|
So yeah how do you have a state without a state "bourgeoisie"? Are all authoritarian right-wing regimes fascist or is it worth to differentiate between them?
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
i still don't think it makes sense to distinguish between "state bourgeoisie" and "private bourgeoisie" in class or even faction terms as opposed to as like, temporary historical accidents governing which courtier is in or out of favor in the royal court. all capitalists tend towards financialization and monopoly and all capitalists need an increasingly sophisticated and repressive state to protect their interests. to paraphrase "red menace" and "rev left radio"'s brett o'shea, really-existing anarcho capitalism would actually serve as an empirical disproof of marxist political economy
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
Granted, I think the issue again is the difference between theoretical Marxism and modern historical materialism. It is the problem that Kautsky had. It was impossible for him to envision a reality outside a theoretical construct.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:Was the non-interventionist angle of the left during the Yugoslav war the right course of action? I've heard it being described that it was this line by Chomsky, Herman, Parenti, Tariq Ali etc. that turned people like Hitchens and Salman Rushdie away from the left. I'm sorry if I sound like an imperialist, I'm just curious as to what the rationale was. Parenti's "To Kill a Nation" is worth reading, but broadly speaking, it was America that deliberately destabilized and broke up Yugoslavia in the first place, without that imperialist pressure the wars would never have occurred.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 21:22
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:So yeah how do you have a state without a state "bourgeoisie"? Are all authoritarian right-wing regimes fascist or is it worth to differentiate between them? The real question is how to pronounce bourgeoisie. In the entire history of leftism no theorist has been able to come up with a satisfying answer
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:The real question is how to pronounce bourgeoisie. In the entire history of leftism no theorist has been able to come up with a satisfying answer booshy
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:The real question is how to pronounce bourgeoisie. In the entire history of leftism no theorist has been able to come up with a satisfying answer Maybe because not all leftists know Parisian French? Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:31 on May 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 22:14
|
|
|
Borjwah
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 22:17
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Maybe because not all leftists know Parisian French? Revisionist excuses
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 22:57
|
|
|
Bower-zhwees
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 22:57
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Bower-zhwees Boomer
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
beep beep not so fast https://twitter.com/XHNews/status/1264207135946113025 quote:Xi stressed all localities and departments must faithfully implement the decisions, plans, policies and measures made by the CPC Central Committee, and eschew the practice of formalities for formalities' sake and bureaucratism. in the end it's the development of the productive forces that determines relations of production in the last instance, and when the relations of production become antagonistic to the level of development of the productive forces, capitalism becomes pregnant with socialism. this stage is already realized within the capitalist west that has switched to state monopoly capitalism, which means it turned to imperialism and super-profits to sustain itself, china has not reached that level yet. only when we see a clear antagonism there, such as falling profits, can we can discover the true character of the chinese state and who holds power there. anything less would be nothing less than dogmatism!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2020 00:23
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:So yeah how do you have a state without a state "bourgeoisie"? Are all authoritarian right-wing regimes fascist or is it worth to differentiate between them? IMO it really depends on what you are trying to say by calling them fascist or not fascist. The typical argument against calling systems of rule fascist focuses on European-style fascist or neofascist ideology because it contains an appetite for genocide and/or war. Privileging consciousness is already baked into the act of speaking of "regimes" rather than systems. I think that approach reduces fascism to a sort of historical boogeyman. A political regime just produces the legal expression of already existing social relations and is a fighting force against alternative relations. So what kind of concrete system of rule are these regimes enabling to be constructed around them and what are they fighting? What is their all-round regime like, compared to say Bretton Woods keynesianism or ordoliberalism? I consider fascism to be ideologically eclectic because regimes mostly need to stay subordinate to imperialist liberal needs and values, they aren't 20th century European great powers. So fascism can't be ideologically married to the right wing, that's just where the opportunities lie in most countries. Ferrinus posted:i still don't think it makes sense to distinguish between "state bourgeoisie" and "private bourgeoisie" in class or even faction terms as opposed to as like, temporary historical accidents governing which courtier is in or out of favor in the royal court. all capitalists tend towards financialization and monopoly and all capitalists need an increasingly sophisticated and repressive state to protect their interests. to paraphrase "red menace" and "rev left radio"'s brett o'shea, really-existing anarcho capitalism would actually serve as an empirical disproof of marxist political economy Read 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte if you haven't, or recall it if you have. Marx didn't have this crude vision where some kind of bare collective material necessity directly determines the type of class rule. Interests differ within classes, factions struggle, and the type of rule desired by the winner also comes back to determine the material necessities of holding onto that type of rule. What pre-existing material conditions immediately determine are the relative powers and ideological commonalities between different factions of all the classes. Who wins whenever is based on who can organize the most powerful or politically decisive front around them. All victories are transient, only struggle is constant. I