/left/ - Leftist Politics

Viva La Revolution!

Mode: Reply

Max file size: limitless

Max files: 3

Remember to follow the rules

Max message length: 4096


IRC: Rizon.net #bunkerchan
https://qchat.rizon.net/?channels=bunkerchan


Open file (7.23 KB 207x243 yg.jpg)
Comrade 07/10/2016 (Sun) 16:02:45 [Preview] No. 1879
/leftpill/ me on classical marxism. is it an umbrella term for council communists, luxemburgists, debordists (if thats a thing), market socialists, etc?
Open file (17.24 KB 300x400 1464351866524-0.jpg)
>>1879
>>1879
First off: term is Orthodox Marxism, and was the way Marxism was interpreted through Engels during the 2nd International, Orthodox Marxism is however quite a step away from Marx own writing - because Engels was shit at Marxism and thought you could form an entire ontological project out of Historical Materialism. It's within "orthodox" Marxism all the ill-defined buzzwords or meme terms like Dialectical Materialism start to appear, and the base-superstructure distinction becomes codified as law by the Pope of Marxism Kautsky. Most tendencies of Marxism stems from this tradition.

"Luxemburgism" (not actually a tendency beyond people calling themselves that on twitter) is Orthodox Marxism (not that the people calling themselves that would know) - she just really liked strikes and argued against Lenin on the national question (though she supported the Bolsheviks).

Council Communists rejected the party-form and believed in an organization around working councils, they are thus "unorthodox", since parliamentarian was codified as orthodox. The Situationists (which you call Debordists) where Council Communists, but believed that the driving force of capitalism was not production, but consumption of commodities - they are however not really influential for their economics as much as their cultural critique.

Market Socialists are literally not Marxists, since Marx completely reject the market as exploitive and a alienating towards the workers a priori. Market Socialism would just be the workers exploiting themselves to produce exchange-value and placate market demand.
>>1880
>Engels was shit at Marxism

lad
>>1881
Dialects of Nature, I rest my case.
>>1881
>>1882
Sounds interesting, could you elaborate? Any prominent historic figure which wasn't "shit at marxism"?
Open file (71.20 KB 350x247 1459849997384-2.jpg)
>>1888
Marx refers to historical materialism as the process of how labour produces society and the material conditions.

Engels tired to form an entire ontology where he takes the concept of dialects and shoehorns it into every facet of nature. Essentially, he believes historical materialism to actually be some process of matter, reverting to basically Aristotelian conception of nature as energia. He's free to do this of course, but the problem was that he claimed this was Marxism (despite having little to no connection to it whatsoever) and tricking the entire Marxist movement to swallow his own home-made theory.

That's not to say nothing good came out of Orthodox Marxism, but one has to apply a scalpel here and there.

The theorists today who is closest in line with Marx own position are the Autonomists (excluding those who've grown to proscribe to Deleuzianism), I'd recommend Harry Cleaver's Reading Capital Politically.
>>1890
All Engels did was trying to prove that dialectics as a philosophical approach are superior to static metaphysicism by pointing out how it fits with discoveries of contemporary natural science.

Even if your assertions were true saying "Engels was shit at Marxism" would still be oxymoronic since Marxism is the thought of Marx and Engels.
>>1890
As for Autonomism being the closest to Marx' actual thought I don't see how ditching union activity and working class parties in favour of what anarchists would call "lifestylism" as well as including lumpenproles into the class struggle is in any way in line with Marx' thought.
Open file (24.29 KB 328x500 a_aaaamoLukacs.jpg)
>>1891
>dialects vs metaphysics meme
Do you even know what these words mean?

>haha obviously Marxism is not Marx philosophy but Marx as interpreted by Engels.
"If this is Marxism I'm not a Marxist" t. Karl Marx

>>1892
>Marx thought is the specific position he held during the 19th century, and not his methodology, theoretical tools, or conception of world history
Lukács a few things to say about that kind of dogmatism, I thought you MLs where all about "theory stems from practice".

