|
Prince Myshkin posted:Sure. The real answer is to not be a passive consumer of news media, then you can read the big outlets for events coverage while tossing aside their obvious biases, or if it's a bunch of bullshit examine it to know exactly why. yeah. maybe there ought be a system; just something awful like. an extremely stupid barometer thread of links, measured and updated based on intra-forumnal ideological clique dominance state. there could be like a posting thunderdome for iks and aspirants, the winner being decided by the regulars of the good morning thread in fyad
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:07 |
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:What mainstream news sites do you guys recommend reading? I'm really trying to get off twitter as reading leftist twitter leaves me both angry and astounded at the stupidity of it all. nakedcapitalism has a link dump 2x per day on politics and economics stuff edit: the people who aggregate the links lean much more towards post-keynesian MMT type economic theory than marxism, but you'll still find plenty of interesting poo poo there as a marxist Finicums Wake fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Jan 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2021 23:22
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:i just don't even read the news. get it all from cspam, then reverse reconstruct it using an advanced algorithm. Yeah, I think it was the UK election from last year that made me realize that getting my news from C-SPAM was my ticket to becoming mentally ill in real life. All those loving links to "unskewed polls" on twitter were embarrassing after the fact. Disconnecting yourself from reality should be the last thing a socialist should do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 05:35
|
|
|
Also I think that Vyelkin mentioned that Scandinavian Social Democracies have exported their proletariat abroad or to immigrants. What do you mean by that? Is this the financialization of sovereign and pension funds (Like the Norway oil fund). How did Scandinavian social democracies end up being so much more robust than their counterparts. Was it proximity to the Soviet Union?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 05:47
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:Also I think that Vyelkin mentioned that Scandinavian Social Democracies have exported their proletariat abroad or to immigrants. What do you mean by that? Is this the financialization of sovereign and pension funds (Like the Norway oil fund). How did Scandinavian social democracies end up being so much more robust than their counterparts. Was it proximity to the Soviet Union? I assume it meant that Scandinavia allowed the wages&benefits of basic prole jobs to rise to a high enough level that logically, profit of industry had to be made somewhere else for Scandinavian companies to have been as profitable as they are. The main ways for capitalists to make way more money than the value their workers produce is to 1) have high tech production that allows them to produce the same amount of stuff with much less money invested, 2) be attached to a system that allows them to buy their production inputs at a much lower price than the labor invested in their production would suggest, 3) be attached as an unproductive service to a process of production that has high profitability, and 4) monopoly/cartel pricing. The Scandinavian model used heavy state and worker involvement to reach those goals. High-tech industry was built with heavy state support enabled by a high and reliable tax base, and the results were concentrated around a small amount of flagship export corporations. People were widely educated to take demanding positions in global supply chains that could command high pay based on global undersupply of those types of labor. Politically, they embedded themselves around US imperalism in order to have full access to the markets that it cultivated for neocolonial plunder. Also, Scandinavian social democracies weren’t really much more robust than France, Germany and so on, the erosion just started a bit later and there was more unionization and so on to force negotiations on how the erosion should go. Youth entering the workforce have had it worse and worse since the early 90’s. For the most part, they don’t see the money from pension funds, they’re made to pay into them at a much higher rate than previous generations did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 09:09
|
|
|
while that's a decent summary in some ways, i think you're severely understating the role of the EU in the story of how social-democracy died in scandinavia in my country, the profits of large sectors like construction, food and even offshore stuff is deeply dependent on access to the european single market and a de facto second-rate class of non-unionised workers willing to accept crap wages and conditions, or de-facto subsidies through cheap electric power combined with the single market and freedom of movement, the EU places further restrictions on how business can be organised, which dovetails with existing regulations on labour action to make a lot of it totally futile and basically neutering the big unions - and with them, the base of social-democratic power
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
