(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
MLSM posted:Anybody know where I can get a hardcover of the USSR Political Economy textbook here: https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/index.htm Gradenko linked to that Lulu print-on-demand service a couple pages back. If you can't find one of the original print editions floating around on AbeBooks or something that's always an option.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
did anyone ITT listen to matt bruenig's marx pod yet?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 23:07
|
|
|
i don't give a poo poo about the bruenigs
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 23:14
|
|
|
mark immune posted:did anyone ITT listen to matt bruenig's marx pod yet? I happen to like myself, OP
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 23:15
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:I happen to like myself, OP fair point
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 01:25
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:I happen to like myself, OP
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:Jacobin published an article that said some nice things about East Germany so they are getting attacked My favorite part of Imperialism is Lenin's citations of how BIG the banks and corporations are getting and its Germany and England with the most quant vertical integrations you've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
My libwife picked up a book for me called "The rise and fall of communism" by an Archie Brown. It's a large tome and I'm wondering if anyone here can tell me it's a good volume to dig into or if it's written with an oppositional slant. A cover quote by the economist includes "... given its sorrowful harvest, why did it keep spreading? ...." and that threw up s red flag. Did she miss with this book?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
you should beat your wife to death with it op
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:07
|
|
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:My libwife picked up a book for me called "The rise and fall of communism" by an Archie Brown. You should divorce her for wrong think and then nuke her from orbit .
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:10
|
|
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:My libwife picked up a book for me called "The rise and fall of communism" by an Archie Brown. Sounds like shes doing her best OP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
tell her to call me OP, i can fix her
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:15
|
|
|
Your wife is gay (for me)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:32
|
|
|
Southpaugh posted:Sounds like shes doing her best OP. Oh I know she is, I just want to know if it's something I should read though sooner than later. She is a librarian and loves to bit me books, she's amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:55
|
|
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:Oh I know she is, I just want to know if it's something I should read though sooner than later. She is a librarian and loves to bit me books, she's amazing. same. lib library wife is a good deal in life. librarians are probably more to handle than library worker though, in terms of liberalism
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 00:10
|
|
|
Also lol at this https://twitter.com/alp1111112/status/1539299610857852928?cxt=HHwWgMCiweW12NwqAAAA
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 00:38
|
|
|
AnimeIsTrash posted:Also lol at this lol. I think they might be defunct now but du has really grown the business http://www.dumann.com posted:
quote:
I’d read this novel by viet tanh nguyen
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 00:49
|
|
|
Mike Davis is apparently very ill https://twitter.com/ajgradilla/status/1540547686834679808?s=20&t=kkhRpvA_vNmZvZF4c6w8kw
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 03:51
|
|
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:My libwife picked up a book for me called "The rise and fall of communism" by an Archie Brown. You haven’t hosed the liberalism out of of her already? Must be a Trotskyist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 03:55
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:Mike Davis is apparently very ill drat wtf.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 05:10
|
|
|
I was listening to Michael Hudson's interview on Ben Norton's podcast and I had an issue with his analysis of the historical development of capitalism. He keeps on referring to the initial/middle stages of capitalism (industrial capitalism he calls it, the precursor of financial capitalism) as "progressive" ( his descriptor, not mine). This was due to states and corporations increasing welfare through wages and social spending. He's correct, partly, that the material conditions of Metropole workers improved during that time ( and continued through financial capitalism for that matter, which I don't think he mentions). However, these conditions were only improved due to the super exploitation of surplus value in the periphery. It pissed me off that someone so well respected among leftists for his economic analysis will describe a form as capitalism as "progressive". It seems he should know better since he does a good job of describing the mechanisms of present day imperialism, but somehow forgot about imperialism in the good 'ol days of capitalism. Or did he not forgot and is a social fascist and believes imperialism is good as long as it increases the condition of your native workers, and his critique of financial imperialism only exists because it diverts less and less surplus value from the periphery to the Metropole workers. Do we need to put Hudson into the trash can or am I being uncharitable of his analysis?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 15:33