don't need to make hypotheticals about non-existent ancap factions of the bourgeoisie, a more real-world example are the recent struggles over e.g. Ukraine, Brazil, Bolivia and Venezuela. In Venezuela especially we have been looking at a struggle between a state bourgeoisie and a private US-comprador bourgeoisie and material needs to uphold the rule would look quite different depending on which side won. Maduro isn't really in power by holding onto the people, but by unifying the interests of "corrupt" (treating their positions like businesses) state officials around keeping him in power against the will of the most powerful sections of the private bourgeoisie. Those officials actively wield class power for themselves against a powerful section of the bourgeoisie and it's not the workers' class power, because its wielders are robbers of the people that shield themselves from democratic judgment. There's your distinction. BrutalistMcDonalds posted:beep beep not so fast Your logic actually concludes that socialism was always and will always be impossible. The greatest industrial forces of production that have ever existed on Earth simply can't do it, just forget about Germany or even Britain in 1880. Marx was a fool and Xi Jinping gets it. Like make no mistake, China's forces of production today are considerably *ahead of* most of Europe. The Chinese people live in the middle of utopian material abundance that they can't consume because of relations of production that render them unable to access it. Sure, China couldn't keep that level of production going if it was all alone, but no one could. It upholds its conundrum by supporting murderous anticommunism internationally. Determination in the last instance means that forces of production are relations of production and relations of production are forces of production. The forces of production produced the proletariat, which is a relation of production. It was simultaneously a force of production that made the industrial revolution possible. Industrial machinery was a force of production, but also a relation of production that brought the proletariat together into the industrial proletariat that could produce a consciousness of itself as an outdated relation of production. According to them, communist relations of production would become an unparalleled force of production in combination with industrial machinery. So far as the forces and relations are in contradiction, the needs of the forces eventually win out, but that doesn't mean there is only one set of relations that can satisfy those needs or that they're ever fully satisfied so that they couldn't be satisfied any better. What the Chinese communists did was develop their forces of production faster than anyone else had done previously by using the accumulated knowledge of the Eurasian proletariat to enter into relations of production that combined into a greater force of production than any other country had had at a similar level of industrial development. Even if dengist pauperization was also necessary for China to become the center of world industry, imperialists overwhelmingly chose China despite its protectionist measures and general unpredictability because the socialist period had produced the most socially developed people in the world in relation to their consumption standards. OTOH pauperized ex-peasants are a dime a dozen in the world economy.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
Also the whole idea that every country needs to industrialize in the traditional sense is not tenable anymore. Already we are heading towards a climate catastrophe. If anything we should all have to settle for a kind of lifestyle that is comfortable but still ecologically sustainable i.e like Cuba. That means sustainable electrification and growth in the third world and degrowth in the first world. That being said I have no idea how to get there.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
Bhaskar Sunkara is shilling for Biden on the NYT. I am sure it is thrilling news to the Jacobin subscribers in here. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/opinion/socialists-biden-trump.html
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Bhaskar Sunkara is shilling for Biden on the NYT. I am sure it is thrilling news to the Jacobin subscribers in here.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Bhaskar Sunkara is shilling for Biden on the NYT. I am sure it is thrilling news to the Jacobin subscribers in here. https://twitter.com/sunraysunray/status/1266039242607730700
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
lol he thinks Trump is gonna lose?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Bhaskar Sunkara is shilling for Biden on the NYT. I am sure it is thrilling news to the Jacobin subscribers in here. To be fair, most Jacobin articles posted about Biden in the past few months have been anti-Biden.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:https://twitter.com/sunraysunray/status/1252991675850424320 Seems like a confused mishmash of takes that change every other tweet, he is a certainly a guy I would trust. ToxicAcne posted:To be fair, most Jacobin articles posted about Biden in the past few months have been anti-Biden. It sounds like they are enlightened centrists.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 21:07
|
|
|
uncop posted:Read 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte if you haven't, or recall it if you have. Marx didn't have this crude vision where some kind of bare collective material necessity directly determines the type of class rule. Interests differ within classes, factions struggle, and the type of rule desired by the winner also comes back to determine the material necessities of holding onto that type of rule. What pre-existing material conditions immediately determine are the relative powers and ideological commonalities between different factions of all the classes. Who wins whenever is based on who can organize the most powerful or politically decisive front around them. All victories are transient, only struggle is constant. ignoring for a moment the question of whether maduro "really" has the support of the people, you're describing a conflict between the bourgeoisie of one state and the bourgeoisie who want to jump ship into the arms of a different state. it's still not a workers-state (or "state capitalists")-private capitalists triad. obviously there are contradictory interests within the bourgeoisie, whether within or across inside state lines (this is part of what lenin wrote left wing communism about) just like there are, regrettably, contradictory factions and interests within the working class, whether within or across state lines
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 06:46
|
|
|
does anyone have a link to that indian maoist webcomic?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 13:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 05:47
