Sloth

4y

What are they gonna do? Arrest them? Then whos gonna work

Sloth

4y

What are they gonna do? Arrest them? Then whos gonna work

fun guy

4y

this and Bill 28 in Ontario are exposing the power of unions in NA

krishna bound

4y

a lot of it also comes down to like partisanship on other levels imo. i think there is a truth on some level that a "white trash" type (hate that term tbh but it gets across the group i'm conveying) family probably statistically isn't as open to ideas of communism in literal terms themselves even though they may otherwise be open to ideas detached from the name. Of course this doesn't cancel out anything you're saying - I would basically saying if anything it's the opposite, it's more validating because no groups make an effort to organize these groups to begin with for there to even be any gaugable results, so it always comes down to over-intellectualized discussions.

fun guy

4y

is drawing an equivalency between the NEP and Deng's reforms/modern China one of the easiest giveaways that someone is a f***ing moron and a "pseudo-Marxist"?

fun guy

4y

is drawing an equivalency between the NEP and Deng's reforms/modern China one of the easiest giveaways that someone is a f***ing moron and a "pseudo-Marxist"?

deadacc

4y

could also just be gullible and undereducated

fun guy

4y

i was a bit harsh, been spending too much time reading braindead takes on Twitter my bad

ngl i also believed this at some point and was quite pro CPC, but i had a really weak understanding of dialectics and Marxist ideology in general - not that I have a strong understanding now buts its definitely better than last year since im no longer terminally online

reading Gramsci rn and his early works on the Russian revolution, where he talked about the dogmatic critics who argued against the Bolshevik Revolution. they said that Russia wasn't ready for socialism yet and had to develop capitalism first

The Bolshevik revolution is based more on ideology than actual events (therefore, at the end of the day, we really don’t need to know any more than we know already). It’s a revolution against Karl Marx’s Capital. In Russia, Marx’s Capital was the book of the bourgeoisie, more than of the proletariat. It was the crucial proof needed to show that, in Russia, there had to be a bourgeoisie, there had to be a capitalist era, there had to be a Western-style of progression, before the proletariat could even think about making a comeback, about their class demands, about revolution. Events overcame ideology. Events have blown out of the water all critical notions which stated Russia would have to develop according to the laws of historical materialism. The Bolsheviks renounce Karl Marx and they assert, through their clear statement of action, through what they have achieved, that the laws of historical materialism are not as set in stone, as one may think, or one may have thought previously.

Yet, there is still a certain amount of inevitability to these events, and if the Bolsheviks reject some of that which is affirmed in Capital, they do not reject its inherent, invigorating idea. They are not ‘Marxists’, that’s what it comes down to: they have not used the Master’s works to draw up a superficial interpretation, dictatorial statements which cannot be disputed. They live out Marxist thought, the one which will never die; the continuation of idealist Italian and German thought, and that in Marx had been corrupted by the emptiness of positivism and naturalism

It seems super relevant and reminds me of the CPCs dogmatic supporters who argue that China HAD to liberalize their economy and temporarily abandon socialist development in order to eventually become "socialist"

people like Roderic Day will cherry pick quotes from Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. in an attempt to justify this position as not being reactionary, but simply a continuation of Marxist-Leninist beliefs, and one of their favourite defences is comparing Deng's reforms to the NEP, which lasted like 7 f***ing years and was implemented under vastly different circumstances in a completely different climate

fun guy

4y

i was a bit harsh, been spending too much time reading braindead takes on Twitter my bad

ngl i also believed this at some point and was quite pro CPC, but i had a really weak understanding of dialectics and Marxist ideology in general - not that I have a strong understanding now buts its definitely better than last year since im no longer terminally online

reading Gramsci rn and his early works on the Russian revolution, where he talked about the dogmatic critics who argued against the Bolshevik Revolution. they said that Russia wasn't ready for socialism yet and had to develop capitalism first

The Bolshevik revolution is based more on ideology than actual events (therefore, at the end of the day, we really don’t need to know any more than we know already). It’s a revolution against Karl Marx’s Capital. In Russia, Marx’s Capital was the book of the bourgeoisie, more than of the proletariat. It was the crucial proof needed to show that, in Russia, there had to be a bourgeoisie, there had to be a capitalist era, there had to be a Western-style of progression, before the proletariat could even think about making a comeback, about their class demands, about revolution. Events overcame ideology. Events have blown out of the water all critical notions which stated Russia would have to develop according to the laws of historical materialism. The Bolsheviks renounce Karl Marx and they assert, through their clear statement of action, through what they have achieved, that the laws of historical materialism are not as set in stone, as one may think, or one may have thought previously.

Yet, there is still a certain amount of inevitability to these events, and if the Bolsheviks reject some of that which is affirmed in Capital, they do not reject its inherent, invigorating idea. They are not ‘Marxists’, that’s what it comes down to: they have not used the Master’s works to draw up a superficial interpretation, dictatorial statements which cannot be disputed. They live out Marxist thought, the one which will never die; the continuation of idealist Italian and German thought, and that in Marx had been corrupted by the emptiness of positivism and naturalism

It seems super relevant and reminds me of the CPCs dogmatic supporters who argue that China HAD to liberalize their economy and temporarily abandon socialist development in order to eventually become "socialist"

people like Roderic Day will cherry pick quotes from Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. in an attempt to justify this position as not being reactionary, but simply a continuation of Marxist-Leninist beliefs, and one of their favourite defences is comparing Deng's reforms to the NEP, which lasted like 7 f***ing years and was implemented under vastly different circumstances in a completely different climate

Sir Real

4y

How did I not know about this

deadacc

4y

has anybody read polantzas? or can tell me anything about them.

in particular anything on political power and social classes

Womanpuncher69

4y

Nicos Poulantzas was a Greek-French Marxist political sociologist and philosopher. In the 1970s, Poulantzas was known, along with Louis Althusser, as a leading structural Marxist; while at first a Leninist, he eventually became a proponent of democratic socialism

name a better duo than structural marxism and falling off later in ur life

deadacc

4y

has anybody read polantzas? or can tell me anything about them.

in particular anything on political power and social classes

Sir Real

4y

Yes ! His book on fascism is incredible, read it last year. Was actually just thinking about picking up his other two books soon