home studios equipment staff/friends booking/rates for sale forum contact

Communism

Vote and debate.

Moderators: kerble, Electrical-Staff

Communism - the only hope for humanity or a big bag of bollocks?

Yes
42
36%
No
48
41%
I'm not sure
15
13%
If i'm honest i don't really know what it is
12
10%
 
Total votes : 117

Re: Communism

Postby prowler on Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:11 am

thanks for entertaining my speculations FMkoko :)

kokorodoko wrote:
prowler wrote:
kokorodoko wrote:Everybody agrees that there are problems right now, so why does inactivity seem to persist? To my mind, there seems to be unpreparedess to deal with the situation, and lack of explanatory models.

this is what i meant by "scientific Marxism has failed" (maybe "proven wrong" is too strong an assertion, but it's definitely been defeated, right?)

If you mean as a movement, it would be impossible to say that it has failed or been defeated irrevocably, since a movement could always return the next day.

If you agree that class struggle exists as long as class society does, then any defeat is only temporary.

If you mean as theory, then we would have to agree upon something that would constitute defeat of the theory, for example if the labour theory of value was shown to be invalid. (In that particular case, I don't know enough about economy to make a judgement).

As theory is what I mean, in that parts of it have been falsified in practice, with the USSR being the most blatant example.

So I'm mainly thinking of two things that seem very problematic, yet if you discard them you can hardly call yourself a marxist-revolutionary anymore:
1) sentences like "scientific Marxism dictates X", which were used to justify all sorts of central planning measures in the USSR. This is the positivism which you also mention, and it seems very hard to defend in hindsight.
2) the inevitability of capitalism evolving into socialism, due to the falling rate of profit, internal contradictions and other staples of Marxist theory. This hasn't come to pass, and it's my impression that fewer and fewer people think it will, and/or are working towards it.

What I won't concede however, is that the experience of 20th century communism disproves or invalidates marxism as a theory (or communism as an idea), because a multitude of factors went into making those regimes what they were, which go well beyond marxist theory (or any theory).

well that's a pretty weak argument, unless you specify what experience WOULD disprove Marxism. If we agree that the failures of Soviet central planning were due to shitty interpretations of Marxism, how do we know what the non-shitty interpretations are?

in fact, the Marxist burden of proof is even stronger. Rosa L says (and I love this, btw) that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a continuous process of trial-and-error exploration leading to the correct, scientific Marxist measures for any situation, which is inevitably going to happen unless the Revolution is derailed. Where then is the falsifiability of Marxist theory, when you can blame any failure on reactionary sabotage, which is what the Bolsheviks did.

They present problems for sure, grave problems, and some might say that those problems point to flaws within marxism itself. I'm willing to entertain any such argument, but I also have problems with the idea of "flaws within the theory itself", because nothing ever exists by itself, if you know what I mean. The ideology and practice of the communist states was shaped as much by the positivism that was immensely popular in some camps within the labour movement, by the general apocalyptic feeling that you see expressed in people like Chernychevsky with their "destroy everything to make way for a new dawn" mentality, by extreme faith in modern technology, by subsequent geopolitical developments... as by Das Kapital.

Especially by Das Kapital, in fact. IIRC Stalin never even read it.

Even in Marx, it becomes hard to point to what it is "in itself", and what is other things.


right, so can we remove the positivism and apocalyptism and still be revolutionaries? You see I'm not questioning Marxism in itself (which I agree wouldn't be that helpful), but as a revolutionary vehicle. Which means we also need to look beyond Das Kapital...

it's true that there are several solid initiatives for change and progress around, but they can't really be described as Marxist-revolutionary anymore

Perhaps, but we don't yet know what marxist-revolutionary looks like today. Remember, the first marxist-revolutionaries called themselves social democrats.

but we can at least say what isn't marxist-revolutionary: reformism, democracy, class peace. Most progressive initiatives today bear at least some of these marks, no?
what are your thoughts on my point C. dictatorship of the proletariat is a bankrupt idea. It seems to me that if any concept is to have been discredited by the experience of the USSR, it's the idea of having a workers' party monopoly on politics

At the time of those writings, the existing order was understood as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. In other words, the bourgeoisie is the ruling class and thus dictates the rules. A dictatorship of the proletariat is then a reversal of this power relationship, but still a dictatorship since while the proletariat holds power, opposition to their power still exists from the people removed from power.

