|
used the cpusa because for better or worse, theyre the inheritors of the comintern. psl, wwp, frso youd prolly find as many people arguing theyre not stalinists but in some cases trotskyist or maoist, etc. that actually ties in to what I first posted about how its typically less useful to analyze politics as trotskyist or maoist or whatever and more useful to assess the specific political line of a specific political party/organization rather than trying to lump them all in together. regardless, the july days were much different in character, the revolts of the july days were violent and spontaneous and it was in that backdrop which the bolsheviks argued against the workers taking the streets because they did not have the organization yet to challenge the government. but thats a great example because even despite their position that it was a mistake, they still went out with the workers in the street and were met with severe repression afterwards as a result. even when the bolsheviks acknowledged the workers mistakes, they still went into the streets with them and worked to organize them and meet their consciousness and push it forward. the PCF tailed the labor leadership rather than orient to the rank and file workers and students who were striking for political reasons and a change in the regime. instead of orienting towards the rank and file they oriented towards the labor leadership and toed their line. and you can see how this mistake was so grievous because by the 70s and 80s the PCFs support had completely disappeared, even though in 68 the students and workers were joining the party and looking to it for leadership. this same or similar patterns repeated themselves around the world until we have gotten to the point now where there are no mass communist or socialist parties left.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:24 |
|
|
like the PCF leadership was completely degenerated in 68. in 1981 you had Georges Marchais as leader of the PCF calling for "stop immigration, official and illegal" the same Georges Marchais who throughout the 68 protests was dismissing the students as ultra left and sowed division among some of the more radical workers along national and racial lines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 16:39
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:when and where am I saying the soviets, meaning the USSR, should have done anything? we can argue about what they did or should have done but consistently I have only pointed to the french communist party and their mistakes. revolutionary politics are not like a paradox strategy game, they are conflicts between classes. the french communists could have argued against compromises and for a socialist republic. would they have been successful? who knows, its a counterfactual. yes it could have cost them power and influence in the government but the whole point of having those positions is to specifically make the case for a socialist revolution and society. defeats occur but the only way class consciousness develops is if the revolutionary leadership can put forward a path forward for struggle, even if that viewpoint doesnt win in the end either due to the balance of political forces or a refusal to accept that position on the part of the broader class, it prepares and readies the class for future movements. refusing to do so in a genuinely revolutionary moment is opportunism and again points to a degenerated leadership which sees their positions of power and influence as the real force for social change rather than the strength and organization of the working class. probably when you said "before someone comes in arguing that the USSR did not work to prevent the advancement of labor struggles along revolutionary lines then I would suggest reading the history of the french protests of 1968 specifically." even if it turns out all along you were talking about just the PCF and not using them as an example of the USSR as a whole failing to support labor struggles (remember, the genesis of this entire discussion was the claim that the ussr was specifically a "degenerated" worker's state, as evidenced by its failure to support labor struggles, because the ussr should be analogized to class-collaborationist union leadership in a capitalist country) the idea that we shouldn't be revolutionary until we have 50%+1 of the parliament is something you just brought up, not any of the actual stated reasoning behind the PCF's moderation of its demands back in '68. you're performing a rhetorical sleight of hand here, pretending that any decision to build and consolidate rather than attack must be rooted in electoralism in the case of the modern CPUSA, i'd say they have the situation precisely backwards - in the electoral arena, socialists have to defeat the democrats before they can even start to fight the republicans
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 16:43
|
|
|
its not a sleight of hand, im just dumb and forgot what started us posting about this cause ive been posting on my phone while reading all this. also im focusing so much on the failures of the french communists specifically cause at the end of the day id prefer it if socialists of today dont make the same mistakes of 50 years ago, especially since were experiencing revolutionary and counter revolutionary times right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 16:59
|
|
|
its also the difference though between the russian communists providing political leadership and guidance which is more what im describing in terms of how they influenced foreign communist parties and less how the USSR should have used their army to invade france to help the protestors, which is what that one post i was responding to was on about, which is crazy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 17:01
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:its also the difference though between the russian communists providing political leadership and guidance which is more what im describing in terms of how they influenced foreign communist parties and less how the USSR should have used their army to invade france to help the protestors, which is what that one post i was responding to was on about, which is crazy. i didn't think that's what you meant, i thought (before actually looking more deeply into the incident) that you were going to tell me that like there was a worker's movement ready to overthrow the government but the ussr stepped in to tell it to stand down (through its PCF proxies) or something. except of course that's not actually what went down Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Oct 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 17:07
|
|
|