Well, newsflash, the labour unions and social democracy has gone nowhere, the vanguard parties are all liberals or nationalists without the left prefix. Lenin made important contribution to Marxism of the early 20th century (when we still had the autarkic economic blocs called imperialism), I don't deny that, but we're not living in 1920s Russia and to quote thesis 124 of Society of the Spectacle: "Revolutionary theory is now the sworn enemy of all revolutionary ideology - and it knows it."

Not to mention, of course, the autonomists where not lifestylists. They where the ones seizing the means of production while your precious Party-form was calling for a "historical compromise" with the bourgeois.
Open file (199.34 KB 948x843 l.png)
>>1891
>All Engels did was trying to prove that dialectics as a philosophical approach are superior to static metaphysicism by pointing out how it fits with discoveries of contemporary natural science.

>Hegel labors to point out in the Philosophy of Nature how dialectics does not apply to the void of natural existence because of the natural world's lack of self-consciousness and it is only through human societal relations given to nature that the two can even approach each other
>"but hey guys fuck all that shit, science is cool so im gonna take the metaphysics of self-consciousness and instead make it into the empirical 'science' of nature! what could go wrong? :)" - t. engeles
Quite disgusting really.
>>1896
>labour unions and social democracy has gone nowhere, the vanguard parties are all liberals or nationalists without the left prefix
>They where the ones seizing the means of production while your precious Party-form was calling for a "historical compromise" with the bourgeois.

Legitimately curious for examples of autonomists achieving anything aside from causing a mild nuisance via absenteeism and squatting.

>>1898
Why doesn't this place have filters?
>>1900
>what is the Hot Autumn
>what is the Years of Lead

Also, who do you think are at the forefront of the current riots in France? Hint, it's not the fucking PCF.
>>1901
>what is the Hot Autumn

A bunch of strikes which ultimately achieved nothing.

>what is the Years of Lead

A bunch of terrorist attacks which ultimately achieved nothing.

>the current riots in France

Not to be a pessimist but I think we're seeing a pattern here.

The fact that the western left is in shambles has nothing to do with using "outdated tactics."
Open file (172.48 KB 600x450 1451227510452.jpg)
>>1902
No, we just need another PRC or USSR right? And pretend the world is still divided into autarkic trading blocs run by centralized nation-states?
>>1903
But I agree with you, the left is pretty fucked up at the moment.

And Marxism-Leninism has a lot to answer for in that regard.
>>1903
>>1904
So behind all the philosophical wankery you're just another /leftypol/ak who believes anything the liberal media tells them about real existing socialism.

But no matter what you think about the developments in the USSR and PRC, at least their revolution succeeded, something any non-ML movement has yet to achieve.
>>1906
Yeah I'd agree, the Lenin and Bolsheviks failed and was overtaken by the Stalinist "Marxist-Leninist" bureaucracy they set into motion. Hoist by thy own petard (so maybe their theory and practice should be seen as a noble attempt but one that we need to move beyond).

So I guess only MLs has been successful in reaching their goals of expanding Stalinism. But for a communist that's a bit like praising Fascism for spreading to Germany, Eastern Europe and Spain, or the success of Bretton Woods. I mean, "real socialism" was class-collaborationism and nationalism, so it's not like it was much different from the other welfare/warfare states found in the 1st world.

Suppose it had a bit different distribution system, but since their economy was so tied to the international market, it apparently didn't bother the capitalist too much. After all, it's a question of production to paraphrase a bloke named Karl Marx.

So if you're asking me if I prefer Capitalism or "Socialism with USSR characteristics"... I'd choose communism.

Concluding then: Marxism-Leninism has been quite successful in establishing bourgeois-nationalist revolutions and spreading industrialization, which I guess gain communism in the long run - since it provides a proletariat subject and the conditions of a communist revolution.

Sad about all those actual communists you had to kill or repress to make it happen though.
>>1906
>>1908
I would also like an actual counter-argument this time, and not just half-assed namecalling, claims of being brainwashed, and trying to divert the question.

I know it must hard for you but just give it a try for once.
>>1908
>>1909
How about you provide some substance to all those mighty claims you make. How was the USSR class-collaborationist or nationalist? How was the bureacracy a class of its own? Where are you getting the "bourgeois-nationalist revolutions" from? You also seem to have missed this tiny historical detail called "Cold War" when talking about how the capitalists basically didn't care about the Soviets.