yanis varoufakis and Mark blyth are two economists that break down the economics behind the problems of the eu and the ongoing financial crises worldwide. they’re both social democrats unfortunately so it’s kind of jarring because their economic analysis is spot on but then when they get to solutions they basically start describing social welfare under capitalism or maybe on a good day social democracy which sucks but their economic analysis is really concise and good and it’s honestly shocking to me that neither is a marxist but even though they’re not I still recommend reading/listening to them because for all intents and purposes their economics point directly towards socialism even if they don’t realize it. I’ll always give varoufakis credit for resigning from the syriza government though, he does have principles
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
also respect to blyth too now that I think about it. if you go back to like 2015 and read or listen to him he is probably the only political economist who consistently predicted that trump would win for non-crank reasons
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:yanis varoufakis and Mark blyth are two economists that break down the economics behind the problems of the eu and the ongoing financial crises worldwide. they’re both social democrats unfortunately so it’s kind of jarring because their economic analysis is spot on but then when they get to solutions they basically start describing social welfare under capitalism or maybe on a good day social democracy which sucks but their economic analysis is really concise and good and it’s honestly shocking to me that neither is a marxist but even though they’re not I still recommend reading/listening to them because for all intents and purposes their economics point directly towards socialism even if they don’t realize it. I’ll always give varoufakis credit for resigning from the syriza government though, he does have principles I think Yanis is a Marxist, just in a very wierd reformist kind. He just put out a book trying to envision what a post capitalist society would look like and frequently talks about how we need to end capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:How did Scandinavian social democracies end up being so much more robust than their counterparts. Was it proximity to the Soviet Union? An often forgotten economist and political thinker these days was the counterpart of Hayek in the economic discourse, Gunnar Myrdal. Because our university here has quite a heterodox economics course, we got to learn about him and the other Scandinavian economic thinkers - something that is rare in the major universities of the field. Anyway, a considerable chunk of what we consider "Scandinavian Economics" nowadays comes from this guy, especially his study and considerations over the welfare state and how important it is in general societal development. Myrdal basically states that, within the scope of economic development theory, states require a robust welfare system to develop a sophisticated industrial economy, especially so given the circumstances of the Nordic countries that propelled his research What is cool about this is that he argued that the welfare state shouldn't be understood as merely public spending in public service, but in a much more broader sense of what provides welfare: politics of welfare, in other words. It is empowering unions not through government capture, but by ensuring their autonomy in an official capacity (not too unlike central banks work nowadays, ironically). Of course, he was an adamant social-democrat and is correctly criticized on his weak points by socialist thinkers, especially when it comes to problems like international trade in relation to the development of domestic welfare and him breaking liberal when pushes comes to shove: a strong motivator for his work and his enmity with Hayek was exactly his concern over communism providing a definitive answer to his "beyond the welfare state". Myrdal, and basically what seems to be most of Scandinavian economic thinking afaik, understood that their work is fundamentally limited in their reach because it is, ultimately, an argument for handicapped capitalism by strong socialist measures. However, as cleverly pointed by some Latin American leftist thinkers on the subject, if these socialist policies are the game changers in economic and societal development in spite of a market economy, why not get rid of the main hurdle in the first place and go full red?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:I think Yanis is a Marxist, just in a very wierd reformist kind. He just put out a book trying to envision what a post capitalist society would look like and frequently talks about how we need to end capitalism. to me someone who isn't a revolutionary isn't a marxist. doesnt mean I dont appreciate his insights and things but I just wouldnt describe him as a marxist
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 17:48
|
|
|
Prince Myshkin posted:Sure. The real answer is to not be a passive consumer of news media, then you can read the big outlets for events coverage while tossing aside their obvious biases, or if it's a bunch of bullshit examine it to know exactly why. it's really this
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:yanis varoufakis and Mark blyth are two economists that break down the economics behind the problems of the eu and the ongoing financial crises worldwide. they’re both social democrats unfortunately so it’s kind of jarring because their economic analysis is spot on but then when they get to solutions they basically start describing social welfare under capitalism or maybe on a good day social democracy which sucks but their economic analysis is really concise and good and it’s honestly shocking to me that neither is a marxist but even though they’re not I still recommend reading/listening to them because for all intents and purposes their economics point directly towards socialism even if they don’t realize it. I’ll always give varoufakis credit for resigning from the syriza government though, he does have principles video games, but and to think Valve roped Yaris in to develop their hat economy, let alone their trading economy across all games