Accordingly, there is no choice between proletarian dictatorship or multiparty democracy, but between different forms of dictatorship.

I'm not sure how far I can go along with this, but I agree at least that there is no neutral ground, some transcendent interest. It's always one against another, in some way.

but there is another choice: a fully liberal democracy where Marxist and other parties alternate in power. This is perhaps as utopian as communism, heh :) although not all the blame lies with the bourgeoisie here.
User avatar
prowler
"kick a ginger day" victim
"kick a ginger day" victim
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:54 am
Location: Bucharest

Re: Communism

Postby blackmarket on Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:06 pm

Zorg wrote:
blackmarket wrote:
Zorg wrote:
blackmarket wrote:I find it bizarre that seemingly educated people still talk about the former socialist republics as "communist". So many hungover from the Cold War.


They called themselves communists. Unclear what you mean, just that it gives communism a bad name? There will always be that stigma attached to it, I'm afraid, but keep persevering, comrade.


You don't seem to understand the words you are trying to use. Under Marxist theory, the term communist state is antithetical. That was a pejorative hurled by the west and still used by cold-warriors today. It is not a thing that can actually exist and not something the old republics claimed to have achieved. Communism, as defined by Marx, is a stateless, classless, post-currency situation. None of this existed in the old republics.


I'm not using "words", or concerned about theory here, I'm simply stating FACT. The ruling parties in the Eastern Bloc nations and the Internationale called themselves Communist parties. It had nothing to do with Western propoganda. Do with that information whatever you want, but probably best you stop being a know-it-all, or go back in time and tell Lenin he needed to re-read doctrine to avoid any confusion.


Goal posts: Moved. Duly noted.

In response to my post about nation-states (not political parties), what you did was assert that the former socialist republics labeled themselves as communist. This is not true. In FACT, under Marxist theory, it is not possible for a nation-state to be communist. Anyone with cursory knowledge understands this.
User avatar
blackmarket
not wearing any pants
not wearing any pants
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:14 pm

Re: Communism

Postby Anthony Flack on Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:42 pm

Zorg wrote: If you have problems with the good name of Communism being sullied, you can blame Lenin, but I might wager that that train has left the station, and the term will most likely be forever associated with this particular part of history, regardless of the accuracy.


I don't have a problem with any word being sullied if it's just a word and we can substitute another, if it helps.

But regardless you shouldn't dismiss a theory on the basis of a flawed experiment.
Anthony Flack
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9595
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:27 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Communism

Postby jimmywahcrowbar on Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:36 pm

blackmarket wrote:
jimmywahcrowbar wrote:My neighbour grew up in communist Dresden. I asked him what it was like and he said "terrible".

The GDR was no more "communist" than it was democratic.

Be wary of labels and try to think for yourself.


Your tone in this thread is generally quite condescending.

Reminds me a little of this Bukowski quote:

"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence."
jimmywahcrowbar
pauly shore
pauly shore
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:44 am

Re: Communism

Postby prowler on Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:22 am

Anthony Flack wrote:But regardless you shouldn't dismiss a theory on the basis of a flawed experiment.

what would be an unflawed experiment? i mean this genuinely
User avatar
prowler
"kick a ginger day" victim
"kick a ginger day" victim
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:54 am
Location: Bucharest

Re: Communism

Postby Zorg on Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:59 pm

blackmarket wrote:
Zorg wrote:
blackmarket wrote:
Zorg wrote:
blackmarket wrote:I find it bizarre that seemingly educated people still talk about the former socialist republics as "communist". So many hungover from the Cold War.


