Ask A Red V: The Five-Year Plan

[Traitorfish]

Do you guys think it is useful to make a distinction between right-wingers who are fundamentally bourgeois (neoconservatives, right-libertarians) and right-wingers who are fundamentally anti-bourgeois (traditionalists, monarchists)? If so, which of them are the lesser evil?

Are "anti-bourgeois" right-wingers even a thing, any more, in any substantial way? They're marginal in all but the most peripheral regions of the world.

 

[dutchfire]

But in every single field which Marx investigated -- and he investigated very many fields, none of them superficially -- in every field, even in that of mathematics, he made independent discoveries.

Source?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

A few words of wisdom on this Sunday... succinct explanation of socialism and communism from JV Stalin.

Some people think that Socialism can be consolidated by a certain equalisation of people's material conditions, based on a poor man's standard of living.

That is not true. That is a petty-bourgeois conception of Socialism.

In point of fact, Socialism can succeed only on the basis of a high productivity of labour, higher than under capitalism, on the basis of an abundance of products and of articles of consumption of all kinds, on the basis of a prosperous and cultured life for all members of society. But if Socialism is to achieve this aim and make our Soviet society the most prosperous of all societies, our country, must have a productivity of labour which surpasses that of the foremost capitalist countries. Without this we cannot even think of securing an abundance of products and of articles of consumption of all kinds.
The significance of the Stakhanov movement lies in the fact that it is a movement which is smashing the old technical standards, because they are inadequate, which in a number of cases is surpassing the productivity of labour of the foremost capitalist countries, and is thus creating the practical possibility of further consolidating Socialism in our country, the possibility of converting our country into the most prosperous of all countries. But the significance of the Stakhanov movement does not end there. Its significance lies also in the fact that it is preparing the conditions for the transition from Socialism to Communism.

The principle of Socialism is that in a Socialist society each works according to his abilities and receives articles of consumption, not according to his needs, but according to the work he performs for society. This means that the cultural and technical level of the working class is as yet not a high one, that the distinction between mental and manual labour still exists, that the productivity of labour is still not high enough to ensure an abundance of articles of consumption, and, as a result, society is obliged to distribute articles of consumption not in accordance with the needs of its members, but in accordance with the work they perform for society.

Communism represents a higher stage of development. The principle of Communism, is that in a Communist society each works according to his abilities and receives articles of consumption, not according to the work he performs, but according to his needs as a culturally developed individual. This means that the cultural and technical level of the working class has become high enough to undermine the basis of the distinction between mental labour and manual labour, that the distinction between mental labour and manual labour has already disappeared, and that productivity of labour has reached such a high level that it can provide an absolute abundance of articles of consumption, and as a result society is able to distribute these articles in accordance with the needs of its members.

JV Stalin -- from Speech at the First All-Union Conference of Stakhanovites, 17 November 1935

 

[Agent327]

A few words of wisdom on this Sunday... succinct explanation of socialism and communism from JV Stalin.

...In point of fact, Socialism can succeed only on the basis of a high productivity of labour, higher than under capitalism, on the basis of an abundance of products and of articles of consumption of all kinds, on the basis of a prosperous and cultured life for all members of society. [...]

JV Stalin -- from Speech at the First All-Union Conference of Stakhanovites, 17 November 1935

I was unaware Stalin himself was capable of such a subtle criticism of Stalinism. Words of wisdom indeed.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Jeelen, go poop on your own thread.

Moderator Action: Trolling/flaming
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Agent327]

Stalin's words are poop now?

Moderator Action: ...and responding to trolling or flaming is also a no no.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[ReindeerThistle]

No... your words.

"I was unaware Stalin himself was capable of such a subtle criticism of Stalinism."

You are wrong. Stalin is correct. Even if history does not absolve him, it will repudiate Marxism-Leninism... Hell, it's written into the Cuban Constitution.

*drops mike*

 

[Tahuti]

Explain the contradiction of capital in the most precise detail possible and the importance of sublation in Marxist dialectics.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Explain the contradiction of capital in the most precise detail possible and the importance of sublation in Marxist dialectics.

That's worth one complete volume of Marx, plus two published versions of notes (ie., Capital, Volumes 1 through 3) and a fourth publication of Marx' notes (the Grundrisse). But I will try to be precise and succinct.

