(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
hello beautiful people after five harrowing weeks against quasi-homelessness, hunger, unemployment and plague, thanks to friends and comrades, I got pulled through still processing this road of damascus moment but had my life turned around by quite a dramatic hands-on practice of shared burdens. it is one thing to know that you have a support network outside your family, through friends, acquaintances, organizations you are a member of; another is to come to them because catastrophe happened and have your rear end stay above water because of that while I had some bad times before, something like that in a pandemic was an entirely another level of horrible. I have a roof and a bed and far better employed than before because I had means of social support to endure the storm what does that have to do with marxism? it is one thing to know and observe the threat of the terror we all are under; another is to fall prey to it. theory filled me with white-hot fury because, as you all know, capital can't but attack things that can be socially provided for the means of a dignified living, to induce greater and greater still levels of despair to break the back of everyone so that a little more can be harvested from their labor. It just so happens that, for me, having that awareness again brought that white hot fury, which kept my head high and put me to press on, to not surrender to the terror so, any actual rich gently caress who thinks a mildly left-wing policy being enacted to help people around entails in "stalinism", lol they deserve it p.s. also big thanks for the goonbucks people, you all are lovely
|
#
¿
May 21, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 08:49 |
|
|
many thanks to you allFerrinus posted:the local housing working group was invaluable when my apartment got destroyed in a fire and the intransigent landlord tried to de facto evict me rather than do a couple weeks' worth of repairs a few years back, solidarity and mutual aid are extremely powerful yeah I can't overstate how important that is at the end of the day we got to have means to execute class solidarity to help each other. I think we forget too often that you don't actually need an institutional thing, you can do political organization in a group of friends, colleagues, acquaintances. Last year, a book club of a friend of mine in São Paulo pulled together a mutual aid fund and scheduled weekly calls to check up on one another even to say "hey you ok? need me to bring you anything? feeling sick?" and that made all the difference for a bunch of members, as many were immigrants to the city
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2021 00:43
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:If anything Khrushchev made someone like Deng eventually necessary this is a very good take imo the USSR blundered hard with China and from my small knowledge on the matter it feels that it was rather petty on the Soviet side, like, when reading about it, Khrushchev didn't need to be overbearing at all about doctrinal principle. At all. The way he moved forward with the matter just feels incredibly personalist (at least to me) which is an amazing irony lol
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2021 02:43
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:An argument for socialism from marginal theory of value and negative externalities this reminds me how every now and then some economics grad who is too clever for their own good (especially if they have some knack with math) stumbles into solving some postulate of mainstream economics one mathy guy back at my uni figured out in a "huh" moment that the pareto optimum (the closest to ideal degree of something) for the distribution of goods and services to a society is impossible through free markets, as monopolization sets price fixing to preserve profitability then he went to figure out how to fix that (through a math model) and realized that market deviancies and failures are features not bugs because any and all solutions had to out the "free" from market the department did not accept his paperwork and refused to renew his scholarship lmao
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2021 16:45
|
|
|
all I have to say is that arfjason is a true posting master
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
yr new gurlfrand! posted:turns out posting was praxis after all Posting was always praxis, quoth the grandmaster Karl Marx, Capital posted:This has allowed the illusion to arise that all commodities can simultaneously be imprinted with the stamp of direct exchangeability, in the same way that it might be imagined that all Catholics can be popes... This philistine utopia is depicted in the socialism of Proudhon, which, as I have shown elsewhere, does not even possess the merit of originality, but was in fact developed far more successfully long before Proudhon by Gray, Bray, and others. Even so, wisdom of this kind is still rife in certain circles under the name of 'science.' No school of thought has thrown around the word 'science' more haphazardly than that of Proudhon. economists, again big karl posted:Truly comical is M. Bastiat, who imagines that the ancient Greeks and Romans lived by plunder alone. For if people live by plunder for centuries there must, after all, be something there to plunder; in other words, the objects of plunder must be continually reproduced. It seems, therefore, that even the Greeks and Romans had a process of production, hence an economy, which constituted the material basis of their