Left-Wing Discussion Thread II: Behind 700,000 Bunkers

[Trotskylvania]

Does John Stuart Mill even count as a leftist?

Mill believed that the principles of political liberalism necessarily implied democratic and cooperative economic arrangements. He very explicitly aligned this with socialism, and published a monograph on the subject, "On Socialism"

[Nekotani]

What on Earth do you define as hyper-capitalism? As a laissez-faire man myself, I can assure you that the globalist version of capitalism is purely corporatist.

The distinction between capitalism/corporatism doesn't make any sense when you actually consider what the word "corporatism" means. Globalist capitalism is a result of laissez faire capitalism, not the organization of society by interest associations. The latter would run counter to globalist capitalism.

[Northern Davincia]

What on Earth do you define as hyper-capitalism? As a laissez-faire man myself, I can assure you that the globalist version of capitalism is purely corporatist.

The distinction between capitalism/corporatism doesn't make any sense when you actually consider what the word "corporatism" means. Globalist capitalism is a result of laissez faire capitalism, not the organization of society by interest associations. The latter would run counter to globalist capitalism.

Government-made trade deals do not qualify as laissez-faire.

[Grenartia]

The distinction between capitalism/corporatism doesn't make any sense when you actually consider what the word "corporatism" means. Globalist capitalism is a result of laissez faire capitalism, not the organization of society by interest associations. The latter would run counter to globalist capitalism.

Government-made trade deals do not qualify as laissez-faire.

Please. "Government-made trade deals" as they currently exist, are largely proposed, written, and lobbied for by corporations. This isn't "muh ebil government". This is the ultimate consequence of laissez-faire. If anything goes, then anything goes, especially the state and corporations teaming up.

[Threlizdun]

The distinction between capitalism/corporatism doesn't make any sense when you actually consider what the word "corporatism" means. Globalist capitalism is a result of laissez faire capitalism, not the organization of society by interest associations. The latter would run counter to globalist capitalism.

Government-made trade deals do not qualify as laissez-faire.

Who do you expect to uphold trade agreements if not governments? The state and international assemblies composed of state actors are the only means corporations possess to ensure that all parties uphold their end of the agreements and are punished if they fail to do so.

[Grenartia]

Government-made trade deals do not qualify as laissez-faire.

Who do you expect to uphold trade agreements if not governments? The state and international assemblies composed of state actors are the only means corporations possess to ensure that all parties uphold their end of the agreements and are punished if they fail to do so.

Really, Laissez-faire is just a code phrase for Diet Anarchocapitalism.

[Nekotani]

No. Why are you even asking?

Because some leftists (mainly progressives/liberals) are saying that because Trump said it, it must be bad. Even Bill Maher said it.

I don't mean to be rude, but if you need to put in your sig that you're not a white supremacist, you might want to reevaluate your values and why people seem to be coming to the conclusion that you are.

[Nekotani]

Human beings are creatures motivated by sentiments and ideals as strongly as we are by rational messages, even purported rationalists have been filled with irrational impulses that exploded during historical events (such as the French Revolution). I don't reject that my motivation is irrational, mainly because I don't deify reason to the extent of Western rationalism, but it is laughable to think that yours is based on any more rational grounds than mine.

Oh, no, I couldn't convince a NSGer, how will I ever recover?

You've created a rationalism out of irrationalism, though.

You rationally evaluate and assert as factual, like you did above, what you consider to be best for your culture. Internationalism is dangerous because it threatens your culture, and requires you to consider economics alongside shared heritages, etc. Despite the irrationality of your core value (nationalism), you proceed to rationalize everything from that and assert them as if they are objective.

I dislike rationality as well, but that's why I embrace experiential and perspective based knowledge...perspectivism.

I wouldn't say that I reject reason as a mental faculty, rather what I reject is the Western premise that reason is a principle whole to itself, it comes across as an almost Platonic idealism. Rationality is a means of organization and not of value judgement, even science, which Pandeeria and other Marxists fancy their positions as, does not derive from reason. It comes from observations which may be organized by our intellect to make sense, but it does not derive from them.

"Non-rationalist," would probably be more accurate a term, though because it has been almost universally translated to "irrationalism," I tend to refer to it as that.