But I warn you, I am not an economist, and what I did learn about economics in college was taught to me by a self-professed anarchist. In fact, Stalin says it best, imho, in his lecture "The Historic Roots of Leninism":

The first contradiction [of Capital] is the contradiction between labour and capital. Imperialism is the omnipotence of the monopolist trusts and syndicates, of the banks and the financial oligarchy, in the industrial countries. In the fight against this omnipotence, the customary methods of the working class-trade unions and cooperatives, parliamentary parties and the parliamentary struggle-have proved to be totally inadequate. Either place yourself at the mercy of capital, eke out a wretched existence as of old and sink lower and lower, or adopt a new weapon-this is the alternative imperialism puts before the vast masses of the proletariat. Imperialism brings the working class to revolution.

In today's world, the Bernsteinian notion that because of universal suffrage working people can pressure bourgeois politicians is a current strategy of US Labour unions: the AFL-CIO endorsed Reagan in 1980, and he screwed labour (first by firing the air traffic controllers, then by enjoining the Teamsters, etc.); the AFL-CIO backed Clinton and he screwed them with NAFTA and repealing Glass-Steagall.

As for trade union tactics, the strike waves fo 1934 scared capital and they "permitted" about 20% of the workforce to form unions with dubious government "protections" at the expense of farm labour, domestic workers and independent contractors NOT being protected. In 1947, after a massive 1946 year of strikes, they passed the Taft-Hartley amendment which outlawed every successful tactic labour ever used in the US to win: all except the walk-out.

As for legislation and elections as a means of change: well, nuff said. There are 1500 laws on the books protecting farm workers in the US, and farm workers still have a life expectacy of 41 years.

The second contradiction is the contradiction among the various financial groups and imperialist Powers in their struggle for sources of raw materials, for foreign territory. Imperialism is the export of capital to the sources of raw materials, the frenzied struggle for monopolist possession of these sources, the struggle for a re-division of the already divided world, a struggle waged with particular fury by new financial groups and Powers seeking a "place in the sun" against the old groups and Powers, which cling tenaciously to what they have seized. This frenzied struggle among the various groups of capitalists is notable in that it includes as an inevitable element imperialist wars, wars for the annexation of foreign territory. This circumstance, in its turn, is notable in that it leads to the mutual weakening of the imperialists, to the weakening of the position of capitalism in general, to the acceleration of the advent of the proletarian revolution and to the practical necessity of this revolution.

Speaks for itself. When the banks needed a bailout, congress signed over $700 billion in 72 hours. When the auto industry needed a bailout, they had to jump through hoops, come up with a business plan, yada yada yada. For a fraction of that amount.

Look at the current conflict between US/EU and Russia over Ukraine: the bourgeoisie have divided areas of self-interest.

The third contradiction is the contradiction between the handful of ruling, "civilised" nations and the hundreds of millions of the colonial and dependent peoples
of the world. Imperialism is the most barefaced exploitation and the most inhumane oppression of hundreds of millions of people inhabiting vast colonies and dependent countries. The purpose of this exploitation and of this oppression is to squeeze out super-profits. But in exploiting these countries imperialism is compelled to build these railways, factories and mills, industrial and commercial centers. The appearance of a class of proletarians, the emergence of a native intelligentsia, the awakening of national consciousness, the growth of the liberation movement-such are the inevitable results of this "policy." The growth of the revolutionary movement in all colonies and dependent countries without exception clearly testifies to this fact. This circumstance is of importance for the proletariat inasmuch as it saps radically the position of capitalism by converting the colonies and dependent countries from reserves of imperialism into reserves of the proletarian revolution.

While the US was dicking around with the "War on Terror" in Central Asia, Venezuela elected a socialist government and grew in influence; Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, Nicaragua, Paraguay (until he was deposed), Uruguay and Chile elected left-leaning governments who installed socialist programs and more popular democratic systems of government. Mass movements like Tunisia, or the Egyptian revolution (which started over food and water rights, NOT as an effing Twitter Flash Mob like the Mainstream media would have you believe) are examples of the popular movements spreading to other continents -- but they are still there. There are CPs in 177 nations, at least (including Russia, where the Russian CP is the #1 opposition party to Putin), and while they are not all in power, in certain instances, such as Nepal, they become hegemonic enough to BE the government.

