Marxist Categoricalism

[James Connolly]

I cannot stand the non-Materialistic apparent Categoricals that some Leftists adhere to with a sickening affinity.

I am, of course, referring to works like the Communist Manifesto and Principles of Communism, which themselves have SOME considerations for Material realities, FOR THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, but are relatively void of considerations to the always changing nature of conditions.

When Ultra-Leftists categorize Marxist-Leninists as 'non-Marxists,' are you simply saying this because we adhere to practical considerations to matter instead of dogma set in stone that only apply to certain conditions? What nonsense is this? And I put into question your own relations with Marxism, as they appear to be overly-Liberal in nature rather than Materialistic.

If Marx witnessed an age of mass propaganda and collective security, like in the twentyfirst century, would he not reorganize his views on how a Revolution should be conducted and how Communism is achieved, as MATERIALISTS do?

PLEASE WAKE UP TO REALITY!

[The Jay]

This seems like flame-baiting but I think you're serious. Opposing authoritarian structures is not contrary to materialism, but you didn't exactly address that. How about you come up with some concrete, specific propositions and questions that will be able to be unambiguously answered?

[#FF0000]

Wanna be a little more specific in what you're talking about here?

[James Connolly]

There was a question inside of what was asked, but I'll perhaps need someone more capable to answering the question. I'll just ask the former member Rosa Liechtenstein then.

For the rest of you, here is the question.

How are things Marx wrote in the 19th Century, about future prospects of a Communist society, relevant to material conditions in the 21st? Categoricals are very Liberal, and are only relative to certain conditions.

Marx said material conditions changed even under Communism, so how can 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to their needs' be maintained when conditions cannot satisfy for such a thing?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I feel like you're being needlessly vague, are you suggesting that the definition of communism changes based on conditions in the present? Because I would say no, not even Stalin went as far as that in his justification for the nature of the Soviet Union.

[The Jay]

There was a question inside of what was asked, but I'll perhaps need someone more capable to answering the question. I'll just ask the former member Rosa Liechtenstein then.


That was a cute personal attack. Try relaxing before you write something foolish.



For the rest of you, here is the question.

How are things Marx wrote in the 19th Century, about future prospects of a Communist society, relevant to material conditions in the 21st? Categoricals are very Liberal, and are only relative to certain conditions.


Again, you aren't specific. Your questions are along the lines of pointed half-insults disguised as questions.



Marx said material conditions changed even under Communism, so how can 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to their needs' be maintained when conditions cannot satisfy for such a thing?


Well then obviously material conditions aren't right for communism; therefore, there is not communism. It's pretty simple.

[James Connolly]

I'm only going to address the one you properly answered.


Well then obviously material conditions aren't right for communism; therefore, there is not communism. It's pretty simple.
This disregards Stagism, and contradicts Dialectical Materialism. Matter, which holds all objectivity in the world, is forever changing and can't be controlled by humans. It is thus a dictator of society. Conditions will change, whether you like it or not.

I feel like you're being needlessly vague, are you suggesting that the definition of communism changes based on conditions in the present? Because I would say no, not even Stalin went as far as that in his justification for the nature of the Soviet Union.
Progressive and Scientific Socialism actually calls for this. Stalin called for massive changes in 1929 and 1951, to match the material realities of Socialism in the USSR, so you don't know what you're talking about.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I'm only going to address the one you properly answered.

This disregards Stagism, and contradicts Dialectical Materialism.

Progressive and Scientific Socialism actually calls for this. Stalin called for massive changes in 1929 and 1951, to match the material realities of Socialism in the USSR, so you don't know what you're talking about.

Uhh so you're of the opinion that the USSR achieved communism:lol:? Stalin claimed that they had achieved socialism. You're lucky your aggressive posting persona covers up the fact you don't know what you're talking about.

[James Connolly]

Uhh so you're of the opinion that the USSR achieved communism:lol:? Stalin claimed that they had achieved socialism.
Did you ignore my points regarding Stagism? No! The Soviet Union was in the early stages Socialism, and not Communism. And no, Stalin most certainly didn't claim Socialism had been FULLY achieved(read Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR by Joseph Stalin). I can supply quotes on request, although I'm going to be busy for the next few hours so you'll have to wait.

[The Jay]

I'm only going to address the one you properly answered.

This disregards Stagism, and contradicts Dialectical Materialism. Matter, which holds all objectivity in the world, is forever changing and can't be controlled by humans. It is thus a dictator of society. Conditions will change, whether you like it or not.

I'm not familiar with Stagism, nor am I an expert in Soviet history. I do take issue with your assertion of my comment's contradiction of historical materialism's principles. Perhaps you can go into further detail in a conversationally productive manner as opposed to being an asshole as you have been the past few responses.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Hey that's really great and god knows there's nothing better than some Stalin quotes, but I couldn't care less about him or the ussr. You claimed that the definition of communism changed based on present conditions, since you're ready to launch into a socialism in one country song and dance I'll assume you're backing off from that.

[James Connolly]

I will address these further when I get home from work.

[Engels]

You can change the names of things all you want, but that doesn’t change the nature of the things themselves.
Calling a shitty state capitalist bureaucracy ‘socialist’ will not change the fact that it’s still a shitty state capitalist bureaucracy.

[Comrades Unite!]

I agree that you're being overtly vague, and not precisely related your post to a precise material condition.

[James Connolly]

I'm not familiar with Stagism, nor am I an expert in Soviet history.
Here is a little briefing on Stagism, although they didn't go into very much detail.
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#stagism

Here is a good quote by Marx, from 1877, that defends such a system:

"If Russia is tending to become a capitalist nation after the example of the Western European countries, and during the last years she has been taking a lot of trouble in this direction - she will not succeed without having first transformed a good part of her peasants into proletarians; and after that, once taken to the bosom of the capitalist regime, she will experience its pitiless laws like other profane peoples..."


I do take issue with your assertion of my comment's contradiction of historical materialism's principles.
How can you be a serious Materialist when you follow categoricals set by Marx that apply relatively little today as they did in the 19th century? Those were mere suggestions, which have some legitimacy today but were really meant for a 19th century audience.

