Mao Zedong, who was he for you? [Archive]

Deep Sea

17th August 2014, 19:08

European "Leftists" hate Mao? So shocking.

There is a book I plan to get soon about some Danish communists who split with the CCP. The book, titled Turning Money into Rebellion: The Unlikely Story of Denmark’s Revolutionary Bank Robbers (https://www.leftwingbooks.net/book/content/turning-money-rebellion-unlikely-story-denmark%E2%80%99s-revolutionary-bank-robbers), is about the The Blekinge Street Gang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blekingegade_Gang), also known initially as the Communist Working Circle (http://snylterstaten.dk/english/section-english). The group had split with their Soviet-aligned CP and got close to China, including getting the lucrative rights to translate the Little Red Book into Danish.

They developed a MIM-like line decades before MIM did, calling it the "theory of the parasite state." This eventually led to an incredibly interesting split with the Chinese. To quote a letter they sent to the Chinese embassy in Copenhagen:

Dear Comrade Ting Hao,

We do not know, we have no means of knowing, whether the people writing these things, and omitting these things from their reports are bad people doing evil things or good people making mistakes.

But we can give you a concrete incontestable instance of decidedly bad people at work somewhere. Here it is:

On April 23rd, 1968, about 1.000 dockers in London staged a demonstration in support of the racialist Conservative politician Enoch Powell, and in open support of his proposal to send all coloured immigrants out of Great Britain again.

A photo from the demonstration appeared in the British press, e.g. in a bourgeois paper. The photo clearly showed a man marching at the head of the demonstration carrying a placard with the following words:

65.000 Dockers Back Powell

Back Britain, not Black Britain.

On October 23rd, 1968 "New China News" in Australia published this picture (which was also brought by the organ of the CP of New Zealand on the same day) and a caption, which said:

"The British Labour Party government has met with strong opposition among the British working class and the broad masses of other people for closely tailing behind U.S. imperialism and serving its policy of aggression. More than sixty thousand dockers in London recently staged a demonstration in front of the parliament against the government's reactionary home and foreign policies. Photo shows part of the demonstration."

There can not be the slightest doubt - it is the same photo, with just a couple of highly significant changes. The words "Back Powell" and "Back Britain, Not Black Britain" have been deleted from the placard, so that you see only half the words: "65.000 dockers". Another placard seen on the original photo, reading "Don't Knock Enock" has been completely cut away.

This can only be described in one way – deliberate fraud.

Trap Queen Voxxy

17th August 2014, 23:49

"Rock, is deader than dead, shock, it's all in your head, your sex and your dope, is all that we're fed, so fuck all your protests and put em to bed."-Mao.

Tim Cornelis

18th August 2014, 01:02

European "Leftists" hate Mao? So shocking.

Ugh. People that try to frame things as Western vs. non-Western as political argument are the worst. Incidentally, they always appear to be of the Tankie, social chauvinist, bourgeois-socialist persuasion. That Italian bloke that recently used it in defence of New Russia, as if somehow being Western invalidates the analysis that it is run by extreme right ultranationalists.... Anyway... It's also always used in place of substance. And it's the favourite argument by Maoists used often in concert with appeals to emotion "third world workers and peasants are fighting and risking their lives while some Western person criticises their strategy!". What an obnoxious bunch.

Do tell though, how does my opposition to the ridiculous concept of "socialist commodity production" mean I am not a leftist? It puts me firmly to the left of the bourgeois socialist currents, Maoism included.

Deep Sea

18th August 2014, 01:11

Ugh.

Perhaps you'd care to comment on the split between the Danish Communist Working Circle and the Communist Party of China?

Brandon's Impotent Rage

18th August 2014, 01:16

Mao? I never really cared for him.

I find Chen Duxiu far more interesting.

M-L-C-F

18th August 2014, 01:28

Mao, to me, was a great revolutionary leader and guerrilla. Who led the revolutionary movement to liberate and unify China. I'm not a Maoist, but I take a couple things from Maoism, and respect both Mao and Zhou a lot. Though while I don't agree with Mao on a few things. I do consider him a tremendously positive figure to Marxism-Leninism, and to the left in general.

The Modern Prometheus

18th August 2014, 01:56

Large number of Chinese died, but it was not Mao's fault. Actually thanks to him, more people did not die. Search on Youtube "Did Mao Really Kill Millions in the Great Leap Forward?" author is Canadian Maoist Jason Unruhe. He posted great sources and explains in video in details.

I don't really support Maoism, as I am Stalinist. But both at time had good relations. Khrushchev becoming CPSU leader, he f*cked up Soviet and Chinese relations.

Seriously how the fuck can you recommend a video by that shit to explain well anything? He's a fucking 3rd world Maoist ffs not even a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist so even the real Maoists like those in the RCP Canada don't like him. In fact he makes Canada look bad as a whole.

I am no fan of many of the policies of Mao which as stupid as they where lead to the deaths of many Chinese people. One need not make up things to criticize him for as there is plenty that we know he did or didn't do that is worth criticizing him for. As for Mao's whole philosophy of violence and liberation Fanon is so much more of a better writer in that regard then Mao ever was.

18th August 2014, 02:05

Maybe its just me but the question "Mao Zedong, who was he for you?" sounds like something that would be asked regarding Jesus or another major religious figure.

Who Mao was as a person or politician is no longer anything more than a matter of historical interest - not contemporary political import. It should not be a basis for political division or organization. To the extent that some of his ideas could or should be they should be analyzed as ideas in and of themselves rather than having special authority or illegitimacy according to the person who proposed them.

Geiseric

18th August 2014, 02:22

Deep Sea

18th August 2014, 02:32

Not one or a few, but ALL of his decisions apart from "lets stage some kind of struggle against japan" was absolutely horrible and led to the deaths of his comrades as well as millions of other people. He formed a fucking front with the KMT as they were murdering communists through the whole country.

And your position on the Sun–Joffe Manifesto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun%E2%80%93Joffe_Manifesto) is what, exactly?

Geiseric

18th August 2014, 04:46

And your position on the Sun–Joffe Manifesto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun%E2%80%93Joffe_Manifesto) is what, exactly?

That agreement was meaningless seeing as the KMT wasnt even in charge of china at tat point. The KMT wasnt murdering communists at that point anyways, they were anti imperialist when Sun yat sen was in charge of it.

John Nada

18th August 2014, 05:33

Mao was a great revolutionary, bad leader. Also he nearly eradicated opium smoking. I torn over whether this is good or bad :confused:

Geiseric

18th August 2014, 05:53

Mao was a great revolutionary, bad leader. Also he nearly eradicated opium smoking. I torn over whether this is good or bad :confused:

Its very good, opium was sold by the imperialists.

Brutus

18th August 2014, 09:54

Its very good, opium was sold by the imperialists.

Expropriate the opium then. No need to eradicate it. If I can't get high as shit, it's not my revolution.

Tim Cornelis

18th August 2014, 10:35

Perhaps you'd care to comment on the split between the Danish Communist Working Circle and the Communist Party of China?

Not particularly no. It's the same as with all this 'anti-revisionist' nonsense. Socialism was willed out of existence through a sheer, and often subtle, change of policy in the leadership of a 'socialist' country. This notion is voluntaristic concept, and additionally it argues that power was concentrated in the hands of a leadership that, apparently, acted autonomously -- and thus power was not in the hands of the workers. This reveals there was no workers' state in the first place, let alone socialism.

It was a split over a small change of policy over how the state ought to manage capital.

Deep Sea

18th August 2014, 14:38

Not particularly no.

So a Euro "socialist" who supports Takfiri fascists in Syria has no opinion on whether the Chinese Communist Party was right about European workers being potentially revolutionary, or whether are not they are all bought off parasites.

Again, so shocking.

Tim Cornelis

18th August 2014, 14:45

So a Euro "socialist" who supports Takfiri fascists in Syria has no opinion on whether the Chinese Communist Party was right about European workers being potentially revolutionary, or whether are not they are all bought off parasites.

Again, so shocking.

lol.

I don't even know how to respond to this shit.

EDIT: What's shocking is that there are people who apparently thinking referencing someone's geographic location is a political argument. It's shocking that there are people who simultaneously claim they are Marxist and uphold such a silly concept as "socialist commodity production". It's also odd that you think referencing the Syrian civil war and some dull anti-revisionist Danish sect are somehow related.

And how does me opposing the concept of "socialist commodity production" and instead upholding the abolition of value production not make me a socialist (what with your scare quotes around "socialist"). It seems you have no reason to refute that I'm a socialist, not with substance at least, but it irks you that I do have arguments of why you are a bourgeois socialist (namely, thinking socialism and commodity production are compatible). I asked you in my last post how I'm not a socialist, you, unsurprisingly, didn't answer.

Geiseric

18th August 2014, 17:04

Expropriate the opium then. No need to eradicate it. If I can't get high as shit, it's not my revolution.

Are you serious?

Trap Queen Voxxy

18th August 2014, 17:18

Expropriate the opium then. No need to eradicate it. If I can't get high as shit, it's not my revolution.

Yeah but at the time opiate addiction was crippling the Chinese populace and like another member said was being peddled by the imperialist toad, Britain. So, really, despite the fact that I love opium it was still beneficial. Much the same as telling someone who's an alcoholic, "hey man, you should stop drinking," because it's become a negative thing for them. Addiction sucks ass. I personally would've just switched from opium to marijuana if I was there but you know.

