|
ToxicAcne posted:That's the question that I always struggle with. In the West/ Japan, the Social Democratic parties almost always had a much stronger mass base than the Revolutionary Communists. In the few cases where this wasn't true (France and Italy) the Communists were indistinguishable from the Soc Dems. For the light of me, I can't understand the difference between Eurocommunism and Social Democracy. i don't think there is one in practice. the thing is that i don't think you ever get a socialist revolution FOR socialism, like, everyone is just sick of their surplus value being exploited and goes ham. socialism, instead, is the hammer that's used to smash a more pressing and particular problem like colonial apartheid
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
how am i supposed to know whats bappin now 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
lmaowned
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
how will we know whats bappin now
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
I just don’t understand how, currently, we are to know what is bappin
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/socialaskan/status/1346526418180612096
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 20:06
|
|
|
pour one out for the fallen shitposters
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 20:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Actually lemme just go ahead and post another excerpt about the SPD because it really is a doozy What book is this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:how will we know whats bappin now Was bappin. Past tense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:Was bappin. Past tense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 22:01
|
|
|
they who where, is, and will be bappin
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
“what is to be bapped?” -v.i. lenin
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:Was bappin. Past tense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 22:34
|
|
|
das bapital
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 22:36
|
|
|
the three sources and three components of bappin'
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
im glad to no longer know what in the world was in a bappin relationship with itself
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 23:09
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:“what is to be bapped?”
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:i read the transitional program recently and i think that "The historical crisis of mankind is reduced to the crisis of the revolutionary leadership." is really the rosetta stone of trotskyism generally. the story again and again is that the conditions were ripe for revolution but the leadership hosed it up, or an actual revolution took place but the leadership hosed it up afterwards. by tragic coincidence, the wrong people were in charge each and every time, and otherwise we would be at brunch right now ToxicAcne posted:That's the question that I always struggle with. In the West/ Japan, the Social Democratic parties almost always had a much stronger mass base than the Revolutionary Communists. In the few cases where this wasn't true (France and Italy) the Communists were indistinguishable from the Soc Dems. For the light of me, I can't understand the difference between Eurocommunism and Social Democracy. in what is to be done lenin talks about the role of socialists (at this stage he refers to social democrats because there wasnt a difference then like now) in mass movements. mass movements of any type have an inherently capitalist ideology because they spring from capitalist society. the role of socialists is to put forward clearly socialist and revolutionary demands within mass movements to move them into confrontation with the capitalists. without that, mass working class movements will default to a trade union consciousness which is where the politics of the (modern use of the term now) social democrats are, so mass movements will quickly become coopted or even willing participants in social democratic parties. so couple points as to how this is resolved which is through revolutionary leadership which is found in the form of a revolutionary party. now people misunderstand and misuse the term "vanguard party" because of how small sects have and continue to use the term and refer to themselves as The Vanguards. a true vanguard party is millions of people. the vanguard party is just the people who come to socialism and build the framework necessary to accommodate the millions of people who must necessarily move into struggle over time in a revolutionary situation. theres another idea which various marxists have developed which is the idea of subjective and objective conditions. subjective conditions are the factors in our present state which we can control, the organization of the labor movement, its character, its leadership, the organization of the social democratic parties and the revolutionary parties, etc. objective factors are the present historical situation e.g. wars, the economy, basically all the stuff that we cannot control. so yeah, the crisis of mankind is the crisis of revolutionary leadership. because if you look at this moment in time, as well as that of the 1930s and 40s when trotsky wrote the transitional program, the objective conditions are ripe for socialist revolution. in this moment in particular we have the largest level of inequality possibly in human history, a worldwide pandemic, mass oppression of women, lgbtq people, and people of color, a global climate crisis like there's almost literally a ticking clock on the earth for how much longer we have before it ceases to accommodate life, and yet here we are still living under capitalism. the objective conditions are there, capitalism is in absolute crisis. but capitalism is designed to enter crises after crises and so while crises is the point at which mass revolutionary movements can take shape, the presence of a crisis is no guarantee for such a movement. what is missing, then as now, is the subjective factor, the organization of the working class which finds its highest expression in the form of a mass revolutionary party. the leadership of the proletariat IS the proletariat, but only in the form of the revolutionary party because spontaneous mass mobilization will default to trade union consciousness or worse. there is no party and it is the crucial task of revolutionaries, again then as now, to build such a party that can house the kind of mass movements that must exist to fight capitalism and also to give them direction. the crisis of mankind is revolutionary leadership because thats what we can control, the rest is out of our hands so do the things that you can control and do them as well as you can. could post a bit more as to why many of the communist parties came to look like mirrors of the social democrats but kinda long post and instead I would just say read trotskys "the class, the party, and the leadership" which explains this and a lot of other stuff pretty well and is relatively short.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 23:38
|
|
|
cenotaph posted:What book is this? "German Social Democracy and the Rise of Nazism", by Donna Harsch