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 19:29
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 20:19
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:to me someone who isn't a revolutionary isn't a marxist. doesnt mean I dont appreciate his insights and things but I just wouldnt describe him as a marxist Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics. But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same. You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must some day appeal in order to erect the rule of labor. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.htm
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
in marx's time, germany and russia were absolute monarchies, of course the only way forwards for marxists in those countries was violent overthrow of the state and building a new one on the principles of democracy today, most of the world has a bourgeois democracy. if you can't even achieve support amongst 50% of the electorate, you aren't going to fight a successful civil war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 21:02
|
|
|
I think the key is to have your movement participating in parliamentary elections, while also keeping a base in the labour movement, land movement, renters movement etc. MAS in bolivia, and the CPIM in India are good examples of this. It's just that in the first world this seems to be way more difficult.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
revolution does not have to be violent. i firmly believe that especially in nations with even liberal democratic traditions and institutions a peaceful revolution is possible. i actually think its one of the single greatest misunderstandings of revolutionary ideas that so many people on the left equate revolution with civil war or foco style guerrila war and its why its so hard to have discussions about the limits of reformism because people immediately associate revolution with that kind of thing rather than what it actually is which is the mass mobilization of an entire class for the purposes of seizing power. reformism is simply the idea that power in a capitalist society can be wielded by the workers representatives. so if we get enough members of parliament we can vote in socialism, or that workers representatives should be looking to compromise or cut deals with capitalist politicians or managers, that all describes a reformist approach to winning reform. a revolutionary approach is to understand that its the mass mobilization of the class that wins whatever were fighting for and that the role of our leaders is to use their power to reinforce the mass movement and build it in whatever ways they can. even if those tactics only win reforms and not the complete and total restructuring of society, theyre still revolutionary methods and most importantly they point towards the promise that such action is actually the best method of changing the world and that it can be utilized to actually used to wage a successful social revolution. what marx is describing there is 100% still a revolutionary approach, its almost exactly the same point lenin makes in left wing communism 50 years later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
carnation revolution liker, eh?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
Victory Position posted:carnation revolution liker, eh? He's with SAlt, the idea of coopting the existing structures of bourgeois democracy to transition to socialism is kind of their thing, from what I have observed I am highly skeptical but at the same time it's not like there's any real opportunity cost in trying, with the state of militant struggle being what it is (nonextant), so I never saw the point of debating it with the members I knew. That said, electoral work is profoundly frustrating to me and the idea of working on, say, Sawant's reelection bids is one of the reasons I did not join that org when I was in Seattle. That said, it's hard to argue that Sawant isn't putting certain ideas in the consciousness of the otherwise politically unengaged and she is a consistent bee in the bonnet of Amazon, and that deserves credit for that
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:He's with SAlt, the idea of coopting the existing structures of bourgeois democracy to transition to socialism is kind of their thing, from what I have observed I and no one I have ever met in SA believes in "coopting the existing structures of bourgeois democracy to transition to socialism" at all. reread what I posted, the role of elected representatives for socialists in a capitalist democracy is to use the office to point out the limits of capitalism, use whatever formal power they have to strengthen the labor movement, and use their positions to be in constant conflict with capitalist politicians on whatever body they are serving on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 23:05
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:revolution does not have to be violent. i firmly believe that especially in nations with even liberal democratic traditions and institutions a peaceful revolution is possible. i actually think its one of the single greatest misunderstandings of revolutionary ideas that so many people on the left equate revolution with civil war or foco style guerrila war and its why its so hard to have discussions about the limits of reformism because people immediately associate revolution with that kind of thing rather than what it actually is which is the mass mobilization of an entire class for the purposes of seizing power. its hard to have this discussion even in rl spaces though cuz a lot of the left-libs have adopted the 'oh, i'm a non violent revolutionary :^)' type of speech
