are there actual marxists? what kinds of revolutionary activity would have to happen in the states to even begin to approach meaningful change?
in all honestly nothing
go live in a commune or something because the left killed itself
>>7913147
nice try, bucko
Someone sold me an anti-capitalist newspaper called redflag the other day. I bought it for $3 to get him to fuck off.
I immediately realised the irony of buying his anti-capitalist newspaper thereafter.
>>7913137
Remove pop culture, the endemic fear of violence and cultivate aristocratic values.
Of course, none of this will happen, as marxism, much like all liberalism is the tool of bourgeoisie, limp-wristed (largely jewish) managerial class, stemming from their infinite jealousy and inferiority complex when confronted with the history of physically powerful and intelligent aryan alpha males.
>>7913166
>marxism, much like all liberalism
>>7913137
Yeah, I know some guys who appear to be serious about wanting a revolution. They're into the kinds of intellectual, heavily Jewish circles that would make /pol/ drool.
They also spend inordinate amounts of time on the Internet, are into polyamory where they mostly get cucked, and care a LOT about whether the local anarchist group is inclusive enough of the handicapped, so they may not be as potent as its sometimes imagined they are.
>>7913182
Liberalism starts with the kike-led reformation, kike.
>>7913137
that is the ugliest fucking image i have ever seen
>>7913137
Actual Marxist here. Affiliated with Workers world and the socialist rifle association. as well as the New African Communist party,Currently in a new organisation that wants to bring in white workers. Im active.
Do you really want to know the whole plan? what conditions there have to be?
>>7913217
This post reeks of autism and lack of political awareness.
>>7913299
Yeah actually that would be great
>>7913307
The same pattern of jewish effeminacy, weakness and faggotry repeats over and over from Luther to Sanders.
The only truly alpha man affiliated with post-reformation ideology was Stalin, who was effectively a secular monarch anyway.
>>7913317
. Oh boy. Okay so,
Every communist revolution was an act of self-defense. When the right to the workers to organize has been stripped away, when we are cornered and have a boot on our necks that is when we pick up the rifle. No true red is for randomly picking up a gun, right now while we can still organize and agitate. That’s called adventurism (isolated acts of violence ect.)and it only hurts the cause. What we are for is something called dual power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_power (ignore the libertarian socialist background, im a marxist-leninist) Basically; its about building a parallel government alongside the bourgeois government/state.
>>>>>continued
>>7913335
>>7913317
>>>>>continued
The key is to compete with the capitalist state. To make it simple; think small scale. If you have a town hall then build a peoples town hall. If there is a hospital then build a peoples hopital, A library build a peoples library. The more power the reds gain they can even have a police force and prove to a certain town that they would be a better choice. gain the peoples trust and support with out ever firing a shot. eventually the capitalist state will feel threatened and cornered and stike out,
it will take action to stamp out this compotition. The capitalists say they like compotition right? well we will give it to them.
>>7913320
Jesus Christ really? Stalin was great. but the career politicians and bureaucrats were always after him and trying to strip away democracy.
that’s why if you were a bureaucrat,
one wrong move and you went to the gulag and rightfully so. The people loved stalin but the Bureaucrats and careerist politicians hated him. Politics attracts assholes which is why you got those types in the soviet government or in ANY OTHER SYSTEM.
>>7913154
Redflag is my organization asshole. also you dont have to give them money. "HURRRR HE NEEDED MONEY THEREFORE HES HYPOCRIT" theres sstill money in socialism you dense motherfucker
>>7913356
Calling him a monarch was not an indictment but praise.
Managerial effete faggots like Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin or pretty much any post-reformation thinker embraced by the mainstream represent exactly the talmudic lawyers and politicians you're talking about.
>>7913365
He very clearly said 'we sell them for 3 or 5 dollars' multiple times.
I'm never going back to a leftist rally though. The entire crowd had a massive smell of BO and cigarettes following it down the street. The amount of people with blue hair and/or no shoes is comical.
>>7913345
>we'll build all the stuff they have!
>but with less money
ayy lmao nice plan. There are already loads of citizens organizations that wield political clout. You're just pissing in an ocean without some other huge shift in peoples' feelings towards their economic system.
>>7913137
>are there actual Marxists?
Joseph Stalin currently hold two titles: Best communist leader in the world and the creator of Stalinism
>>7913356
>talmudic
>JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS
YOu do know, even though Marx was part Jewish, he hated Jews. its in his writings. Lenin outlawed the "Jewish Bolshevik party" calling it divisionary and a threat to the revolution. It was forcefully dissolved.