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 00:01
|
|
|
what is to be done is of course a classic text, and i think the general objective conditions vs. subjective conditions marxists like to use (idk those are trot-specific or broader, i feel like it's the latter) is actually a useful framework. however: in the first place, many people overestimate how good (or "good") the objective conditions are at a given moment, both in microcosm (eg. how good were the odds of the socialists in spain as opposed to the liberals) and in macrocosm (how unstable and easy to topple is the world financial system). in transitional program, trotsky writes as though global capitalism in its entirety is ready to be toppled with one good push, and frankly, i don't blame him! probably if i was alive at the same time, rather than operating now with the benefit of 80 years' hindsight, i probably also would've been like my god, this is it, the final crisis, global misery has reached its peak, things cannot possibly go on like this (my friend likes to joke about an egyptian corvee peasant saying this at year 1,000 of the middle kingdom's reign). so, given that things seem so ready to be destroyed, why aren't they? it must be the fault of the subjective factors, such that we can indeed reduce our problem to the problem of leadership. but to quote cpt. picard, it is possible to make no mistakes and still lose. maybe there couldn't have been a successful revolution in any first world country in 1938. maybe the objective conditions weren't actually ripe, such that leadership wasn't the only thing we were missing. in the second place, i don't think enough respect is paid (by people who hold this view) to the ~*~DiAlEcTiCaL~*~ relationship between the objective conditions and the subjective conditions. labor militancy and revolutionary politics are going to have more sway to the extent that the workers can't live in the old way and the rulers can't rule in the old way, and conversely the more pressure valves and heat sinks a given nation has (such as overseas colonies and imperial clients) the more easily that nation can export its objective conditions and so rob the subjective conditions of their potency. again, the thing that hits me about the failed german revolution is that 30,000 people fought the freikorps and the SPD. but, afterwards, 1 million people fought the freikorps on behalf of the SPD. this is because the workers didn't actually want to destroy germany and replace it with a completely new workers' state. they wanted a fairer, safer, stabler germany. if luxemburg and liebknecht had been isekai transmigrators with flawless foreknowledge of the future and preternatural organizing skills they probably could have done better against the forces of reaction than they did. but, it's quite possible that they never could have won, because in fact the objective conditions weren't enough, because "mere" capitalist crisis (without the added weight of like, being colonized by a foreign bourgeoisie or something) is actually not enough to fuel revolution! in which case the lack of good leadership is a, but not the, problem of human liberation - and, in fact, we may have excellent leadership, but lack the objective conditions which would allow that leadership to do anything but swim just fiercely enough against the tide that they don't get washed completely out to sea Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Jan 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 00:26
|
|
|
i wish the left spent less time justifying it's historical failures and more time working out how to not repeat them
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
In that case, isn't a country like the US running out of heatsinks and pressure valves like their artificially strong currency? Another thing that Ive noticed is that many Communists that I follow like Tariq Ali, Zizek, and Vijay Prashad seem to accept that Social Democracy is the best that can happen in the West. If anything they seem to think that something like Universal Healthcare in the US would be revolutionary if only because it offered a positive alternative to neoliberalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:again, the thing that hits me about the failed german revolution is that 30,000 people fought the freikorps and the SPD. but, afterwards, 1 million people fought the freikorps on behalf of the SPD. this is because the workers didn't actually want to destroy germany and replace it with a completely new workers' state. they wanted a fairer, safer, stabler germany. if luxemburg and liebknecht had been isekai transmigrators with flawless foreknowledge of the future and preternatural organizing skills they probably could have done better against the forces of reaction than they did. but, it's quite possible that they never could have won, because in fact the objective conditions weren't enough, because "mere" capitalist crisis (without the added weight of like, being colonized by a foreign bourgeoisie or something) is actually not enough to fuel revolution! in which case the lack of good leadership is a, but not the, problem of human liberation - and, in fact, we may have excellent leadership, but lack the objective conditions which would allow that leadership to do anything but swim just fiercely enough against the tide that they don't get washed completely out to sea congrats, you finally realized that the people are the enemy as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 00:44
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:again, the thing that hits me about the failed german revolution is that 30,000 people fought the freikorps and the SPD. but, afterwards, 1 million people fought the freikorps on behalf of the SPD. this is because the workers didn't actually want to destroy germany and replace it with a completely new workers' state. they wanted a fairer, safer, stabler germany. if luxemburg and liebknecht had been isekai transmigrators with flawless foreknowledge of the future and preternatural organizing skills they probably could have done better against the forces of reaction than they did. but, it's quite possible that they never could have won, because in fact the objective conditions weren't enough, because "mere" capitalist crisis (without the added weight of like, being colonized by a foreign bourgeoisie or something) is actually not enough to fuel revolution! in which case the lack of good leadership is a, but not the, problem of human liberation - and, in fact, we may have excellent leadership, but lack the objective conditions which would allow that leadership to do anything but swim just fiercely enough against the tide that they don't get washed completely out to sea Basically, the problem is that Imperial Germany was simply better than Tsarist Russia about allowing a gradual amount of reformism to take place from Bismark onwards and that material conditions for workers in Germany were poor...they weren't poor enough to fully solidify support behind a more militant workers party. The Weimar Republic, at least times, seem to be working well enough for more workers to support them, but that is always the trap of social democracy as those reforms only last when there is the threat of militancy is enough to force them. It is always why the idea of permanent revolution doesn't make sense as capitalists if they feel threatened can fine-tune the system well enough to keep workers in their place. It is also why you actually need a powerful state in opposition to keep them honest. Also, arguably French communists didn't really have much of a chance as De Gaulle arrived at the front of a massive allied army that could easily crush any revolt. By the summer of 1945, the French state had rebuilt itself enough it could keep control, although De Gaulle would still have to offer compromises to keep the communists (who had 26% of the vote) from getting too popular. The US had intended to occupy France at one point (and printed currency to that effect) since they didn't trust De Gaulle enough to get the job done. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Jan 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 00:45