nope, maybe thats the issue, lotta people think me or others who are critical of ussr treat em like some nefarious evil that sought to destroy genuine socialism. never said that, never thought that. the issue was mistaken political leadership within the comintern which led to the retreat of socialism and the workers movement around the world over the 20th century as the russian communist party and other communist parties which were birthed from the comintern took opportunist political approaches which demoralized and destabilized the strength of the labor movement. at the end of the day if youre a socialist and cant deal with criticisms of the ussr or reckon with why communism collapsed there and elsewhere plus the marginalization of the communist parties globally, then you will never recruit or convince any worker who is worth convincing cause most people you talk to are skeptical of communism for various reasons and you gotta reckon with that. you can say, as ive heard many do, that it wasnt the communists fault it was american imperialism and capitalist interference. thats true to a degree but thats your enemy, and if your strategy and approach cant defeat your enemy then why would anyone double down on a failed strategy? gotta analyze what went wrong, why, and how to combat that in the future. if the bolsheviks had supported the provisional government yeah would be easy to understand why and forgive them but it still would have been a mistake, so like criticize it and learn from it. dont defend mistakes. im not saying the people who committed them should be executed for their mistakes (cause im not a stalinist  ), im saying learn from em and dont make the mistakes again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 17:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 18:20
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:nope, maybe thats the issue, lotta people think me or others who are critical of ussr treat em like some nefarious evil that sought to destroy genuine socialism. never said that, never thought that. the issue was mistaken political leadership within the comintern which led to the retreat of socialism and the workers movement around the world over the 20th century as the russian communist party and other communist parties which were birthed from the comintern took opportunist political approaches which demoralized and destabilized the strength of the labor movement. in my experience the central animating belief of every anticommunist, whether a "democratic socialist" who has just had the genius idea of voting for things or a liberal progressive or a hardline reactionary, is that socialist states either failures from the outset or inevitably corrupted such that they became "authoritarian" or antidemocratic or whatever. this leads to a rejection of basically all communist theory all the way down to lenin (look what his leadership led to!) and in practice all the way down to marx, though they don't realize that's what they're doing. so it actually behooves us to be very careful in denouncing this or that socialist party or state for its worker-stifling opportunism because that is actually the exact same thing liberals believe of socialist parties and socialist states and in particular your examples are just bad! the subjective conditions for a revolution did not exist in '68 france! the guidance and material support of the cpsu led to the triumph of the chinese communist party! these aren't even good examples of rightist opportunism and betrayal of the workers because that's simply not what was going on on the ground. you didn't respond to me before when i brought up the libertarian communist critique of lenin - that he revealed himself as a betrayer of the proletariat when he dissolved the factory committees. how is that different from your take on any of these historical incidents we've been discussing Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Oct 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
Anyway, I would say the prime goal for the Soviets was not starting revolutions where ever it could, but picking its battles, especially in the developing world (China/Africa/SE Asia/ Latin America) where the strength of the West was weaker. The entire issue with the idea of permanent revolution is it contradicts the material situation of the Soviet Union, including the necessity of trade with Western states. Even China during the Cultural Revolution was trading with Western Europe. From the Soviet perspective, allocating resources to what they saw as an unwinnable battle (while a winnable battle i.e Vietnam was occurring). Also, a really an argument that the Soviet Union was always beholden to the West really doesn't work when you considering how much back and forth actually did occur during the Cold War, and the Soviet Union eventually lost because it was cornered on the issue of trade (again) especially regarding oil prices. Also, blaming the Soviet Union for the decline of labor movements is a bit much considering that labor movements were carefully co-opted and dismantled by Western governments over the course of decades and that only accelerated after the Soviets disappeared. (Btw, the T-man himself in the New Course was actually banking on trade with Western governments, his main critique with the NEP was basically cutting out of the middle-men (Nepmen) and having the government buy grain directly and then turn and re-sell to Western states. If anything the big difference between his proposal and the way things worked out was pretty much timing.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Oct 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
the dissolving of the factory committees is a different beast altogether and the rationale is more or less the same as what im arguing: that the leaders of the factory committee were opportunist labor leaders who were often interested in personal political advancement over the actual revolution. was dissolving them the correct course to correct this? maybe maybe not, im not gonna poo poo on someone who says yes or no cause its a good question and a difficult problem to grapple with and not one that I have thought long enough about to have a firm opinion either way. nothing ive put forward is anticommunist, i am a communist. finally, yeah i actually agree with you that the subjective conditions for revolution in france 68 were not there, thats actually precisely what i am arguing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the subjective factors being the organization of the working class which finds its highest expression in the revolutionary party. the party which should have played this role, the communist party, was completely incapable of playing this role because of political degeneration or bewilderment. the objective conditions were there, the subjective factors were not. if communists were unable to turn the tumultuous events of 68 into a revolution then we have to find what were the mistakes and problems of the revolutionary party, the subjective factors, which were incorrect or mistaken. ive done that or at least attempted to. you agree that the subjective factors were not there, so what was wrong. the french communists could comfortably win 20% of the vote share during this period. imagine an explicitly communist party in the US which could win 20-25% of the vote regularly and a mass general strike breaks out which causes the current sitting president to flee the country. is that not a revolutionary situation? if it isnt, then the fault is entirely at the hands of the communist party for whatever mistaken approach theyve taken which made it that way because objectively, it is. the BLM protest wave this summer points objectively to a revolutionary situation or the potential for one, but what was lacking was the subjective factor of the organization of the movement through a party. if such a party did exist and failed to grow or strengthen the labor movement through this process, then again the problem is subjective only its not the lack of a revolutionary party but its failure of leadership. the french communists in 68 failed, they held back the consciousness of the workers in an objectively revolutionary situation, and it led to their complete collapse and loss of all mainstream political appeal over the decades that followed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