But there is no point in arguing with the "real communism" crowd anyways.
>>1910
>what was social patriotism
>what was the Stalin Constitution and the offical end of the DOTP
>what was national liberation
>haha just because the nomenclature parasites on the labour of others doesn't mean they're a separate class
>what does it mean to ally with the "national bourgeois"
>implying there was no large-scale trade between the Eastern and Western Bloc
Ever heard of FIAT or Koch?

Seriously, one would at least hope you knew the basic history of the USSR, or basic ML theory for that matter, but apparently that's to much to ask for.

There isn't much gain arguing with the "real socialism" crowd anyways.
>>1880
isnt orthodox marxism a correction of classical marxism?
>>1932
"Classical Marxism" in that sense is really just Marx himself and what he wrote, not any specific interpretation or 'Marxism'.

But otherwise, Orthodox Marxism was an attempt to systematize Marx as interpreted by Engels, which is very different from "correction". You can't correct and philosopher on what he himself wrote. The idea of "reading a philosopher from behind" is quite disingenuous in my opinion.
>>1912
>>1912
>social patriotism
a product of historical circumstances and compatible with proletarian internationalism, because it unifies people under the pretense of class solidarity instead of ethnic or racial solidarity. If you think that soviet patriotism=russian patriotism you obviously don't know what you are talking about.
This is the same if you consider nationalism the same as patriotism.
>stalin constitution
>The constitution repealed restrictions on voting and added universal direct suffrage and the right to work to rights guaranteed by the previous constitution. In addition, the Constitution recognized collective social and economic rights including the rights to work, rest and leisure, health protection, care in old age and sickness, housing, education, and cultural benefits. The constitution also provided for the direct election of all government bodies and their reorganization into a single, uniform system.
Sounds great to me.
>national liberation
read the right of nations to self determination.
>ally with the national bourgeois
give me an example in which they allied with private holders of the means of production, or better yet give me an example of capitalists int he soviet union in the first place. The only kind of private ownership you will find pre-1952 are petit-bourgeois workshops where artisers worked lacking industry (like barrel or shoe makers)
>a socialist nation cannot trade with capitalist nations, somehow this is unsocialist
wew lad. without even beginning to question your understanding of theoretical socialism I must question your practical socialism, like half of these internet socialists I doubt you know any way to put your theories to practice. Just what is your theory and how would you even put it to practice?
>>1985
Okay, I don't know what I expected, but I'm getting pretty tired of babysitting you here so I'll just get straight to the point.

>a product of historical circumstances
Of course it is, Stalin needed to exchange class struggle for nationalism when it became obvious that Russia would not develop into a Socialist state.

>because it unifies people under the pretense of class solidarity instead of ethnic or racial solidarity.
No? It's entire point is patriotism, so it obviously dosen't use class as a basis, but nationhood i.e. a form of imagined community.

>If you think that soviet patriotism=russian patriotism you obviously don't know what you are talking about.
>This is the same if you consider nationalism the same as patriotism.
How the fuck is referencing Alexander Nevsky, Ivan the Terrible and Russian lords not Russian patriotism? Why do you think the second Ivan the Terrible film was never shown? It was because Stalin had explicitly linked his own government with a narrative of a nationalist historical Russia - with a 'linage' from Ivan, Peter, and himself. Ofc he was well aware that any critique of Ivan the Terrible was a de facto critique of himself.

You are the one who needs to get an even basic understanding of the conceptions you talk about. Your smug ignorance is the bread and butter of ML 'argumentation'.

>Stalin Constitution
>Sounds great to me.
You are aware it was explicitly written to re-integrate the bourgeois into the state right? It's meant to highlight the character of Russia/Soviet Union as a imagined community, and downplay the concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The very act of calling for universal suffrage symbolized that former enemies where now welcome.

>read the right of nations to self determination.
>this is apparently not nationalism
No comment.