|
|
|
T-man posted:i wish the left spent less time justifying it's historical failures and more time working out how to not repeat them its more important to work out who is a wrecker (everyone)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 00:46
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:"German Social Democracy and the Rise of Nazism", by Donna Harsch tyvm
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 00:50
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:In that case, isn't a country like the US running out of heatsinks and pressure valves like their artificially strong currency? it is, and unlike germany the us is de facto a settler colony with its own internal subject nations so i think it's actually more ripe for revolution than europe ever was. but it may not be ripe ENOUGH. deray mckesson and the dsa NPC aren't the one thing stopping us from living in the USSA
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 01:04
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Basically, the problem is that Imperial Germany was simply better than Tsarist Russia about allowing a gradual amount of reformism to take place from Bismark onwards and that material conditions for workers in Germany were poor...they weren't poor enough to fully solidify support behind a more militant workers party. The Weimar Republic, at least times, seem to be working well enough for more workers to support them, but that is always the trap of social democracy as those reforms only last when there is the threat of militancy is enough to force them. I think they're talking about the PCF's role in 1968.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 01:04
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:I think they're talking about the PCF's role in 1968. I was responding to this: quote:the big lesson there: the French socialists and some communists, for some reason, did not intend to seize power even after knowing that de Gaulle fled the country and revolutionary sentiment was high. The general rallied and the rest is loving history. Afterwards, all social-democrats were "well, look at France" and suddenly who is this François Mitterand guy? --------------------------------- By 1968, the PCF was well as on the way of becoming eurocommunist under Waldeck Rochet, it was fait accompli. A lot of it was just that the old pre-war leadership dying out and being replaced by younger members who were open to working with the center-left and eventually became social democrats themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 01:12
|
|
|
Didn't De Gaulle flee for a couple of hours in 68? Edit: Yeah that post was definitely talking about 68, but your point still stands I guess. The PCF institutionally wouldn't and couldn't support a revolution at that point. ToxicAcne fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Jan 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 01:17
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:Didn't De Gaulle flee for a couple of hours in 68? I guess I just didn't see May 1968 as that extreme and thought he must have been talking about the war to follow his line of thought. In 1968, French security forces were still maintaining strict discipline, even if De Gaulle panicked for a few hours, even then it isn't not that it shouldn't have been tried, it couldn't get to that point because the PCF really didn't care enough to make an even an effort. Also, I think 1968 may have been overly romanticized to the point it seemed like the entire French state was on the verge of collapse...it just wasn't and at the end of the day, it was the military that was the foundation of the French state, not De Gaulle. This is not to be pro-Gaulle but to be a little realistic about the state of affairs. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Jan 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 01:27
|
|
|
Hmm interesting... I've always heard of May 68 as a failed revolution, and the year 1968 as a sort of inflection point in the hopes of the New Left.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 01:36
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:Hmm interesting... I've always heard of May 68 as a failed revolution, and the year 1968 as a sort of inflection point in the hopes of the New Left. To me, the heart of a revolution is about moving to disrupt the monopoly of force of the state, I just don't think that was that was the case. Also, you can go in a lot of directions with the New Left because shortly afterwards pretty much very element of the left threw its hands up. I agree hopes were riding high in 1968, but also I don't think the mechanics in play were there to actually challange the genuine authority of the state. After De Gaulle had fled, the military rolled out the tanks and the protests petered out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 01:45
|
|
|
Doctor Jeep posted:congrats, you finally realized that the people are the enemy as well. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 01:57
|
|
|
everyone has a cop in their heart and only comrades proven cop-free should be trusted i sugest heartworm medication
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 01:59
|
|
|
it sounds like the French government was going to come out on top in 68 in every conceivable situation, but there’s also the “who knows” factor. like with the national wave of protests over George Floyd, who saw that poo poo coming? maybe with militant enough leadership and the example of a few people daring to seize power (or burn down a police station), it could have sparked a conflagration but then again the George Floyd protests haven’t amounted to very much materially so it’s just like, whatever man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 02:02
|
|
|
Yeah I guess even I've been a victim to this kind of thinking. You can quote me a few months back thinking that the Floyd protests were the most revolutionary moment in the past few years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:Yeah I guess even I've been a victim to this kind of thinking. You can quote me a few months back thinking that the Floyd protests were the most revolutionary moment in the past few years. i mean i feel thats true, its just the bar for "revolutionary activity" by americans is so low
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 02:06
|
|