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

[Pandeeria]

Why?

I don't emphasize agricultural workers over industrial workers or anything like that, just consider both those who produce our food and those who do all the work for us as vital subjects in a socialist revolution. Maybe that's not what agrarian-minded means. Just thought to mention it and I'm not saying that socialists don't have farmers in mind.

Farming becomes largely mechanized and automated through the capitalist phase of development, and has already become so efficient that pretty much only those that want to be farmers have to be farmers (and the process of Socialism will carry this further). Trying to put a focus on agriculture or trying to stay neutral is completely back-peddling on the socio-economic stages of development, a concept that Socialism was founded off of (though originally to a much more idealistic and utopian sense versus more modern materialist interpretations).

In essence, calling yourself an agrarian-socialist is failing to grasp something tantamount. It fails to grasp that Socialism arises from post-industrial society, and helps push along automation and industry. Calling yourself an agrarian-socialist is rather an empty term to just stand out a bit, or it means you wish to focus more on agriculture rather than industry, when the whole point of Socialism is for the working class to seize industry in order to increase productivity (and decrease the work time needed to get goods out). Agrarianism is rather an empty phrase or it does not work, the key examples being largely agricultural societies that tried to instantly jump ship from Feudalism to Socialism (Russia, China, S.E. Asia, etc.) and ended up as desolate, oppressive dirt holes mostly because it was made up of a poorly skilled, poorly educated farming class rather than a educated industrial working class.

[Dark Triads]

I don't emphasize agricultural workers over industrial workers or anything like that, just consider both those who produce our food and those who do all the work for us as vital subjects in a socialist revolution. Maybe that's not what agrarian-minded means. Just thought to mention it and I'm not saying that socialists don't have farmers in mind.

Farming becomes largely mechanized and automated through the capitalist phase of development, and has already become so efficient that pretty much only those that want to be farmers have to be farmers (and the process of Socialism will carry this further). Trying to put a focus on agriculture or trying to stay neutral is completely back-peddling on the socio-economic stages of development, a concept that Socialism was founded off of (though originally to a much more idealistic and utopian sense versus more modern materialist interpretations).

In essence, calling yourself an agrarian-socialist is failing to grasp something tantamount. It fails to grasp that Socialism arises from post-industrial society, and helps push along automation and industry. Calling yourself an agrarian-socialist is rather an empty term to just stand out a bit, or it means you wish to focus more on agriculture rather than industry, when the whole point of Socialism is for the working class to seize industry in order to increase productivity (and decrease the work time needed to get goods out). Agrarianism is rather an empty phrase or it does not work, the key examples being largely agricultural societies that tried to instantly jump ship from Feudalism to Socialism (Russia, China, S.E. Asia, etc.) and ended up as desolate, oppressive dirt holes mostly because it was made up of a poorly skilled, poorly educated farming class rather than a educated industrial working class.

Guess I'm not agrarian then.

[Pandeeria]

So LWDT, anyone make any zesty Communist memes today to spook porky?

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Why?

I don't emphasize agricultural workers over industrial workers or anything like that, just consider both those who produce our food and those who do all the work for us as vital subjects in a socialist revolution. Maybe that's not what agrarian-minded means. Just thought to mention it and I'm not saying that socialists don't have farmers in mind.

Agrarians tend to believe in an inherent virtue to living close to the land and by extent an agricultural or otherwise non-urbanized lifestyle. People like Aldo Leopold, for example, believed that modern capitalist society and its industrial economy and methods of production subordinates people to abstract hierarchical systems for their livelihood, and leads to environmental destruction on a large scale because the process of urbanization removes people from the natural world and twists images of it in peoples' minds from a sustaining force that surrounds them to a distant resource to be exploited. It might be my background in ecology talking but I have a certain amount of sympathy for that idea.

[Dark Triads]

I don't emphasize agricultural workers over industrial workers or anything like that, just consider both those who produce our food and those who do all the work for us as vital subjects in a socialist revolution. Maybe that's not what agrarian-minded means. Just thought to mention it and I'm not saying that socialists don't have farmers in mind.

Agrarians tend to believe in an inherent virtue to living close to the land and by extent an agricultural or otherwise non-urbanized lifestyle. People like Aldo Leopold, for example, believed that modern capitalist society and its industrial economy and methods of production subordinates people to abstract hierarchical systems for their livelihood, and leads to environmental destruction on a large scale because the process of urbanization removes people from the natural world and twists images of it in peoples' minds from a sustaining force that surrounds them to a distant resource to be exploited. It might be my background in ecology talking but I have a certain amount of sympathy for that idea.

What I think is a good idea is for people to become independent from the food market by growing their own crops, much like in the case of having home economies produce their own electricity through solar and other renewables and thus become essentially autarkic from society around them.