The weak link is here in the US, where Labour is against the ropes, but also the Bourgeoisie are still fighting each other over the spoils while capital concentrates into fewer hands.

Now, the importance of sublation (I actually refer to it as aufheben because it describes it succinctly -- the lifting up and canceling out.

Dialectical and Historical Materialism is drawn from the real and rational kernels of Hegelian dialectics, which contains three elements:
1. Unity of Opposites
2. Law of Transformation
3. Negation of the negation.

Now, we can best and most simply describe this by describing boiling water in an open pot. Water "exists" in a liquid state at room temperature (but, alas, is always evaporating and condensing, hence, as a liquid and a gas simultaneously). That is the unity of opposites. Heat, then, is added, which then MOVES the water to begin a process of transferring some molecules to steam. This does not happen all at once, the changes are minute until you see the entire pot come to a rollin boil -- Law of Transformation... minute quantitative changes caused by exterior force leads to a qualitative visible change, first to a rolling boil and then, eventually, into steam and then the elements of the category "water" are replaced with elements of the category "steam." Negation of the negation.

Well, what about history?
Taking the first contradiction of capitalism: if you accept that all history is the history of class struggle, then this is "academic:" a no-brainer. Labor and capital contest each other for power. How do we know the outcome? Simple:

The modes of production have removed the owners of the means of production completely from production. "Bob's Discount Furniture" Chain is owned by Bain Capital -- a private equity firm. Safeway, Inc, a grocery store chain, is being bought by Cerebus, another private equity firm. United Technologies is owned by the Carlyle Group... etc. So, we are in a position where the production is removed completely from the owners. Labor does not need them.

It will not happen by itself, but at some point, the minute quantitative changes in the organization of workers and their historic allies against our common enemy will become visible, qualitatitive changes... i.e., the workers will be the ruling class.

I hope this explains it.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba:

PREAMBLE
WE, CUBAN CITIZENS,
heirs and continuators of the creative work and the traditions of combativity, firmness, heroism and sacrifice fostered by our
ancestors;
by the Indians who preferred extermination to submission;
by the slaves who rebelled against their masters;
by the patriots who in 1868 launched the wars of independence against Spanish colonialism and those who in the last drive of 1895 brought them to victory in 1898, a victory usurped by the military intervention and occupation of Yankee imperialism;
by the workers, peasants, student and intellectuals who struggled for over fifty years against imperialist domination, political corruption, the absence of people's rights and liberties, unemployment and exploitation by capitalists and landowners;
by those who promoted, joined and developed the first organizations of workers and peasants, spread socialist ideas and founded the first Marxist and Marxist-Leninist movements;
by the members of the vanguard of the generation of the centenary of the birth of Martí who, imbued with his teachings, led us to the people's revolutionary victory of January;
by those who defended the Revolution at the cost of their lives, thus contributing to its definitive consolidation;
by those who en masse carried out heroic internationalist missions;
GUIDED
by the ideas of José Martí and the political and social ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin;
BASING OURSELVES
on proletarian internationalism, on the fraternal friendship, aid, cooperation and solidarity of the peoples of the world, especially those of Latin America and the Caribbean;
AND HAVING DECIDED
to carry forward the triumphant Revolution of the Moncada and of the Granma of the Sierra and of Girón under the leadership of Fidel Castro, which sustained by the closest unity of all revolutionary forces and of the people won full national independence, established revolutionary power, carried out democratic changes, started the construction of socialism and, with the Communist Party at the forefront, continues this construction with the final objective of building a communist society;
AWARE
that all the regimes based on the exploitation of man by man cause the humiliation of the exploited and the degradation of the human nature of the exploiters;
that only under socialism and communism, when man has been freed from all forms of exploitation - slavery, servitude and capitalism - can full dignity of the human being be attained; and
that our Revolution uplifted the country and of Cubans;
WE DECLARE
our will that the law of laws of the Republic be guided by the following strong desire of José Martí, at last achieved;
"I want the fundamental law of our republic to be the tribute of Cubans to the full dignity of man";
AND ADOPT
by means of our free vote in a referendum, the following:

 

[Agent327]

I don't remember anybody asking that. Shall we call it poop?