not trying to be a dick, but could you define permanent revolution? because in the context you are framing it in it kind of seems to me like you aren't familiar with what it actually means because it is more or less proved correct by the success of the october revolution. its specifically a theory which rejects the orthodox marxist position which was expressed in the socialist positions of the revolutions of 1848. the fact that you believe that the ussr had to pick its battles and so focused on the developing world and that this was a good thing also actually kind of indicates that you on some level agree with the premise of the core principles of permanent revolution but do not realize it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 19:55
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:not trying to be a dick, but could you define permanent revolution? because in the context you are framing it in it kind of seems to me like you aren't familiar with what it actually means because it is more or less proved correct by the success of the october revolution. its specifically a theory which rejects the orthodox marxist position which was expressed in the socialist positions of the revolutions of 1848. the fact that you believe that the ussr had to pick its battles and so focused on the developing world and that this was a good thing also actually kind of indicates that you on some level agree with the premise of the core principles of permanent revolution but do not realize it. "Succinctly, Trotsky wrote: “The Perspective of permanent revolution may be summarized in the following way: the complete victory of the democratic revolution in Russia is conceivable only in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, leaning on the peasantry. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which would inevitably place on the order of the day not only democratic but socialistic tasks as well, would at the same time give a powerful impetus to the international socialist revolution. Only the victory of the proletariat in the West could protect Russia from bourgeois resoration and assure it the possibility of rounding out the establishment of socialism." That is at least Trotsky's definition. It is an issue of timing, during the 1920s/1930s, the Soviet Union was focused on "building socialism in one country" but it is about all they could do at that point. The Soviet Union may have overextended itself during the Spanish Civil War. During the 1950s/1960s, it was a separate matter since the Soviet economy had stabilized itself and could be somewhat more ambitious but only to a point. Simply put, Trotsky was right that "Only the victory of the proletariat in the West could protect Russia from bourgeois resoration" it just wasn't attainable, and the only other choice was trying to survive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AmadannyBorvito/status/1315034764663980037
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 06:18
|
|
|
A hearty lmao is in order.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 06:31
|
|
|
Ohohoho~
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 06:44
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:but is that a class struggle? the workers are certainly fighting to conserve their time and very life-force, just as they would be under a capitalist system, but the other side isn't fighting to maximize its profits but to make sure the country is sufficiently armed for a defensive war (or in more peaceful times has enough tractors to continue to rationalize agriculture or something) If the workers don't believe in what they're being asked to do or believe in it but develop their own consensus that the sacrifices being asked of them are destructive to them and cannot abide them, and the response is coercive when they do not comply with the higher authority's demands, does it matter how the other side is rationalizing itself? And to what degree? Is there a difference between unpaid overtime and other, larger sacrifices that could be demanded of them such as unsafe working conditions to speed production at the immediate cost of some of their lives? It seems like the existence of the "other side" that has the combination of a) coercive authority over them and b) lack of sympathy and solidarity to their plight is symptomatic of class interest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 09:07
|
|
|
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2020 19:18
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:the dissolving of the factory committees is a different beast altogether and the rationale is more or less the same as what im arguing: that the leaders of the factory committee were opportunist labor leaders who were often interested in personal political advancement over the actual revolution. was dissolving them the correct course to correct this? maybe maybe not, im not gonna poo poo on someone who says yes or no cause its a good question and a difficult problem to grapple with and not one that I have thought long enough about to have a firm opinion either way. aha, see here you have started making excuses for stalinist repression of the self-organization of the real working class which etc etc there are just tons of historical examples which can be recast in this mold, involving the behaviors of historical figures that either you like or that we both like (kronstadt is the other classic example). they're not signs that this or that figure or party was really opportunist or revanchist or whatever, just that the coalition that wins a revolution today is not going to be the exact same coalition that defends that revolution tomorrow, ever quote:nothing ive put forward is anticommunist, i am a communist. finally, yeah i actually agree with you that the subjective conditions for revolution in france 68 were not there, thats actually precisely what i am arguing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the subjective factors being the organization of the working class which finds