[Pandeeria]

I don't emphasize agricultural workers over industrial workers or anything like that, just consider both those who produce our food and those who do all the work for us as vital subjects in a socialist revolution. Maybe that's not what agrarian-minded means. Just thought to mention it and I'm not saying that socialists don't have farmers in mind.

Agrarians tend to believe in an inherent virtue to living close to the land and by extent an agricultural or otherwise non-urbanized lifestyle. People like Aldo Leopold, for example, believed that modern capitalist society and its industrial economy and methods of production subordinates people to abstract hierarchical systems for their livelihood, and leads to environmental destruction on a large scale because the process of urbanization removes people from the natural world and twists images of it in peoples' minds from a sustaining force that surrounds them to a distant resource to be exploited. It might be my background in ecology talking but I have a certain amount of sympathy for that idea.

That thinking is too much infected with idealism, making up that man living with nature is a naturally good or healthy thing. For a lot of people (for pretty much the entire developed world by this point) living together in tighter, far more industrially advanced population centers works far better.

Agrarians tend to believe in an inherent virtue to living close to the land and by extent an agricultural or otherwise non-urbanized lifestyle. People like Aldo Leopold, for example, believed that modern capitalist society and its industrial economy and methods of production subordinates people to abstract hierarchical systems for their livelihood, and leads to environmental destruction on a large scale because the process of urbanization removes people from the natural world and twists images of it in peoples' minds from a sustaining force that surrounds them to a distant resource to be exploited. It might be my background in ecology talking but I have a certain amount of sympathy for that idea.

What I think is a good idea is for people to become independent from the food market by growing their own crops, much like in the case of having home economies produce their own electricity through solar and other renewables and thus become essentially autarkic from society around them.

Surely it's better for the Commune as a whole to become self-sufficient, no?

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

That thinking is too much infected with idealism, making up that man living with nature is a naturally good or healthy thing.

There is psychological and epidemiological research that suggests that people who spend more time in nature live longer and have lower incidences of mental illness. Difficult to statistically pry that apart from other effects like affluence though, admittedly.

For a lot of people (for pretty much the entire developed world by this point) living together in tighter, far more industrially advanced population centers works far better.

Which is part of the point, incidentally. Western industrial civilization is partially (if not largely) dependent on resource extraction and environmental degradation in the Third World in order to exist. People in Baotou and other cities in Inner Mongolia, for instance, suffer horrific conditions and heavy metal poisoning so that we can have Bluetooth-enabled toasters in every home. IMO I don't think we as leftists should be pointing too fervently at such a system as proving the ethical superiority of industrial modes of production. Makes us look like hypocrites.

[Pandeeria]

That thinking is too much infected with idealism, making up that man living with nature is a naturally good or healthy thing.

There is psychological and epidemiological research that suggests that people who spend more time in nature live longer and have lower incidences of mental illness. Difficult to statistically pry that apart from other effects like affluence though, admittedly.

For a lot of people (for pretty much the entire developed world by this point) living together in tighter, far more industrially advanced population centers works far better.

Which is part of the point, incidentally. Western industrial civilization is partially (if not largely) dependent on resource extraction and environmental degradation in the Third World in order to exist. People in Baotou and other cities in Inner Mongolia, for instance, suffer horrific conditions and heavy metal poisoning so that we can have Bluetooth-enabled toasters in every home. IMO I don't think we as leftists should be pointing too fervently at such a system as proving the ethical superiority of industrial modes of production. Makes us look like hypocrites.

Without heavy industrialization, Socialism cannot properly flourish.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

There is psychological and epidemiological research that suggests that people who spend more time in nature live longer and have lower incidences of mental illness. Difficult to statistically pry that apart from other effects like affluence though, admittedly.



Which is part of the point, incidentally. Western industrial civilization is partially (if not largely) dependent on resource extraction and environmental degradation in the Third World in order to exist. People in Baotou and other cities in Inner Mongolia, for instance, suffer horrific conditions and heavy metal poisoning so that we can have Bluetooth-enabled toasters in every home. IMO I don't think we as leftists should be pointing too fervently at such a system as proving the ethical superiority of industrial modes of production. Makes us look like hypocrites.

Without heavy industrialization, Socialism cannot properly flourish.

Sure. But as socialists we should also recognize that once industrialization has been achieved it should be abolished just as capitalism should, as it is predicated on hierarchical modes of production and dependent on unsustainable resource extraction for its very existence.

[Pandeeria]

Without heavy industrialization, Socialism cannot properly flourish.

Sure. But as socialists we should also recognize that once industrialization has been achieved it should be abolished just as capitalism should, as it is predicated on hierarchical modes of production and dependent on unsustainable resource extraction for its very existence.

You want us to abolish factories and machinery so we can go back to your hopeful, lovely agrarian times which never really existed?

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Sure. But as socialists we should also recognize that once industrialization has been achieved it should be abolished just as capitalism should, as it is predicated on hierarchical modes of production and dependent on unsustainable resource extraction for its very existence.

