The Offtopicgrad Soviet: A Place to Discuss All Things Red

[Daw]

How come capitalists have produced so many great bands, and the best communists can do is Rage Against the Machine (which was hypocritically signed to a capitalist major record label)?

I guess there were many factors contributing to that. One of them is linguistic. Anything that sounds in English is likely to be wider known (and thus to become more popular) than anything that sounds in any other language.

E.g., when a Hungarian band Omega made their Gyöngyhajú lány thing in 1961, few became aware. It took the Scorpions to make their White Dove out of it for it to become a hit.

Anyway, Rage Against the Machine are an American band, aren't they? So, they're from the non-red part of the world whatever their political views may be, right?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

How come capitalists have produced so many great bands, and the best communists can do is Rage Against the Machine (which was hypocritically signed to a capitalist major record label)?

Capitalists did not produce those bands, capitalists only let you hear them.

 

[Hygro]

How come capitalists have produced so many great bands, and the best communists can do is Rage Against the Machine (which was hypocritically signed to a capitalist major record label)?

Are you saying these bands were made in capitalist places, or are you saying by capitalist ideologues? Because if the former, Rage isn't what the communists did, and if the latter, you won't find a lot of capitalist rock bands.

 

[Tahuti]

Are you saying these bands were made in capitalist places, or are you saying by capitalist ideologues? Because if the former, Rage isn't what the communists did, and if the latter, you won't find a lot of capitalist rock bands.

It makes me wonder what reds think of the musical merits of the New Romantic movement (i.e. Depeche Mode, Culture Club, Spandau Ballet), because I remember numerous British cultural critics to have labelled such as a tacit endorsement of Thatcherism.

 

[Hygro]

It makes me wonder what reds think of the musical merits of the New Romantic movement (i.e. Depeche Mode, Culture Club, Spandau Ballet), because I remember numerous British cultural critics to have labelled such as a tacit endorsement of Thatcherism.

How many of them were bitter, jaded rockers of the previous sound? No, you can't make fun/synth music, your innovation is the tacit endorsement of the new administration! What was their actual argument, tho?

RATM is probably one of the less critical-of-the-system music groups I've listened to. Pure capitalization on the most obvious and dried-up tropes. They didn't even help create the stereotype, even if they became its emblem.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Excuse me?
I really don't see how pointing out Labour embarked on a wide variety of nationalization and public good initiatives with the goal to "build a New Jerusalem" -many of which lasted until Maggie Thatcher decided to kill the post-war consensus- is arguing "governments work like a civilization game".
If anything you are the one following the civilization game school of governments. Didn't shoot the capitalists? Must be imperialist scum. A one-party state calls itself communist and kept some socialist iconography? Looks like the dictatorship of the proletariat is here guys!

Ignoring my explanation of these things because they disprove your argument won't get you far with me.

Wait, an Imperial power cannot dominate other imperial powers? In the 50s and 60s France was political and economically dominant over Belgium, but Belgium was still ruling a colony roughly the size of western Europe. While I'm sure the mental gymnastics showing Belgium wasn't in fact an imperial power would be impressive, I have the impression that isn't what you meant by that statement; could you elaborate?

Reread the comment you quoted:

"For example, the US can militarily dominate Europe, but it cannot economically dominate (Western) Europe..."

Capital is an international class; the fact that they are periodically disposed to send their proletariat to murder the proletariat of other imperial countries, or to politically dictate to the capitalists of other countries at times, doesn't disprove the idea that they have and are by and large cooperating to pillage the rest of the world together.

I mean, national identity matters somewhat, sometimes, but it's not primary. Imperialism is the primary contradiction in the world, and has been since the late 19th century.

 

[Tahuti]

How many of them were bitter, jaded rockers of the previous sound? No, you can't make fun/synth music, your innovation is the tacit endorsement of the new administration! What was their actual argument, tho?

Well, Duran Duran's ties with the fashion industry and Spandau Ballet's music promotion strategies (they had their own record label etc.) were singled out among other things. Stuart Hall pointed to the latter band's lyrics too. Gold supposedly extolled Yuppie values.

 

[Ajidica]

Ignoring my explanation of these things because they disprove your argument won't get you far with me.

