to prevent surplus value extraction", there by supporting trade unions and reformist parties. The logic here is all over the place, the whole post is all over the place. "
"(2) the anti-political and nihilist expression of the working class’s class hatred (workers rioting, looting, destroying or sabotaging private property; workers injuring or killing capitalists, politicians, police officers, military, and academics), which is just another form of material class interest albeit negatively and destructively posed, taken to their logical conclusions, (3) will inevitably bring the working class in direct conflict with the bourgeoisie and capitalist relations of production, by literally destroying capital or blockading the relative and absolute extraction of surplus value, sabotaging the ability of capital to valorize itself"
Eden does claim to be a left-communist on his website.
"When the world revolution comes, there will be thousands of leftist organizations, some establishment, some populist, some Bolshevist, some Stalinist, some Trotskyist, some Maoist, some anarchist, even some left communist (sadly enough), all claiming to have the best line for the proletariat to follow. In reality, they are the counterrevolution, whose goal is to cease the revolutionary process and return the exploiter class back into political power. They justify this in various ways through their various ideologies. It is the job of pro-revolutionaries to not only attack the Right but also bitterly denounce and criticize all of the organizations (possibly even wreck them, if necessary) of the Left and discredit them in front of other workers, so that they will not be able to co-opt the real movement of the proletariat for state capitalist ends. Leftism in all of its forms, from establishment to populist to radical, is a cancer upon the proletariat, almost as counterrevolutionary and bloody as fascism in its continued prolongation of capitalism through subversive means. It must be discredited or destroyed for communism to succeed."
he does critique it a bit too at earliest article
aren''t you missing that eden calls themself an ultra-leftist, not specifically a left communist?
aren't you only attacking the belief that someone else has of him being a left communsit figure, not eden's own claim of left communist greatness (as if there could be such a thing).
You know, I thought that with the advent of the internet and mass communication, free access to millions of books, that people's reading ability and general comprehension skills would improve. How wrong I was. If you notice, him being called a left communist or what ever is entirely ancillary to him being shit and having shit ideas.
Wait, what's the difference between left communism and ultra-left?
Who this is blog is directed at I have no idea.
Themselves. They write to learn.
They appear to have learnt nothing. Not really a good sign, is it?
[deleted]
If we're going by Eden it means doing nothing because revolution is automatic.
This is david harvey levels of stupid. He's saying that workers should demand higher wages, not to demand the abolition of wage-labour.
Rosa Luxemburg wrote that reformist struggles can be productive not from their successes but from their violent failures as working class retaliation becomes more militant.
And that is precisely why no one should take Luxemburg seriously.
Why not both?
This charge of them supporting an "unconscious", spontanous and mechanical revolution isn't the first time it's been levied at them. Look here on Critique of the Consciousness-Raising Model of Revolution (Supplemental Reading to Monsieur Dupont’s “Nihilist Communism”)
I did comment on this terrible article bach when I was an MLM. Maybe it still holds up: https://smashingnirvana.wordpress.com/2017/06/25/into-the-nonsense-of-communization-a-maoist-review-of-critique-of-the-consciousness-raising-model-of-revolution/
E: This is a poor article, given my ideological nature at the time. So, no, it doesn't hold up.
Well right off the bat it conflates left communism with nihilism/political quietism, so no, it doesn’t hold up.
Of course that's wrong and was a result of my ignorance on left-communism. But that wasn't the meat of the matter.
Nah, there’s plenty of other stuff that’s wrong here, including the fallacious assertion that the only alternative to fetishized spontaneity is “building the left”
Oh, that slipped my mind. Well thank you for the comments, though!
I don't know who this is but they sound like a moron.
Are you against Brexit?
An invariably social-democratic party that has no communist demands. If they are actually communists then they sure try to mask their language. From their "about" page.
There's no word of revolution here, or class action.
We believe the Republicans and Democrats are both parties of big business, and we are campaigning to build an independent, alternative party of workers and young people to fight for the interests of the millions, not the millionaires.
Giving the impression that they are a party of the average person, against Big BuisnessTM which is something that I believe even Donald Trump is running under. This is further reinforced by the tag "Fighting for the 99%". This is typical of Trots around the word who just find popular slogans and then try to appropriate them.
As capitalism moves deeper into crisis, a new generation of workers and youth must join together to take the top 500 corporations into public ownership under democratic control to end the ruling elites’ global competition for profits and power.
This is just plain nationalisation and state-capitalism which is used to protect capital. See Engels " But of late, since Bismarck went in for State-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious Socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkyism, that without more ado declares all State-ownership, even of the Bismarkian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the State of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism", and this state nationalisation is in opposition to actual revolutionary class activity of "nationalisation from below".
We believe the dictatorships that existed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were perversions of what socialism is really about. We are for democratic socialism where ordinary people will have control over our daily lives.
Implying that the problem with those places is that they weren't democratic, which again, stems from Trotsky and his ideas of degenerated and deformed workers' states.
Furthering emphasising their social-democratic outlook is the list of demands they provide.
Create living-wage union jobs for all the unemployed through a massive public works program to develop mass transit, renewable energy, infrastructure, healthcare, education, and affordable housing.
Which isn't much more than New Deal type politics in order to stimulate the capitalist economy.
Free, high quality healthcare for all. Replace the failed for-profit insurance companies with a publicly funded single-payer system as a step towards fully socialized medicine.
A good thing but again, this is a fairly common social-democratic thing and is in fact an actuality in many European states, and others around the world, already. I don't think that there's any consideration of the fact that these welfare programs came from the conservative parties in opposition to socialists who had none of their own.
No budget cuts to education & social services! Full funding for all community needs. The federal government should bail out states to prevent cuts and layoffs. A massive increase in taxes on the rich and big business, not working people.
More social-democracy.
Raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hour, adjusted annually for cost of living increases and regional differences, as a step towards a living wage for all.
A minimum guaranteed weekly income of $600/week for the unemployed, disabled, stay-at-home parents, the elderly, and others unable to work.
Also not a specifically socialist demand and is also an actuality in places.
Stop home foreclosures and evictions. For public ownership and democratic control of the major banks.
A nationalised bank is still a bank.
No more layoffs! Take bankrupt and failing companies into public ownership and retool them for socially necessary green production.
More implications that they are a social-democratic party that has no visions of society outside of capitalist production. Green capitalism is still capitalism.
Free, high quality public education for all from pre-school through college. Full funding for schools to dramatically lower teacher-student ratios. Stop the focus on high stakes testing and the drive to privatize public education.
Free education is already an actuality and a plain social-democratic demand. More appeals to nationalisation as a solution to capitalist crisis, as if it was private capitals that caused it.
Repeal all anti-union laws like Taft-Hartley. For democratic unions run by the rank-and-file to fight for better pay, working conditions, and social services. Full-time union officials should be regularly elected and receive the average wage of those they represent.
Corbyn calls for the same repeal of anti-unions laws (and in order to get around that the need to keep workers pacified, there's also a proposed co-operative and democratic management involving workers). A democratic trade union is still a trade union and would still serve the same purpose of being a go-between between labour and capital. Also not sure how they propose to break up existing trade unions but what ever.
For a guaranteed living wage pension.
Repeat
Shorten the workweek with no loss in pay and benefits – share out the work with the unemployed and create new jobs.
Just create new jobs out of nothing, comrades.
Money for Jobs and Education, Not War
These demands are just like every other liberal demands on war.
Environmental Sustainability
Proposed capitalist solutions to the environment.
Equal Rights for All
Repetition of demands couched in terms of civil, social and economic equality under a capitalist frame work.
Break with the Two Parties of Big Business
More things said by every want to be left wing of capital group.
Capitalism produces poverty, inequality, environmental destruction and war. We need an international struggle against this system.
Sure, but it's not going to come about with people who support protectionist economic politics and nationalisation such as
Repeal NAFTA, CAFTA and other “free trade” agreements which mean job losses and a race to the bottom for workers and the environment.
Which is pretty much suggesting a step backwards instead of a push for a revolutionary change, or even for a discussion on such a topic (cause all they really want is "socialism").
Solidarity with the struggles of workers and the oppressed internationally – An injury to one is an injury to all.
Solidarity be with you
Take into public ownership the top 500 corporations and banks that dominate the U.S. economy and run them under the democratic management of elected representatives of the workers and the broader public. Compensation to be paid on the basis of proven need to small investors, not millionaires.
Repetition of the same nationalisation plans, also support for the "small investors". Probably stemming from the petit-bourgeois nature of state-capitalists and Trotskyist groups.
And right at the very end
A democratic socialist plan for the economy based on the interests of the overwhelming majority of people and the environment. For a socialist United States and a socialist world.
So a fairer capitalism that goes under the banner of "socialism", where much of the demands are already accomplished facts in many other countries.
25 replies:
What I find the funniest is that members of SAlt on Reddit give a ruthless critique of Bernie Sanders because he is a Social Democrat, but fail to realise that they're just barely better.
Clearly, Sanders just needs to come even closer to the left of capital, comrades! Then the USA will become a worker's state!
[deleted]
They're no different to every other trot group that I deal with on almost a daily basis.
what about the AWL? It seems trot groups not standing in bourgeois elections have the capacity to be less social democratic since they don't have to formally 'sell' themselves in the framework of bourgeois society (unlike Socialist Alternative which can only orientate itself relative to the mainstream political climate at the time...and in periods of low struggle irrecoverably tend towards keynesianism).
Implying that the problem with those places is that they weren't democratic, which again, stems from Trotsky and his ideas of degenerated and deformed workers' states.
could you expand?
could you expand?
I think rooster's talking about how the theory of "degenerated workers' states" and the criticisms of Stalin as 'tyrannical' by Trots ignore the fact that the USSR was state-capitalist from the get-go, and sort of imply that things would've been a lot better under Trotsky or someone of his ilk.
It's true to an extent that Trotsky probably would not have been as brutal and paranoid as Stalin, but Kronstadt showed how Trotsky and the Old Bolsheviks were already more than willing to crush workers' uprisings, so it's a moot point anyway.
Some links and quotes I got when I wanted to show SAlt's commitment to small businesses beyond Sawan't recent plan.
https://www.facebook.com/smallbusinessforsawant/
http://www.socialistalternative.org/2014/02/17/fight-15-hour-minimum-wage/
Socialist Alternative is very open to helping small businesses...
Help for small businesses can be organized by taxes on big business (which are at historically low rates) and eliminating corporate welfare to subsidize small businesses...
Raising the minimum wage will help small businesses by increasing the spending power of their potential customers...
http://www.socialistalternative.org/2014/04/10/oneseattle-big-business-disguise/
It’s big business that crashed our economy in 2008 and has stacked the deck against workers and small businesses...
When was the last time the state legislature had a special session to give $8.7 billion in tax breaks to small businesses like they did for Boeing? Boeing’s handout was destructive and divisive – it will be paid for by slashing funding for critical social services and raising taxes on working people and small business...
We need unity of Seattle’s residents, workers, communities and small businesses...
support for the petty-bourgeoisie is socialist you god damn ultra left-deviationist
Something something united front against big business and fascism.
Something something, what do you mean this is basically what anarcho-capitalists talk about?
I used to think socialism had to cater to the petty-bourgeois, until I realised that almost nothing would change for them, except their sweet, sweet profits, and that such kind of thinking only makes sense for peripheral microbusiness owners who truly aren't that much better off than their proletarian compatriots (and not even all of them).
As a Stalinist I though Trots were slightly liberal but still comrades.
As a leftcom I think Trots are the most annoying group on the "left." Their opportunism knows no bounds and whenever you call them out their only response is, "yeah well what have leftcoms ever accomplished."
I'm friends with a couple of older, more working class trots, who generally have a pretty clear picture of Marxism but then they'll just go into crazy mode when it comes to actual political stuff, with supporting any sort of vague lefty over some other political group, which reached a nadir around Corbyn.
"yeah well what have leftcoms ever accomplished."
We'll never know what some of them could have, since Trotsky led utterly brutal suppression of them.
[deleted]
Stronger rhetoric that what was quoted above, no doubt, but parts of it stick out to me for one reason or another. They're not in parliament, it should be added. Not a believer in that process, to their credit. At the least their rhetoric is recognisable as revolutionary.
It's actually one thing to resort to rhetoric and another when we look at their practice and actual political demands. This is of course ignoring the whole Trot thing of socialism = democracy. Partly this is why both Trots and Stalinists argue over democracy like a pack of liberals rather than modes of production (because for trots a nationalised economy is a socialist economy minus the revolutionary party running it).
Dauve: "If one goes back to Trotsky's quarrel with Lenin in 1903-4 and in the following years, in the "Menshevik" period of his life, one must admit that he rightly saw the flaw in the Kautsky-Lenin view that "class consciousness" arises outside the workers' movement, and is then introduced into it by the "party." This is explained in Our Political Tasks, although it is considerably blurred by many other ideas. Trotsky refutes Lenin's conception from a democratic point of view: he does not see communism as the abolition of the commodity economy and the creation of a new world, but as the rule of the workers over society [...] to him socialism was equivalent to workers' power."
But as we can see, Trotsky didn't stray far from regular social-democracy, and Trotskyism itself just completely succumbed to it with the whole popular front strategy and the "transitional program". Much of the demands are just purely reformist in nature in the US equivalent.
Someone mentioned in the other thread that while the rhetoric and demands aren't revolutionary, the inner workings of the party are different. Which doesn't help anyone and is actually how the majority of trot groups work, by having all of these front groups while never really revealing this fact, all with a lack of democracy when dealing with the inner core and so on. Usually this involves the need to actually connect to the working class, usually by taking over slogans (or trying to propagate some) so that they become more widely recognized, and then more popular at elections, all in order to gain a mass party or something.
The membership requirements are also pretty loose for this rank and file numbers reason, ignoring the fact that in only a minority will ever become actual communists in times of social-peace, leading to the prevailing ideas of the ruling class becoming the prevailing ideas of the party. That is if they actually have any real communist positions that they hold secretly. I don't doubt that there are some actual communists in these parties but they appear to be an impotent minority.
Also looking at some of the other material they put out, such as this article Kshama Sawant re-elected - Seattle’s political revolution continues, where if one was to read it just as it is all they could take from it is that SA are just trying to disentangle the state apparatus from the "corporations", with all that is needed is just building a mass movement to vote people into office. This is an incredibly common idea amongst trots as I have said.
Slightly off topic, but bloody hell the Adelaide branch is annoying.
I went to a meeting once back before I became a left com after seeing them around Uni and by the end of it they were already pestering me to sign up for a year for their newspaper and to either give them money to join as a member or as a sign of "solidarity".
A pair of friends of mine, an older couple who have never been politically active until tax cuts, spoke to one of them here (must have been on the street at some demo) where they were then pestered every day by phone calls trying to get them to join. They also told the CWI person about me, which then resulted in them trying to call me as well! Lamenting on the phone about "how dire the situation is" and how "we need to do something" and how I should come along to one of their meetings.
When "building a mass party" looks just like trying to sell someone a new vacuum cleaner.
This is why we call them the used-car salesmen of the left.
Unfortunately for me, the only socialist organisations in the city where I live (Wellington) are some random hardline tankie group and a local branch of the ISO (blech). There are some good enough discussions that happen in the ISO meetings, and I've started a reading group with some members that seems like it'll be worthwhile, but damn do they enjoy trying to hock off their magazine at every chance they get. Really annoying when I'm at a demo or a march with them and they zip around from person to person with a stack of magazines constantly.
[deleted]
Australian Socialist Alternative are a section of International Socialists
Thanks for that. Three months and I still hadn't figured that one out.
While I agree their policies aren't communist, given the current climate in the united states, this is best they can get away with. I rather have social democratic reforms in my lifetime than nothing now while I wait for a revolution that won't come.
this is best they can get away with.
Exactly, but that doesn't keep people from calling them a revolutionary party.
I rather have social democratic reforms in my lifetime than nothing now while I wait for a revolution that won't come.
I honestly think revolution will come sooner than a return to social democracy. In the current crisis, it isn't going to happen.
I honestly think revolution will come sooner than a return to social democracy. In the current crisis, it isn't going to happen.
That's interesting, what makes you think that? I know that social democracy obviously isn't going to return any time soon due to the miserable state of the world economy/the high debt burdens of many developed countries, and it most likely won't ever return. But what about the prospects for revolution?
A lot of things the last ten years or so seem to suggest an increase in the revolutionary attitude of the working class. From the immigrant protests ten years ago, to the Arab Spring, to the reactions against Islamophobia in Europe and police brutality in America, to the rise of labor strikes in China and other places around the world, as well as a host of other thing I'm either forgetting or unaware of.
To paraphrase Dauve (because I don't think I'll be able to find the quote I'm looking for), revolution happens when people decide they can no longer stand one more day under their present conditions, and it just seems to me that people are starting to get tired of it.
Well that's definitely an angle I hadn't thought of, I was more fixated on old-fashioned labour strikes etc in the developed world :P But yeah it does seem that there's a lot more restlessness and protests of that sort happening in the past few years. Like even though I've only started to take notice of world news since after the GFC, I never remember hearing about that much unrest when I was growing up in the late 90s/early 00s.
In addition, what do you make of this blog post from the Marxist economist, Michael Roberts? He basically says that Europe and the US have run out of ways to make an actual recovery from the GFC, and that the next global crisis will also hit the BRICS economies (notably China) very hard as well. So if there's another major economic meltdown coming in the next 5-10 years, that seems like there could be buried potential for revolution in there. Idk, maybe i'm just too optimistic
late 90s/early 00s.
I didn't hear about it at the time either but the "Battle of Seattle" happened in 1999.
He basically says that Europe and the US have run out of ways to make an actual recovery from the GFC
My understanding is that the only way for capitalism to get out of crisis is to devalue capital and that the only effective way to do that on a large scale is global imperialist war. The developed countries originally planned to stave off crisis by shifting production to underdeveloped countries is the 70's and 80's, but as things continue to stagnate war ends up being the only option left. I think there might be some analogues here with the rise of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, left-liberals who want to increase the power of the state, and the election of FDR in America, Hitler in Germany, and Mussolini in Italy around the time of the Great Depression.
I don't know that big economic crisis is something that breeds revolutionary energy. The biggest economic crisis in history led to World War II, and outside of Spain I don't know of any places where the workers rose up against their conditions.
Nice research.
3 replies:
Surely even the most vulgar and self-serving of trade unions are better than no unions at all. I can sympathize with WSWS position here, but at the same time it seems to me that I would rather see workers frustrated that their self-supported organization is inadequate than workers who lack even an awareness of how organization can benefit them.
As usual, don't pay too much attention to the conclusions of the SEP.
Here therein lies the need for a communist party.
14 replies:
All texts that Marx wrote about the IWMA are interesting, especially ones that deal with day to day operations and the various tendencies within it.
I wonder if Marx could have predicated that this
And the history of the International was a continual struggle on the part of the General Council against the sects and amateur experiments which attempted to assert themselves within the International itself against the genuine movement of the working class.
Would still be something that we'd have to deal with.
Where the working class is not yet far enough advanced in its organisation to undertake a decisive campaign against the collective power, i.e., the political power of the ruling classes, it must at any rate be trained for this by continual agitation against and a hostile attitude towards the policy of the ruling classes.
How things haven't changed.
What I also like as well was the description of Bakunin's theoretical baggage; "the assembled rubbish he has scraped together from Proudhon, St. Simon, etc". What I don't think that people understand is that it was only later that Proudhon and proudhonists were considered to be anarchists (they called themselves socialists). Really not surprising that modern day anarchists eagerly accept all shades of bourgeois socialism when it was already in their theoretical baggage back in the time of Bakunin.
All texts that Marx wrote about the IWMA are interesting, especially ones that deal with day to day operations and the various tendencies within it.
The practice of the IWMA makes for quite the contrast to the Second and Third International, which aped modern parties in many respects.
[removed]
Pretty typical for an anarchist to engage in semantic hand wringing
It’s incredible to me that the idea of an ‘epistemological break’ between early Marx and late Marx continues to hold currency in many ‘leftist’ circles when correspondence like this exists and is widely available.
Can you explain what this letter has to do with a supposed distinction between an early and a late Marx? I don't see how it is related to that discussion.
[deleted]
If you're writing this to try to sound smart then you've spectacularly failed.
I wanted to reply to them, but people seem prone to hiding that they've taken a stance, instead of discussing it. The dialectic of speaking out of one's ass and being afraid of getting "cancelled" for it can be overcome in a very easy way: putting down one's ego and having enough curiosity to acquire knowledge by oneself. Then one does not need to resort to indeterminacy in order to avoid to be pinned down, an art which people learn so thoroughly by writing university papers.
Nevertheless, a few comments:
Marx can be seen here touching on many of the same themes identified in his earlier, supposedly ‘more philosophical’ texts - the need for the proletariat to constitute itself as a class and conquer political power, for example, is heavily emphasised both here [...] and in much earlier texts like the German Ideology and the Communist Manifesto.
The need for the proletariat to consitute itself as a class and conquer political power is not something only belonging to a "young Marx" for proponents of a supposed "epistemological break". More, Althusser initially, in the earlier 60s, argued that the German Ideology would mark that break, so it doesn't make sense to list that work and the Manifesto that was written even later as examples of "young Marx". Only after the availability of a French translation of the Grundrisse in the late 60s made it clear how erroneous this notion is did he double-down to the extent of claiming that merely the Critique of the Gotha Programme and some chapters of Capital would be free from ideology, speaking of a process instead of a clear break, and making his position even more ridiculous.
a letter from Marx’s last years
This letter was written in 1871. Marx died in 1883.
There is no clean break between Marx’s philosophical and economic criticisms; the same themes recur, often explored from different vantage points, but always driven home as crucial points of emphasis. Anyone who can’t see the critical-philosophical undertones present in Capital, an ostensibly ‘economic’ work, for example, is likely blind.
Marx does not make "philosophical and economic criticisms" in the sense of merely criticising a given subject matter from a philosophical or economic standpoint. He engages in a critique of philosophy and political economy as such.
This letter reveals that Marx was very much still committed to the revolutionary project elucidated in his early years, and to the criticisms levied in his original works.
Communism is not a "project". It is not a matter of mind, much less that of an individual one.
Thanks, I’ll think on the points you made. I think I worded my reply poorly and was far too hasty with my original judgement. Do you have any reading recommendations for this subject beyond Althusser’s For Marx?
Do you have any reading recommendations for this subject beyond Althusser’s For Marx?
No. I don't think it's a particularly interesting subject. The notion of an "epistemological break" is not sound, but whether it is should only bother Marxologists to begin with.
What do you mean by Marxologists? People who fixate on Marx the man rather than Marx’s actual writings?
People who are more interested in Marx's writings as such than they are in communism.
Thanks, I’ll think on the points you made
Mommy: Now, Imperator461, the stove is hot. If you touch it you'll burn yourself Imperator461: Thanks, I’ll think on the points you made.
I think I worded my reply poorly
You didn't word it poorly; you wrote gibberish because you didn't understand what you were talking about.
3 replies:
You may have no clue, but how many Italians today still revere Bordiga? A quick Google search told me that most Italian "Communist" parties today are sadly either Trotskyist or ML, but I was wondering how big the LeftCom movement over there is.
The Italian communist left claim to have something along the lines of over 2,500 members. How true that is I have no idea. It's not unusual to find some left communist papers or see a Bordiga book in a chain book store. Then again, this is a country that has big events set up by the socialist and communist parties (the crap ones), where most towns have a communist party office and where you have places named after leftists and places like Via Stalingrado.
The Italian communist left claim to have something along the lines of over 2,500 members.
Is this just from one party, or across multiple organisations?
4 replies:
I hope this isn't off-topic, I just wanted to share this site I made with a group of people most probably interested in it.
This is definitely very helpful, thank you very much!
Great work! Redtexts.org is now updated to include links to your site.
epub
Sweeeeet!
Hello all
I have been looking at Lebanon and one thing that stands out is a relatively high level of worker struggle prior to the civil war, and a lower level after (and basically nothing during). The major mobilisations prior to the war were of industrial workers (for wage increases, equal pay, maternity leave, reduced hours, etc) whereas the only mobilisations of size afterwards were of the middle class -- teachers, professionals, public servants, etc.
The authors I have read so far link this to the destruction of the manufacturing sector and the failure to rebuild it. The post-war economy was built on speculation, foreign aid and remittances from overseas. It is not particularly productive and smaller firms dominate. This ILO report [.pdf] notes that only 5% of workers belong to enterprises with over one hundred employees.
Is this a trend that has been identified in other examples, or something mostly unique to Lebanon in the time period in which the war + recovery occurred? Are there other case studies or secondary literature at hand that help us to identify what this means for the constitution of a militant proletariat?
Thank you in advance for any help.
4 replies:
Is this a trend that has been identified in other examples, or something mostly unique to Lebanon in the time period in which the war + recovery occurred? Are there other case studies or secondary literature at hand that help us to identify what this means for the constitution of a militant proletariat?
The question is interesting, but I don't know enough about Lebanese conditions to give you a satisfying answer. If industry indeed was destroyed by the civil war and was never rebuilt, then you're probably right about this being a major source for the retreat of the labour movement there.
What might also contribute to this standstill is the toll war takes on proletarian institutions themselves. The war could also have brutalised workers' consciousness, brought forth a change in needs, and directed workers away from their own aims. It might be useful to look into the effect the First World War had on the British proletariat, or the consequences of the Russian civil war on proletarian institutions and the Bolshevik party, for reference.
Thinking about it a bit more I suppose I was being a bit short-sighted looking at it only in terms of the Lebanese economy, considering how connected it all is to regional economies/politics, particularly Syria. I'm leaning towards the conclusion that this may be something unique to Lebanon as opposed to a general trend -- not many other countries have the kind of political system Lebanon does, and the patronage system it is build on is bound to cause the economy to develop in odd ways.
Thank you for the suggestions, I will look into those. Did you have any particular books or articles in mind that covered this?
Thinking about it a bit more I suppose I was being a bit short-sighted looking at it only in terms of the Lebanese economy, considering how connected it all is to regional economies/politics, particularly Syria.
That's always true. You can never consider a state in isolation.
Thank you for the suggestions, I will look into those. Did you have any particular books or articles in mind that covered this?
No, not really. As far as I remember, the common histories dealing with the British labour movement and those dealing with the Russian revolution will cover those matters.
https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/7fkkin/auschwitz_or_the_great_alibi_left_communism_and/
Several claims and positions associated with Bordiga are misleading, some border on myth. Anyone with greater textual knowledge able to challenge what this Trotskyist is presenting as given. As for the overall topic of the thread, the relevant Auschwitz essay is undoubtably controversial, but with all its problems it feel more that its being used as an emblem for a piece of sectarianism posing as analysis.
10 replies:
[deleted]
There's literally so much wrong with it literally that it's literally a real effort to even be bothered to literally try to literally debunk all of it. I tried with the more egregious examples but lol mhl is either literally a moron or a genius, but I'm literally going for the former, literally.
this author thinks they're some marxist, damn. anyway I'll delete this thread now, I just got angry before I had scrolled down and seen /r/dr_marx comment
Nah keep it up.
[deleted]
thanks. just saw your comment!
It's really disappointing that it got 200+ upvotes on /r/badhistory. I always considered that sub to be pretty good at dispelling bullshit.
[removed]
[removed]
1 reply:
Either Herr Heinzen here understands “injustice in property relations” as the above-mentioned pressure to which the absolute monarchy still subjects the bourgeoisie even in its “most sacred” interests, in which case he is only repeating what has just been said — or he understands “injustice in property relations” as the economic conditions of the workers, in which case his pronouncement has the following meaning: The present bourgeois property relations are “maintained” by the state power which the bourgeoisie has organised for the protection of its property relations. The proletariat must therefore overthrow the political power where it is already in the hands of the bourgeoisie. It must itself become a power, in the first place a revolutionary power. Again, Herr Heinzen is unconsciously saying the same thing as Engels is saying, but again in the steadfast conviction that he is saying the opposite. What he says he does not mean, and what he means he does not say.
I think anarchists, and indeed a good many so-called communists, would do well to read this passage.
14 replies:
Berti further reported that Bordiga then would have got up and left. Togliatti, concerned about Bordiga’s behaviour, would have suggested that the central committee of the RCP be informed about the situation and the questions raised.
This image of Bordiga as the rock that was standing in the way of Bolshevisation in Italy, and generally the counterrevolution internationally, is pretty funny. Only the fascists managed to finally dismember the party enough to pave the way.
With this account of Togliatti being concerned about Bordiga simply leaving, it's amusing to recall that when Togliatti visited Naples during the Second World War, he did not want to believe that Bordiga, after being expelled from the party, and being under fascist police surveillance, had stopped his political activity. He apparently replied that this would be impossible, and that people should find out what's going on, saying that they would still have an account to settle. On the other hand, it's not particularly surprising that a Stalinist would not understand that the communist movement can be momentarily defeated.