Lenin was also great and so was Marx
Marx however was wrong in theorizing it would be the developed "civilized" nations that would rise up when it was in fact the 3rd world and "developing" nations that ended up having revolutions. First
>>7913369
I love that every brutal dictator always has a bunch of clingy bookish types like you willing to suck his dick just to feel a bit more masculine by association. You're basically like a low-level Goebbels - shrieking about other people being weak and effete and hoping that Hitler-Senpai will notice you.
>>7913385
>The entire crowd had a massive smell of BO and cigarettes following it down the street.
let me guess, you're on the west coast
Did that boarderline liberal really say "sell" Jesus this is why im almost done with Workers world (fist is they're youth group and red flag is fists magazine)
Fun fact: workers world is the best red party in the U.S. . thats not saying much because workers world is shit and run by 60s burnouts who think its still the 60s.
also there is no real true communist party in the U.S.
>>7913388
just read the wiki page it explains it better. less money? as any other American "marxist" and they probably wont have a clue what dual power is.
>>7913398
>stalinism
Stalinism doesn’t actually exist, its literally a term anti-coms and trots came up with to bash Stalin supporters.
Why is there no such thing as "Stalinism"? Because Stalin never added on to Marxist theory He did however write many good books explaining Leninism and other revolutionary practices.
>>7913417
>US
Nope
>>7913430
wut
>>7913437
I'm not in the US
>>7913500
wut
>>7913503
wut
>>7913299
>,Currently in a new organisation that wants to bring in white workers
As a member of the white working class, why would I ever be interested in joining your organization when you promote the cultural destruction of the white American identity?
Good luck achieving that class consciousness in the US.
>>7913137
contemporary political movements have been about leaving the system
the ones that fail are the ones that still keep ties with the old ways.
>>7913429
>stalin
>writing books
>>7913137
American Democracy is just weak Communism. There is literally no way to explain what FDR's New Deal was without admitting its basically socialist nature.
Of course it's not Communist in the 'eventual stateless society' notion that so many of them cherish, much the way Christians cherish the notion of the 'eventual second coming'.
>>7913299
>marxist-leninist
>not a counter-revolutionary
top kek m8
you killed the left, please fuck off
OP read The "Renegade" Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin
>>7913345
I would literally assault you if I were in the same room as you. You are no different than a Neo-Nazi, in fact you are worse. You are disgusting filth.
>>7914355
As long as you have capital, it is not socialist. Social programs are not socialist.
>>7913137
OP, please do not listen to the Leninist, they are literal counter-revolutionaries. Even the name "Socialist Soviet Union" is ironic, since the first thing they did after the civil war was kill all the socialists and neuter the soviets. Also the oxymoron of "socialist" wages, "anti"-imperialist occupation etc etc.
>>7914407
"The "Renegade" Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin" by Dauve, it is free online, 20 pages.
Basically focus on Marx himself, or even anarchists, but do not read Leninists take on Marx, they warp his thoughts until they are barely recognizable to fit their own propaganda.
The Experience of the Factory Committees in the Russian Revolution by RM Jones is good as well, also short and can be found online.
>>7914457
>As long as you have capital, it is not socialist
So socialism is impossible, well that clears things up wonderfully. You should probably stop trying to bring about failed states that end in genocide then!
>>7914414
This.
OP read "The struggle against fascism begins with the struggle against Bolshevism" by Otto Ruhle
"Left-communist pamphlet from 1939 that points the finger at Lenin and the bolsheviks for crippling the international workers' movement with authoritarian tactics and for developing a totalitarian and capitalist system of rule in the USSR."
redpill me on literature /pol/
>>7914467
Are you implying that capital has always existed?
I am not a Leninist so the rest of your comment does not really concern me.
op here, I really appreciate some of the more interesting posts, I guess a more appropriate question is what are the more attractive theorized modes of conversion from capitalism to marxism that haven't occurred throughout history?
>>7914480
The way Marx defined capital is so over-arching and vague that it is basically synonymous with power structures.
>>7914489
Marx's theory of exploitation simply states a fact - that the workers do not receive the full product of their labor because a portion of it is being taken by someone who did not do the labor. The capitalist position states a rationale, or a morality behind it. They are not stating a fact, merely arguing that it's justified for the capitalist to take that money.
