LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[Byzconia]

I guess the crux of the issue is the idea that thinkers are automatically delegitimized by associations with racism or antisemitism, etc. Which isn't the case. Proudhon's theories aren't invalid because he hated Jews, imo.

Does that mean we should appreciate the genius of Giovanni Gentile in full without all those ugly bits in the actual system about roughing up the Slavs?

I mean, yes? The actual content of the Fascist Manifesto is something very fascinating to behold, given what Fascism actually ended up being in practice (the complete opposite, in most respects). One can agree with/respect some of a person's ideas while rejecting others, it's really not a hard concept to understand.

[Byzconia]

Better alternate history: Red October never happens and Russia becomes a Western-style democratic republic without a nasty and brutal civil war.

Imagine Russia not being in BRICS and aligning with NATO or something.

Given that NATO was created explicitly to fight Soviet expansion in Europe, it's hard to imagine a universe where NATO both exists and contains Russia as a member state.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I joke, I joke, I'm not really joking. 19th century philosophy can seem like ancient esoteric mystery, since normal objects tend to be their abstract representation more than anything else. Money bad, abolish the stuff, but still circulate vouchers representing some sort of value. It's why we get all this abolish money stuff from Marx but as soon as labour vouchers come up everyone goes "well that's not money".

Pretty much. It's just a new form of currency based more directly on the use value of a product than on its market value, but that somehow makes it "not money" despite being equally as abstract and representative.

[Kowani]

Imagine Russia not being in BRICS and aligning with NATO or something.

Given that NATO was created explicitly to fight Soviet expansion in Europe, it's hard to imagine a universe where NATO both exists and contains Russia as a member state.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I joke, I joke, I'm not really joking. 19th century philosophy can seem like ancient esoteric mystery, since normal objects tend to be their abstract representation more than anything else. Money bad, abolish the stuff, but still circulate vouchers representing some sort of value. It's why we get all this abolish money stuff from Marx but as soon as labour vouchers come up everyone goes "well that's not money".

Pretty much. It's just a new form of currency based more directly on the use value of a product than on its market value, but that somehow makes it "not money" despite being equally as abstract and representative.

From my understanding of labor vouchers, they can’t be traded to other individuals in the same way currency can? Or perhaps I’m misunderstanding. But anyway, it’s fundamentally different from money, because inflation only happens with population growth, not market bubbles (assuming labor quantity remains the same). Additionally, if you subscribe to MMT, the state can’t just print a bunch of labor vouchers, which is a giant change.

[West Leas Oros 2]

It'd only be relevant if it was seen throughout his writings and actually formed part of his system, but it really isn't and doesn't, with only a single mention in a single letter from Marx to Engels, in what was a sea of other letters between the two, as well as a sea of other writings.

I guess the crux of the issue is the idea that thinkers are automatically delegitimized by associations with racism or antisemitism, etc. Which isn't the case. Proudhon's theories aren't invalid because he hated Jews, imo.

Yeah, they're invalid because they're stupid.

[Kotar]

imagine making a forum to make your political ideology look great but then you realize that the only communist countries have killed millions of people, every single one of them.

[The New California Republic]

imagine making a forum to make your political ideology look great but then you realize that the only communist countries have killed millions of people, every single one of them.

Imagine thinking we only talk about Sino-Soviet styles of "communism". And plenty of communist countries haven't killed "millions of people" each.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

imagine making a forum to make your political ideology look great but then you realize that the only communist countries have killed millions of people, every single one of them.

Assuming that you live in the United States, Japan, or any given European country that made an empire (France, Spain, UK, Germany, etc), you might want to stop throwing stones from that glass house of yours. Or at least, make sure the stones actually hit something, because your statement isn't correct - the three most notable communist countries (USSR, PRC, DPRK) have killed millions, but the rest (like Cuba) haven't.

[Duvniask]

Lenin wasn't a supporter of capitalism, and I don't think you'll find many left-coms who will say he was a capitalist. I think he was a Marxist that turned on the wrong path, got lost in authoritarianism and created the means for Stalin's later rise to power.

Whatever intentions the man had as a Marxist, he like the rest of the Bolsheviks mistakenly thought they could reign-in capitalist forces by having the state assume ownership over all capital and develop it under the supposed guidance of the working class (to bring about socialism at some unspecified point in the future). They could not. The problem was not least that they considered the "working class" as a whole to be synonymous with party officials, as they themselves worked to quell real worker's emancipation, like when the Kronstadt sailors mutinied and demanded that they live up to their word, when they re-instituted one-man management at factories, or when they abolished the power of trade unions (later under Stalin).

Lenin was very upfront about the need to develop Russia as a capitalist nation first. That's also why he conceived of the New Economic Policy and used terms like "state capitalism" to describe the USSR at the time. Generally, Lenin's belief was that Russia wasn't "ready" and needed the firm hand of the Communist Party to take it in the direction of socialism. This "firm hand", of course, took on a life of its own. Lenin's role was in enabling that to happen and constructing a regime whose primary purpose eventually became to develop the state capital. It also helps to take into account the world situation at the time: Russia was isolated internationally and was under threat of foreign invasion (this had already happened under the Civil War). This created a strong emphasis on catching up with the industrialized West. The Bolsheviks thus found themselves engaging in primitive accumulation to develop the material basis for an industrialized capitalist society; it's especially clear if you take note of Stalin's murderous industrialization.

I think their actions only make sense if they were true believers, in the sense that they wanted a socialist society, but they entirely misunderstood the process of getting there and instead created a totalitarian nightmare of state-directed capitalism. Under Stalin this state capitalism was then re-branded as "socialism" for propaganda-purposes, and well, there you have it. In Economic Problems of the USSR (1951) one will generally find Stalin engaging in a lot of equivocation to justify this whole ordeal.


That doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

To paraphrase yourself, you said something akin to "The Soviet Union was socialist in the sense that it followed the theory and nationalized the means of production"
I bring up another example of centrally-controlled economy to show you that this isn't really what makes something a socialist economy.


Common ownership means assets are held indivisibly by all society.


Money, as a medium of exchange, exists to facilitate the exchange of commodities, and capitalism is the system where commodity production has become (near) universalized. The existence and widespread use of money implies capitalist relations.

Money, as a medium of exchange, is far older than capitalism and dates back to the earliest human civilizations. Of course, the monetary economy in these societies often existed alongside other forms of economics (like truck or gift economies) due to the decentralized nature of ancient states, but to say that money is inherently capitalist is just historically wrong. Money is inherent to markets, but markets are in no way exclusively capitalist.

You don't get it. Capitalism, the production of goods for sale on the market (commodity production), and the widespread use of money are all intrinsically linked. Capitalism develops monetary political economy to its fullest.

I'm fully aware how old money is. It's existed for as long as there was trade beyond simple barter. That is not the point. Simple commodity production (and simple exchange of commodities) has also existed for a very long time. But under capitalism commodity production becomes universalized as money becomes the universal equivalent and more or less all production is geared towards sale on the market of exchange. Money has existed for a long time, but at the margins of the economy; it is only relatively recently in human history that it has become so widespread, and that happened in tandem with capitalism.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I guess the crux of the issue is the idea that thinkers are automatically delegitimized by associations with racism or antisemitism, etc. Which isn't the case. Proudhon's theories aren't invalid because he hated Jews, imo.

Yeah, they're invalid because they're stupid.

Marx and Lenin's theories have been no more successful than Proudhon's.

[Cappuccina]

I'm not trying to kick people out of the Marxist Cookie Club. And I have studied left-wing ideologies at numerous points. I'll admit I need a refresher but, at the moment, I'll settle for having you explain why precisely leftcoms believe Lenin was a capitalist in a new and interesting way. If you'd be so kind.

Lenin wasn't a supporter of capitalism, and I don't think you'll find many left-coms who will say he was a capitalist. I think he was a Marxist that turned on the wrong path, got lost in authoritarianism and created the means for Stalin's later rise to power.

Whatever intentions the man had as a Marxist, he like the rest of the Bolsheviks mistakenly thought they could reign-in capitalist forces by having the state assume ownership over all capital and develop it under the supposed guidance of the working class (to bring about socialism at some unspecified point in the future). They could not. The problem was not least that they considered the "working class" as a whole to be synonymous with party officials, as they themselves worked to quell real worker's emancipation, like when the Kronstadt sailors mutinied and demanded that they live up to their word, when they re-instituted one-man management at factories, or when they abolished the power of trade unions (later under Stalin).

Lenin was very upfront about the need to develop Russia as a capitalist nation first. That's also why he conceived of the New Economic Policy and used terms like "state capitalism" to describe the USSR at the time. Generally, Lenin's belief was that Russia wasn't "ready" and needed the firm hand of the Communist Party to take it in the direction of socialism. This "firm hand", of course, took on a life of its own. Lenin's role was in enabling that to happen and constructing a regime whose primary purpose eventually became to develop the state capital. It also helps to take into account the world situation at the time: Russia was isolated internationally and was under threat of foreign invasion (this had already happened under the Civil War). This created a strong emphasis on catching up with the industrialized West. The Bolsheviks thus found themselves engaging in primitive accumulation to develop the material basis for an industrialized capitalist society; it's especially clear if you take note of Stalin's murderous industrialization.