[Mattopilos II]

Who do you expect to uphold trade agreements if not governments? The state and international assemblies composed of state actors are the only means corporations possess to ensure that all parties uphold their end of the agreements and are punished if they fail to do so.

Really, Laissez-faire is just a code phrase for Diet Anarchocapitalism.

Except that technically capitalism pretty much NEEDS a state to function and to keep in check the market it proposes, while what they technically want but seem to ignore is "Free enterprise".

[Bakery Hill]

No. Why are you even asking?

Because some leftists (mainly progressives/liberals) are saying that because Trump said it, it must be bad. Even Bill Maher said it.

Are you coming here to troll again? Because if so, try harder. If not, then do we really need to go through the painstakingly obvious differences between Bill Maher and any socialist.

[The New Sea Territory]

What on Earth do you define as hyper-capitalism? As a laissez-faire man myself, I can assure you that the globalist version of capitalism is purely corporatist.

Obligatory "corportatism is different from corporatocracy" post.

snip

"Leftism" is no more consistent than "rightism". If you want consistency, look at the particular positions within these universal terms.

[The New Sea Territory]

And Marxism always becomes ethno-national fascism.

AfD is certainly more popular in East Germany than it is around the rest of the country, but I don't see a difference of 8% at most as fitting in with your statement.

"Always" is a strong word. While we see that Eastern European and Caucasian ethnic nationalisms exploded after the dissolution, I don't know if that had to do with the Marxism of the Soviet Union. Rather, this probably had to do with centuries of Russification, under both the Tsar and the Soviets.

[Northern Davincia]

Government-made trade deals do not qualify as laissez-faire.

Please. "Government-made trade deals" as they currently exist, are largely proposed, written, and lobbied for by corporations. This isn't "muh ebil government". This is the ultimate consequence of laissez-faire. If anything goes, then anything goes, especially the state and corporations teaming up.

Why does NAFTA include such strict regulations on environmental policy if that was true?

Who do you expect to uphold trade agreements if not governments? The state and international assemblies composed of state actors are the only means corporations possess to ensure that all parties uphold their end of the agreements and are punished if they fail to do so.

Really, Laissez-faire is just a code phrase for Diet Anarchocapitalism.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Really, Laissez-faire is just a code phrase for Diet Anarchocapitalism.

Except that technically capitalism pretty much NEEDS a state to function and to keep in check the market it proposes, while what they technically want but seem to ignore is "Free enterprise".

I am not ignorant of the government's need to protect citizens from theft, fraud, and coercion, but economic regulations which surpass these are contradictory of laissez-faire principles.

[Kubra]

Whoops, terribly sorry, I saw this post a while back but was at work, so didn't reply and then I just forgot about it.
Except Stavrogin himself was never able to properly deny god within the novel
there's a conversation in which someone says something along the lines of "wait a minute, didn't you say you didn't believe in god?" and then he straight up backpeddles. He expresses disbelief in the removed chapter, but then it ends with him deciding that maybe the priest is on to something. And, well, an inability to quite properly cleave with the concept of god seems to be a common theme in Dostoevsky. I suppose that's commentary on the russian character and its relation to god.

What I'm getting at is that Dostoevsky isn't parodying frenchmen or germans or englishmen. He is parodying russians that often reflect actually existing russians, both the real and fictional of course have what would be called a russian character. Because they are russian, and dostoevsky writes about russians. One will notice that Dostoevsky does not make his character similar to say, GK Chesterton, a catholic writing a parody of english anarchists, and coming up with the picture of the nihilist more like those of The Big Lebowski rather than Demons. Fun book, really fun book.

Yes, well Stavrogin is the most important character, Dostoevsky said so himself. Stavrogin is in the vein of a Judas or a Satan, not a simple freethinker, and he shouldn't be understood as such. But Shigalyov, Pyotr Verkhovensky, Liputin, Lyamshin, the two high-school students, none of these characters have even the faintest sentiment of belief.

Nihilism and so on are not part of the Russian character in Dostoevsky's eyes, they are precisely foreign and antithetical to Russia. Shatov even talks directly with Stravrogin about this, about how Russia is only Russia so long as she is Orthodox, and that the idea of "nihilist" or "liberal" Russia is an oxymoron, that is only called Russian for geographical reference, but in fact as no commonality with the Russian identity, culture or way of thought. Do you understand the context Dostoevsky was writing in? Peter the Great, when he founded his new capital, gave it a German name, "Petersburg" (Nicholas II would later rechristen it "Petrograd", which is what it would be in Russian). He had all the churches in there completely modeled on Europe's, he brought in Western architects. He reorganized the Church as a state department, trying to make the Russian Church like the Church of England. He forcibly tried to get rid of beards (one of the major distinction between Slavs and the West) by taxing them. This battle between the Westerners and the "Slavophils," was very much one over whether Russia should remain Russia.

Pyotr also had a moment in conversation either with von lembke or karamazinov where someone asked "weren't you into the whole god thing", though iirc he went ahead and denied belief rather than backpeddled. That's not really important, I just remember it and figured I ought to share.

As a matter of ideology or philosophy, yes. But as a matter of characters? No, and that's what I'm getting at. The characters are not foreign, merely their notions. The characters themselves aren't comic book villians, we have an idea of their motivations and character beyond their atheism, we know of them grasping at theological problems with more than simple dismissal, especially in the case of Stavrogin and Kirilov. Consider the case of Kirilov and his idea of suicide being a path to godhood. Could such a character exist in Dumas or Goethe? Really, could such a character exist in French or German literature? Before you sat Sartre: in good literature?

And let us consider the case of Shatov. The guy wasn't always the guy who thought the orthodox faith so important to the russian national character, before meeting Stavrogin he struggled with the same questions, was possessed by the same demons. What differentiates Shatov from his contemporaries is not necessarily their character, but that Shatov was released of his possession but they were not. Dostoevsky himself would be a good example of such, a russian man possessed by demons of liberalism but later released through christ.

And in any case, let's imagine a scenario where Dostoevsky writes about french or german nihilists and their demonic scheming. Perhaps they'll denounce each other at dinner parties over hegelian minutiae? I have an idea for the driving scenario: the protagonist has found his manuscript on his criticisms of christianity, and fears one of his colleagues has stolen in order to publish it in their own name. Our protagonist then goes on a revenge driven quest to refute every formulation in his manuscript, so as to render its publication useless to the thief. Of course, as a result, our protagonist has come to therefore believe in god, and the story ends with his baptism. The manuscript has been thrown in a river, rivers have water so I guess there's something symbolic there.
Wanna know what that scenario is? it's fucking boring, I tell you what. Why read that when we can read about Russian nihilists and their plans to assassinate people? That's a lot more fun, IMO.

[Kubra]

And Marxism always becomes ethno-national fascism.

It's funny because the fate of the original marxist parties was to become boring centre-left opposition parties

[Venerable Bede]

Pyotr also had a moment in conversation either with von lembke or karamazinov where someone asked "weren't you into the whole god thing", though iirc he went ahead and denied belief rather than backpeddled. That's not really important, I just remember it and figured I ought to share.

I don't recall that.

As a matter of ideology or philosophy, yes. But as a matter of characters? No, and that's what I'm getting at. The characters are not foreign, merely their notions. The characters themselves aren't comic book villians, we have an idea of their motivations and character beyond their atheism, we know of them grasping at theological problems with more than simple dismissal, especially in the case of Stavrogin and Kirilov.

Right, the characters aren't demons, but they are possessed by them.

Consider the case of Kirilov and his idea of suicide being a path to godhood. Could such a character exist in Dumas or Goethe? Really, could such a character exist in French or German literature? Before you sat Sartre: in good literature?

No, but such a character wouldn't exist in Pushkin or Gogol either.

And let us consider the case of Shatov. The guy wasn't always the guy who thought the orthodox faith so important to the russian national character, before meeting Stavrogin he struggled with the same questions, was possessed by the same demons. What differentiates Shatov from his contemporaries is not necessarily their character, but that Shatov was released of his possession but they were not. Dostoevsky himself would be a good example of such, a russian man possessed by demons of liberalism but later released through christ.

Shatov wasn't really a parallel to Dostoevsky, he said he could not say God exists, he only grasped Orthodoxy in a crude, nationalist sense. He's an important and sympathetic character, but his arrival at supporting religion comes from a completely different place: Dostoevsky got there by intense suffering and finding it redeeming and cleansing in the context of Christ, Shatov got there by being given a philosophical talk about what defines Russia. Dostoevsky was a Slavophil, but with Dostoevsky, that is an extension of his being religions, whereas with Shatov, supporting religion is an extension of him being a Slavophil.