|
|
|
Zizek, Chomsky, secret love child?! More information inside!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 12:32
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 12:47
|
|
|
no that's not it
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 15:36
|
|
|
anybody on the ground for protests today? Everybody alright?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 01:07
|
|
|
From LA: https://twitter.com/CNNnewsroom/status/1266833756389806082
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 01:50
|
|
|
Lol
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 01:51
|
|
|
i can only hope for one day to attain coolness levels similar to zizek in espionage
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 02:27
|
|
|
CNN is so pissed at the cops they're interviewing communists now https://twitter.com/pslweb/status/1266847613426388992?s=20
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 02:36
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:ignoring for a moment the question of whether maduro "really" has the support of the people, you're describing a conflict between the bourgeoisie of one state and the bourgeoisie who want to jump ship into the arms of a different state. it's still not a workers-state (or "state capitalists")-private capitalists triad. obviously there are contradictory interests within the bourgeoisie, whether within or across inside state lines (this is part of what lenin wrote left wing communism about) just like there are, regrettably, contradictory factions and interests within the working class, whether within or across state lines Yes. I'm talking about capitalism, this is supposed to be applicable everywhere. No one anywhere has abolished capitalism. Socialism is not a mode of production and therefore not the abolition of capitalism. It's workers in power creating a new mode of production that can eventually outgrow and abolish capitalism. But in doing so, they are at first also developing (rather than destroying) capitalism, and creating a subordinate proto-bourgeoisie of all sorts of petty tyrant managers. So long as they're dependent on the workers to renew their power to control production, they aren't quite a bourgeoisie, but if they manage to take strategic positions in and around the ruling party that allow them to renew their powers themselves, they become a real bourgeoisie. Talk of a "state bourgeoisie" does not imply that they run some special domain called "state capitalism". When e.g. Lenin spoke of state capitalism, he was talking about a developmental trend of capitalism everywhere and which the USSR was following *behind* the example of Germany. State capitalism is when the Fed bails out the stock market. But that's far from the only way a politically powerful state bourgeoisie can come to existence. For example, South Korea was developed by a bureaucratic bourgeoisie turning tax income into bureaucratic capital that could build the country of Samsung. Venezuela and others have been under international attack because bureaucratic bourgeoisies that turn from subordinate to nationalistic present the threat of undoing underdevelopment like South Korea did. The French state restored French industry after WW2 and simultaneously built up the kind of state bourgeoisie the Venezuelan bureaucratic bourgeoisie could only dream of being. Nordic countries used state capital to build competitive industry in the 20th century and simultaneously built up a massive state bourgeoisie.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 08:33
|
|
|
god liberals are such loving out and out cowards. the worst "allies" you can ask for. they will rationalize turning on any movement as soon as it makes them uncomfortable. what do we do about the liberal problem, how do we kill liberalism in the hearts of americans? literally people being absolute loving squishes and condemning any protests now that they look ugly. american liberals are the most docile, bitchmade people on the planet. it's unbelievable how loving awful they are. i know way too many of them and they are all cowards. ethical cowards, moral cowards, and physical cowards. the planet is loving dying, we live in a police state, and they will do everything in their power to shine the light on someone knocking over a public fountain or smashing a window - absolutely anything to rationalize being complicit in the ongoing systemic violence of american capitalism. i loving hate them
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
THS posted:what do we do about the liberal problem, how do we kill liberalism in the hearts of americans? Take their money and cushy jobs away.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
THS posted:god liberals are such loving out and out cowards. the worst "allies" you can ask for. they will rationalize turning on any movement as soon as it makes them uncomfortable. what do we do about the liberal problem, how do we kill liberalism in the hearts of americans? i got yelled at by libs yesterday for going to the dallas protest strapped, and there were a bunch of people yelling "DON'T THROW THINGS AT THE COPS," absolutely disgraceful. 100% they'd rationalize DPD chucking every single CS grenade and flashbang at us due to some poor cop getting beaned by an empty water bottle
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
The only thing you can do is chastise them for wanting to make a whole city play out their fantasies. The unironically believe that things can play out like the Pepsi commercial if people just calmed down. They're just a liberal version of black bloc LARPers, only now they're the greater threat to a protest movement.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
THS posted:god liberals are such loving out and out cowards. the worst "allies" you can ask for. they will rationalize turning on any movement as soon as it makes them uncomfortable. what do we do about the liberal problem, how do we kill liberalism in the hearts of americans? Any liberal movement is only as strong as the most fragile Karen
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1267514411914342404?s=21 Yglesias’s annual good post
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
I've seen a lot of liberals and apolitical "i just wanna grill" types start vocally supporting the protests and rioting with no exceptions given from the people I actually know IRL. The people who were obviously closeted racists haven't changed their tune, but the average gamer I know started thinking the protests were good a few days ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
I’m having a hard time getting a good read on the general public’s sentiment. I think there’s a lot of “what that cop did was wrong but there’s no reason for the looting and setting fires.”
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:34
|
|