As late as 1945, government officials apparently still believed Bordiga to be behind the small, still resolute communist networks that existed, due to his popularity among workers - 15 years after he was expelled from the PCd'I. Even with all the tedious work the Stalinists did to force the left out of the party, it still haunted its class enemies.
We reproduce the dialogue like an incomplete transcript, in part falsified (according to Angelo Tasca by the Gramscian-Togliattian centre), has handed it down.
Well, given for how long the PCd'I leadership tried to suppress the history of its formation, cultivated Bordiga as being a persona non grata while playing up Gramsci, I suppose this is not that surprising. After all, it's in line with the general trend of forgeries by Stalinists.
In no country can the ruling class hold the direction of public affairs alone. The wealthiest class so far has been the bourgeoisie, but it has always ruled with the help, albeit passive, of other classes.
Interestingly, this sounds very similar to the stupid ideas of Gramsci about "imposing hegemony on the subaltern classes" (very normal notion!), which exemplifies how he was already ready and available as the useful idiot of counterrevolution.
Today we have the proletarian class in power, but it keeps itself in power mainly at the expense of the peasants. The proletariat is in the minority and is not rich enough to hold and manage the state alone. The state is therefore forced to live for the most part at the expense of the countryside, of the peasants.
This is very frank and it makes me wonder about Stalin's plan going into this meeting, given that it was him that offered it. Such a statement should have raised a lot of eyebrows, but considering how confused all delegates of the Comintern seemed to have been, it's probably not surprising that most of them didn't react. With Stalin sounding almost the exact same ten years later, this just confirms that Bordiga's later in-depth analysis about Russian social relations, particularly with regard to agriculture, was entirely correct. The form of the kolkhoz contributed to this standstill. Marx:
I say on the contrary; the social movement will lead to this decision that the land can but be owned by the nation itself. To give up the soil to the hands of associated rural labourers, would be to surrender society to one exclusive class of producers.
Then:
The difference lies in this: comrade Trotsky began with an analogy and constructed his entire critique on it. What was his goal? He wanted to change horses during the race without taking into account of the essentials. But one cannot build on an analogy.
Stalin says, while making an analogy.
Our industry is capitalist in the administrative aspect, but viewed organisationally, it is socialist.
It would be interesting to hear what this is supposed to mean.
It should be noted that these questions are essentially Russian.
Haha.
Besides the Western parties are not yet prepared to discuss them.
Well, Stalin clearly was right in the sense that most other parties were utterly confused. In this context, Bordiga's long statements before the ECCI should also be read. In fact, those minutes are something people with an actual interest in communism should read in any case.
Certainly the position of the Russian party in the International is a privileged position. We are aware of the existence of this privilege and we also feel the responsibility that comes with it.
It seems they were more aware of the privilege, and less of the responsibility. But at this point, the Russian conditions, and consequently also party life, were already a complete clusterfuck, so I suppose the conduct of the Russians within the Comintern is not that surprising. Which is what obviously must happen if the problems the Russian labour movement had entangled itself in are attempted to be solved within the boundaries of the nation. Proper, non-abstract internationalism remains somewhat of a litmus test for communism, and it's symptomatic of the whole situation that almost no one in the Comintern seemed to have understood this at the time, respectively what the significance of the International even is. Instead, the delegates went there with the intention to learn from the Russians how "revolution is made". Apparently the Germans were even wearing top hats. Given their history, it's probably what they were used to from the Second International.
Interestingly, this sounds very similar to the stupid ideas of Gramsci about "hegemonising the subaltern classes", which exemplifies how he was already ready and available as the useful idiot of counterrevolution.
It is surprisingly similar. I suppose Stalin was already at this point a well developed petty bourgeois cretin.
This is extremely frank and it makes me wonder about Stalin's plan going into this meeting, given that it was him that offered it.
The parts where he starts saying that the Russian question can no longer even be debated in the various parties implies to me that Stalin already felt secure enough of the situation that he could start putting out dogma. Here already he is putting forward the myth that he and Lenin had no disagreements whatsoever.
This just confirms that Bordiga's later in-depth analysis about the conditions of Russian social relations, particularly with regard to agriculture, were entirely correct.
It's possible that he was already working towards that based on how this conversation developed. After Stalin starts going on about the relations in Russia (which if we were to take his own words here, remained the exact same from 1926 to 1936), Bordiga immediately starts questioning him about the connection of Russian problems with the comintern.
Here already he is putting forward the myth that he and Lenin had no disagreements whatsoever.
Stalin's wish to be worshipped as a genius is pretty funny when you keep in mind how early on, on the occasion of disagreements, he sometimes started sulking alone in his dacha, and it took the persuasion of several Old Bolsheviks to get him to leave. A true manchild.
It's possible that he was already working towards that based on how this conversation developed.
In his 1970 interview, he confirms that his suspicions were a lot deeper even than what he had brought before the ECCI:
At the same Congress of Moscow, in 1920, your conduct led some to believe, as reported, that you ‘without daring to say so, were afraid of the influence of the Soviet state on the Communist Parties, and the temptations of compromise, demagogy and corruption; and that, above all, you did not believe that a peasant Russia was capable of guiding the international working-class movement’. Does this interpretation correctly reflect your thinking?
I did in fact harbour the reservations stated in your question, and articulated in the quotation from Victor Serge.
Also:
Bordiga immediately starts questioning him about the connection of Russian problems with the comintern.
And Togliatti immediately tried to shut that down.
We reproduce the dialogue like an incomplete transcript, in part falsified (according to Angelo Tasca by the Gramscian-Togliattian centre), has handed it down
Reading over it again, I suspect that this Bordiga may have been more confrontational with Stalin. His reaction in the middle seems too out of place for such a simple statement. I wonder what else could have been falsified in this. It's already pretty damning as it is.
His reaction in the middle seems too out of place for such a simple statement.
I agree. Unless Stalin's ego was already that big back then.
I wonder what else could have been falsified in this.
Well, from that footnote mentioning what Bordiga recalled about the meeting, the actual tone seems to have been a lot rougher, with more questions being put on the table than what we find here. As an anecdote, this is what Stalin remarked about Bordiga at the same congress:
I can respect and believe Bordiga, although I do not consider him a Leninist or a Marxist; I can believe him because he says what he thinks.
The fitting commentary to an environment where the majority had already learnt to not say what they thought.
I agree. Unless Stalin's ego was already that big back then.
He did seem awfully concerned about not wanting to discuss Russian problems with any foreigners. Either Stalin was perceptive enough to understand the implication, or someone repeated the question twice in the transcript.
He did seem awfully concerned about not wanting to discuss Russian problems with any foreigners.
Coming back to what I said earlier about internationalism, it's very noticeable how prevalent national narrow-mindedness was at the time among delegates of the Comintern.
Just look at Radek and Bukharin, who both were part of the Russian left communists early on: Radek went on to court people with "National Bolshevism", while Bukharin's national outlook is apparent even from his early work on the imperialist state. The superficial criticism of the councilists-to-be didn't consider the international situation either.
One reason for this might have been that most of the delegates were not actually workers - except for members of the Hungarian and Italian parties. I'm sure most of them conceived themselves as generals commanding armies. People like Trotsky did, in any case.
If you look at actual documents, it becomes even more clear how clueless many of the delegates must have been. Zinoviev produced this assessment of the Italian PSI in December 1921. In June 1922, so barely six months later, he came along with this piece, which could not stand in a more stark contrast to the first. The speed and degree to which flip-flopping happened was insane.
Bukharin's national outlook is apparent even from his early work on the imperialist state
Bukharin's cretinism was apparent from then and it took no change in tack for him to formulate socialism in one country.
One reason for this might have been that most of the delegates were not actually workers - except for members of the Hungarian and Italian parties. I'm sure most of them conceived themselves as generals commanding armies. People like Trotsky did, in any case.
The third international seemed to operate more like the second, with the various national sections. Much unlike the IWMA which was concerned about bringing workers together to manage their own affairs. I suppose that's why in this way the only real parties of any worth in the comintern were the ones that had actually had a large proportion of workers in their ranks.
If you look at actual documents, it becomes even more clear how clueless many of the delegates must have been. Zinoviev produced this assessment of the Italian PSI in December 1921. In June 1922, so barely six months later, he came along with this piece, which could not stand in a more stark contrast to the first. The speed and degree to which flip-flopping happened was insane.
While at the same time the Russian envoy to Italy was praising Mussolini while the PCI was being persecuted. This can only make sense in the context of them trying to convert the CI into an arm of the Russian foreign policy.
Today we have the proletarian class in power, but it keeps itself in power mainly at the expense of the peasants. The proletariat is in the minority and is not rich enough to hold and manage the state alone. The state is therefore forced to live for the most part at the expense of the countryside, of the peasants.
I dont understand why eyebrows should be raised, isnt it true? Is there an implication here im not understanding? Could the proletariat hold and manage the state alone?
Yeah why would the dictatorship of the proletariat involve only the proletariat holding power
lmao true, I guess i was under the impression that the proletariat was too weak because of the civil war and famine
Which is why Bordiga was stressing that the problems in Russia could not be solved within the confines of Russia, it was up to the international proletariat. The solution to the weakened dictatorship wasn't further concessions to the peasants, that's the exact opposite of a solution.
makes sense, thanks
Yeah and that was one of the factors that was damaging the state’s proletarian character
1 reply:
The rebellion of the middle classes against the regime explains the mass and popular character of the Iranian revolt. But the proletariat still has powerful links with the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie, and in the absence of a bourgeois revolution, which could have exposed the broad masses to an intense political struggle, the interests of the various classes had not become differentiated. The terrible consequences of the Stalinist counter-revolution condemn the young Iranian proletariat, in spite of its great combativity, to fight without a party which could guide its steps, hasten the assimilation of its own experience, and teach the proletariat its own program.
8 replies:
They had to [break safety regulations], they said, or they would lose their jobs. So they took the risk.
Then, if they got hurt, they would lose their jobs anyway.
Reading that made me angry.
This shit happened to me. Broke a bone at a facility on a 60+ hour week, and they made me keep working on it for 3 days. They tried to get me to admit I hurt myself outside of work. I kept demanding xrays. Finally saw an "approved" doctor, Doctor confirmed broken bone. It healed ok, but is misaligned now. Occassionaly get pain and nerve tingles. Not sure if that will get worse with age.
I was out of work for months, and they delayed my comp pay for 3 months -- no income. Talking to other coworkers, I was told the same shit happened to them. Lots of injuries. Many of them had comp pay delayed, denied, etc.. One woman was being paid off in Chili's gift cards (and they included it as taxable income on her paystubs!). Some were evicted in the periods they went without pay.
I had to threaten lawsuit, with proof of their negligence. They promptly paid me a lump sum and changed their attitude after that. They pretty much left me alone, didn't lose my job... but it was tense after that, they were definitely pestering me about "performance" issues very frequently.
Fucking Amazon. More testimonials and reporting, the better.
She started the job in April 2018, and within two months, or nearly 100,000 items, the lifting had destroyed her back. An Amazon-approved doctor said she had bulging discs and diagnosed her with a back sprain, joint inflammation, and chronic pain, determining that her injuries were 100 percent due to her job. She could no longer work at Amazon. Today, she can barely climb stairs. Walking her dog, doing the dishes, getting out of her chair—everything is painful. According to her medical records, her condition is unlikely to improve.
Capital sucked her labour power practically dry. The product literally consumed her.
fucking scum
Fucking vile shit
But, hey, I’m sure this would all be solved if only the workplace had more democracy /s
[removed]
Yes, what do workers have to do with communism at all?
1 reply:
A text that utterly destroys the myth of Trotsky as a heroic opposition to Stalin.
3 replies:
Very engaging/clarifying articles. Also,
“By its above-mentioned casting-off of all private property..., communism necessarily also abolishes individual existence.” (So Herr Heinzen is reproaching us for wanting to turn people into Siamese twins.)
Obviously if you don't have private property you don't exist.
Proletariat? Never heard of 'em!
Only some notable excerpts, in the hope that someone actually reads the article:
But how does the great “agitator” Herr Heinzen conduct his propaganda? He declares the princes to be the chief authors of all poverty and distress. This assertion is not only ridiculous but exceedingly damaging. Herr Heinzen could not flatter the German princes, those impotent and feeble-minded puppets, more than by attributing to them fantastic, preternatural, daemonic omnipotence. If Herr Heinzen asserts that the princes can do so much evil, he is thereby also conceding them the power to perform as many good works. The conclusion this leads to is not the necessity of a revolution but the pious desire for a virtuous prince, for a good Emperor Joseph. In any case, the people know far better than Herr Heinzen who their oppressors are. Herr Heinzen will never transfer to the princes the hatred which the serf feels for the feudal lord and the worker for his employer. But of course Herr Heinzen is working in the interests of the landowners and capitalists when he puts the blame for the exploitation of the people by these two classes not on them but on the princes; and the exploitation by the landowners and capitalists is after all surely responsible for nineteen-twentieths of all the misery in Germany!
Herr Heinzen calls for an immediate insurrection. He has leaflets [Heinzen, Teutsche Revolution. Gesammelte Flugschriften] printed to this effect and attempts to distribute them in Germany. We would ask whether blindly lashing out with such senseless propaganda is not injurious in the highest degree to the interests of German democracy. We would ask whether experience has not proved how useless it is. Whether, at a time of far greater unrest, in the thirties, hundreds of thousands of such leaflets, pamphlets, etc., were not distributed in Germany and whether a single one of them had any success whatever. We would ask whether any person who is in his right mind at all can imagine that the people will pay any attention whatever to political sermonising and exhortations of this kind. We would ask whether Herr Heinzen has ever done anything else in his leaflets except exhort and sermonise. We would ask whether it is not positively ridiculous to trumpet calls for revolution out into the world in this way, without sense or understanding, without knowledge or consideration of circumstances.
Herr Heinzen appears, to be alluding here to the fact that Communists have made fun of his sternly moral demeanour and mocked all those sacred and sublime ideas, virtue, justice, morality, etc., which Herr Heinzen imagines form the basis of all society. We accept this reproach. The Communists will not allow the moral indignation of that, honourable man Herr Heinzen to prevent them from mocking these eternal verities. The Communists, moreover, maintain that these eternal verities are by no means the basis, but on the contrary the product, of the society in which they feature.
Herr Heinzen imagines communism is a certain doctrine which proceeds from a definite theoretical principle as its core and draws further conclusions from that. Herr Heinzen is very much mistaken. Communism is not a doctrine but a movement; it proceeds not from principles but from facts. The Communists do not base themselves on this or that philosophy as their point of departure but on the whole course of previous history and specifically its actual results in the civilised countries at the present time. Communism has followed from large-scale industry and its consequences, from the establishment of the world market, of the concomitant uninhibited competition, ever more violent and more universal trade crises, which have already become fully fledged crises of the world market, from the creation of the proletariat and the concentration of capital, from the ensuing class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie. Communism, insofar as it is a theory, is the theoretical expression of the position of the proletariat in this struggle and the theoretical summation of the conditions for the liberation of the proletariat.
3 replies:
I stumbled upon this old video and found it interesting in so far as it exemplifies various phenomena very well.
The worker starting to talk at around 2:03 in a somewhat crude manner expresses the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat - a healthy antidote against the dogma of a necessarily limited "trade-union consciousness" without education from non-proletarians. The movie itself of course subsumes this utterance under support for the movement towards worker's ownership which it tries to promote.
At the same time, the whole documentary showcases the necessity for the communist party, which is able to help overcome the limitations of these struggles, clear up confusion, drive further the association of workers that we can already see here in embryonic form (thereby also overcoming the latent nationalism here), and show that worker ownership is a dead-end: imagine the hell of what the guy at 15:53 describes, with workers taking on the tasks of marketing or the law department.
The video also shows in a clear manner how conservative the supposedly communist and ever rehashed idea of "economic democracy" is, by putting forward its bipartisan support in the US under the Carter administration (cf. also Reagan later), as well as arguing that it would amount to a "healthier industrial climate" - i.e. a pacified proletariat.
The Il Partito ICP also talks about the early cooperative movement in the US in its newest issue of Communist Left.
I loved this video, it's very interesting. Thank you for sharing it. This quote from the worker really stood out to me:
"I feel that the rich man made the law. There's no legal way a working man can walk in a courtroom and fight, like they're trying to fight US steel. No, I don't believe you can really fight US steel. You're gonna lose. Anytime you jump on somebody big with money, you're gonna lose, legally. You can't do nothing legally. Not legally, I can't see a thing legally you can do. The whole country is in a mess, and the only way that's gonna be changed, there's only one way it can be. In the mill, I have a boss that tells me, 'hey, go do your job.' I better go do my job or I'm fired, alright? You got politicians, and you got big business people. You don't tell them what to do. It doesn't make sense! Somebody has to tell somebody what to do! And until the working man, he's the one... I think it's always been said that someone better get out there willing to do something. I'm afraid it's me, if the working man don't start standing up to the government, to the whole setup, because we've been stepped on all our lives. That's all I can see."
3 replies:
More on rank-and-file unionism in Italy:
On the arrest and the charges against the national SI Cobas coordinator Aldo Milani:
Just last week some militants close to Autonomist inspired groups had their house searched without any motivation. The political situation in Italy is getting worse by the day.
8 replies:
Particularly section 2, 5 and 6 should be interesting for people who haven't read this before.
I also found 3 and 4 very interesting, especially given the climate of proposed 'bandage' reforms in the US (and other countries) today. As someone who is still very much learning, it helped clear up the difference between the reforms proposed by the IWA, which were meant to strengthen the working class, and all of the hogwash that gets thrown around today.
Thanks for sharing.
I also found 3 and 4 very interesting, especially given the climate of proposed 'bandage' reforms in the US (and other countries) today.
There is a letter by Engels to Bebel in which he also mentions not consenting to any increase in the power of the government as a rule of thumb for the attitude of the communist party to political questions, just like you can find here in section 4.
While this might work as an indication of the general marching direction, it is insufficient to make adherents of middle class ideology understand why each particular of their moralistic plots to "improve people's lives" is incompatible with the labour movement fighting for itself.
This could be seen very well in the thread on Sanders, where people even when presented with a proper explanation would either come up with poorly considered ad hoc arguments to attempt to connect their position with communism, or would wish to not draw the practical consequences from what has been laid out. They go to extreme lengths to avoid questioning their petty bourgeois presuppositions, let alone practically forfeit their social standing.
A proper understanding within the party is important not only to make aspiring members from the middle class shed their outlooks, but also to prevent opportunism of any sort. In this circular letter for example, Marx and Engels comment on how the lack of understanding of the SPD on the matter of protective tariffs in the given circumstances lead to it embarrassing itself in parliament. Thus, the communist party must study all questions which can practically confront the labour movement thoroughly.
As someone who is still very much learning, it helped clear up the difference between the reforms proposed by the IWA, which were meant to strengthen the working class, and all of the hogwash that gets thrown around today.
It is also worth noting that the IWMA was very cautious to not argue for any measure that would potentially prop up a middle class. This is mentioned in many of their documents, which can be found in the book I recommended here. This consideration is just as important today.
From section 5:
(b) Restricted, however, to the dwarfish forms into which individual wages slaves can elaborate it by their private efforts, the co-operative system will never transform capitalist society. to convert social production into one large and harmonious system of free and co-operative labour, general social changes are wanted, changes of the general conditions of society, never to be realised save by the transfer of the organised forces of society, viz., the state power, from capitalists and landlords to the producers themselves.
(c) We recommend to the working men to embark in co-operative production rather than in co-operative stores. The latter touch but the surface of the present economical system, the former attacks its groundwork.
I found this part particularly striking, as it highlights the difference between the leftist fantasy of "workers owning the means of production" and the communist goal of greater proletarian association leading to their dictatorship.
This part should also drive home what communism is about:
It is the business of the International Working Men's Association to combine and generalise the spontaneous movements of the working classes, but not to dictate or impose any doctrinary system whatever. The Congress should, therefore, proclaim no special system of co-operation, but limit itself to the enunciation of a few general principles.
Likewise, in the Manifesto:
They [the communists] do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
This should be shown to every Wolffite leftoid out there.
Sometimes there is reference to a middle class. Is the middle class the same as the bourgeois term or does Marx means something else?
It depends. In most cases, it is a historical reference in the context of the developed countries at the time, denoting the bourgeoisie for its past middle position within society, between aristocracy and rabble, before the emergence of the capitalist mode of production. Remnants of the aristocracy survived within bourgeois society for a certain period, which means that calling the bourgeoisie "middle class" was well understood for a long time. In other countries, pre-capitalist relations of production prevailed, for which the term therefore simply described the present condition of their national bourgeoisie. This is also why Marx will sometimes refer to the petty bourgeoisie as the "lower middle class".
"Middle class" can also be used in relation to the current, globally fully developed capitalist society, in which case it means the petty bourgeoisie. This use is explained thoroughly in this thread, and the comments by /u/pzaaa linked there, in which they describe the boundaries of this class. Given that many people still seem to think of nothing else than small business owners when they read the term "petty bourgeoisie", this should be relevant. This text and this article might also be of interest to you.
As to this particular text, when I CTRL + F "middle", I come across these sentences:
If the middle and higher classes neglect their duties toward their offspring, it is their own fault.
The combination of paid productive labour, mental education bodily exercise and polytechnic training, will raise the working class far above the level of the higher and middle classes.
Here Marx is presumably deliberately not more specific, as at the time of his writing the capitalist mode of production was not dominant in every country yet - as mentioned before. He is writing for the proletariat, so for an international audience, which means that what he says needs to encompass the conditions in all countries. By saying "higher and middle classes", Marx addresses the most advanced countries (referring to the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie) and those in which pre-capitalist formations, or their vestiges, still exist (referring to the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie).
On the other hand, unconsciously to themselves, the Trades' Unions were forming centres of organisation of the working class, as the mediaeval municipalities and communes did for the middle class.
In order to prevent co-operative societies from degenerating into ordinary middle-class joint stock companies (societes par actions), all workmen employed, whether shareholders or not, ought to share alike.
Why do the workmen of Europe take up this question? In the first instance, because the middle-class writers and agitators conspire to suppress it, although they patronise all sorts of nationalities, on the Continent, even Ireland. Whence this reticence? Because both, aristocrats and bourgeois, look upon the dark Asiatic power in the background as a last resource against the advancing tide of working class ascendancy; That power can only be effectually put down by the restoration of Poland upon a democratic basis.
The deleterious influence of large standing armies upon production, has been sufficiently exposed at middle-class congresses of all denominations, at peace congresses, economical congresses, statistical congresses, philanthropical congresses, sociological congresses.
In each of these cases Marx obviously means the bourgeoisie.
45 replies:
This article is dog shit. It just ignores criticisms, doesn't understand some apparently, and just plods on with this weird mythical "antifa". I don't know why these people want to use genuine anti racist struggles as some sort of prop or cover to promote their terrible leftism.
The identification of fascism with racism is liberal at core. It shows that people do not know a lot about historical fascism, especially its Italian variety. This kind of conflation also enables the leftist hobby of calling everything they don't like fascist - a racist democratic government is called "fascist", so that one can counterpose it to an idealised democracy.
It pretty much takes out every class and historical aspect of fascism and racism. Maybe this is a reflection of a lack of an actual working class movement in the US, so that these posers have to attach themselves to everything that comes along their way. The tactics employed also only serve give ammunition to the people opposing them. If, for example, the racists in portland were allowed to march around, then what would they have accomplished? I doubt it would have even made the news, and they would only make the news through their own actions.
It pretty much takes out every class and historical aspect of fascism and racism.
Amidst the worst class collaboration, and the lack of a strong organised labour movement, somehow fascism is supposed to stand at the doorstep! And then look at the disgusting moralistic attempt at dismissing arguments:
While Trotsky’s Fourth International eventually committed to a defense of the Soviet Union and liberal democracy, the Bordigists remained “revolutionary defeatists.” Fascism was merely bourgeois dictatorship, a reaction to the inability of liberal democracy to adequately defeat proletarian revolution. World war and dictatorship could only make such a revolution more likely, as it had in Russia in 1917.
In the aftermath of the fascist period, the extent of its horrors now known, such a position is more scandalous than ever.
When it's in reality the anti-fascists that are abusing the "horrors now known" to defend capitalism! Besides, I do not know what they attempt to say with bringing up revolutionary defeatism here. Do they argue in favour of participation in the Second World War? It would not be the only case of conceptual confusion in this text.
Maybe this is a reflection of a lack of an actual working class movement in the US, so that these posers have to attach themselves to everything that comes along their way.
You just need to watch this video to know about the social basis of this publication.
Holy fuck that video lmao
Grab your tote bag and hoodie while you can can!
You know, you really can't fight climate catastrophe without manufacturing and shipping a completely pointless tote bag.
1,074 backers pledged $65,828 to help bring this project to life.
lol holy fuck who falls for these scams? I guess there are scam artists on both sides.
look at this. This person hasn't even read the title lol
Let alone the article, or the comments here.
Maybe the stupid in stupidpol is self referential.
I cross-posted that when there were like 2 comments. The only reason I'm subbed to this subreddit at all is for the occasional articles posted here that catches my eye. Otherwise, I have no desire to engage with the smug, overeducated nerds that populate like every online leftcom space.
The only reason I'm subbed to this subreddit at all is for the occasional articles posted here that catches my eye.
And then you tragically manage to pick the most stupid article posted here for ages!
Otherwise, I have no desire to engage with the smug, overeducated nerds that populate like every online leftcom space.
If the regulars of this subreddit are already "smug, overeducated nerds" for you, what would you then call Marx and Engels?
Not online leftcom dorks, for one.
I do not get this cancerous attitude of looking down on people taking things seriously, particularly online. Apparently you have to take an ironic distance towards everyone and everything, including yourself. It's like it's impossible to operate on any other mode except memes. Oh, you're serious about wanting communism? And you post on the internet at that? Fucking overeducated nerd!
Just fuck off with this.
Agreed, but I think it's a little naive to think any meaningful change is going to come from posting articles and texts on the internet.
Did anyone say or even suggest that?
You're just annoying tbh, and this spiel out of nowhere kind of proves my point.
haha do you finger your mother with those digits?
The stereotype of the smarmy, know-it-all leftcom is real. But this is the last time I grace you with a response.
The stereotype of the smarmy, know-it-all leftcom is real.
lol have you seen the people who write for commune magazine, the magazine that you're defending here?
But this is the last time I grace you with a response.
Damn, dude. Really hurts me in the feels. I really don't know how I'm going to go on and live my life after this.
Haven't read the mag, article has issues but some of it's premises ring true.
Here, here's a video of these totally non-yuppie, proletarian, salt of the earth, uneducated working class heroes.
Jesus Fucking Christ. They are like their own parodies. The amount of cringe is just overwhelming it really seems like a workplace sitcom of leftist organizing. That and all the merchandising makes this even more gross.
The kickstarter page is just cringe
Commune is a popular magazine for a new era of revolution. By popular, we mean that we will publish articles as easy to read on a bus or while you are slacking off at your office job as anything you find in The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Slate, or Jacobin. By revolution, we mean a magazine of politics and culture that knows what so many already intuitively recognize: everything must go.
"By popular, we mean that we will publish articles as easy to read on a bus or while you are slacking off at your office job" lol
Other magazines have shown that people will subscribe to a publication like ours, even when they can read much it for free online, as long as they get something attractive and collectible in return and as long as they believe it a project worth supporting.
We began this project with a wager: there is a hunger for a magazine that does what we are uniquely placed to do. Our initial social media and website rollout has confirmed this: within 48 hours of setting up our account we had 5000 followers. Though that’s a fraction of the attention we need to succeed, it confirms our intuition that there is a real excitement for this kind of project, and a real dissatisfaction with existing magazines.
The internet has ruined people.
Boy am I glad we were graced with another response!
article has issues but some of it's premises ring true.
The epitome of determinacy.
overeducated
lol what kind of attitude is this? Do you unironically post in stupidpol because you've taken up stupidity as an identity?
It is their only identity.
Is it an identity when it's just an inherent part of you?
That is fair. Probably not but they seem awful proud of being stupid so who knows.
It's really not surprising that they're yuppie student degenerates.
It is pretty interesting to see how fascism has been shifted to mean racism for whatever goddamn reason. It was also interesting how little contemporary liberalism cared about fascism and its rise in Italy with sometimes outright open support. That leftists have latched onto this definition of fascism equating racism and that they think fascism is something unique or seperate from capitalism says so much about leftists. That and it always leads to anti-fascism being a reinforcement of the status quo and the defense of liberal democracy.