What will Socialism and Communism look like? No one knows, because it'll be morphed by material conditions. That does not however mean that Marx, and his predecessors and successors, didn't create foundations from which these can be expanded upon relative to respective conditions of society.


HYou claimed that the definition of communism changed based on present conditions, since you're ready to launch into a socialism in one country song and dance I'll assume you're backing off from that.
Actually no, what Ultra-leftists seem to ignore is that SIOC was adopted to match the material realities of the Soviet Union at that time, which was poor infrastructure and technology, that couldn't possibly support revolutions in Imperial countries. In an environment of collective security, which exists today, where multiple coalition partners will pounce on you if you're going to conduct a revolution(as was the case in Albania in 1997), then a revolution will be NECESSARY in each one of those nations(or at least the most powerful coalition partners.)

Do you see how Marxism-Leninism works practically according to Material Conditions, while Bolshevik-Leninism makes suicidal and imperialistic drives that strongly ignore any material realities? We do not adhere to Stalinist principles, as they were created in accordance with material conditions of the USSR in the early 20th century. It is one thing to criticize Stalinism, as Stalin himself did on many occasions, but it is another to criticize Marxism-Leninism.

Here is a good explanation, by Stalin, of SIOC.
"But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that it will thereby achieve the complete and final victory of socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of only one country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention and, consequently, also against restoration? No, it does not. For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries. Lenin expressed this thought succinctly when he said that the task of the victorious revolution is to do "the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries."


You can change the names of things all you want, but that doesn’t change the nature of the things themselves.
Calling a shitty state capitalist bureaucracy ‘socialist’ will not change the fact that it’s still a shitty state capitalist bureaucracy.
I've criticized you before for using Liberalistic logic, so what do you do? You do it again!

Anyway, let's address this.

A proper example of a 'State Capitalist' country would have been Prussia in the 19th century, which managed to develop incredibly fast in a short time(Marx even wrote about how he didn't recognize Berlin even though it had only been 10 years since he last saw it.)

Likewise, the Soviet Union, under Lenin's NEP, had State Capitalism, but it was ended, in 1929, by Stalin's many policies.

I've in the past noted that 'Stalinist' USSR had traits of State Capitalism, simply because it was a Primitive form of Socialism that hadn't completed its Capitalist stage of development, but I also noted its Socialist features, which was a system run by the Proletariat as directed by a Vanguard.

I have further noted that Socialism isn't State Ownership over the Means of Production, rather PROLETARIAN Ownership over the Means of Production. That is why I've noted that the USSR's Socialism was PRIMITIVE.

Although the USSR definitely had Bureaucratic features, as it was just a reality the government had to deal with, as Lenin noted, that doesn't mean Stalin was pro-Bureaucracy. In fact, Stalin spent a lot of his energy combating Bureaucracy.

[James Connolly]

I agree that you're being overtly vague, and not precisely related your post to a precise material condition.
Oh I'm sorry, am I supposed to guess what Material Conditions will exist in the future? Am I to take the role of an oracle?

I am of course speaking in General terms, not specific, as the latter cannot be speculated on with accuracy.

My real point has been that the future is impossible to predict, as the future is reliant on how things are directed in the present.

Through this, I've made the point that Marx's categoricals don't apply to a future age, as they aren't compatible with Materialism. This is to say Ultra-Leftists can't call out Marxist-Leninists for not adopting every principle laid out by Marx and Engels, in their respective books, after they began Socialism, rather following suite in a pragmatic fashion in accordance with Material Realities. I still hold that humans make their own history, but they don't have the capacity to control their material conditions(I paraphrase Marx).

[The Jay]

Here is a little briefing on Stagism, although they didn't go into very much detail.
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#stagism

If you really thing Stagism holds water then it is you who contradicts Historical Materialism. Thinking that there is a necessary procession of stages or phases of history is exactly what Marx spoke out against in The German Ideology. It is also - in the immediate situation of backward countries - class-collaborationist.


Here is a good quote by Marx, from 1877, that defends such a system:

"If Russia is tending to become a capitalist nation after the example of the Western European countries, and during the last years she has been taking a lot of trouble in this direction - she will not succeed without having first transformed a good part of her peasants into proletarians; and after that, once taken to the bosom of the capitalist regime, she will experience its pitiless laws like other profane peoples..."

This quote doesn't say much, and even if it did, so what? You were just harping on people for "taking Marx categorically".


How can you be a serious Materialist when you follow categoricals set by Marx that apply relatively little today as they did in the 19th century? Those were mere suggestions, which have some legitimacy today but were really meant for a 19th century audience.

Please tell me which "categorical" I follow. It would be interesting to know more about myself from someone that I've never talked to before.


What will Socialism and Communism look like? No one knows, because it'll be morphed by material conditions. That does not however mean that Marx, and his predecessors and successors, didn't create foundations from which these can be expanded upon relative to respective conditions of society.


Who said anything that would disagree with this?

[James Connolly]

If you really thing Stagism holds water then it is you who contradicts Historical Materialism. Thinking that there is a necessary procession of stages or phases of history is exactly what Marx spoke out against in The German Ideology. It is also - in the immediate situation of backward countries - class-collaborationist.
Engels seems to be speaking about stagism in this quote:

"In Germany, finally, the decisive struggle now on the order of the day is that between the bourgeoisie and the absolute monarchy. Since the communists cannot enter upon the decisive struggle between themselves and the bourgeoisie until the bourgeoisie is in power, it follows that it is in the interest of the communists to help the bourgeoisie to power as soon as possible in order the sooner to be able to overthrow it. Against the governments, therefore, the communists must continually support the radical liberal party, taking care to avoid the self-deceptions of the bourgeoisie and not fall for the enticing promises of benefits which a victory for the bourgeoisie would allegedly bring to the proletariat. The sole advantages which the proletariat would derive from a bourgeois victory would consist "

Or is he supporting Capitalism?
Take your pick.