We have to acknowledge that within capitalism, there is a perfectly understandable reason for the capitalist taking a portion of the money. After all, he or she does work - albeit a different kind of work - and they take on risk, and they should be compensated for that. One argument would be that the capitalist often takes too much, more than their share, but this is subject to personal opinion and situation. To put forward an equivalent argument to counter theirs would be to say that ultimately the job of the capitalist is unnecessary. Within socialism, an enterprise is directly managed by the workers; there is no one on top because there doesn't have to be anyone on top.
If we think within constraints of capitalism then the capitalist fills a vital role and is compensated for it. Once we break from the chains of this system their role ceases to exist. That surplus value never needed to be taken from the workers, because we can make a system that functions differently. Thus the obvious conclusion is the statement that "capitalism functions on the basis of paying workers less than the full value product of their labor."
>>7914510
>the workers do not receive the full product of their labor
Except that this is not a fact, this is a position itself. The workers don't create the product from the aether. They create with...the means of production. They are not being exploited, they are being allowed to use the means of production, to which they have absolutely no inherent right.
>I guess a more appropriate question is what are the more attractive theorized modes of conversion from capitalism to marxism that haven't occurred throughout history?
Marxism is not the ideal, it is a school of thought. To reach communism you basically have only the revolution.
> They create with...the means of production.
And who created those means of production? Workers.
>They are not being exploited, they are being allowed to use the means of production, to which they have absolutely no inherent right.
Why do the capitalists have an inherent right? Who gave it to them? Also, this is a position aswell, not a fact.
>>7914573
>Who gave it to them?
the fact that the system can defend and sustain itself grants capital the right
>>7914616
So all of your argument boils down to status quo?
That is an incredibly weak position, literally anything can be justified with it. Or do you really have no positions, ideals or thoughts aside from what is actual today?
>>7914573
I did not notice this post was addressing me. The capitalists have the right because they own the means of production. I know Marxists are not fond of the concept of property so I will introduce a different concept that most children are taught at a young age, though maybe increasingly less. It is the revolutionary concept of 'keeping a promise'. Of saying to someone that you will do something, and then doing it. From this basic principle all sorts of wonderful phenomena arise, like not murdering your neighbor for his cow, or having your neighbor give you some milk when you are down on your luck, with the promise that you will give him some milk back when you have it, or, apparently horrifically, telling someone that if they so desire they may be paid a certain wage for helping you for a certain amount of time to accomplish some task of industry with which you are concerned. In short the principle of basic society itself, which everything from fruit bats to ant colonies are capable of performing.
>>7913429
Wow, I never thought I would see tankies on /lit/, are you Phil Greaves?
>>7914631
> It is the revolutionary concept of 'keeping a promise'.
But a promise is made, not forced upon. You can easily use the same logic to justify slavery, since the master had a relationship with the slaves parents, as as such the slave should keep his parents promise and obey the master. You are just rewording the status quo argument, which is bullshit and holds no thought except conformity.
>telling someone that if they so desire they may be paid a certain wage for helping you
Do not act as if this is the relationship. Most people are forced by basic needs they NEED to satisfy, like housing and nutrition.
>>7914658
>You can easily use the same logic to justify slavery
Indeed you can, which I'm sure fills you with a terrifying dose of moral violation.
> You are just rewording the status quo argument, which is bullshit and holds no thought except conformity.
The status quo does have one advantage- it exists. Theories of possible states of reality that might be able to exist can certainly be enchanting, but we have to be cautious about upsetting carefully evolved systems that took centuries to come into being. After all organism don't reinvent their genetic code all at once.
>most people are forced by basic needs like housing and nutrition
Well before the horrifying period of industrial capitalism what exactly were these people doing? They were farming. They are actually totally free to go back to farming. you will note that they swarmed en masse to the cities of London, Paris, Frankfurt, etc. explicitly for factory jobs instead of continuing to farm.
>>7914670
Are you moral relativist then? Because if so, you cannot make the keeping a promise argument at all.
Stop with this status quo nonsense and tell me what your position is, if you have none apart from status quo then it is useless to argue with you, since you have no thoughts of your own.
>They are actually totally free to go back to farming. you will note that they swarmed en masse to the cities of London, Paris, Frankfurt, etc. explicitly for factory jobs instead of continuing to farm.
They cannot go back to farming since most farmland is owned, and even if they could they would not have the capital to sustain themselves.
