The Offtopicgrad Soviet: A Place to Discuss All Things Red

[Lexicus]

I *think* he's being sarcastic but not 100% sure. Pesky internet, with its pesky lack of real human interaction

 

[Namor]

I harbored the same suspicion, but checking out the posting history suggested to me it was a sincere series of questions. Which unfortunately would take a long essay to fully answer.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

That wasn't directed at you, but...my contention would be that capitalism isn't a Boolean variable, because in real history societies exhibit many different productive modes at once.
I'm really annoyed right now because this idea was expressed almost perfectly by a former professor of mine in an essay that Jacobin has (perhaps ironically) put behind a paywall.

But yes, basically, society isn't in thrall to crude theoretical concepts like "capitalism" and "socialism." Society is what it is, a variegated, ever-changing tapestry with lots of different stuff going on at once, and socialism and capitalism don't represent ontological realities so much as tools we use to make sense of society, the amorphous thing that is impossible to come to terms with unless you use these kinds of tools.

The dominant economic mode, one supported by the state, is capitalism. Currently.

 

[Lexicus]

The dominant economic mode, one supported by the state, is capitalism. Currently.

Sure, okay, I agree. But then don't misstate the task ahead of us: we want to have socialism as the dominant or regulative mode of production. How do we accomplish that? History suggests Leninist revolution ain't the way. Leninism admirably dragged agrarian peasant societies into the 20th century, but as Ajidica pointed out as soon as economic sophistication increased, planning and the continuing austerities inflicted on the population for the sake of investment and, increasingly, armaments proved not to work very well.

EDIT: By the way, and I hope in particular that Hygro checks it out - this article I would recommend everyone to read if they have a bit of time on their hands. It's an exchange between that former professor I mentioned earlier and another guy that touches on a lot of the issues in the behind-the-paywall Jacobin essay.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/onl...hange-between-tim-barker-and-james-livingston

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Cultural Hegemony, the way you've utilized the term, appears to be your explanation for why more people have not realized the Obvious Truth of your Glorious Dialectical Science.

It's a rather sympathetic explanation, actually. Ideological State Apparatuses interpret and explain the "common sense" of life and help shape the logic we use to just our daily happenings and relationships within the context of the prevailing socioeconomic system. Different from simple material-derived consciousness (another component of Marxist sociology), the ISA operates at the superstructural level, concerning itself with the reproduction of capitalism as ideology.

By contrast, the term "brainwashing" implies that there is a base "normal" brain that has been tampered with by devious forces such that it is now corrupted with ideology. Ironic that you accuse me of using this term, when this concept is the very essence of metaphysics, a world-conception that Marxists wholeheartedly reject.

As such, the way you've used the term, it's no different from any other sore loser (Republicans, BernieBros) saying people voted for their opponent because they're too brainwashed to see the truth.

But you said it all: you're anti-humanist. That means, to you, socialism is not primarily about making people's lives better- it's about playing with metaphysics.

You may recall me using the term dialectical materialism at some point? That means its necessarily not metaphysical.

Well, your Marxism. There are diverging schools. Surely you can appreciate that, even if you don't regard it as any reason to spare the ice-pick.

"Mine" has the advantages of consistency and demonstrable self-criticism. Humanist schools are never as consistent. Not that humanist Marxists (or humanist liberals) haven't produced valuable material, it just has a large blind spot with reference to methodology, something that anti-Humanists have to correct for. The above discussion of "cultural hegemony," a Gramscian term and concept (who was rather Humanist), and its adaptation by Althusser (whose life work was returning Marxism to its anti-humanist foundations) into Ideological State Apparatuses, is an apt example.

 

[Namor]

You still haven't answered Traitorfish's post about what constitutes constructive criticism/self-criticism though. Just saying you do that consistently isn't all that valuable.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I saw no such question asked in remote earnestness, but I did answer previous inquiries about who is "allowed" to criticize.

It's not as if I'm aloof to the game being played here. I know you liberals are trying to trip me up in saying something that allows you to shriek "Totalitarian! Cult of Personality! Stalinist!" when the only point I've been making is the same point any group makes about what it considers to be valid and invalid criticism. It's extremely tiring to deal with people addressing me in this condescending "we know what you're up to, you filthy Reds" kind of attitude, and to be quite frank I'm not obliged to indulge your games or cater to your preconceived attitudes about what Marxism and communism are. We both know that most of you are here to Yell At A Red since it's not allowed in AAR, not to actually learn anything about communism or socialism. So I'll pick and choose which arguments I think are in good faith.