Comrade #138672

18th August 2014, 18:21

As a young teen, Mao was my hero a nationalist. Later in my life, Mao became a Greek tragedy to me. A guy who had everything, came from nothing, who out of hubris whose love for humanity was so great, that he felt entitled to destroy it resulting in his downfall.So if only he would feel "less entitled to destroy humanity", then everything would be a lot better now... Now, I think that is a somewhat idealist understanding of the Chinese Revolution, which, in my view, was more of a bourgeois peasant revolution than anything else.

Deep Sea

18th August 2014, 21:33

lol.

I don't even know how to respond to this shit.

Don't be so hard on yourself. You seem to be able to pull meaningless phrases out of your ass quiet well.

EDIT: What's shocking is that there are people who apparently thinking referencing someone's geographic location is a political argument.

It's generally a good indicator of r-r-r-evolutionary "opinions," sadly.

It's also odd that you think referencing the Syrian civil war

It shows you support fascists. Like attracted to like and all.

And how does me opposing the concept of "socialist commodity production" and instead upholding the abolition of value production

Worthless phrasemongering.

It seems you have no reason to refute that I'm a socialist

You and Hollande are both "socialists," alright.

Tell us, who represents the Labor Aristocracy in the Netherlands?

Tim Cornelis

18th August 2014, 22:28

gDeep Sea you don't say anything of substance at all, and behave like a troll. It seems that you got pissed off that I denounced you, Maoism, and 'anti-revisionism' a bourgeois socialist ideology for upholding the concept of "socialist commodity production". Since you cannot refute this, as, firstly, it's factual that all these bourgeois-socialist ideologies do in fact believe in the compatibility of commodity production with socialism, and, secondly, because you cannot apply Marxism since Marxism clearly reveals that in socialism, where labour is directly social, the commodity form cannot arise. The uncomfortable and uneasy feeling produced by cognitive dissonance resulted in your little childish cocktail of unsubstantiated insults, cheap shots, and fabrications.

I asked you to explain how I'm not a socialist twice now, your replies so far "..." and "You and Hollande are both "socialists", right". So in other words, you can't explain it because you know it's nonsense you just try to one up me since I denounce your ideology as bourgeois-socialist. It seems you have your knicks in a twist and you're bawling.

I have never expressed support for Islamist organisations, so that too is a fabrication.

Don't be so hard on yourself. You seem to be able to pull meaningless phrases out of your ass quiet well.

k.

It's generally a good indicator of r-r-r-evolutionary "opinions," sadly.

It really isn't. Unless you are a Maoist Third Worldist, in which case this forum is not for you.

It shows you support fascists. Like attracted to like and all.

No it doesn't, and I dare you to come up one shred of evidence that I support Islamists in any way. Note: the thread on ISIS I made is in chit-chat and is obviously satire, in case you were too stupid to tell.

Worthless phrasemongering.

You and Hollande are both "socialists," alright.

It is very telling that you consider defining categories of capitalism to be "worthelss phrasemongering". Either you are unfamiliar with these important categories or you are just seeking a lame excuse to not have to reply (with substance) to what I wrote.

(Unfinished text) Jossa cites Marx saying that workers in cooperatives are 'their own capitalists' (p. 16), but 'refutes' this by saying “Vanek's LMF [Labour Managed Firms] – a firm that self-finances its investments entirely with loan capital and strictly segregates labour incomes from capital incomes.” Which he immediately follows up with, without justification, “the workers of such firms can hardly be described as 'their own capitalists'.” And why not? Jossa provides no explanation as to why workers in cooperatives would be capitalists according to Marx, and he provides no reason why and how this trick of segregating types of income would then cancel out the categories within the dynamics of workers' cooperatives that make the workers their own capitalists in the first place. He merely postulates this. These self-managed firms, even if supplemented by state planning (as in 'socialist' Yugoslavia), is self-managed capitalism. He envisions still, that these “democratically managed cooperatives” firms produce commodities (p. 20), however as, somehow, “free choices made by workers in association”. Note that he misrepresents what 'association' is. (explanation). As Marxist scholar Paresh Chattopadhyay explains, “in a society of generalised commodity production, where products result from private labours executed in reciprocal independence, the social character of these labours - hence the reciprocal relations of the creators of these products - are not established directly.” And therefore “Their social character is mediated by exchange of products taking commodity form.” It is only where social labour is indirect, that products need to assume the form of commodity in market exchange. As such, “With the inauguration of the [socialist mode of production] there begins the process of collective appropriation of the conditions of production by society” therefore “with the end of private appropriation of the conditions of production there also ends the need for the products of individual labour to go through exchange taking the commodity form. In the new society individual labour is directly social from the beginning. In place of exchange of products taking the commodity form”,1 consequently in socialism, as Peter Hudis explains, “Production is now geared for use, not for augmenting value. Indirect social labor, based on the value-form of mediation, is replaced by direct social labor, based on “transparent” interpersonal relations between the producers.”2
Peter Hudis:
A very different situation exists under capitalism, where individual labor is*not*directly part of the sum total of actual labor. The amount of value created by an individual unit of labor is determined by an abstract, social average that exists apart from the subjectivity of the laborer—socially necessary labor time. In capitalism it is not actual labor time but “currently necessary labor*time*that determines value” [MECW 28, p. 73]). An individual hour of labor therefore counts only as*indirectly*social. It cannot be otherwise so long as value production exists. Yet once value production is abolished individual labor exists “as a*directly*constituent part of the total labor” since labor is no longer governed by socially necessary labor time … The replacement of indirect social labor by direct social labor signifies the abolition of capitalist value production."

You reveal yourself to a non-Marxist and a bourgeois-socialist by rejecting these categories that are fundamentally important to understanding both capitalism and socialism as "worthless". All these "revisionist" evils and crimes are not inconsistent with the ridiculous concept of "socialist commerce" and "socialist commodity production": they are a logical outcome of it. If you concede that commodity production, commerce, markets (even with a state monopoly), value-production -- and therefore capital -- will exist, then it's only logical you will want to manage this capital as optimally as you can; and therefore introducing competitive markets is a logical step. As such, this development has been inevitable in the state-capitalist regimes under the control of the bourgeois-socialists.

So we see Tadayuki Tsushima explain that "In Japan a blatant example of this can be seen in the following ramblings of a "Marxist" named Toshio Hiradate. If his statement is taken at face value, Hiradate must be considered a "Marxist" who lacks the gumption of the Russians who rejected Marx and Engels. In a June 1949 article that appeared in the journal Hyōron he writes:

(quote) "Many of the things written by Marx and Engels indicate that they rejected the need for the operation of the law of value and money and commerce in socialist society." (Kazrov)―Marx and Engels only said that there is no need for capitalistic commerce or money in a socialist society, but they never said that about socialistic commerce or socialistic money. In this manner, Kazrov is misinterpreting Marx. As Kazrov himself notes, when reading Marx's sentences, one must distinguish between the letter and the essence. (/quote)

"One must distinguish between the letter and the essence"! Is that so? What would Marx have to say about this variety of "Marxist"? No doubt he would say: "I am no Marxist"! Marx laughed caustically at the followers of Proudhon who sought to shake free of the hell of money on the basis of commodity production. And yet here, conversely, "socialist commerce and socialist money" are being dragged into socialism, which is a society of communal labor. In either case we are dealing with terrible idiots. The difference is that in the case of the former, money is unable to be pushed into hell or knocked off, while in the case of the latter, socialism is truly pushed into hell! But since such socialism is not feasible, it must be said that both share the common trait of calling for the impossible. Under socialism, the category of commodity value, and therefore all commerce and all money, wither away. This is the necessary corollary of Marx's theory of value, and this is also what Marx and Engels themselves spoke of. They clearly stated that labor certificates do not become money. It is ridiculous to say that Marx never said anything about this. Hiradate is not thinking straight. I would like to ask him whether "money" and "commerce" are possible without the law of value. Or we could ask him whether it is possible for the law of value to arise when labor has become directly social labor? If it is said that it could arise, this is the view of commodity production as something supra-historical, which would mean that Marx's labor theory of value in Capital is mistaken!"

https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/tsushima/labor-certificates.htm

Stalinism is a sort of inverted Proudhonism, and indeed, folk such as you are "terrible idiots".

You and Hollande are both "socialists," alright.

Tell us, who represents the Labor Aristocracy in the Netherlands?

Labour aristocracy? As in the Leninist concept or the butchered Maoist Third World variant of it?

I'm not sure what this question is supposed to mean. Somehow it must implicate me with the representatives of the Dutch labour aristocracy, yet I am in no way associated with its political representatives (that would be parliamentary leftist parties, primarily Labour).

You are, as I stated before, to the right of me. Therefore you are closer to Hollande than me. So this meaningless cheap shot of yours is more self-damaging than you had in mind.

Deep Sea

19th August 2014, 01:02

It seems that you got pissed off that I denounced you, MaoismThe only person who seems to have "denounced" "Maoism" in any meaningful way, in this thread, IMO, is myself. Pointing out that the Chinese Community Party believed the West was about to go r-r-r-revolutionary any moment, and backing up this idea with completely fraudulent evidence (citing anti-black protests of "workers" in Britain as something revolutionary), seems a much more serious accusation against Maoism than repeating the meaningless phrase "socialist commodity production" over and over again. Your refusal to answer the question shows you have a lot more in common with "Maoism" than you would like to pretend.

and 'anti-revisionism'Why would an "anti-revisionist" point out the Chinese Communist Party fabricated evidence to justify believing the Western "workers" were about to rise up any minute?

