Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
https://twitter.com/big_ben_clock
why
why does this exist
it's so...I don't know what to say, but i am unable to answer either "why does this exist" or "why should it not exist"
I like how there's literally one (tweet) for every hour
Does it tick you off?
As timely as ever.
Huh, apparently reading some Marx is supposed to do me good. Anyhow, having read a couple pages of his stuff I can now say I've read more Marx than most Marxists. My favourite part so far is where he acts like worker unions and socialism aren't mutually incompatible concepts.
They aren't?
They are. Worker unions grant power to workers, and where workers have power, the state doesn't, running against state hegemony. The same holds true for all kinds of NGOs, such as environmentalist and human rights ones.
Listening to the pundits nowadays, you'd think worker unions are socialism. Or, at least, both are part of the whole "I don't agree with (a strawman of) it, therefore it's a threat to my Freedom™ and my American Way Of Life™" block.
Socialism =/= State hegemony. Socialism = Workers' control over the means of production.
The state isn't a neutral instrument, but a tool of the ruling class (the class which controls the means of production). So, the state - within a capitalist framework - is used to further strengthen and legitimize the ruling class, whether the bourgeoisie in liberal capitalist nations or the political/bureeaucratic elite in state capitalist nations (i. e. pretty much every "socialist" state post-1921). Self-organized worker unions are in no way incompatible with socialism, quite the contrary - they represent one of lower forms of workers' class consciousness and are the embryo of a future socialist state - a state controlled directly by the workers, for the workers.
Whenever I hear the term "state capitalist" I think of cold fire or luminous darkness. Beats "neoliberal", I suppose. I think I'll keep on using "socialist".
Regardless, no. Socialism requires to be hegemonic to exist, per orthodox socialists and demonstrated in practice. How does it work out for workers in that case? The answer is, it doesn't. That's one of the myriad reasons why the stuff that goes in socialist books will never happen.
^^ To be fair a government can use unions (or make their own parallel unions) for socialist purposes, though I guess in that case the government goes before workers in terms of representation.
Why would statism stand in opposition capitalism? It's a completely false dichotomy, and on top of that one used solely by Stalinist idiots on the Left and AnCap wackos on the Right. In fact, after laissez-faire liberal capitalism of the interwar period and the welfare capitalism of the post-WW2 period, modern neoliberalism (and please explain why do you dislike the term so much) is the best proof that the two aren't incompatible in the least - neoliberal capitalism utilizes a strong and intrusive state to protect the interest of capital.
Yes, socialism does require to be hegemonic in order to exist (is there any type of regime that doesn't?), but not every hegemony is socialist. And if by "orthodox socialists" you mean Chavistas, then no, they're not orthodox socialists.
Really, if you want a more in-depth explanation of this stuff, read Lenin's The State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/) - it's a short and relatively easy read. There's a reason why Stalin and his cronies, after Lenin's death, said that Lenin had disowned the book as a "temporary anarcho-syndicalist deviation in his own theoretical opus" (he didn't).
Simple. Capitalism is the means of production being mainly in private hands, therefore "state capitalism" is an oxymoron.
And I meant "neoliberal" as in "that's not socialism, that's neoliberalism".
By "orthodox socialists" I was thinking more along the lines of gramcists. Regardless, there are plenty of chavist orthodox socialists, like it or not.
So I read 1.1, and it's the same apologism I'm sick of hearing. Fuck it, I'm not reading anymore.
I'd argue that the concept of "private ownership" is in fact mostly irrelevant in defining the general capitalist mode of production, and that "private ownership" in its purest form is only a hallmark of the earliest, classically liberal form of capitalism. More advanced and contemporary forms of capitalism often blur and mystify the lines between private ownership to the point that it's downright impossible to define who owns what - just look at the labyrinthine corporate structures that exist today.
Also, in most more advanced slave economies (Greek cities, Rome etc) private property is much more clean-cut than in modern capitalism, yet they are not capitalistic.
Instead, I'd define the different modes of production according to, above all, the relation between the primary laborer, the means of production and the product.
Slavery: the laborer is a mean of production her/himself, completely alienated from the product of their labor.