 

[Namor]

If you don't want to corroborate that the strong claim you just made is factual, that's fine I guess, nobody can force you to do it.

But that paranoid rant about how the liberals are out to get you was definitely excessive.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Sure, okay, I agree. But then don't misstate the task ahead of us: we want to have socialism as the dominant or regulative mode of production. How do we accomplish that? History suggests Leninist revolution ain't the way. Leninism admirably dragged agrarian peasant societies into the 20th century, but as Ajidica pointed out as soon as economic sophistication increased, planning and the continuing austerities inflicted on the population for the sake of investment and, increasingly, armaments proved not to work very well.

Like you said, it's more complex than simply replacing capitalism with socialism. After all, we still have tenant farmers, a feudal throwback; and slavery in the 21st Century. There is no single path. I can only say that whatever path it is, it STARTS with replacing the state built by and for the class in power. The Founding Fathers knew this. The Jacobins knew this; Martí, Pancho Villa, Sandino, Fidel. They all had demands that could not be met without the seizure of power.

Hence, the Agenda for Sustainable Development I mentioned.

 

[red_elk]

Why do you all hate freedom?

A lyrical digression about what we hate.
Great Soviet and Russian poet, singer and actor, Vladimir Vysotsky:


Link to video.

Spoiler :

No good enough English translation unfortunately, but still.

I don’t like

Vladimir Vysotsky

(From the stage play "Own Island")

I don’t like a fatal ending for a reason.
Because I’m never getting sick of life.
And I do not like any season
When joyful songs of mine are not alive.

I don’t like bold cynicism for fetters,
I don’t trust some easy passion,
Or when a stranger peeps into my letters;
I find it’s quite an ugly fashion.

I don’t like when there are halfway talks
Or interruptions in the certain places.
I don’t like when someone shoots at folks;
It doesn’t matter, at the backs or faces.

I hate the rumors in the form of versions,
The rotten doubts and the honor’s pin.
The wrong way manners make me feel aversions,
Like screech of iron cutting glass therein.

I don’t like at all cocksure game;
I’m better off with no breaks on track!
Such word as ‘honor’ is forgotten, what a shame!
They honor slander now, all behind one’s back.

The broken wings mean just another loss;
There’s no pity in my heart, it’s clear.
I do like neither weakness no brute force,
And yet, for Christ, the crucified, I have a tear.

I don’t like myself absorbed by fear;
It hurts when innocent are beaten madly.
I don’t like when someone tries to smear
My soul; all the more, my spirit so badly.

I don’t like arenas and manages;
A million is swindled there at once.
Whatever changes lie ahead by any measure,
I’ll never ever like it, not a chance.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

lmao this thread is a riot, especially since my best friend and her entire family is Cuban and I had a teacher who lived in Cuba. Quality stuff here.

 

[Traitorfish]

We both know that most of you are here to Yell At A Red since it's not allowed in AAR, not to actually learn anything about communism or socialism.

I asked you who you accept as entitled to criticise the Bolsheviks, and you called me a smug hypocrite. If you're going to demand that people come to this thread in a sincere spirit of education, you might want to consider leading by example.

 

[Lexicus]

It's a rather sympathetic explanation, actually. Ideological State Apparatuses interpret and explain the "common sense" of life and help shape the logic we use to just our daily happenings and relationships within the context of the prevailing socioeconomic system. Different from simple material-derived consciousness (another component of Marxist sociology), the ISA operates at the superstructural level, concerning itself with the reproduction of capitalism as ideology.

I love being proved right

You may recall me using the term dialectical materialism at some point? That means its necessarily not metaphysical.

Dialectical materialism, while rejecting metaphysics, is itself a metaphysical construct, dude. Trippy stuff huh. Like I said, it's just a way of looking at the world.
Now, I know you keep claiming it is a science and every time I've asked why you think this, you've ignored me. So I'll ask again: why do you think dialectical materialism is a science? Convince me that it's science. If you can convince me on this question you might even turn me back into a Marxist.

Like you said, it's more complex than simply replacing capitalism with socialism. After all, we still have tenant farmers, a feudal throwback; and slavery in the 21st Century. There is no single path. I can only say that whatever path it is, it STARTS with replacing the state built by and for the class in power. The Founding Fathers knew this. The Jacobins knew this; Martí, Pancho Villa, Sandino, Fidel. They all had demands that could not be met without the seizure of power.