And in any case, let's imagine a scenario where Dostoevsky writes about french or german nihilists and their demonic scheming. Perhaps they'll denounce each other at dinner parties over hegelian minutiae? I have an idea for the driving scenario: the protagonist has found his manuscript on his criticisms of christianity, and fears one of his colleagues has stolen in order to publish it in their own name. Our protagonist then goes on a revenge driven quest to refute every formulation in his manuscript, so as to render its publication useless to the thief. Of course, as a result, our protagonist has come to therefore believe in god, and the story ends with his baptism. The manuscript has been thrown in a river, rivers have water so I guess there's something symbolic there.

Wanna know what that scenario is? it's fucking boring, I tell you what. Why read that when we can read about Russian nihilists and their plans to assassinate people? That's a lot more fun, IMO.

There were violent freethinkers in Europe in America into the 20th Century, the President of the United States, McKinley, was assassinated by one (much to Emma Goldman's joy, since she was the principle inspiration for the assassin).

[Kubra]

Pyotr also had a moment in conversation either with von lembke or karamazinov where someone asked "weren't you into the whole god thing", though iirc he went ahead and denied belief rather than backpeddled. That's not really important, I just remember it and figured I ought to share.

I don't recall that.

As a matter of ideology or philosophy, yes. But as a matter of characters? No, and that's what I'm getting at. The characters are not foreign, merely their notions. The characters themselves aren't comic book villians, we have an idea of their motivations and character beyond their atheism, we know of them grasping at theological problems with more than simple dismissal, especially in the case of Stavrogin and Kirilov.

Right, the characters aren't demons, but they are possessed by them.

Consider the case of Kirilov and his idea of suicide being a path to godhood. Could such a character exist in Dumas or Goethe? Really, could such a character exist in French or German literature? Before you sat Sartre: in good literature?

No, but such a character wouldn't exist in Pushkin or Gogol either.

And let us consider the case of Shatov. The guy wasn't always the guy who thought the orthodox faith so important to the russian national character, before meeting Stavrogin he struggled with the same questions, was possessed by the same demons. What differentiates Shatov from his contemporaries is not necessarily their character, but that Shatov was released of his possession but they were not. Dostoevsky himself would be a good example of such, a russian man possessed by demons of liberalism but later released through christ.

Shatov wasn't really a parallel to Dostoevsky, he said he could not say God exists, he only grasped Orthodoxy in a crude, nationalist sense. He's an important and sympathetic character, but his arrival at supporting religion comes from a completely different place: Dostoevsky got there by intense suffering and finding it redeeming and cleansing in the context of Christ, Shatov got there by being given a philosophical talk about what defines Russia. Dostoevsky was a Slavophil, but with Dostoevsky, that is an extension of his being religions, whereas with Shatov, supporting religion is an extension of him being a Slavophil.

And in any case, let's imagine a scenario where Dostoevsky writes about french or german nihilists and their demonic scheming. Perhaps they'll denounce each other at dinner parties over hegelian minutiae? I have an idea for the driving scenario: the protagonist has found his manuscript on his criticisms of christianity, and fears one of his colleagues has stolen in order to publish it in their own name. Our protagonist then goes on a revenge driven quest to refute every formulation in his manuscript, so as to render its publication useless to the thief. Of course, as a result, our protagonist has come to therefore believe in god, and the story ends with his baptism. The manuscript has been thrown in a river, rivers have water so I guess there's something symbolic there.

Wanna know what that scenario is? it's fucking boring, I tell you what. Why read that when we can read about Russian nihilists and their plans to assassinate people? That's a lot more fun, IMO.

There were violent freethinkers in Europe in America into the 20th Century, the President of the United States, McKinley, was assassinated by one (much to Emma Goldman's joy, since she was the principle inspiration for the assassin).

It's the same as the time with stavrogin, it was just a bit of dialogue that wasn't super important. it's not really relevant here, I just happened to find it while thumbing through and thought "huh, wow."

