Ask a Red III

[Gogf]

What's the content of this alleged "common belief"? When we talk about a "common belief" among Muslims, we'd mean something like the assertion that Allah is the only god, and Muhammad is his prophet, but it's not obvious that there's any analogical dogma for Marxists.

Dialectical materialism?

 

[Gogf]

In the larger sense, yes. But as someone noted above, Keynesianism provides a symptomatic treatment for capitalism, which helps to minimize the effects which create the most enmity towards the system. On the one hand, his recommendations, and the practices of those who follow his understanding of economics, do much to help people. That much is beyond argumentation. On the other hand, they give the system a facade. So while I cannot entirely condemn the doing of good - these are still people we're dealing with here, who have lives and needs regardless of who's "winning" politically, I don't really like it too much because of its ability to mask the true nature of the system. Think of it in the same sense that I would rather we treat the source of diseases than the symptoms of a disease, but I don't want people presently suffering from the disease to lose help that could ease their suffering just so that we can emphasize the need for preventative medicine.

EDIT: All that said, I also have to wonder if we really think that the transition to socialism will create an escape from business cycles. We attribute them to capitalist greed and overproduction, but communism is supposed to hinge upon abundance, and our social interactions still take place in a "market" of sorts, so Keynes' observations about mitigating business cycles may still prove useful for quite a while.

"You cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" -Joseph Stalin (paraphrasing Maxmillian Robespierre)

The "disease" (to use your metaphor) of capitalism can only, according to dogmatic Marxism, be treated by replacing the capitalist mode of production with the socialist. Such an event is, for the Marxist, the inevitable consequence of the contradictions within the capitalist system. Nevertheless, one imagines that someone who places a normative value on this "progress" in history would not look kindly upon anything that perpetuates the old order.

 

[Traitorfish]

Dialectical materialism?

Dialectic materialism is crap.

 

[Agent327]

On Keynes: I think that we're hanging far too much off Keynesian theory as a condition for the post-war economy. From a Marxist point of view, the post-war settlement is the product of the class struggle of the interwar period, which emerged as a matter of necessary rather than because it was a good idea. We see prefiguration of it before 1945, particularly during the Second World War, and also parallels of it in the Soviet bloc. I don't want to just say "it would have happened anyway", as if state policies were just a lot of tinsel, but Keynesianism didn't erupt iceberg-like out of the fog to sink the H.M.S. Impending Revolution, it was the product of the same historical processes that would in a different history have found our ship docking safely at Port Communism.

That's a rather long sentence, but ignoring the opinionated stuff about Keynes, how was WW II a class struggle? (I'm also curious to know which class actually won WW II.)

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

"You cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" -Joseph Stalin (paraphrasing Maxmillian Robespierre)

I'm not particularly inclined to listen to people who use this quote, regardless of its truthfulness or not. In the same vein, I generally avoid people who use the title of Lenin's book "Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder" as a rhetorical Golden Gun as well. So let's stick to making useful statements and avoid the mishmash.

The "disease" (to use your metaphor) of capitalism can only, according to dogmatic Marxism, be treated by replacing the capitalist mode of production with the socialist. Such an event is, for the Marxist, the inevitable consequence of the contradictions within the capitalist system. Nevertheless, one imagines that someone who places a normative value on this "progress" in history would not look kindly upon anything that perpetuates the old order.

I'm aware of what it means and the implications. Unfortunately, I addressed all of this in my previous post which you just quoted, so I won't repeat myself.

 

[Hygro]

On Keynes: I think that we're hanging far too much off Keynesian theory as a condition for the post-war economy. From a Marxist point of view, the post-war settlement is the product of the class struggle of the interwar period, which emerged as a matter of necessary rather than because it was a good idea. We see prefiguration of it before 1945, particularly during the Second World War, and also parallels of it in the Soviet bloc. I don't want to just say "it would have happened anyway", as if state policies were just a lot of tinsel, but Keynesianism didn't erupt iceberg-like out of the fog to sink the H.M.S. Impending Revolution, it was the product of the same historical processes that would in a different history have found our ship docking safely at Port Communism.