The dumbest thing about this article is the ending
Reflecting on this experience, some Atlanta antifascists have called for abandoning the black bloc as a default tactic in favor of a “gray bloc” that allows militants to blend into the crowd, allowing for new forms of solidarity. This tactic was used in Charlottesville, skewing the usual opposition between right wingers and black-clad antifa. The resulting media coverage offered a vision of the form of struggle necessary to actually win: a group of violent racists against an entire town that had decided to fight back. In moving forward, antifa and pro-revolutionary groups more broadly should continue to change their wardrobe, ideas, and targets, in an effort to build a more effective movement against the state and capitalism. Or, for anarchy and communism, if that is indeed really what they want.
Antifa is only effective when it's not antifa. lol
It is pretty interesting to see how fascism has been shifted to mean racism for whatever goddamn reason.
The equation isn't that surprising. When the liberal bourgeoisie are writing history then they're not going to highlight the class conflicts that lead up to the counter revolutionary assault of fascism, so they'll focus on the things that they saw as problems of that period: the death camps and the scientific racism etc. The focus on racism, as distinct from or as a substitute, to class, is a petty bourgeois reaction.
I think there's a passing comment about it in regards to England in the 90s on one of those libri texts but I don't think it's developed much. Not that I recall anyway.
So stop being antifa....while being antifa...to be a better antifa? You think somewhere along the line of their logic they would see the gaping hole of what the problem seems to be, but no.
It is not surprising I just find it fascinating that so many people claim they are against the state, capitalism, status quo, and are super hypercritical leftists (lol) just take bourgeois history hook, line, and sinker and regurgitate it nonchalantly. Ok, I am not even surprised by that either. I guess I do find it amusing that the liberal bourgeoisie not only came up with such bizarre hair-splitting that even Trotsky could be proud of but they managed to make people forget how ok they were with fascism until it started threatening their investments. I mean fascism was one of the great allies of liberal democracy as they were strong-armed union busters and had no problems smashing strikes in the most violent ways but let's remove the class dynamic and focus on obscure racism that as you state removes class from the perspective entirely.
I guess I do find it amusing that the liberal bourgeoisie not only came up with such bizarre hair-splitting that even Trotsky could be proud of but they managed to make people forget how ok they were with fascism
Another example of this is them making people forget about their co-responsibility in the Holocaust, or also that the Madagascar plan was first contemplated by the British, French and Polish governments - and basically accepted by them later through the departure of the remaining Jews to the Middle East in the context of the population transfers after the Second World War.
The bourgeoisie finally got their wish. This sort of thing reminds me of slavery in the US, where it was abolished in principle but continues to exist through the prison labor system.
This kind of conflation also enables the leftist hobby of calling everything they don't like fascist - a racist democratic government is called "fascist", so that one can counterpose it to an idealised democracy.
There is even hysteria among leftists around individuals from fringe political parties. When Pauline Hanson was somewhat relevant here, leftists were using her as proof of a "looming fascist threat", even though her party held no political sway whatsoever. Of course, once she became irrelevant leftists parasitically attached themselves to the next fad.
Racism is sufficient for fascism, but not necessary.
I hope this is a joke.
the main North American antifa website, called for “an autonomous anti-capitalist force” that will “break out of the stranglehold of the symbolic, demand-based, and spectacular mode of activism.” This sort of reflectivity is common. Another antifa group cautioned against appearing in the “reactive role” in a “mere frontal clash between opposing forces” that allows the state to appear as a neutral enforcer of order.
Where has "antifa" ever broken "out of the stranglehold of the symbolic, demand-based, and spectacular mode of activism"? How is this even pictured? The fact that antifa hasn't, and only resorts to counter protesting says a lot about how much important these people place in empty posturing.
Instead of territorial disputes with skinheads, “anti-racist” activism focused on the societal and political bases of white supremacy, moving away from a view that saw racism as the bad ideas of bad men.
By attacking institutions. Right.
Antifa groups were among the first to sound the alarm that Trump’s campaign was an opening for explicitly white nationalist and anti-Semitic elements. They participated in the disruption of Trump campaign events in Chicago, Phoenix, and California.
And that was the last time we ever heard of this Trump fella.
Antifa groups were among the first to sound the alarm that Trump’s campaign was an opening for explicitly white nationalist and anti-Semitic elements. They participated in the disruption of Trump campaign events in Chicago, Phoenix, and California.
And that was the last time we ever heard of this Trump fella.
This is something that is perhaps the most puzzling about the defenders of anti-fascism - they insist on it, even though it has been shown time and time again that it fails to achieve what it aims at (if we buy for a second into the assertion that Trump would be a fascist). Look at what the article says about the Arditi del Popolo:
Many today believe that they would have had the power to stop Mussolini
Cutting edge analysis right there! And then the author has the audacity to bring up the Spanish Civil War, where the bankruptcy of anti-fascism was displayed in full. On that occasion, the text en passant conflates Bilan as being "Bordiga's magazine", but that's almost secondary considering the rest of this garbage.
There was an article on libri recently that went into the arditi that I thought was quite good. But it's stunning how this author keeps bringing up ghosts to vanquish but only then seems to agree with them.
Continually it makes a false equivalence to the 20s and 30s with present time
A revolutionary criticism of antifascism today ought to acknowledge that the dangers of contemporary fascism are real, offer a solid analysis of the phenomenon, and propose how it can be properly overcome.
Antifa’s critics are correct to note that this is not the Weimar era, but they don’t offer any alternative explanations or responses to today’s developments.
Continually it makes a false equivalence to the 20s and 30s with present time
It also attempts to historicise the position of the left without providing an actual reason for doing so.
I have also noticed that people will on the one hand disagree with the ICP about fascism being just another capitalist reaction, but then they will say that everything is fascism. Can't have both.
Nazism - both unique and always just around the corner simultaneously.
1 reply:
The late 1960s and early 1970s represented a period of great debate in the communist left in the face of contemporary class struggles. On one side you have the invariant Marxism of the traditional communists, on the other you had attempts at the rehabilitation of the council communist current. This texts represents an attempt at a critique by proxy of Pannekoek of the then contemporary debates that still has relevance today.
3 replies:
I hope it covers their ambiguity positioning towards diverse nationalisms such as Palestinian nationalism. I doubt it does tho, and not gonna check. It's good to imagine that in some far away land (that is, far away from the US) there is a mass class movement, but sadly it is neither and it can't be, or it wouldn't be a permanent mass organization.
I hope it covers their ambiguity positioning towards diverse nationalisms such as Palestinian nationalism.
As you didn't bother to explain yourself beyond throwing a few passive-aggressive sentences, I assume you to be alluding with this to the 1982 disintegration within Il Programma Comunista. If you knew anything about the question, you'd realise that the texts here are linking to Il Partito Comunista, which explicitly criticised the merger formula that lead the other party to the precise situation you're bringing up.
I doubt it does tho
It doesn't take a genius to understand that texts dealing with the union question will not deal with a political dispute almost 40 years ago. It sounds like you're attached to the idea of an infallible party, rather than dealing with the issues that pose themselves to an actual one.
and not gonna check
If you are not going to check, then what is the point of leaving a half-assed comment? Do you think you're acting on behalf of some sort of higher morality against what you assume to be the prevailing opinion in this subreddit?
It's good to imagine that in some far away land (that is, far away from the US) there is a mass class movement
Had you read the texts, you'd realise that they were translated to be circulated by the British section of the party, and that they come with an explicit provision stating that this is the situation in Italy and is not to be taken as being universal. I don't see what the point is of bringing up the situation in the US, unless you want to provide your own analysis of the situation there, and thus give a point of departure on whose ground one can discuss what the implications of that would be. The immediate struggles of proletarians in every country can only be overcome on an international level. If you're uninterested in the affairs of proletarians in other countries, you're unable to resolve the issues in the country you're based in, except within national terms - that is, you're not solving them at all.
but sadly it is neither and it can't be
You earlier admitted that you won't read the linked texts, yet here you are apparently able to state with necessity that the situation in Italy is not, and cannot be, a class movement. What great abstraction of yours does allow you such a sweeping judgement?
or it wouldn't be a permanent mass organization.
So the organisations of the working class can only exist on a transitory basis, otherwise they would immediately lose their class character? That's a good way of ensuring perpetuated proletarian impotence.
A couple of quick points: I'm talking about the ambiguity inside the SICobas, not Il Partito. And I'm talking about permanent mass organizations, not permanent vanguard organizations or mass organizations which arise to fulfill an immediate revolutionary task (e.g. Soviets).
Also, I can imagine that it was not for Italian comrades, yes. The situation in Italy is not only not universal, it's also not particularly different from the situation of the working class in southern Europe, and believe me I know what I'm talking about here. I don't live in the US BTW, but most of the Reddit userbase does.
Admittedly there's no much point in commenting that way, but I don't think Reddit is the place for a serious discussion with commited comrades, there are more productive and, above all, safer ways. My reason for commenting was just that I'm tired of reading about SICobas as it had anything in special more than being slightly influenced by Il Partito.
Anyway, don't take it very seriously.
1 reply:
A 1971 essay on the KAPD, its positive features (its break with the ideology and practice of social democracy) and its shortcomings (“ideology of the producers”), with discussions of, among other things: Lenin’s Infantile Disorder; the KAPD’s relations with the Third International; National Bolshevism; the AAU and AAUE; the KAPD as vanguard party; the counterrevolution, Stalinism and fascism; the crucial importance of Germany for the proletarian revolution; the KAPD’s influence on the communist currents of the 1960s; and the next, “human revolution” entailing the “abolition of the proletariat” (communism: “the mode of production in which the goal of production is man himself”).
1 reply:
So?
2 replies:
This text reads much better than most of the other stuff put out by the ICP. It's clear and to the point. Perhaps the difference is that this was written by Germans and not Italians or Frenchmen. It reminds me a bit of pre-WWII Bordiga.
Italians or Frenchmen
Degenerate romance languages smh
I was reading up on the Laval affair in Sweden and was interested if people here had anything to comment on the issue of labour unions in Europe having to compromise their real, physical influence and all it entails because of EU and this court decision in particular.
The Swedish unions quickly began a blockade of Laval sites and eventually the case found its way to the European Court of Justice. The ECJ found in favor of Laval in 2008; while the right for unions to take collective action is important, the court said, the right to free movement of services takes priority.
It seems to me that issues of this kind are creating a genuine rupture between the Social Democratic parties with their commitment to "European Integration" and the mainstream labour movement, despite the latter's deep entanglement with Social Democracy: Here are the main Swedish labour union's (LO) commentary on the issue. In particular:
The judgement is a setback for all wage-earners in Europe. We share this opinion with every trade union organisation in Europe, even the union organisations of the new member states.
and another, in particular the opinion piece by Thorwaldsson at the end:
If EU regulations facilitate, or in the worst case force, competition with wages and working conditions, the EU has no future. --
The basic simple fact is that social acceptance of free movement requires regulated labour markets and equal treatment of workers. Otherwise, people will turn against free movement --
If the part bolded my me is true, there would be an immense unity in European labour organizations on this issue, despite the general differences between wage levels etc. in the EU. It is also obviously true that the EU couldn't possibly continue its existence as it is without the support of Social Democratic parties, which in turn could not exist without the support of mainstream labour movement.
Why then the timidity to employ this potentially immense influence? Why evoke the boogeyman of popular nationalism instead of making the threat to EU explicit and class-based? Why let yourself be strangled by the cloak of legalism in the first place, when it didn't bother the labour movement in the past? Obviously there is also lot of other liberal and social-democratic baggage in the LO pieces.
4 replies:
It’s not just the Social Democratic parties that have changed with the times, most the big unions have too. Here in Norway our LOs leadership isn’t actually radical enough to do the things your suggesting. The simple answer to why the unions bother with legalism now is that they are a legal part of our political system, their interest is more in line with keeping the status quo going than doing anything that potentially might upset it.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Is it some surprise that the EU is an organization of capital?
It is also obviously true that the EU couldn't possibly continue its existence as it is without the support of Social Democratic parties, which in turn could not exist without the support of mainstream labour movement.
You yourself qualify your statement with the bolded part. I doubt that a change in the attitude of the unions would immediately pose a threat to the continued existence of the EU. That seems naive. Also, do you think the EU is the most important obstacle that the labour movement faces in Europe?
Why then the timidity to employ this potentially immense influence? Why evoke the boogeyman of popular nationalism instead of making the threat to EU explicit and class-based? Why let yourself be strangled by the cloak of legalism in the first place, when it didn't bother the labour movement in the past?
Mostly because a large part of the national trade union leaderships are not interested in proper class conflict, for various reasons. This is one aspect that communists ought to combat.
To preface, my original intention was just to post the Forbes article, which I found interesting in various ways, but then I decided to add my own thoughts and some questions, which got very rambly, I admit.
I doubt that a change in the attitude of the unions would immediately pose a threat to the continued existence of the EU. That seems naive.
This is really what I have thought, but perhaps I've been mistaken.
Also, do you think the EU is the most important obstacle that the labour movement faces in Europe?
No.
Mostly because a large part of the national trade union leaderships are not interested in proper class conflict, for various reasons. This is one aspect that communists ought to combat.
Is the problem here more so in the unions (way they are structured, their walled-in leaders etc) or a lack of proper political expression for the unions' (and workers' therein) interests?
Of course it's a different situation anywhere, but let's say I have in mind the Nordic countries, which are interesting in that they have a Labour movement, which is on the face of it very succesful in membership and power etc.
3 replies:
Here's some important context on the different rank and file unions in Italy, and the USB itself: http://www.international-communist-party.org/English/TheCPart/TCP_007.htm#Two%20strikes
What is the difference between these rank and file unions and other unions in Italy?
It's explained in the texts that are linked in the stickied thread about class unionism, specifically this one covers it in detail:
http://www.international-communist-party.org/English/TheCPart/TCP_002.htm#FirstCongress
6 replies:
We wish only to point out that the iron fist of fascism is concealed within the soft glove of democracy
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
4 replies:
I was hoping that the writer wouldn't forget the environmental side to all of this, which they didn't. Which is good because I think it is enormously neglected in the communist milieu generally. 'Ecological armageddon' is basically guaranteed at this point. It seems really bad right now, but it's just the tip of the iceberg. Maybe i'm too cynical but I can't really see how the communist movement, if it can still be called a movement, could possibly defeat capital now. Environmental disaster is escalating and I think it's more likely that the human effects of that, namely mass migration, will not produce a new communist wave but rather accelerate the barbaric trend of the 21st century.
another possibility is that were a revitalised, genuine communist movement to resurface and threaten capital, that the ruling class (the elites of the elites) would simply prefer instant nuclear armageddon to defeat and proletarian dictatorship. A final "fuck you, suckers, where are the codes?"
True, but I'm not that pessimistic (yet). First off, the point you raise about communists in general not talking enough about the environment is unfortunately very much true; and even when they do talk about it they usually end up in some techno-utopistic vague-talk. The machines and computers will solve everything! Yeah, sure.
On the other hand, I believe that capitalism is nearing its next, and possibly final, global crisis. I'm not sure if there will be another world war - actually for now it seems the article is correct insofar as it claims that "failed states" and endless civil wars are the order of the day - but there certainly will be a major crisis, of which environmental degradation will definitely be a factor.
Now, will communists be ready to activate when shit hits the fan is another matter... but that's why we should solidify our ranks during "peacetime".
I was hoping that the writer wouldn't forget the environmental side to all of this
Are there any books you or anyone else can recommend? Recent, reliable summaries of the state of the research and projections up until now, I mean. I've read 500 news articles on the endless upcoming doom just like every other asshole and I'm at the point where I need something more substantial.
Let the capital fall! Isn’t that what we want? Capatalism goes down communism up Yee? Don’t avert! Down with the capital!
1 reply:
Here, for the first time in English, is Camatte’s introduction to the 1974 edition of Bordiga’s, and the Italian Left’s, long study on the nature of the Russian revolution. Camatte provides a very brief outline of the perspective that Bordiga took on in order to answer this question. Camatte also provides his own commentaries on the nature of capital today, not all of which we fully agree with.
1 reply:
There are additional notes taken of the second of the two speeches here:
Complete abstention from political action is impossible. The abstentionist press participates in politics every day. It is only a question of how one does it, and of what politics one engages in. For the rest, to us abstention is impossible. The working-class party functions as a political party in most countries by now, and it is not for us to ruin it by preaching abstention. Living experience, the political oppression of the existing governments compels the workers to occupy themselves with politics whether they like it or not, be it for political or for social goals. To preach abstention to them is to throw them into the embrace of bourgeois politics. The morning after the Paris Commune, which has made proletarian political action an order of the day, abstention is entirely out of the question.
We want the abolition of classes. What is the means of achieving it? The only means is political domination of the proletariat. For all this, now that it is acknowledged by one and all, we are told not to meddle with politics. The abstentionists say they are revolutionaries, even revolutionaries par excellence. Yet revolution is a supreme political act and those who want revolution must also want the means of achieving it, that is, political action, which prepares the ground for revolution and provides the workers with the revolutionary training without which they are sure to become the dupes of the Favres and Pyats the morning after the battle. However, our politics must be working-class politics. The workers' party must never be the tagtail of any bourgeois party; it must be independent and have its goal and its own policy.
The political freedoms, the right of assembly and association, and the freedom of the press — those are our weapons. Are we to sit back and abstain while somebody tries to rob us of them? It is said that a political act on our part implies that we accept the exiting state of affairs. On the contrary, so long as this state of affairs offers us the means of protesting against it, our use of these means does not signify that we recognise the prevailing order.
1 reply:
Are there any practical slogans here? This article, while great at detailing the situation and its history, ends with vague calls for internationalism -- but how can this be propagated among the South Korean and Chinese proletariat?
70 replies:
Who let all the SocDems in here?
Can we stop removing comments please. I can't see what some people are saying (regardless of how stupid it may be), that is no good and not helpful at all.
This article asserts that Trump, Le Pen and the new populists aren't going to want to change the democratic foundations - that they're not really fascists. Fair enough. But are we going to turn a blind eye to their followers? Just look at Charlottesville, that's happening right now. There are literal nazis there, white supremacists, who feel that Trump is their guy. Trump may not be explicitly fascist, but he is changing the frame of reference - white supremacy is being reinvigorated. The Alt-Right definitely has elements of fascism, in rhetoric and in their goals. And not to forget that the Alt-Right made Trump a candidate - just look up how Steve Bannon and Breitbart went and met with Trump before his candidacy and became his propaganda platform right after he did.
But are we going to turn a blind eye to their followers? Just look at Charlottesville, that's happening right now.
1,000 people who represent less than 0.0003% of the population and possess absolutely no political power. They represent absolutely no threat to either capitalism or communism yet the left feel determined to expend 99.9% of their energies on them. Why?
I'm not arguing that point, we do spend a lot of effort into those people. However, they're not just in Charlottesville. There's a larger movement within the alt-right, and they're gonna keep getting larger.
What I am arguing is that we shouldn't give up on anti-fascism - and it's entirely misleading to say we're spending 99.9% of our energy on it - the left is much much larger than a few college campus demonstrations. I'd dare say anti-fascist demonstrations doesn't even make up the largest demonstration forces - just look at G20, that was huge, which brought leftists from all over Europe to Hamburg for anti-capitalist demonstrations.
What I am arguing is that we shouldn't give up on anti-fascism - and it's entirely misleading to say we're spending 99.9% of our energy on it - the left is much much larger than a few college campus demonstrations.
Antifa in the last instance means supporting one set of bourgeoisie against another. A fact that you reinforce with your gotta vote against Trump and Le Pen shit.
I'd dare say anti-fascist demonstrations doesn't even make up the largest demonstration forces
Then why give a fuck if it's such a nothing?
[deleted]
Only ideologues think that anti-fascism must mean pro-democracy
Could you please point out where I even mentioned democracy? The rest of your post is shit, and you probably know it by the pitifully weak point you add at the end in order to prop it up.
[deleted]
It's quite clearly implied that you are saying Antifa opposes "fascist" bourgeoisie in favor of a "progressive, democratic" state configuration or whatever. If you did not mean this, I'd like to hear what section of capitalists you think Antifa prefers to fascists.
And where haven't calls for anti fascism ended up doing this? And again, what has this got to do with being "pro-democracy" at all?
You are apparently unable to understand that organizing against specific forms of oppression (i.e. racism, xenophobia) is necessitated by the structure of the capitalist world, and that fortifying communities who are victims of those types of oppression is actually important, and can be done in a way that does not rely on the state (even if, obviously, capital and its state will do anything it can to subsume extra-governmental movements and this is always a concern for any organization regardless of its nature).
No I'm not, do you think I'm stupid? How shallow is your understanding of fascism that it only includes overt racism? Does this imply that the struggle against slavery was a struggle against fascism?
I always felt this position Leftcoms hold is ridiculous since it's usually not them who are at risk for violence against their race. It's the same for other movements like BLM.
I always felt this position Leftcoms hold is ridiculous since it's usually not them who are at risk for violence against their race. It's the same for other movements like BLM.
You're going to have to explain this.
Violence against minorities. Fascists target people who aren't white.
Are Marxist tendencies racially specific?
what? I'm not sure where you got this from.
Read your own post again.
That it's minorities who are the target of these race-motivated crimes?
Read the highlighted part of your post.
The claim I made that most Leftcoms tend to be white?
Explain what you mean.
Leftcoms tend to be white which makes it hard for them to see why minorities would support these groups. It's not their life that's in danger so it's easy for them to say it's "worse than fascism"
Please cite your sources.
I don't have a source. Unless you can find that one bordiga meme where he apparently said it's worse than fascism. Which Leftcoms love. The rest is anecdotal so I'm afraid I can't a cite a source where I encountered a leftcom who said so and so.
Why are you here?
I agree with many of the leftcom positions but I tend to disagree with them on many social issues.
Oh I see, the "I have no idea what left communism is" position. It's very popular on reddit, I hear.
Because I don't think minorities should have to face violence from fascists? And that it's much better for them to be alive than for them to you know not be? I disagree with Leftcoms on one thing and now all of a sudden I have no clue what left communism is.
You don't "disagree with Leftcoms on one thing," you've made up this fantasy position that says they're okay with minority groups being targeted by fascists, and that Leftcoms don't think it's better for them to be alive than not to be
Whatever you say.
Fascists target people who aren't white.
I'm sorry, but that's just bullshit. Lots of people attack people who aren't white. Was the slave trade fascist now?
I did not say all attacks on POC is fascism. There are motivated groups of white nationalists who do so and many people who individually do so.
It's the only fucking criteria you've made. Your idea of fascism is about as complicated as a bag full of rocks and vague as shit.
It's pretty pathetic reading all these commenters put words in your mouth. These white people don't know and look, they've even brought in their 'black friend' in.
It did get annoying. It's pretty ironic for a group of people so against misinterpretations.
The first comment was sort of contradictory, so it kinda said that BLM is not a target for violence due to their race. Well, that's how I read it. Anyway, thanks for the clear up but I think should fix it by removing the "same goes for BLM" comment because it contradicts itself.
EDIT: some words
Lol get the fuck out of here. Do you think that black people can't be communists? I'll be sure to tell my black comrades and other POC comrades the next time I see them that they should be Maoists or something.
I never said that. I said most Leftcoms are white not that they should be white. I never said all Leftcoms are white either. Or that POC commies should be Maoists....
I said most Leftcoms are white
Oh? Are you a cop now or something? I don't even have a database of the ethnic make up of every communist left party and left communist associate in the world.
I don't doubt that thjey're right about the numbers of black left-communists, I've never even met another black communist in general, myself. That doesn't take away the fact that they're an asshole for this comment
I always felt this position Leftcoms hold is ridiculous since it's usually not them who are at risk for violence against their race. It's the same for other movements like BLM.
Especially considering that I fear for my safety as a result of this far-right surge in the last few years. I would hope that my white comrades feel solidarity with me, rather than feeling perplexed by the fact that anyone white would stand with me.
Lol you liberal communists better be afraid of the AltRight. White people on the right are sick of your shit. And we're ready to do battle. 88
What do you expect your battle to accomplish?
I'm so scared.
Trump may not be explicitly fascist, but he is changing the frame of reference - white supremacy is being reinvigorated.
How surprising, the great man of history theory with a liberal sprinkling of idealism on top? How out of the blue this is!
To be fair, and not that I agree with their point, but it doesn't seem like there's anything in the quoted text that's explicitly idealist, and they could be referring to Trump not as an actor of any change, but as a representative of a movement that has been reinvigorated.
Glad to see at least the leftcoms haven't lost it.
Just to let you know, this is a subreddit for communists. Your reactionary views are not allowed here.
Oh, it appears you have met me before then. Sorry thought police. I'm gonna go wait for my ban PM.
[removed]
0c53f952b5938aee47fa8796650aa0f524af36d5223f31851e68b8ea3c4d01334544881d384578a2e31836970a46d39cb6569abf1b61f7353b1679e0b5fa92a0
No, I'm done. I have been subbed here for a long time because I was willing to hear you guys out, but at the point where I see "fuck antifa because it might not result in the exact communism we want" with 100% upvotes, I finally realized how full of shit this perspective is. If you can't even come together over the question of literal nazis, then you do not deserve my consideration anymore.
"fuck antifa because it might not result in the exact communism we want"
lol how long did you say you were reading things here for?
You should read the actual text instead of vague hand-waving about "muh exact communism", it's worth a read (and it's short).
Is fascism really what Trump, Le Pen and others of their ilk represent? There’s nothing that indicates that their aim is to do away with the basic rules of the democratic game. That doesn’t mean that they are not dangerous. But democracy can accommodate repression, war crimes and attacks on the working class just as well, if not better, than fascism. The common denominator is increased nationalism and militarism. Most of the ruling class may have preferred Clinton but they are more than willing to see if Trump can use these tools to protect and increase their profits. The health care bill, recently approved in the House of Representatives, amongst other measures, shows clearly that the new administration is launching a ferocious attack on the proletariat. No wonder it evokes disgust and anger, which we share. We express our solidarity with the protests and struggles against the attacks of the state, while at the same time pointing out that this is capital attacking the working class, not fascism attacking democracy. In fighting back, the choice comes up: do we ally ourselves with factions of the ruling class in opposition in order to defeat the faction in power, or do we fight them both? By framing the conflict as one between fascism and democracy, the partisans of antifa are making the first choice seem logical and necessary, and are thereby, despite their combativity, acting as water carriers for capitalism.
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.(Info/Contact)
You've completely misunderstood the article.
Nor are there multiple kinds of communism
[removed]
The article even links antifa with Stalinism.
Antifa was literally the purpose of the majority East European Stalinist states.
Antifa are anarchists.
They're supporters the bourgeoisie who are more than happy to drop any revolutionary principle. Maybe you should take a long look at Stalinism, you might find something in common.
I've been subbed here for years
I'm fairly certain that you're a moron liar. How many things have been posted here about fascism that you've yet to comment on?
You are a moron.
There is no such thing as purity test.
[removed]
Fortunately it's not a position being pushed by this essay, nor by leftcoms in general
[removed]
I actually think I might agree with you here, though you may disagree with why. The historical critique of antifa doesn't quite apply to the situation in the US today, mostly because there isn't a major fascist movement in the US today. Fascism is an existential threat to bourgeois democracy, hence the criticism that antifa movements defend said democracy, but the milieu of white nationalist that this so-called "antifa" arrays itself against is well within the wheelhouse of neoliberalism.
Holy shit dude just read the fucking article. Don't comment if you aren't going to read it. They aren't saying that standing up to white nationalists are bad, they are saying the logic of anti-fascism is bad because it plays into the hands of Capital (historically and in contemporary times) and binds the proletariat to the petite-bourgeoisie:
Is fascism really what Trump, Le Pen and others of their ilk represent? There’s nothing that indicates that their aim is to do away with the basic rules of the democratic game. That doesn’t mean that they are not dangerous. But democracy can accommodate repression, war crimes and attacks on the working class just as well, if not better, than fascism. The common denominator is increased nationalism and militarism. Most of the ruling class may have preferred Clinton but they are more than willing to see if Trump can use these tools to protect and increase their profits. The health care bill, recently approved in the House of Representatives, amongst other measures, shows clearly that the new administration is launching a ferocious attack on the proletariat. No wonder it evokes disgust and anger, which we share. We express our solidarity with the protests and struggles against the attacks of the state, while at the same time pointing out that this is capital attacking the working class, not fascism attacking democracy. In fighting back, the choice comes up: do we ally ourselves with factions of the ruling class in opposition in order to defeat the faction in power, or do we fight them both? By framing the conflict as one between fascism and democracy, the partisans of antifa are making the first choice seem logical and necessary, and are thereby, despite their combativity, acting as water carriers for capitalism.
Not really sure why you think the bolded parts refute or even address my initial post.