They called themselves communists. Unclear what you mean, just that it gives communism a bad name? There will always be that stigma attached to it, I'm afraid, but keep persevering, comrade.


You don't seem to understand the words you are trying to use. Under Marxist theory, the term communist state is antithetical. That was a pejorative hurled by the west and still used by cold-warriors today. It is not a thing that can actually exist and not something the old republics claimed to have achieved. Communism, as defined by Marx, is a stateless, classless, post-currency situation. None of this existed in the old republics.


I'm not using "words", or concerned about theory here, I'm simply stating FACT. The ruling parties in the Eastern Bloc nations and the Internationale called themselves Communist parties. It had nothing to do with Western propoganda. Do with that information whatever you want, but probably best you stop being a know-it-all, or go back in time and tell Lenin he needed to re-read doctrine to avoid any confusion.


Goal posts: Moved. Duly noted.

In response to my post about nation-states (not political parties), what you did was assert that the former socialist republics labeled themselves as communist. This is not true. In FACT, under Marxist theory, it is not possible for a nation-state to be communist. Anyone with cursory knowledge understands this.


Brooooother, the internet, what a joy. Instead to copping to getting a bit over-enthusiastic, you're going to put up an endless fight over something that makes no difference to your desired outcome.

Once more, the generalized descriptor "Communist" is not an invention of Western propaganda, as you claim. It is a self-ascribed designation used by Soviet and Soviet-occupied nations in various contexts including, but not limited to Communist Boy Scouts, Communist Songs, Communist Parties, etc... That actual Utopia was not achieved in these places was clearly evident, but seems like they had high hopes. I am in no way trying to besmirch actual God-Given Communism here, just proferring that the word took on a multi-faceted meaning in this "failed experiment", along with stars, hammers, sickles, and the color red. Hate me if you like, but this is unassailable, and I witnessed it first hand if that helps.
User avatar
Zorg
names vacuums with eyes closed
names vacuums with eyes closed
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:11 am

Re: Communism

Postby prowler on Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:45 am

continuing my minor marxist meanderings...

i just read Rosa's Reform or Revolution
https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemb ... evolution/

it's fascinating how true her critique of social democracy still rings today. Incremental improvements in the workers' condition are reversible and subject to material (economic) conditions, and participation in bourgeois politics will always be constrained by these market-based realities.

isn't it strange, then, how pretty much all western Left forces today, including Corbyn or the so-called Democratic Socialists of A., have abandoned anti-capitalism and are instead pushing the Sisyphean rock of opportunism? Even self-proclaimed Marxist economists like R.D. Wolff and his democracy-at-work campaign are neutralised by Rosa's critique:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemb ... n/ch07.htm wrote:
Co-operatives – especially co-operatives in the field of production constitute a hybrid form in the midst of capitalism. They can be described as small units of socialised production within capitalist exchange.

But in capitalist economy exchanges dominate production. As a result of competition, the complete domination of the process of production by the interests of capital – that is, pitiless exploitation – becomes a condition for the survival of each enterprise.

now, are all the pragmatic lefty politicians and economists nothing but opportunist sellouts, or could it be that Bernstein's reformism is in fact the only realistic, non-utopian option... which would turn Rosa's wonderful argument on its head and, I guess, invalidate "scientific" Marxism. Right?

I guess what turn of the century commies (and few people overall) failed to foresee was the immense Western capitalist boom of the 1950s-60s, which brought incredible prosperity to vast masses of working people, basically cancelling (in large measure, by outsourcing) the alienation felt by workers under capitalism. Surely today, in our age of interdependence and supposed enlightenment, this should be transparent enough to form the base for an explicitly internationalist anti-capitalist movement, if it were at all justifiable.

otherwise how do we explain that the only ones taking this stuff seriously are youtubers like this guy
phpBB [media]
..and I guess the Pope, and some South American regimes, kinda, maybe?
User avatar
prowler
"kick a ginger day" victim
"kick a ginger day" victim
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:54 am
Location: Bucharest

Re: Communism

Postby kokorodoko on Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:23 pm

I think one shouldn't underestimate the psychological impact of the loss of faith in communism, brought on from the conduct of those regimes as well as successive post-war defeats and the eventual end of the SU. It's difficult to continue in the same lane after that - people don't know where to look. Not only had they sort of used up their trust capital among a great deal of people - IF they were to try to reformulate a communist project, what on Earth would it look like?