|
|
|
The initial stages of capitalism are progressive because they destroyed the pre-existing modes of production and created new, more progressive political formations - feudalism with monarchies divine right and peasants moved to to capitalism with liberalism and proletariat. This is an advance, it is progress regardless of the continued presence of class and exploitation and global inequalities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
Kindest Forums User posted:I was listening to Michael Hudson's interview on Ben Norton's podcast and I had an issue with his analysis of the historical development of capitalism. He keeps on referring to the initial/middle stages of capitalism (industrial capitalism he calls it, the precursor of financial capitalism) as "progressive" ( his descriptor, not mine). This was due to states and corporations increasing welfare through wages and social spending. He's correct, partly, that the material conditions of Metropole workers improved during that time ( and continued through financial capitalism for that matter, which I don't think he mentions). However, these conditions were only improved due to the super exploitation of surplus value in the periphery. I think if you want to throw this guy into a trash can because he didn't sufficiently account for the role of imperialism in 18th century wage trends, you are bad at politics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 16:34
|
|
|
namesake posted:The initial stages of capitalism are progressive because they destroyed the pre-existing modes of production and created new, more progressive political formations - feudalism with monarchies divine right and peasants moved to to capitalism with liberalism and proletariat. This is an advance, it is progress regardless of the continued presence of class and exploitation and global inequalities. I think it's important to remember that capitalism is better than feudalism or straight up slave society.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
Fish of hemp posted:I think it's important to remember that capitalism is better than feudalism or straight up slave society. i am unsure if this will hold up if capitalism and the level of industry is so ruinous upon the natural environment, even if true so far
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
"Progressive" doesn't actually mean anything, so I'm not sure what you're mad about?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 17:11
|
|
|
Fish of hemp posted:I think it's important to remember that capitalism is better than feudalism or straight up slave society. capitalism is literally an evolution of the former and literally created the second as we know it in the modern world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
Kindest Forums User posted:Do we need to put Hudson into the trash can or am I being uncharitable of his analysis? as someone in the periphery I say it's a pretty understandable 'mistake' to make and also, context always matters. You have to really go out there to make a case for malice: lots of socialists never accounted for in-depth analysis of capitalist relations to the global south but to call them fascists because of that is wtf like, only the very late Marx got to believe in the revolutionary potential in the fringe economies of capitalism, those places not having nowhere near the level of accumulation and development that his younger self believed it was an absolute must
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 17:22
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:capitalism is literally an evolution of the former and literally created the second as we know it in the modern world. Evolution is progressive, no? Maybe we should define progressive mossyfisk posted:"Progressive" doesn't actually mean anything, so I'm not sure what you're mad about? Or it's just this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 17:31
|
|
|
Double post moron
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 17:32
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:capitalism is literally an evolution of the former Capitalism was produced by the revolution of the bourgeoisie over feudal lords. The means of production survived but the feudal property relations were annihilated. Capitalism is only an "evolution" of feudalism if the State of Michigan is an "evolution" of the Council of Three Fires. Civilized Fishbot has issued a correction as of 17:46 on Jun 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
What about intermediary stages to prepare material conditions so that the next stage becomes attainable, such as industrialization and survival.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
the shift from feudalsim to capitalism was more of a schism than an evolution. the commodifiction of labor shifts the productive class from controlling the means of production and having their labor tithed to a lord to controlling their labor and having no controll over the means of production. like, the change in mode of production completed changed the nature of productive relations
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:Mike Davis is apparently very ill This sucks man.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 17:50
|
|
|
Mike Davis' hatred was loving pure and I can give no higher compliment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