What I'd hazard is that the true contribution of Keynes wasn't to produce a cross-class consensus, which never really existed anyway, but to produce a consensus within the ruling class- and as the collapse of that consensus in the late 1970s shows, it was one premised on a very specific set of historical circumstances, and not just on the inherent virtues of Keynesian theory.


What's the content of this alleged "common belief"? When we talk about a "common belief" among Muslims, we'd mean something like the assertion that Allah is the only god, and Muhammad is his prophet, but it's not obvious that there's any analogical dogma for Marxists.

That. is. an amazing quote.

I disagree though. I don't feel like anyone particularly over credits Keynesianism at all. First, I don't think Keynesianism gets all that much credit by anyone beyond the surface of economic history. It gets a lot, but I think the whole "reset the capital by destroying all the world's factories" thing is pretty widely acknowledged, among other causes of postwar super growth.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's a rather long sentence, but ignoring the opinionated stuff about Keynes, how was WW II a class struggle? (I'm also curious to know which class actually won WW II.)

It wasn't that WW2 was class struggle- quite the opposite, it was an inter-imperialist war- but that the class struggle was not suspended the moment war was declared. This has a habit of screwing with the war effort, so it was necessary for the regimes to come to pursue some way of winding it back to the point where they could get anything done. During WW2, that essentially meant institutionalising class struggle: bringing the unions into management, setting up mediatory bodies, guaranteeing certain wages and public services (i.e. socialised wages), and so on. Happily for capital, this coincided with the demand for a healthy labour force and consumer base necessary to regrow the world economy.

I disagree though. I don't feel like anyone particularly over credits Keynesianism at all. First, I don't think Keynesianism gets all that much credit by anyone beyond the surface of economic history. It gets a lot, but I think the whole "reset the capital by destroying all the world's factories" thing is pretty widely acknowledged, among other causes of postwar super growth.

Fair enough.

 

[Mouthwash]

Opinions to yourself, please. Preferably on a permanent basis.

No, judging by some of Cheezy's comments (about how bizarre it was that non-"capitalists" defended capitalism) he does seem to be confusing the two.

Do you mean literature that expounds a position of moderate socialism, or literature that critiques it?

I'm talking to an actual communist. Why would I be asking for a critique?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No, judging by some of Cheezy's comments (about how bizarre it was that non-"capitalists" defended capitalism) he does seem to be confusing the two.

Oh, someone's confused all right. But it's neither of the Reds.

If you want to ask a person of more reputable politics, Hygro or Innonimatu I'm sure will be happy to oblige.

I'm talking to an actual communist. Why would I be asking for a critique?

You think we don't critique ourselves or our own ideology, or those of others who share it? I thought we were stuffy academics who thought too much?

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm talking to an actual communist. Why would I be asking for a critique?

You asked for literature on "moderate socialism or communism", which I take to mean social democracy, Eurocommunism or Stalinism. A request for lit on those tendencies can either be taken as a request for lit espousing their positions, or lit critiquing them. I don't have any of the former, not being particularly interested in those tendencies, but I could dig up some decent examples of the latter.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I guess another answer to the Keynes question is that the link between immiseration and revolution is more complex then it seems.

Is the game Civilization an instrument of the bourgeoisie's cultural hegemony, since it presents every nation as fundamentally united, with class struggle delegated to a minor tertiary annoyance factor? Are Bethesda TES games reactionary, given that there is no movement of the oppressed classes against the Empire, with any opposition to it coming from purely nationalist frameworks?

Basically, to what extent a revolution will/should reject pre-revolutionary culture? Or is it the reverse - a true revolution rejects previous ruling-class infested creations like Civilization or TES, so if they aren't rejected, we aren't dealing with a real revolution here?

I'm being semi-serious, BTW.

 

[aelf]

Is the game Civilization an instrument of the bourgeoisie's cultural hegemony, since it presents every nation as fundamentally united, with class struggle delegated to a minor tertiary annoyance factor?