Also, left parties during the 00s and 10s seem to have gotten the idea that in order to gain support from common people they have to appear responsible - thus they move toward the center. The success of far right parties of course contradicts that idea right away. The lefties sure are slow to catch on though.

I'm not too familiar with Luxemburg or with Bernstein (reading commentary on contemporary political events from a hundred years earlier is hard). When you do read it though, it's amusing to find how many of the things people back then discussed are the same things people discuss now, as if they are new discoveries. All this direct democracy and co-operatives and so on. Now who knows, maybe they have unrealized potentials. The problem Luxemburg points to though, can't be evaded.

The post-war boom might not have been foreseen at the turn of the century (but neither, probably, was the second war). Remember though that during those very same years political consciousness and militancy in Western Europe and USA was at an absolute high point. Indeed democracy grew beyond the bounds of bourgeois democracy itself, which went to savage lengths to crush it.

I wouldn't call anyone a sell-out. I think they are trying. But they need to get out of the comfort zone. More visions, more craziness. And realize the areas that need to be dealt with, that are completely new to us - the internet and file sharing, the climate, biogenetics etc.
Boombats wrote:I keep thinking of smarter shit to say about him [Jordan Peterson], but my gut reaction is "this nigga gay"
User avatar
kokorodoko
a² + b² = c²
a² + b² = c²
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:46 pm
Location: The Ultra Zone

Re: Communism

Postby addley on Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:26 pm

prowler wrote:isn't it strange, then, how pretty much all western Left forces today, including Corbyn or the so-called Democratic Socialists of A., have abandoned anti-capitalism and are instead pushing the Sisyphean rock of opportunism?


I don't doubt people see things about DSA that depresses, or just merely doesn't excite them, but I just don't know where this take comes from. The DSA I know his very loudly anti-capitalist. Do you mean that it's an-cap by lip service only?

Surely today, in our age of interdependence and supposed enlightenment, this should be transparent enough to form the base for an explicitly internationalist anti-capitalist movement, if it were at all justifiable.


Ho ho! You make it sound so easy. I'm going to give you a bit of a noogie and say, if this were the case, people as wise as you would have already banded together and done this already. An ideological core so great and true should already be so strong as to spread naturally, and it would just be a matter of time until perfect worldwide communism, long as you shout the right opinion loud enough. Maybe I'm misinterpreting you though, 'if it were at all justifiable'?

Sorry to be condescending, but when you say stuff like this and then site YOUTUBERS (aka, freewheelin' individuals only talking about theory) as the true freedom fighters, especially one who spends a third of their airtime pinpointing the accurate label for their politics (zzzz..) rather than hashing out what their actual experiences in organizing are, it is hard to take your criticism seriously. I mean, you're right, until you find a youtuber or book that proves you wrong.

otherwise how do we explain that the only ones taking this stuff seriously are youtubers like this guy


phpBB [media]


U_U

I agree with the contradictions in Worker Co-Ops, but people are fiddling with that because Wolff's ideas ARE spreading naturally (not to diminish in any way people's hard work in getting the message out there). People genuinely want to hear what he has to say, he was one of my entry-level thinkers, and I've been able to use him to direct others to a socialist way of conceptualizing their predicament.