The flight to the cities is a perfect example of how capital itself forces people to take horrible jobs just to survive.
>>7914695
Why would you think I'm a moral relativist? And I am making a sincere argument in defense of the status quo. The status quo did not cause the French Reign of Terror, Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin. The status quo has been endlessly abused and I don't care to defend it much but it at least has stability.
To your second point, why did the farmers swarm to the cities? Are you saying they were outpriced by new forms of agricultural industry?
>>7914708
>The status quo did not cause the French Reign of Terror, Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin.
It literally did. Hitler literally was the status quo in Germany, and even before that the status quo paved the path for him.
>Are you saying they were outpriced by new forms of agricultural industry?
yes
>>7914719
Hitler was a populist revolutionary who won the minds and hearts of the German people through democratic means. His fetish for Prussian history doesn't make him an aristocrat.
They were not outpriced by agricultural industry, they were bought by factories who would pay them more than they made on their farms. England outsourced her agriculture to the third world during industrial capitalism, partly because there were no farmers left.
>>7914719
>Hitler literally was the status quo in Germany
nigga what
>>7914740
>who won the minds and hearts of the German people through democratic means
this is
huh
wow
>>7913137
Yes, there are plenty of Marxists. Myself for example see the historical trends and what automation is likely to cause. Marx saw that sufficiently advanced technology would enable communism. I believe we are approaching this possibility.
As far as what we can do, I advocate heavily for a universal basic income because it will be a necessity as labour is automated by the millions of jobs in the coming decades.
Create communities, share ideas, and persuade others that we need to create a world that is sustainable, pays people a decent wage, and to actively encourage the birth of a newer and enlightened culture that aims to understand how to live well, and what systems and practices will encourage this. I advocate radical overhaul of our existing educational framework to more closely resemble the Finnish model, but still be diverse to include our own innovation schools like Free Schools, Waldorf, Montessori, etc.
Engage people, ask questions, elect socialists, run for office, protest. This is what we can do.
>>7914814
That's what happened anon. Propaganda is as democratic as voting. What were the millions-strong Nazi rallies if not a populist sentiment manifesting in political action?
>>7913335
>>7913345
Without control over substantial wealth (monopolized by capital and the state), you will never be able to build anything beyond the level of a minor charitable organization. And if you try to seriously substitute the state's law/justice system, you will be quickly prosecuted. Especially if you're an enthusiastic rifle-owning club. Even the harmless Amish or any isolated alternative community is vigorously prohibited from total exemption from state authority on its land.
>>7914538
That's why the concept of Primitive Accumulation is important. And, because no single individual can be pinpointed to blame, the dynamic of class conflict. The exploitation the working class suffers obviously goes back to ancient times. Capitalism is merely a specific, intensified version of it, where the worker is fully, irrevocably dislocated from the means of production. It's not the capitalists specifically that a worker opposes, but rather the transhistorical domination of the means of production by a ruling class. To some, this will always sound like cavemen clamoring jealously for the tools owned by their superiors.
>>7914941
Are you saying the workers are better off being hunter gatherers?
the workers are too dumb to run a business
especially democratically
>>7914947
No, I fully claim the workers' right to seize the means of production. The problem is justifying it in the face of elitism. I think, the argument must be both technical and ethical. Technical, in identifying capitalism's inherent, increasingly severe limitation/diminishing returns in its capacity to advance the productive forces, and arguing economic planning's superiority as a successor system. Ethical, in arguing the urgency of democracy and fair distribution in the resultant system of planning.
>>7914954
>the workers are too dumb to run a business
You do not even understand what socialism is you hick
>>7914993
I don't understand your argument. At what point in history did the means of production start belonging to the workers?
Also if this exploitation is coterminous with technological means themselves doesn't that imply that the opposite has never once existed?
Not really a Marxist, I'm more of a communalist/anarcho-collectivist who believes in a mild overarching national state structure to promote unity and morale.
>>7914999
about to graduate with a political economy major so I think I do
>>7914999
So it would not involve workers owning means of production and somehow contributing to decisions regarding how those are utiliized? If the means of production are owned by the government but workers don't have much input, is that not fascism?
>>7915002
The means of production never "belonged" to the workers. They merely had more "control" over it in the pre-industrial era. For example, whatever degree of self-sufficient/non-commercial medieval farming existed had to be gradually disassembled, both by natural competitive/commercializing forces and by literal oppression, the farmers disentangled from any customary claim to the means of production, which could then be fully committed to production for the sake of exchange, and the workers subsequently submitted for their subsistence to this process.