Feudalism: the laborer rents the means of production from the owner, having to pay back a portion of the product through tax in return.
Capitalism: the laborer works using the means of production which belong to the owner, and is repayed through a regular wage, which is in fact only a portion of the product's real value.
Socialism: the primary laborers collectively own the means of production, and are paid for the amount of work done.
Communism: same as above, but they are paid according to their needs.
Yeah, that is bullshit, I agree.
Gramsci was an important contributor to Marxism, and the concept of cultural hegemony is essential, but using it as a theoretical base rather than a supplement goes against the basic spirit of Marxism.
No need for such a kneejerk reaction after three minutes of reading.
Chavez is a populist nightmare, ain't he?
No, because he's dead and won't return.
Regardless, there's a world of difference between a populist nightmare (Jaime Lusinchi etc.) and a populist nightmare who's also a socialist.
And I'd argue that who owns what makes all the difference.
Hmmm. Fine, but the only thing I've learned so far is that Lenin is like every other socialist opinionist, only slightly more self aware.
He might be dead, but he hasn't left yet.
Dontcha hate it when that happens.
But the very nature of that ownership is determined by the relationship between the worker, the means of production, the product and the owner her/himself. Does a capitalist corporation function any differently if it is owned by a commiteee of shareholders rather than a single individual? Not really. Are certain absolute monarchies socialist - because most means of production are controlled by the government? No, they're not.
The dichotomy between private and collective ownership is far from the primary deciding factor, especially considering how often the borders between the two are blurred.
If anything, one could say that "state capitalist" nations function very similarly to a huge-scale capitalist corporation, in an economic and hierarchical sense - you have workers, the exploited class, and a managerial bureaucracy, the ruling class. The simple fact that the bureaucracy in question was appointed by the state doesn't make any difference whatsoever, since the state doesn't represent the interest of the entire populace, but only its ruling class.
What failsafes would you use to prevent exploitative elites from emerging again, under what form of system would you want that to take place and how would you imagine the transition from the current status quo to go?
All I'm going to say is that, no, in the real world there's a huge, vast, humongous, gargantuan difference, in economic, political and social terms, between a bureaucracy appointed by the state and one appointed by businessmen. Do not simplify shit just so you can put them on the same "capitalist" category for things you don't like.
And what I've read so far from that Lenin text only reinforces the fact that state hegemony is the inevitable consequence of socialism at least at one point during the process (and consequently, foreverafter).
Edit: Oh yeah, and I'm having a very hard time not believing the part about prehistorical clan states is not bullshit.
@InsanityAddict
While I believe that the existence of a vanguard party is necessary to raise class consciousness and effectively lead the working class, it simultaneously presents the greatest danger to the future of the socialist project right after the reactionary forces themselves, due to the risk of "substitionism" (the party substituting the interests and agency of the working class with its own interests and agency). Thus, power has to be usurped by none other than the working class itself, which is possible only through a mass insurrection leading to a complete overthrow of the existing system - the parliamentary road is impossible, because it gives all power to the Party.
The new post-revolutionary system, as built by the self-organized working class, is based on collective ownership of the means of production, the commune as the primary cell of society and a combination of direct and representative democracy for decision-making: while intra-communal affairs are decided on a purely direct democratic basis, it's simply impractical on a larger scale. So communes elect delegates to an assembly, although they are given an imperative mandate and are instantly recallable through democratic vote by the population of the commune which elected them. Instant recallability isn't applicable only to delegates, but also to all bureaucrats, in order to prevent their position of service from turning into a position of privilege. Their salaries are also no higher than the average worker's salary. There is a lack of a standing army or police force - their duties are replaced by the self-policing armed working class. This effectively prevents the political elite from turning into the economic elite, since instead of having the army and police at their disposal to protect their privilege, they are constantly under pressure from a workers' militia that answers only to itself.
@Stormtroper
Please elaborate. I want some actual arguments other than "I'm right, you're wrong".
Why, exactly?
Which part, exactly, and why do you think it's bullshit? Plus, I don't think he ever said that prehistoric clans were organized into states.
Tyranny of the majority, the hazards of self-policing abuses and the possibility of endless political gridlock make me very skeptical about the feasibility of this sort of system, but I support directer democracy and increased accountability of officials.