Since you cannot refute this, as, firstly, it's factual that all these bourgeois-socialist ideologies do in fact believe in the compatibility of commodity production with socialismI'm not really too concerned with how various oppressed people decide to setup their economies, nor whether or not they live up to the imaginations of self-described socialists from the Oppressor Nations.

and, secondly, because you cannot apply Marxism since Marxism clearly reveals that in socialism, where labour is directly social, the commodity form cannot arise.I'm interested in where exactly in Marx or Engels you got this little bit of phrasemongery. Care to cite a reference for us?

I asked you to explain how I'm not a socialist twice now, your replies so far "..." and "You and Hollande are both "socialists", right".If you can be a "socialist" and support Takfiri fascist deathsquads backed by the imperialist ruling classes of the West, then you and Hollande are indeed both "socialists."

I have never expressed support for Islamist organisations, so that too is a fabricationA simple search of this forum will reveal to any discerning reader otherwise.

You reveal yourself to a non-Marxist and a bourgeois-socialist by rejecting these categories that are fundamentally important to understanding both capitalism and socialism as "worthless".Tell me, who exactly is this Paresh Chattopadhyay you quoted, and why should anyone give a shit about what he thinks?

So we see Tadayuki TsushimaAgain, who exactly is Tadayuki Tsushima, and why would anyone give a shit what he thinks?

Labour aristocracy? As in the Leninist concept or the butchered Maoist Third World variant of it?As Lenin used it will be fine.

I'm not sure what this question is supposed to mean. Somehow it must implicate me with the representatives of the Dutch labour aristocracy, yet I am in no way associated with its political representatives (that would be parliamentary leftist parties, primarily Labour).Tell us what "the representatives of the Dutch labour aristocracy" think about Syria, and tell us how your opinion differs at all.

You are, as I stated before, to the right of me.Yes, anyone who doesn't support Takfiri fascist deathsquads is to the "right" of you, lmao.

Orange Juche

19th August 2014, 01:11

A lover, a friend, a confidant... :lol:

Trap Queen Voxxy

19th August 2014, 02:00

positive things Mao did (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Good_things_Mao_Zedong_did)

The Modern Prometheus

19th August 2014, 02:44

So if only he would feel "less entitled to destroy humanity", then everything would be a lot better now... Now, I think that is a somewhat idealist understanding of the Chinese Revolution, which, in my view, was more of a bourgeois peasant revolution than anything else.

Actually i would call Mao more of a nationalist then anything else. Not that i have anything against left wing nationalism as long as it's goals are a Socialist revolution. But throwing their lot in with the KMT was rather stupid as the results of that short lived alliance proved when they started slaughtering Communists or even people suspected of being moderate leftists.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

19th August 2014, 05:19

@Deep Sea - this is a warning. Keep it civil please.

@Tim - if you think someone is being a troll the correct response is to:
a) feed the troll?
b) continue discussing in good faith, and contact a mod/admin?
One guess only.

There are some interesting ideas in this thread, and I think snarky one-liners do them a disservice.

Perhaps if folk were to lay out some definitions (Maoism, Marx-Lenin-Mao Tse Tung Thought, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism) and say more explicitly where they're coming from this could get . . . I dunno, maybe even useful! :)

Tim Cornelis

19th August 2014, 11:17

The only person who seems to have "denounced" "Maoism" in any meaningful way, in this thread, IMO, is myself. Pointing out that the Chinese Community Party believed the West was about to go r-r-r-revolutionary any moment, and backing up this idea with completely fraudulent evidence (citing anti-black protests of "workers" in Britain as something revolutionary), seems a much more serious accusation against Maoism than repeating the meaningless phrase "socialist commodity production" over and over again. Your refusal to answer the question shows you have a lot more in common with "Maoism" than you would like to pretend.

So basically you got your knicks in a twist because I did not answer your question to your satisfaction and instead ask clarification or move on you threw a cocktail of unsubstantiated personal insults and slander at me? It seems that your cult-brain can't process opposition to you then.

And this sentence is completely laughable: "Your refusal to answer the question shows you have a lot more in common with "Maoism" than you would like to pretend."

Refusing to answer a question is soooo Maoist.

Why would an "anti-revisionist" point out the Chinese Communist Party fabricated evidence to justify believing the Western "workers" were about to rise up any minute?

Because anti-revisionists tend to denounce Maoism as revisionist.

I'm not really too concerned with how various oppressed people decide to setup their economies, nor whether or not they live up to the imaginations of self-described socialists from the Oppressor Nations.

This is essentially an admission that you are not a Marxist. 1) You don't care whether "oppressed people" (note the lack of class analysis or distinction) build for themselves a bourgeois economy -- or presumably an Islamist economy, which is okay as long as they are "oppressed" ; 2) You don't care about a Marxist analysis of capitalism and socialism (as Marx and Engels explain clearly what socialism is and you dismiss it because they are "from Oppressor Nations" (capital letters, for some reason -- U$A)).

I'm interested in where exactly in Marx or Engels you got this little bit of phrasemongery. Care to cite a reference for us?

It can be found throughout classical Marxist texts (which reveals a lack of an elementary understanding of Marxism on your part), for instance:

"(Anti-Dühring, Part III Socialism, IV Distribution) From the moment when society enters into possession of the means of production and uses them in direct association for production, the labour of each individual, however varied its specifically useful character may be, becomes at the start and directly social labour. The quantity of social labour contained in a product need not then be established in a roundabout way; daily experience shows in a direct way how much of it is required on the average. Society can simply calculate how many hours of labour are contained in a steam-engine, a bushel of wheat of the last harvest, or a hundred square yards of cloth of a certain quality. It could therefore never occur to it still to express the quantities of labour put into the products, quantities which it will then know directly and in their absolute amounts, in a third product, in a measure which, besides, is only relative, fluctuating, inadequate, though formerly unavoidable for lack of a better one, rather than express them in their natural, adequate and absolute measure, time. Just as little as it would occur to chemical science still to express atomic weight in a roundabout way, relatively, by means of the hydrogen atom, if it were able to express them absolutely, in their adequate measure, namely in actual weights, in billionths or quadrillionths of a gramme. Hence, on the assumptions we made above, society will not assign values to products. It will not express the simple fact that the hundred square yards of cloth have required for their production, say, a thousand hours of labour in the oblique and meaningless way, stating that they have the value of a thousand hours of labour. It is true that even then it will still be necessary for society to know how much labour each article of consumption requires for its production. It will have to arrange its plan of production in accordance with its means of production, which include, in particular, its labour-powers. The useful effects of the various articles of consumption, compared with one another and with the quantities of labour required for their production, will in the end determine the plan. People will be able to manage everything very simply, without the intervention of much-vaunted “value”. *15

The concept of value is the most general and therefore the most comprehensive expression of the economic conditions of commodity production. "

From Capital 1: "Owen presupposes directly associated labour, a form of production that is entirely inconsistent with the production of commodities."

Why is it inconsistent? See Engel's above or Paresh Chattopadhyay and Peter Hudis' explanation.

If you can be a "socialist" and support Takfiri fascist deathsquads backed by the imperialist ruling classes of the West, then you and Hollande are indeed both "socialists."

Technically, you can advocate the immediate establishment of a socialist mode of production and back "Takfiri fascist deathsquads". Doing the latter has no direct effect on the former. It would make you a very stupid socialist, but a socialist nonetheless. What you do is construe a "No True Scottsman Fallacy" since the only reason you can think of why I would not be a socialist is my alleged support for Islamist rebels in Syria -- for which you have yet to produce any evidence despite the numerous opportunities you had. Why? Because it doesn't exist.

A simple search of this forum will reveal to any discerning reader otherwise.

And yet, good sir, you failed to do that simple search and copy and paste the link in this thread. Why would that be? Is it because you were talking out of your arse and in fact such a simple search of this forum does not wield the results you expected it would? We both know why you have failed to produce evidence of your claim: there is none. I know it, you know, the only reason you don't admit it is because you desperately want to one-up my claim of your bourgeois-socialism by saying I am not a socialist at all. Unfortunately for you, this has no basis in reality.

I did the "simple search" myself and found this for instance:

What r u talking about?? This is fucking stupid. What christian sect in the western world is even remotely close to isis? None come close. Because none are theocratic state establishing mass murdering of other religious people behading them and setting them on fire and selling the women into (sexual) slavery batshit insane crazy!

And here is another:

What really bothers me is that some try to paint a monolithic picture of the armed opposition. Or, say refer to them as 'the so-called "rebels"' as if not agreeing with the ideals of armed opposition disqualifies them as "rebels." Or, saying there was no primarily non-violent protests initially until lethal violence by the state was initiated. Or, suggest as if armed opposition is illegitimate.

There's a spectrum of secular - moderate Islamism - 'national' Jihadi Islamism - (International) Salafi Jihadism.

YPG falls in the first category.

The FSA falls in the first two categories, but most secular members are members of moderate Islamist groups like the Farooq brigades so their influence is small. Then the Turkmen Brigades and Liwaa al-Umma are likewise moderate.

The national Jihadis would be the Islamic Front, whom want an Islamic state but have no international aspirations.

The last want to establish a Caliphate and are the most extremist (ISIS).

Of course, the Islamists warrant no support whatsoever, but this is another discussion. The black-and-white narrative some seek to establish is disingenuous.

Oh yeah mate. That totally sounds like I support these Takfiri deathsquads huh.

Tell me, who exactly is this Paresh Chattopadhyay you quoted, and why should anyone give a shit about what he thinks?

It's not what he thinks per se, it is that he provides an excellent and concise exposition of Marxism based on Marx's writings.

Again, who exactly is Tadayuki Tsushima, and why would anyone give a shit what he thinks?

It's not what he thinks per se, it is that he provides an accurate account of the Marxist position on commodity production, labour notes, the law of value, and socialism in this text.

As Lenin used it will be fine.

Well I already answered. The 'labour aristocracy' in the Netherlands is represented by Labour primarily, and some other leftist parties. I'm not sure if the SP is a bourgeois workers' party or not. I'm sure what you're getting at.

Tell us what "the representatives of the Dutch labour aristocracy" think about Syria, and tell us how your opinion differs at all.

I'm actually not sure. I know the SP, by default, opposes military intervention; but presumably supported food droppings for Yezedis. The Labour Party tends to be more supportive of military intervention but I'm not sure if they did in Syria.

My position is, and has been since more or less the beginning: open the borders for all refugees and critical support for the YPG.

Yes, anyone who doesn't support Takfiri fascist deathsquads is to the "right" of you, lmao.

That's not what I claimed or said and you know it. The left-right spectrum is not based on anyone's position on the Islamist rebels. You are to the right of me because you are a bourgeois socialist because you uphold the concept of socialist commodity production. I am to the left of you because I am a communist and uphold the concept of freely associated labour and production for use, not value-production as you advocate. Hollande is to the right of you because the policies he advocates are less geared social equality than your political positions.

Deep Sea

19th August 2014, 16:11

So basically you got your knicks in a twist because I did not answer your question to your satisfaction

It should be obvious why you didn't comment on the dispute between the CCP and the Communist Working Circle. It would reveal your opinion on the nature of West is little different from the CCP in the 1960s.

Because anti-revisionists tend to denounce Maoism as revisionist.

So all “anti-revisionists” are Hoxhaists in your mind?

This is essentially an admission that you are not a Marxist.

You don't accept the Right of Nations to Self-Determination as a Marxist principle? Shocking.

It can be found throughout classical Marxist texts

Then feel free to quote anything substantiating it. The passage you have quoted from Engels' Anti-Dühring doesn't show anything like Marx and Engels ever said “in socialism, where labour is directly social, the commodity form cannot arise.” What you have quoted is Engels attacking Eugen Dühring's ideas about a “socialitarian” commune. Engels concentrates his attack on Eugen Dühring by noting that in his idea of the “socialitarian” commune, metallic money will be used as a means of exchange, and it will be impossible to use metallic money as a “mere labour certificate.”

The paragraph before the one you quoted makes it clear Engels isn't talking about “socialism” at all.

Commodity production, however, is by no means the only form of social production. In the ancient Indian communities and in the family communities of the southern Slavs, products are not transformed into commodities. The members of the community are directly associated for production; the work is distributed according to tradition and requirements, and likewise the products to the extent that they are destined for consumption. Direct social production and direct distribution preclude all exchange of commodities, therefore also the transformation of the products into commodities (at any rate within the community) and consequently also their transformation into values.

Engels is using two examples of non-socialist communities and the way they organize production to contrast it with capitalism. This paragraph is illustrating a point about the accounting of labor under capitalism and under any other system of production. The paragraph before this one is about the “political economy of commodity production” and how the values of commodities are only determined relatively. The paragraph you have quoted is about how there is no need for a “roundabout” measure of the labor involved in the production of commodities and the effect this has on production plans.

(which reveals a lack of an elementary understanding of Marxism on your part)

The only thing that is revealed here is that you are a phrasemonger, and likely get your political economy second-hand.

Technically, you can advocate the immediate establishment of a socialist mode of production and back "Takfiri fascist deathsquads". Doing the latter has no direct effect on the former.

Except the imperialists employ a whole set of hired-hands called the Labor Aristocracy, who are bribed to spew lies and mislead the working class into going along with the murder and plunder of people from other nations. Identifying these liars and fakes is an essential task of any socialist project.

It would make you a very stupid socialist, but a socialist nonetheless.

Reducing it to an issue of stupidity is a smokescreen. The people who do this aren't “stupid” and gullible fools. They're active, conscious collaborators with the imperialists.

And yet, good sir, you failed to do that simple search and copy and paste the link in this thread.

I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

It's not what he thinks per se, it is that he provides an excellent and concise exposition of Marxism based on Marx's writings.

If the former Naxalite Paresh Chattopadhyay quotes Engels like you do, I beg to differ.

Well I already answered. The 'labour aristocracy' in the Netherlands is represented by Labour primarily, and some other leftist parties. I'm not sure if the SP is a bourgeois workers' party or not. I'm sure what you're getting at.

They would be the Labor Bureaucracy. The Labor Bureaucracy sits on top of the Labor Aristocracy, leading it. Who is the Labor Aristocracy, then? What percentage of workers are bribed parasites in the Netherlands?

I'm actually not sure.

lmao

Tim Cornelis

19th August 2014, 17:32

It should be obvious why you didn't comment on the dispute between the CCP and the Communist Working Circle. It would reveal your opinion on the nature of West is little different from the CCP in the 1960s.

I didn't answer because I didn't have a pronounced opinion and didn't particularly care. What was the opinion of the CCP in the 1960s? That a workers' revolution in the West was viable? Then indeed that is my opinion as well.

So all “anti-revisionists” are Hoxhaists in your mind?

Key words were: tend to denounce. Because most anti-revisionists are indeed Hoxhaists.

You don't accept the Right of Nations to Self-Determination as a Marxist principle? Shocking.

This is a bit of a red herring. What reveals that you are not a Marxist is, again, that you are fine with a bourgeois economy, because it's "self-determination" of "the people". It ignores class entirely. Secondly, it reveals you are not a Marxist because you denounce Marxism as a product of people from "Oppressor Nations". It is thoroughly ignorant.

As for the somewhat unrelated charge that I am against "the Right of Nations to Self-Determination". Indeed I am. Apparently you serve this up as justification for "oppressed nations" to enforce bourgeois rule. But national self-determination is a product of bourgeois society and the nation-state. It is the right of the national bourgeoisie and its political representatives to use and abuse a country as they please. In communism, the nation-state disappears and this 'principle' would be archaic. As long as bourgeois society exists I do not oppose it if 'historically constituted people' opt for "self-determination", nor would I support it. I would opt for clarifying that it transfers political rule to the national bourgeoisie and that being oppressed and exploited by the national bourgeoisie is not a solution.

Then feel free to quote anything substantiating it.

I just did. Feel free to not ignore it.

The passage you have quoted from Engels' Anti-Dühring doesn't show anything like Marx and Engels ever said “in socialism, where labour is directly social, the commodity form cannot arise.”

It does exactly that. I bolded the especially relevant parts. I suspect, however, that you are unwilling to interpret the text accurately as to save face in this discussion. You interpret it in a way that it means what you want it to mean, even though it clearly doesn't mean that at all.

What you have quoted is Engels attacking Herr Dühring's ideas about a “socialitarian” commune. Engels concentrates his attack on Herr Dühring by noting that in his idea of the “socialitarian” commune, metallic money will be used as a means of exchange, and it will be impossible to use metallic money as a “mere labour certificate.”

The paragraph before the one you quoted makes it clear Engels isn't talking about “socialism” at all.

Engels is using two examples of non-socialist communities and the way they organize production to contrast it with capitalism. This paragraph is illustrating a point about the accounting of labor under capitalism and under any other system of production. The paragraph before this one is about the “political economy of commodity production” and how the values of commodities are only determined relatively. The paragraph you have quoted is about how there is no need for a “roundabout” measure of the labor involved in the production of commodities and the effect this has on production plans.

The fact alone that the part I cited is from the part of the book that deals with distribution in a socialist society should be sufficient refutation that Engels was not talking about ancient Indian communities or family communities in the specific part I cited. Exhibit number Two would be that neither of those communities had steam engines in their possession, yet he says (in the part I cited) "Society can simply calculate how many hours of labour are contained in a steam-engine".
Indeed, Engels explains how directly social labour is inconsistent with commodity production, and he provides examples -- two being those two communities and then explains how under conditions where society owns the means of production, which arises from the associated production relations, (i.e. socialism), how this results in the absence of commodity production in socialism. He explains how labour time will be calculated and used in the articulation of a social plan.

As Marx said, " In actual fact, the concept “value” presupposes “exchanges” of the products. Where labour is communal, the relations of men in their social production do not manifest themselves as “values” of “things”. Exchange of products as commodities is a method of exchanging labour, the dependence of the labour of each upon the labour of the others [and corresponds to] a certain mode of social labour or social production."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/ch20.htm

In fact Engel's example of two pre-capitalist communities is very similar to Marx's example of Robinson Crusoe. In both these instances, production is transparent and consciously controlled. Though one isolated and self-sufficient, the other of social labour.