>give me an example in which they allied with private holders of the means of production, or better yet give me an example of capitalists int he soviet union in the first place. The only kind of private ownership you will find pre-1952 are petit-bourgeois workshops where artisers worked lacking industry (like barrel or shoe makers)
You... are aware this is literally noted as necessity in the Mao material you gave me earlier right? That the 'contradiction' of state vs state is more important than the class distinction, Mao was literally calling for social chauvinism straight out of Kautsky. Beyond that we have the entire theory of Popular Front, the "historic compromise" in Italy. Private actors in the USSR isn't that hard to find either, I've already mentioned Koch and Fiat (hell, I mentioned them in the comment you replied to, again - do you even read my post or are you going by the Party sponsored manual?).

You don't seriously think the entire Eastern Bloc switching to Neoliberalism came out of nowhere did you?

>a socialist nation cannot trade with capitalist nations, somehow this is unsocialist
>the real point of communism is for socialism and capitalists to be friends :) t. Karl Marx
Oh wait no, it's meant to overthrow the Bourgeois dictatorship and establish a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. If you're seriously arguing for the coexistence of socialism and capitalism you've admitted that you're not a communist and no attempt was made for it within ML theory.

So, you're in fact no more "socialist" than those that put National in front of it.
Open file (44.15 KB 460x287 berlin-wall_2526447c.jpg)
>>1985
>. without even beginning to question your understanding of theoretical socialism I must question your practical socialism,
Funny, I've seen little to no sign of yours.

>like half of these internet socialists I doubt you know any way to put your theories to practice. Just what is your theory and how would you even put it to practice?

I've made some comments on the matter here >>1877

So in short, I've never claimed to have any easy answer to that question - hell, I don't really think it can be answered. My critique is against the ML dogmatism of "stages" and holy icons that must be enshrined as carries of the "proletarian science" and all the other bullshit that make it painfully obvious that MLs don't get Marx even basic point.

I've already referred to Lukács and Debord, and I'll say it again:
I want Marxism-Leninism, and the edgy roleplayers who proscribe to it, to be plunged into the dustbin of history where they belong. You had your moment in spreading industrialization in the former colonies, but your time is over. Your half-assed theories are useless to describe the global world following the end of Imperialism, the factorization of everyday life, and the new economies.

Fucking hell, you yourself claim there exists no "real" ML parties today, so I think you yourself should have realized how obsolete it is by now?
>>1990
>>1991
That guy and me aren't the same people, look at the post dates.

>I've never claimed to have any easy answer to that question - hell, I don't really think it can be answered.

So what you are claiming is the classic Zizekian "I don't know what the fuck to do but let me tell you why you're wrong." Noted.

>Fucking hell, you yourself claim there exists no "real" ML parties today, so I think you yourself should have realized how obsolete it is by now?

Calling M-L obsolete based on the size of the movement amounts to saying that liberalism won and obviously communism as a whole is "obsolete" given its small following. Or how many "communist" parties of any denomination do you know that aren't liberal circlejerking about sexism and racism? Obviously this is due to social liberalism being the superior and most up-to-date ideology.
>>1993
>>1993
We need to critically examine the current strands of leftism and admit that many of them, especially those clinging to dogmatic guides based on theories developed almost a 100 years ago and which never managed to fulfil it's promise of bringing communism. And we need to create new movements based on said critique and the current circumstances.

>Haha obviously you're saying that liberalism has won bc everyone should be a liberal

How is this in any way a point? The problem with the current left is that there is no coherent theory, thus there is no coherent practice.

>So what you are claiming is the classic Zizekian "I don't know what the fuck to do but let me tell you why you're wrong." Noted.
Banging your head against a wall doesn't make progress just because you're doing "something". You're just pissed bc someone is calling you out on your bullshit. The mature reaction would be to critically examine yourself, not a knee-jerk tantrum.
>>1879
Le happy merchant, sincerely.
>>2004

Somebody please remind me why we even have this flag, again?
>>2258
It's a useful community tool that allows idiots to flag themselves.
>>2268
Though, come to think of it, it would be really funny if it looked like a swastika to the user, but appeared to others as a yellow star

I'm sure the stormfags would love that
Open file (37.27 KB 500x389 follow your leader.jpg)
>>2004
Fuck off.

Sincerely,
Literally every other person in the world.
>>2272
hitler died in the argentina newfag
>>2280
Please die already.
this board needs moar pages
>>2798
Hopped thread limit from 50 to 200

Delete
Report/Ban

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)


no cookies?