world as much as the bourgeois economy constitutes that of the present-day world. Or perhaps Bastiat means that a mode of production based on the labour of slaves is based on a system of plunder? In that case he is on dangerous ground. If a giant thinker like Aristotle could err in his evaluation of slave-labour, why should a dwarf economist like Bastiat be right in his evaluation of wage-labour? stop this man, he is about to do a savagery posted:Classical economy always loved to conceive social capital as a fixed magnitude of a fixed degree of efficiency. But this prejudice was first established as a dogma by the arch-Philistine, Jeremy Bentham, that insipid, pedantic, leather-tongued oracle of the ordinary bourgeois intelligence of the 19th century. Bentham is among philosophers what Martin Tupper is among poets. Both could only have been manufactured in England.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2021 21:23
|
|
|
splifyphus posted:but seriously tho psychedelics as a political supplement has been tried - by the cia, and their acid supply helped destroy the solidarity and momentum of the '68 movement. psychedelics do not produce politically effective or active subjects or even necessarily somehow more 'empathic' people, they produce hippies. and charles manson. the social context of that time is far more determinant than the drug itself, imho there are plenty of hardcore commies and anarcho-commies that used psychedelics; I've been reading a lot of stuff about the 60s/70s lately and the contrast of the American hard left against hippies in that sense is very interesting. It seems to me that 1 in a 1000 hippies was an Abbie Hoffmann type who had the hippie mentality along a radical socialist view, so savvier communists realized quite quickly that while acid could be very interesting (and even encouraged the artists and scientists to experiment with it), it was not the cornerstone of a profound transformation on society this is something that I think goes understated a lot: many radical socialists at the time made the very costly mistake of betting the farm in what they thought was a dramatic cultural shift - a revolution if you will - with the hippies and helping to alienate organized labor by chasing an illusion (this is especially true for the USA but also happened in Western Europe, in different measures from place to place). "Flower power" was, ultimately, a liberal construct; the fact that many of them (hippies) went to become Reaganites is an incredible evidence of such
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2021 16:51
|
|
|
The Voice of Labor posted:real tripping to a revolution has never been tried this was a major credo of a looooot of agitation in the sixties, tho even the diggers, who were pretty much in agreement to that, eventually started getting pissed off with others who thought communalism happened like magic through drugs and got the freeloaders to either bust a move or gtfo
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2021 06:03
|
|
|
Moon Shrimp posted:I know Marx thought it would affect the whole system but I'm not convinced it's the reality of what happens. to not fall into a hole of technicality, you are forgetting to account for inflation and confounding profit and profitability, among other things. The profit given by a box of detergent today may be greater than it was, but it is far less lucrative than it was in the past when there was very little detergent on the consumer market. Think, for example, about salt: it is quite ubiquitous today and incredibly cheap when once it was obscenely scarce to the point of being reference point to wages in Antiquity. Salt has been rendered much cheaper than ever in our time, yet there are mining companies for salt and businesses that own salines. These companies exist, so they have profits that, aggregate, might be today greater than the salt trade in its heyday; however, the potential increase of profitability in salt nowadays is very, very low. This means that the potential to bring new capital into it is almost none. The ultimate drive for the expansion of capitalism is not profit, which was the mistake of many liberal thinkers about it, but for profitability: someone who earns X then employs their surplus capital to earn X+1, then it goes, number go up. The tendency of the rate of profit to fall is one of the masterstrokes of Marx, as it detects the quintessential why of capital accumulation instead of being reinvested in a proportional manner, as there are many activities that could use that capital and are lucrative yet the capitalist sits on their rear end instead.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2021 15:41
|
|
|
namesake posted:It's a little more complicated than just that though. If they had a free hand then without opportunities to make even more money they would just spend the excess on building more ridiculous houses and paedo billionaire islands. The source of crisis is that structurally they can't do that - the nature of capitalist economy means they have to try and use this mass of cash and find more and more ways to get more value for it. It's the massive deployment of spending on capital which makes that harder and harder and so builds to crisis. imho, the best way atm to demonstrate that is the incredible amount of money that major companies dedicate to stock buybacks, in order to maintain stock prices or to increase value according to expectations should that not happen, the stocks will not appreciate in value, which to other investors would mean "uh oh they are becoming less profitable", even if the company is perfectly fine in cash reserves and revenue, leading to disbursement of that company