its highest expression in the revolutionary party. the party which should have played this role, the communist party, was completely incapable of playing this role because of political degeneration or bewilderment. the objective conditions were there, the subjective factors were not. if communists were unable to turn the tumultuous events of 68 into a revolution then we have to find what were the mistakes and problems of the revolutionary party, the subjective factors, which were incorrect or mistaken. ive done that or at least attempted to. you agree that the subjective factors were not there, so what was wrong. the french communists could comfortably win 20% of the vote share during this period. imagine an explicitly communist party in the US which could win 20-25% of the vote regularly and a mass general strike breaks out which causes the current sitting president to flee the country. is that not a revolutionary situation? if it isnt, then the fault is entirely at the hands of the communist party for whatever mistaken approach theyve taken which made it that way because objectively, it is. i certainly agree with you that it would've been ideal if the PCF's political education regimen and general ideological influence over the french working class was such that french factory workers were as or more revolutionary than french students and the various smaller parties and other movements that sided with those students. what's not clear to me is that this was possible such that its lack could only mean that the PCF played its cards wrong! there are a shitload of countervailing forces to the radicalization of first world workers which mean that developing the subjective conditions necessary for revolution is, though not impossible, both difficult and slow. maybe if the crisis had come ten years later, the PCF would have been able to promulgate a more radical position. maybe if the soviet union hadn't, itself, fallen, then the PCF could have retained more standing and made more headway in the next crisis. who knows it's not actually reasonable or fair to conclude that because there was no dictatorship of the proletariat established in france in '68 that the communists in that country must have been some combination of delinquent in their duties or traitorous to the cause. it might be because of that, but it's not actually a good example that the ussr and its affiliated parties failed to support workers' movements in the general course of things, especially because there are a number of historically notable proletarian revolutions that either succeeded or sustained themselves or both thanks to the actions of the ussr and its affiliated parties!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 03:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1315480277448351744?s=19
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 04:26
|
|
|
China having basketball league that can compete with the NBA for talent would be cool Belt and Road 2: Ball and Road
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 04:46
|
|
|
LittleBlackCloud posted:Is this a lyndon larouche joke? IDGI permanent revolution but for neoliberalism
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 06:14
|
|
|
i'm the implication that all of the PRC is a subset of the beijing metropolitan area
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 07:05
|
|
|
Under communism all cities are named the same thing, and there's only one kind of toothpaste which tastes like oppression.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 08:38
|
|
|
T-man posted:there's only one kind of toothpaste which tastes like oppression. But it sure does cleanse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 08:49
|
|
|
Mr Shiny Pants posted:But it sure does cleanse. remember to use a pick for those hard to reach irritants
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 09:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/virgiltexas/status/1315666077699932161
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 16:32
|
|
|
"to everyone mad about this: yes chomsky is an old man but anarchists periodically need to be put in their place so people dont start thinking they have rational political views"- guy who spent the last five years getting everybody to vote for bernie sanders
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 16:45
|
|
|
what the gently caress happened before the edit
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
critical support of a socdem in the democratic primary was still the best stance imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 16:52
|
|
|
Bernie wouldn't have won the general in 2016 or 2020 because the Democratic party elite would have destroyed the party before letting that happen and we'd be better off for it
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 16:56
|
|
|
good luck with your american politics thing btw and pls dont nuke anyone but yourselves thx
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 17:02
|
|
|
lumpentroll posted:what the gently caress happened before the edit You glimpsed the true visage of God. Do not recall it or you shall drive yourself mad
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 18:15
|
|
|
Algund Eenboom posted:"to everyone mad about this: yes chomsky is an old man but anarchists periodically need to be put in their place so people dont start thinking they have rational political views"- guy who spent the last five years getting everybody to vote for bernie sanders lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
virgin texas
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
More like chumpski
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:Bernie wouldn't have won the general in 2016 or 2020 because the Democratic party elite would have destroyed the party before letting that happen bernie was the accelerationist candidate
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 20:28
|
|
Algund Eenboom posted:You glimpsed the true visage of God. Do not recall it or you shall drive yourself mad you made me briefly think that id hit my vape waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to hard
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
Algund Eenboom posted:"to everyone mad about this: yes chomsky is an old man but anarchists periodically need to be put in their place so people dont start thinking they have rational political views"- guy who spent the last five years getting everybody to vote for bernie sanders now now its entirely possible to be correct about anarchists and wrong about bernie, see also: me
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:24 |
|
|
The only stuff about anarchism he's ever endorsed is just simple "do you let a kid cross the street without looking" stuff that's so obviously sensible it's hard to argue with. What's the difference between that guy's tweet and Ben Shapiro's epic dunks anyway
night slime fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Oct 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 22:50
|
|