I just don't see an endpoint to turning your nose up at what you admit are actual leftist forces today, just to champion your digital hometown hero. Seems like a cop-out to me. Rosa's opinions came from her ground game, not purely logical conclusions.
Last edited by addley on Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
addley
forced to change shirt
forced to change shirt
 
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:43 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Communism

Postby circle_ruler on Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:36 pm

State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic.


taken from The Tax in Kind by V. I. Lenin (completed 21/04/21, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ ... apr/21.htm)

just throwing this one in the mix for anyone who accuses socialists/communists in the present of glossing over and being apologists for the horrors of Stalin et al despite there being a mass of writings which clearly identify the state capitalist nature of Russian society post 1917.
Dudley wrote:Are we "meant" to wear trousers? Are we "meant" to sit in metal tubes that travel 30,000 feet above the earth?
User avatar
circle_ruler
Master Of The Computer
Master Of The Computer
 
Posts: 4978
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 2:14 pm
Location: Star

Re: Communism

Postby addley on Sun Jul 08, 2018 2:48 pm

Twilight Sparkle wrote:, especially one who spends a third of their airtime pinpointing the accurate label for their politics


Okay this is a bit hyperbolic, sorry! It's like 2 minutes. Dude self-owns himself pretty hilariously tho directly after, when he's like "I suggested we do this in my local party, but no one took it seriously because I had no concrete plan", lol, woops.

Seems like a cool guy tho, cute goat face.

kokorodoko wrote:I think one shouldn't underestimate the psychological impact of the loss of faith in communism, brought on from the conduct of those regimes as well as successive post-war defeats and the eventual end of the SU. It's difficult to continue in the same lane after that - people don't know where to look. Not only had they sort of used up their trust capital among a great deal of people - IF they were to try to reformulate a communist project, what on Earth would it look like?


Yeah, totally. I used to run around calling myself a communist, until I realized it threw up really intense defense barriers in my friends and acquaintances. When I just talked about the ideas, they really opened up. This contributes to why I think the playful fetishization of communist propaganda is a mistake. While well meaning, it's insular behavior.
User avatar
addley
forced to change shirt
forced to change shirt
 
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:43 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Communism

Postby prowler on Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:16 am

Twilight Sparkle wrote:
prowler wrote:isn't it strange, then, how pretty much all western Left forces today, including Corbyn or the so-called Democratic Socialists of A., have abandoned anti-capitalism and are instead pushing the Sisyphean rock of opportunism?


I don't doubt people see things about DSA that depresses, or just merely doesn't excite them, but I just don't know where this take comes from. The DSA I know his very loudly anti-capitalist. Do you mean that it's an-cap by lip service only?


i know next to nothing about DSA, other than what I hear on Chapo and the fact that they run candidates in Dem primaries. This latter fact means they're participating in bourgeois democracy, something I personally support but was wondering how to square it with the dangers of opportunism/incrementalism. If the DSA's platform would amount to a socialist revolution, then that's good news to me and I should try to find out more.

Ho ho! You make it sound so easy. [...]
I just don't see an endpoint to turning your nose up at what you admit are actual leftist forces today, just to champion your digital hometown hero. Seems like a cop-out to me.

oh, I think you misread my tone. I'm being contrarian in order to try to make sense of things. I obviously don't think international socialism is an easy task, but I am interested in finding "leftist forces" actually engaged in it, you know?

and I don't mean to say Wolff is less serious than the youtube guy, I think both (and everything in between) actually play a positive role.

in the end, you hit upon my dilemma
Rosa's opinions came from her ground game, not purely logical conclusions.

is it that the ground game today is leading to the opposite conclusions? judging by the actions of Western left forces today, they do seem more Bernstein and less Luxemburg.
(and for all our love for Rosa, maybe that's not a bad thing?)
User avatar
prowler
"kick a ginger day" victim
"kick a ginger day" victim
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:54 am
Location: Bucharest

Re: Communism

Postby prowler on Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:23 am

kokorodoko wrote:I think one shouldn't underestimate the psychological impact of the loss of faith in communism, brought on from the conduct of those regimes as well as successive post-war defeats and the eventual end of the SU. It's difficult to continue in the same lane after that - people don't know where to look. Not only had they sort of used up their trust capital among a great deal of people - IF they were to try to reformulate a communist project, what on Earth would it look like?

maybe turn away from the Soviet Union and point to Allende's Chile or, I dunno, Cuba?