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
yeah the necromantic analogies of capital really suit best when thinking about these incredible masses of value that do... nothing something that isn't obvious - at least in my opinion - is that capital's value (not the value of capital) can only be realized in its execution, otherwise that amount of money might as well not exist at all, which is where fictitious capital starts to come up. Taking money out from derivative stocks into cryptocurrency titles is, in material economic terms, a non-existant operation: it is value that never gets to be realized as such because it never becomes even remotely close to money so, as this blob of "value" increases in expectation of further profits, it starts to drain actual value from other means, from speculators to small investors simply looking for something with greater returns (but who were investing in solid stuff), and that blob starts devouring realized value as a result what I am getting at is that excessive speculative and fictitious capital when pumped non-stop becomes Aldritch from dark souls 3 okay
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
k, I am bi and I got flak for being red queer more often then not, but looking at online (and especially Twitter) it is insanely ridiculous how poo poo goes either way, at least from my POV as others have posted quite accurately here, identity politics have been too successfully framed within liberalism, so a lot of people understand class politics are exclusive with those, even within a self-professed socialist worldview the solution? go outside, log off. Those folks would be loving amazed at seeing how much straight dudes who are trying to get into leftist movements are willing to learn and also some of those extremely online dudes would be impressed to see the degree of commitment many minorities are willing to stand beside them in socialist solidarity I've seen a black trans woman help take care of the kids of a straight guy, this forty-something dude who worked construction his whole life, who lost his wife to cancer. He has been a committed member of our org for years and both him and wife gave lots of direct support to her, having her for meals while she got her stuff together after her move to here but stuff like that is only possible when you are dealing with people in their full sense; I can't be the only one who sees social alienation in a very Marxist sense when I see leftists castigating in tweets about what other internet leftists are doing, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2021 05:32
|
|
|
Red and Black posted:Help me understand this quote from the 18th Brumaire, especially the bolded part somebody in congress fighting for what they call the interests of small businesses but having gone to Yale or Harvard thanks to their family's background adopts a mentality that they think it is the small business mentality, so they believe that small business owners have the same political interests as theirs and operate similarly to them, not understanding that the small business owner could have turned into someone quite different if they had access to the representative's resources and upbringing
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2021 22:24
|
|
|
in other words, a political representative under liberal democracy has very good chances to not be an actual interested party of a class interest, because they are first and foremost members of their class, and their political range of action comes from what they project on their voters through their imagination, not realizing that they are projecting their own material class interests into the electorate see also: the Democratic Party, Obama, public healthcare is impossible in the USA, no better choices are possible, etc
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2021 22:31
|
|
|
Red and Black posted:Thanks, that’s really helpful you're welcome, keep'em coming
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2021 23:24
|
|
|
Brain Candy posted:game was rigged from the start the thing is that the legislative front should definitely be pursued, as proletarian interest can be represented to its benefit even within the restrictions of liberal democracy. Especially if the representatives are elected as consequence of a popular organization based on a grander ideological motive, like one of Marx's favorite examples, Irish republicanism so here lies an important trick to discern, which has to deal with your point: representatives should be elected from working class concerns, not because they are working class themselves. Constance Markiewicz was a countess but she was among the fiercest socialist revolutionaries and Irish patriots to ever live To compare, let's then take Peter Brennan and George Meany, some of the truest blue-collar men in the history of the United States. Having achieved political prominence for being excellent organizers in labor activism, they were fundamental collaborators to some of the worst blows dealt against the American proletariat in the extent that, thinking in terms of its political representation, kneecapped the actual ability for such, through its popular mobilization
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2021 14:36
|
|
|
Doctor Jeep posted:lol 10 hours, c'mon man
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2021 23:32
|
|
|
loving lol I went into exile by necessity and larry was banned all this loving time? loving lmaooooooo