I've been thinking. Amusingly those who strive for Socialism and take steps to avoid ending up with Not Socialism of social democracy seems to result in achieving the Not Socialism of state socialism, while those who are rather lax about Not Socialism end up with generally more livable results.
Not that they were organized into states, but that that's the way states came to be. Chapters 1.2 and 1.3. I don't have a strong reason to believe it's bullshit, it just sounds too hypothetical to me, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
The Engels quote in 1.4 confirms that the state is to hold the means of production, and if an entity does so that entity holds an hegemony over society (the text also says so, not that we needed to be told that). Besides that, the description of the dictatorship of the proletariat goes in that direction, a state given leeway to oppress a sector of the population, which can in turn easily oppress the entire population, thus easily becoming hegemonic.
A bureaucracy appointed by businessmen seeks an economic goal, and to that end works however the market makes it work. A bureaucracy appointed by the state typically seeks a social goal, and to that end can (but not necessarily) work under the state's planned economy, and in countries with a weak institution (e.g. those undergoing a revolution, real or not) they can also serve political-clientelar purposes, for individuals or for a party. Build a society after these and you get the difference between, say, Cuba and Canada. That both typically use wage labour is one minuscule similarity among a myriad of differences in practice.
And one last thing:
I've been patient towards your ideology. Very, very patient, tolerant and even complacent towards socialism, to the point I now feel silly about it.
For the entirety of my adult life I've been seeing how your ideology develops (yes, it's your ideology). I've seen, very slowly, how its theory turns to practice, and with it, how the nation slowly withers away. Freedoms severed, civic values tarnished, public services degraded, and a very long etc. All in the name of what? In the name of socialism.
Oh, but it still took me a long while to start hating socialism. In fact, you know what? I didn't even know until recently that our problems were so fundamental to socialism, I thought I could just blame our governing politicians for it, and maybe somebody else could make socialism work somewhere else, who knows? Oh yes, I used to buy all the cop outs. But no, turns out just about every single issue with Venezuela can be traced back to socialism.
It surely can, it's a fact that has been demonstrated in theory and throughout history, over, and over, and over, and over. No, socialism's problems have nothing to do with Chávez or Stalin or Mao and everything to do with socialism. It took me a very long while to realize this, but here we are. And you know what I hate? That I've never seen a single far-leftist offer a mea culpa for this.
So, whatever, I'm reading some Marx per a doctor's recommendation. Might as well. So, I haven't learned anything new yet, only historically ironic things that socialists conveniently leave out. At least I can now say I've read some. I think I'll post on IJBMer Updates, and sneak in the workers' union thing, one of socialism's many contradictions. One of these days I'll get to sneak in stuff about the Mars capitalism thing or the "state capitalism" thing, like I've done with so many others. Ahh, Weaver wants to argue, Ok. Means of production. Hegemony. Same old, same old. Ahh, semantics. A Lenin text? Ok. Wait, I've read this elsewhere, it has all sort of cliches and it's trite as fuck, do I have to? Fine, but I still haven't learned a thing, and what's this clan thing? And then we get to that post.
So yes, I've been extremely fucking patient towards your ideology, and in turn I expect you to have a shred of that same patience towards me, and not make snide remarks like that, not act like I'm an idiot who has only now heard about Marxism as if I weren't the only person in this entire fucking forum who can speak about it from experience, and not make me regret not having been dismissive about Marxism from the very beginning, because apparently that's what the appropriate course of action is.
If you said that because of the last line of what you quoted, I take it back and apologize. I only now re-read it (after writing most of this post, at that). However, you should have said you took issue with that instead of further trying my patience.
I haven't been following this conversation, but is there something I ought to be aware of?
You could always read it.
Regardless, I reacted to the first hint I saw that the conversation could be turning heated, and in very long terms told Weaver (and indirectly, the rest of the forum) that for this particular issue I would have none of it. Although I guess the first hint of such was actually mine. Anyhow, I let go off that plus other grievances, so whatever.
Welp. I killed the conversation.
To be honest the previous post sounded like an ending summary.
It's eye-opening for me. Stormtroper.