(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
euphronius posted:someone posted in here a good essay not long ago on how the Bolsheviks thought to get petit boug assimilated into communism you probably mean the bit from abc of communism gradenko posted recently. gradenko_2000 posted:more from "The ABC of Communism":
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2022 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:its true though that every socialist has to be prepared to respond to people who want to question stalin or use him as a means to delegitimize socialist ideas and luckily we can just point to the fact that the people who idolize stalin today in the US are all either weirdos wearing soviet cosplay to protests or posters on fringe message boards and so in every case totally absent from the labor movement. or in rare cases they get jobs as union staffers where they hide their ideas from rank and file members only to either slowly alienate them all anyway as they drip feed their feelings about how north korea is a paradise or never reveal their actual thoughts and ideas to the people they work with and endorse joe biden Weird thoughts
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2022 14:57
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:when stalinist ideas are put forward though im gonna attack them politically... there are a lot of very different stalinist ideas. i'm entirely in agreement that the turn away from personal freedoms in issues of sexuality/bodily autonomy etc in the 30s were bad. but do you have the same problems with his expansion of lenin's nature conservancy efforts people were talking about earlier? it's just dumb and weird to storm in and insist that ACTUALLY we can discard anything and everything done in the USSR from 1928-1952 or whatever because Stalin was a jerk
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2022 18:10
|
|
|
hm i'm going to have to look up the chinese on that one, did mao actually use the english idiom "missing the forest for the trees" or is that a loose translation. but yeah edit: god drat he really did. the original text is "只看见树木，不看见森林" which is pretty literally "only see the trees, do not see the forest DeimosRising has issued a correction as of 18:40 on Aug 12, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:but all that said i assume that an alt-history trotsky who wound up as the general secretary of the party would have ended up making the same moves that stalin did (and end up reviled by Zinovievists or Preobrazhenskyists or whatever) because while men make their own history, they do not make it as they please i think that's probably largely true (inasmuch as he would have dropped the NEP and moved to collectivization and full bore industrialization etc) but what he probably wouldn't have done is purge the Red Army. unwantedplatypus posted:How is it already evident? tbf he's not wrong about the dprk (and i've been to the dprk, granted for like 2 days and mostly to tour archaeological sites). The official state line has long since rejected historical materialism, the centrality of class struggle, and pretty much anything you would recognize as Marxism. Juche is big tent socialism, but it isn't Marxist and doesn't claim to be. That's obviously not the case in China. As for apropos's "would you advocate it over the US system and wanna live there" test, yeah i liked China better than the US and I'll probably move back at some point. Atrocious Joe posted:The bigger issue in the US isn't a microscopic fraction of people idolizing North Korea, it's millions of people who don't realize that the US committed genocide there and still practices nuclear bombing runs against it every few years. The US government is still sanctioning the country and stopping fuel from being sent there! Even if the DPRK is a hermit monarchy, it should be a priority for US socialists to stop the war and sanctions. absolutely Zodium posted:is north korea socialist? i don't know, because the only information I can get about it comes from north korea's enemies, who I do not trust to tell me about north korea. maybe it's very nice and the people are happy. maybe not. either way I can't do anything or even really know about north korea. Tankbuster posted:So whats the deal with Juche and why is it so different from lets say "socialism with chinese characteristics"? you can read about juche straight from the source https://www.kfausa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/The-Juche-Philosophy-Is-An-Original-Revolutionary-Philosophy.pdf
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2022 04:59
|
|
|
Zodium posted:thanks, but this pdf doesn't load? Weird, I’m not having any problems with it
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2022 15:31
|
|
|
crepeface posted:does anyone have a concise summary of luxemburg's criticisms of the USSR? she was a strong supporter of the revolution who was critical of certain specific decisions made by the bolsheviks (not the soviet government, which didn't exist) in a way that wasn't any more negative than the actual debates inside the party. she thought encouraging peasants to immediately seize agricultural land as their own was a mistake because it would have been better to immediately turn large and medium farms over to state control, because what she saw happening was the creation of a new class of land owning semi-wealthy peasant that would be opposed to further socialist reorganization, and that in practice already well to do peasants or village strongmen would appropriate more or better land than others. she was strongly opposed to lenin's position on the "self-determination of nationalities" and thought it was a mistake to give space to form what turned out to be a bunch of reactionary ethno-states instead of establishing Communist government before raising the question of how integrated the governments of various language/ethnic zones would be. At one point she thought it was a mistake to dissolve the parliamentary structures, but there's some indication she may have changed her mind on that one before she was killed. And she had a series of complex criticisms of the way Lenin and Trotsky conceptualized the dictatorship of the proletariat as being opposed to liberal democracy, and more or less argued that they threw out the baby with the bathwater by establishing strict controls over freedom of speech, assembly, the press, suffrage, etc. But her criticism is not, as it's sometimes misrepresented by liberals, that they needed to like, incorporate some bourgeois democracy as a treat, but that it was vital for the mass of the people to be politically educated and participating directly in some form, which wasn't possible if there weren't any avenues for that. It takes less than an hour to read her unpublished thoughts on the revolution if you have a little time https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2024 23:03