This quote doesn't say much, and even if it did, so what? You were just harping on people for "taking Marx categorically".I of course am referring to his idealistic contributions to Communism that are meant to list how a Communist society should run. I myself doubt he'd promote adopting his policies senselessly without realizing the REAL WORLD IMPLICATIONS it will have. This isn't to attack his marvelous Dialectic, or other theories which HAVE A SCIENTIFIC BASIS, that I adhere to.

Work on your comprehension...


Please tell me which "categorical" I follow. It would be interesting to know more about myself from someone that I've never talked to before.I don't mean to address you personally, nor make implicit speculations against what you may think, rather to attack the idealistic and unscientific aspects of Ultra-Leftism which was adopted from misrepresentation of Marx.



Who said anything that would disagree with this?As stated, I've been questioning the ultra-leftist who ceaselessly attack the legitimacy of Marxism-Leninism day-in and day-out.

I am glad you recognize that matter comes before the ideal, and that should be a trend of all so-called 'Marxists.'

[Mr. Natural]

RedAlert1999, Did you post solely to stir up a go-nowhere ruckus? I experience you as offensive. Why don't you go hang out with Rosa Lichtenstein some more?

[Ocean Seal]

This guy really sounds like a troll. You have 28 posts yo, chill the fuck out, and put together a solid argument rather than some repetitive flamebait.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

=
I of course am referring to his idealistic contributions to Communism that are meant to list how a Communist society should run. I myself doubt he'd promote adopting his policies senselessly without realizing the REAL WORLD IMPLICATIONS it will have. This isn't to attack his marvelous Dialectic, or other theories which HAVE A SCIENTIFIC BASIS, that I adhere to.
If you wish to put emphasis on your words, use italics next time. Needlessly capitalizing words just makes me feel as if I'm reading the King James bible.

(...and the MARX OUR GOD smote the bourgeoisie with festering and angry communists all over their bodies....)

[Thirsty Crow]

First of all, this is a worthless rant. I don't even know why I'm responding to it, probably because of its flaming, but okay, nevermind.



I am, of course, referring to works like the Communist Manifesto and Principles of Communism, which themselves have SOME considerations for Material realities, FOR THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, but are relatively void of considerations to the always changing nature of conditions.First of all, the works you mention are not only based on the political, social and economic conditions of the historical period in question, but also on the theoretical extrapolation pertaining to what is called historical materialism (broadly conceived method) and the fundamental characteristics of the capitalist mode of production. In this sense the communist program is indeed invariant because these fundamental aspects of social relations of production are still the dominant ones!

Secondly, Marx and Engels didn't pretend they were seers or prophets. No wonder they didn't include wild speculation on future changes.



When Ultra-Leftists categorize Marxist-Leninists as 'non-Marxists,' are you simply saying this because we adhere to practical considerations to matter instead of dogma set in stone that only apply to certain conditions? What nonsense is this? And I put into question your own relations with Marxism, as they appear to be overly-Liberal in nature rather than Materialistic.This is really precious since Stalinists are the ones that actually do what you accuse ultra-lefts of. You take the historical experience of a certain nation-state and absolutize it into a set of theoretical principles, clearly visible in relation to the theory of socialism in one country - a revision of both the conception of socialism in opposition to capitalism, and a revision of the politics of communism - which cannot be divorced from the retreat of the international revolutionary wave. It historically represented a compromise with this retreat and buttressed it.

Another obvious point is the explanation of the dissolution of USSR in terms of revisionism. If Marxism were synonymous with idealism, than this would epitomize Marxism well.

As for accusations of liberalism, that's just pathetic and really lazy. Try harder


If Marx witnessed an age of mass propaganda and collective security, like in the twentyfirst century, would he not reorganize his views on how a Revolution should be conducted and how Communism is achieved, as MATERIALISTS do?
Ironically, he did withness an age of mass propaganda. Ever heard of newspapers?
But yeah, you mean something else by "mass propaganda", probably the internet. As for collective security, I don't know. Do you refer to the repressive apparatus?

But more importantly, how does this, in which aspects, invalidate other lines of political thought and action apart from Marxism-Leninism?


PLEASE WAKE UP TO REALITY!By reality you mean "Marxism-Leninism", right?
What a pitifully disguised preaching project. Please come to our cult pwetty pleeeeaaase.

Oh yeah, I noticed these pearly of wisdom a bit late.



Marx said material conditions changed even under Communism, so how can 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to their needs' be maintained when conditions cannot satisfy for such a thing?
Ever heard of the notion of productive powers?

If anything, we're significantly closer to acheiving such a state approximated by this formula now than in Marx's time due to the very development of the productive powers of mankind.

Tell me again, how does this invalidate anything? What are you rambling about?



Actually no, what Ultra-leftists seem to ignore is that SIOC was adopted to match the material realities of the Soviet Union at that time, which was poor infrastructure and technology, that couldn't possibly support revolutions in Imperial countries. In an environment of collective security, which exists today, where multiple coalition partners will pounce on you if you're going to conduct a revolution(as was the case in Albania in 1997), then a revolution will be NECESSARY in each one of those nations(or at least the most powerful coalition partners.)


Bullshit.

Infrastructure and technology have nothing to do with advocating internationalism and proletarian revolution, these are all just feeble references which don't address the main issue: the revision of the very concept and understanding of both the capitalism mode of production and communism, alongside the reactionary politics leading to such glorious examples like the massacre of Chinese workers in 1927 and the popular front, just to name a few.

You act as if the "ultra-left" were arguing for military intervention and invasion on behalf of the Bolsheviks. Which is nonsense (though it was, to an extent, true in relation to so called "revolutionary war" position of Bukharin connected to Brest-Litovsk; but you can hardly take this position to epitomize the "ultra-left" criticism of the reactionary character of both the theory and the Soviet state at that point).