In this way, the "technological means" of exploitation was never as perfect in history until capitalism consolidated itself fully.
>>7915047
>Workers would own the means, but they would not be buisnesses
Okay, the workers aren't smart enough to give meaningful input on a command economy. Happy, red?
>>7915054
Hierarchy tends to, but doesn't necessarily entail domination. Obviously no planned economy could have each decision literally based on votes from every single worker. But some major decisions, involving overall direction, could be. And any delegates and experts could be subject to popular recall/supervision. Also, if production was geared for direct use, rather than exchange, the population overall would necessarily become more competent than what exists today. The masses of unskilled workers in retail, finance, other services, etc., involved in unproductive commercial activities would have to be re-trained to share in the most valuable work. This would mean an accleration in the division of labor in fields like IT, etc..
>>7915054
Do you think literally every worker will say how many beans should be transported to Italy? We would still have logistics people you fucking moron, also, have you heard of councils?
>>7915088
>Obviously no planned economy could have each decision literally based on votes from every single worker.
What I don't understand is why, from this realization, you don't make the obvious conclusion: Democratizing decision-making is fucking retarded and inefficient. Have you noticed that there are basically no successful institutions that don't have an essentially tyrannic structure?
>>7915108
Councils
>>7915103
>have you heard of councils?
Have you? We already use them for all sorts of things. Their effectiveness depends heavily on who is on them.
>>7915088
>we'll give people uneven amounts of power but they won't use it in the way we don't like because the revolutionary party once said that was bad
>>7915108
There are no successful truly democratized institutions because "success" always entails domination by a ruling class. Even if a non-tyrannical structure was theoretically superior, it would be against the whole weight of history in trying to assert itself, by violating the principle of a ruling class. Regardless, this is why the best option isan impartial robot dictatorship
>>7915125
There would be no incentive to elect shitter council members once there is no capital to award nepotism with.
>>7915129
So the revolution will make people stop being gullible apes who vote for whoever they perceive as most "alpha" but also relatable? Sign me right up. Humans will elect leaders based on things like height and facial features.
>>7915125
They won't use it in the way we don't like because "power" won't be grounded in the reality or possibility of serious material superiority. It would be in service to a mass population physically and organizationally in control over the means of production.
>>7913137
A violent revolution in the entirety of America is impossible.
>>7915148
Umm, are we still talking about the people elected to have special authority over those means of production? Because unless this is just some sort of "feelings-safe consensus-approved suggestions for the workers" type authority they're granted, I don't see how their office can both be necessary and so weak as to be abuse-proof.
how are there people who post here that are dumb enough to actually think theyre 'politically engaged' or join an organization or something lmfao
>>7913166
>>7913217
>>7913320
Fuck off evolafaggots
By the way guys, Marxism and modern leftism are both fucking stupid. You can't just "agitate" Americans until they revolt. What you fail to understand is that communism will never be achieved until the idea of communism is popular, all this "spontaneous revolution" crap is for idiots.
>>7915173
>how are there people who post here that are dumb enough t
Because /lit/ is a democracy. In fact /lit/ is downright Communist. The means of production are equally distributed throughout every anon who wishes to use them, including idiots. At least when the janitors are sleeping.
>>7915145
They are not electing politicians, it is not as glamorous as you make it sound. And yes at some level people will be moved by irrelevant factors, but it is still way better than having non-accountable bosses. The glorious thing about worker control is that workers are in control, therefor if it is obvious that someone is shit at being on the council, you wont have to wait 4 years to elect them out.
When you were in school and you had a group assignment, did you really let the coolest kid do most of the work or the boring nerd?
>>7915201
>The glorious thing about worker control is that workers are in control, therefor if it is obvious that someone is shit at being on the council, you wont have to wait 4 years to elect them out.
m8 have you heard of this thing that happened in the West called unions
>>7915186
Fuck off you worthless idealist.
>>7915168
It almost certainly wouldn't be abuse-proof. But that doesn't mean it would somehow enable the elect to reinstate severe inequality or capitalism. If the elect attempted to take such an action, the masses could move against them even more easily than when they'd seized power in the first place. Even if the whole elected body randomly decided to betray the constitution, they would need material force to do it, either via a (non-existent) elite legally and physically owning the means of production or the military.