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 23:10
|
|
|
like to try to give an example to compare and contrast: lets take AOC AOC is a reformist, not saying that as a dig but just based on the situation. consistently votes for pelosi, pretty much votes along with democrats, is a democrat herself, has basically said she is unwilling to put forward legislation that she knows will fail because she wants to work with the other dems to get legislation that can pass. now taking a revolutionary approach to that same position, you would not be a democrat, would not vote for pelosi, would constantly use your position as a bully pulpit to put forward things like universal healthcare or a nationwide $15 an hour wage, etc. and anyone who worked to block what you were doing or vote against them no matter how progressive they are on paper, you would call out publicly as loudly and often as possible until they voted how you wanted them too. another way to think about it is the reformist goes into a parliament looking to make friends, play politics, and cut deals with the other members. a revolutionary goes in looking to make enemies, speak truth to power, and whip people outside of the parliament up into a big enough frenzy that they stop supporting it. and again, none of thats a dig against AOC, though it is critical. its more a case of AOC is the first but hopefully in time and convincing and through the course of events, she will come to resemble the second more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:revolution does not have to be violent. i firmly believe that especially in nations with even liberal democratic traditions and institutions a peaceful revolution is possible. i actually think its one of the single greatest misunderstandings of revolutionary ideas that so many people on the left equate revolution with civil war or foco style guerrila war and its why its so hard to have discussions about the limits of reformism because people immediately associate revolution with that kind of thing rather than what it actually is which is the mass mobilization of an entire class for the purposes of seizing power. if revolution describes everything a socialist party does to achieve socialism, it's a useless word you should stop using because other people use it in different ways
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
I would say that a revolution that leaves the previous state structures intact isn't an actual revolution, its a turnover of power. I don't think the Carnation shift was a revolution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 23:17
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:if revolution describes everything a socialist party does to achieve socialism, it's a useless word you should stop using because other people use it in different ways a revolution is different from a revolutionary approach or methods, which help point towards a revolution, which is the overthrow of the rulers of society. revolution doesnt refer to everything a socialist party does, it refers to the overthrow of the rulers of society. but to be a revolutionary means applying revolutionary principles to political work to build the forces capable of achieving such a feat and, hate to break it to you, the life of most revolutionaries has about 99-100% spent in non-revolutionary moments sorry to say
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:a revolution is different from a revolutionary approach or methods, which help point towards a revolution, which is the overthrow of the rulers of society. revolution doesnt refer to everything a socialist party does, it refers to the overthrow of the rulers of society. but to be a revolutionary means applying revolutionary principles to political work to build the forces capable of achieving such a feat and, hate to break it to you, the life of most revolutionaries has about 99-100% spent in non-revolutionary moments sorry to say then how can you say yanis varoufakis is not a revolutionary
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:like to try to give an example to compare and contrast: lets take AOC basically this. i like her, and bernie, and ohmar etc. but the hero worship these people receive from supposed leftists is loving embarrassing. critical support is not the same thing as apologism lol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:then how can you say yanis varoufakis is not a revolutionary is he working to instigate a mass mobilization of workers to take control of and overthrow the existing order of society? if he is then OK he is. but from what I've read of his, listened to in interviews, watched him do while in office, I would not say he is. the progressive international group that he has helped found and is one of the most public figures of does not point towards any kind of revolutionary approach to social change as far as I can tell. and again, not saying that as a dig, its a criticism but not trying to poo poo all over him, it just is what it is
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 23:23