...it's fairly obvious to see why for most people, just going the Bernie way and looking at Scandinavian social democracy is way more appealing. Yes, I know the Scadinavians didn't have to deal with CIA coups and violent internal unrest, but who has time for that argument?
User avatar
prowler
"kick a ginger day" victim
"kick a ginger day" victim
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:54 am
Location: Bucharest

Re: Communism

Postby kokorodoko on Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:18 am

prowler wrote:maybe turn away from the Soviet Union and point to Allende's Chile or, I dunno, Cuba?

...it's fairly obvious to see why for most people, just going the Bernie way and looking at Scandinavian social democracy is way more appealing. Yes, I know the Scadinavians didn't have to deal with CIA coups and violent internal unrest, but who has time for that argument?

No coups, sure. However Stay-behind was very much active in Sweden, with party and union leadership involved. And Norway and Denmark were of course formal NATO members. That those states were internally more stable and less polarized than Greece or Italy may have had something to do with it.

You're right though in what I think your point is: That the Nordic states tend to be pictured in isolation.

Some states were just allowed more leeway than others. It appears to have less to do with their actual economic model, since none of the Latin American countries were that different - not even Castro was a communist until much later. Same goes for Iran and so on.

As for Allende well, we can admire his pacifism but that same pacifism was what did him in no? Can we be sure that it would have remained that way had the government decided to put up full resistance against the coup?

In any case I try to avoid thinking along the lines of "if only country X had suceeded it would have been the perfect alternative".
Boombats wrote:I keep thinking of smarter shit to say about him [Jordan Peterson], but my gut reaction is "this nigga gay"
User avatar
kokorodoko
a² + b² = c²
a² + b² = c²
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:46 pm
Location: The Ultra Zone

Re: Communism

Postby blackmarket on Mon Jul 09, 2018 12:47 pm

prowler wrote:
Twilight Sparkle wrote:
prowler wrote:isn't it strange, then, how pretty much all western Left forces today, including Corbyn or the so-called Democratic Socialists of A., have abandoned anti-capitalism and are instead pushing the Sisyphean rock of opportunism?


I don't doubt people see things about DSA that depresses, or just merely doesn't excite them, but I just don't know where this take comes from. The DSA I know his very loudly anti-capitalist. Do you mean that it's an-cap by lip service only?


i know next to nothing about DSA...


Yes, you have made that ubundantly clear.

DSA is not a revolutionary socialist organization and there is no one prescribed method of achiving it's end goal of eliminating capitalism. Diversity of opinion and tactics among members is a strength. Some members want to take over the Democratic Party. Others see pushing third parties as the way forward. DSA has a more anarchist contingent in its Libertarian Socialist Cuacus (LSC). All agree on where we need to end up. They apply a different means to get there. DSA is best seen as a coalition of the Left. It is not a monolithic organization. That is to it's credit and the way modern Leftists should be thinking if they to grow a movement based in solidarity and democracy.
User avatar
blackmarket
not wearing any pants
not wearing any pants
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:14 pm

Re: Communism

Postby addley on Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:27 pm

Uh huh. ANYWAY

prowler wrote:
Twilight Sparkle wrote:
prowler wrote:isn't it strange, then, how pretty much all western Left forces today, including Corbyn or the so-called Democratic Socialists of A., have abandoned anti-capitalism and are instead pushing the Sisyphean rock of opportunism?


I don't doubt people see things about DSA that depresses, or just merely doesn't excite them, but I just don't know where this take comes from. The DSA I know his very loudly anti-capitalist. Do you mean that it's an-cap by lip service only?


i know next to nothing about DSA, other than what I hear on Chapo and the fact that they run candidates in Dem primaries. This latter fact means they're participating in bourgeois democracy, something I personally support but was wondering how to square it with the dangers of opportunism/incrementalism. If the DSA's platform would amount to a socialist revolution, then that's good news to me and I should try to find out more.