Marx in Capital I:

"Let us finally imagine, for a change, an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common, and expending their many different forms of labour-power in full self-awareness as one single social labour force. All the characteristics of Robinson’s are repeated here, but with the difference that they are social instead of individual. All Robinson’s products were exclusively the result of his own personal labour and they were therefore directly objects of utility for him personally. The total product of our imagined association is a social product. One part of this product serves as fresh means of production and remains social. But another part is consumed by the members of the association as means of subsistence. This part must therefore be divided amongst them. The way this division is made will vary with the particular kind of social organization of production and the corresponding level of social development attained by the producers. We shall assume, but only for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour-time. Labour-time would in that case play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the correct proportion between the different functions of labour and the various needs of the associations. On the other hand, labour-time also serves as a measure of the part taken by each individual in the common labour, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption. The social relations of the individual producers, both towards their labour and the products of their labour, are here transparent in their simplicity, in production as well as in distribution ... The way this division is made will vary with the particular kind of social organisation of production and the corresponding level of social development attained by the producers. We shall assume, but only for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour-time"

We see that Marx's description of the free association of producers, which is synonymous with socialism --as I hope you know (but fear you don't) -- is virtually identical to Engel's description of a society based on social ownership of the means of production -- which you denied was a description of socialism. And I hope, at least, that you will recognise the part I made bold as Marx describing the first and higher phase of communism. We see then, that Marx clearly describes socialism as a society, because, as a result of labour being associated, and therefore it being directly social, where the commodity form does not and cannot arise.

You denying that this is a description of socialism is laughable. And it is one of the many examples of you not having an elementary understanding of Marxism.

It makes me wonder what it is you base your analysis of capitalism and socialism on if you are completely ignorant of the Marxist analysis, as you apparently are.

The only thing that is revealed here is that you are a phrasemonger, and likely get your political economy second-hand.

No, what it reveals is that you denounce Marxism as "phrasemongering" without understanding it. And like Mao, I can only assume you have not read Das Kapital at all.

Except the imperialists employ a whole set of hired-hands called the Labor Aristocracy, who are [i]bribed to spew lies and mislead the working class into going along with the murder and plunder of people from other nations. Identifying these liars and fakes is an essential task of any socialist project.

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I'm saying it technically doesn't, by definition, invalidate their socialism. Although it would be at odds with socialism.

Reducing it to an issue of stupidity is a smokescreen. The people who do this aren't “stupid” and gullible fools. They're active, conscious collaborators with the imperialists.

First, my example was hypothetical. It was a genuine socialist supporting the "Takfiri fascist deathsquads" rebels. I don't think these people actually exist. Those that do support imperialist ventures tend to not be socialists proper, and I also wouldn't say they are "conscious collaborators", more like misguided fools of false consciousness.

I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

The reader? What reader? Who are you talking about mate? I am the reader. I read your posts, and I see you claim that I support Islamist rebels, and it is me who asked for evidence. And it is me who has done the exercise of using the search function and I have found only evidence that directly contradicts your claim. So I'm going to ask again, where is the evidence? I have asked you three times now (maybe even four), and you have produced no evidence. And again, this is because no such evidence exists -- and you know it. Yet you continue as if it does.

If the former Naxalite Paresh Chattopadhyay quotes Engels like you do, I beg to differ.

See my explanation above about your attempt to misconstrue what Engel's is writing.

They would be the Labor Bureaucracy. The Labor Bureaucracy sits on top of the Labor Aristocracy, leading it. Who is the Labor Aristocracy, then? What percentage of workers are bribed parasites in the Netherlands?

What is the purpose of this question. Again, I feel it is somehow supposed to implicate me with these parties, yet it simply can't because I'm not a member of their parties.

Also, "oppressed nations - oppressor nations", "parasite states", "MIM", "labour aristocracy". Are you or are you not a Maoist Third Worldist?

Deep Sea

19th August 2014, 19:47

What was the opinion of the CCP in the 1960s? That a workers' revolution in the West was viable? Then indeed that is my opinion as well.

Thanks for establishing that.

Key words were: tend to denounce. Because most anti-revisionists are indeed Hoxhaists.

Except most self-described “anti-revisionists” are not Hoxhaists at all, hence why it is bizarre you think an “anti-revisionist” would bring up the issue of the split between the CCP and the Danish Communist Working Circle in the first place. It shows you have a fundamental inability to know what kinds of political points go with which political trends.

This is a bit of a red herring. What reveals that you are not a Marxist is, again, that you are fine with a bourgeois economy, because it's "self-determination" of "the people". It ignores class entirely.

It's not up to self-described “socialists” in the Oppressor Nations to liberate the working class of another nation, especially given the track-record of the “working class” of the West, who have been almost exclusively eager collaborators with their own bourgeoisie in plundering other nations.

Secondly, it reveals you are not a Marxist because you denounce Marxism as a product of people from "Oppressor Nations".

This has occurred only in your imagination and nowhere else.

As for the somewhat unrelated charge that I am against "the Right of Nations to Self-Determination". Indeed I am.

Of course you are.

Apparently you serve this up as justification for "oppressed nations" to enforce bourgeois rule.

lmao

I just did. Feel free to not ignore it.

Except you didn't at all.

It does exactly that. I bolded the especially relevant parts.

How what you “bolded” is “relevant” to your phrase mongerings only a psychiatrist could venture to ascertain. The part of Engels' polemic against Eugen Dühring you quoted has nothing to do with “in socialism, where labour is directly social, the commodity form cannot arise.” This is a bit of meaningless sophistry someone else has invented (perhaps this Paresh Chattopadhyay fellow) and you have aped in a ridiculous manner.

I suspect, however, that you are unwilling to interpret the text accurately as to save face in this discussion. You interpret it in a way that it means what you want it to mean, even though it clearly doesn't mean that at all.

This is projection on your part.

The fact alone that the part I cited is from the part of the book that deals with distribution in a socialist society should be sufficient refutation that Engels was not talking about ancient Indian communities or family communities in the specific part I cited.

What you cited was a polemic against Eugen Dühring's “socialitarian” commune, where Engels is utilizing an example of how two non-socialist communities organize production differently than capitalism in order to drive home a point about using metallic money as a measure of some sort of “true value” of labor. Anyone can read the polemic themselves and see how absolutely fanciful your reading of the text is.

Indeed, Engels explains how directly social labour is inconsistent with commodity production, and he provides examples -- two being those two communities and then explains how under conditions where society owns the means of production, which arises from the associated production relations, (i.e. socialism), how this results in the absence of commodity production in socialism. He explains how labour time will be calculated and used in the articulation of a social plan.

Except Engels isn't talking about “socialism” at all. He is talking about any society in which “commodity production” is not the order of the day. Hence Engels gives two different (and not socialist!) examples of to show commodity production “is by no means the only form of social production.”

And I hope, at least, that you will recognise the part I made bold as Marx describing the first and higher phase of communism. We see then, that Marx clearly describes socialism as a society, because, as a result of labour being associated, and therefore it being directly social, where the commodity form does not and cannot arise.

Except nowhere is this said. Again, you quote passages of Marx and Engels that have nothing to do with the your hackened nonsense about “in socialism, where labour is directly social, the commodity form cannot arise.” The way you (and I assume you alone, as I can find no evidence of anyone doing this) split the these passages seems to have no rhyme or reason. The relevant passages can be read at Marxists.org here:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm

Notice how Tim Cornelis places the bolded part after the ellipses, yet it comes before the non-bolded text! Allow me to recreate it, with the same parts bolded:

all the determinations of Robinson’s labour are repeated: but in a social rather than an individual way. Nevertheless, an essential difference emerges. All Robinson’s products were his exclusively personal pro- duct, and were thereby immediately objects of use for him. The total product of the organization is a social product. One part of this product serves again as means of production. It remains social. But another part is used up by the members of the organization as necessities. This part must be divided up among them. The manner of this division will change with the particular manner of the social production-organism itself and the comparable historical level of development of the producers. Only for the sake of the parallel with commodity-production do we presuppose that each producer’s share of necessities of life is determined by his labour-time. In such a case, the labour-time would play a dual role. Its socially planned distribution controls the correct proportion of the various labour-functions to the various needs. On the other hand, the labour-time serves at the same time as the measure of the individual share of the producer in the common labour, and thereby also in the part of the common product which can be used up by individuals. The social relationships of men to their labour and their products of labour remained transparently simple in this case, in production as well as in distribution.

Where Tim Cornelis originally copied and pasted this passage from (as it is a different translation than the one found on Marxists.org) I'm not sure, but his cut and paste job seems to be his own creation. I can only assume at this point Tim Cornelis hopes the reader can be confused into thinking randomly quoted passages from Marx can be used to 'backup' his meaningless hackened drivil-formulas.

No, what it reveals is that you denounce Marxism as "phrasemongering" without understanding it.

“Marxism” apparently is the confused ideas inside the mind of Tim Cornelis.

And like Mao, I can only assume you have not read Das Kapital at all.

I've led study groups on it. I prefer to start with the end and go backwards, particularly focusing on chapter 33, The Modern Theory of Colonisation (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch33.htm).

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying.

I understand perfectly well what you're doing.

The reader? What reader? Who are you talking about mate?

Anyone who stumbles upon these discussions. I'm certainly not typing words here for your benefit, after all.

What is the purpose of this question. Again, I feel it is somehow supposed to implicate me with these parties, yet it simply can't because I'm not a member of their parties.

The CPUSA aren't “members” of the Democratic Party either. Doesn't mean they aren't agents of it.

