LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[Philjia]

Tyrrany and anarchy are never far apart. Economic and social collapse with favour the apocalyptic cult of fascism far more than it does us, and even if the war against them is won we may well devolve into war against ourselves and/or find that our victorious leaders have attitudes towards government that are much more similar to the fascists than perhaps we would have liked. The end of capitalism on anything other than our terms is more likely to damn us all than deliver a socialist utopia.

[West Leas Oros 2]

The concept of internationalism as it relates to socialism & marxist theory as a whole is what makes me pessimistic about the idea. I firmly believe that for a marxist or fully co-operative economic system to work, it would have to span across multiple superpowers, regional powers, and at least a simple majority of countries.

And I just don't see that scenario as likely, where internationally socialism becomes the predominant ideology, at least not in the foreseeable future.

IMO, speculating on the future is pointless. The best one can do is to work for an international Proletariat, as envisioned by Marx in the Manifesto.

Can't argue with that.

[Pasong Tirad]

Interesting discussion here of late. Increasingly convinced by the idea that coordinated activity worldwide at a moment of capitalist crisis is the only way to permanently alter the economic system.

I remain convinced that the forms of governance, type of socialism and social/cultural policies should differ by region and nation rather than one big party or central committee dictating them. However an alliance and brotherhood between socialist states, without regard to petty ideological differences, would be required to win that initial struggle. One country cannot do the job. As distasteful as I find some modern communists who've gone all in on woke culture, collaboration with them is an unavoidable necessity.

DI says... Left unity?

FYI there's a place where Left unity exists.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Interesting discussion here of late. Increasingly convinced by the idea that coordinated activity worldwide at a moment of capitalist crisis is the only way to permanently alter the economic system.

I remain convinced that the forms of governance, type of socialism and social/cultural policies should differ by region and nation rather than one big party or central committee dictating them. However an alliance and brotherhood between socialist states, without regard to petty ideological differences, would be required to win that initial struggle. One country cannot do the job. As distasteful as I find some modern communists who've gone all in on woke culture, collaboration with them is an unavoidable necessity.

DI says... Left unity?

FYI there's a place where Left unity exists.

Sounds great, but how do we spread that unity?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Tyrrany and anarchy are never far apart. Economic and social collapse with favour the apocalyptic cult of fascism far more than it does us, and even if the war against them is won we may well devolve into war against ourselves and/or find that our victorious leaders have attitudes towards government that are much more similar to the fascists than perhaps we would have liked. The end of capitalism on anything other than our terms is more likely to damn us all than deliver a socialist utopia.

That's certainly desirable, but it is very difficult to envision a mass movement emerging given the continued ideological hegemony of capitalism.

The average working person is very uninterested in expanding their stake in the means of production, the sting has been taken out of the 60s new left by reformist factions splitting large sections of minorities from the socialist movement who initially supported them (and then using them to trumpet how progressive capitalism is), and even green politics is being co-opted and transformed from a critique of capitalist expansionism and exploitation into a hipster brand where all can be saved by saying no to plastic and having meat-free Mondays.

Social democracy has been in general ideological retreat since the 1970s, and parties have been moderating their programs more and more to try and avoid being fucked by capital flight and plunging markets the moment they come close to office.

What's left? Vanguardism 2: Leninist Boogaloo?

[West Leas Oros 2]

Tyrrany and anarchy are never far apart. Economic and social collapse with favour the apocalyptic cult of fascism far more than it does us, and even if the war against them is won we may well devolve into war against ourselves and/or find that our victorious leaders have attitudes towards government that are much more similar to the fascists than perhaps we would have liked. The end of capitalism on anything other than our terms is more likely to damn us all than deliver a socialist utopia.

That's certainly desirable, but it is very difficult to envision a mass movement emerging given the continued ideological hegemony of capitalism.

The average working person is very uninterested in expanding their stake in the means of production, the sting has been taken out of the 60s new left by reformist factions splitting large sections of minorities from the socialist movement who initially supported them (and then using them to trumpet how progressive capitalism is), and even green politics is being co-opted and transformed from a critique of capitalist expansionism and exploitation into a brand of ethical shopping where apparently all can now be saved by ethical buying habits and meat free Mondays.

Social democracy has been in general ideological retreat since the 1970s, and parties have been moderating their programs more and more to try and avoid being fucked by capital flight and plunging markets the moment they come close to office.

What's left? Vanguardism 2: Leninist Boogaloo?

So what you mean to say is that capitalist "progressive" liberals and reformist social democracy is hurting socialism? That's not an uncommon opinion.