As has been yelled into the wind, DSA is multi-tendancy, but I would say at least 95% of that tendancy is completely against capitalism, not reformist. Not being an electoral politics expert like even in the slightest, I would attempt to answer that by saying its a multipronged attack, people with electoral aims are working alongside people doing less opportunistic work. I actually don't know so much the arguement against opportunism or incrementalism beyond my instinct against it, if you wanna throw up anything about it!

The host of this show gets up my ass a bit, but I thought this was an interesting discussion on the state of things in the org right now. Long as shit tho, a simplified version here

phpBB [media]


oh, I think you misread my tone. I'm being contrarian in order to try to make sense of things. I obviously don't think international socialism is an easy task, but I am interested in finding "leftist forces" actually engaged in it, you know?

and I don't mean to say Wolff is less serious than the youtube guy, I think both (and everything in between) actually play a positive role.


Ah right on, I feel you. Don't mean to trivialize aScapegoat either, very stoked that leftist voices like his are getting a forum online. I watch tons and tons of youtubes, it's been the easiest way for me to digest new information more quickly so when I do actual reading, I can make sense of it, so very thankful for such folks.

in the end, you hit upon my dilemma
Rosa's opinions came from her ground game, not purely logical conclusions.

is it that the ground game today is leading to the opposite conclusions? judging by the actions of Western left forces today, they do seem more Bernstein and less Luxemburg.
(and for all our love for Rosa, maybe that's not a bad thing?)


Unfortunately I'm not familiar with Bernstein, so I'm not sure what you mean, can you expand a bit?
User avatar
addley
forced to change shirt
forced to change shirt
 
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:43 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Communism

Postby prowler on Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:04 am

i'm unfamiliar with Bernstein too, except for what Rosa cites in her piece. He's basically a figurehead for what today we know as social-democratic politics: the gradual improvement of economic and civil inequalities, to the point where socialism is achieved by peaceful, parliamentary means. As I alluded in my initial post on the topic, I thought the Bernstein quotes in the Luxemburg piece could well be attributed to modern left thinkers, be they Corbyn, Wolff or most Jacobin writers.

the irony being that what Rosa scoffs at as utopian (because non-scientific), is today (and probably in her day as well, though to a smaller extent) mainstream political strategy.
User avatar
prowler
"kick a ginger day" victim
"kick a ginger day" victim
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:54 am
Location: Bucharest

Re: Communism

Postby addley on Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:59 pm

Not sure of where I should be puttin' this, but I thought this was a fun article!

https://medium.com/@sophia.burns/what-i ... 170b46594c
User avatar
addley
forced to change shirt
forced to change shirt
 
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:43 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Communism

Postby bishopdante on Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:52 pm

Communism in essence is group ownership and management of anything. This can cause problems when "mob rule" sets in: groups are often bad at taking risks or committing, or having clear ideas. There can be a lot of wasted time and energy on diplomatic wrangling, the term "dereliction of the commons" is familiar (and is particularly evident in cultures which do not have a strong public service ethic), and often people in a community will avoid contributing and prefer to be passengers.

However, many communal-ownership and communal-management models have proven successful, with building societies, co-operatives, and open "common law" legal systems being notable example

In the UK the John Lewis partnership is quite familiar, notable for its policy of staff shareholding.

People confuse the property of communal ownership with Leninism: which he himself branded "state monopoly capitalism", intended to be a stepping stone to eventual communist management of society and commerce - which never transpired.

Hence it is in my opinion wise to label Leninism as a strain of totalitarianism or fascism, and it could be argued that there are many far more effective examples of community ownership and management of resources.
Code: Select all
01100011 01101111 01101110 01100111 01110010 01100001 01110100 01110101 01101100 01100001 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 01110011
User avatar
bishopdante
Master Of The Computer
Master Of The Computer
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:25 am
Location: London

Re: Communism

Postby addley on Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:26 pm

Heyy, you pushed my thing off >:
User avatar
addley
forced to change shirt
forced to change shirt
 
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:43 pm
Location: Los Angeles

PreviousNext

Return to Crap / Not Crap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests