I wish there was better middle ground between being a cultist for Mao/Stalin/Gonzalo and being a complete revisionist. Western communists on the Internet are like a mental asylum
they're only on twitter tbh
I wish there was better middle ground between being a cultist for Mao/Stalin/Gonzalo and being a complete revisionist. Western communists on the Internet are like a mental asylum
whining about stalin? in my communism thread?
I wish there was better middle ground between being a cultist for Mao/Stalin/Gonzalo and being a complete revisionist. Western communists on the Internet are like a mental asylum
join your local democrats and find some niche book club about dragons and fairies i think
I wish there was better middle ground between being a cultist for Mao/Stalin/Gonzalo and being a complete revisionist. Western communists on the Internet are like a mental asylum
Go get a beer at the local dive bar man
Vanguardism vs. Proletarian Revolution
Orthodox Marxists argue that Lenin’s idea of a “vanguard party” (a small, centralized party of professional revolutionaries leading the working class) departs from Marx’s belief that the working class must self-emancipate through mass movements. Marx believed that socialism could only emerge from a majority working-class revolution, rather than being guided by an elite minority.
Marx’s View: Revolution comes from the working class itself as they gain class consciousness.
Lenin’s View: A vanguard party is needed to guide and educate the proletariat to carry out the revolution, as he believed the working class alone would not develop a sufficient level of revolutionary consciousness without leadership
Vanguardism vs. Proletarian Revolution
Orthodox Marxists argue that Lenin’s idea of a “vanguard party” (a small, centralized party of professional revolutionaries leading the working class) departs from Marx’s belief that the working class must self-emancipate through mass movements. Marx believed that socialism could only emerge from a majority working-class revolution, rather than being guided by an elite minority.
Marx’s View: Revolution comes from the working class itself as they gain class consciousness.
Lenin’s View: A vanguard party is needed to guide and educate the proletariat to carry out the revolution, as he believed the working class alone would not develop a sufficient level of revolutionary consciousness without leadership
A few months ago I saw a tweet of an Orthodox Marxist claiming that a ML‘s "shortcut approach to communism" can be criticized - particalary if you try to apply it to countries who weren‘t in Russias position (at that time) or countries where the conditions for socialism haven‘t naturally matured yet in general. The transition from capitalism to communism is a natural progress, it‘s evolution and shouldn‘t be forced through vanguard. The majority of people (the working class) will reach class consciousness once capitalism fully crumbles society (which will happen) when there‘s no other way out. The transition from capitalism to socialism isn’t something that can simply be “willed” into existence by a small group, even if they are well-organized and ideologically committed. The transition is evolutionary, not revolutionary in a forced sense, and is based on the maturation of specific economic and social conditions.
I probably f***ed up how they formulated it but what do y‘all think of this? that was one of multiple arguments
A few months ago I saw a tweet of an Orthodox Marxist claiming that a ML‘s "shortcut approach to communism" can be criticized - particalary if you try to apply it to countries who weren‘t in Russias position (at that time) or countries where the conditions for socialism haven‘t naturally matured yet in general. The transition from capitalism to communism is a natural progress, it‘s evolution and shouldn‘t be forced through vanguard. The majority of people (the working class) will reach class consciousness once capitalism fully crumbles society (which will happen) when there‘s no other way out. The transition from capitalism to socialism isn’t something that can simply be “willed” into existence by a small group, even if they are well-organized and ideologically committed. The transition is evolutionary, not revolutionary in a forced sense, and is based on the maturation of specific economic and social conditions.
I probably f***ed up how they formulated it but what do y‘all think of this? that was one of multiple arguments
this isnt worth thinking about or engaging with.
I wish there was better middle ground between being a cultist for Mao/Stalin/Gonzalo and being a complete revisionist. Western communists on the Internet are like a mental asylum
What do u think about this
A few months ago I saw a tweet of an Orthodox Marxist claiming that a ML‘s "shortcut approach to communism" can be criticized - particalary if you try to apply it to countries who weren‘t in Russias position (at that time) or countries where the conditions for socialism haven‘t naturally matured yet in general. The transition from capitalism to communism is a natural progress, it‘s evolution and shouldn‘t be forced through vanguard. The majority of people (the working class) will reach class consciousness once capitalism fully crumbles society (which will happen) when there‘s no other way out. The transition from capitalism to socialism isn’t something that can simply be “willed” into existence by a small group, even if they are well-organized and ideologically committed. The transition is evolutionary, not revolutionary in a forced sense, and is based on the maturation of specific economic and social conditions.
I probably f***ed up how they formulated it but what do y‘all think of this? that was one of multiple arguments
sounds idealistic and inherently a stepping stone to reformism to tell the proletariat to just “wait for the natural evolution of things” when the vanguard was never meant to “force thru” revolution but to take advantage of moments of crisis within the ruling class and lead those willing sections of the working class to overthrow the old mode of production
To think that the vanguard “forces” thru anything seems like a left critique of Leninism from those who think the Soviets were too authoritarian it sounds like.
But also we can look at successful ML revolutions such as China, Cuba, Vietnam . They had some form of a vanguard party that enjoyed support or at the very least weren’t openly hostile to a socialist government
Even in non-socialist revolutions only a small subset of the population actively participated in overthrowing the old system
sounds idealistic and inherently a stepping stone to reformism to tell the proletariat to just “wait for the natural evolution of things” when the vanguard was never meant to “force thru” revolution but to take advantage of moments of crisis within the ruling class and lead those willing sections of the working class to overthrow the old mode of production
To think that the vanguard “forces” thru anything seems like a left critique of Leninism from those who think the Soviets were too authoritarian it sounds like.
But also we can look at successful ML revolutions such as China, Cuba, Vietnam . They had some form of a vanguard party that enjoyed support or at the very least weren’t openly hostile to a socialist government
Even in non-socialist revolutions only a small subset of the population actively participated in overthrowing the old system
Thx for actually answering.
Orthodox Marxism is in essence just Kautskyism am I right?
I think that way of thinking can lead to passivness. I think that’s not what they’re really going for cause they are generally not against operating within an socialist organization, labour unions & spreading the message and so on but once a boundary is pushed for them they will just be on the side of reformism ig
Thx for actually answering.
Orthodox Marxism is in essence just Kautskyism am I right?
I think that way of thinking can lead to passivness. I think that’s not what they’re really going for cause they are generally not against operating within an socialist organization, labour unions & spreading the message and so on but once a boundary is pushed for them they will just be on the side of reformism ig
No but like Leninism, Maoism or Trotskyism where the names itself are all diverging tendencies, theoretical contributions or interpretations of orthodox Marx- the isms are just whatever the followers choose to attach to it.
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk
Lenin writes a great deal about him so that is the best place to see his own critique of Kautsky
No but like Leninism, Maoism or Trotskyism where the names itself are all diverging tendencies, theoretical contributions or interpretations of orthodox Marx- the isms are just whatever the followers choose to attach to it.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/
Lenin writes a great deal about him so that is the best place to see his own critique of Kautsky
Like Kautsky still considered himself a Marxist and the ism attached to his name came well after he passed and his theoretical contributions had been a***yzed. I don’t know if that was clear @xxxkiraxxx
Vanguardism vs. Proletarian Revolution
Orthodox Marxists argue that Lenin’s idea of a “vanguard party” (a small, centralized party of professional revolutionaries leading the working class) departs from Marx’s belief that the working class must self-emancipate through mass movements. Marx believed that socialism could only emerge from a majority working-class revolution, rather than being guided by an elite minority.
Marx’s View: Revolution comes from the working class itself as they gain class consciousness.
Lenin’s View: A vanguard party is needed to guide and educate the proletariat to carry out the revolution, as he believed the working class alone would not develop a sufficient level of revolutionary consciousness without leadership
This is ignorant of the quality that contradictions, especially the contradictions of capitalism, will not inherently be resolved by manners which align with communist beliefs.
Society can collapse or larger contradictions come into play etc etc.
the point of “forcing” through the vanguard is to specifically instate a system through which contradictions are practically and pragmatically consulted through the context of ideals in a Marxist manner, rather than leaving them to “nature”
Waaaah western commie bad because they like mao and stalin, what is this, 1971
I'm criticizing idolatry which often is a sign of a lack of material understanding or will to go beyond fetishization of aesthetics
I'm criticizing idolatry which often is a sign of a lack of material understanding or will to go beyond fetishization of aesthetics
respectfully a phrase like 'a lack of material understanding' lacks material understanding as in i dont know what in the world are you talking about
If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be evaluated not from the standpoint of "eternal justice" or some other preconceived idea, as is not infrequently done by historians, but from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or that social movement and with which they are connected.
The slave system would be senseless, stupid and unnatural under modern conditions. But under the conditions of a disintegrating primitive communal system, the slave system is a quite understandable and natural phenomenon, since it represents an advance on the primitive communal system.
Joe was Steele cold with it
If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be evaluated not from the standpoint of "eternal justice" or some other preconceived idea, as is not infrequently done by historians, but from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or that social movement and with which they are connected.
The slave system would be senseless, stupid and unnatural under modern conditions. But under the conditions of a disintegrating primitive communal system, the slave system is a quite understandable and natural phenomenon, since it represents an advance on the primitive communal system.
Joe was Steele cold with it
this is true but really Mao was just applying a generic understanding of class antagonisms to the USA, he wasn't correct but also the idea of American settler-colonialism was so embryonic at the time its not really his fault for thinking this way.
I'm criticizing idolatry which often is a sign of a lack of material understanding or will to go beyond fetishization of aesthetics
would be nice if this was a real issue on the "western left", unfortunately its people wasting their lives sheepdogging the democratic party and the yellow unions or doing pointless charity work
gotten far enough to understand the basis for this book is just essentially an affirmation of marx’s position and theory of one’s social experience and outcome is a direct result of their economic position because in the capitalist mode of production the proletariat has to work to live because the alternative would be homelessness/starving which not being subjected to those things is the basis of being able to pursue other ventures you might be interested in to complete a life of fulfillment, my first book from eagleton and will def be going deeper into his catalog after this!
im listening to this now and we should really revisit Parenti's 'everything but class' left subgenre and turn it into 'everything but Stalin' because its probably as annoying as what he was discussing in b&r
the biggest reason why you should let that boogeyman socialist leader s*** go is that most western countries (being that people are primarily worried about this in the west) wont require industrialization as vast and as immediate as what was required of the soviet union and communist china at the time it'd been taking place. yall have means of production up the vazoo dawg you can just pivot them towards socialist production now shush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!