>>7915223
You're proposing the constant implied threat of mob violence.
>>7915229
I prefer the term "citizen militia"
>>7915207
You cannot just point at unions and ignore the obvious problems of finance and the burden of capital itself. Most unions are corrupt as shit BECAUSE of capital. Also, unions are not coucnils, in most unions there is clear hierarchy. For example, during WW2 American unions had a clear oppurtunity to demand to the fullest extent, but instead they betrayed the movement and parroted conformist slogans. Unions are not enough, society as a whole must change.
>>7915201
>not as glamorous as you make it sound
Authority is authority. There's a type that will seek it out and there are people who will cleave to those who have it.
>if it is obvious that someone is shit at being on the council, you wont have to wait 4 years to elect them out.
There are very few jobs where you can't get ousted ahead of schedule. States have recalled (which doesn't even require the charges and hearings an impeachment does) politicians in the past few years, and a member of a board of directors can usually get booted involuntarily even if he owns a ton of shares.
>>7915242
>citizen militia begins trying to clear socialized stuff out of their region because they want to try a different system
>crush it
>>7915246
>There's a type that will seek it out and there are people who will cleave to those who have it.
They would be logistics workers, not politicians.
>>7915256
>logistics workers who people have to listen to
>not politicians
So the politicians will have to be good at math.
>>7915253
>start stealing from literally all of mankind
>expect to get away
>>7915243
>this time it will work
I'm sorry but it just strains credulity. For those of us of the non-Marxist persuasion it is a hard sell because there are literally no examples of it working. Even if I accept that capital is why it doesn't work, what reason do I have to believe that capital will disappear? And why should I believe that the outcome will be positive, how do we know that things will turn out well if there is no precedent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava
Anarchism is possible, even in a hellish land.
>>7915253
Every society works to defend itself. Just as capitalism guards the law of private property, a communist society would have to guard its fundamental laws likewise. It would be up to that society to determine potentials for secession. A revolution could never succeed in the long-term, any way, without the majority of the population consistently behind it.
>>7915266
>this time it will work
Absolutely no guarantee of this.
>literally no examples of it working.
Pre-capitalism had no idea that capitalism would work either. There are a lot of anthropological studies that suggest that early man was non-hierarchical and egaliterian, but this argument does not really convince me either desu.
Even if I accept that capital is why it doesn't work, what reason do I have to believe that capital will disappear?
There are a variety of Marxist beliefs that it will go extinct, but I am not convinced either. All we can hope for is that there is a uprising which eventually crushes capital. Capital has constantly shown itself to fail, so I do not think that it is too impossible.
> And why should I believe that the outcome will be positive, how do we know that things will turn out well if there is no precedent?
Aside from theory, we cannot really know. But this is exactly the predicament of the revolutionary: there is the known evil and the hopeful unknown. If you accept the critic of capital, then you are faced with a choice of living in a bad society which will only grow even more capitalist, or plunge into the emancipatory movement, which is not guaranteed to succeed, but at least you are not complicit in the known evils.
>>7915275
Dude, ffs, Rojava has clear distinctions in class and they have a police force. Read Kurdistan? - Gilles Dauvé
>>7915309
>Dude, ffs, Rojava has clear distinctions in class and they have a police force. Read Kurdistan? - Gilles Dauvé
You're right, it's not really anarchism. I personally think some minor state structures should exist (said so earlier in the thread >>7915012) within a libertarian socialist system. I'm just trying to grapple how they can be held accountable without trying to take power. What are these class distinctions to which you're referring?
>>7915309
>but at least you are not complicit in the known evils.
But you are complicit in what you create, which may entail evils. The French Revolution was essentially a 'good cause', in that the sentiments backing it were generally defensible(at least from the modern ideological position), but what it created was horrific. Does the present state of France justify those decades of bloodshed? I don't think you need to be reminded of what happened with the Russians.
And if the blame is to be laid on the hands of capital in these instances, it is also on the hands of the revolutionaries. Capital alone didn't create those horrors, the revolutionary will for a better society was a necessary component.
Unless you can be assured that these kinds of outcomes won't happen, is it defensible to instigate revolution? Is society as it is so horrible that this is an acceptable risk?
Rhetorical questions obviously, I don't have answers for them.
There can be no revolution when rebellion has been coopted by the establishment.
Al is lost.
>>7915266
This is such a circular argument.