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2021 04:33
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:economic calculation problem: bullshit von mises cooked up to say command economies are inefficient to add on further, this has a lot to do with the marginalists coming up with elasticity, the cornerstone of neoclassical theory. Turns out that this was an amazing tool to actually plan for demand and was readily employed in other schools of economic thought more interested in changing things rather than observing this is where the Austrian school falls into a very "problematic" place, but one that is very, very useful for some: if planning and organization beat the market even using neoclassical premises and frameworks, then the Austrian school has to discredit neoclassical thinking to serve its purpose. This is where a lot of Hayek's charge against aggregation comes from, and especially why he directs himself against Keynes rather than their contemporary Kalecki: the latter was a Marxist economist who was way more competent (and waaaaay ahead on maths) than the former and, being a Marxist, was interested on getting to the solving point of the matter instead of going around in circles (like Keynes). Kalecki solved and proved (formally, when able) for many of the socialist economic propositions to the detriment of the austrians and neoclassical thinkers, and pretty much owned Hayek whenever possible (Hell, wanna know a well-kept open secret of the field? mofo came up with the profit equation in macroeconomics, which he bases from karl loving marx himself) Michal Kalecki, Theory of Economic Dynamics (1965) posted:It is indeed paradoxical that, while the apologists of capitalism usually consider the 'price mechanism' to be the great advantage of the capitalist system, price flexibility proves to be a characteristic feature of the socialist economy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Putin's popularity from staunching the bleeding of shock doctrine could only last for so long. It's not enough for people to be nostalgic about Stalinism as simply a time when "Russia was powerful," people are also hungry for social transformation - and Lenin & Stalin as leaders of communism helped completely reform Russian society from agrarianism to a world leading industrial power. Maybe Russians don't necessarily want a return to communism, but they are starting to want big changes. I met a woman from Novosibirsk, little older than me (30-something by now), who came here to Brazil because of her boyfriend, an acquaintance. She said that the bad thing for younger Russians was that they all knew how things were better in their living memory through parents and grandparents. Putin had their respect from stabilizing things from total shitshow levels, but it was always a matter of time before the younger generations, listening to how easy it was to get employment and healthcare and education in comparison from their family, would be drawn to revolutionary sentiments
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2021 17:57
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:had to think of this: ah, the smell of fresh bait
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 00:31
|
|
|
In Training posted:leftist infighting in the contemporary us is cool bc the left does not exist as an actual organized political project that 99% of the working class is aware of or cares about. but getting into flame wars is dope. indigi posted:getting in flame wars is all in good fun, idk how many people let it impact their actual organizing. those are the people I’d worry about yeah, unfortunately it seems to be something of a problem among some audiences, like some corners of twitter like, posting as entertaining pseudo-intellectual sport is all well and good (and even better when funny), but let's break kayfabe for a bit: if someone's internet hot take on Trotsky or Stalin or Bakunin (or whatever dead person you prefer that fits the category) is a ideological battleground of utmost importance that makes completely impossible to cooperate with the other person because you must be completely right at all loving times, well, holy poo poo. Meanwhile, people organizing on fast-food or supermarket chains could not give absolutely any less of a poo poo about the minutiae of dialectical analysis between different intellectual factions from the early twentieth century it is like one of our guys was talking about during the preparation for anti-bolso protests here: gtfo with "a government that's pawn to international capital", put the loving price of gas that's making poor people resort to scavenging firewood to cook on the release, or maybe electricity that's about to take another loving hike and sell the main national public company along that, loving everyone in the process. reach out with solid, actual, direct concerns that matter now, that resonate
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 06:15
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:that guy's way handsome imo you loving Fabian bitch gotta be sincere that I felt the same mr lobe
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 15:17
|
|
|
Jon Joe posted:lmao the dude likes nick land ah very much an internet creature
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 15:43
|
|
|