In what way, frankly, is using non state sanctioned violence against white supremacists allying with the Democratic Party or anyone? I haven't seen Antifa distributing flyers for Kamala Harris. Antifa is not a force for lesser evil electoralism.
Because you seem to think "standing up to white nationalists is bad" is their argument. Which isn't the argument they are putting forward, that's a misunderstanding of what the article is saying, which is why I quoted and bolded parts, to help and make that clear.
In what way, frankly, is using non state sanctioned violence against white supremacists allying with the Democratic Party or anyone? I haven't seen Antifa distributing flyers for Kamala Harris. Antifa is not a force for lesser evil electoralism.
Because the logic and framework of anti-fascism leads (or already has begun leading to) class collaboration. The rhetoric of anti-fascism, because it is not class based and is rather framed as "democracy vs fascism", necessarily brings about a class collaborationist front. It allows liberals whom are filled with their own petty-bourgeoisie conception of society to join the anti-fascists and fight for democracy.
Rather the framework or rhetoric should be "socialism or barbarism" to express the nature of Capital in it's manifestation of Fascism. The logic of anti-fascism will necessarily play into the hands of Capital as it continues. Communists should oppose fascism of their own agency instead of allowing the logic of anti-fascism to play out and class collaboration-ism to take place.
You can tell this because of this sentence here:
In fighting back, the choice comes up: do we ally ourselves with factions of the ruling class in opposition in order to defeat the faction in power, or do we fight them both?
I propose that we fight them both. Which is what I think this article was implying or alluding to.
Hopefully that clears it up a bit.
Because the logic and framework of anti-fascism leads (or already has begun leading to) class collaboration. The rhetoric of anti-fascism, because it is not class based and is rather framed as "democracy vs fascism", necessarily brings about a class collaborationist front.
But this is merely asserted rather than actually shown.
I propose that we fight them both. Which is what I think this article was implying or alluding to.
That is an argument for a different KIND of Antifa, not anti-antifa
This reads like trying to import tactical lessons from Europe in the 20th century to a context where they are not relevant and probably actually counterproductive. (Assuming they weren't also counterproductive then, which I think is an open question.)
[removed]
1 reply:
Follow-up: https://www.ericlee.info/blog/?p=2015
Second follow-up: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/10/01/ukra-o01.html
https://twitter.com/StupidpolX/status/1274480450224959488
What's up with that?
36 replies:
who once called anti-fascism the "most sinister" product of Fascism
Make sure it sounds as scary as possible!
and fought against attempts by Italian Communists to form a broader anti-fascist alliance
These "Italian Communists" were just defending democratic capitalism. Why would communists defend one form of capitalism against another?
Fascists and social-democrats are but two aspects of tomorrow's single enemy
The author should think about what Bordiga is saying here, then they should think about what this means for their "Bordiga liked Fascism" theory.
Several of Bordiga's followers went on to become prominent Holocaust deniers
Who?
a trend started by the revisionist essay "Auschwitz, or the Great Alibi"
That's odd. I don't see how that article would turn anyone into a Holocaust denier given that the entire point of it is to explain why the Holocaust happened.
Bordiga himself was expelled from the Italian Communist Party following his releases from prison in 1930
Hmmm I wonder what happened in the PCI that might have caused that.
Bordiga expressed critical support for the Axis powers on many occasions
When?
and reiterated this position in his publications after the war.
Which publications?
Living up to the name of their subreddit, it seems.
Make sure it sounds as scary as possible!
Considering this post was supposedly made by the /r/Stupidpol mods (an anti-idpol subreddit) I'm under the impression that the claims of offense taken are entirely facetious/trolling.
Several of Bordiga's followers went on to become prominent Holocaust deniers
I recall reading that some advocacy groups extend the definition of holocaust denial not just to denying that the event happened, but also to other things such as:
Claiming that the victims were not killed because they were Jewish.
Claiming that the holocaust was not an exceptional historical example of mass killing.
Obviously "The Great Alibi" does not deny that the holocaust happened, but it could perhaps be made to fit under those two categories, so I assume that could be the origin of the claim that Borgida's followers were holocaust deniers (if it's not just a simple misinterpretation of the piece's title by someone who didn't read the text at all).
Considering this post was supposedly made by the /r/Stupidpol mods (an anti-idpol subreddit) I'm under the impression that the claims of offense taken are entirely facetious/trolling.
Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case.
I recall reading that some advocacy groups extend the definition of holocaust denial not just to denying that the event happened, but also to other things such as:
1. Claiming that the victims were not killed because they were Jewish.
Does the Great Alibi claim that?
2. Claiming that the holocaust was not an exceptional historical example of mass killing.
What does this even mean? Each mass killing has some particularities to it. The very fact that we can speak of it as a mass killing shows that there is some commonality, even though there are differences in other aspects. Attempting to make the Holocaust some supernatural, incomprehensible event is anti-scientific garbage with a clear agenda.
so I assume that could be the origin of the claim that Borgida's followers were holocaust deniers
That isn't the origin. The reasons for this slander are social, it has a clear interest behind it, and it is much more dishonest, as can be read in the texts the ICP have written on the matter. Libri Incogniti hosts them all.
Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case.
Fair enough, I was just guessing after a quick look.
Does the Great Alibi claim that?
I'm not saying it does, but by giving a materialist/economic explanation for the events rather than just "antisemitism, case-closed" some may interpret it as such (I believe this was addressed in the text "Race and Class" directly). In other words, it's not as much of a stretch compared to saying that the Great Alibi denies the events happened at all; that was my only point.
What does this even mean?
I don't know, I'm not the one making the claim. I'm just reporting what I've seen. Here's an example from auschwitz.org's page on "Denial forms":
The aim of denying the existence of the gas chambers is, first, to negate the mass scale of the crime of genocide. The second aim is to make it easier to contend that people have always been killed on a greater or lesser scale throughout history, and that the things that the Nazis did during the Second World War were hardly exceptional, but rather examples of the kind of repression that always occurs during war.
Obviously the Great Alibi isn't denying the existence of the gas chambers, but the second half of this paragraph seems to put a lot of emphasis on "exceptional"-ness of the holocaust.
That isn't the origin. The reasons for this slander are social, it has a clear interest behind it, and it is much more dishonest, as can be read in the texts the ICP have written on the matter. Libri Incogniti hosts them all.
I'm sure you're right that it's not the origin, I guess I phrased that poorly. However, I've previously seen random users on reddit reference these various "forms of holocaust denial" while talking about the Great Alibi. So while it is not the origin, it has become mixed in there somewhere in recent years.
I'm not saying it does, but by giving a materialist/economic explanation for the events rather than just "antisemitism, case-closed" some may interpret it as such (I believe this was addressed in the text "Race and Class" directly).
Who cares about what people "interpret"? What matters is what the text actually says, irrespective of what people want to read into it. And the text does, among other things, precisely give an explanation of the rise of antisemitism.
In other words, it's not as much of a stretch compared to saying that the Great Alibi denies the events happened at all; that was my only point.
How can it be more or less of a stretch? Either it's a correct reproach, or it isn't. Is there a degree of truth?
Obviously the Great Alibi isn't denying the existence of the gas chambers, but the second half of this paragraph seems to put a lot of emphasis on "exceptional"-ness of the holocaust.
But the Great Alibi does not ahistorically equate the Holocaust with all sorts of mass killings that happened throughout history and war. In fact, one of its central points is to determine how the Holocaust arose exactly from capitalist society, and there in very specific conditions. This is explaining the particularity of it, and at the same time giving a whole proper basis to judging and comparing it with different genocides.
However, I've previously seen random users on reddit reference these various "forms of holocaust denial" while talking about the Great Alibi. So while it is not the origin, it has become mixed in there somewhere in recent years.
People like to come up with all sorts of poorly considered ad-hoc arguments to throw at the essay. Their motivation lies somewhere else, presumably in the a priori wish to defend anti-fascism.
People like to come up with all sorts of poorly considered ad-hoc arguments to throw at the essay. Their motivation lies somewhere else, presumably in the a priori wish to defend anti-fascism.
Speaking of ad-hoc retardation. Check out this moron
Look here’s the issue with left communists trying to “well actually” the piece “Auschwitz or the Great Alibi”: a defence that relies on “anti-semitism denial” is just as bad, particularly in the eyes of the descendants of Holocaust victims, as Holocaust denial.
Obviously left communists have a point when they say fascism is A FORM of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie just as bourgeois democracy is, but so what? A labour strike is usually a form of reformism in practice, and rarely can be said to challenge bourgeois rule as such.
Reducing the Nazi Holocaust to a form of primitive accumulation and nothing more is certainly consistent with left communist disdain for ascribing a special historical role to fascism and is a manifestation of their unwillingness to take up anti-fascism as a cause unto itself.
The issue of course is that we now live in a time of fascism rising again and most everyone but Bordiguists can see with their own eyes that there is an importance to fascism as ideology and subjectivity and not merely as some mechanical inevitability barely worth commenting upon
Oh no, it’s a meme that will be accused of oversimplifying matters, but who could be oversimplifying matters more than those accused above?
They don't appear to know what primitive accumulation is, what fascism is, or even what reformism is. Or even class struggle, or what that text actually says. It's amusing that they even start out as saying "he's right but...". And this person is apparently some sort of bastion of tankie ideology.
a defence that relies on “anti-semitism denial” is just as bad, particularly in the eyes of the descendants of Holocaust victims, as Holocaust denial.
Aside from the fact that the text does not deny antisemitism, one can see here how leftists can never let go of their moralising.
A labour strike is usually a form of reformism in practice, and rarely can be said to challenge bourgeois rule as such.
So as you said, they don't know what reformism is. And even beyond that, I'm not sure what point they are making here.
Reducing the Nazi Holocaust to a form of primitive accumulation
They probably haven't read Capital, but David Harvey. Or they are just this dumb.
and nothing more is certainly consistent with left communist disdain for ascribing a special historical role to fascism
This is deliberately worded so vaguely that it could mean anything, which tells us that they have no idea of what they're talking about. What is a "special historical role"? If fascism were not "special" at all, it would not be distinguished from democracy to begin with.
and is a manifestation of their unwillingness to take up anti-fascism as a cause unto itself.
One could just as easily claim that people's rejection of the Great Alibi is "a manifestation of their unwillingness to let go of anti-fascism".
The issue of course is that we now live in a time of fascism rising again
Haha, good joke. Orange man bad! Is there a time for leftists at which fascism is not on the rise? They certainly have no clue of what fascism is.
and most everyone but Bordiguists can see with their own eyes that there is an importance to fascism as ideology and subjectivity
This is what they actually want to get back to: Anti-materialism.
and not merely as some mechanical inevitability barely worth commenting upon
This mechanical inevitability exists solely in their own head.
Who cares about what people "interpret"? What matters is what the text actually says, irrespective of what people want to read into it.
I mean that's the entire topic of this discussion isn't it? I don't disagree that what the text says is what actually matters, but this is a thread about people making untrue claims about the Great Alibi, whether by misinterpretation/misunderstanding, hearsay without reading it themselves, or outright lying.
How can it be more or less of a stretch? Either it's a correct reproach, or it isn't. Is there a degree of truth?
No there is not a degree of truth, but surely some distortions are more detached from the content of a text than others, even if both are equally incorrect. Twisting an author's words to make an incorrect claim about his position is not exactly the same as making a statement that has no relevance to the content of the text whatsoever, in terms of how you would respond to it, is it? If someone said the Great Alibi asserts that "all elephants are pink" would you respond the same way?
I have no disagreement with the rest of your comment.
I mean that's the entire topic of this discussion isn't it? I don't disagree that what the text says is what actually matters, but this is a thread about people making untrue claims about the Great Alibi, whether by misinterpretation/misunderstanding, hearsay without reading it themselves, or outright lying.
You initially said "some may interpret it as claiming that the victims were not killed because they were Jewish". What I wanted to stress is that the people doing this are wrong. Talking about different "interpretations" gives the impression that they would each be equally valid, quite like academics act when they need to carve out a niche for themselves. Such differing "interpretations" only arise because people want to find something in a text, much like with Marx. When you investigate a matter, you as an individual subject disappear. You have no freedom in choosing what reality looks like - it is one.
No there is not a degree of truth, but surely some distortions are more detached from the content of a text than others, even if both are equally incorrect. Twisting an author's words to make an incorrect claim about his position is not exactly the same as making a statement that has no relevance to the content of the text whatsoever, in terms of how you would respond to it, is it? If someone said the Great Alibi asserts that "all elephants are pink" would you respond the same way?
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I don't see how saying that the Great Alibi would put forward that "Jews were not killed because they were Jews" is in any way closer to the content than saying that the text denies the event took place altogether. It does not say either of them, neither does it approach one of them. Your elephant analogy is stupid, because no one would bring up such an example anyway.
You initially said "some may interpret it as claiming that the victims were not killed because they were Jewish". What I wanted to stress is that the people doing this are wrong. Talking about different "interpretations" gives the impression that they would each be equally valid, quite like academics act when they need to carve out a niche for themselves. Such differing "interpretations" only arise because people want to find something in a text, much like with Marx. When you investigate a matter, you as an individual subject disappear. You have no freedom in choosing what reality looks like - it is one.
I did not mean to imply that such an "interpretation" would be valid. I just meant "I could see how someone could twist that interpretation out of the words to fit their preconceived notions or agenda". I did not mean "interpretation" in the way that academics say it, where they absurdly consider their contradictory "lenses" as equally valid.
Fair enough, at least we clarified that now.
If someone said the Great Alibi asserts that "all elephants are pink" would you respond the same way?
That is a stupid argument. It starts off from the fact that it happened. Suggesting that it even approaches holocaust denial would miss the entire point of the article.
Oh, the tweet itself is definitely sarcasm. I was more focused on the image linked since that sort of rhetoric towards “the Great Alibi” is not uncommon coming from leftists.
While the idea of it being Holocaust denial probably did start from someone applying that rather loose definition, no doubt there’s a great number of people that never read it who think it straight up denies the Holocaust even happened, especially when quotes like that are paired up with fear-mongering about Bordiga “fighting against attempts to form a broader anti-fascist alliance”.
the tweet itself is definitely sarcasm.
It comes from here
Don't know why I expected any better from a sub named "stupidpol".
Looking at that sub now, they sure do seem to care a lot about TV shows and Twitter users.
While the idea of it being Holocaust denial probably did start from someone applying that rather loose definition
People start from the premise that they want the essay to be wrong. The search for how to slander it only starts then.
I find it weird that anyone would take anyone on libcom as being mentally capable enough to be considered an "expert" on anything. If they were, they wouldn't be posting proudly on libcom as if it was some sort of great meeting of the minds.
Most of this nonsense stems seemingly from this one user under the name anythingforproximity, who has previously been demonstrated to falsely (knowingly or otherwise) translate certain passages and then to make a big deal over the tone of the text, rather than the actual content. They either can't read or they're attempting to cherry pick an argument, for what reason, we hazard the guess at carving out some sort of pathetic niche in the annals of libcom research. For instance, in the original post it links to him quoting this
Le mie tesi che non avevano altro di abile che la esatta corrispondenza a quanto pensavo non hanno mancato di trascendere la modesta competenza e preparazione di questi specialisti di polizia politica.
Which comes out as
My theses, which had nothing but the exact correspondence to what I thought, did not fail to transcend the modest competence and preparation of these political police specialists.
But for afp they only highlight "which had nothing but the exact correspondence to what I thought", missing the fact that Bordiga is saying that the police informants were too stupid to catch on to the joke. Afp apparently is on the same level as fascist police informants.
Besides, the little part where this quotation comes from essentially spells that out.
In regards to the whole
The great and authentic revolutionaries of the world are two: Mussolini and Hitler. But Mussolini's past shows that Il Duce has always been against the plutocracy and against the democracies, which paralyze the life of nations
That more or less is the position of the ICP and I find it funny that people are unable to catch on mainly because bombastic language he used. Seems to be a pattern forming here, no? In fact, it's rather similar to the libs who go around complaining about the language used by Marx and try to paint him as a racist, an anti-semitie, a male chauvinist and whatever else one fancies. If we take away that, there is little to complain about. People who do are the ones who fall again for the bourgeois use of the holocaust for their own ends, people who take at face value fascist propaganda.
AFP even writes
It is difficult to interpret this in any other way than as saying that the victory of the Axis would have been the preferable outcome.
It is hard to imagine anyone who thinks in terms of communism (that might be the problem) can say this after we've had 75 years of triumphant capitalism and a moribund labor movement. Especially when we see people post stuff like this. This may explain why all of these who profess to be on the left seem to do little but invoke the decrepit images of people from the communist movement past. Or why it seems to exist mostly in the study rooms of academics, pouring over it like some dead civilization.
Back to these stupidpol libs the irony is not lost on us when they write
who once called anti-fascism the "most sinister" product of Fascism
Better check under your bourgeois beds!
fought against attempts by Italian Communists to form a broader anti-fascist alliance against the Blackshirts on the eve of Mussolini's rise
I wonder if they actually believe that the Party actively did nothing. They look like they don't even know the situation and think that Mussolini and state repression just began one night in October 1922. This has been gone over to death before, but, unfortunately, you can take a lib to water but you can't make it drink.
Bordiga expressed critical support for the Axis powers on many occasions
He did not express "critical support". Nor did he, according to afp, "sympathize" with, or "put his hopes in" the Axis powers. Someone is hypocritically trying to set off the lib moral panic alarm.
/u/dr_marx in another comment linked the source of the image from the tweet. Presumably the OP of that Reddit thread also runs that Twitter account, or is one of the people running it - another egomaniac so proud of the garbage they piled up that they feel comfortable quoting themselves.
Oddly enough, LibCom's Antifa politics are compatible [with?] their site serving as largest [sic!] online platform for the ideas Italian ultra-left [sic!] Marxist Amadeo Bordiga, who once called anti-fascism the "most sinister" product of Fascism, and fought against attempts by Italian Communists to form a broader anti-fascist alliance against the Blackshirts on the eve of Mussolini's rise.
It seems like that person invokes Bordiga because they have an axe to grind with Libcom for them criticising one of /r/stupidpol's patron saints. No doubt that Mike Harman and his anarchist entourage are utter morons. It would indeed be preferable if they were to remove all hosted ICP articles altogether, given their phony attempts at slandering them. But the OP of that tweet is not an ounce better.
It is interesting that a moderator of a subreddit dedicated to criticising identity politics would bring the hosting of texts into connection with endorsement of their content. You'd think that they would abstain from such hysteric "cancel culture", which more often than not consists precisely in this establishing of arbitrary relations to supposedly "reactionary" stances. It means judging individuals and institutions by anything but their practical actions. But apparently this person likes to point out this behaviour in others, while having no qualms indulging in it themselves.
Going around, scolding others for distributing "wrong ideas" is an outlook both Libcom and this /r/stupidpol moderator share. But people do not become practical fascists because they read "Mein Kampf", irrespective of what they might claim themselves. They do so because of the need their social position, and the conditions in which they find themselves, produce in them. In the same manner, people don't become practical communists because they read Bordiga on Libcom. Communism wasn't born when Gracchus Babeuf suddenly had some smart ideas, but it emerged alongside the industrial proletariat.
Even accepting these ideological premises which abstract from the interests of class society, this manner of judging what is to be hosted does not fly. It denies readers the capacity of coming to the correct conclusions themselves. If Libcom were fully convinced of their anti-fascism, they would think that it would survive scrutiny - hence, they would have no problem hosting texts critical of it. The fact that they do not do this without writing long-winded disclaimers as prefaces shows their insecurity; that they want to taint their readers' views. Clearly they are accustomed to lie for defending their position.
To wrap back around to the quote above: It isn't true that Libcom is the "largest online platform for the ideas Italian ultra-left Marxist Amadeo Bordiga". Maybe in terms of views (we can hardly know that), but MIA, Sinistra, the websites of the ICPs and various blogs host more texts than Libcom. The term "ultra-left" - in so far as it isn't a simple reproach by Stalinists thrown at all dissent - also does not apply to Bordiga and the ICP. As for the rest, this cuck obviously thinks that fighting against "a broader anti-fascist alliance" would be damning in itself, which only shows their bourgeois framework, as well as their lack of acquaintance with fascism and the conditions in Italy back then.
Presaging the ultra-left "Third Period" policy of the Comintern, Bordiga wrote in 1921:
Fascists and social-democrats are but two aspects of tomorrow’s single enemy.
In the link provided, Bordiga says that the Stalinists had to acknowledge that the judgement of social-democrats and fascists being two faces of the same enemy was put forward by Italian left communists before. This does not mean that this statement presaged the "Third Period", as that policy included the directives to attack social-democracy above all other bourgeois factions, as well as to abandon all "reactionary" trade-unions on principle in favour of founding new, communist ones. Bordiga and the ICP did not agree with either of these policies - here being in full accordance with what Lenin lays out in his "Infantile Disorder" by the way. Were the Stalinists the real infantile ultra-leftists all along?
Several of Bordiga's followers went on to become prominent Holocaust deniers - a trend started by the revisionist essay "Auschwitz, or the Great Alibi", in French Bordigist publication (note: authorship of the piece is disputed).
The people quoted here became Holocaust deniers precisely when they had already disavowed critical-scientific communism proper, and accordingly had ceased to be "Bordiga's followers" (what a stupid notion to begin with!). This dumbass here showcases their ideological standpoint again when they assign this mental degeneration such importance, and above all attribute it to the mere publication of a text. What supernatural powers this article must possess to invoke the devil in the minds of people! It also is not true that "Auschwitz or the Great Alibi" is a "revisionist essay", but this has been belaboured at length ad nauseam. The authorship of it isn't disputed either. It used to be wrongly attributed to Bordiga himself, but was indeed written by Martin Axelrad. Not that it matters though, as it is in the end a collective work of the party and should be understood as such. This is not controversial.
Bordiga himself was expelled from the Italian Communist Party following his releases from prison in 1930, and had maintained an amicable relationship with OVRA agents throughout the 30s and 40s (during the Mussolini regime).
Bordiga was expelled from the PCI for accusations of "Trotskyism" at a time when the Stalinist counterrevolution was already in full force. Constructing some "amicable relationship with OVRA agents" is nothing but a dishonest attempt at bringing the communist left into connection with fascism. All Bordiga did was talk to them when he was under house arrest. How this would indicate sympathy, I do not presume to know.
Bordiga expressed critical support for the Axis powers on many occasions, both to OVRA agents and left-wing acquaintances, and reiterated this position in his publications after the war.
Here that person again shows their obsession with the moral purity of people's ideas. They are so detached from practical matters that a pure analysis of what the most favourable outcome in a situation of defeat would be already constitutes "critical support" to them. What tangible support should that have been, when we just heard that Bordiga was expelled from the party and stood under house arrest? Do they seriously think that Bordiga argued for the communist party to rally behind the axis powers, for the proletariat to fight on their behalf? Bordiga, who riled against Stalinism first precisely for allying with the fascists, and then for teaming up with the Allies? But even assuming this counterfactual is idiotic. The fact that fascism assumed power, caused in part by the disastrous policy of anti-fascism, precisely meant defeat of the labour movement, of which the expulsion of Bordiga from the party was just one small aspect.
Let's look at some of those "incriminating" quotes. First, we have those contained in that Libcom thread (let's disregard that they might even be forgeries):
Therefore, June 10 (the date of Mussolini's declaration of war) was for me what you call a great day. But now that Hitler has grown soft, I begin to lose the trust I had placed in the Axis to strangle and pull down the so-called British colossus, that is, the greatest exponent of capitalism. They are afraid of bringing down England, they are afraid because they know that with it, the whole capitalist system will collapse. [...] I still hope that Hitler will not renounce the struggle, and will go all the way, to the extreme consequences.
The great and authentic revolutionaries of the world are two: Mussolini and Hitler. But Mussolini's past shows that Il Duce has always been against the plutocracy and against the democracies, which paralyze the life of nations.
Stalin, allying himself with London and Washington, has betrayed the cause of the proletariat. Moreover, I can say that on this I agree with Il Duce, when he says, as he did in his speech from last November, that if there is a man who desperately wanted the war, who first prepared it and then instigated it, it is the American president. From my point of view, however, I clarify that Roosevelt is nothing but the exponent of supercapitalism that aims at the conquest of a totalitarian imperialism.
If Hitler can make yield the odious powers of England and America, while making thus precarious the capitalist world balance, long live the butcher Hitler who works in spite of himself to create the conditions of the proletarian world revolution … All the wars henceforth - it is an general observation - find their final epilogue in revolutionary facts. After the defeat succeeds the revolution.
Now where is the problem? Do you need to picture Bordiga winking through the text? What is so reprehensible about what he says?
Then, we have those, from what has been called "publications after the war" by that /r/stupidpol moderator:
The evidence of contemporary events has shown everyone how the exit from the war situation has meant at the same time, in the whole area, the salvation of democracy and the death of the workers’ revolution. And that saved democracy, without any surprise to the Marxists, resembles, like two drops of water, the defeated fascisms. Therefore it is right to say that a greater evil could not be envisaged; that the lesser evil would be the defeat of the powerful English and American centres of world imperialism.
https://libriincogniti.wordpress.com/2020/04/18/on-the-thread-of-time-compasses-gone-mad/
This party, in the Second Imperialist War 1939-45, should also have supported breaking the policy and action of war within all states. A Marxist could, however, preserve the right, without fearing that the usual libertarian ideologists would accuse him of sympathising with a tyrant, to make calculations and to investigate the consequences of Hitler's victory over London and of an English collapse. This same Marxist will retain the right, while demonstrating that Stalin's regime has not, for at least twenty years, been a proletarian regime, to consider the useful revolutionary consequences that would result from the - unfortunately unlikely - collapse of American power, in a possible third war of states and armies.
https://libriincogniti.wordpress.com/2019/08/02/on-the-thread-of-time-romance-of-the-holy-war/
Already immediately after the First World War, at the first appearance of fascism in Italy in 1919, we solved the historical and strategic question: No joining a liberal-democratic bloc against fascism – and just as little any bloc forming with fascism against the liberal bourgeoisie. We also immediately said why: Because they are not two social classes, but one and the same.
To have practiced the bloc strategy, even in both directions, is enough for us to explain the retreat of our revolution.
https://libriincogniti.wordpress.com/2018/02/23/on-the-thread-of-time-forward-barbarians/
Even within the cycle during which the proletarian International refuses any support by its own organised political forces for wars between States, and denies that the presence on one side of despotic feudal States (or States that are less democratic than others) is a reason to abandon this historic international position, and everywhere adopts a defeatist stance within the “own” country, it can and must however consider the different effects of this or that outcome of the conflict in its historical analysis.
We have given many examples in other texts: in the Russian-Turkish war of 1877, in which Franco-British democracy rooted for the Russians, Marx ardently sympathised with the Turks. In the Greek-Turkish war of independence of 1899, without going as far as to volunteer to fight like the anarchists and republicans, left-socialists were for Greece; later, they took sides with the Young Turks’ revolution and also for the liberation of the Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians in the territories under Ottoman domination in the Balkan wars of 1912. And the same thing could be said of the Boer War against the English, a war, like the Spanish-American War of 1898, which had extra-European impacts and was fought for imperialist purposes.
But these were only episodes that punctuated the great period of calm that lasted from 1871 to 1914.
Next came the world wars: every proletarian party that supported its State or its allies in war committed an act of treason; everywhere, the tactic of revolutionary defeatism had to be applied. From this crystal-clear conclusion, however, one must not deduce that the victory of one or another side would make no difference in terms of the development of events from a revolutionary perspective.
Our position on this question is known. The victory of the Western democracies and of America in the first and second world wars set back the possibilities for the communist revolution, whereas the opposite outcome would have accelerated them.
https://www.international-communist-party.org/English/Texts/53FaRNen.htm#38
Does it get any more clear than this? Bordiga and the ICP did not harbour any genuine sympathies for Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin and the USSR. In fact, they believed that the Axis powers would not win, in all likelihood:
Bordiga was arrested and questioned by the German military authorities during their brief occupation of Naples in 1943. The story is that this time he actually utilized the occasion "to prove mathematically" to his captors that Germany could not win the war.
They are stating which outcome, on which the proletariat had no political influence, would be the most favourable so that the proletariat could have a political influence again in the future. We are talking about a situation in which the communist party was already practically destroyed by the Stalinist counterrevolution. Bordiga was under house arrest, and the labour movement under almost complete control of Stalinism. Appeals to revolutionary defeatism fell on deaf ears.
When communists do the most that can be done to fight the momentary political incapacity of the proletariat, but they see that it will still be incapable of having an effect on the outcome in due time, what is there to do with regard to the respective present situation beyond prudently assessing which outcome would help the proletariat regain political capacity the most? The ICP even explains that the essential characteristics of fascism have been absorbed by the victorious democracies anyway! And as /u/dr_marx mentioned, 75 years of triumphant capitalism show that they were right.