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:i think these are both technically correct, but also compromises the bolsheviks had to make in the middle of civil war and devastation. they couldn't do collectivization until they'd actually established control of the country, and part of establishing the control was giving various regional communists the surety that this wouldn't be a russian chauvinist country. the experiences of actual collectivization (should've followed the bukharin plan or done whatever it was the CPC did) and the eventual breakup along these ethnic lines showed that these compromises bit them in the rear end pretty hard though if you read what she wrote she actually literally says the same thing about collectivization, she thought it was a mistake but acknowledges that there may have been no alternative, especially since the Bolsheviks needed populist measures that would get the peasantry on their side fast. she says it was probably the right call but it's going to bite them in the rear end in more or less exactly the way it did. Mandoric posted:The split was eventually along SSR lines and the politicians that eventually climbed to the top of post-Soviet states tend toward a particular flavor of ethno-shitbag, yes, yes, but didn't the various original SSRs (leaving out the Baltics) also vote heavily for preservation of the USSR, with the motive force for its dissolution instead being Great Russians getting their way? I'm not sure you can draw a clear line through from Lenin's self-determination policy to the present day, especially since the west needed to paradrop political emigres back in following the metropole's abandonment of the SSRs to get them to where they are now.. i should note that she didn't just mean the areas that ended up being the USSR and obviously she couldn't have known how the integration of the various populations into thinking of themselves as soviets first and whatever nationality second was going to go, she didn't think they should have let finland go, signed brest-litovsk (which she knew was a tough and close call at the time) and given up poland, etc. Keep the whole empire, establish socialist government, then see how autonomous regions should be. and yeah in the SSRs that held elections, the margins in favor of maintaining the soviet system and union were almost always overwhelming. At minimum Belorussia and the Central Asian states would all have stayed in the Union. In a purely technical sense, Transnistria did
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2024 06:13
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Had a full day on peasant vs free person labor efficency, which ignores Marx is only simplifying for comparison, I assume a deep dive comes later. a whole day, drat
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2024 22:17
|
|
|
DaysBefore posted:*floating like Vivec after spending an entire day studying peasants* Zaphod Beeblebrox is a Trot lmao
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2024 05:19
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Game theory derail. Here are a couple quiz questions. The point is demonstrate most of you probably don't understand western economics as well as you claim. It doesn't mean Marx is wrong. both rat, the cop randomly chooses a store with a 1/11 probably of choosing store 1 and 11/12 of choosing store 2, and wait what are you trying to demonstrate here anyway
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2024 19:43
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Correct to the robber/cop question. No correct answer to the first question yet. oh is a nash equilibrium the thing where you wouldn't change your answer even if you knew the other person's choice? i'm not googling it but if it's that then there isn't one but that's not what anyone is talking about anyway, you can sit and draw decision plots and determine probabilities all day but that's a parlor game not an insight into human behavior
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2024 20:32
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:that's why i look it up every time i'm about to use it, to make SURE i haven't managed to misremember it this time around so as to end up losing rather than gaining posting cred also important to do with "limpid"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2024 19:53
|
|
|
stumblebum posted:has there been any good marxist hypotheses on the particular nature of human society's first class conflict? im under the sourceless impression that it was forager-cultivator vs pillager-rancher, but im not sure if im just projecting the agrarian-pastoralist conflict back in time inappropriately. if there's no good info on a first/original class conflict, what would be the oldest class conflict(s) that had been identified and described by marxist history? how did complex/class society emerge is basically the core question of the entire field of anthropological archaeology
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2024 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
mila kunis posted:the fundamental issue the soviets faced, and that shaped the thoughts of trotsky and others, is that industrial proletarian work is easily made to be collectivist but peasant farming wasn't. a small subsistence farmer can be the master of his own plot of land, he and his household can work it without too much reliance on others outside of needing to trade for material inputs like seeds and equipment occasionally. you can't do that with a factory, it requires collective effort at scale and its an easy sell to workers to tell them that the profits and output of their work is going to be collectively owned, because the alternative is "one guy" (capitalist) gets to keep all the profits. there's still a LOT of decentralized, small scale farming in China. When I was working in the Dongbei doing archaeological survey (of spaces of several hundred square kilometers) virtually all the agriculture was being done semi - communally. A given field would be separated into rows (not literal rows of a single planting but "vertical" stripes of territory) that were worked by a given family, and then the produce was pooled and the proceeds distributed (I don't know by exactly what mechanism). Most of this was essentially unmechanized - a lot more donkeys than tractors, and a lot of hand picking. My very loose understanding is that this sort of serves as a precursor to industrializing the production - first you get the small holders to pool together in to kind of coops, then eventually you get them tractors and poo poo whether through the market or assignation, and then that makes a lot of those small holders unnecessary and they move off to get jobs in the city (are they paid some pension or buy out, I'm not sure) and slowly the regional farming consolidates into something like a Western agri-business. I'd like to know at what point these are nationalized or whether a lot of them are being run via the system of letting capitalists run the business and just keeping a tight lid on their choices and political activity.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 17:30
|
|