[James Connolly]

First of all, the works you mention are not only based on the political, social and economic conditions of the historical period in question, but also on the theoretical extrapolation pertaining to what is called historical materialism (broadly conceived method) and the fundamental characteristics of the capitalist mode of production. In this sense the communist program is indeed invariant because these fundamental aspects of social relations of production are still the dominant ones!

I was referring, of course, to the theoretical things they wrote about, such as 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs,' which have no material basis. No where did I attack Marx's points on Social Classes and Economic relations, so, if you read properly, instead of cherrypicking points I've made while taking them out-of-context, you'd have reached a more appropriate conclusion than this sorry excuse for a reply.


This is really precious since Stalinists are the ones that actually do what you accuse ultra-lefts of. You take the historical experience of a certain nation-state and absolutize it into a set of theoretical principles, clearly visible in relation to the theory of socialism in one country - a revision of both the conception of socialism in opposition to capitalism, and a revision of the politics of communism - which cannot be divorced from the retreat of the international revolutionary wave. It historically represented a compromise with this retreat and buttressed it.
Actually no, I explained why this point was incorrect to another user. You later replied to that very post, so I'm left wondering why you'd repeat someone else's point, unless you're out to create inconveniences for me, which is unlikely.


Another obvious point is the explanation of the dissolution of USSR in terms of revisionism. If Marxism were synonymous with idealism, than this would epitomize Marxism well.
I explained, to you, on another thread, why Revisionism had a Material basis.


As for accusations of liberalism, that's just pathetic and really lazy. Try harder
I will direct you to one of my post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2500246&postcount=81) where I characterize why such posts are Liberal.


Ironically, he did withness an age of mass propaganda. Ever heard of newspapers?
But yeah, you mean something else by "mass propaganda", probably the internet. As for collective security, I don't know. Do you refer to the repressive apparatus?

By mass propaganda, I meant things that are more media oriented.
By collective security, I meant the Liberal obsession with large-scale military pacts.


But more importantly, how does this, in which aspects, invalidate other lines of political thought and action apart from Marxism-Leninism?
Marxism-Leninism thoroughly address this materially, unlike many other schools of thought.
If your idea of Socialism is, 'workers of the world united,' which really holds absolutely no precedent unless certain conditions are in place- like a Vanguardist international force, such as Comintern, which will cultivate Revolutions relative to conditions of various societies, as opposed to World Revolution.

Do Marxists do this? Yes, but can they do it as efficiently as Marxist-Leninists? No!


Ever heard of the notion of productive powers?

If anything, we're significantly closer to acheiving such a state approximated by this formula now than in Marx's time due to the very development of the productive powers of mankind.

So your speculations about future conditions are supposed to satisfy ideas that are void of material considerations? I know this might be a little embarrassing after I wrote it out, and contradictions surfaced, so I will give you another try in giving a more compelling argument.




Infrastructure and technology have nothing to do with advocating internationalism and proletarian revolution
Oh yeah! Go Red Army, liberate the world! Don't worry, we may have low quality weapons, technology, and many issues feeding our own population, not to mention a small Proletarian class and strong Reactionary opposition, but our main objective is to liberate the world! We're only going to lose a few million Russians before we're done(maybe more- a lot more)!

Being practical in accordance with reality is a far better tactic than what the ultra-left suggests. Being dogmatic is largely the end of any legitimacy for Marxism, as it would just be a furtherance of other ideologies who only adhere to the great teachings of various clowns.
We don't want to liberate people that don't want to be liberated- that's the mistake Napoleon made.

[Mr. Natural]

RedAlert1999, I felt bad about my brief, dismissive post to you yesterday after I left my computer. You are not an airhead, and I, too, emphasize a need to "update" Marxism to engage the new conditions that have arisen since the 19th century. Thus I agree with the sense of your statement, "If Marx witnessed an age of mass propaganda and collective security, like in the twentyfirst century, would he not reorganize his views on how a Revolution should be conducted and how Communism is achieved, as MATERIALISTS do?"

However, the "basics" of Marxism--Marx's historical materialism and analysis of capitalism--remain valid. The major change that current Marxists must engage is capitalism's globalization: its deadly, systemic envelopment of human and non-human communities with malignant, life-and-community-killing capitalist relations. We all live and think within The System now, and your post points to this. Mass propaganda and security states are repesentative of this globalization.

So it would be really interesting and quite possibly radically worthwhile for Revlefters to explore our changed conditions and develop some effective responses.

But you really have a snarky, snide flavor to your posts that prohibits comradely engagement. How about cleaning that up a bit? A lot?

What set me off was your reference to Rosa L, who made it her fanatical mission in life to destroy any attempts to discuss dialectics anywhere. She is very bright but is the ultimate lost reductionist, and so I was surprised to read your affirmation of dialectics.

My red-green best.

[James Connolly]

Many things I've been doing, as has been regarded as rudeness, has been my attempt to keep some order on this thread. I'm not going to be kind to those who post senseless comments on this thread, and who don't properly address the root of my argument.

Why should we follow the principles set in stone by Marx and Engels that don't seem to have a material basis(or those applied relatively)?

Marx developed Historical and Dialectical Materialism to explain why the world is the way it is and how it will change. Very good, but how do his principles regarding Communism apply to a nation that has a 30% Proletarian class, and which hasn't passed the Capitalist stage of development?
The conditions for an adoption of such principles weren't ready, but could be made ready with a furtherance of development in such a country via Progressivism.


However, the "basics" of Marxism--Marx's historical materialism and analysis of capitalism--remain valid.
I've made it a point on various occasions, and on this exact thread, to affirm this. I'm not attacking Historical Materialism.


But you really have a snarky, snide flavor to your posts that prohibits comradely engagement. How about cleaning that up a bit? A lot?
It is really a trait that can't be unattributed to me. I will respond to replies in a necessary fashion.

[Marxaveli]

Actually no, what Ultra-leftists seem to ignore is that SIOC was adopted to match the material realities of the Soviet Union at that time, which was poor infrastructure and technology, that couldn't possibly support revolutions in Imperial countries. In an environment of collective security, which exists today, where multiple coalition partners will pounce on you if you're going to conduct a revolution(as was the case in Albania in 1997), then a revolution will be NECESSARY in each one of those nations(or at least the most powerful coalition partners.)

Here is a good explanation, by Stalin, of SIOC.
"But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that it will thereby achieve the complete and final victory of socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of only one country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention and, consequently, also against restoration? No, it does not. For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries. Lenin expressed this thought succinctly when he said that the task of the victorious revolution is to do "the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries."



Hate to burst your bubble, but SIOC has long been discredited as reactionary-revisionist bullshit, and for good reason.

Marx himself, wouldn't have approved of it either:

"it is our task", to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far – not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world – that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers. – Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League

/thread.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Hate to burst your bubble, but SIOC has long been discredited as reactionary-revisionist bullshit, and for good reason.

Marx himself, wouldn't have approved of it either:

"it is our task", to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far – not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world – that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers. – Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League

/thread.

Hello, comrade. I'm curious about your statement regarding the concept of socialism in one country having been discredited. Perhaps you could expand on that. Is there also something in Marx's writing (or perhaps even Engels's writing) to which you might direct our attention with regards to the socialist endeavor within the boundaries of a particular state? The above quote, although somewhat wanting with regards to citation, is fairly representative of Marxist internationalism. What it doesn't seem to address, though, is the issue of the seizure of political power within a state by the national proletariat and the endeavor to alleviate the instances of oppression within that state, when the opportunity for an uninterrupted exportation of socialist revolution is not realistic.

[James Connolly]

Hate to burst your bubble, but SIOC has long been discredited as reactionary-revisionist bullshit, and for good reason.

Marx himself, wouldn't have approved of it either:

"it is our task", to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far – not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world – that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers. – Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League

/thread.

You know, I've been attacking Marxist Categoricals this entire thread. Now, after taking one of Marx's quotes out of context, you're portraying Marx as if he was an irrational radical, as if he didn't learn from the mistakes of the French Revolution.

Stalin never disagreed with support of countries who were having a revolution.

"But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that it will thereby achieve the complete and final victory of socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of only one country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention and, consequently, also against restoration? No, it does not. For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries. Lenin expressed this thought succinctly when he said that the task of the victorious revolution is to do "the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries.
-Stalin, The Foundations of Leninism

Stalin disagreed with the idea of 'exporting' the revolution. You cannot 'export' revolutions, as that was the mistake Napoleon made in Spain. We must rather follow through practically and ensure that only those who want to be liberated are.

It was Trotksy's blunderings that alienated international Communist parties as 'foreign agents' for a very long time.

[Marxaveli]

I'd say the last 20+ years is material evidence enough that SIOC does not work, and cannot work - at least not in developing nation states. The imperialist Capitalist countries eat them alive (or put embargoes on them, heh), or they are forced into creating private sectors with a top-down bureaucracy that creates a degenerated workers State. Perhaps in a advanced Capitalist nation the outcome would be different, but we have yet to see this materialize. *shrugs*

As for Trotsky's blunderings, IDK, I'd say his criticisms of SOIC have proven to be pretty spot on if you ask me. No, I'm not a Trotskyite, as I don't really subscribe to any particular tendency in Marxism - I respect them all and simply view things objectively.

[Камо́ Зэд]

I'd say the last 20+ years is material evidence enough that SIOC does not work, and cannot work - at least not in developing nation states. The imperialist Capitalist countries eat them alive (or put embargoes on them, heh), or they are forced into creating private sectors with a top-down bureaucracy that creates a degenerated workers State. *shrugs*

As for Trotsky's blunderings, IDK, I'd say his criticisms of SOIC have proven to be pretty spot on if you ask me. No, I'm not a Trotskyite, as I don't really subscribe to any particular tendency in Marxism - I respect them all and simply view things objectively.

I'd have to disagree, comrade. The Marxist-Leninist analysis of the collapse of Soviet socialism and Albania is fairly thorough and has an explanatory power that Trotsky's criticism simply doesn't. As mentioned elsewhere, Trotsky's criticisms apply abstract principle across the board without due consideration to the specific conditions of revolutionary work. What happened in the Soviet Union was that the conditions in that country, elucidated elsewhere on this forum, did not allow for sufficient time for the Party to empower the working class with theoretical understanding enough to guard against the infiltration of non-proletarian theoretical elements into the politics of the Party. Consider, though, that the Marxist-Leninist analysis reveals that revisionism was prevalent in the Party's politics since years before Stalin's death, and yet the Union persisted until Gorbachev. Albania, an extremely poor country, managed to survive its conflict with the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, as well as holding its own during the Great Patriotic War, up until the collapse of the Eastern Bloc.

What all this shows us is that there isn't a strict division between the need for international revolutionary work and the need to empower the workers of a given state and struggle against the contradictions of capitalism within the territory of one country. Consider Comrade RedAlert1999's quotation from The Foundations of Leninism, in which Lenin explains that the task of the Communist is to do "the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries." Lenin would say the following:


I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.


Complete and final victory on a world scale cannot be achieved in Russia alone; it can be achieved only when the proletariat is victorious in at least all the advanced countries, or, at all events, in some of the largest of the advanced countries. Only then shall we be able to say with absolute confidence that the cause of the proletariat has triumphed, that our first objective—the overthrow of capitalism—has been achieved.

We have achieved this objective in one country, and this confronts us with a second task. Since Soviet power has been established, since the bourgeoisie has been overthrown in one country, the second task is to wage the struggle on a world scale, on a different plane, the struggle of the proletarian state surrounded by capitalist states.


This situation is an entirely novel and difficult one.


On the other hand, since the rule of the bourgeoisie has been overthrown, the main task is to organise the development of the country.


. . . [W]hen we are told that the victory of socialism is possible only on a world scale, we regard this merely as an attempt, a particularly hopeless attempt, on the part of the bourgeoisie and its voluntary and involuntary supporters to distort the irrefutable truth. The ‘final’ victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible.


A United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the unification and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism—about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a United States of the World would hardly be a correct one, first, because it merges with socialism; second, because it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others.


Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country, taken singly. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organized its own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries … A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle by the socialist republics against the backward states.


The capitalists, the bourgeoisie, can at best put off the victory of socialism in one country or another at the cost of slaughtering further hundreds of thousands of workers and peasants. But they cannot save capitalism . . .


The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in the various countries. It cannot be otherwise under the commodity production system. From this, it follows irrefutably that Socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois for some time.

What we have yet to discuss, though, is the practical manifestation of the alternative to socialism in one country.

[Marxaveli]

Fair enough. But this pretty much demonstrates why I reject, or at least am very skeptical, of having a Vanguard party in the first place. I really believe that emancipation must come from a bottom-up revolution, but I digress from the original topic now.

Of course, RedAlert will probably now write me off as being Ultra Left Communist scum. Thankfully, I don't really care.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Fair enough. But this pretty much demonstrates why I reject, or at least am very skeptical, of having a Vanguard party in the first place. I really believe that emancipation must come from a bottom-up revolution, but I digress from the original topic now.

Of course, RedAlert will probably now write me off as being Ultra Left Communist scum. Thankfully, I don't really care.

Maybe you could elaborate a little as to why it follows that you'd reject the party vanguard idea? I'd also argue that a vanguard party doesn't preclude a bottom-up revolution, and that the proletariat and the vanguard are in a non-contradictory dialectic with one another.

[James Connolly]

I'd say the last 20+ years is material evidence enough that SIOC does not work, and cannot work - at least not in developing nation states. The imperialist Capitalist countries eat them alive (or put embargoes on them, heh), or they are forced into creating private sectors with a top-down bureaucracy that creates a degenerated workers State. Perhaps in a advanced Capitalist nation the outcome would be different, but we have yet to see this materialize. *shrugs*

As for Trotsky's blunderings, IDK, I'd say his criticisms of SOIC have proven to be pretty spot on if you ask me. No, I'm not a Trotskyite, as I don't really subscribe to any particular tendency in Marxism - I respect them all and simply view things objectively.

Yes, I've detailed how Marxist-Leninists are prone to change in accordance with material conditions. In our environment of collective security and neo-Liberalism, a Revolution of each coalition country(or at least the most powerful ones) WILL be needed. We certainly don't want a repeat of what happened in Albania, in 1997, when NATO butchered partisans attempting to create a Revolution.

Do you see how we are different from Trotskyism/Bolshevik-Leninism? We will adapt to change in accordance with what is most practical, while Trotskyists will stick with a specific dogma for likely the rest of eternity.

Each revolution will have its own character, and each Socialist state will have their own capabilities. The Soviet Union, in 1928, obviously didn't have the capabilities to lead a world revolution, nor was there a reason to(collective security wasn't much of a problem.)

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

You can change the names of things all you want, but that doesn’t change the nature of the things themselves.
Calling a shitty state capitalist bureaucracy ‘socialist’ will not change the fact that it’s still a shitty state capitalist bureaucracy.

20th century "communist countries" were not state-capitalist, the profit motive was never the driving force in production, M was never made into M'. It was Socialism, the stage between state-capitalism and a lower stage of communism. Socialism does not get rid of classes however, autocratic relations of production and alienation still exist.

[Камо́ Зэд]

20th century "communist countries" were not state-capitalist, the profit motive was never the driving force in production, M was never made into M'. It was Socialism, the stage between state-capitalism and a lower stage of communism. Socialism does not get rid of classes however, autocratic relations of production and alienation still exist.

Vestiges of capitalism, that is, bourgeois law and social inequality persist, but I take issue with the characterization of socialism as a stage between state-capitalism and the lower stage of communism, as autocratic, and as allowing alienation to persist. Lenin would describe socialism as the lower stage of communism in which the endeavor is undertaken to struggle toward the resolution of the contradictions inherent in capitalism. (This has been recently quoted, although I forgot in which thread.) Although the state and political administration persist in this stage, it is not autocratic, and it is not oligarchical, either. While the state is itself an inherently oppressive mechanism, one that will wither away once political administration is no longer a necessity for human civilization, the socialist state occurs under the dictatorship of the proletariat; it serves the interests of the proletarian class. Alienation refers to the fact that the proletariat relinquish ownership of the value that they produce through their labor, but operating under socialism, while each worker may not be paid in the full amount of the value that he produced (some of that value must be reinvested into future production and maintenance, etc.), the proletariat still collectively own the value of what they produce in that their interests are democratically represented in the administration of investment. Even under communism, no worker will necessarily receive payment in the full amount of the value he's produced; questions of the transformation of the meaning of value and the vestigial character of money at this point aside, the dictum for the truly communist society is: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

[Rafiq]

To some extent he has a point. Even Marx himself recognized that, even after little more than a couple (or more) decades, the communist manifesto no longer existed in complete accordance with material conditions. I suspect what the OP is trying to get at is that Marx and Engels were living in a time in which proletarian revolution was dangerously close to coming into existence, and therefore, things like the Communist manifesto were devised relative to that specific time period, i.e. The communist manifesto was an immediate plan for what must be done after a proletarian revolution, which to them was going to exist sooner than they thought it would. But the problem resides with the fact that after contemporary society, class struggle sought a major decline, and at that, a new form of capitalism emerged (advanced capitalism) in the Western World, etc.

Therefore, the times have rendered the Communist manifesto (which is still an important historical document) and the "ten planks" which were put forward, obsolete. Here, in the 21st century, we are not even close to an immediate proletarian revolution, as Marx and Engels were. Therefore all postrevolution "planning" and even vague speculating in regards is absolutely useless and purely Idealist. We call them Idealist because they assume that with this "plan", this "idea", more people will join the "Cause for a future communist society" because apparently it's a "good idea". Really, that's on par with the garbage Moralism of the religious establishment (If people adhere to "good morals" we'd live in a better society). It assumes such an idea can precede class consciousness. Kautsky (and of course, Lenin) did indeed tell us that the highest level of class consciousness can only be achieved through the non proletarian intelligentsia, or members of the intelligentsia who were proletarians, in other words, distinguished scientists, yes. However, he stayed consistent with Marx's assertion, that the lowest level of class consciousnesses (trade union consciousness) must come about organically from sections within the proletarian class, which of course isn't the same as spontaneity, as Lenin recognized.