Marx and Engels often did the same, as explained in that quote above, when they were saying that certain individuals act "in spite of themselves" as "revolutionaries" (used in the broader sense of the word) for the communist cause. They also were faced with counterrevolution when they liquidated the IWMA. They wanted to avoid it falling to the hands of the Proudhonists, which would have meant a similar fate for the labour movement as the Comintern falling to Stalinism. In such a situation of defeat, they also frequently talked about what the most favourable outcome of a war would be for the labour movement, which does not mean that they argued that the communist party, the political organ of the proletariat, should have thrown itself behind either of the combatants had it been capable of intervening to begin with. Remember old Engels:
The workers' party, which in all questions at issue between reaction and bourgeoisie stands outside the actual conflict, enjoys the advantage of being able to treat such questions quite cold-bloodedly and impartially. It alone can treat them scientifically, historically, as though they were already in the past, anatomically, as though they were already corpses.
It also is not true that "Auschwitz or the Great Alibi" is a "revisionist essay"
If anything, it was so ahead of its time that only within the last few years have regular bourgeois historians have began to stagger in this "revisionist" direction.
It also is not true that "Auschwitz or the Great Alibi" is a "revisionist essay", but this has been belaboured at length ad nauseam.
I'm not sure if this is relevant, but in the context of holocaust history the term "revisionist" seems to be positively counter-posed with the negative term "denial". According to Wikipedia:
Scholars use the term denial to describe the views and methodology of Holocaust deniers in order to distinguish them from legitimate historical revisionists, who challenge orthodox interpretations of history using established historical methodologies.
Of course it seems more likely the writer of the reddit post being responded to was using it in the colloquial sense meaning "distortion of theory" or whatever.
With regard to the Holocaust, "revisionism" is typically used as a synonym for "denial". You're correct in saying that this is not the case in other histories.
Lowly stupidpol janny here. I believe that's tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, given the context.
The libcom twitter account put forth a woke but largely ahistorical criticism of Grant as having been some sort of racist/genocidal anti-semite. Given that sort of addlepated 'critique', it would seem inconsistent to then also maintain an archive of Bordigist literature which included the essay "Auschwitz or the Great Alibi"- and yet nonetheless they do so.
I believe that's tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, given the context.
Well damn. Personally I think its a shame our top mod is hostile to Bordiga but then otherwise receptive to defense of Nagle against her critics.
Why? stupidpol is essentially a sub for libs and idiots.
we do tolerate all kinds of users, yes.
we do tolerate all kinds of users, yes.
You do understand that your mod list is public and we can all see what they post?
yes, of course. we also have ~80 mods which means there is a diversity of opinions and ideologies at work- for better and for worse.
i personally think it would be better if we had a more unified outlook and moderatorial policy, but I'm like mod# 70 out of the 80 total, and as such I don't shape the subreddit beyond the content I cull.
i personally think it would be better if we had a more unified outlook and moderatorial policy, but I'm like mod# 70 out of the 80 total, and as such I don't shape the subreddit beyond the content I cull.
You're one of the morons we're talking about here.
It's not a shame. It's exactly what is to be expected of the subreddit.
I am working through the version found here.
My concern is actually the first sections of this document, and I really have just not been able to figure out what is meant by
(2) Communism (α) still political in nature – democratic or despotic; (β) with the abolition of the state, yet still incomplete, and being still affected by private property, i.e., by the estrangement of man. In both forms communism already is aware of being reintegration or return of man to himself, the transcendence of human self-estrangement; but since it has not yet grasped the positive essence of private property, and just as little the human nature of need, it remains captive to it and infected by it. It has, indeed, grasped its concept, but not its essence.
My understanding is that crude communism and this type of communism in (2) are historical forms that communist theory takes before the proletariat is sufficiently developed as a class such that scientific communism, which I believe is what (3) is referring to, can come on the scene. I think that's correct with the references to Proudhon, Fourier, and Saint-Simon and the endnote in (1) referring to older crude communism?
But the other two sections make sense to me, and I just can't seem to wrap my head around what is meant here. I would guess it's referring to Fourier or Saint Simon (neither of who I know much about at all) thinking a particular form of labor is the problem, but when I read it that way it's not clicking. Like, they understand it as the end of self-estrangement but mistakenly place the source of estrangement in a particular form of labor, type of private property, rather than private property itself? Or am I just completely misunderstanding the manuscript to begin with?
This probably falls under the 'basic questions' rule but I have kept coming back to this on my own without getting it.
Thank you for any help you can offer in understanding this bit.
What does it mean when marxists (particularly leftcoms) say Marx was opposed to "economics"? I understand Marx was against capitalism and things like the market, but surely leftcoms believe in some kind of economy (by which I mean a system of production and distribution of goods and services)? What are some leftcom ideas of how a society should be organized?
I know some other leftist ideas such as parecon, however, I know that a lot of leftcom marxists don't subscribe to it because its utopian. I've also heard similar criticisms of Paul Cockshott (on top of the fact that he is a Tankie).
Also it seems like every Marxist (more broadly speaking, not just leftcoms) have their own interpretation of how a society's system of production should be organized, sometimes being completely different from that of other Marxists. How can we create a "socialist movement" with so much division? It's hard enough to win the hearts and minds of people on relativley simple issues, let alone the radical restructuring of society.
Is this an impossible task?
25 replies:
What does it mean when marxists (particularly leftcoms) say Marx was opposed to "economics"?
First of all: The people calling themselves "leftcoms" on the internet are perhaps bigger morons than the people they are talking to. They don't understand this themselves, and will likely just repeat whatever is explained in this thread here.
Now on to the actual question: Consider the significance of Capital's subtitle - "Critique of Political Economy". The term itself originates in a 1843 essay by Engels, called "Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy", which was published in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, and which starts like this:
Political economy came into being as a natural result of the expansion of trade, and with its appearance elementary, unscientific huckstering was replaced by a developed system of licensed fraud, an entire science of enrichment.
Marx takes up the task of criticising political economy that Engels started with this essay. He says as much in the preface to his "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" from 1859:
Friedrich Engels, with whom I maintained a constant exchange of ideas by correspondence since the publication of his brilliant essay on the critique of economic categories (printed in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, arrived by another road (compare his Lage der arbeitenden Klasse in England) at the same result as I, and when in the spring of 1845 he too came to live in Brussels, we decided to set forth together our conception as opposed to the ideological one of German philosophy, in fact to settle accounts with our former philosophical conscience.
Likewise, a year earlier, in a letter to Lassalle:
The work I am presently concerned with is a Critique of Economic Categories or, if you like, a critical exposé of the system of the bourgeois economy. It is at once an exposé and, by the same token, a critique of the system.
What he means by this is that he does not aim to put forward another "lens" or "theory" for political economy to look through, but to criticise the entire discipline. Private property is the legal expression for the production relations corresponding to the rule of the bourgeoisie. Its movement brings forth different forms in which it exists, which can then be conceived in categories: prices, money, wages, value, etc. These existed before there being a systematic account of them (political economy).
What political economy now did, in its best times, was to accept these categories as given, as if they were objects independent of human activity: like being the first human to encounter a tree, and attempting to explain what it is. It then proceeded to attempt to show the necessity of these categories, and to uncover the laws of how they relate to each other. The political economists, like Adam Smith or David Ricardo, coldly followed their subject matter, without holding back on the implications of their findings. They did this in order to prove the superiority of these categories over feudal society, as Marx explains in the Poverty of Philosophy:
We have the fatalist economists, who in their theory are as indifferent to what they call the drawbacks of bourgeois production as the bourgeois themselves are in practice to the sufferings of the proletarians who help them to acquire wealth. In this fatalist school, there are Classics and Romantics. The Classics, like Adam Smith and Ricardo, represent a bourgeoisie which, while still struggling with the relics of feudal society, works only to purge economic relations of feudal taints, to increase the productive forces and to give a new upsurge to industry and commerce. The proletariat that takes part in this struggle and is absorbed in this feverish labour experiences only passing, accidental sufferings, and itself regards them as such. Economists like Adam Smith and Ricardo, who are the historians of this epoch, have no other mission than that of showing how wealth is acquired in bourgeois production relations, of formulating these relations into categories, into laws, and of showing how superior these laws, these categories, are for the production of wealth to the laws and categories of feudal society. Poverty is in their eyes merely the pang which accompanies every childbirth, in nature as in industry.
But they never completed their task - Ricardo for example could not understand labour power, the nature of money, or the role of demand. The reason for this is that the bourgeoisie was already in the process of ceasing to be a revolutionary class, at least in England, the country where political economy originated: the advent of capitalism meant that the proletariat entered the stage of history finally as a first rate class. Correspondingly, the bourgeoisie was forced to defend itself against it in the class struggle. Ricardo's findings, most obviously laying bare the lot of the proletariat in bourgeois society, suddenly were a big inconvenience. Hence, the contradictions in which Ricardo had entangled himself were used as an argument to dispense with his theories entirely. Marx, in his afterword to the second German edition of Capital Volume I:
Political Economy can remain a science only so long as the class-struggle is latent or manifests itself only in isolated and sporadic phenomena. [...] In France and in England the bourgeoisie had conquered political power. Thenceforth, the class-struggle, practically as well as theoretically, took on more and more outspoken and threatening forms. It sounded the knell of scientific bourgeois economy. It was thenceforth no longer a question, whether this theorem or that was true, but whether it was useful to capital or harmful, expedient or inexpedient, politically dangerous or not. In place of disinterested inquirers, there were hired prize fighters; in place of genuine scientific research, the bad conscience and the evil intent of apologetic.
Likewise, in the Poverty of Philosophy:
The more the antagonistic character comes to light, the more the economists, the scientific representatives of bourgeois production, find themselves in conflict with their own theory; and different schools arise.
[...]
Just as the economists are the scientific representatives of the bourgeois class, so the Socialists and Communists are the theoreticians of the proletarian class.
The fact that Marx calls political economy the science of the bourgeoisie, respectively economists the "scientific representatives of the bourgeois class", should already tell you that Marx did not conceive of himself as an economist, nor considered his work as simply finishing what Smith and Ricardo had started. So what did Marx then do? He explains it in The Holy Family:
As the first criticism of any science is necessarily influenced by the premises of the science it is fighting against, so Proudhon's treatise […] is the criticism of political economy from the standpoint of political economy. […] Proudhon's treatise will therefore be scientifically superseded by a criticism of political economy, including Proudhon's conception of political economy. […]
All treatises on political economy take private property for granted. This basic premise is for them [the economists] an incontestable fact to which they devote no further investigation, indeed a fact which is spoken about only ‘accidentellement’, as Say naively admits. But Proudhon makes a critical investigation — the first resolute, ruthless, and at the same time scientific investigation — of the basis of political economy, private property. This is the great scientific advance he made, an advance which revolutionises political economy and for the first time makes a real science of political economy possible. […]
Proudhon does not consider the further creations of private property, e.g., wages, trade, value, price, money, etc., as forms of private property in themselves, as they are considered, for example, in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher (see Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy by F. Engels), but uses these economic premises in arguing against the political economists; this is fully in keeping with his historically justified standpoint to which we referred above.
Accepting the relationships of private property as human and rational, political economy operates in permanent contradiction to its basic premise, private property, a contradiction analogous to that of the theologian who continually gives a human interpretation to religious conceptions, and by that very fact comes into constant conflict with his basic premise, the superhuman character of religion.
In order to carry out his task, he had to start where Smith, Ricardo, Mill and all the others left off. He thus corrects their mistakes (but this is not what "critique" in the title of Capital refers to!), but not to stop at a finally completed political economy - how it should have been - but to go further and dispense with the standpoint which characterises the entire discipline, that which Marx calls "the standpoint of old materialism" in the Theses on Feuerbach. Political economy is the "theory of private property" (Engels, in his "Outlines"), it has private property and the existing bourgeois society as its standpoint. It cannot question the necessity of this presupposition without ceasing to be what it is.
Marx on the other hand, described his standpoint as that of "human society, or social humanity" (also in the "Theses"), that is, communism. This is not an arbitrary presupposition like the standpoint of private property is, but what necessarily remains when looking at humanity while recognising that private property is no necessity. This also means that communism is not constructed or built, but comes about through doing away with what prevents it - and this is not possible in an arbitrary manner, but follows from the determinacy of bourgeois society itself. Marx does not merely treat the categories resulting from the movement of private property as natural, but starts with showing that they express actual relations between people. He goes on to demonstrate how these relations themselves are produced and reproduced under the rule of the bourgeoisie. Then he explains how they acquire the object-like appearance that enabled the political economists to treat them as if they were mere objects to begin with, and how finally these relations appear in an inhuman form which stands over and against people - capital. Properly speaking, Marx does not have a "theory" in the actual sense of the word akin to the political economists at all, since he demonstrates the categories expressing the relations of bourgeois society to only be of a relative necessity - they depend on the existence of private property, respectively these very relations. He does not simply assume the necessity of their existence, like non-critical science, a theory, does. This is also why the subtitle of Capital Volume I is not "The Process of Capitalist Production", as some older translations put it, but "The Process of Production of Capital". Marx explains what capital is, and how it is produced and reproduced, and finally how its concrete forms of appearance come to be.
The people who call themselves "Marxist economists", and generally most "heterodox economists" basically work to restore classical political economy against the modern idiocies of marginalist ideology (you can find marginalism completely destroyed here). Some even seem to have understood this, which is why people like Anwar Shaikh no longer call themselves Marxist economists, but classical economists. Even if their endeavour were possible, it would not be desirable, as it would simply be a step back from Marx and critical-scientific communism. University is the institutionalised form of bourgeois science, and it would not be an advance towards communism to attempt to change it by means of some sort of Gramscian cultural revolution, as it merely creates aspiring recruits for the petty bourgeoisie. Communism is about labour, not thought. It's pointless to endlessly monitor the rate of profit in order to predict crises originating from this or that industry. The investigation of the movement of private property must always be connected to labour. What does it mean for the association of the proletariat when the centre of gravity of capital shifts? This is what communists should look at. Modern economics has essentially degenerated into creating the semblance of a technique of administration, whereas classical political economy would attempt to confine consciousness within a cage of ostensible necessity. Both manufacture ideology - false consciousness, since they're unable to conceive human activity outside of private property. Marx on the other hand is a communist - dragging him into the realm of political economy would be like dragging him into religion or philosophy.
Reading Marx's letter to Annenkov could also help you understand his standpoint better - he is very explicit in it.
What are some leftcom ideas of how a society should be organized?
I know some other leftist ideas such as parecon, however, I know that a lot of leftcom marxists don't subscribe to it because its utopian. I've also heard similar criticisms of Paul Cockshott (on top of the fact that he is a Tankie).
Also it seems like every Marxist (more broadly speaking, not just leftcoms) have their own interpretation of how a society's system of production should be organized, sometimes being completely different from that of other Marxists.
This is the prime barrier for you to understand what communism is. It's not about putting an idea of how society ought to be into practice. Again, ignore whatever "leftcom marxists" on the internet think.
How can we create a "socialist movement" with so much division? It's hard enough to win the hearts and minds of people on relativley simple issues, let alone the radical restructuring of society.
The matter is not one of creating a movement, let alone a "socialist" one, i.e. a movement of Marxists. The point is to give voice to the already existing labour movement and help it overcome the limitations it is entangled in.
Is this an impossible task?
Questions about possibility are a tiresome affair - this is a skepticism of the unproductive kind.
BTW, I'm a little confused about this:
Questions about possibility are a tiresome affair - this is a skepticism of the unproductive kind.
in that post you linked you said
So you no longer look for errors to amend them, but construct consciously deficient theories since they need to be "falsifiable".
What do you mean by this? Why is having a theory be falsifiable a bad thing? Why does it produce defiant theories? you say
it's a way of immunising deficient theories from critique.
but isn't a theory being falsifiable mean the exact opposite. That empirical evidence will inevitably prove that it is wrong (if it is)?
Also I had some other question.
you said in you response to this post that
It's not about putting an idea of how society ought to be into practice.
Isn't that the whole point of the communist movement? To create a world which is free of exploitation and where humans can be naturally free? I'm a little confused by what you meant. I understand Marx wanted to explain and critic how society functioned but he also wanted to change it for the better, right? Or hoped someone in the future would.
Also, another problem is that I don't really understand how communist logistics would work. in u/dr_marx's post, he quotes Vol 1 of Capital where Marx describes Robinson Crusoe. The society Marx envision's sounds a lot like pre-agricultural society where a community would just produce the things they need to live and share them based on who needs what and spend the rest of their time on hobbies. Except for Marx, this society wouldn't necessarily be primitive, and could rely on technology.
But what I don't get is how exactly would this scale to a society of, say, the United State's size. It's simple enough when you are just talking about food, shelter, basic tools and you population may be a few hundred to a thousand people max. But when you are dealing with 300M people, and tools that require resources from all around the world, and a lot of specialization, how does Marx or Marxists envision this be accomplished? Would their be some sort of work councils? Would there be labor vouchers? How do people know what the community needs?
So you no longer look for errors to amend them, but construct consciously deficient theories since they need to be "falsifiable".
What do you mean by this? Why is having a theory be falsifiable a bad thing? Why does it produce defiant theories? you say
it's a way of immunising deficient theories from critique.
but isn't a theory being falsifiable mean the exact opposite. That empirical evidence will inevitably prove that it is wrong (if it is)?
The criticism is not against the existing or non-existing falsifiability of a theory. It's about the positivist dogma that makes this the criterion of what is to be called science. This is how Karl Popper, who is the most commonly invoked positivist, launches into his book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery":
A scientist, whether theorist or experimenter, puts forward statements, or systems of statements, and tests them step by step. In the field of the empirical sciences, more particularly, he constructs hypotheses, or systems of theories, and tests them against experience by observation and experiment.
If science draws its conclusions from experience from the outset, then this idea is at best superfluous. Why should one, after having developed a theory, go back to the very experience from which one set out? This is even less a procedure through which theories would be able to be tested: wrong conclusions are drawn from the very same experience as right ones. So how are you then to distinguish between the two by "testing them against experience"? To assess these conclusions, it's necessary to examine them, not some experience imagined to lie outside of them. If one lacks experience, acquaintance with one's object, then accumulating it is a pre-scientific endeavour. Experiments also serve another purpose. Through them, the object about which science ponders is freed from interfering influences of the circumstances, so that one is able to draw the correct conclusions from the determinations of the object, and not something else.
In his "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography":
Early during this period I developed further my ideas about the demarcation between scientific theories (like Einstein’s) and pseudoscientific theories (like Marx’s, Freud’s, and Adler’s). It became clear to me that what made a theory, or a statement, scientific was its power to rule out, or exclude, the occurrence of some logically possible events.
Whoever argues like this does not want to know anything about science as an activity aiming at objectivity; the cognition of determinate objects. To demarcate science from pseudoscience, he does not invoke the criticism of errors, but the violation of a yardstick which he has found neither in Einstein nor in Marx. Which "logic" should permit "possible events" which are determined to be impossible according to the respective theory?
Popper here simply has come up with a criterion according to which he himself wants to distinguish science from pseudoscience. So he does not care about knowledge of the objects which Einstein or Marx have dealt with, but about the adherence to certain formal rules, which justifies the predication "scientific" according to Popper. I base the judgement of calling psychoanalysis a load of nonsense on having examined it and having found mistakes - not on criticising it for not sticking to a formal procedure I have conjured up myself. Popper's criterion is as simple as it is paradoxical: science is when "logically" justified doubts about its validity - which for him is the same as the chance to discover deviant "events" - cannot be dispelled. Thus, not only Marx's explanation of profit is expelled from the realm of science, but also the entirety of physics - while on the other hand, theories that are known to be deficient get a pass.
Placing every thought under an abstract suspicion of error is an untenable matter - it means that you no longer want to distinguish between correct and wrong, but that you accept everything with the provision that it could still be wrong after all. There is a whole field which gets by on the absurd endeavour to attempt to employ thinking in order to put a principled doubt into its results - it's called the philosophy of science, and it asks nonsensical questions such as "is science possible?". You can only prove determinate mistakes, and you can only know that you erred after the fact. If you know about a problem of your theory, you're already beyond it and are sticking to it merely because you're content with this deficiency.
The dogma of falsifiability sometimes produces strange effects: Here, for example, someone imagines the equalisation of profit rates to be "empirically falsified" due to the prevalence of monopolies. This is akin to someone imagining gravity to be absent because not all things are lying on the ground.
Of course the reason as to why Popper's idiocies are so widespread in bourgeois society is already explained by what I quoted in Marx regarding the history of political economy earlier in this thread - he is merely expressing how bourgeois social science already behaves.
Also I had some other question. you said in you response to this post that
It's not about putting an idea of how society ought to be into practice.
Isn't that the whole point of the communist movement?
No. Communism is not the consummation of morality. What you're describing is utopianism.
To create a world which is free of exploitation and where humans can be naturally free?
The judgement that in communism there is no exploitation is not an ideal towards which communists strive, but the result of the investigation of bourgeois society and its roots.
I'm a little confused by what you meant.
I understand Marx wanted to explain and critic how society functioned but he also wanted to change it for the better, right? Or hoped someone in the future would.
Marx didn't simply start out from the sentiment that he disliked how society functioned, to then construct a theory of how it might be changed. More, saying "someone" here indicates that you adhere to the misconception that the proletariat's role would an arbitrary choice on the part of Marx, rather than - again - a result. The proletariat cannot be substituted for, as if it were the tire on a car.
Also, another problem is that I don't really understand how communist logistics would work. in u/dr_marx's post, he quotes Vol 1 of Capital where Marx describes Robinson Crusoe. The society Marx envision's sounds a lot like pre-agricultural society where a community would just produce the things they need to live and share them based on who needs what and spend the rest of their time on hobbies. Except for Marx, this society wouldn't necessarily be primitive, and could rely on technology.
But what I don't get is how exactly would this scale to a society of, say, the United State's size. It's simple enough when you are just talking about food, shelter, basic tools and you population may be a few hundred to a thousand people max. But when you are dealing with 300M people, and tools that require resources from all around the world, and a lot of specialization, how does Marx or Marxists envision this be accomplished? Would their be some sort of work councils? Would there be labor vouchers? How do people know what the community needs?
The short answer to this is that you here again conceive communism not as the necessary ultimate aim of the labour movement, but as an ideal to be put into practice, which is why you wonder about the technological requirements for its actualisation. Essentially, this is the same error that /u/dr_marx pointed out in Cockshott - you're not conceiving the problem as a social one, as one of class. The soviets, councils, did not arise because communists invented them - they were a spontaneous product of the workers. Likewise, labour vouchers came up as an idea of the labour movement. All of these are practical problems that will confront the victorious proletariat, for which there are no a priori solutions to be imposed on it. Maybe this exchange helps you to understand it a bit better.
There is a whole field which gets by on the absurd endeavour to attempt to employ thinking in order to put a principled doubt into its results - it's called the philosophy of science, and it asks nonsensical questions such as "is science possible?". You can only prove determinate mistakes, and you can only know that you erred after the fact. If you know about a problem of your theory, you're already beyond it and are sticking to it merely because you're content with this deficiency.
Could you elaborate on your criticism of the philosophy of science? I’m not sure I understand as my understanding of it comes from a single American undergraduate PoS course. Do you find issue with current trends in the field’s methodology or are you more generally skeptical towards questioning the foundations of science?
It's not "my criticism"; Hegel famously criticises Kant for attempting to prove a necessary deficiency of thinking by means of thinking. Marx in the Theses on Feuerbach then resolves this into a social question:
The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the this-sidedness [Diesseitigkeit] of his thinking, in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.
[...]
All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.
I don't know about current trends in the field. I reproduced criticism of a certain abstract skepticism regarding thinking and its results. If you want to read more on the topic, I'd have a look at this text. Though the authors don't understand Hegel properly (for example, they don't distinguish between a method and treating a method as an instrument - but this is a minor thing compared to the overall incomprehension) - much less Marx (they don't understand the difference between non-critical and critical science) -, some of the critiques of ideology contained are good.
...wrong conclusions are drawn from the very same experience as right ones. So how are you then to distinguish between the two by "testing them against experience"? To assess these conclusions, it's necessary to examine them, not some experience imagined to lie outside of them.
What do you mean by "it's necessary to examine them"? I thought the way conclusions get examined is through experiment. If I make an observation, i can come up with a hypothesis that would aim to explain my observation. I would then do experiments to try to rule out my hypothesis. If my observations keep show my theory is correct and I can't prove my theory wrong, then it must be the correct one. But if my observations contradict my hypothesis, then it needs to be scrapped or revised. Why is this method wrong? What other ways are there of examining a theory?
Also, isn't the reason many social theories still have not been eliminated is precisely because they are hard to verify through empirical observations. For example, evolutionary psychology is often viewed as being pseudoscientific because some of the theories are untestable. You cant say for certain why a certain psychological trait would be useful to our ancestors because you cant really study them (since they are dead) and without looking at our close primate relatives and analyzing our DNA, any attempt to explain a psychological trait by its potential utility to our ancestors is essentially just speculation, and not real science.
The judgement that in communism there is no exploitation is not an ideal towards which communists strive, but the result of the investigation of bourgeois society and its roots.
So the idea behind communism is that if you overthrow the class dynamic (along with the market and all that stems from it), you will inevitably end up in a world with less exploitation? And that communists know this by studying class relations? So it's not so much about how the world should be but how it actually is in reality? Like telling someone "hey, if you give a car a lighter chassis, it will be faster". Its just a statement of an objective fact, not just a moral one.
The Soviets did not arise because Marxists invented them - they were a spontaneous product of the workers.
So if we open the eyes of the proletariat to the system which exploits them, and the decide to rise up, communism will be the eventual outcome of that struggle (the synthesis)?
What do you mean by "it's necessary to examine them"? I thought the way conclusions get examined is through experiment. If I make an observation, i can come up with a hypothesis that would aim to explain my observation. I would then do experiments to try to rule out my hypothesis. If my observations keep show my theory is correct and I can't prove my theory wrong, then it must be the correct one. But if my observations contradict my hypothesis, then it needs to be scrapped or revised. Why is this method wrong? What other ways are there of examining a theory?
If you say you have a hypothesis, you are saying that on the basis of what you already know about your object, you come to the result that it could be constituted in this or that manner. You are saying you have a possible explanation - that is, you are saying that you have reasons for this assumption in what you already know, but these reasons are deficient, as in they still allow multiple explanations. This means that if you want certainty, you can never be content with a hypothesis.
Also, isn't the reason many social theories still have not been eliminated is precisely because they are hard to verify through empirical observations.
No. The reason lies not in the supposed difficulty of "verifying through empirical observations". Bourgeois science can be disproven quite easily by thinking it through. These deficient theories stick around because they correspond to the a priori interest of viewing a particular subject matter in this or that manner.
For example, evolutionary psychology is often viewed as being pseudoscientific because some of the theories are untestable. You cant say for certain why a certain psychological trait would be useful to our ancestors because you cant really study them (since they are dead) and without looking at our close primate relatives and analyzing our DNA, any attempt to explain a psychological trait by its potential utility to our ancestors is essentially just speculation, and not real science.
This is a weak argument against evolutionary psychology. Aside from not actually investigating its object (the mind; subjectivity), a feat that this theory inherited from psychology, the idiocy of sociobiology can be shown quite easily by looking at it on its own terms, instead of dismissing it for not meeting an arbitrarily conjured up instrumental touchstone for science which is external to the subject matter. This PDF shows the first beginnings of such a proper endeavour from page 109 onward.
So the idea behind communism is that if you overthrow the class dynamic (along with the market and all that stems from it), you will inevitably end up in a world with less exploitation?
When communists refer to exploitation, they are not using an arbitrary moral category. The concept describes an actual fact peculiar to bourgeois society.
And that communists know this by studying class relations? So it's not so much about how the world should be but how it actually is in reality? Like telling someone "hey, if you give a car a lighter chassis, it will be faster". Its just a statement of an objective fact, not just a moral one.
Yes. But this does not mean that communism is a product of reason, as in being "the most reasonable social order", to paraphrase Marx criticising this idea. It still corresponds to the needs of the proletariat, albeit other classes might join the communist party on the condition that they fully adopt the proletarian outlook.
So if we open the eyes of the proletariat to the system which exploits them, and the decide to rise up, communism will be the eventual outcome of that struggle (the synthesis)?
There is no need to educate the proletariat about the evils of the system which exploits it. Proletarians usually know pretty well that their lot is miserable. I thought I explained that communism is not about continuing the Enlightenment, or a question of will in one of the replies I linked to you. Of course, the communist party does educate people (and I am talking about actual education, and not spreading half-truths, like socialists do everywhere!) - but this has inherent limits and can in no way be its main activity. What it instead devotes its efforts to is giving voice to the already existing struggles of the proletariat, helping it overcome its momentary particular limitations by association, as well as putting forward its general interests. If the latter are recognised properly by the party, they will be self-evident and thus earn the trust of the most combative elements of the proletariat organically, without much convincing to do - the rest of the class will follow. The proletariat acts out of need, not will.