Traitorfish and myself have repeatedly pointed out the extensive nationalization, redistribution, and ideological goals of Labour during post-war austerity. In every physical sense they have more in common with what you have laid out as characteristics of a proletarian state than the PRC currently has - and it was implemented without the mass violence and hardship of the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward. Yet because Labour didn't immediately call for a worldwide revolution and the post-war consensus was undone by a rather sour old lady you insist on calling them a bunch of imperialists.
How does one measure if a state is a "dictatorship of the proletariat" outside of rhetoric?

Reread the comment you quoted:

"For example, the US can militarily dominate Europe, but it cannot economically dominate (Western) Europe..."

Your full comment was:

That's objectively false. The US' position as global military hegemon, and its position as head of a capitalist empire, are different things. For example, the US can military dominate Europe, but it cannot economically dominate (Western) Europe because most of those countries are imperialist themselves, with their own economic empires spread across Eastern Europe and the Third World.

As written, your comment reads as imperialists cannot dominate imperialists. If you are going to argue that capitalists constitute a coherent international class during an era of stringent currency controls, trade quotas, austerity, and rationing without doing a funhouse mirror version of the "rootless cosmopolitan" narrative.
If you want to argue during the 50s and 60s capital is an international class in any meaningful sense of the word; you really need to put forward more evidence then "Communist theory says so".

 

[ReindeerThistle]

@Ajidica: the CLASS in POWER was not the proletariat. Atlee was an Etonian like the rest. The workers were NOT in control of the means of production, and class contradictions were not resolved in favor of the Proletariat.

Besides, those days are gone. Traitorfish's last Labour PM sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.

PRC sends troops, unarmed, to help with EQ and flood relief.

*drops mike*

 

[Agent327]

That's okay though, because 'the proletariat' has never been the class in power. Anywhere. You see, as Lenin grasped, that's the job of an elite. In certain cases that elite may term itself 'vanguard of the proletariat', but whatever label one puts on it, an elite is an elite. And elites rule, not bottom classes. In case you are actually interested, there are fascinating books on elites and their workings.

(Oh, and this is an RD thread. It is of no relevance whether people drop imaginary microphones. But using CAPITALS certainly doesn't impress anyone of an argument.)

 

[ReindeerThistle]

YES IT DOES. BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE PRESUPPOSITIONS ABOUT WHAT LENIN SAID, THEN READ HIM.

POWER IS, SIMPLY PUT, THE ABILITY TO START AND STOP MOTION. LABOR DOES THIS BY WITHDRAWING ITS LABOR; CAPITAL DOES THIS BY WITHDRAWING CAPITAL. THEY HAVE OPPOSING INTERESTS: BOTH TO KEEP AS MUCH OF THE VALUE LABOR ADDS TO PRODUCTION.

THE STATE IS THE AGENT WHICH MANAGES THESE CLASS CONTRADICTIONS. A SOCIALIST STATE RESOLVES THEM IN FAVOR OF THE PROLETARIAT; A CAPITALIST STATE RESOLVES THEM IN FAVOR OF THE BOURGEOISIE.

*fist pump*

 

[Flying Pig]

That's okay though, because 'the proletariat' has never been the class in power. Anywhere. You see, as Lenin grasped, that's the job of an elite. In certain cases that elite may term itself 'vanguard of the proletariat', but whatever label one puts on it, an elite is an elite. And elites rule, not bottom classes. In case you are actually interested, there are fascinating books on elites and their workings.

(Oh, and this is an RD thread. It is of no relevance whether people drop imaginary microphones. But using CAPITALS certainly doesn't impress anyone of an argument.)

YES IT DOES. BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE PRESUPPOSITIONS ABOUT WHAT LENIN SAID, THEN READ HIM.

POWER IS, SIMPLY PUT, THE ABILITY TO START AND STOP MOTION. LABOR DOES THIS BY WITHDRAWING ITS LABOR; CAPITAL DOES THIS BY WITHDRAWING CAPITAL. THEY HAVE OPPOSING INTERESTS: BOTH TO KEEP AS MUCH OF THE VALUE LABOR ADDS TO PRODUCTION.

THE STATE IS THE AGENT WHICH MANAGES THESE CLASS CONTRADICTIONS. A SOCIALIST STATE RESOLVES THEM IN FAVOR OF THE PROLETARIAT; A CAPITALIST STATE RESOLVES THEM IN FAVOR OF THE BOURGEOISIE.

*fist pump*

Moderator Action: VERY FUNNY. Back to normal volume, please.

Also, a reminder to all posters about playing moderator:

Do not take moderating into your own hands. Telling people to "stop trolling" or "stop flaming" or "warning" is unlikely to stop them, and may make the situation worse. As such, this may be considered trolling. This also applies to telling people that you have reported their posts.