But seriously, I don't think you understand the first thing about Reasonable Discussion.

Moderator Action: You were only just infracted for a fairly similar post. This adds no value to the thread whatsoever, but simply seeks to comment on the poster rather than the post, and to draw a negative reaction.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[ReindeerThistle]

This is a Red thread. Ask away... If people are interested in how a Socialist Republic, guided by a Marxist-Leninist Party Constitutes itself, I have provided this. I did not provide a link because the link is a pdf download, and it gives you no choice but to download.

 

[Tahuti]

That's worth one complete volume of Marx, plus two published versions of notes (ie., Capital, Volumes 1 through 3) and a fourth publication of Marx' notes (the Grundrisse). But I will try to be precise and succinct.

...

It will not happen by itself, but at some point, the minute quantitative changes in the organization of workers and their historic allies against our common enemy will become visible, qualitatitive changes... i.e., the workers will be the ruling class.

I hope this explains it.

I have read Das Kapital and I am to some degree already familiar with the contradiction. Nevertheless, thanks a lot for the explanation!

If I understood it right, the contradiction is that the producers are not rewarded in proportion for their effort, while owners are rewarded disproportionately so. The cynic in me however might ask why it wouldn't be logically consistent - however immoral it may be - to have this biased system of rewards simply because it happens.

To put in logical terms, ~l (labour isn't fairly compensated or overcompensated - without ~ they would) and c (capital is fairly compensated or overcompensated) seem to be logically consistent. For a contradiction to arise, l and ~l or c and ~c would both have to be true. Or am I making a flawed assumption myself - or perhaps didn't get the contradiction of capital after all?

What do you think of attempts to strip Marxism of its dialectical aspects (i.e. by Sartre)?

 

[Traitorfish]

If I understood it right, the contradiction is that the producers are not rewarded in proportion for their effort, while owners are rewarded disproportionately so.

Where are you getting this from? It's honestly not an interpretation I've encountered.

 

[Tahuti]

Where are you getting this from? It's honestly not an interpretation I've encountered.

Then I must have misinterpreted. In very oversimplified terms, I have always thought that the contradiction was related to the perceived inequities of capital vs. labour.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, I think capital vs. labour is the heart of it, but I don't think it's just a question of "inequality". That's not really a concept that Marx seems to have much truck with. He's interested in tangible experiences rather than abstract conceptions of justice, in capitalism as experienced at the level of everyday life, and contends that for the worker, that experience is one of suffering. The contradiction emerges in that capital is structurally compelled to create and deepen this suffering to reproduce itself, even though this suffering compels workers towards to act as capital's "gravediggers".

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I have read Das Kapital and I am to some degree already familiar with the contradiction. Nevertheless, thanks a lot for the explanation!

You're welcome!

If I understood it right, the contradiction is that the producers are not rewarded in proportion for their effort, while owners are rewarded disproportionately so. The cynic in me however might ask why it wouldn't be logically consistent - however immoral it may be - to have this biased system of rewards simply because it happens.

Well, it happens for a reason. Adam Smith never uses the term "Capitalism" in his Wealth of Nations, he calls it "The Natural Order." If you have read Das Kapital, you know that Marx spends more time talking about Capital (hence the title of the book) than he does about labour. That's because, under Capitalism, the capitalist is in charge. The class of bourgeoisie sets up the government/ superstructure that maintains the relationship between capital and labour.

Capitalism developed as the relations of production changed (concomitant with the changes in modes of production) and the result was that there became a surplus labour force of former serfs, and boingo, wage-labour became a commodity (versus the labourer himself being the commodity).

The understanding that capital is rewarded disproportionately than labour deal with both things as objects, versus Capital as subject (the actor) and labour as object (the force being acted upon. Marx took the works of Ricardo and Adams and turned them on their heads. Marx took Ricardo's "Labour Theory of Value" (that labour gets precisely what it is worth on the opne market) and ran with it. Marx said that the reason labour got "exactly what it was worth" was because labour was still an object, not a subject, and hadn;t organizied in competition with the owners.