Tim Cornelis

19th August 2014, 20:06

Unsuprisingly, we see that this Maoist Third Worldist -- notorious for their misreadings and misinterpretations of Marxist texts -- misreads and misinterprets what Marx and Engels wrote. It is beyond clear what they write, yet Deep Sea cannot see it. If he refuses to see what is written clearly and plainly, just to fit it into his warped vision of reality (Third Worldism), I cannot reasonably engage with you. What I explained is not even subject to interpretation or discussion. It says A, I say it says A, and you continually read B. I could take you by the hand, walk you through the quotes again and again (so far I've done it twice), but presumably you will not want to face reality and see what is written (which is, again -- what I showed you at the hand of quotes and explanations -- that socialism, being based on freely associated labour, is where labour is directly social, under the conscious control of the immediate producers on the basis of a social plan, and therefore that commodity production will necessarily not arise or exist). What you do is repeat yourself and your astounding misinterpretation of elementary Marxism -- if you didn't, you wouldn't be a Third Worldist. Engaging you was and will and would be a waste of time. So I'm not going to.

You are an enemy of the working class; and for this reason revleft correctly has a restriction (or ban?) policy on Maoist Third Worldism, and thus against folk like you.

This is essentially all I need to say and repeat to refute all your nonsense. Marx on communism:

Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community. All the characteristics of Robinson‗s labour are here repeated, but with this difference, that they are social, instead of individual. Everything produced by him was exclusively the result of his own personal labour, and therefore simply an object of use for himself. The total product of our community is a social product. One portion serves as fresh means of production and remains social. But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this portion amongst them is consequently necessary. The mode of this distribution will vary with the productive organisation of the community, and the degree of historical development attained by the producers. We will assume, but merely for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour time. Labour time would, in that case, play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption. The social relations of the individual producers, with regard both to their labour and to its products, are in this case perfectly simple and intelligible, and that with regard not only to production but also to distribution. (See p. 50)

I feel kinda sorry for those people that were in your "study" group; but maybe being confronted with the quotes I provided in this thread which you directed them to presumably and are now reading, will wake them up and have them move to Marxism and away from your bourgeois-socialism (and even the craziest moonbat variant of bourgeois-socialism).

Deep Sea

19th August 2014, 20:22

It should be clear to anyone with any significant interaction with people who espouse lines like Tim Cornelis does that they are conscious charlatans. Tim Cornelis, like many, many so-called "socialists" before him, is a phrasemonger. The purpose of the hackened drivil-formulas he has espoused here serve the same function of those who espouse "State Capitalism" or "Bureaucratic Collectivism" as a means of analyzing the former USSR and other states: to demonize the enemies of the Western imperialists they faithfully serve.

No doubt Tim Cornelis is aping Paresh Chattopadhyay here, who applies similar (yet better presented) language in order to invalidate the Soviet experience. No state can, or ever will, live up to the imagination of "socialists" like Tim Cornelis, and these phrasemongering drivil-formulas are meant to give cover to what is fundamentally a race-pact with their own imperialists (who go out of their way to make sure people with ideas like Tim Cornelis get to the tops of the Labor Bureaucracy).

The Modern Prometheus

19th August 2014, 20:30

Perhaps if folk were to lay out some definitions (Maoism, Marx-Lenin-Mao Tse Tung Thought, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism) and say more explicitly where they're coming from this could get . . . I dunno, maybe even useful! :)

Good points all around and yes i think people should clarify wheather they are say talking about Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Mao Tse Tung Thought or 3rd world Maoism. I do like some aspects of M-L-M but as for Maoist thought and 3rd worldism not so much. Granted i doubt 3 world Maoism is big on here ;)

I agree with many groups that have incorporated M-L-M ideas into their organizations but there are many various M-L-M, and Mao Tse Tung Thought political groups and paramilitaries that i loathe with the Shinning Path being a prime example though they became more like Guzmán thought eventually with the shittiest aspects of Maoism thrown in. The Japanese United Red Army Faction was another example of a group that took the whole criticism and self criticism thing a wee bit too far to say the very least :thumbdown:

Tim Cornelis

19th August 2014, 20:41

:rolleyes:

I cannot help but leave some final comments before you will return to your obscure irrelevant webforum where you denounce the U$A's imperialism while defending the global system of capitalism that gives rise to imperialism in the first place.

I'm accused of being a charlatan, yet it is you, Deep Sea, who argues that pre-capitalist ancient Indian communities had steam-engines! You may not say that explicitly, but you do in fact argue that when you deny that Engels was describing socialism when he talks about calculating labour times for steam-engines, and maintain that he is talking about ancient Indian communities, which he mentioned earlier. Anyone with either elementary reading comprehension or some historical sense can understand how ridiculous this.

I'm accused of being a charlatan, yet it is you who accuses me, without any evidence and only evidence to the contrary, of supporting Islamist rebels in Syria.

Marx and Engels are abundantly clear, and you compel me to cite it again, that socialism is based on freely associated labour; that this associated labour is directly social; that directly social labour is incompatible with commodity production. Socialism, therefore, is incompatible with commodity production. All this can be established through an elementary understanding of Marxism, which of course none of the bourgeois-socialists possess otherwise they'd not be bourgeois-socialists.

Now, is it a matter of "states living up to [our] imagination"? Of course not, it's an application of Marxism. I do not dabble in abstract ideological preferences and work from there. Socialist commodity production is a contradiction in terms, and anyone who claims otherwise is not a Marxist. As Tadayuki Tsushima summarised the bourgeois-socialists:

"The basis for saying this is Marx's theory of value according to which a communistic social structure―whether in the first or second stage―is premised on labor that has become directly social labor, which is to say a form of production that is diametrically opposed to commodity production, so that the law of value withers away and this law of value only arises under the opposite case. This question has no room for any sort of scholastic philosophy to be introduced and is instead perfectly clear. "

Anyone who understands Marxism comes to the conclusion above^. Why, in the words of Marx (that are alien in Deep Sea's eyes and ears):

"Why does not money directly represent labor-time, so that a piece of paper may represent, for instance, x hours' labor, is at bottom the same as the question why, given the production of commodities, must products take the form of commodities? This is evident, since their taking the form of commodities implies their differentiation into commodities and money. Or, why cannot private labor―labor for the account of private individuals―be treated as its opposite, immediate social labor? I have elsewhere examined thoroughly the utopian idea of "labor-money" in a society founded on the production of commodities (l. c., p. 61, seq.). On this point I will only say further, that Owen's "labor-money," for instance, is no more "money" than a ticket for the theatre. Owen pre-supposes directly associated labor, a form of production that is entirely inconsistent with the production of commodities. The certificate of labor is merely evidence of the part taken by the individual in the common labor, and of his right to a certain portion of the common produce destined for consumption. But it never enters into Owen's head to pre-suppose the production of commodities, and at the same time, by juggling with money, to try to evade the necessary conditions of that production."

https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/tsushima/labor-certificates.htm

Socialism is based on freely associated labour, common labour, immediate social labor, or directly social labour, and therefore, as Marx says there cannot be commodity production, because it is a "form of production that is entirely inconsistent with the production of commodities".

This is not up to debate, this is a factual assessment of Classical Marxism. What the bourgeois-socialists do by bringing commodity production into socialism is binning Marxism!

But of course, Deep Sea doesn't want to see it, he doesn't want to read what's written, he wants to read what he already believes and reinforce his delusions.

http://www.logicalsignals.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Hear-No-Evil-See-No-Evil-Speak-No-Evil.jpg

"One must distinguish between the letter and the essence"! Is that so? What would Marx have to say about this variety of "Marxist"? No doubt he would say: "I am no Marxist"! Marx laughed caustically at the followers of Proudhon who sought to shake free of the hell of money on the basis of commodity production. And yet here, conversely, "socialist commerce and socialist money" are being dragged into socialism, which is a society of communal labor. In either case we are dealing with terrible idiots. The difference is that in the case of the former, money is unable to be pushed into hell or knocked off, while in the case of the latter, socialism is truly pushed into hell! But since such socialism is not feasible, it must be said that both share the common trait of calling for the impossible. Under socialism, the category of commodity value, and therefore all commerce and all money, wither away. This is the necessary corollary of Marx's theory of value, and this is also what Marx and Engels themselves spoke of. They clearly stated that labor certificates do not become money. It is ridiculous to say that Marx never said anything about this. Hiradate is not thinking straight. I would like to ask him whether "money" and "commerce" are possible without the law of value. Or we could ask him whether it is possible for the law of value to arise when labor has become directly social labor? If it is said that it could arise, this is the view of commodity production as something supra-historical, which would mean that Marx's labor theory of value in Capital is mistaken!"

And of course, it is the bourgeois-socialists who, in lieu of the "Western imperialists" we supposedly "faithfully serve" that are in agreement: the USSR was socialist.

Deep Sea

20th August 2014, 02:43

I cannot help but leave some final comments before you will return to your obscure irrelevant webforum where you denounce the U$A's imperialism while defending the global system of capitalism that gives rise to imperialism in the first place.This from an open supporter of Takfiri fascists in Syria!

I'm accused of being a charlatan, yet it is you, Deep Sea, who argues that pre-capitalist ancient Indian communities had steam-engines!You should look into some remedial reading classes.

I'm accused of being a charlatan, yet it is you who accuses me, without any evidence and only evidence to the contrary, of supporting Islamist rebels in Syria.Again, anyone can use the search function and see all the Western imperialist propaganda shit you spewed for months. That you choose to lie about it in this discussion shows you're not only a liar, but a cowardly one at that.