[Pasong Tirad]

DI says... Left unity?

FYI there's a place where Left unity exists.

Sounds great, but how do we spread that unity?

It depends, I suppose. I'm in agreement with DI here. It'll be different region per region depending on social and cultural factors - same with uniting the left in those different regions.

[Dumb Ideologies]

That's certainly desirable, but it is very difficult to envision a mass movement emerging given the continued ideological hegemony of capitalism.

The average working person is very uninterested in expanding their stake in the means of production, the sting has been taken out of the 60s new left by reformist factions splitting large sections of minorities from the socialist movement who initially supported them (and then using them to trumpet how progressive capitalism is), and even green politics is being co-opted and transformed from a critique of capitalist expansionism and exploitation into a brand of ethical shopping where apparently all can now be saved by ethical buying habits and meat free Mondays.

Social democracy has been in general ideological retreat since the 1970s, and parties have been moderating their programs more and more to try and avoid being fucked by capital flight and plunging markets the moment they come close to office.

What's left? Vanguardism 2: Leninist Boogaloo?

So what you mean to say is that capitalist "progressive" liberals and reformist social democracy is hurting socialism? That's not an uncommon opinion.

That might be "true" insofar as they tend to act as a safety valve in times of economic difficulty, their achievements largely rolled back when crises have passed.

But the counterpoint example is not feasible - where an outwardly "open" system exists and enjoys reasonable levels of legitimacy in a society people will participate in it and try to make what gains they can and prevent what losses they can. There being no social democrats or progressives is an academic exercise - why would they not have arisen or why would they disappear in a sudden puff of logic?

It's unlikely that in a situation of there only being radical leftists existing parties would simply ignore them if they started to become a large movement advocating the overthrow of capitalism; out of fear they'd make concessions and actively try to turn people into moderates by buying them off, which unless human motivations are fundamentally rewired some people will take up.

No, my comment was that things are likely going to have to go to shit under capitalism to an unprecedented level globally for its ideological dominance to break down and for there to be space opened for a move to anything else, by whatever means that might be. It's not a matter of "we should all change our program and tactics to x, then we win" as some on the Internet would have you believe.

[Nakena]

So what you mean to say is that capitalist "progressive" liberals and reformist social democracy is hurting socialism? That's not an uncommon opinion.

That might be "true" insofar as they tend to act as a safety valve in times of economic difficulty, their achievements largely rolled back when crises have passed.

But the counterpoint example is not feasible - where an outwardly "open" system exists and enjoys reasonable levels of legitimacy in a society people will participate in it and try to make what gains they can and prevent what losses they can. There being no social democrats or progressives is an academic exercise - why would they not have arisen or why would they disappear in a sudden puff of logic?

It's unlikely that in a situation of there only being radical leftists existing parties would simply ignore them if they started to become a large movement advocating the overthrow of capitalism; out of fear they'd make concessions and actively try to turn people into moderates by buying them off, which unless human motivations are fundamentally rewired some people will take up.

No, my comment was that things are likely going to have to go to shit under capitalism to an unprecedented level globally for its ideological dominance to break down and for there to be space opened for a move to anything else, by whatever means that might be. It's not a matter of "we should all change our program and tactics to x, then we win" as some on the Internet would have you believe.

Well, one thing is for sure the whole neoliberal "Muh free markets and muh capitalism" ideology took a heavy hit in 2008. I remember before it was like 24/7. It's much lesser now. Before it was unquestioned and globalist institutions like IMF, WTO and Davos were beyond critique. The only ones who were critical of globalization bad side effects were NGOs like ATTAC.

Now existing issues and problems are being addressed, and questionable development no longer remain untouched nor unquestioned. Awareness for problems has been arisen even amongst the elites in most western countries.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

ain't it tho
ain't it

No. The idea that all the world's problems are caused by capitalism is wrong.

Interesting discussion here of late. Increasingly convinced by the idea that coordinated activity worldwide at a moment of capitalist crisis is the only way to permanently alter the economic system.

It hasn't been the only way to do so in the past. What's different now?

The end of capitalism on anything other than our terms is more likely to damn us all than deliver a socialist utopia.

Close, in my opinion. The end of capitalism on anything other than reformist terms is more likely to damn us all than deliver a Socialist utopia.

[Cappuccina]

you kinda do if you want things like favourable access to things like cobalt or manganese or year round food crops
Hell that's soviet foreign policy in a nutshell right there

I’m not following.

He's saying that becoming socialist would automatically lead other nations to not trade with yours. In short, saying that unless you make other countries socialist, you won't have access to resources.