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:is he working to instigate a mass mobilization of workers to take control of and overthrow the existing order of society? if he is then OK he is. but from what I've read of his, listened to in interviews, watched him do while in office, I would not say he is. the progressive international group that he has helped found and is one of the most public figures of does not point towards any kind of revolutionary approach to social change as far as I can tell. and again, not saying that as a dig, its a criticism but not trying to poo poo all over him, it just is what it is these things sound like he wants to overthrow the existing order: ToxicAcne posted:I think Yanis is a Marxist, just in a very wierd reformist kind. He just put out a book trying to envision what a post capitalist society would look like and frequently talks about how we need to end capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 23:25
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:these things sound like he wants to overthrow the existing order: just outlining what a society after capitalism should look like does not touch on the process by which it happens. would you call Bernstein a Marxist? can certainly argue that he was if you want, but most modern marxists would not say he was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 23:32
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I would say that a revolution that leaves the previous state structures intact isn't an actual revolution, its a turnover of power. I don't think the Carnation shift was a revolution. I wonder how pushing for a constitutional convention like in Chile might be a more palatable demand for more people. Then use that to push for the radical changes. Edit: Places like the US and Canada have extremely inflexible constitutions of which the problems are going to (and in the US's case already are) catching up to them. Of course this also leaves open the possibilities of reactionaries hijacking the process and passing poo poo like a balanced budget amendment. ToxicAcne fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jan 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 23:35
|
|
|
just imagining that a socialist society can or should exist isnt enough to be a marxist imo. marx was a professional revolutionist and he and engels were quite forceful in their rejection of reformist ideas which came about towards the end of marxs life and then for engels after marx passed. like i just said, i dont believe that revolution automatically equals violence, but only in the meaning that violence=armed struggle through war of some kind. it absolutely is violent in every instance because strikes are violent, occupations are violent, marches and protests are violent, they are a demonstration of force and when those forces are turned towards overthrowing the state and the ruling class, they are forcefully, violently, taking the power and wealth of one people and redistributing it among the oppressed class. a revolutionary is constantly trying to build those forces which can take those actions to seize control of society, not change it or modify it, but take power and use that power to transform society into what they want. marx and engels very much believed that that had to happen and while unfortunately at their time and place in germany the only way that could be achieved would be through war or at least the force necessary to wage a war successfully as 1848 demonstrated to them and the world, in other places and times such a movement could be built in other ways which do not necessarily involve armed insurrection and confrontation. but ultimately they both were clear that a social revolution would be necessary to actually institute a future communist society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 23:43
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:just outlining what a society after capitalism should look like does not touch on the process by which it happens. yanis was a minister in a government, i think he has ideas on how to achieve goals he doesn't need to reinvent the wheel on every aspect of government however
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 23:46
|
|
|
sorry for all the posts but put another way: someone on the internet who calls themselves a "marxist-lenninist" is not a marxist or a lenninist. are they in a party? are they actively working to build the power of the organized labor movement to seize control of society? if the answer is no, then theyre not a marxist lenninist, no matter how much marx or lenin theyve read and posted about. to actually be a marxist or a whatever name you wanna use, it means taking the ideas and applying them to your actions. beyond that though to this specific issue, varoufakis himself does not call himself a marxist, closest he comes is calling himself an "erratic marxist" which is more a kind of half truth/half joke on his part, especially because in the article where he describes himself as that he basically says he thinks its necessary to save capitalism from itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
ahh apologies, i am being trolled. carry on then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 23:51
|
|
|
when im saying im a marxist-leninist on c-spam. im being an idealist. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
thats why i just say i'm a syndicalist, that way i'm upfront with the meaningless statement instead of trying to mislead u by saying mtw or something
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 23:57
|
|
|
i don't know what any of those labels means i just think marx was right about a lot of crap and we should probably use those ideas to build an economy and a society that isn't going to kill everyone on this planet
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 00:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:07 |
|
|
Yeah these labels are not really relevant in day to day organizing in TYOOL 2021
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 00:06
|
|