As production changed, the owner became more removed from production and grouped workers together under one roof -- that's when the bourgeoisie sowed the seeds of its own destruction: workers could then commiserate and talk about their common crappy lives and thus was born a proletarian consciousness.

(I'm probably leaving a lot out, at the end of my naproxen sodium and my back is starting to smart).

Let's say, then, all the workers get crap wages. "Mary," we'll call her, has a child and is a single mother. Mary goes to the boss and asks for a raise to compensate for having child expense. The boss can do a couple of things:
1. he can grant Mary the raise, to the exclusion of the rest of the workers
2. he can deny Mary the raise, saying "well, is it fair that YOU get a raise? There are other single mothers here..."

In the first instance, the employer has divided the workforce, but Mary may be better off. In the second instance, Mary can then realize that her best ally in garnering additional wages is NOT her boss, but the other workers, with whom she can organize for better pay, etc.

To put in logical terms, ~l (labour isn't fairly compensated or overcompensated - without ~ they would) and c (capital is fairly compensated or overcompensated) seem to be logically consistent. For a contradiction to arise, l and ~l or c and ~c would both have to be true. Or am I making a flawed assumption myself - or perhaps didn't get the contradiction of capital after all?

The problem is that the goals of the labourer and the owner are diametrically opposed -- the labourer tries to sell his/her labour for as much as he/she can get; the owner tries to purchase labour for as little as they can. If labour organizes, they can fight for a higher wage, because unless they do, owners can take advantage of a surplus labour pool and go for the workers who will work for the lowest wages.

But the catch is, that the labourer doesn't just sell his/her labour, but everything the labourer plans to do with that labour -- his/her labour POWER (hopes, dreams and aspirations). That subjectivity of the workforce is what labour organizers can organize around... that's the economic struggle.

The political struggle comes in when labour realizes that capital can seemingly go anywhere for cheap labour, to extract surplus value (the value labour adds to a product for which labour is NOT compensated) anyplace, and therefore labour's true fight is for political power.

What do you think of attempts to strip Marxism of its dialectical aspects (i.e. by Sartre)?

I have not read Sartre, but I know this: Marxism without dialectics is like Newton without the laws of thermodynamics. Dialectics is the center of Marxism. See above re: the Hegelian Triad...

 

[Hygro]

Where are you getting this from? It's honestly not an interpretation I've encountered.

The wiki on "contradiction" has a dialectical materialism section where they say something similar. I was like

 

[Tahuti]

The contradiction emerges in that capital is structurally compelled to create and deepen this suffering to reproduce itself, even though this suffering compels workers towards to act as capital's "gravediggers".

Essentially, Capitalism will self-destruct, because it is in its own interest to do so. I think we had arrived to that conclusion before, though I think I understand the underlying processes better now, thanks.

The political struggle comes in when labour realizes that capital can seemingly go anywhere for cheap labour, to extract surplus value (the value labour adds to a product for which labour is NOT compensated) anyplace, and therefore labour's true fight is for political power.

Would you say communism is more about the subjugation of capital by labour or the fusion of capital and labour?

The problem is that the goals of the labourer and the owner are diametrically opposed -- the labourer tries to sell his/her labour for as much as he/she can get; the owner tries to purchase labour for as little as they can. If labour organizes, they can fight for a higher wage, because unless they do, owners can take advantage of a surplus labour pool and go for the workers who will work for the lowest wages.

But the catch is, that the labourer doesn't just sell his/her labour, but everything the labourer plans to do with that labour -- his/her labour POWER (hopes, dreams and aspirations). That subjectivity of the workforce is what labour organizers can organize around... that's the economic struggle.

I'm probably repeating myself again, however, it may be logically consistent after all. So the contradiction cannot possibly be, for it would not allow to sustain the 'system' for even a little moment. It would be perpetually false and cannot exist. Any overthrowal of capitalism would be through the free will of the people involved and only that. Unless I have just understood it plainly wrong, I perceive that this might be a major problem of dialectics in general. Again, I might be wrong here.

 

[Traitorfish]

The wiki on "contradiction" has a dialectical materialism section where they say something similar. I was like

Honestly, I don't even know what "dialectical materialism" is. Not even a basic grasp. Couldn't even tell you why it's wrong.