It is not your job to clarify or give warnings about the forum rules. If you think a post falls below the standard expected in an RD thread, report it. If no action is taken, that is the end of the matter.

 

[_random_]

How come capitalists have produced so many great bands, and the best communists can do is Rage Against the Machine (which was hypocritically signed to a capitalist major record label)?

If the only leftist band you can think of is Rage Against the Machine, you aren't listening to much music that wasn't signed to major record labels. And hell, you're missing off on a lot that was. Like start getting into punk and/or hip-hop and get back to me.

 

[Lexicus]

If the only leftist band you can think of is Rage Against the Machine, you aren't listening to much music that wasn't signed to major record labels. And hell, you're missing off on a lot that was. Like start getting into punk and/or hip-hop and get back to me.

 

[plarq]

Capital is an international class; the fact that they are periodically disposed to send their proletariat to murder the proletariat of other imperial countries, or to politically dictate to the capitalists of other countries at times, doesn't disprove the idea that they have and are by and large cooperating to pillage the rest of the world together.

I mean, national identity matters somewhat, sometimes, but it's not primary. Imperialism is the primary contradiction in the world, and has been since the late 19th century.

Now I don't see why the western countries fought Nazi Germany in world war 2. Both sides are capitalists and imperialists. If they're fighting each other to the teeth, you cannot claim that they're allied.

What you did, in Hegelian-Marxist dialectic, is to mix the general and specific properties. A specific property may be not in line with general property, but you cannot apply general property in any case ignoring the specific one.

 

[_random_]

Does anyone have any recommendations for good Marxist analysis of service economies and the extent to which traditional Marxist paradigms can be applied to them?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Does anyone have any recommendations for good Marxist analysis of service economies and the extent to which traditional Marxist paradigms can be applied to them?

If you want somwthing in non-rhetorical terms, my organizations put out an art calendar that describes the various phenomena.

We also publishes a book called Sociology and the Unrecognized Worker.

$20, and I can send you a copy of each. IM me your address on my FB.

But, I also.think Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickeled and Dime has some interesting to say.

 

[Lexicus]

Does anyone have any recommendations for good Marxist analysis of service economies and the extent to which traditional Marxist paradigms can be applied to them?

Funny, I was wondering exactly this not that long ago. I didn't find anything that looked promising from a few minutes of Googling.

 

[Tani Coyote]

While discussing socialism with an Objectivist the other day, the discussion eventually came down to a hypothetical. Just for note, I value humans on the basis of being human (whether or not they are laborers). Anyway, the question was: if a person was starving and unable to help themselves, would I be willing to rob a wealthy person in order to feed the starving one?

Obviously, I said "Yes, and proudly." They proceeded to fling insults about my ethics.

How is that even a question? How could a person possibly feel that a living, breathing human being's hunger is inferior to a stack of currency? But, then again, if people could not feel this way, it wouldn't be a question, as the wealthy man would have already ensured nobody was starving. Now, the hypothetical wealthy man might suffer serious mental scars from being robbed, but it is hard to feel bad for him since he brought this on himself.

Then again, their proposal for the unemployed was charity would take care of them... and if the charity wasn't adequate, it was just too bad for the unemployed. I should have known they were a lost cause right away when that was mentioned. The Law of the Jungle approach to things... it's very disturbing.

We often mention class consciousness, but I think a short-term goal that really needs work is ending the idea that wealthy people are where they are because of superhuman levels of hard work. I have no doubt that many company executives work hard, but it's incredibly insulting to imply that the rank and file do not as well.

What's the argument then? That they were "first?" That they are "smarter?" Being "first" is largely luck, and that doesn't seem like much of a justification for huge inequity. If it is indeed merit based, and because they are "smarter," I require evidence that their intelligence is so great that they are irreplaceable, that they can truly demand an enormous slice of their workers' surplus labor. Of course, this is a trick question, and there is no shortage of demonstrations throughout history of the collective equality of humanity in intelligence. A single human can absolutely be smarter than any other individual, but they fall short as the numbers rivaling them increase; such is the price of each of us being flawed individually.

Let's also be honest. Sociopaths are good at ending up in high places, because they have no qualms about betraying everyone they come in contact with. So chances are high many (if not all) of those high up in capitalism are there because of a personal lack of a moral core. Why would we want them to rule over us?