Obviously there are no examples of it working because once it works, there is no going back. Socialism in a single nation, especially if that nation isn't the world's superpower, cannot exist without being severely deformed for simple reasons relating to trade policy.
You don't need to believe that capital will disappear, there's something called the 'subjective element'. Things don't just happen in politics without large groups of humans trying to make things happen.
We have no a priori reason to believe that the outcome will be positive in the longer term, but examples like Russia, Yugoslavia, and Spain are instructive. In centrally planned models like in Russia and Tito's Yugoslavia, standard of living, education, and economic growth skyrocketed to absurd degrees -- a totally unimaginable and to this day inexplicable phenomenon going by the models of neoclassical and most forms of Keynesian economics. Marxist economists, however, made the correct predictions in these cases. Indeed, there were massive human rights abuses in both the USSR (in its early years, especially) and Yugoslavia, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that that sort of suppression was necessary to maintain a healthy economy.
Spain is a very interesting case, because during the Spanish revolution, a massive decentralized democratic organization of the working poor created a society unlike almost any other before or since. The economy of Catalonia during the Civil War was highly organized, and the cultural attitude was almost totally transformed overnight through the process of democratic self-organization mainly through workers' councils. Though obviously the Catalonian segment of the Republican allies' leadership and membership (that is of the POUM, and others) was brutally crushed by a coalition of Stalinists and moderate Republicans.
The revolutions in China and Vietnam proceeded along Stalinist lines, and China in particular did a remarkably poor job of its central planning. Most Stalinist countries around the world suffered from extreme bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption at every level, since they were not organized democratically and were permanently single-party states (something most revolutionaries in the 1910s never would have called for), while being decimated by intense sanctions imposed by the first world.
No Marxist suggests a major revolutionary change will simply 'just happen', or whatever, but to suggest that it's impossible just because it hasn't worked yet is simply a logical error. A change of the magnitude most Marxists advocate for cannot be easily achieved, and the fact that all movements towards such a change have been crushed by the first-world nations who maintain the current world order is totally unsurprising.
Marxism has never even existed yet, for any decent span of time. There aren't examples of it having worked yet because such an example would require the end of capitalism as we know it.
>>7914820
Please look at this post, everyone.
Marx and many other revolutionary socialists were pro-gun, but now that the capitalists have such powerful weapons and tanks and missiles, is it really that important? I like gun rights, but at the same time, I'm too lazy and cheap to own one, and mostly just fascists own guns in the US.
>>7915338
You should really read the article, it is short and great. It is on libcom. But I will feed you some:
>If one speaks willingly of taking power at the base [of society] and of changing the domestic sphere, it is never a question of the transformation of the relations of exchange and exploitation. At best, we describe cooperatives, without the least indication of the beginning of collectivization. The new Kurdish state has reopened the wells and refining centres, and produces electricity — [but] nothing is said about those who work there. Commerce, handicrafts and markets function, money continues to play its role. Zaher Baher, a visitor and admirer of the Kurdish “revolution” [says]: “Before leaving the region, we spoke with shop keepers, businessmen and people in the market. Everyone had a rather positive opinion on the DSA [Democratic Self Administration] and TEV-DEM [‘Movement for a Democratic Society’ — a coalition of organizations of which the PYD is the centre of gravity]. They were happy about the existence of peace, security and freedom and running their own business without any interference from any parties or groups.”[7] Finally a revolution that does not scare the bourgeoisie.
>>7914355
This is idiotic. FDR's domestic policies are simply Keynesian, which means they have some connection to Marxism, but to compare the New Deal to actual socialism is just wrong. FDR was in bed with capital-heavy finance, to whom the New Deal was of great benefit. The only people he fucked over were private firms built on manufacturing.
>>7915352
>I don't think you need to be reminded of what happened with the Russians.
But Russia is a perfect example. The people were really revolutionary, even more so than the bolsheviks anticipated. But that revolution was crushed by the bolsheviks. To quote this thread:
>Even the name "Socialist Soviet Union" is ironic, since the first thing they did after the civil war was kill all the socialists and neuter the soviets. Also the oxymoron of "socialist" wages, "anti"-imperialist occupation etc etc.
This clearly shows that the revolution was on the right path, an was simply crushed. All those horrors were not commited by the revolutionaries, since they were already crushed.
Same goes for the French revolution.
>but what it created was horrific.
What happened when it was crushed was horrific, the revolution itself is good.