Calling industrial capitalism progressive ( Hudson seemed to imply it was a good thing on its own, rather than an improvement to previous modes) suggests that returning to that arrangement would improve the conditions of the working class. It would also suggest that financialization is the problem not capitalism. Hudson is correct that conditions improved for a certain sector of workers during that era. But he makes it seem that it was solely because of the development of productive forces rather than the surplus value extracted from the periphery. It also suggests that rejecting financial capitalism and rebuilding domestic industry in western nations would be a force for good. Some sort of national socialist program. I'm obviously being uncharitable here. But this falls into the same category of narratives that weak leftists use that celebrate the success of FDR and Nordic countries. It's fine for a DSA joker to make but a disappointing oversight of an intellectual heavyweight
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:as someone in the periphery I say it's a pretty understandable 'mistake' to make and also, context always matters. You have to really go out there to make a case for malice: lots of socialists never accounted for in-depth analysis of capitalist relations to the global south but to call them fascists because of that is wtf Maybe there's a reason that imperialism rarely gets the attention it deserves? It seems that the success of western leftists in the 20th century relies on their (in)ability to critique their relationship with the periphery. I recently asked my new union what campaigns they're working on and they only described preventing foreign workers from being able to work in our sector lol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
Kindest Forums User posted:Maybe there's a reason that imperialism rarely gets the attention it deserves? It seems that the success of western leftists in the 20th century relies on their (in)ability to critique their relationship with the periphery. is that foreign worker thing related to something like the H1-B visa I think US unions feel empowered to target that stuff because of racism and it's wrong on that front, but it's a more complicated question when it comes to imperialism. at the end of the day the main victims are the foreign workers that are basically indentured servants for a company, at least in the US scheme. Tying a person's legal residency with how their employer feels about them makes it very hard to be militant in the workplace or politically active. Also, whatever global south country they come from have the years of education invested in the person stolen away. If Western companies want to recruit workers from abroad, those workers should be given full citizenship if they want or guaranteed long term legal residency if they don't. if it isn't an H1-B thing, than ignore this post
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
Kindest Forums User posted:I was listening to Michael Hudson's interview on Ben Norton's podcast and I had an issue with his analysis of the historical development of capitalism. He keeps on referring to the initial/middle stages of capitalism (industrial capitalism he calls it, the precursor of financial capitalism) as "progressive" ( his descriptor, not mine). This was due to states and corporations increasing welfare through wages and social spending. He's correct, partly, that the material conditions of Metropole workers improved during that time ( and continued through financial capitalism for that matter, which I don't think he mentions). However, these conditions were only improved due to the super exploitation of surplus value in the periphery. Andreas Malm had this to say about the topic: quote:What do we mean by ‘globally mobile capital’? We mean, first of all, industrial capital free to invest across national borders and capable of carrying production technology to the new locations. Capital from source country A is globally mobile if it may construct factories (greenfield investment) or buy companies (mergers and acquisitions) in host country B, and if it can bring machines, technical expertise, management principles and other key assets from A to B – and, of course, if B is flanked by a range of other, similarly available host countries. As the world economy has developed since the 1970s, these conditions have been progressively realised. They imply that capital can transcend borders with roughly constant levels of productivity – or, put differently, the productivity of a transnational corporation (TNC) is a firm-specific asset, something it owns and can insert into the host country regardless of the average levels of productivity attained there.19 But this only holds – and as we shall see, the distinction is crucial – for immediate production technology, while not for infrastructure. That's a lot of preamble and context for just a couple of bolded statements, but the point that I'm trying to make (not necessarily what Malm may have been going for) is that the rise of industrial capital in a nation does bring some benefits to the proletariat in the form of urbanization and development. Indeed, it creates the proletariat (as distinct from the peasantry) to begin with. This is not a permanent state of affairs (because financialization and globalization and capital flight eventually kick in), nor is the improvement in lifestyle "all the way up" to a sort of Global North standard (nor could it possibly ever be so), but it is there, and any presumption that it's somehow "not worth it" carries a certain projection or value judgement that, taken to the extreme, leads us back to anarcho-primitivism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 04:12
|
|