So, what does the "seizure of power" mean? Does it, can it, mean the revolution of a "vanguard party" to establish a literal dictatorship, not of the proletariat, but (according to the vanguard party) on behalf of it?
Because the Founding Fathers didn't do that. And neither have social democrats or labor unions in the West. Social democracy's proven much better than Leninism at reducing exploitation and suffering. And that's obvious to anyone with a clue, so obvious that the only way one could prefer Marxist-Leninist revolution would be if one's idea of a better world was determined entirely by a metaphysical "closed system of thought" rather than by actually trying to make the world better.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I love being proved right

Not a great way to convince me to continue wasting time on you.

Dialectical materialism, while rejecting metaphysics, is itself a metaphysical construct, dude.

I guess you've never studied anything philosophical, then.

Metaphysical things don't change qualitatively. They are eternal and unchanging.

Dialectical things interact with other things to change both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Thus these two things are diametric opposites.

why do you think dialectical materialism is a science?

It produces Knowledge from raw information and verifies it internally using a methodology.

If I give you three texts, will you read them?

Mao Zedong - On Contradiction and On Practice
Louis Althusser - On Marxism

Those three essays (probably about 3 hours of reading total) spell out the basics of dialectical materialism - how it sees the world, how it operates, and why it is a science.

If you want to convince me that you'll take this inquiry seriously, then I suggest you read them. They're basic texts and don't require a lot of philosophical shibboleths.

 

[Lexicus]

I guess you've never studied anything philosophical, then.

Metaphysical things don't change qualitatively. They are eternal and unchanging.

Dialectical things interact with other things to change both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Thus these two things are diametric opposites.

Ahh, the irony of all this. You seem to be confusing metaphysics with Plato's theory of forms...

It produces Knowledge from raw information and verifies it internally using a methodology.

That's not what science does. I mean, the concept of "Knowledge" as classically understood is bunk anyway, and science doesn't 'verify' anything, and it doesn't do what it does 'internally.'

Science is a process by which hypotheses (or theories, collections of related hypotheses) are compared with empirical observation.

And, oh Jesus. I'm reading the first essay by Mao now and he's already committed a huge error:

The metaphysical or vulgar evolutionist world outlook sees things as isolated, static and one-sided. It regards all things in the universe, their forms and their species, as eternally isolated from one another and immutable.

This proves me right again It's also pretty silly to suggest, as he seems to be doing, that the philosophical alternatives are Plato's forms or dialectical materialism.

I control-F'ed "science" and here's what came up:

The sciences are differentiated precisely on the basis of the particular contradictions inherent in their respective objects of study. Thus the contradiction peculiar to a certain field of phenomena constitutes the object of study for a specific branch of science. For example, positive and negative numbers in mathematics; action and reaction in mechanics; positive and negative electricity in physics; dissociation and combination in chemistry; forces of production and relations of production, classes and class struggle, in social science; offence and defence in military science; idealism and materialism, the metaphysical outlook and the dialectical outlook, in philosophy; and so on--all these are the objects of study of different branches of science precisely because each branch has its own particular contradiction and particular essence. Of course, unless we understand the universality of contradiction, we have no way of discovering the universal cause or universal basis for the movement or development of things; however, unless we study the particularity of contradiction, we have no way of determining the particular essence of a thing which differentiates it from other things, no way of discovering the particular cause or particular basis for the movement or development of a thing, and no way of distinguishing one thing from another or of demarcating the fields of science.

The idea that you think this is not metaphysics but then say I must never have studied anything philosophical, is hilarious to me.

And I am going to read those esays, just not right away. Give me a bit of time.

 

[W|M]

All Leninist parties, with time, become neoliberal

Also, it's one thing to be a supporter of equality, but why *specifically* go out of your way to talk about how you hate anyone who is white, hetero, male?

Because I like being hated

 

[Ajidica]

I thought the following were facts: annexation of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, Finnish Winter War, Korea War, Zaire civil war, Afghanistan civil war, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968. (We'll ignore internal acts of aggression for the sake of simplicity.)

What conflict are you referring to with the Zairean Civil War? The only major conflicts Zaire (and I'll be generous and include the Republic of the Congo) saw was the Congo Crisis, Shaba I and II, and the Great Lakes War. The only conflict I can think of which the Soviet Union played anything approximating an aggressive role was during the Shaba I and II invasions as they had provided material support to the leftist MPLA, of whom the invading FNLC were affiliated with, although even that gets weird because the FNLC was originally comprised of anti-Communist Katangese exiles who worked with the Portuguese Colonial Government until they were folded into the MPLA when Portugal withdrew from its colonies.