[Rafiq]

First of all, this is a worthless rant. I don't even know why I'm responding to it, probably because of its flaming, but okay, nevermind.

First of all, the works you mention are not only based on the political, social and economic conditions of the historical period in question, but also on the theoretical extrapolation pertaining to what is called historical materialism (broadly conceived method) and the fundamental characteristics of the capitalist mode of production.

Here I disagree, at least in regards to the Communist manifesto, which was if anything a product of Young Marx, not old, materialist Marx. Historical Materialism was not even (at least completely) developed by Marx at that time, and had little influence on the Communist Manifesto.

[Thirsty Crow]

Here I disagree, at least in regards to the Communist manifesto, which was if anything a product of Young Marx, not old, materialist Marx. Historical Materialism was not even (at least completely) developed by Marx at that time, and had little influence on the Communist Manifesto.
You'd have to explain this and demonstrate it.
SInce, after all, the statement that opens this work regards class struggle as a motor force of history, which is a pretty good indication.

Anyway, I also think that this division of young and old Marx, supposedly along the lines of idealism and materialism, is very schematic and inadequate (for instance, I think the German Ideology, a hugely important text, represents a veritable materialist critique; whereas I'd assume that you'd conclude that this is a work of young Marx).


To some extent he has a point. Even Marx himself recognized that, even after little more than a couple (or more) decades, the communist manifesto no longer existed in complete accordance with material conditions.Which would be fine if communists he is ranting against based their politics on the so called 10 planks presented in this work. But they usually don't.


Therefore, the times have rendered the Communist manifesto (which is still an important historical document) and the "ten planks" which were put forward, obsolete.But the point is that the planks, and critique of different forms of socialism, does not exhaust the contents of the Manifesto. What you seem to be missing is a necessarily brief presentation of the notion of history as history of class struggle.


Therefore all postrevolution "planning" and even vague speculating in regards is absolutely useless and purely Idealist.I think we've had this discussion dozens of times by now :lol:
Needless to say, I find your attitude actually damaging. Possible concrete measures after the destruction of the bouegeois state should be thought about.


We call them Idealist because they assume that with this "plan", this "idea", more people will join the "Cause for a future communist society" because apparently it's a "good idea"You're misusing the term here.
This doesn't amount to idealism, but to a somewhat naive approach to propaganda. But as I said in another thread, the working class will demand of communists a rational explanation, in its general contours, of how social relations and other aspects of social life might change after the revolution. To dismiss this as, I don't know, a call for idealism, is beyond foolish.


Kautsky (and of course, Lenin) did indeed tell us that the highest level of class consciousness can only be achieved through the non proletarian intelligentsia, or members of the intelligentsia who were proletarians, in other words, distinguished scientists, yes. However, he stayed consistent with Marx's assertion, that the lowest level of class consciousnesses (trade union consciousness) must come about organically from sections within the proletarian class, which of course isn't the same as spontaneity, as Lenin recognized. No wonder they'd flatter other memebrs of their class, as partly opposed to another class.
And no, I don't think that the famous statement from WtbD, if taken programatically, (and not historically and polemically) can retain the formula of the emancipation of the working class being the act of the working class itself.

But that's the thing with Bolsheviks, they were a product of Second International socialdemocracy (and we've seen how this ended up; but it goes without saying that it was probably the Bolsheviks who made the greatest leap of all the parties of the SI, with regard to both theory and political practice; I don't wish to confuse Lenin for Kautsky or official socialdemocracy)

[Luís Henrique]

How are things Marx wrote in the 19th Century, about future prospects of a Communist society, relevant to material conditions in the 21st?

Don't know, perhaps because we still live in capitalist societies like in the 19th century?

What exactly do you believe has changed so dramatically, that we should believe that the Communist Manifesto is outdated?


Marx said material conditions changed even under Communism, so how can 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to their needs' be maintained when conditions cannot satisfy for such a thing?

What do you mean by "conditions cannot satisfy 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to their needs'"?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Anyway, I also think that this division of young and old Marx, supposedly along the lines of idealism and materialism, is very schematic and inadequate (for instance, I think the German Ideology, a hugely important text, represents a veritable materialist critique; whereas I'd assume that you'd conclude that this is a work of young Marx).

Yup. Those are merely echoes of the nefarious influence of Ms. Lichtenstein and her school of mystification and sophistry.

There is absolutely no indication anywhere that Marx repudiated any of his post-1841 writings at some point of his intellectual carreer.

Luís Henrique

[Thirsty Crow]

Yup. Those are merely echoes of the nefarious influence of Ms. Lichtenstein and her school of mystification and sophistry.

There is absolutely no indication anywhere that Marx repudiated any of his post-1841 writings at some point of his intellectual carreer.

Luís Henrique
C'mon now, isn't it ridiculous to attribute to an interent poster such influence, especially since this division was propagated ad neauseam at least since the Marxism of the Second International.

But more to the point, I mentioned German Ideology purposefully, since it was in that text that Marx clearly distanced himself from the discourse of the Young Hegelians.

[Luís Henrique]

C'mon now, isn't it ridiculous to attribute to an interent poster such influence, especially since this division was propagated ad neauseam at least since the Marxism of the Second International.

In the real world, maybe. Here in revleft I am pretty sure it is due to the influence of that person.


But more to the point, I mentioned German Ideology purposefully, since it was in that text that Marx clearly distanced himself from the discourse of the Young Hegelians.

Yes, though even in On The Jewish Question it is already obvious that he had broken with Hegelianism.

In his so often quoted afterword to Das Kapital, he is quite clear that he had settled his criticism of Hegel "thirty years ago" (ie, circa 1843). No indication that he felt any need to change his positions towards the subject anywhere later.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

You'd have to explain this and demonstrate it.
SInce, after all, the statement that opens this work regards class struggle as a motor force of history, which is a pretty good indication.