my bony fealty posted:land is the guy who looks at the death of the planet and culture from capitalism and says the solution is killing all minorities oh no, it is much richer, much better, much funnier than that, it deserves proper posting Nick Land was part of quite a thing called Cybernetic Culture Research Unit out of the university of Warwick in the UK. The thing could be described as an informal study group at first, then a cultural theory project, then a complete what the gently caress collective that, among other things, led to academics there saying “the CCRU does not, has not and will never exist.” It started pretty okay, as far as these things go: a study group by the feminist philosopher Sadie Plant interested on sociology and anthropology with relation to the internet. Veeeeeeery academic. Nick Land tagged along. Then she left and he took the helm. He had ideas. Land, an antisocial thinker with a penchant for drugs, looked at all the hosed up poo poo happening because of postmodern capitalism and brought upon himself to solve the personal experience under it. He invented accelerationism. And decided to make everyone around him produce and create art and theory about that. He did amphetamines, and then started doing more, then started pushing while on the university for the benefit of the students (of course), then got his rear end kicked out along with the CCRU. By that time, it was morphed into a semi-cult thing with researches on occult and raves (especially the jungle scene). Because this entire enterprise was completely loving fatalistic in perspective, of course people got sick and awful because of it and Land spiraled further into madness (and on speed). His entire deal was the whole maniac "who has the courage to stare into the abyss" pretentiousness of some fuckbrain philosophers, and of course, he wrote a loving lot about Nietzsche. Problem was that he was actually too intelligent for his own good and could never stop frying his brains on thinking about poo poo (hence the speed), along an antisocial and pessimistic personality. Finally, he wrote a bunch of poo poo about cheering desperately for capital to fash itself up for the sake of acceleration. Well, to nobody's surprise, he had a sort of definitive meltdown on China while doing too much speed and disassociated himself to the point where he could only refer to himself as "it" and on the third person for years, and then the internet fash got wind of his works. the only really special thing about Land's writing is how incredibly committed to owning himself through self-destruction because he simply can't accept that he might be wrong and that he doesn't know poo poo, becoming an ultrafascism-mixed-with-blade-runner dispenser. quite a 90s figure
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 17:04
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:Personally I still find leftcommunism the most appealing tendency minus the weird tonedeaf "neither Israel nor Palestine" poo poo. I'm all about fighting nationalism but you can't be an idiot about it please, friend, explain to me what in the gently caress is a "leftcommunism" because I am extremely triggered by reading that
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:this more accurately describes Hoxhaist Albania imo hoxha was the dude that asserted that every socialist country should try their own hand at it, right? and who thought tito was dumb?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
Demon Semen posted:Nationalism is a brain disease hth I do get your point but, still, with that av of yours this is gold hahaha
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
"nationalism" as the conservative chauvinist sentiment is, of course, bad; however, as many other south americans will attest, nation building through socialism is huge here, and the left here has been rather successful in harnessing the patriotic sentiment towards that without any detriment to internationalism or solidarity
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2021 19:29
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:Keep in mind that the Communist Manifesto was published like weeks before the Springtime of the Peoples popped off. Marx and Engels were aware that Europe was on the cusp of a revolutionary situation and obv they weren't alone in that assessment. But the '48 revolutions were all pretty evident failures within a year or so and that went for Chartism too. Combine that with all the new injections of gold into the system from the gold rushes in America and Australia and Marx and Engels had to reassess their timescales for any revolutionary potential in Europe after that. great post
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2021 22:35
|
|
|
Demon Semen posted:lol what one of the reasons why Mao managed to succeed so massively is that he successfully provided a solution to the nationalist question, by showing that patriotic motivation was not exclusive against revolutionary socialism Amiri Baraka, "Nationalism, Self-Determination and Socialist Revolution" posted:A Marxist is an internationalist, but also as Mao pointed out the Marxist of an oppressed nation must also be a patriot. The fight against that nation’s national oppression is “internationalism applied.” Marxists cannot be so involved with theoretically upholding internationalism that they dismiss their own nation’s concrete national liberation struggle – that would be a caricature of Marxism. This is precisely why Mao wrote this essay, to counter those people disguised as Marxists who wanted to “liquidate the national question.” Lenin fought the same battle with Rosa Luxemburg and the Polish and Dutch Social Democrats, among other Marxists in the early 20th century who wanted to deny the right of Self-Determination as an exercise in reformism or nationalism. which is why I was messing with you; "nationalism is a disease" is a mistake that many European socialists made because they were thinking exclusively in their own terms and context (I am not saying that you are making that mistake, btw). Meanwhile, Mao and many others around the world disagreed enthusiastically with that way of thinking, emphasizing the importance of patriotic and national sentiments as tools for revolutionary socialism