"Their" "They"

What, did the entire Polish People rise up and speak at once? Did they all share the same opinion now or something? And here I thought I was supposed to be the anti-individualist...

If you notice I said the majority of Polish political parties and individuals, not all Poles.
Look at the election results for Poland in 1989 and 1991. The Polish Workers Party (or whatever they were called) more or less collapsed. Even after Solidarity fell apart the Polish Communists remained a minor party at best.

So you're upset because a country a hundred years behind the West, with no imperialism to base its luxury economy on, failed to immediately become materially equal with Western society. Because that's fair.

Anyway, they did a good enough job with what they had.

Even when looking at comparatively wealthier countries like Czechoslovakia, Soviet central planning never really got a handle on "consumer communism".

Of course the petit-bourgeois peasants resisted. And the path of collectivization in the USSR certainly has much than can be criticized. Stalin himself criticized it. But while the chaos of collectivization prevented an immediate response to the famine, it didn't *cause* the famine by itself, and to pretend that "oh well the Soviets caused the peasants to destroy their crops instead of submitting to collectivization, therefore the Soviets caused the famine" is the height of absurdity and victim-blaming. That's just not how things work.

It does however, smack of poor planning.
For example, regular exercise is considered good and healthy for the body; but if you have a seriously sick person you don't tell them to get out of bed and start running laps around the building. You deal with the sickness then make them start running laps.




T

hat is by no means the only famine in colonial India..

Did you even try to research the issue?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bengal_famine_of_1770
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalisa_famine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doji_bara_famine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378

Given I explicitly mentioned the Bengal Famine of 1943, you could do without the snark of "did you even research it". If those famines, such as one in 1770, are to be taken as some sort of critique about the immorality of British rule in India then why isn't the famine of 1933 taken as a similar critique of Soviet economic planning. A natural famine caused by the inherent problems in pre-industrial agriculture is exacerbated by the decisions made by those in charge. Not that the British were any worse than the Mughals as rulers - the peasants still starved during famines until the Green Revolution introduced modern agriculture.



I'm still trying to figure out how you can be so blasé about Stalin's icepicking of Trotsky. I legitimately don't see how icepicking someone you drove into exile over political differences is in any way a valid response to their criticisms, however baseless said criticisms may be.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

So, what does the "seizure of power" mean? Does it, can it, mean the revolution of a "vanguard party" to establish a literal dictatorship, not of the proletariat, but (according to the vanguard party) on behalf of it?

Pretty much dictionary denotation applies to "seizure," "state" and "power."

Look up "plebiscite" in a Black's Law dictionary, 4th Edition or earlier.

Because the Founding Fathers didn't do that. And neither have social democrats or labor unions in the West. Social democracy's proven much better than Leninism at reducing exploitation and suffering. And that's obvious to anyone with a clue, so obvious that the only way one could prefer Marxist-Leninist revolution would be if one's idea of a better world was determined entirely by a metaphysical "closed system of thought" rather than by actually trying to make the world better.

A. You mean the founding fathers had a mandate from the majority of colonists? I think NOT. Source?
Strike one.

B. Social democracy hasn't alleviated anything. Maybe in the Eurozone, but at the expense of the developing world. Not so obvious. So, strike two.

C. What YOU think Marxism-Leninism is is irrelevant. If you are not a member of a marxist-leninist party, you are not subject to, nor are you an object OF its interior discipline and structure. I have heard lectures, spoken to, and hosted Cuban Marxist-Leninists. They are a minority, and do not hold a monopoly on political activity in Cuba.

Strike Three.

I save 9 lives a year just being here. That does not include the years I've added to people's lives organizing doctors and distributing fppd.


Plus, Agenda for Sustainable Development -- which we are promotinh.

What are YOU doing to make the wprld a better place?

 

[Namor]

Hoodwinking good natured people into thinking you are a "community organizer" looking after everyone's interests while straight up lying about your organizational aims isn't helping anyone. The martyr complex you have is just so over the top.

Join a real organization that helps people if that is truly your aim.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Science is a process by which hypotheses (or theories, collections of related hypotheses) are compared with empirical observation.

No that's the scientific method, which is one methodology of science. It is not the only method of science.

However, if you take apart the scientific method and separate it from the liberal ideology surrounding it (that myth that calls it "empiricism"), you will see that it is actually not very different from dialectical materialism in that both essentially combine empirical and rational methods of understanding and verification to produce new knowledge and verify/refine old knowledge.