Anyway, I also think that this division of young and old Marx, supposedly along the lines of idealism and materialism, is very schematic and inadequate (for instance, I think the German Ideology, a hugely important text, represents a veritable materialist critique; whereas I'd assume that you'd conclude that this is a work of young Marx).

However, historical materialism as we know it had not yet been fully developed, not at least until Capital, or, Engel's Anti-Duhring. An example? While Marx did adhere to the fact, at the time, that all existing history is a history of class struggle, he still adhered to the moral framework existent from the age of enlightenment, i.e. Crypto-Liberalism. At the time, Marx was a humanist, and was a communist as a result of his humanism.

Though I do agree that there isn't a definite barrier from which we could differentiate Young and Old Marx, as it was a slow and gradual process that actualized itself piece by piece through different works and pamphlets.


Which would be fine if communists he is ranting against based their politics on the so called 10 planks presented in this work. But they usually don't.

But the point is that the planks, and critique of different forms of socialism, does not exhaust the contents of the Manifesto. What you seem to be missing is a necessarily brief presentation of the notion of history as history of class struggle.


I haven't read much by RedAlert so in all honesty I don't know what he's rambling about in the fullest sense. Yes, the manifesto was important in regards to, for the first time, officially, history was presented as a history of class struggle. However, this is not by any means what historical materialism amounts to, rather, this was a centerpiece, or a component of historical materialism, the historical materialism that at the time he had not yet completely developed or fully understood.


I think we've had this discussion dozens of times by now :lol:
Needless to say, I find your attitude actually damaging. Possible concrete measures after the destruction of the bouegeois state should be thought about.


Of course, as I've pointed out, such a thing would be necessary. However, what I was getting at was that the time for such a thing is definitely not now. As in, only when it's apparent that there is an impending revolution (like it was when Marx wrote the communsit manifesto), or, to put it more prescisely, only when a form of class conciousness sufficient enough to spark a proletarian revolution manifests itself among the proletarian population can we start to "think" about measures we would have to take after the destruction of the bourgeois state. The solution is definitely not: "here are our ideas, proletarians, embrace them".


You're misusing the term here.
This doesn't amount to idealism, but to a somewhat naive approach to propaganda. But as I said in another thread, the working class will demand of communists a rational explanation, in its general contours, of how social relations and other aspects of social life might change after the revolution. To dismiss this as, I don't know, a call for idealism, is beyond foolish.


It is Idealism, to assume that ideas can precede the conditions of the productive forces, that ideas can create class consciousness is a form of Idealism. It was none other than you who pointed out that the Idealism/Materialism dichtmony isn't metaphysical (What the universe is "made of", i.e. Material conditions don't simply mean "matter"). To assume that the communists are simply prophets of "what we should do" and that proletarians must obey them is beyond ridiculous. Communism is the embodiment of the interests of the proletarian class in the same way Liberalism is the embodiment of the interests of the bourgeois class. Ideas do not precede the social basis for the production of life, the latter does not exist because it was someones "idea" and that people agreed that it was "good". What conception of Idealism and Materialism do you adhere to?

The whole previous view of history was based on conception that the ultimate causes of all historical changes are to be looked for in the changing ideas of human beings, and that of all historical changes political changes are the most important and dominate the whole of history


etc.


No wonder they'd flatter other memebrs of their class, as partly opposed to another class.
And no, I don't think that the famous statement from WtbD, if taken programatically, (and not historically and polemically) can retain the formula of the emancipation of the working class being the act of the working class itself.


So begs the question: Then what of Marxism? Is Marxism an inherently proletarian ideology, or a science? Was Marxism formulated for the emancipation of the working class being the act of the working class itself? No, Marxism is a science.

Of course Marx recognized that a proletarian revolution is, well, a proletarian revolution only. However, the sciences of Bourgeois society remain isolated from the reaches of the proletarian population, globally. Are the sciences necessary for the revolutionary proletariat? Yes. So comes the bourgeois-intelligentsia. The point of the non proletarian intelligentsia is not to heard the proletarian, rather, to provide the necessary sciences and theoretical contributions in order for proletarians to reach the highest level of class consciousness.


But that's the thing with Bolsheviks, they were a product of Second International socialdemocracy (and we've seen how this ended up; but it goes without saying that it was probably the Bolsheviks who made the greatest leap of all the parties of the SI, with regard to both theory and political practice; I don't wish to confuse Lenin for Kautsky or official socialdemocracy)

We've all seen how they ended up, and to put it briefly, it was a disastor. And yet a thousand different currents of thought, from all corners of not only western society but from human civilization itself, have tried to give explanations as to why. Some attribute it to the fact that it was "human nature". Others, that they had the wrong ideas. Moreover, some have stated that dialectics is to blame, others, Stalinism. But the best, is those who blame "authoritarianism" and that "Bakunin was right", and although we can't scientifically analyze why "Authoritarianism ruins everything", it is somehow a magical universal sociological law, i.e. a cosmic order of things. And here you say that the fault belongs to the Second International (?) (which isn't a ridiculous thing to say, just an invalid one). All of these are wrong. All of these, miss the point.

[Zanthorus]

You people realise that the thread starter believes that the existence of biologically separate individuals is actually a belief cultivated by a static bourgeois ideology? Even if this person isn't intentionally trolling, there's no point trying to argue against someone with such a myopic worldview in the first place.


But more to the point, I mentioned German Ideology purposefully, since it was in that text that Marx clearly distanced himself from the discourse of the Young Hegelians.

This is actually false, Marx first began writing critically of Young Hegelianism in early 1844 and he and Engels came out against it in print in The Holy Family. Marx explicitly broke with Feuerbach in TGI, but even that didn't constitute a paradigm shift as such, but a realisation that Marx had initially read into Feuerbach things which weren't actually there.

[Камо́ Зэд]

What are "biologically separate individual[s]?"