Yes, now we're getting to be on the same page. Even in their amoralism and sin, Dostoevsky's characters still come off as at least somewhat sympathetic. They aren't evil, merely led astray. Sometimes, they're put back on the right path towards christ. Even Stavrogin, the one we're supposed to look at as most villainous, has doubt in how he lives, and opportunity to become faithful again. They're possessed, but still Russian, and can at any time realize the Russian character fully.

I must admit to ignorance of Pushkin and Gogol, so I won't comment. Mea culpa, there's a lot of literature in the world and I'm lucky these days to put down 50 pages in a day, because I spend my days shitposting instead of being productive. Heck, I'll be straight, despite touching most of his other work, including some of the minor works, I've yet to put down a page on Crime and Punishment, and that's kinda missing the most important of Dostoevsky's output, so it's fine and proper that what I say should be taken with a grain (or handful) of salt.

Not necessarily a direct parallel, just a character that could have been said to have similar circumstances. I'd say that Stepan trofimovich, in places, would be the closest character to having the voice of Dostoevsky, if only for him articulating the demons bit for the reader. Y'know, shatov is just a character who had a life closest to Dostoevsky. It's telling that Dostoevsky admitted that he could have been a follower of a person like Nachayev, and shatov was made faithful (ironically) by our nachayev stand-in. Important characters in Dostoevsky novels, at least from my experience, are in some ways connected to how Dostoevsky lived and thought, even if their total character is not analogous to the man himself.

Those guys weren't nihilists and did not profess anything of the sort. They could certainly get their own literary treatment, but as characters they'd be very different from the cast of characters we're discussing. Though as I said, if that sort of thing sounds fun to you Chesterton's The Man who was Thursday also does nihilism, though in a light hearted and parodical fashion, none of the characters having any parallel's to existing figures.
And, well, as an aside, I don't see a scenario that would make the assassination of McKinley a fun read.

[Arkolon]

I tried reading Capital, but it seemed arduous and uninviting from the first chapter. I decided to watch explanatory video-series on Marx's theory of value, which really made me appreciate the great lengths at which Marx went in Ch 1 of Capital, really developing his ideas on use-value, exchange-value and their interrelationship. I feel more ready to start reading from the top again, but before I do that I have a question, possibly plural, for the Marxists of LWDT.

Most importantly, I am not familiar with the jump Marx makes from explaining capitalism to urging for it to be replaced. The summary of Capital that I watched explained a great deal about socially necessary labour time, the nature of exchange, the antagonisms of production for exchange, super-profit and profit, but I feel as if these concepts have just offered a more wholesome analysis of capitalism rather than a critique of it. Granted, the video-series (which I greatly appreciated) was trying to explain Marx's vision of capitalism and economics (especially in contrast to neoclassical economics, where it successfully outlined key deficiencies) so the video-series did not try to explicitly persuade the viewer of anything, just to explain the worldview posited by Marx. My first two questions to the Marxists of LWDT are the following: a) reading Capital, will Marx present an argument urging capitalism to be replaced, and (both if so and if not) b) before reading Capital, can you tell me what leads Marx to conclude that capitalism must be replaced specifically from his arguments and analyses made in Capital?

[Bakery Hill]

I tried reading Capital, but it seemed arduous and uninviting from the first chapter. I decided to watch explanatory video-series on Marx's theory of value, which really made me appreciate the great lengths at which Marx went in Ch 1 of Capital, really developing his ideas on use-value, exchange-value and their interrelationship. I feel more ready to start reading from the top again, but before I do that I have a question, possibly plural, for the Marxists of LWDT.

Most importantly, I am not familiar with the jump Marx makes from explaining capitalism to urging for it to be replaced. The summary of Capital that I watched explained a great deal about socially necessary labour time, the nature of exchange, the antagonisms of production for exchange, super-profit and profit, but I feel as if these concepts have just offered a more wholesome analysis of capitalism rather than a critique of it. Granted, the video-series (which I greatly appreciated) was trying to explain Marx's vision of capitalism and economics (especially in contrast to neoclassical economics, where it successfully outlined key deficiencies) so the video-series did not try to explicitly persuade the viewer of anything, just to explain the worldview posited by Marx. My first two questions to the Marxists of LWDT are the following: a) reading Capital, will Marx present an argument urging capitalism to be replaced, and (both if so and if not) b) before reading Capital, can you tell me what leads Marx to conclude that capitalism must be replaced specifically from his arguments and analyses made in Capital?