Marx and Engels are abundantly clear, and you compel me to cite it againI "compel" you to attempt to cite any evidence for your phrasemongering drivil-formulas that you ape from a hack academic to show the reader what a clown you are.

Now, is it a matter of "states living up to [our] imagination"?You and others like you who employ these half-baked drivil-formulas that mean nothing do so precisely in order to attack the enemies of the imperialists you serve. No country can or ever will meet the standards of the meaningless formulas people like Paresh Chattopadhyay have concocted. As another user (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1989403&postcount=5) on this forum pointed out after meeting him in person:

I think [since my memory for personal events that can't be reduced to numbers sucks so bad you can hear the wind whistle] he stated that he thought Lenin [and the Bolsheviks] were capitalists, or acting for capitalism, from the getgo of the October Revolution, which was kind of the moment in the meeting when I tuned out.This is the very point of these phrasemongering drivil-formulas! Lenin and the Bolsheviks were serving the capitalists all along, because they didn't stop "commodity production" or "abolish the law of value" or whatever nonsense imperialist-payed phonies can contrive. These drivil-formulas are vague and meaningless, and could be used to describe any society at all, no matter how production is arranged in them. And yet almost invariably, the people who espouse them have nothing to say about the Labor Aristocracy!

"Why does not money directly represent labor-time, so that a piece of paper may represent, for instance, x hours' labor, is at bottom the same as the question why, given the production of commodities, must products take the form of commodities? This is evident, since their taking the form of commodities implies their differentiation into commodities and money. Or, why cannot private labor―labor for the account of private individuals―be treated as its opposite, immediate social labor? I have elsewhere examined thoroughly the utopian idea of "labor-money" in a society founded on the production of commodities (l. c., p. 61, seq.). On this point I will only say further, that Owen's "labor-money," for instance, is no more "money" than a ticket for the theatre. Owen pre-supposes directly associated labor, a form of production that is entirely inconsistent with the production of commodities. The certificate of labor is merely evidence of the part taken by the individual in the common labor, and of his right to a certain portion of the common produce destined for consumption. But it never enters into Owen's head to pre-suppose the production of commodities, and at the same time, by juggling with money, to try to evade the necessary conditions of that production."Here you have quoted Marx to backup more of your idiotic drivil-formulas, but the quote you left out from Engels clarifies it again. "Directly associated labour" does not equal socialism. To quote Engels again:

Commodity production, however, is by no means the only form of social production. In the ancient Indian communities and in the family communities of the southern Slavs, products are not transformed into commodities. The members of the community are directly associated for production; the work is distributed according to tradition and requirements, and likewise the products to the extent that they are destined for consumption. Direct social production and direct distribution preclude all exchange of commodities, therefore also the transformation of the products into commodities (at any rate within the community) and consequently also their transformation into values."Ancient Indian communities" and "family communities of the southern Slavs“ also have a "form of social production" that is "entirely inconsistent with the production of commodities." Are they forms of socialism? Obviously not!

And of course, it is the bourgeois-socialists who, in lieu of the "Western imperialists" we supposedly "faithfully serve" that are in agreement: the USSR was socialist.And here you reveal what this phrasemongering game you play is about: denouncing the very people who have done the most in the world to combat the imperialists and to stop the exploitation of their people by the Western nations.

Trap Queen Voxxy

20th August 2014, 02:52

Brutus

20th August 2014, 09:39

Tim, for fucks sake, why the fuck do you care? You're getting worked up for nothing and that's not a good thing. Stahp. <3

Also, this is a thread about Mao, why are we not all then discussing the man and his greatness! Both in girth an awesomeness. I thought that was the point of this thread?

Because bourgeois-socialism is irrevocably linked to Mao and Maoism because of "socialist commodity production". Tim pointed this out, and is now on a futile mission to show Deep Sea that Maoism is no more proletarian than the peasants it based its support on.

The Feral Underclass

20th August 2014, 10:22

Because bourgeois-socialism is irrevocably linked to Mao and Maoism because of "socialist commodity production". Tim pointed this out, and is now on a futile mission to show Deep Sea that Maoism is no more proletarian than the peasants it based its support on.

I'm not necessarily agreeing with your argument, but let's say that you're right, Maoism still has transferable ideas and modes of practice, and therefore remains relevant.

Tim Cornelis

20th August 2014, 11:08

This from an open supporter of Takfiri fascists in Syria!

At this point you're just saying this to rile me up. First I thought you were just acting like a troll but that you were sincere in your bullocks.

You should look into some remedial reading classes.

Really, I should?

Let's see if we can clarify it a bit more then. If you still deny it after I show you this I'm confident you are indeed a troll.

Again, anyone can use the search function and see all the Western imperialist propaganda shit you spewed for months. That you choose to lie about it in this discussion shows you're not only a liar, but a cowardly one at that.

I'm the coward yet you cannot produce one such link, of which you claim there are numerous.

I "compel" you to attempt to cite any evidence for your phrasemongering drivil-formulas that you ape from a hack academic to show the reader what a clown you are.

I already did. I cited Engels describing socialism. I will quote it again:

From the moment when society enters into possession of the means of production and uses them in direct association for production, the labour of each individual, however varied its specifically useful character may be, becomes at the start and directly social labour. The quantity of social labour contained in a product need not then be established in a roundabout way; daily experience shows in a direct way how much of it is required on the average. Society can simply calculate how many hours of labour are contained in a steam-engine, a bushel of wheat of the last harvest, or a hundred square yards of cloth of a certain quality. It could therefore never occur to it still to express the quantities of labour put into the products, quantities which it will then know directly and in their absolute amounts, in a third product, in a measure which, besides, is only relative, fluctuating, inadequate, though formerly unavoidable for lack of a better one, rather than express them in their natural, adequate and absolute measure, time. Just as little as it would occur to chemical science still to express atomic weight in a roundabout way, relatively, by means of the hydrogen atom, if it were able to express them absolutely, in their adequate measure, namely in actual weights, in billionths or quadrillionths of a gramme. Hence, on the assumptions we made above, society will not assign values to products. It will not express the simple fact that the hundred square yards of cloth have required for their production, say, a thousand hours of labour in the oblique and meaningless way, stating that they have the value of a thousand hours of labour. It is true that even then it will still be necessary for society to know how much labour each article of consumption requires for its production. It will have to arrange its plan of production in accordance with its means of production, which include, in particular, its labour-powers. The useful effects of the various articles of consumption, compared with one another and with the quantities of labour required for their production, will in the end determine the plan. People will be able to manage everything very simply, without the intervention of much-vaunted “value”. *15[/spoil]

Exhibit #A that he is talking about socialism, not precapitalist ancient communities: He says " the moment when society enters into possession of the means of production and uses them in direct association for production", i.e. social ownership of the means of production.
Exhibit B: "Society [the one in possession of the means of production] can simply calculate how many hours of labour are contained in a steam-engine" So he is talking about a modern industrialised society.
Exhibit C: He says this modern industrialised society has no commodities or value, so he's talking about the future.
Exhibit D: He is talking in future tense: "People will be able to manage everything very simply, without the intervention of much-vaunted “value”"
Exhibit E: He is talking about this in the part of the book dealing with the content of socialism.
Exhibit F: He talked of the same thing before, in the same wordings, namely so: "With the seizing of the means of production by society production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organisation. The struggle for individual existence disappears." This is definitely about socialism. Which is clear from the context, tense it's written in, and that he refers to it as "To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and thus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific socialism."

And of course, not even Stalin denies that Engels claimed this. He just rationalises it by saying "yeah but we got a different kind of commodity production, so that's not valid for us".

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch03.htm

I guess this is going to be the slogan for bourgeois-socialism: to make Marxism and commodity production in socialism compatible, they need to argue that ancient pre-capitalist communities possessed steam-engines.

ou and others like you who employ these half-baked drivil-formulas that mean nothing do so precisely in order to attack the enemies of the imperialists you serve. No country can or ever will meet the standards of the meaningless formulas people like Paresh Chattopadhyay have concocted. As another user (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1989403&postcount=5) on this forum pointed out after meeting him in person:

Ah, he stopped being a Maoist and became a Marxist after reading Marx. Damning evidence you discovered! It all adds up now, you misread that I supported Islamist rebels, you misread this, you misread Marx and Engels and me in this thread, and you constantly misread Marxist literature producing your awkward political ideology.

This is the very point of these phrasemongering drivil-formulas! Lenin and the Bolsheviks were serving the capitalists all along, because they didn't stop "commodity production" or "abolish the law of value" or whatever nonsense imperialist-payed phonies can contrive. These drivil-formulas are vague and meaningless, and could be used to describe any society at all, no matter how production is arranged in them. And yet almost invariably, the people who espouse them have nothing to say about the Labor Aristocracy!

Again, what you denounce as phrasemongering = Marxism.

Here you have quoted Marx to backup more of your idiotic drivil-formulas, but the quote you left out from Engels clarifies it again. "Directly associated labour" does not equal socialism. To quote Engels again:

"Ancient Indian communities" and "family communities of the southern Slavs“ also have a "form of social production" that is "entirely inconsistent with the production of commodities." Are they forms of socialism? Obviously not!

Again, F for reading comprehension. Just like the existence of commodities is not necessarily capitalism, the absence of commodity production is not necessarily socialism. That doesn't take away that fact, and yes it is a fact, that in Marxism, socialism has necessarily no commodity production, because under socialism labour is freely associated; immediate social labour therefore; and as such the commodity form cannot arise.