Regarding your parentheses, I assume they stem from some idea of what dialectics would be - something about thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Imposing some extrinsic form on any content is precisely the opposite of dialectics. In fact, if you're reasoning correctly, you are reasoning dialectically anyway. Likewise, if you are wrong, it's possible to point that out by showing the error, instead of reproaching someone for being "undialectical". No reason to bring up any "dialectical relation" - by which people usually mean some reciprocal relationship they don't want to investigate further - or reference this triadic structure. Hegel criticises this way of working with regard to Kant:
Now that the triplicity, adopted in the system of Kant – a method rediscovered, to begin with, by instinctive insight, but left lifeless and uncomprehended – has been raised to its significance as an absolute method, true form is thereby set up in its true content, and the conception of science has come to light. But the use this form has been put to in certain quarters has no right to the name of science. For we see it there reduced to a lifeless schema, to nothing better than a mere shadow, and scientific organization to a synoptic table. This formalism – about which we spoke before in general terms, and whose procedure we wish here to state more fully – thinks it has comprehended and expressed the nature and life of a given form when it proclaims a determination of the schema to be its predicate. The predicate may be subjectivity or objectivity, or again magnetism, electricity, and so on, contraction or expansion, East or West, and such like – a form of predication that can be multiplied indefinitely, because according to this way of working each determination, each mode, can be applied as a form or schematic element in the case of every other, and each will thankfully perform the same service for any other. With a circle of reciprocities of this sort it is impossible to make out what the real fact in question is, or what the one or the other is. We find there sometimes constituents of sense picked up from ordinary intuition, determinate elements which to be sure should mean something else than they say; at other times what is inherently significant, viz. pure determinations of thought – like subject, object, substance, cause, universality, etc. – these are applied just as uncritically and unreflectingly as in every-day life, are used much as people employ the terms strong and weak, expansion and contraction. As a result that type of metaphysics is as unscientific as those ideas of sense.
And Marx explicitly ridicules it like this in the Poverty of Philosophy:
If we had M. Proudhon's intrepidity in the matter of Hegelianism we should say: it is distinguished in itself from itself. What does this mean? Impersonal reason, having outside itself neither a base on which it can pose itself, nor an object to which it can oppose itself, nor a subject with which it can compose itself, is forced to turn head over heels, in posing itself, opposing itself and composing itself – position, opposition, composition. Or, to speak Greek – we have thesis, antithesis and synthesis.
In fact, if you're reasoning correctly, you are reasoning dialectically anyway.
That is to say all reasoning that does not make use of dialectics is incorrect?
What is it about dialectics that is necessary? Is it not simply argumentation between competing contradictory standpoints?
That is to say all reasoning that does not make use of dialectics is incorrect?
This is not what I said. The furthest reasoning can go is dialectics - without the person expressing it possessing knowledge of Hegel. Read Hegel's Logic and tell me how often you find him say "dialectics" or "dialectical". You don't "make use" of dialectics. It is supposed to come out of the content itself. Hegel criticises the idea of treating a method as an instrument in the introduction to the Phenomenology.
And when Marx talks about his "dialectical method", he refers to a mode of presentation and a criticism of dialectics. Dialectics are only useful to communists through Marx's critique anyway.
Here is Marx in a letter to Engels commenting on Lassalle attempting to "make use" of dialectics:
Heraclitus, the Dark Philosopher by Lassalle the Luminous One is, au fond a very silly concoction. Every time Heraclitus uses an image to demonstrate the unity of affirmation and negation — and this is often — in steps Lassalle and makes the most of the occasion by treating us to some passage from Hegel’s Logic which is hardly improved in the process; always at great length too, like a schoolboy who must show in his essay that he has thoroughly understood his ‘essence’ and ‘appearance’ as well as the ‘dialectical process’. Once he has got this into his speculative noodle, one may be sure that the schoolboy will nevertheless be able to carry out the process of ratiocination only in strict accord with the prescribed formula and the formes sacramentales [sacred forms]. Just so our Lassalle. The fellow seems to have tried to puzzle out Hegelian logic via Heraclitus, nor ever to have tired of beginning the process all over again. As for learning, there is a tremendous display of it. But, as any well-informed person will know, provided one has the time and the money and, like Mr Lassalle, can have Bonn University Library delivered ad libitum to one’s home, it is easy enough to assemble such an array of quotations. One can see what an amazing swell the fellow himself thinks he is in this philological finery, and how he moves with all the grace of a man wearing fashionable dress for the first time in his life. Since most philologists are not possessed of the speculative thinking dominant in Heraclitus, every Hegelian has the incontestable advantage of understanding what the philologist does not. (It would, by the by, be strange indeed if, by learning Greek, a fellow were to become a philosopher in Greek without being one in German.) Instead of simply taking this for granted, Mr Lassalle proceeds to lecture us in a quasi-Lessingian manner. In longwinded, lawyer’s style he vindicates the Hegelian interpretation as opposed to the erroneous exegeses of the philologists — erroneous for want of specialised knowledge. Thus we are accorded the twofold gratification, first, of having dialectical matters which we had all but forgotten expounded to us at considerable length and, secondly, of seeing this ‘speculative heritage’ vindicated (qua special province of Mr Lassalle’s philological-jurisprudential astuteness and erudition) vis-à-vis the unspeculative philologists. Despite the fellow’s claim, by the way, that hitherto Heraclitus has been a book with 7 seals, he has to all intents and purposes added nothing whatever that is new to what Hegel says in the History of Philosophy. All he does is to enlarge on points of detail which could, of course, have been accomplished quite adequately in two sheets of print. Still less does it occur to the laddie to come out with any critical reflections on dialectics as such. If all the fragments by Heraclitus were put together in print, they would hardly fill half a sheet. Only a chap who brings out his books at the expense of the frightful ‘specimen of humankind’ can presume to launch upon the world 2 volumes of 60 sheets on such a pretext.
Heraclitus, the Dark Philosopher, is quoted as saying in an attempt to elucidate the transformation of all things into their opposite: ‘Thus gold changeth into all things, and all things change into gold.’ Here, Lassalle says, gold means money (c'est juste) and money is value. Thus the Ideal, Universality, the One (value), and things, the Real, Particularity, the Many. He makes use of this surprising insight to give, in a lengthy note, an earnest of this discoveries in the science of political economy. Every other word a howler, but set forth with remarkable pretentiousness. It is plain to me from this one note that, in his second grand opus, the fellow intends to expound political economy in the manner of Hegel. He will discover to his cost that it is one thing for a critique to take a science to the point at which it admits of a dialectical presentation, and quite another to apply an abstract, ready-made system of logic to vague presentiments of just such a system.
In that pdf you linked, the author says
The attempt to explain human life in purely biological terms is founded on a view of the human species as a whole which arises from their inhuman way of life.
Are they saying that the existence of the view of biological determinism can be explained by how inhuman our society is?
Also you say
This means that if you want certainty, you can never be content with a hypothesis.
Is there anything wrong with not being content with a hypothesis? When we are talking about the physical world, we can't necessarily have a priori knowledge of it, so we have to rely on empiricism and the scientific method. Are you saying you disagree with the epistomology underlying science? Or are you saying that currently science hasnt done a good job of eliminating theories because the scientists have become content with the theories which they want to believe?
There is no need to educate the proletariat about the evils of the system which would exploit them.
If the latter are recognised properly by the party, they will be self-evident and thus earn the trust of the most combative elements of the proletariat organically, without much convincing to do
But how come there are people who are working class who, rather than moving to the left and embracing marx, move instead to the right? The fascists and white nationalists often rely on disenfranchised white male workers to fuel and propagate their ideology. A good example would be something like 1920s Germany or the Rust Belt.
Has the left just done a poor job of helping working class people at the moment and that's why they are turning to other ideologies for a sense of community and purpose?
In that pdf you linked, the author says
The attempt to explain human life in purely biological terms is founded on a view of the human species as a whole which arises from their inhuman way of life.
Are they saying that the existence of the view of biological determinism can be explained by how inhuman our society is?
To clarify something initially: Smith provides a reason as to why he can speak of "inhuman" earlier in the book - it's not just some moral category here. If you are interested in why he considers this judgement to be correct, you should read the rest of his book. Other than that, your rephrasing removes the mediating step contained in what you quote. Smith also does not speak of degrees of inhumanity, as you imply by saying "how inhuman" here. What he is saying is that the way bourgeois society immediately appears leads to a wrong concept of the human species, which then enables sociobiology. Marx, in the Holy Family:
Speaking exactly and in the prosaic sense, the members of civil society are not atoms. The specific property of the atom is that it has no properties and is therefore not connected with beings outside it by any relationship determined by its own natural necessity. The atom has no needs, it is self-sufficient., the world outside it is an absolute vacuum, i.e., is contentless, senseless, meaningless, just because the atom has all fullness in itself. The egoistic individual in civil society may in his non-sensuous imagination and lifeless abstraction inflate himself into an atom, i.e., into an unrelated, self-sufficient, wantless, absolutely full, blessed being. Unblessed sensuous reality does not bother about his imagination, each of his senses compels him to believe in the existence of the world and of individuals outside him, and even his profane stomach reminds him every day that the world outside him is not empty, but is what really fills. Every activity and property of his being, every one of his vital urges, becomes a need, a necessity, which his self-seeking transforms into seeking for other things and human beings outside him. But since the need of one individual has no self-evident meaning for another egoistic individual capable of satisfying that need, and therefore no direct connection with its satisfaction, each individual has to create this connection; it thus becomes the intermediary between the need of another and the objects of this need. Therefore, it is natural necessity, the essential human properties however estranged they may seem to be, and interest that hold the members of civil society together; civil, not political life is their real tie. It is therefore not the state that holds the atoms of civil society together, but the fact that they are atoms only in imagination in the heaven of their fancy, but in reality beings tremendously different from atoms, in other words, not divine egoists, but egoistic human beings. Only political superstition still imagines today that civil life must be held together by the state, whereas in reality, on the contrary, the state is held together by civil life.
To use an analogy from natural science: When we look at the sky, the Ptolemaic view of the sun revolving around the earth initially seems plausible because of how it presents itself to us. It took more scientific investigation to find out that instead earth is orbiting the sun. This comparison has its limits of course, since it excludes that for a long time the way people lived lended itself to the geocentric worldview, and that there were interests that promoted it.
Additionally, like it is currently all the rage to compare everything to computers, so it has been in the past with other inventions - there have been attempts to subsume every object under the idea of the organism, mechanism (especially during industrialisation) or other abstractions before. See Marx in the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (the whole section which discusses Hegel's treatment of the state as an organism is relevant):
In truth, Hegel has done nothing but resolve the constitution of the state into the universal, abstract idea of the organism; but in appearance and in his own opinion he has developed the determinate reality out of the universal Idea. He has made the subject of the idea into a product and predicate of the Idea. He does not develop his thought out of his object, but his object in accordance with a ready-made thought which has its origin in the abstract sphere of logic. It is not a question of developing the determinate idea of the political constitution, but of giving the political constitution a relation to the abstract Idea, of classifying it as a member of its (the idea’s) life history. This is an obvious mystification.
[...]
The concrete content, the actual determination appears to be formal, and the wholly abstract formal determination appears to be the concrete content. What is essential to determinate political realities is not that they can be considered as such but rather that they can be considered, in their most abstract configuration, as logical-metaphysical determinations. Hegel’s true interest is not the philosophy of right but logic. The philosophical task is not the embodiment of thought in determinate political realities, but the evaporation of these realities in abstract thought. The philosophical moment is not the logic of fact but the fact of logic. Logic is not used to prove the nature of the state, but the state is used to prove the logic.
So in such a case science no longer proceeds from the determinations of its object, but instead attempts to use the object as an example for an already established concept external to it. Sociobiologists do the same when they want to subsume social relations under the idea of evolution - the reason as to why they desire to do this is obvious.
Also you say
This means that if you want certainty, you can never be content with a hypothesis.
Is there anything wrong with not being content with a hypothesis?
No. But if you declare all results of science to be hypothetical, like Popper does, you are denying that knowledge is even possible. You assert the contradiction of a necessarily preliminary knowledge - you claim that thought can never grasp the identity of its object on principle.
When we are talking about the physical world, we can't necessarily have a priori knowledge of it, so we have to rely on empiricism and the scientific method. Are you saying you disagree with the epistomology underlying science?
I mainly had the social sciences in mind - I only used analogies with natural science to get the point across. The natural sciences have problems too, but they are of a different nature. Additionally, no scientist needs to know about epistemology for going on about their business. They merely need to work on explaining their object, eliminating errors on the way. The idea of a supposed "royal road" that would make this endeavour fool-proof is a reflection after the fact that aims at the ability to demarcate science and non-science just by looking at its form, not its content.
Or are you saying that currently science hasnt done a good job of eliminating theories because the scientists have become content with the theories which they want to believe?
There necessarily is pluralism in the social sciences because of the class antagonism. This was explained in the quotes I provided by Marx further up.
But how come there are people who are working class who, rather than moving to the left and embracing marx, move instead to the right?
From the communist point of view, it is just as much of a problem if proletarians rally behind conservatives, centrists or leftists (all different shades of liberalism). Communism is not the end of this spectrum on one side. The proletariat can have the most diverse kinds of opinions in the absence of a party that provides a positive outlook for it.
The fascists and white nationalists often rely on disenfranchised white male workers to fuel and propagate their ideology. A good example would be something like 1920s Germany or the Rust Belt.
The social basis of historical fascism was not the proletariat. Fascism is the organisation of the petty bourgeoisie by big capital against the organised proletariat. This should already show that modern right-wing populists, or whatever term you want to use, are not fascists in the proper sense.
One reason as to why workers in the Rust Belt might follow Trump today is that there is no communist party in the US that has a positive answer to the migration question. Leftists, centrists and conservatives argue over what the bourgeois state is to do: open the borders or close them (of course the matter is not as simplistic as this, for example some conservatives also propose to industrialise other states in some sort of neo-colonialism to prevent the incentives for migration, but I don't want to get into such details here).
Aside from the conservative approach, the whole centrist-leftist swamp is divided: some want to open the borders. The leftist spin to this is to deny that this might lower wages, as well as to call on workers to associate with migrant proletarians. This ignores that migration can indeed impact wages, and that it is therefore weak to simply call on workers to put down their resentments against migrants, which flow from this very fact. On the other hand, the social democratic solution proposed by people like Angela Nagle is just as stupid - closing the borders for the good of the nation. She identifies her cause with that of Occupy Wall Street, which mobilised against finance capital, big capital and inequality: all typical concerns of the middle class threatened by proletarianisation. To her, the labour movement is merely a convenient means for her aim. All of these are ways of managing the movement of labour as mediated by private property in a different manner. The communist approach to migration is to counterpose this with the self-movement and self-regulation of labour, putting workers across countries into contact with each other, similar to how the IWMA did it.
Another reason for proletarians to follow conservatives over centrists and leftists is that these at least acknowledge politics for what it is: power and competing interests. Whereas to liberals, it is often reduced to a matter of proper management, knowledge. Just look at the never ending stream of reproaches the Democrats and the media have towards Trump for being dumb, not adhering to democratic PR bullshit, not following formal procedures, ignoring the advice of supposed technocrats, setting aside decency and manners, and so on - it's hilarious. Additionally, both parties have left the Rust Belt to rot previously, whereas Trump was the only one at least giving the semblance of taking the people there seriously. And Trump is not afraid of going against the entirety of the media and political dissent to go through with his policies - he does not seem to bend and compromise on every single occasion. American liberals are utterly detached from the proletariat - it might as well be a unicorn to them.
Deindustrialisation then exasperates all these phenomena, because it weakens the proletariat.
Has the left just done a poor job of helping working class people at the moment and that's why they are turning to other ideologies for a sense of community and purpose?
It is not about a sense of community and purpose, but about needs and interests. The notion of "helping working class people" - in the sense of improving their condition - is one which Marx ridicules in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, in the chapter on Socialist and Communist Literature.
This conversation has grown tiresome for me, as it has moved on quite far from what the initial question had been, and it has since taken on the form of an interview. If you are interested in communism, I propose you look at the literature linked in the sidebar here as well as the links which get posted here regularly and the corresponding comments. I won't be at your disposal any further.
The communist approach to migration is to counterpose this with the self-movement and self-regulation of labour, putting workers across countries into contact with each other, similar to how the IWMA did it.
Where can i read more about this?
Okay, thank you. This was helpful.
You're welcome.
Stop trying to steal my internet points.
How can your alt steal your internet points? :-)
You two of you are like a bad cop/good cop duo.
leftcom marxists
Who are they exactly?
What does it mean when marxists (particularly leftcoms) say Marx was opposed to "economics"?
You're probably confused because economics means the study of capitalism, or the theory or explanation of market relations, prices, etc. You won't need this in communism.
surely leftcoms
Who?
believe in some kind of economy (by which I mean a system of production and distribution of goods and services)?
Do you think that there are people out there who believe that? Probably there some who do believe that there must be no production at all, and some them might even call themselves "leftcoms". Unfortunately there is no law over who can and can't call themselves a marxist.
What are some leftcom ideas of how a society should be organized?
Capital Vol 1, chapter 1
Since Robinson Crusoe’s experiences are a favourite theme with political economists,[30] let us take a look at him on his island. Moderate though he be, yet some few wants he has to satisfy, and must therefore do a little useful work of various sorts, such as making tools and furniture, taming goats, fishing and hunting. Of his prayers and the like we take no account, since they are a source of pleasure to him, and he looks upon them as so much recreation. In spite of the variety of his work, he knows that his labour, whatever its form, is but the activity of one and the same Robinson, and consequently, that it consists of nothing but different modes of human labour. Necessity itself compels him to apportion his time accurately between his different kinds of work. Whether one kind occupies a greater space in his general activity than another, depends on the difficulties, greater or less as the case may be, to be overcome in attaining the useful effect aimed at. This our friend Robinson soon learns by experience, and having rescued a watch, ledger, and pen and ink from the wreck, commences, like a true-born Briton, to keep a set of books. His stock-book contains a list of the objects of utility that belong to him, of the operations necessary for their production; and lastly, of the labour time that definite quantities of those objects have, on an average, cost him. All the relations between Robinson and the objects that form this wealth of his own creation, are here so simple and clear as to be intelligible without exertion, even to Mr. Sedley Taylor. And yet those relations contain all that is essential to the determination of value.
Let us now transport ourselves from Robinson’s island bathed in light to the European middle ages shrouded in darkness. Here, instead of the independent man, we find everyone dependent, serfs and lords, vassals and suzerains, laymen and clergy. Personal dependence here characterises the social relations of production just as much as it does the other spheres of life organised on the basis of that production. But for the very reason that personal dependence forms the ground-work of society, there is no necessity for labour and its products to assume a fantastic form different from their reality. They take the shape, in the transactions of society, of services in kind and payments in kind. Here the particular and natural form of labour, and not, as in a society based on production of commodities, its general abstract form is the immediate social form of labour. Compulsory labour is just as properly measured by time, as commodity-producing labour; but every serf knows that what he expends in the service of his lord, is a definite quantity of his own personal labour power. The tithe to be rendered to the priest is more matter of fact than his blessing. No matter, then, what we may think of the parts played by the different classes of people themselves in this society, the social relations between individuals in the performance of their labour, appear at all events as their own mutual personal relations, and are not disguised under the shape of social relations between the products of labour.
For an example of labour in common or directly associated labour, we have no occasion to go back to that spontaneously developed form which we find on the threshold of the history of all civilised races.[31] We have one close at hand in the patriarchal industries of a peasant family, that produces corn, cattle, yarn, linen, and clothing for home use. These different articles are, as regards the family, so many products of its labour, but as between themselves, they are not commodities. The different kinds of labour, such as tillage, cattle tending, spinning, weaving and making clothes, which result in the various products, are in themselves, and such as they are, direct social functions, because functions of the family, which, just as much as a society based on the production of commodities, possesses a spontaneously developed system of division of labour. The distribution of the work within the family, and the regulation of the labour time of the several members, depend as well upon differences of age and sex as upon natural conditions varying with the seasons. The labour power of each individual, by its very nature, operates in this case merely as a definite portion of the whole labour power of the family, and therefore, the measure of the expenditure of individual labour power by its duration, appears here by its very nature as a social character of their labour.
Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community. All the characteristics of Robinson’s labour are here repeated, but with this difference, that they are social, instead of individual. Everything produced by him was exclusively the result of his own personal labour, and therefore simply an object of use for himself. The total product of our community is a social product. One portion serves as fresh means of production and remains social. But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this portion amongst them is consequently necessary. The mode of this distribution will vary with the productive organisation of the community, and the degree of historical development attained by the producers. We will assume, but merely for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour time. Labour time would, in that case, play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption. The social relations of the individual producers, with regard both to their labour and to its products, are in this case perfectly simple and intelligible, and that with regard not only to production but also to distribution.
There is nothing complicated about it, there is no hidden or grand knowledge required. It is a matter of practical common sense.
Paul Cockshott
Cockshott is a bourgeois nutcase who thinks that the failure of communism (as he thinks it actually existed in the Soviet Union) was due to lack of computational power in trying to assign prices. For him, communism is a technological feat, not one of class, placing him squarely into the camp of the utopians (even the title of his book Towards a *New** Socialism* should give that away).
Also it seems like every Marxist (more broadly speaking, not just leftcoms) have their own interpretation of how a society's system of production should be organized, sometimes being completely different from that of other Marxists.
The vast majority, more than 99.999% of people who call themselves communists or marxists, and especially leftcoms, are complete morons and have no idea, no desire and no compulsion to actually investigate the communist movement.
How can we create a "socialist movement" with so much division?
A revolution can't be conjured up out of wishful thinking. Only at certain times and in certain situations can there be the possibility of a communist revolution, and the success of that depends upon the existence of a resolute and well theoretically well armed communist party that is clear on its program.
Is this an impossible task?
I'm not a communist just for the fun of it.
This is a helpful answer. Thank you.
1 reply:
“A Leninist before Lenin, bah!”
Thus a dismissive outburst from Gramsci has morphed, through decades of whispering Chinese down telephones, to "Bordiga called himself 'more Leninist than Lenin'" (and to even "more Stalinist than Stalin"!).
1 reply:
Follow-up: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/09/23/caau-s23.html
Second follow-up: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/09/29/unif-s29.html
3 replies:
Obviously this is from WSWS and should be read with scrutiny, but this part stood out to me.
This makes clear why it is not possible to reform the trade unions in the workers’ interests and why new, independent organs of struggle—action committees—must be built.
While there are, of course “things that stand higher than unity” and all that, this kind of separatism (particular the talk about “action committees”) reeks of ‘unions’ without any actual workers (like the present IWW) or whatever the hell the ICT is doing with its “groups of factory and territory”.
Still, I would be interested to hear from anyone with more familiarity with the present day labor movement in Germany. Is there a way to recover the German trade unions?
Obviously this is from WSWS and should be read with scrutiny
As you note, I obviously posted this article not because of political agreement with the conclusions of the SEP but because of the empirical account of conditions it gives. It's basically a more detailed version of what I wrote here. It should make clear that what I said about the social-democratic programme of Bernie Sanders is entirely accurate.
but this part stood out to me.
This makes clear why it is not possible to reform the trade unions in the workers’ interests and why new, independent organs of struggle—action committees—must be built.
There are more dodgy conclusions in there. For example:
The transformation of trade unions into a company police force is not the result of the—ever-abundant—corruption of individual functionaries.
It arises firstly from the trade union point of view, which accepts and supports capitalist private property and the bitter struggle for markets and profits. The more the world market is dominated by monopolies, the more bitter the struggle between them becomes, the closer the trade unions move together with “their” national corporations.
[...]
Secondly, the same applies to trade union officials: Being determines consciousness. They form a privileged social class.
Now, it is correct that the union leadership is acting in the interests of the bourgeoisie, but they are essentially attributing this to an alleged necessity of capital's development that could not be changed. It's a view that corresponds to political economy, not communism. Effectively, it is amounts to chiefly nailing down, eternalising, the present weakness of the labour movement within the realm of thought. A resurgent labour movement can tear out all these mental pushpins allegedly fixing it in place with ease. Curiously, the SEP does not speak at all about the political party and its capacity to help overcome the narrowness of the standpoint of the trade union.
While there are, of course “things that stand higher than unity” and all that, this kind of separatism (particular the talk about “action committees”) reeks of ‘unions’ without any actual workers (like the present IWW) or whatever the hell the ICT is doing with its “groups of factory and territory”.
The letter by Engels to Bebel that you reference deals with the question of unity within the party, not unity of the economic insitutitions of the proletariat.
It's worth noting that the conclusions of this present text are tied to German conditions - i.e. they argue for those action committees on the basis of what they find in German unions, rather than by means of an artificial general construction like "decadence", as the ICC or ICT do. I am also not sure how those action committees would be similar to the IWW, as the SEP here is urging workers to form these committees where struggles are already happening. It is also not said that a formally independent institution like them cannot act in unison with the existing unions when appropriate.
Whether the SEP's recommendation is appropriate to the conditions is of course another matter.
Still, I would be interested to hear from anyone with more familiarity with the present day labor movement in Germany. Is there a way to recover the German trade unions?
That is asking the wrong question. It is shoehorning the proletariat into a solution you have envisioned for it, rather than proceeding from the present premises. The question is what obstacles the labour movement currently faces in its struggles and how they are to be overcome. It cannot be determined in advance whether the German labour movement will express itself through reinvigorating the existing trade unions or through sidelining them.
As long as it expresses itself at least in part through trade unions, communists need to take account of that and accordingly help fight against the obstacles within the trade unions themselves. At the same time, struggles taking place outside the trade unions - and against them when they act in the interest of the bourgeoisie - must be also be furthered, so the general association of the proletariat develops. If the labour movement were to move towards recapturing the trade unions, the process would in any case be a very protracted one, given the degree to which they are integrated into the state. Most national trade unions are members of the ILO. It is hard to imagine a worse situation than the United Nations as an arch-bourgeois institution standing at the helm of trade unions.
On another note, this prompted me to do a little reading about the ILO. I was aware of them, but I had assumed they were just a typical group of bureaucrats who met in Switzerland to collect six figure salaries and lounge in comfy chairs. Just a cursory glance over their Wikipedia page though and it turns out it’s even worse than I thought:
Within the UN system the organization has a unique tripartite structure: all standards, policies, and programmes require discussion and approval from the representatives of governments, employers, and workers.
The ILO organises once a year the International Labour Conference in Geneva to set the broad policies of the ILO, including conventions and recommendations. [...] Each member state is represented by a delegation: two government delegates, an employer delegate, a worker delegate and their respective advisers.
So not only are employers and the state represented, they outvote the worker delegates (who already come from the highest layers of union bureaucracy) by three to one! It’s stunning how social-corporatism has not only survived but thrived after the defeat of the fascist powers.
Still, like basically all parts of the U.N., it’s unclear what the ILO actually does. Their own website does little to explain what role the ILO plays in the labor movement or anything else. How capable is the ILO at directing the trade unions of member states?
5 replies:
It is insane how relevant this is even decades later.
By making credit more available to proletarians, who are thereby enabled to buy luxury items ‘on tick’, proletarians are turned, in an economic sense, into more perfect “paupers”, without savings to fall back on: proletarian balance sheets are now no longer just about possessing nothing, but about mortgaging a mass of future labour in order to get back to owing nothing: actually a kind of partial slavery. At the social level all this consumption corresponds to networks of influence, often of a corrupting and degenerate nature, which serve the interests of the ruling class, inculcating the habitual tendencies and ideologies that most suit it. The monstrous publicity and advertising machine constrains the proletariat to use its surplus earnings to buy articles of consumption which encapsulate false and often dangerous illusions. On top of capital’s despotism in the factories, the personal liberty of prosperous America adds a further despotism and dictatorship over the exploited class by means of standardised ‘packaged’ consumption; it is a dictatorship which operates by creating absurd needs in order to keep worker’s busy in their free time and to keep the wheels of commerce turning.
The same effect is achieved by awarding a tiny share of factory dividends to supplement annual salaries. The relevant statistics indicate that even in the best case scenarios the additional earnings add up to no more than 5%, which is very quickly recuperated from the naïve “shareholder” who has been duped into working even harder.
https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/12/pf/americans-lack-of-savings/index.html
Nearly six in 10 Americans don't have enough savings to cover a $500 or $1,000 unplanned expense, according to a new report from Bankrate.