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2021 03:22
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Mieville being a Trot would explain the sexual harassment allegations ooooooooooooooooohohohohohoooooooooholy poo poo that's a low blow lmaooo
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2021 04:15
|
|
|
mcclay posted:what the gently caress are the actual tenets of xi jinping thought? you gave me a good intellectual jolt and remembered something that I was trying to recall for a very loving long while: Xi's actual address to the National Congress of the CPC that establishes this. Some choice quotes of mine to try to show the gist of it: quote:First of all: Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is socialism. It is not any other sort of “ism.” The foundational, scientific principles of socialism cannot be abandoned; only if they are abandoned would our system no longer be socialist. From first to the last our Party has emphasized that “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” adheres to the basic principles of scientific socialism and is imbued with characteristically Chinese features bestowed by the conditions of the times. Socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not any other ‘ism.’ quote:In recent years there have been a few commentators — both at home and abroad —that have asked if what modern China is doing can really be called socialism. Some have said we have engaged in a sort of “capital socialism;” others have been more straightforward, calling it “state capitalism” or “bureaucratic capitalism.” These labels are completely wrong. We say that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism. No matter how we reform and open up, we should always adhere to the socialist road with Chinese characteristics, the theoretical systems of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the structure of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and the basic requirements put forward by the Eighteenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China for a new victory of socialism.[iv] quote:These include: the absolute leadership of the Communist Party of China, grounding policy in national conditions, putting economic construction at the center, adhering to the “Four Cardinal Principles”[v] and to the program of reform and opening up, liberating and developing productive social forces, building a socialist market economy, socialist democratic politics, an advanced socialist culture [...] These features embody the basic principles of scientific socialism under our new historical conditions. If we lose these, we lose socialism. quote:We must not ever “go to Handan to learn to walk and forget our native stride.” Instead, we have taken Marxism and Sinicized it. That is socialism with Chinese characteristics. quote:Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate? Why did the Communist Party of the Soviet Union fall to pieces? An important reason is that in the ideological domain, competition is fierce! To completely repudiate the historical experience of the Soviet Union, to repudiate the history of the CPSU, to repudiate Lenin, to repudiate Stalin was to wreck chaos in Soviet ideology and engage in historical nihilism. It caused Party organizations at all levels to have barely any function whatsoever. It robbed the Party of its leadership of the military. In the end the CPSU — as great a Party as it was — cattered like a flock of frightened beasts! The Soviet Union — as great a country as it was — shattered into a dozen pieces. This is a lesson from the past! quote:My third point: Marxism always develops along with the social realities and technology of the times. Marxism cannot stagnate. After the start of opening-up, socialism has only continued to advance. Upholding the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics is much like a great book. To establish foundational principles and ideas, Comrade Deng Xiaoping etched his part in. The Party Central Committee’s third generation, with Comrade Jiang Zemin as its core and Comrade Hu Jintao as general secretary, added their own brilliant chapters to this book. The responsibility of this generation of Communist Party members is to write the next chapter of this great work. quote:Fourth: From beginning to end our Party has always adhered to the lofty ideals of communism. Party members, especially leading cadres, should be firm believers and faithful practitioners of the lofty ideal of communism and the common ideals of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Faith in Marxism, a socialist and communist conviction, is the political soul of the Communist Party member. They are the spiritual pillar that give him the strength to undergo any test. The Party Constitution clearly stipulates that the Party’s highest ideal and ultimate goal is to achieve communism. this part has gold in terms to demonstrate his perspective, imho: quote:Facts have repeatedly told us that Marx and Engels’ analysis of the basic contradictions in capitalist society is not outdated, nor is the historical materialist view that capitalism is bound to die out and socialism is bound to win. This is an inevitable trend in social and historical development. But the road is tortuous. The eventual demise of capitalism and the ultimate victory of socialism will require a long historical process to reach completion. In the meantime, we must have a deep appreciation for capitalism’s ability to self-correct, and a full, objective assessment of the real long-term advantages that the developed Western nations have in the economic, technological, and military spheres. Then we must diligently prepare for a long period of cooperation and of conflict between these two social systems in each of these domains.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2021 05:23