I think their actions only make sense if they were true believers, in the sense that they wanted a socialist society, but they entirely misunderstood the process of getting there and instead created a totalitarian nightmare of state-directed capitalism. Under Stalin this state capitalism was then re-branded as "socialism" for propaganda-purposes, and well, there you have it. In Economic Problems of the USSR (1951) one will generally find Stalin engaging in a lot of equivocation to justify this whole ordeal.

The contrast between a palace economy and totalitarian socialism wasn't merely rooted in a distinction between the ancient and the modern. The entire social, economic, and political structure differed on a fundamental level. To disregard those distinctions would be to disregard the tumults of urbanization, the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution.

That doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

To paraphrase yourself, you said something akin to "The Soviet Union was socialist in the sense that it followed the theory and nationalized the means of production"
I bring up another example of centrally-controlled economy to show you that this isn't really what makes something a socialist economy.

The distinction between public ownership and common ownership in this context is that the former can imply ownership be the state or cooperatives on behalf of the workers whereas the latter implies direct ownership by the workers, correct? I've read on the topic. I merely need some affirmation.

Common ownership means assets are held indivisibly by all society.

It was not my understanding that all forms of socialism need be moneyless. I do accept that as an intrinsic property of communism in practice.

Money, as a medium of exchange, exists to facilitate the exchange of commodities, and capitalism is the system where commodity production has become (near) universalized. The existence and widespread use of money implies capitalist relations.

So, it other words, you want to go back to a bartering system? How would that be "better" than using currency?

[Joohan]

because your statement isn't correct - the three most notable communist countries (USSR, PRC, DPRK) have killed millions, but the rest (like Cuba) haven't.

Cuba is still a totalitarian nightmare state, the likes of which make Guantanamo bay look like another day at the office. They're not really an exception to the rule either. Every successful socialist state in our history has followed a similar path.

[West Leas Oros 2]

imagine making a forum to make your political ideology look great but then you realize that the only communist countries have killed millions of people, every single one of them.

TFW every single communist ever was Stalin.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Yeah, they're invalid because they're stupid.

Marx and Lenin's theories have been no more successful than Proudhon's.

IDK, Marx did inspire most communist revolutions that were even somewhat successful, and even if Marxist theory was unsuccessful, that doesn't validate Proudhon.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Marx and Lenin's theories have been no more successful than Proudhon's.

IDK, Marx did inspire most communist revolutions that were even somewhat successful.

Successful at what, exactly?

[West Leas Oros 2]

IDK, Marx did inspire most communist revolutions that were even somewhat successful.

Successful at what, exactly?

Well for one, surviving for a (relatively) long time.

[Duvniask]

So, it other words, you want to go back to a bartering system?

No.

How would that be "better" than using currency?

Have never once said it would.

[Nuroblav]

imagine making a forum to make your political ideology look great but then you realize that the only communist countries have killed millions of people, every single one of them.

Capitalism has killed more

[West Leas Oros 2]

imagine making a forum to make your political ideology look great but then you realize that the only communist countries have killed millions of people, every single one of them.

Capitalism has killed much more

"B-but that wasn't REAL capitalism!"

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

imagine making a forum to make your political ideology look great but then you realize that the only communist countries have killed millions of people, every single one of them.

Capitalism has killed more

So both sides are shit? Right

[Nuroblav]

Capitalism has killed more

So both sides are shit? Right

Well it really depends on what you mean by 'communism' and 'capitalism' because there's different variations on them.

Capitalism has killed much more

"B-but that wasn't REAL capitalism!"

[Proctopeo]

Capitalism has killed much more

"B-but that wasn't REAL capitalism!"

it's only capitalism if the government owns nothing and there's no labor regulations, and if the Capitalism Fairy blessed it herself don't @ me

[West Leas Oros 2]

"B-but that wasn't REAL capitalism!"

it's only capitalism if the government owns nothing and there's no labor regulations, and if the Capitalism Fairy blessed it herself don't @ me

There are actually a lot of capitalists I've met who unironically believe this.

[Proctopeo]

it's only capitalism if the government owns nothing and there's no labor regulations, and if the Capitalism Fairy blessed it herself don't @ me

There are actually a lot of capitalists I've met who unironically believe this.

It's the same deal as "um actually it's not communism because it wasn't flawless (:".

However I will say that "state capitalism" is a nonsense concept.

[Joohan]

imagine making a forum to make your political ideology look great but then you realize that the only communist countries have killed millions of people, every single one of them.

Capitalism has killed more

Over time, maybe. Between the years 1917-1989? Nope, not by a long shot.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Successful at what, exactly?

Well for one, surviving for a (relatively) long time.

I mean, so has almost every other system. Monarchy lasted thousands of years, and wasn't nearly as much of a dystopian nightmare.