Only 41% of adults reported having enough in their savings account to cover a surprise bill of this magnitude. A little more than 20% said they would put it on a credit card, the report said, while 20% would cut their spending and 11% would turn to friends and family for financial assistance.
"This is a persistent American problem of how you should handle your finances and spending," said Jill Cornfield, retirement analyst for Bankrate.
But at least the number has improved. Last year, only 37% of Americans reported having enough savings to cover an expense of $500 or more.
"This is a persistent American problem of how you should handle your finances and spending," said Jill Cornfield, retirement analyst for Bankrate.
Haha, of course it would be presented as a personal problem, as a wrong manner of dealing with money. The proles simply don't know how to handle cash, even the meagre crumbs they get cannot be entrusted to them! In the worst cases, they even accept this judgement and kill themselves instead of channeling their hatred and bitterness into the only real means to fight these class enemies, that is, association with other proletarians for the purpose of getting what they require to meet their needs.
This problem of US American proletarians having trouble to create savings is something that /u/dr_marx and I also tried to stress in the first stickied thread. It is also mentioned in the 1956 text "Dialogue with the Dead":
Soon one will arrive at America's masterpiece: consumer credit. The worker - even if he has the illusion of being a participant in the working capital through his shares - is no longer the owner but the debtor of his few possessions, and even if he owns his home, he owes its value. So he practically has the same fate as the slave who, after being fed, was a debtor of the net value of his own person.
This American credit system, which ties workers to their workplaces through debt, has been called industrial feudalism. A further step towards "growing immiseration", i.e. loss of any economic "reserve". The classical proletariat had a reserve of zero; the modern proletariat has a negative reserve: it must first pay a considerable sum to be able to depart naked. With what should one pay, if not like Shylock, with a piece of one's own flesh?
I think more people would have understood what you meant by that if you quoted this text along with it
We were as straightforward as it gets in that thread. If people don't understand what is explained there, they can't be helped. It should be obvious to everyone what it means when it is stated that not the cost of healthcare is a problem, but the lack of means to procure it.
Quoting the ICP wouldn't make our points any more correct.
From what I've read it seems like it is saying that capitalism is in an period of decline. Is that right or is there more to it? What are the implications of the theory and why do so many on the communist left seem to dismiss it?
7 replies:
There's a new translation on this topic on the front page just now. There are multiple variants of decadence theory, the ICT and ICC both have their own, each equally stupid. Here, let's look at what decadence is in the ICC's own words, for example:
For the proletarian revolution to go beyond being a mere hope or historical potentiality or perspective and become a concrete possibility, it had to become an objective necessity for the development of humanity. This has in fact been the historic situation since the First World War: this war marked the end of the ascendant phase of the capitalist mode of production, a phase which began in the sixteenth century and which reached its zenith at the end of the nineteenth century. The new phase which followed was that of the decadence of capitalism.
So before 1914, communism apparently was either "a mere hope", respectively a "historical potentiality or perspective", and only afterwards did it become "a concrete possibility" - what the difference between these is, I do not presume to answer. Isn't "hope" the expression of someone powerless, meaning that communism would then not even have been a "potentiality"? How is "historical potentiality" distinguished from "objective necessity for the development of humanity"? Where is this necessity, if not solely in the minds of the ICC? What is an "abstract possibility", if a "concrete possibility" exists? Clearly someone should have told Marx and Engels about these categories back when they were involved in the IWMA.
More, capitalism has apparently been "decadent" for over a century!
As in all previous societies, the first phase of capitalism expressed the historically necessary character of its productive relations, that is to say their indispensable role in the expansion of society’s productive forces. The second phase, on the other hand, expressed the increasing transformation of these relations into a fetter on the development of the productive forces.
How quickly communists turn into apologists for capital! Everything relevant about this has been mentioned before in the two texts that have been linked on this subreddit commenting on decadence, so it suffices to say that the ICC does not seem to have the slightest idea of what is even meant by "productive forces".
the existence of an ever-increasing market is one of the essential conditions for the development of capitalism. In particular, the realisation of the surplus value which comes from the exploitation of the working class is indispensable for the accumulation of capital which is the essential motor-force of the system. Contrary to what the idolaters of capital claim, capitalist production does not create automatically and at will the markets necessary for its growth. Capitalism developed in a non-capitalist world, and it was in this world that it found the outlets for its development. But by generalising its relations of production across the whole planet and by unifying the world market, capitalism reached a point where the outlets which allowed it to grow so powerfully in the nineteenth century became saturated.
This idea about a lack of markets is based on Rosa Luxemburg's theory of accumulation. Why she was wrong has been explained by communists past in detail.
The under-utilisation of capital’s productive apparatus has become permanent and capital has become incapable of extending its social domination, if only to keep pace with population growth.
This is so vague that it's almost impossible to guess what they even intend to say. In which ways is "capital's productive apparatus" "under-utilised"? What is capital's "social domination"? Is this supposed to refer to real subsumption? Something else? In what ways has it become incapable of extending this? What does this have to do with population growth? Is population growth supposed to lie outside of capital?
a cycle characterised by immense armaments production which has increasingly become the only sphere where capitalism applies scientific methods
Where is the proof for this? Does capital not apply scientific methods in the production of smartphones and electric cars?
More, capitalism has apparently been "decadent" for over a century!
These guys don't seem much different than the Christian end of times doomsayers, or the alt-right crying about the "destruction" of western civilization.
Clearly someone should have told Marx and Engels about these categories back when they were involved in the IWMA.
In an earlier comment, you mentioned the IWMA's action on immigration, where can I read Marx's involvement in the international and how they dealt with the issues?
In an earlier comment, you mentioned the IWMA's action on immigration, where can I read Marx's involvement in the international and how they dealt with the issues?
For a first quick overview of the history of the IWMA, Wilhelm Eichhoff's pamphlet is a good starting point. Beyond all the documents you will find on MIA and in the MECW, I found the book "Workers Unite! The International 150 Years Later" by Marcello Musto to be useful, since it contains lots of material - I'm sure you will know where to find it.
thanks doc
You're welcome.
2 replies:
A more direct retranslation of Marx’s famous “Theses on Feuerbach” from 1845. We used the original manuscript published by the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe and paid special attention to use conventional translations for terminology borrowed from Hegel (e.g. actuality for Wirklichkeit, intuition for Anschauung). All italicisation is Marx’s.
It's not that different from the others.
2 replies:
you guys are doing gods work
The International Communist Party’s and Amadeo Bordiga’s 1959 Commentary on Marx’s 1844 Paris Manuscripts. While the incorporation of their implications proved a challenge with which vulgar Marxism would grapple for decades to come, Il Programma Comunista finds ‘great proof’ of the principle of invariance in them.
1 reply:
It’s pretty interesting what’s going on in Australia with some of the right wing unions and stuff, but our COVID containment and social distance enforcement, especially in government businesses like the postal service.
I’m sure there are issues where workers are being screwed over but I wouldn’t trust the WSWS as a reliable source and the SEP are known for anti union agitation especially public sector unions.
4 replies:
This really destroys Gramsci. Not that this was really needed, but some people just can't accept that Gramsci was an insignificant figure who had more in common with bourgeois ideologues than with Marxism.
It's kind of funny reading about Labriola, Croce, Mondolfo and Gentile and seeing how there are still people, over a hundred years later, who still walk in their footsteps.
In 1905 Giuseppe Rensi celebrates the idealist critique of historical materialism:
“It does indeed break the iron link which, according to the materialist view, tied morality and politics to the economic ground. Thus, on the one hand, it restores the autonomy of the human spirit in relation to the economic structure and breaks its dependence (…). On the other hand, and as a consequence, it gives back autonomy and effectiveness to political action, because if it is no longer true that the products of our spirit in this field are a necessary and quasi mechanical consequence of the economic order, then the political sphere will no longer be a mere moved but not moving dependency of the economic sphere, but will be able to have a thorough influence on it”
It's uncanny.
I hope we will get a second part of this as well. This is very detailed, especially with the historical background it gives.
We're still waiting for parts 2 of things so I wouldn't hold your breath.
The first of two parts of Christian Riechers’ dissertation about Antonio Gramsci. It was published as “Antonio Gramsci: Marxismus in Italien” in German, as well as “Gramsci e le Ideologie del suo Tempo” in Italian.
9 replies:
I like this article a lot.
For all of them, the holy ideal of the anti-colonialist revolt is the “liberation” of the subject peoples.
A sentence that could be enframed and hung up above Stalinist cretins of all shades.
The state baptised by Pandit Nehru, like the one sanctified by “comrade” Mao Zedong, is based on the same principle on which the immense power of the Western imperialist states accumulated over the decades: wage labour, the irreplaceable source of capitalist profit. Why be scandalised, then, if we say that the Afro-Asian revolutions are, from the point of view of the mode of production, the dialectical continuation of colonialism?
Obviously because there is a vested interest in portraying them as something they were not.
Since we are not obliged to incense the Nehrus and Mao Zedongs, we can safely say that the Afro-Asian revolutions, far from opening the way to socialism, have marked important milestones in the spread of capitalism in the world.
One might wonder how adherents of stupid Luxemburgian notions of decadence would think of this. If capitalism has been "decadent" since the advent of the First World War, then what is the cause of these anti-colonial revolutions?
Pre-capitalist relations of production will progressively withdraw, the capitalist mode of production will consequently spread. Will we come to see an all-capitalist world?
We see it, and it is not pretty. Yet, leftists will still go to great pains to justify throwing themselves behind the cause of the nation.
The imperialists of the second method no longer need to send expeditionary forces to the transmarine territories and maintain an expensive bureaucracy of occupation. They can control at a distance the productive mechanism of the “underdeveloped regions” of the globe through the game of loans and subsidies which, in legal fiction, were stipulated between “sovereign states”. On the contrary, they are able to build, anticipating their capitals, large industrial companies which they will let (in appearance) be administered by the natives elevated to the rank of “free citizens” of sovereign republics, but which, through the international banking mechanisms, they will pilot as they wish, without moving from their offices and without the fleet having to rush in. Who does not know that the industrialisation plans of China, India and the other Afro-Asian states are being implemented thanks to the intervention of foreign capital (read: United States, Germany, Russia)?
According to conventional wisdom of your average leftist, this situation is no different from historical colonialism.
Thermonuclear colonialism, the colonialism that the United States is introducing in the world, is pure capitalist colonialism. It exploits “free” workers enthralled by the megalomaniac plans of industrialisation of governments which, under the pretext of building “something other than capitalism”, function, and will function even more in the future, as vehicles of the imperialist expansionism of the dollar.
"Something other than capitalism" - is this the precursor to "non-mode of production" or "transitional society" gibberish?
Now that you have given it your blessings the morons online will now take ritualistic notice of it
There probably isn't so much reason to worry about this. I think the self-identified leftcommunist milieu on Reddit has basically disintegrated.
It would be good if this were the case, but I'm afraid it's not true. Aside from such abominations as /r/marxism_101 and its affiliate subreddits being kept open for god knows what reasons, the same people have just dispersed. Some might also have retracted to even more degenerate mediums, that better allow them to indulge in their pathetic behaviour, such as Twitter, but they still linger on.
There are still heaps of morons that attempt to copy what is being laid out in this subreddit every now and then, while they in reality bungle it everytime. Of course that's what's bound to happen if they lack the knowledge that lies behind it. Most people parading communism on the internet just do not have a genuine interest in it. They are relying on Chinese whispers in order to dunk on other people who do the same, and that's the extent to which they care. As far as the sentiment underlying their talk is concerned, they are not different from the people they want to criticise. Cue endless arguments over what communism is. They merely memorise to say or not to say certain things, like disciples or adepts, but they do not desire to bring themselves into a position in which they are able to critically assess matters themselves. When told: "You are not a communist, you merely search for an identity", they do not wonder what this means or entails, but merely tell others the same while continuing to behave in the exact same manner as before. They'd rather stay powerless cockroaches who want to be told what to think and what to do. Almost no one reads anything by Marx, and this is painfully obvious to everyone that does - the occasional pleasant surprise which asks a good question excluded.
In the German Ideology, Marx writes this about communism:
The appropriation of these forces is itself nothing more than the development of the individual capacities corresponding to the material instruments of production. The appropriation of a totality of instruments of production is, for this very reason, the development of a totality of capacities in the individuals themselves.
And in the introduction to the Contribution to the Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right, he says:
Likewise, every estate lacks that breadth of soul which identifies itself with the people's soul, even if only momentarily, that ingenuity which inspires material power to political violence, that revolutionary boldness which hurls the defiant slogan at the enemy: I am nothing, and I need to be everything. The mainstay of German morality and honesty, not only of individuals but also of classes, is rather formed by that modest egoism which asserts its limitedness and lets it be asserted against itself.
Whereas today, you have people who call themselves communists that revel in their state of ineptitude and even attempt to glorify it. Their misery does not bring them to the conclusion that they need to attack its causes, both individual and social, but that society should officially recognise and honour it - this is what communism to them is. They do not lack some inherent, divinely gifted talent. They simply do not have any wish to change themselves, to develop their capacities, to acquire new skills. In fact, they seem to have no real interests at all. Rather, they want the world to accommodate for them. But there's no merit to being a loser. When this is laid out to them, they do not consider this a judgement against what they are currently engaging in, but a judgement against their person - against what they are in their very essence. To them, their person has no other content than the political opinions they have arbitrarily decided to take on as a moral framework, and the accompanying activity. So rather than seeing this criticism as an impetus to change themselves, they just become even more miserable. It's a stupid state of affairs.
Mind you that all this applies to adults. As for all the children browsing the internet, it would be better for them if they went offline and searched for an actual hobby.
You know that they're some petty bourgeois idiot when they "get into" communism from some fiction, like a meme, a video game, book, etc. This is really just the development of some hobby, not some real necessity.
In a class society, whether of the slave or capitalist type, the spread of the mode of production outside the borders of the state can only take place in the form of violent conquest. All non-Marxist critics of colonialism started from this fact: the use of violence and the subjection of conquered peoples to formulate their curses.
Uh oh. ICP: cancelled. Again.
The affirmation that colonialism, notwithstanding the bloodshed and the drastic forms of racial subjugation, has played a positive role, favouring the diffusion of the dominant mode of production, will sound like blasphemy to the adepts of the anti-colonialist religion, the fashionable political religion. If we then add, drawing a logical consequence, that colonial warfare is the only means available to the class state for the geographical spread of the predominant economy, it will only result in an avalanche of accusations, including that of thinking the same way as angry bourgeois racists.
lol
and will continue to be so until the proletarian revolution returns to roar in the heart of Western capitalism
They're saying this because in 1957 the labor movement was most advanced in the West, right? Is that still true today?
Not really if you see how majority of proletarians now reside in the global south. Not only that, China which is a non-western country is now world's great power. The prerequisites for transition to communism is also here all around the globe as the last vestiges of archaic relations are gone. With last of peasantry becoming proletarians, it is now possible world wide. If you look at the map during 1950s and map today, you will realize independent nation states had replaced colonial territories of the past, signifying how feudal and asiatic means of production are now gone and "national liberation" has been finished. Greatest cities with millions of proletarians are now located in Africa and India like Lagos and Calcutta. Conditions when this article was written is no longer here. When this article was written, supermajority of Chinese and Indians were peasants living off the land just like the Russian Empire. Nowdays, China and India are centers of world manufacturing.
This doesn't mean that communist revolutions could not necessarily happen in countries where feudal relations are still dominant, as it occurred in Russia. Lenin recognized that socialism was impossible in a country where peasants were the majority, but he knew unlike the Mensheviks that proletariat could still hold political power and hold on. Mao did not, which is why this article is criticizing Mao's claims about construction of "communism" in his country.
They're saying this because in 1957 the labor movement was most advanced in the West, right?
Not necessarily. It is as west had fully gone capitalist, not because it was had the most militant labor movement at that time. This is also somewhat incorrect as Russia and Eastern Bloc also joined the rank of capitalist nations except in few retarded forms such as soviet cooperative farms. In essence, they are saying this to say elimination of capitalism, wage labor, and transition to non-mercantile forms are only possible once capitalism has been established first like in the west.
Without capitalism, no proletariat. Without(majority of the population being) proletariat, labor movement also remains stifled. When majority of population remains as peasants with their interests against the abolition of property, labor movement's ultimate aim of abolishing private property does not match the majority of the population. Proletariat, the propertyless class dependent on wage-labor naturally tends towards abolition of property as it has no property. Peasants, who rely on their own parcel of land for living instead of pure wage labor does not tend toward abolition of private property. Labor movement of proletarians tends eventually towards communism because of this reason, but peasants do not tend towards communism by nature. This is why " The democratic and national revolutions of Nehru, Mao Zedong, Sukarno and colleagues do not, from the point of view of the mode of production and social organization, reach goals different from those that came before, under the cover of different ideologies ,the colonialist leaders à la Cecil Rhodes." in attempt to establish mercantile relations and enforce wage labor, establishing capitalism. Feudal relations and asiatic relations has to first become capitalist relations for abolition of capitalism, while only fully capitalist countries with proletarians could only immediately go to abolition of capitalism and everything that comes with it. This is why this paper called for revolution in the west as essential.
This does not mean that communists could not seize power in feudal countries like Russia, as proletariat could still hold power and attempt to spread revolution to more developed countries. But in our times, it is somewhat irrelevant as last of feudal vestiges had been wiped out.
6 replies:
Does anyone have a link to "The Plot Against The International" mentioned in the text? I cant seem to find it.
Referring to this from chapter 13:
Even the opponents of Marx condemned the intrigues of Bakunin, and voted for his exclusion. Whoever wants to learn more of this affair may read “The Plot Against the International,” translated from the French by Kokosky (Braunschweig, 1874). New edition, “Vorwaerts” Library, Berlin.
The original title of that text is "L'Alliance de la démocratie socialiste et l'Association internationale des travailleurs", in case you want to read it in French. The translators of Lessner's memoirs for some reason chose to translate the alternative title Kokosky used for the German rendition into English, which is "Ein Komplott gegen die Internationale Arbeiterassoziation".
The actual English title follows the French original, and hence is "The Alliance of Socialist Democracy and the International Working Men's Association". MIA does not host it, but you can read it directly in the PDF of MECW Volume 23, page 454 onwards here instead.
Nice, thank you
You're welcome.
Reading this should make it obvious to everyone what an insult it is to people like Lessner when contemporary retards call themselves communists.
The struggles of teenage Americans as they work their way towards a college degree are way more arduous than what Lessner had to go through, what are you talking about?
Do you know how hard my dad had to work to pay my way through a law degree in San Fransisco?
14 replies:
Lenin said to the youth that it was necessary "to take the whole sum of human knowledge and to take it in such a way that Communism will not be something learned by heart but something which you have thought out yourselves, something which forms the inevitable conclusion from the point of view of modern education." (Volume XXV.) "If a Communist were to boast of Communism on the basis of ready-made conclusions, without doing serious, big and difficult work, without thoroughly understanding the facts towards which he must take a critical attitude, such a Communist would be a very poor one." (Volume XXV.)
Lenin very frequently deliberately sharpened a question. He considered that the tone was not the important thing. You may express yourself coarsely and bitingly. What is important is that you speak to the point. In the preface to the correspondence of F. A. Sorge, he gives a quotation from Mehring from his Correspondence with Sorge : " Mehring is right in saying that Marx and Engels gave little thought to a ' high tone.' They did not stop long to think before dealing a blow, but they did not whine about every blow they received." (Volume XI.) Incisiveness of form and style were natural to Lenin. He learned it from Marx. He says "Marx relates how he and Engels fought constantly against the miserable conducting of this "Social-Democrat" and often fought sharply (wobei oft scharf hergeht) (Volume XI.). Lenin did not fear sharpness, but he demanded that objections should be to the point. Lenin had one favourite word which he frequently used: " quibbling." If a polemic began which was not to the point, if people began to pick at trifles or juggle with facts, he used to say: "that is mere quibbling." Lenin expressed himself with still greater force against polemics which had not the aim of bringing clearness into the question but of paying off small factional grudges. This was the favourite method of the Mensheviks. Concealing themselves behind quotations from Marx and Engels, taken out of their context, out of the circumstances in which they were written, they served factional aims entirely. In the preface to the correspondence of F. A. Sorge, Lenin wrote: " To imagine that the advice of Marx and Engels to the Anglo-American workers' movement can be simply and directly adapted to Russian conditions means to utilise Marxism, not to elucidate his method, not to study the concrete historic peculiarities of the workers' movement in definite countries, but for petty factional grudges of the intelligentsia." (Volume XI.)
It's funny to see that others emphasise the most stupid parts of this.
I don't think that they understand that the whole article is a dig at Stalin.
I suddenly really understand why Kautsky, even while Lenin was still basically a pupil of his, rubbed him the wrong way.
even while Lenin was still basically a pupil of his
I've never seen any evidence of this
I assume they are arriving at this conclusion from the title of Dauvé's work.
There is also Lars Lih and neo-Kautskyists who push a similar narrative.
Why is that even a thing?
It comes from the CPGB-PCC and Mike Macnair. Ticktin - the guy who promotes this "non-mode of production" nonsense - also is affiliated with them.
Because Lars Lih had access to the Soviet archives and historical interpretation changes with new discoveries. Wierd, I know, it's almost like history isn't inert.
Haha, the nerve to present this as a progress! All the sources in the world don't matter if the result is preestablished for ideological purposes.
The real question is are you a purposeful clown or an accidental one. But hey get your history from a fucking musicologist. I am glad the Trots got their answer to Furr.
What are the “Volumes” that this text cites?
Edit: Never-mind, I found it.
“The publication of Lenin's complete collected works makes this work easier.”
1 reply:
[removed]
1 reply:
The writing style in this is terrible. I'm not sure what the point of translating it was; the actual content seems fairly mundane.
4 replies:
Bukharin and Zinoviev come across as complete imbeciles.
Bukharin at a speech in the comintern
Now regarding Comrade Bordiga. He opened by saying that he accepted the spirit of the united front tactic. That was said in a noble, idealistic, and spiritual manner. But Comrade Bordiga, your spirit lacks substance. (Laughter) We need a spirit that is not so ephemeral but rather something more tangible. The main error of Comrade Bordiga is that he rejects the living dialectic in an attempt to grasp the unknown using fixed categories. First we want to take account of every eventuality, he says, and then we will work out various protective measures to ensure that we commit no sins. (Laughter) But life is complicated and nothing can be determined in advance. So Comrade Bordiga stands around in his big galoshes (Laughter), as we used to say in Russia – that is, in total perplexity.
Comrade Bordiga also speaks of flexibility and eclecticism. He uses these words as synonyms. What does that tell us? Comrade Bordiga regards what the Russian party considers its greatest acquisition as nothing but lack of principle and petty-bourgeois cynicism. That of course is a major error. You can’t make it through life’s hardships with such an approach. Then, continuing his remarks against the united front tactic, Comrade Bordiga says the party must come first, and only then the action of the party. That is exactly the error of which I just spoke.
Comrade Bordiga also uses his spiritual capacities to explain international discipline in a peculiar fashion. He tell us: I am a centralist. Indeed, I am against a federated central body formed of representatives of parties. I am for an absolutely centralised Executive. Then we come to his ‘but’: We are not soldiers, and the International is not a barracks, and military regulations cannot be applied mechanically to the International. What he is demanding in reality is greater autonomy of the national parties. Comrade Bordiga has spoken much about dialectical contradictions, but what he is presenting here is not contradiction but sheer nonsense. It is decked out in a little cloak of much finer texture. International discipline cannot be interpreted in this fashion – as meaning that the International has full power but we are autonomous and will do whatever we like.
I have a few more things to say. Look at the situation in Italy. Everything cries out for a unification of proletarian forces. In Italy the most important challenge is that of organisational unity with the Socialist Party. And Comrade Bordiga comes here and says not a word about this important challenge. His entire speech is an attempt, in the manner of Bergson, to establish an abstract philosophy of action, that represents no action whatsoever. But not a word about the concrete problems. Here we see once again the result of this insubstantial spirit that is not in fact a sound tool of proletarian struggle. These are relics of an entirely dogmatic and sectarian point of view. The Italian party, which has accomplished much, has also committed errors with regard to the agrarian question, the Arditi del Popolo [People’s Commandos], etc.[5] All the errors the Italian party has committed are results of and are logical expressions of the errors found in the speech of Comrade Bordiga.
They had absolutely no idea what was going on. Either that or they didn't care (and anyone who uses "dialectical" like this is a sure fire moron). To quote Lenin:
I have had too little opportunity to acquaint myself with “Left-wing” communism in Italy.
Lenin seemed to have been getting all of his information from Gramsci's rag the Ordine Nuovo about Italy so it's no wonder that the picture was muddled.
Zinoviev and Bukharin must have been annoyed that Bordiga and his base were so secure, which probably explains why they offered him the vice presidency of the comintern, as a way to get him out of Italy and to weaken the party. It says a lot that it took the full brunt of the Fascist state to destroy the party enough to allow other imbeciles like Gramsci to be inserted into the leadership.
It says a lot that it took the full brunt of the Fascist state to destroy the party enough to allow other imbeciles like Gramsci to be inserted into the leadership.
It's funny to find a reference to a "philosophy of action" amidst Bukharin's retarded ramblings here, when it's Gramsci who did actually reduce Marxism to just that.
Gramsci is honestly the worst of the bunch. I wonder if anyone has actually read him or if they're just merely extrapolating. Although, I should never under estimate the depths of bourgeois cretinism that people seem to take a fondness in reveling in.
1 reply:
It might as well have been written yesterday.
1 reply:
Why this piece? I think this sums up quite well the mistakes of a desire to "do something" at any cost, even in objectively shitty eras of counter-revolution (such as our's, though I do hope the Iranian proletariat is beginning to feel its own strength). Bordiga also wrote on this theme, but it's important to find the notion at one of its sources.
AFTER THE FAILURE of every revolution or counter revolution, a feverish activity develops among the fugitives, who have escaped to foreign countries. The parties of different shades form groups, accuse each other of having driven the cart into the mud, charge one another with treason and every conceivable sin.
At the same time they remain in close touch with the home country, organise, conspire, print leaflets and newspapers, swear that the trouble will start afresh within twenty-four hours, that victory is certain, and distribute the various government offices beforehand on the strength of this anticipation.
Of course, disappointment follows disappointment, and since this is not attributed to the inevitable historical conditions, which they refuse to understand, but rather to accidental mistakes of individuals, the mutual accusations multiply, and the whole business winds up with a grand row. This is the history of all groups of fugitives from the royalist emigrants of 1792 until the present day. Those fugitives, who have any sense and understanding, retire from the fruitless squabble as soon as they can do so with propriety and devote themselves to better things.
Against feverish and pointless activity, Engels suggests a pulling-back, so as to assess the situation and devote ourselves (this "ourselves" might be a bit presumptuous, I'll admit) to theoretical clarification. Included is a critique of Blanquism, which shouldn't be relevant to our era, but one finds shades of it in every "revolutionary party" of three members--the Red Guards in Austin come immediately to mind, but one need not single them out--who aspire to be "persons of action" (Engels being considerably less woke than our advanced era in his gendering of the Blanquists). There's a tidbit on the peculiar atheism of the fugitive groups that makes me laugh, so I'll share it:
Fortunately it requires no great heroism to be an atheist nowadays. Atheism is practically accepted by the European working men's parties, although in certain countries it may at times be of the same caliber as that of a certain Bakounist, who declared that it was contrary to all socialism to believe in God, but that it was different with the virgin Mary, in whom every good socialist ought to believe.
I hate to simply spend this silly little commentary of mine reciting quotes from the piece as though they were the hadiths of a prophet, but I must conclude with these paragraphs, which seem to me a rebuke to the project (in the most limited, absurd sense) of the leftist edgelord:
In this line, so far as big words are concerned, we know that the Bakounists have reached the limit; but the Blanquists feel that it is their duty to excel them in this. And how do they do this? It is well known that the entire socialist proletariat, from Lisbon to New York and Budapest to Belgrade has assumed the responsibility for the actions of the Paris Commune without hesitation. But that is not enough for the Blanquists. "As for us, we claim our part of the responsibility for the executions of the enemies of the people" (by the Commune), whose names are then enumerated; "we claim our part of the responsibility for those fires, which destroyed the instruments of royal or bourgeois oppression or protected our fighters."
In every revolution some follies are inevitably committed, just as they are at any other time, and when quiet is finally restored, and calm reasoning comes, people necessarily conclude: We have done many things which had better been left undone, and we have neglected many things which we should have done, and for this reason things went wrong.
But what a lack of judgment it requires to declare the Commune sacred, to proclaim it infallible, to claim that every burnt house, every executed hostage, received their just dues to the dot over the i! Is not that equivalent to saying that during that week in May the people shot just as many opponents as was necessary, and no more, and burnt just those buildings which had to be burnt, and no more? Does not that repeat the saying about the first French Revolution: Every beheaded victim received justice, first those beheaded by order of Robespierre and then Robespierre himself! To such follies are people driven, when they give free rein to the desire to appear formidable, although they are at bottom quite goodnatured.