[Joohan]

ain't it tho
ain't it

No. The idea that all the world's problems are caused by capitalism is wrong.

I'd blame most of them on late stage liberalism...

[Cappuccina]

No. The idea that all the world's problems are caused by capitalism is wrong.

I'd blame most of them on late stage liberalism...

Liberalism and capitalism, tbh.

[Pacomia]

I’m not following.

He's saying that becoming socialist would automatically lead other nations to not trade with yours. In short, saying that unless you make other countries socialist, you won't have access to resources.

But that makes no sense. The U.S. traded 58.2 billion dollars worth of goods with Vietnam just in 2017, over 10 billion dollars of which were exports. Seems like pretty solid evidence that that's not true.

[Torrocca]

He's saying that becoming socialist would automatically lead other nations to not trade with yours. In short, saying that unless you make other countries socialist, you won't have access to resources.

But that makes no sense. The U.S. traded 58.2 billion dollars worth of goods with Vietnam just in 2017, over 10 billion dollars of which were exports. Seems like pretty solid evidence that that's not true.

Vietnam's not Socialist. They adopted Neoliberal policies in the 80s just to get out of being isolated from the rest of the world.

[Cappuccina]

But that makes no sense. The U.S. traded 58.2 billion dollars worth of goods with Vietnam just in 2017, over 10 billion dollars of which were exports. Seems like pretty solid evidence that that's not true.

Vietnam's not Socialist. They adopted Neoliberal policies in the 80s just to get out of being isolated from the rest of the world.

Also, because Marxist command economics doesn't work. :^)

[Pacomia]

Vietnam's not Socialist. They adopted Neoliberal policies in the 80s just to get out of being isolated from the rest of the world.

Also, because Marxist command economics doesn't work. :^)

Pfffffff...

Well, uh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_t ... ted_States

[Kubra]

I’m not following.

He's saying that becoming socialist would automatically lead other nations to not trade with yours. In short, saying that unless you make other countries socialist, you won't have access to resources.

it's not that they *don't* trade with you, But the trade takes place at a disadvantageous decision. Imagine a Soviet Union that did not have crap finished goods and tried to pay the workers what their commodities are worth: it could still not carve for itself a decent place on the world market, because it would compete with everyone trying to pay less than that value.

[Kubra]

Also, because Marxist command economics doesn't work. :^)

Pfffffff...

Well, uh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_t ... ted_States

it was the grain that did it. The Soviet Union produced grain products to a truly absurd degree, today's Russia and post Soviet states don't produce significantly more grain but people don't starve because nowadays they just eat other things.

[Pacomia]

Pfffffff...

Well, uh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_t ... ted_States

it was the grain that did it. The Soviet Union produced grain products to a truly absurd degree, today's Russia and post Soviet states don't produce significantly more grain but people don't starve because nowadays they just eat other things.

Yes, and it also traded with the US. So did Yugoslavia, to a lesser degree.

[Kubra]

it was the grain that did it. The Soviet Union produced grain products to a truly absurd degree, today's Russia and post Soviet states don't produce significantly more grain but people don't starve because nowadays they just eat other things.

Yes, and it also traded with the US. So did Yugoslavia, to a lesser degree.

they traded for (apart from grain ) finished goods and exchanged mostly with raw goods, and of course good ol' fashion debt. Not a very good position.
Yugoslavia was a market economy that to be honest did have some exportable goods, if only because of how cheap they ar.e. get a Yugo bro, it'll kinda run and for like idk 300 bucks a pop

[Kowani]

Vietnam's not Socialist. They adopted Neoliberal policies in the 80s just to get out of being isolated from the rest of the world.

Also, because Marxist command economics doesn't work. :^)

Vietnam was Marxist?

[Torrocca]

Also, because Marxist command economics doesn't work. :^)

Vietnam was Marxist?

Anything's Marxist if you close your eyes and scream at it loud enough.

MARXIST!

See? Now you're a Marxist.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Vietnam's not Socialist. They adopted Neoliberal policies in the 80s just to get out of being isolated from the rest of the world.

Also, because Marxist command economics doesn't work. :^)

Command economies succeed in the places you’d least expect them to. There are also situations where the economy seems like it isn’t doing too well, then said government is deposed and things are much worse, and people realize that the first government wasn’t too bad (as is the case with Zaire/DRC)

[Nakena]

Also, because Marxist command economics doesn't work. :^)

Vietnam was Marxist?

Marxist-Leninist to be exactly.

Still is technically.

Vietnam is a unitary Marxist-Leninist one-party socialist republic, one of the two communist states (the other being Laos) in Southeast Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Vietnam