Been meaning to tackle Capital for a while. Keen to see how others can answer you here.

[Conscentia]

I tried reading Capital, but it seemed arduous and uninviting from the first chapter. I decided to watch explanatory video-series on Marx's theory of value, which really made me appreciate the great lengths at which Marx went in Ch 1 of Capital, really developing his ideas on use-value, exchange-value and their interrelationship. I feel more ready to start reading from the top again, but before I do that I have a question, possibly plural, for the Marxists of LWDT. [...]

What video series was this? Do you have a link?

[Bakery Hill]

I tried reading Capital, but it seemed arduous and uninviting from the first chapter. I decided to watch explanatory video-series on Marx's theory of value, which really made me appreciate the great lengths at which Marx went in Ch 1 of Capital, really developing his ideas on use-value, exchange-value and their interrelationship. I feel more ready to start reading from the top again, but before I do that I have a question, possibly plural, for the Marxists of LWDT. [...]

What video series was this? Do you have a link?

I checked out David Harvey's and that looked pretty mad.

[Arkolon]

I tried reading Capital, but it seemed arduous and uninviting from the first chapter. I decided to watch explanatory video-series on Marx's theory of value, which really made me appreciate the great lengths at which Marx went in Ch 1 of Capital, really developing his ideas on use-value, exchange-value and their interrelationship. I feel more ready to start reading from the top again, but before I do that I have a question, possibly plural, for the Marxists of LWDT. [...]

What video series was this? Do you have a link?

The playlist begins with a discussion on value in a similar way to how Capital starts, although obviously I don't know whether how it progresses is true to the text. It's supposed to explain his theory of value, which I can imagine is majorly contained within Capital, and it seems OK to me.

[Arkolon]

What video series was this? Do you have a link?

I checked out David Harvey's and that looked pretty mad.

That one was so long! I watched the first video but looked for a shorter summary instead. I think the one I found is OK - it was obviously made by a Marxist so contains some elements of bias, but I think it's generally OK in terms of truthfulness. It seems to fit with what Wikipedia had to say and it was considerably shorter than what Harvey had to say about reading Capital.

[Bakery Hill]

I checked out David Harvey's and that looked pretty mad.

That one was so long! I watched the first video but looked for a shorter summary instead. I think the one I found is OK - it was obviously made by a Marxist so contains some elements of bias, but I think it's generally OK in terms of truthfulness. It seems to fit with what Wikipedia had to say and it was considerably shorter than what Harvey had to say about reading Capital.

Yeah Harvey's trying to take you through it chapter by chapter in a really thorough way from what I could see.

[Kubra]

I tried reading Capital, but it seemed arduous and uninviting from the first chapter. I decided to watch explanatory video-series on Marx's theory of value, which really made me appreciate the great lengths at which Marx went in Ch 1 of Capital, really developing his ideas on use-value, exchange-value and their interrelationship. I feel more ready to start reading from the top again, but before I do that I have a question, possibly plural, for the Marxists of LWDT.

Most importantly, I am not familiar with the jump Marx makes from explaining capitalism to urging for it to be replaced. The summary of Capital that I watched explained a great deal about socially necessary labour time, the nature of exchange, the antagonisms of production for exchange, super-profit and profit, but I feel as if these concepts have just offered a more wholesome analysis of capitalism rather than a critique of it. Granted, the video-series (which I greatly appreciated) was trying to explain Marx's vision of capitalism and economics (especially in contrast to neoclassical economics, where it successfully outlined key deficiencies) so the video-series did not try to explicitly persuade the viewer of anything, just to explain the worldview posited by Marx. My first two questions to the Marxists of LWDT are the following: a) reading Capital, will Marx present an argument urging capitalism to be replaced, and (both if so and if not) b) before reading Capital, can you tell me what leads Marx to conclude that capitalism must be replaced specifically from his arguments and analyses made in Capital?

The funny part is that the first volume is the one that was edited in order to be reader-friendly

Just slog through it, bruv. The fact of the matter is that if you're wanting to read original scholarship on these topics you gotta be able to interpret the jargon. Eventually you'll read this stuff as if it were plain english.