You want us to abolish factories and machinery so we can go back to your hopeful, lovely agrarian times which never really existed?

Nope. Don't know where you're getting that from, really. The new environmental and social realities the revolutions of the 21st century and beyond will face demand new economic and technological models, not old ones. Can't feed 7 billion people with manure and horse-drawn ploughs after all.

[Pandeeria]

You want us to abolish factories and machinery so we can go back to your hopeful, lovely agrarian times which never really existed?

Nope. Don't know where you're getting that from, really. The new environmental and social realities the revolutions of the 21st century and beyond will face demand new economic and technological models, not old ones. Can't feed 7 billion people with manure and horse-drawn ploughs after all.

You literally advocated for the abolition of industrialization...

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Nope. Don't know where you're getting that from, really. The new environmental and social realities the revolutions of the 21st century and beyond will face demand new economic and technological models, not old ones. Can't feed 7 billion people with manure and horse-drawn ploughs after all.

You literally advocated for the abolition of industrialization...

In the same way I advocate for the abolition and replacement of capitalism, yes. So what?

[Pandeeria]

You literally advocated for the abolition of industrialization...

In the same way I advocate for the abolition and replacement of capitalism, yes. So what?

In the same way? You support abolishing and replacing industrialization with something else?!

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

In the same way I advocate for the abolition and replacement of capitalism, yes. So what?

In the same way? You support abolishing and replacing industrialization with something else?!

... As I said, I very much do support the replacement of industrialization with a new system. We're talking in circles now.

[Pandeeria]

In the same way? You support abolishing and replacing industrialization with something else?!

... As I said, I very much do support the replacement of industrialization with a new system. We're talking in circles now.

So what's your proposed alternative?

[The New Sea Territory]

What I find interesting is how a socialist can criticize capitalism for its dependence on limitless growth because its never really unlimited, all the while defending industrialization's same faith in limitless growth.

[Pandeeria]

What I find interesting is how a socialist can criticize capitalism for its dependence on limitless growth because its never really unlimited, all the while defending industrialization's same faith in limitless growth.

I never said industrialization has limitless growth.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

... As I said, I very much do support the replacement of industrialization with a new system. We're talking in circles now.

So what's your proposed alternative?

A decentralized low-energy economy (Ie no routinized transoceanic shipping dependent on fossil fuels) with small, medium and large communities networked together physically and electronically so that production can be run in a consensus-based, democratic manner while retaining maximum efficiency and technical capability.

[Victoriala II]

So LWDT, anyone make any zesty Communist memes today to spook porky?

[Bhikkustan]

So what's your proposed alternative?

A decentralized low-energy economy (Ie no routinized transoceanic shipping dependent on fossil fuels) with small, medium and large communities networked together physically and electronically so that production can be run in a consensus-based, democratic manner while retaining maximum efficiency and technical capability.

Low energy? Are you Jeb! Bush?

[New confederate ramenia]

A decentralized low-energy economy (Ie no routinized transoceanic shipping dependent on fossil fuels) with small, medium and large communities networked together physically and electronically so that production can be run in a consensus-based, democratic manner while retaining maximum efficiency and technical capability.

Low energy? Are you Jeb! Bush?

jeb confirmed communist

[Mattopilos]

Low energy? Are you Jeb! Bush?

jeb confirmed communist

Please clap

[Bakery Hill]

Low energy? Are you Jeb! Bush?

jeb confirmed communist

[Trotskylvania]

It sounds kinda newb-ish, but I'm kind of interested in left communism and councilism in particular. Does anyone here suggest any literature on it?

The left communism subreddit has an extensive reading list as well as some periodicals that might be good to look into.

Broadly, there are two schools cohabiting under the idea of left communism (though most tend to be influenced by both): the Dutch-German school and the Italian school.

Paul Mattick, Otto Ruhle and Anton Pannenkoek are probably the biggest names in the former school. Amadeo Bordiga is the central influence in the latter. The basic break down is that the Dutch-German school is skeptical of the party form, advocates workers' councils in a dual power arrangement as the mode of struggle, support working within the context of trade unionism, and tend to be radically state skeptic. Whereas the Italian school is all about the party as the mode of struggle, hold that a singular invariant program can be developed to guide the movement, and generally view this whole project as forming the general staff of a working class army to overthrow the global capitalist system in a world revolutionary war.

It sounds kinda newb-ish, but I'm kind of interested in left communism and councilism in particular. Does anyone here suggest any literature on it?

Isn't "Left-Communism" the only form of Communism?

It's historical nomenclature, denoting factional positions early in the era of the Third International. Both in Russia and internationally, revolutionary socialists did not all hold to the same line. Some, such as the Workers' Opposition faction among the Bolsheviks, or the German councilists felt that Lenin had begun his own Thermidor during the civil war, and opposed backsliding into capitalist systems of management and autocracy. They were to the left of Lenin and the mainstream Bolsheviks, hence "left communism".