20 replies:
Interesting that the unions called the strike considering the large extent of tripartite social-corporatist policies and their integration into the state. Anyone know any informative resources on Norwegian labor unions and/or the state of its labor movement in general?
I'm not sure what is surprising or interesting about this. Do you think that social corporatism means that unions do not call for strikes at all?
I'm not saying that strikes aren't called at all, but does it not make it significantly harder to do so because of the privileges granted to the elected union officials?
It doesn't have much to do with the "privileges granted to the elected union officials". More often than not, it's the leadership of the unions itself that calls for these strikes, which makes the question of how hard it is to organise a strike kind of moot - it isn't always the case that the initiative proceeds "from below". And even when there's significant rank-and-file activity, a social corporatist trade union can still ostensibly support it and redirect it to harmless ends. All of this is very obvious if you ever had any contact with unions.
Here, there's a similar example from Germany, the conditions of which have been covered in this subreddit at length.
I had the impression that social corporatist unions in Europe tried to avoid strikes as much as possible, but clearly I'm mistaken about this. Thanks!
They take away the independence of the labour movement. This can take on many forms, and does not at all preclude the possibility of encouraging strikes. Of course, the general tendency will be to smooth out labour relations, but this happens precisely through allowing pressing needs and anger to be addressed in a controlled manner every now and then. Also, I'm not sure why you focus so much on strikes at all.
Also, I'm not sure why you focus so much on strikes at all
My understanding was that social-corporatist unions would try to avoid strikes because they directly disrupt profit-making as well as being a visible manifestation of passion and initiative that might encourage other workers to organize as well. In the US unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO try to discourage strikes as much as possible, to the point that the recent wave of organizing has occurred through the formation of new unions/online, outside of the traditional unions, but as you pointed out the methods for controlling labor in Europe are more nuanced.
It's a matter of conditions, simply. That's why you look at empirical realities instead of trying to confirm your preconceived ideas stemming from different circumstances.
Also, what I meant about your focus on strikes is that they are not the only possible means to achieve certain demands.
I mean if anything this shows that regardless of the capitalists desire for class collaboration this does not preclude the working class from having independent practical initiative. Two classes that have different needs or interests will always be at odds.
It obviously doesn't if we're talking about it.
A handful of strikes in one sector doesn't provide enough information to conclude how difficult or easy it is to organize strikes in general, that's why I asked for more information on the Norwegian labor movement as I'm not an expert by any means and I wanted to learn more.
Do you live inside an abstraction? I don't understand how you can be asking such questions and still mindlessly ask "for more information".
I don't live in Norway so I don't know about the labor movement there beyond the fact that the Tripartite system is in place. I wanted to learn more so I asked and a user replied with a website keeping track of current labor organizing. Not sure what the problem is; if you want me to delete my comment then I'll do so.
Not sure what the problem is; if you want me to delete my comment then I'll do so.
Obviously their problem is that you're approaching this as if you were a student who was assigned some homework to fill out. People have been asking what it means when /u/dr_marx and I mention people treating issues in a scholastic manner - well, they have a prime example in what you are doing in this thread here. You sound like someone trying to make sense of reality by means of a school textbook. Kautsky is the historical example of this sort of behaviour. Not only was he mocked properly for it by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, but we also know what it meant for his practical activity.
Your conduct here reminds me a bit of the person that recently created a thread here to ask about how unions function. When we pointed out the absurdity of their questions, they went on to ask what would be wrong of them wanting "to help push towards a world without exploitation". I'm not sure if people realise how revealing such statements are. The problem of course is that pointing it out merely leads to them wording themselves differently, while the underlying sentiment remains the same. In the same manner, you deleting your comment is pointless.
Obviously their problem is that you're approaching this as if you were a student who was assigned some homework to fill out.
I see, just asking for more information in the abstract doesn't help anything beyond satiating my curiosity, though with my lack of knowledge in this matter I'm not sure where to start even though of course the general problem is: what needs to be done to move past the current state of the labor movement.
I guess I just haven't learned to ask the right questions yet, and this reflects my lack of experience.
If someone gave you a giant dataset listing all strikes in Norway, what would that tell you? If it had only one strike listed, even if it had 0, would that tell you that strikes were difficult to manifest or not?
No, you're right that statistics without context would not be enough to make any sort of conclusion.
https://frifagbevegelse.no/ there's this one, google translate should work
Thank you!
12 replies:
The accompanying article "Race and Class" that was posted here before more closely relates to the situation.http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/comlef/cosi/cosiiceboe.html
The Anti-Nazi League, which has recently resurfaced in England, is one amongst many organisations that has taken up the cause of anti-fascism; the very banner under which millions of workers were butchered in the Second World War, and as is so often the case, this organisation is supported by numerous leftist groups that claim to represent the working class's best interests. Despite superficial appearances, this organisation, and anti-fascism in general, is a veritable minefield for the unwary; the worker doesn't just fritter away potentially classist energy, but is led to support an organisation which directly bolsters capitalism!
Many of the protesters in the US are more concerned with anti-racism than anti-fascism, but the result is still the same. One simply has to look at the demands of Black Lives Matter to see that they are only concerned with making a "fairer" capitalism rather than organizing the workers against capitalism.
If workers join such anti-fascist organisations with the aim of «duffing over» fascists, we certainly don't wish to stand accused of stifling a healthy anger against the preposterous viciousness of unadulterated fascist ideology. We wish only to point out that the iron fist of fascism is concealed within the soft glove of democracy all the while - which is why the latter is almost as painful: the daily insecurity of working in capitalist society (whose job will be the next to go?) the evictions, homelessness, over-crowding, the necessity to have to exercise one's «right» to have do endless overtime to pay the bills, what a horrible Hobson's choice it is. We emphasise: we are anti-fascist as well but we are also against the capitalist fetish of democracy.
In Britain, fascism is generally equated with racism. Racism is easier to grasp than the alleged fundamental differences between allegedly different systems after all, and this is why the pundits of anti-fascism, who are very thin on theory, dwell on the subject so much. Rather they prefer to depend on whipping up emotions to almost evangelical frenzy - about race. Apart from this favourite cause of anti-racism, all the anti-fascists have to offer is a string of vague and contradictory platitudes: fascists go in for torture in rather a big way; they are totalitarian - Hitler was voted in; and they bash people up and torture them.
But bourgeois anti-racism is concerned only with race in the abstract: race is divorced from economy, and capitalism in particular.
Even though the majority of the protesters are not anti-fascists, the predominant opinion seems to be that the murder of Floyd was some kind of deviation from the norm (or, rather, what should be the norm), something that should not happen in a democracy. The reality of the matter is that violence and force is part of the normal functioning of democracy. The substitution of race for class has allowed the black petty-bourgeoisie to push its own demands as the demands of the demands of the entire black population, including the black proletariat.
the demands of Black Lives Matter
People probably don't know or have forgotten that this is an actual organization, with leaders, finances, political endorsements. The founders all got rich out of it and most of them endorsed Clinton.
[deleted]
You should look up Deray, he started out as a blm figurehead and then got rich off the back of it. He's been shilling for privatised schools since ferguson died down
Many of the protesters in the US are more concerned with anti-racism than anti-fascism, but the result is still the same. One simply has to look at the demands of Black Lives Matter to see that they are only concerned with making a "fairer" capitalism rather than organizing the workers against capitalism.
I don't think one could, at this point, expect anything better from "Black Lives Matter," whatever we consider that to be. The BLM organization itself has been a Clintonite front for years now. As a symbol or phrase, it's entirely adaptable by the ruling class. Megacorporations and individual billionaires and millionaires have been enthusiastically repeating it over the last couple days. It's really ideology at its purest.
The substitution of race for class has allowed the black petty-bourgeoisie to push its own demands as the demands of the demands of the entire black population, including the black proletariat.
Certainly, but let's not lose sight of how much the petty bourgeoisie as a whole has attached itself to this.
BLM reminds me somewhat of Pride in the way it has been enthusiastically embraced by corporations for PR purposes. Hell, even reddit is sporting a token black logo lmao
This article is also good on the migrant/refugee situation in the US and Europe:
Connected with small-scale illegal immigration are mass, and attempted mass, migrations. The Albanians arriving by shiploads in the Italian ports; the Vietnamese boat people in Hong-Kong; the Somalian and Ethiopian refugees pressing on the borders of their neighbouring countries. In these cases refugee or internment camps are set up, or measures are taken to ship refugees back to their countries of origin - after, perhaps, allowing a few of the professional classes to stay. These can easily become Auschwitz like encampments in terms of their function of keeping the poor and starving in one place.
For some reason, the horrors of the World War Two concentration camps, still the subject of endless morbid documentaries, are seen as something that is far more «evil» than people dying in their millions of starvation in the «refugee camps» - places where people are concentrated in one place and just left to die. These have become just one more ghastly spectacle for the «news industry» to capitalise on: naked skeletons, the very picture of human misery are presented to us over and over again on the T.V. and papers. People at there most vulnerable appear wedged between items about beached dolphins and EEC summits as just another sensational «scoop». Rarely is there any explanation that goes beyond the superficial, and we are constantly told that periodic mass starvations are «natural disasters», beyond human control; or if wars have contributed to them, these, we are also told, are «natural disasters» which «serve to keep the population down».
[...] A few «radical» interpretations also see the light of day. These tend always to be pitched as a critique of the «fairness» of the current trading arrangements between the poorer, raw material producing, countries and the richer nations. After having highlighted the fact that these poorer countries have to pay back the huge interest rates on the loans foisted on them when the OPEC money came in; after having pointed out how these poorer countries are constantly forced to accept minuscule prices for their products; after having highlighted the one-sided arrangements which the giant victualling firms force on the nations where they set up their operations, the radicals can is only dream of a «fair» capitalism; the very system that innately unfair by its legal endorsement of «the right» to extract surplus value from the labourer and convert it into privately owned capital. Charity is the only solution that capitalism will permit; as the real and permanent solution, international working-class solidarity, would, and will, threaten their very existence.
Commentators decry the migrant detention centers and call them concentration camps, but the argument ends there. It is like pointing out the similarity to the Nazis is enough of a moral condemnation, and they have done their radical duty. It would be too much to analyze the economic driver of disposing of large groups of people.
There is a relationship in so much that inequality between people is the result of an economic inequality and not because of any legal, paralegal or innate feeling of person. Legal and political equality is a sham under class society. I don't think that things would change much for the black community even if the police force were somehow reformed, because the real problems stem from that community having higher rates of unemployment and poverty.
Capital likes to have a reserve labor force, to help drive down wages as a whole and this has been the case for some time. Anyone who doesn't talk about this are really only providing empty platitudes because equality in law doesn't mean anything under capital.
The judicial system will always be biased against people who have less money, if just because it's often the case that pleading guilty is less expensive and time consuming than fighting your case.
Capital likes to have a reserve labor force, to help drive down wages as a whole and this has been the case for some time. Anyone who doesn't talk about this are really only providing empty platitudes because equality in law doesn't mean anything under capital.
Regrettably, the only place in current political discourse where these themes are in any way touched upon are far right ravings about the "great replcement" and the like.
There's a programmatic document for Salvini's leadership bid of the Lega that literally contains the expression "industrial reserve army".
Well Lega does have its base in the industrial north
1 reply:
“...Today, the union is facing the most serious rebellion in its ranks since Jerry Tucker and New Directions: Unite All Workers for Democracy, or UAWD, a new rank-and-file movement founded in response to the concessions and the scandals rocking UAW leadership.
The UAWD comes out of the rebel energy generated by the record-setting fall 2019 strike. In perhaps a tactical mistake for maintaining its own power, the union’s leadership called a strike at GM in mid-September in the midst of contract negotiations. Rank-and-file critics believe that union leaders feared another member revolt over the remaining tiers, as well as the rising number of temporary workers and the corruption charges, so UAW officials called a strike as a way to redirect member anger and reestablish credibility. 46,000 UAW members successfully shut down production at General Motors, still the country’s largest automaker, for six weeks—despite the lack of any clear public contract demands, an organized contract campaign, or significant strike preparation by UAW leadership. It was the longest national autoworker strike in almost 50 years.
...Like many of the teachers who jumpstarted strikes in red states in 2018 and 2019, the UAWD was created by activists, mostly from the Big Three, who found each other online and began organizing during the GM strike.
“Through Facebook groups, we found people who were interested in reforming the union, ending corruption and organizing the membership,” says Travis Watkins, 47, a bargaining chair for Local 167 in Wyoming, Mich. UAWD organizers chat daily over Facebook messenger, organize regular conference calls, and are planning their first national meeting, where they will meet in person for the first time, at the 2020 Labor Notes Conference in April.
The group’s first organizing goal is to break the hold of the Administration Caucus by changing to a one-member, one-vote system to elect top officers. To alter the electoral system, locals representing 79,000 members must pass a resolution to hold a special convention where such a change could be enacted. As of this writing, 20 locals representing more than 45,000 members have done so.
“The membership is the highest authority in the union, and we’re organizing so we can start acting like it,” says Chris Budnick, 34, an activist at Ford’s Kentucky Truck Plant and a founding member of UAWD.
In the longer term, UAWD hopes to pivot the union away from the failed ideology of a labor-management partnership and back to the UAW’s militant roots.
“Forty years of joint programs has led to the loss of a million union jobs, so what do we do?” asks Budnick. “We have to learn how to stop the damn lines again.”“
ICP Climate change protests leaflet. Print and circulate:
Engish: http://www.international-communist-party.org/English/TheCPart/PDF/Climate_change.pdf
French: http://www.international-communist-party.org/Francais/Actualit/2019/Environnementale.pdf
Portuguese: http://www.international-communist-party.org/Portugue/Realidade/2019/Mudanca_climatica.pdf
16 replies:
This particular text does not outright state this, but seeing as it is implict in many of the discussions surrounding the topic, it should be mentioned that thinking that it is absolutely inconceivable that capital can avoid human extinction through environmental destruction is shortsighted. It is like saying that capital cannot provide healthcare. Ultimately, following that premise leads to declaring the efforts of all sorts of non-proletarian groups as mediately revolutionary. Sure enough, capital disturbs the metabolism between man and nature, but the bourgeoisie will generally strive towards ruining the environment in a sustainable (this is where the frenzy for that word comes from!) manner for itself. Whether or not its calculation will work out in the end is of course not certain - the possibility of complete extinction is contained, but so is its opposite. Fractions of the bourgeoisie will go to lengths to show that pollution control is profitable, and some demand a war-like mobilisation to combat environmental destruction. The majority is preparing to deal with the misery that is to come.
Generally though, I do not understand the point of pamphlets like these. I suppose they are meant to be distributed at demonstrations against environmental destruction like the one that happened yesterday - the question is: to what end? It is of course indisputable that the communist party needs to go towards all classes to clear up confusion, but it still seems to me that such leaflets indulge in the illusion that the protests over environmental destruction have a content that is not petty bourgeois. It is hardly conceivable that the proletariat will go to war over abstract issues which do not concern its immediate problems. More, texts like these seem to count on using the angst of the petty bourgeois to scare them into communism. Environmental destruction itself overall is a secondary issue - texts like "Murder of the Dead" or "The Human Species and the Earth's Crust" were not written for ecological reasons.
And when we look at the actual content, we find nothing but boilerplate assertions - this article could have been written by anyone, for any party. It reads like something Trotskyists would put out. All these platitudes suggest that the authors themselves haven't thought about the topic in any more depth either. We find vague appeals to class struggle, but no perspectives for any actually existing fights. There's a certain irony in expending the environment to create a pointless piece of agitation on environmentalism too - at least write a proper, detailed paper instead of a leaflet that will land in the nearest trashcan.
And when we look at the actual content, we find nothing but boilerplate assertions - this article could have been written by anyone, for any party. It reads like something Trotskyists would put out.
I think it's entirely credible to say that climate change could only be dealt with through class struggle, and that communism is the only means to deal with it. At any rate, rather than being merely a "secondary issue", I'd say there is a proletarian position on climate change, one that would see past the bourgeois need to reduce the effects of environmental destruction as a means to allow the continual accumulation of capital. The whole phenomenon of climate change seems to fit very neatly into what is required for the continual reproduction of capital, and I'm not sure there is any real bourgeois desire to stop it besides curbing excesses. Capital pollutes the Earth, and while this continues the need to "save the planet" is used as a slogan to attack the living conditions of the proletariat. It's very convienent.
There's another aspect of climate change too, which is that it would contribute to the destruction of fixed capital and the regulation of surplus populations as well as or better than any "world war" could. Rather than the sudden extinction of all of humanity, we're likely to see increased natural disasters and large segments of the Earth rendered less habitable and fertile while northern parts become more habitable. We're likely to see mass deaths and physical destruction in much of the less developed world, but nothing that should disrupt capital internationally. There's a quote from "Murder of the Dead" that seems notable:
But a pool of hydrological and seismological organisations cannot be formed, at least not until the great science of the bourgeois period is really able to provoke series of floods and earthquakes, like aerial bombardments.
This is almost no longer true, in that climate change allows capital to speed up the destructive capabilities of natural phenomenon. From either direction capital should see opportunity in climate change, either as a means to attack the living conditions of the proletariat under the guise of ecology or as a means to overcome the limitations of an overabundance of fixed capital or surplus population. Obviously protests like the "climate protest" are petty-bourgeois or interclassist, and seem conducive to being coopted by nation states for geopolitical reasons (it's easy to imagine some kind of western bloc against China justified through the threat of climate change, for example), but surely a communist perspective on climate change is a needed thing and could be important for some future proletarian movement? Surely it goes beyond just being a neutral or "secondary" issue when from either direction the bourgeois attitude to climate change takes the form of an attack on the proletariat?
I think it's entirely credible to say that climate change could only be dealt with through class struggle, and that communism is the only means to deal with it.
It depends on what is meant by that. Evidently one person in this thread already thinks that capital cannot avoid the extinction of humanity. It is this idea which I attacked. I agree that only communism can do away with environmental destruction in general.
the bourgeois need to reduce the effects of environmental destruction as a means to allow the continual accumulation of capital. The whole phenomenon of climate change seems to fit very neatly into what is required for the continual reproduction of capital, and I'm not sure there is any real bourgeois desire to stop it besides curbing excesses.
Environmental destruction has aspects beneficial and detrimental to capital, and the bourgeois will gladly take the first, and curb the second. This is what they have always done - the difference lies merely in the magnitude.
There's another aspect of climate change too, which is that it would contribute to the destruction of fixed capital and the regulation of surplus populations as well as or better than any "world war" could.
You mean constant capital, not fixed capital.
This is almost no longer true, in that climate change allows capital to speed up the destructive capabilities of natural phenomenon.
Isn't "climate change" exactly the "speeding up of the destructive capabilites of natural phenomena"? Do you think this is something the bourgeois do consciously?
Obviously protests like the "climate protest" are [...] interclassist
I am a bit weary of seeing criticism of any protests from this angle. I've read that word to the point of exhaustion at the end of articles of the "Il Comunista" ICP, where it is used as a catch-all term to describe the Yellow Vests, the protests in Hong Kong and Sudan, as well as other disparate phenomena. It is not sufficient to merely point that out, since every actual revolution always involves multiple classes - the point is that the proletariat must be the driving force, with others aligning themselves with it. Marx:
No class of civil society can play this role without arousing a moment of enthusiasm in itself and in the masses, a moment in which it fraternizes and merges with society in general, becomes confused with it and is perceived and acknowledged as its general representative, a moment in which its claims and rights are truly the claims and rights of society itself, a moment in which it is truly the social head and the social heart. Only in the name of the general rights of society can a particular class vindicate for itself general domination. For the storming of this emancipatory position, and hence for the political exploitation of all sections of society in the interests of its own section, revolutionary energy and spiritual self-feeling alone are not sufficient.
It is not a wrong criticism as such, but it also is not very helpful in terms of understanding, assessing or overcoming a situation. This does not apply to the climate protests, as they seem to be mostly astroturfed anyway.
protests [...] seem conducive to being coopted by nation states for geopolitical reasons (it's easy to imagine some kind of western bloc against China justified through the threat of climate change, for example)
It is very dubious that environmentalism would suffice as an ideology to get people in line for a major war. Additionally, if environmental destruction would already "contribute to the destruction of fixed capital and the regulation of surplus populations as well as or better than any 'world war' could", then what would be the reason for a war with China? It makes even less sense when taking into account China's large industry producing the technologies required for renewable energy (cf. Trump's comments about "climate change" being a Chinese hoax).
but surely a communist perspective on climate change is a needed thing and could be important for some future proletarian movement? Surely it goes beyond just being a neutral or "secondary" issue when from either direction the bourgeois attitude to climate change takes the form of an attack on the proletariat?
What would the communist perspective on it be, other than showing how capital necessarily ruins the environment, exposing the various bourgeois answers for what they are, as well as concretely showing how the proletariat fighting is able to address pollution? Environmental destruction does not bring about any unforeseen change in how the communist movement works. Rather, what is important is clarity on the essential issues that will be exasperated: How does the labour movement deal with migration, for example? This is a matter on which there is almost universal confusion. Environmental destruction is an abstraction if it is not connected to the actual capitalist society that we live in, and the effects it is going to have within it.
By abstract ideas do you mean it's removed from reality in the sense that it removes class from people and views the issue as one of the mass? Or in the sense that it's not being faced in the present?
You won't get proletarians to associate around CO2 targets - and if it were possible, it would not be desirable either.
Because it would mean proletarians fighting for a sustainable state of the production and thereby distribution process, foregoing a seizure of the MoP and destruction of capitalist relations of production? Hasn't that already happened?
Because it would mean proletarians fighting for a sustainable state of the production and thereby distribution process, foregoing a seizure of the MoP and destruction of capitalist relations of production?
"Sustainable" cannot mean anything else than "sustainable for capital" - you would be saying that capital cannot achieve this without the conscious aid of the proletariat; you would be asking workers to not fight for communism, but to carry out the work of capital. I'm not sure what this has to do with the distribution process, or what precisely you have in mind.
Suppose you actually could get the proletariat to fight for the reduction of CO2 emissions necessary for the achievement of the 1.5 degree goal, and it succeeded: What would the outcome be? Capital would still exist, and so would environmental destruction - you'd just have limited a particular form of it. The proletariat still would be shackled to capital, and would have to endure all that is inflicted on it.
The reason why communist struggles can do away with environmental destruction is because they counterpose the movement of labour as mediated by private property, the estranged metabolism between man and nature, with the self-regulation and self-movement of labour. They therefore are also an immediate remedy, long before one gets to the proletarian dictatorship. The demand for a reduction of CO2 emissions does not help in that regard: it is rather an attempt of pressuring the bourgeoisie into adopting a particular capitalist solution to the problem. For example, what could happen would be that it would trigger "the lights to go out" in the West, where it is difficult to increase exploitation, and make industry move to countries with lax environmental regulations - thereby undermining the very aim.
You're confusing an existential crisis with class issues: If an asteroid were on a collision course with earth, would you be asking for a proletarian response to it, respectively a communist position on it too? The situation is similar to Stalinists during the Cold War having the proletariat line up behind the various "peace movements" in order to avoid the supposedly inevitable complete nuclear extinction which the petty bourgeoisie feared:
“Worry” is nothing but the mood of oppression and anxiety which in the middle class is the necessary companion of labour, of beggarly activity for securing scanty earnings. “Worry” flourishes in its purest form among the German good burghers, where it is chronic and “
This is stupid easy and cheap to do. Anyone with a little python knowledge and maybe some basic calculus can make their own heat maps of this sort. All they need to do is purchase the right data set from Amazon, Google or other data farming company and then hire an intern or two for 12 bucks an hour. This is likely Amazon showing off their capabilities to attract clients for this data. We can expect this practice to become very widespread.
I suppose though as the data always needs to be up to date, this would be on a subscription basis, meaning that one is at the mercy of those companies, right? I'm asking because such tools would also be important for the labour movement to have. This is why that article is interesting. It probably won't need any cloud-based computational power, as such rather simple scripts do not require any deep learning algorithms, or am I wrong?
That's most likely what it is.
There probably are similar solutions already in place at other companies, it's just that usually they are silent about such matters.
yeah Amazon and Google are advantaged on that front because they're basically dedicated to data collection. Everyone has a stupid "Alexa"/ "G home" device littered throughout their house, and every shitty phone app, every script on every web page is collecting data. But what's interesting about all that is that security is given lip service but in reality almost universally ignored, making these IoT devices, databases full of stored data and technologies extremely vulnerable to hacking, and these things are hacked so often that a lot of it just becomes public knowledge over time. Actually, most internet infrastructure is deeply and seriously vulnerable to hacking, more than most realize. International banks, power plants, you name it- it's all vulnerable and a single dedicated adversary can get in given enough time. I can imagine if the labor movement got powerful enough this is one of the things they'd attack eventually, just because it's such a serious vulnerability that would take decades and billions of dollars to remedy- the internet is basically being held together by duct tape and mammoth, ancient black boxes nobody knows how to work anymore. It's total anarchy and makes no sense, but that's how it is. That was sort of a digression but I think it's something to mention.
But anyway, my original point was that there are lots of ways to gather the data needed; buying it from Amazon is obviously an easy way, but data could always be independently gathered through other means, legal or illegal. I don't know if these other methods would confer as good of results as google's near constant data collection, but most of theirs is for advertising, so I don't even know how useful it would be to the labor movement. Besides, you don't always need your data to be second-by-second up to date to make quality predictions depending on what it is you're predicting.
The cloud is used often for machine learning when you need to train tons of data and are working with gigantic data sets, but it's not always necessary. I don't think that's a huge problem to surmount though because here are options here for parallel computation-- clusters can be built and can perform reasonably well even on older hardware, cloud services can be rented, and a third option could be the use of botnets- infect tons of machines with malware and steal their computation power, rent the use of such from the black market, or have lots of people donate computation power.
But you're speaking of individual IoT devices, don't you? Meaning that you wouldn't get blanket coverage of the parameters that you would need to know to create such heatmaps. Or does the variety of them mean that they are actually being hacked to such an extent that you can get area-wide information, at least approximately? I suppose you answered that question in saying that one way or another, it would be possible to get hold of the necessary data.
I'm not too sure about that. In a civil war like situation, I could see that happening depending on the circumstances, but before that it would hardly be useful. Immediately attacking bourgeois institutions like that would be like trying to bring about an economic crisis, so rather pointless. Capital cannot be positively done away with in such a manner, but will only be destroyed through the association of the proletariat. So I'd say that for the foreseeable future, positive solutions that help bring workers into contact with each other, or that help them defend against bourgeois attacks, are what will help the movement most. You surely remember the line from the Manifesto:
This is something good about the Chinese Labour Bulletin for example - their strike and injury maps can be very helpful for workers. Such matters do more for the communist cause than the majority of "communist" organisations, which preoccupy themselves - if they aren't outright campaigning for petty bourgeois concerns to begin with - with endlessly talking about Marxism. Besides aiding in practical struggles on the ground, in unions etc., this is an important area that needs to be looked at. The labour movement does not nearly make enough use of the opportunities that modern technology brings.
Right, I didn't think of the latter possibility. Distributed computing like what Folding@Home does might be a neat solution if a lot of computational power would be required for a task.
Well for part of their prediction Amazon uses:
Some of this is definitely public information or easily obtainable, except maybe the "labor incident tracker" (sounds like an in-house metric). Also:
Some of this data could be gathered by surveys, and stores often release their sales numbers. But I'm betting you don't even need all these parameters to make a semi-decent prediction. A team of people working on this could also find alternative parameters that might work, such as the Chinese Labor Bulletin you mention. That's actually an interesting tool, and I think its worth playing around with the strike/ injury data it tracks and maybe training some models with it to see what predictions it could produce.
Oh for sure. I wasn't suggesting that we should create a mesh-network of hacked IoT devices to farm data. As cool as that would be, I doubt it would be of much use to the labor movement.
So what's the biggest hurdle in overcoming that? Right now it seems like workers are using things like Facebook or their company's internal email system to communicate, which isn't ideal because those could be (are) easily shut down or tampered with. It seems like something better for the labor movement needs to be 1) resistant to DoS attacks 2) encrypted 3) not complicated to use 4) multi-platform, 5) one central party should control it
Do you think those are sufficient criteria for tools useful to the labor movement, and do you think tools like that would be worth developing and putting out there? Or are the tools there already, and problem is just lack of widespread use?
Right, I didn't remember what information they were basing themselves on.
If you're merely talking about a substitution for Facebook messaging or the company email service, then there are already enough alternatives in apps such as Signal, as you surely know.
[deleted]
Unionization would be awesome.