An instrument? Probably not. A reflection of? Yes.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Well, most things like that are both a reflection (in that they reflect dominant ideas) and a not-necessarily-conscious instrument (since they influence people's minds, and, thus, ideas).

 

[Traitorfish]

I guess another answer to the Keynes question is that the link between immiseration and revolution is more complex then it seems.

Is the game Civilization an instrument of the bourgeoisie's cultural hegemony, since it presents every nation as fundamentally united, with class struggle delegated to a minor tertiary annoyance factor? Are Bethesda TES games reactionary, given that there is no movement of the oppressed classes against the Empire, with any opposition to it coming from purely nationalist frameworks?

Basically, to what extent a revolution will/should reject pre-revolutionary culture? Or is it the reverse - a true revolution rejects previous ruling-class infested creations like Civilization or TES, so if they aren't rejected, we aren't dealing with a real revolution here?

I'm being semi-serious, BTW.

Depends what you mean by "rejection". I think that culture ultimately derives from practice, so the only way to truly "overcome" bourgeois culture is to overcome the practices embodied in bourgeois social relations- which is to say, abolishing capitalism. However, critique is very important, and a necessary part (as a side-product, if nothing else!) of any anti-capitalist movement.

Way I'd try to square it off, I think, is to say that critique is necessary to anti-capitalism, but that as long as we're still within capitalism, it can only ever be critique: something negative, a reaction, perhaps prefiguring but never actually producing a positive overcoming of bourgeois culture. If that makes sense.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I think that culture ultimately derives from practice, so the only way to truly "overcome" bourgeois culture is to overcome the practices embodied in bourgeois social relations- which is to say, abolishing capitalism.

So, after capitalism is abolished, will people still play Civilization, etc? Or is the relative popularity of Civilization a potential sign of the revolution's degeneration?

On a side note, I've just realized that Chess is reactionary (Kings, Bishops, etc, there're no rules for Pawns 'shooting the generals on their own side', to quote the Internationale). However, the Soviets in 1920'ies came up with a solution:

Couldn't find better photos, but basically it's a Capitalism vs Communism chess set:

White King is an industrial worker. Black King is a skeleton in armor, representing Capitalism's murderous tendencies.
White Queen is a peasant woman, holding bundles of grain. Black Queen (second from the left on the 2nd photo) is a personification of capitalist upper-class luxury.
White Bishops are Red Army officer. Black Bishops are pompous, arrogant officers of capitalist armies.
The Horses-Knights are fairly traditional, with colouring only representing their allegiance. White Horse is draped in a red flag.
The Rooks, besides being represented as boats, in accordance with Russian term, are also traditional. White Rook carries a Red Star.
White Pawns are free workers and peasants. Black Pawns are chained slaves.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't see why they wouldn't play Civ, any more than people today can't enjoy pre-capitalist art. They'd probably be aware of how glaringly ideological it was, much as people today are aware that paintings in which the king is six foot six with a perfect physique and surrounded by choirs of angels may not be 100% true to life.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I don't see why they wouldn't play Civ, any more than people today can't enjoy pre-capitalist art.

Reasonable answer. Roleplaying a certain culture - to some reasonable limitsm 'course - doesn't mean that you endorse it.

 

[Mouthwash]

You asked for literature on "moderate socialism or communism", which I take to mean social democracy, Eurocommunism or Stalinism. A request for lit on those tendencies can either be taken as a request for lit espousing their positions, or lit critiquing them. I don't have any of the former, not being particularly interested in those tendencies, but I could dig up some decent examples of the latter.

I meant social democracy and communism (whatever your interpretation of it is). I'd like books that analyze them as objectively as possible, not necessarily ones following any particular viewpoint.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No such text exists. Everything and everyone has bias. This is not a bad thing.

 

[aelf]

Well, most things like that are both a reflection (in that they reflect dominant ideas) and a not-necessarily-conscious instrument (since they influence people's minds, and, thus, ideas).

I wouldn't be so quick to say that, having studied communication. How and to what extent something influences people (including the authors) cannot simply be assumed, so I would be careful in stating that a representation is necessarily an instrument of hegemony.