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I feel like “local government can have you arrested on whim” helps them keep their heads down or lose them I think one crucial element of Xi Jianping Thought that characterizes is that it is a very little theoretical contribution to Marxism and much more a series of practices and considerations for the Chinese reality in the 21st century A couple of elaborations of his Fourteen Points: xinhua.net posted:
these two elements I think are the most relevant about the matter: the government at its highest level has a constitutional duty to ensure and defend the party's sovereignty over law and the execution of socialism. A billionaire is only such because he is allowed to be so by the party's mandate and if they act out, welp it is an interesting idea because, well, if we are to be ~~*theoretical*~~ about it, they accomplish a foundational element of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the coercion of the wealthy. In what degree this specific aspect is working to the benefit of the working class I cannot say or estimate
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
namesake posted:Socialism and capitalism do not have a dialectical relationship, socialism is the synthesis of capitalist contradictions aren't you thinking of them as abstract instead of modes of production, though? like, mercantilism certainly doesn't have a dialectical relationship with feudalism in the abstract, but as modes of production, they worked and interacted concurrently and transformed themselves for centuries before mercantilism properly became capitalism
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2021 17:38
|
|
|
namesake posted:It's hardly strict when we see all kinds of collective production being replaced by wage labour causing massive inequalities in society as the new business owners literally profit from their employees work. Seems like the sort of thing socialists should raise eyebrows at. Fidel Castro was consistently highly supportive of China, even when some misunderstandings happened. Latin American socialists understand first and foremost that we are in the USA's backyard and the applicable strategies are necessarily far different than China's. China had the size, distance, resources, history and population to perform a capture and sequestration of international capital to become indispensable to it, allowing the utilization of those means for its project. Cuba, in comparison, is pretty much on socialism for survival mode: it is not going to start building trains, ships or airplanes anytime soon. Each and every resource available must be counted to accomplish its continued autonomy, while also to provide for the socialist guarantees available to every Cuban. Their socialism is admirable and it is highly impressive and formidable what they have achieved, but also fundamentally limited due to the systemic circumstances, so yeah
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
but the chinese markets are very tightly regulated. in fact, this is the major economic argument against they being keynesian to begin with the level of state control that China has on the economy is far greater than any post-war Keynesian state
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2021 22:26
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:What about the labor market? Isn't the whole point of the economic zones throughout the country to essentially free reign to foreign capital? I don't think the Walton family is in any trouble in a way... The thing is, for example, China is the largest economy in the world today with full capital control, in and out. Corporations who put money in China do not have guarantee of mobility whatsoever, full stop. The "free reign" they have is very limited on where it actually matters, and even so, the business opportunities provided make them accept terms that they would not elsewhere
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I wonder what Lenin would have thought if he had seen late 20s early 30s Germany arming itself with fascists in power sure, it’s a speculative take, but Lenin wouldn’t loving suffer it at all imho
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 08:49 |
|
|
indigi posted:well I suppose it’s a good thing he died then I meant Lenin was going to probably be far more aggressive against fascism than Stalin was (whether this is good or not is for you to consider) Lenin was the most proactive and the most combative of the bolshevik leadership; he was defeated twice on assembly to mobilize the petrograd soviet to give the blow and by the third try it was a matter of survival and yeah I get the gist of reevaluating Stalin but besmirching golden vlad lad to make joey look good? joe wouldn't suffer that, he would punch your teeth out for daring to insult the bro he most adored, lol
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2021 22:15
|
|