>>7915352
It's a question of what it means, ethically, to let the "status quo" be. Did WWII, for example, occur fundamentally because of underlying problems and tensions originating within capitalism? And is another world war or similar devastation possible, springing from the same sorts of underlying problems? Likewise, does capitalism, by prioritizing profit over "reason", threaten environmental catastrophe? The status quo never means perfect, sustainable serenity.
>>7915002
You are correct, the opposite has never existed on a large scale for a long period.
There are numerous examples of cooperatively-owned companies, however. Even mom and pop stores where almost everyone employed has a stake in the business resemble a more fair arrangement for workers.
The means of production don't 'belong' to the workers, you're speaking as if Marxists believe in Marxist social science like Catholics do in church dogma or something. Many Marxists simply think the workers seizing the means of production in the short term is a wise tactic for shifting the balance of power from a small elite to the mass of people (producers of value).
Workers use the means of production, which tends to be loaned to them in some form by an individual or group with the capital necessary to acquire it, and create value using those means. Without the workers, no value gets created, and without the means, no value gets created. But the means don't 'belong' to the capitalist class any more than they 'belong' to the workers. The capitalist class has come to acquire it either through heredity or through essentially playing a complicated social game whereby they manage to gain the power necessary to enrich themselves and accumulate capital.
Now who should be the ones who control the means of production? The capitalist class who acquired it either by circumstance or by performing unrelated tasks, and who ruthlessly exploit their employees to enrich themselves and others within their class disproportionately? Or the workers, who use the means daily to create value? What is more likely to create a more democratic and healthy society? What is more likely to lessen tension between the greatest number of people? What is more likely to reduce starvation, epidemics, violence, etc.?
If you consider it for a while, the correct conclusion is pretty obvious.
>>7915395
With the bolsheviks you can make an argument but the French Reign of Terror was not the crushing of revolutionaries, it was the revolutionaries turned tyrant and mob.
In any case the revolutions destabilized the political order and are therefore complicit, just like the German people are complicit with the crimes of the Nazis for supporting their overthrow of the existing state and its laws.
>>7915370
Thanks. I will read it. That's a damn shame though.
I'm pretty much a neophyte when it comes to socialism, but I've wondered if a plumber who works for herself as a contractor and has no employees counts as a capitalist, when they own and create their own labor.
By the way, I made a socialism thread on /his/ the other day and got a janitor warning for being offtopic, that it belonged on /pol/ (other replies recommended 8ch's /leftypol/)
>>7915408
But the German people are also complicit since they did NOT change the social order once the nazis were in power. Your logic works both ways.
And that really is the point, that we cannot let things go on as they are, but changing them is also a big danger. This has never been lost on the revolutionaries.
>>7915438
Nazism was a revolution itself was my point. Wilhelmine Germany would never have produced the Holocaust whatever its other obvious flaws. And the people who cause events are more guilty than those who simply don't prevent them, though you're right, they're all complicit.
I think we agree as much as two people who are this far apart on the political spectrum can be expected to agree though.
>>7915476
>I think we agree as much as two people who are this far apart on the political spectrum can be expected to agree though.
:3
One of the nicer conversations on 4chan for sure. Goodnight sweetcheeks.
Walter Benjamin: "behind every fascism, there is a failed revolution" I think we can agree on one last point.
Wow! This thread is full of memes!
Marxism isn't valid if the middle class exists.
>>7915358
Agreed.
>>7915359
Surpiraed automation isn't at te forefront of the discussion. Historically we see major advances in tech, then a growing need for welfare, so we increase the welfare infrastructure and that causes even more innovation and growth, and now we're on the cusp of a major transformation. Hardly any politicians even mention automation.
I was actually really happy when Obama mentioned it briefly in his state of the union speech. But it, like climate change, should have 24/7 news coverage, because it will fundamentally upend the social order.
Fromm thought that we couldn't just have an economic revolution, it would have to be a revolution in all major spheres. Political, cultural, etc to enable each other to actually succeed given the new changes, an our needs.
>>7913154
I fuckin' hate this shit. We live in a capitalist society. You can be a "real" socialist (whatever that fucking means) without disavowing money and going to live in the woods or whatever.
Getting that guy to sell the paper without giving him money to compensate him for his labor would be way more anti-socialist than what he was doing.
>>7915378
Accurate...somebody read "The Business Veto" in the latest Jacobin.