And here you reveal what this phrasemongering game you play is about: denouncing the very people who have done the most in the world to combat the imperialists and to stop the exploitation of their people by the Western nations.

Presumably you support Soviet imperialism and Chinese imperialism. I do not, since I'm a communist I seek to abolish the basis for imperialism, whereas you seek to transfer that basis, capital, to the state and continue imperialism.

The Modern Prometheus

20th August 2014, 12:53

Tim, for fucks sake, why the fuck do you care? You're getting worked up for nothing and that's not a good thing. Stahp. <3

Also, this is a thread about Mao, why are we not all then discussing the man and his greatness! Both in girth an awesomeness. I thought that was the point of this thread?

Well i don't think everybody here thinks Mao was the best thing since jesus nailed to a tree. I really don't like the whole cult of personality that build up around Mao anymore then i like the cult of personality that Stalin and Che had around themselves. I know that it's not all their fault but it seems to be very anti-Socialist to me.

The Feral Underclass

20th August 2014, 15:08

Jesus wasn't nailed to a tree.

Hrafn

20th August 2014, 15:10

Technically, he was. A dead tree. Subjected to carpentry. :ohmy:

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

20th August 2014, 15:17

Jesus wasn't nailed to a tree.

Tell that to the writer of Acta Apostolorum...

The Feral Underclass

20th August 2014, 15:21

Technically, he was. A dead tree. Subjected to carpentry. :ohmy:

Wood isn't a tree.

Edit: Does all wood come from trees? What is a shrub? Is a shrub a tree?...Mao would know.

Lord Testicles

20th August 2014, 16:19

Nailed to a piece of wood would be more accurate for the myth but since it's a work of fiction you could have Jesus nailed to Pontius Pilate if you wanted.

Deep Sea

20th August 2014, 16:40

At this point you're just saying this to rile me up.

I'm just letting the readers who aren't already familiar with your support of Takfiri fascists in Syria what sort of "socialist" you are.

I'm the coward yet you cannot produce one such link, of which you claim there are numerous.

There is tons of the stuff, as anyone posting on this forum for awhile no doubt already knows, and anyone who is new can search and discover for themselves.

I already did. I cited Engels describing socialism.

Except Engels isn't talking about "socialism" at all. As the previous paragraph makes clear, he is talking about any other form of social production. The two examples he gives are "Ancient Indian communities" and "family communities of the southern Slavs." That it doesn't fit the drivil-formula you are aping is a problem with the interpretation you are trying to fit onto the text.

Exhibit #A that he is talking about socialism, not precapitalist ancient communities: He says " the moment when society enters into possession of the means of production and uses them in direct association for production", i.e. social ownership of the means of production.

Yes, like those ancient Indian communities and southern Slav families.

In the ancient Indian communities and in the family communities of the southern Slavs, products are not transformed into commodities. The members of the community are directly associated for production; the work is distributed according to tradition and requirements, and likewise the products to the extent that they are destined for consumption. Direct social production and direct distribution preclude all exchange of commodities

Are these examples of "socialism" to you? lmao

Exhibit B: "Society [the one in possession of the means of production] can simply calculate how many hours of labour are contained in a steam-engine" So he is talking about a modern industrialised society.

Any commodity is like this in a society where commodity production doesn't prevail (like ancient Indian communities and southern Slav families0. Hence why Engels uses three examples in his original sentence. "Society can simply calculate how many hours of labour are contained in a steam-engine, a bushel of wheat of the last harvest, or a hundred square yards of cloth of a certain quality."

Exhibit C: He says this modern industrialised society has no commodities or value, so he's talking about the future.
Exhibit D: He is talking in future tense: "People will be able to manage everything very simply, without the intervention of much-vaunted “value”"

He is actually talking about any hypothetical society, like the explicit non-socialist examples he uses of "ancient Indian communties" and "family communities of the southern Slavs" in the preceding paragraph. That he uses the future tense has nothing to do with anything.

Exhibit F: He talked of the same thing before, in the same wordings, namely so: "With the seizing of the means of production by society production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organisation. The struggle for individual existence disappears." This is definitely about socialism.

Except it isn't, because the absence of commodity production doesn't equal socialism. Engels is clear about this, when he uses the examples of "ancient Indian communities" and "family communities of the southern Slavs."

Which is clear from the context, tense it's written in, and that he refers to it as "To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and thus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific socialism."

Here you are quoting from a different text, namely Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm). The full quote is this:

Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free. To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and this the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarian class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific Socialism

Nowhere does your phrasemongering drivil-formula even appear! Again, the reader can clearly see, you think you can find random passages anywhere from Marx and Engels to support meaningless nonsense.

More to the point, not only is the absence of commodity production is not socialism, as Engels makes clear, but commodity production does not equal capitalism! To quote Marx:

3 points.
1) Capitalist production is the first to make the commodity the universal form of all products.
2) Commodity production necessarily leads to capitalist production, once the worker has ceased to be a part of the conditions of production (slavery, serfdom) or the naturally evolved community no longer remains the basis [of production] (India). From the moment at which labour power itself in general becomes a commodity.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch01.htm

Again:

On the other hand, the same conditions which give rise to the basic condition of capitalist production, the existence of a class of wage-workers, facilitate the transition of all commodity production to capitalist commodity production. As capitalist production develops, it has a disintegrating, resolvent effect on all older forms of production, which, designed mostly to meet the direct needs of the producer, transform only the excess produced into commodities

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch01.htm

So as we can see, contrary to the drivil-formula you are aping, "commodity production" is not synonymous with capitalism, and the negation of "commodity production" is not synonymous with socialism (least you think Engels believed "ancient Indian communities" and "family communities of the southern Slavs" were socialist). So not only is non-capitalist commodity production possible, the absence of commodity production does not indicate socialism!

Ah, he stopped being a Maoist and became a Marxist after reading Marx. Damning evidence you discovered!

And he thinks the Bolsheviks were capitalist.

Again, what you denounce as phrasemongering = Marxism.

Again, the confused ideas in the mind of Tim Cornelis apparently is "Marxism."

Just like the existence of commodities is not necessarily capitalism, the absence of commodity production is not necessarily socialism

When you admit this, all the drivil you are aping goes right out the window.

Presumably you support Soviet imperialism and Chinese imperialism

More phrasemongering from an open supporter of Takfiri fascists.

Tim Cornelis

20th August 2014, 17:00

I'm just letting the readers who aren't already familiar with your support of Takfiri fascists in Syria what sort of "socialist" you are.

There is tons of the stuff, as anyone posting on this forum for awhile no doubt already knows, and anyone who is new can search and discover for themselves.

:closedeyes:

You dug yourself into a hole, and now your ego prevents you from saying "oh right, I was wrong."

Except Engels isn't talking about "socialism" at all. As the previous paragraph makes clear, he is talking about any other form of social production. The two examples he gives are "Ancient Indian communities" and "family communities of the southern Slavs." That it doesn't fit the drivil-formula you are aping is a problem with the interpretation you are trying to fit onto the text.

"Ancient indian communities had steam engines, man, so therefore commodity production and socialism are compatible. Also, I'm totally serious and not a troll for saying this".

Yes, like those ancient Indian communities and southern Slav families.

Are these examples of "socialism" to you? lmao

Nope. Again you misread. I already explicitly stated, the absence of commodity production does not make something socialism, but socialism is necessarily free of commodity production. Reading comprehension is not a skill of yours.

Any commodity is like this in a society where commodity production doesn't prevail (like ancient Indian communities and southern Slav families0. Hence why Engels uses three examples in his original sentence. "Society can simply calculate how many hours of labour are contained in a steam-engine, a bushel of wheat of the last harvest, or a hundred square yards of cloth of a certain quality."

"Ancient indian communities had steam engines, man, so therefore commodity production and socialism are compatible."

He is actually talking about any hypothetical society, like the explicit non-socialist examples he uses of "ancient Indian communties" and "family communities of the southern Slavs" in the preceding paragraph. That he uses the future tense has nothing to do with anything.

Yeah totally brah. When he calls this "hypothetical society" the "mission of the proletariat" in its strive for "emancipation". It's not socialism here's referring to. u tryna take me for a fool brah, u thinkin iman idiot or sumthin, jeez man.

Except it isn't, because the absence of commodity production doesn't equal socialism.

Except, except, except, except, except that's literally and explicitly what Engels says. Well not that the absence of commodity production equals socialism, but that in socialism, when there is social ownership, commodity production necessarily exists. Again, you misread. Or more likely, you purposefully misrepresent what you read to try and make me angry because you are, at this point at least, trolling.

So you admit you disagree with Engel's conclusions which are the product of Marxist analysis. Good.

Engels is clear about this, when he uses the examples of "ancient Indian communities" and "family communities of the southern Slavs."

uh nope. something about reading comprehension.

Here you are quoting from a different text, namely Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm). The full quote is this:

looooooooooooooooooooool. ^^

>Claims virtually to be a de facto scholar of Marxism
>Doesn't know "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" is a reworking of Anti-Dühring's section on socialism

"With the seizing of the means of production by society production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organisation. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then for the first time man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature because he has now become master of his own social organisation. The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face to face with man as laws of nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him. Man’s own social organisation, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have hitherto governed history pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, with full consciousness, make his own history — only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the humanity's leap from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom.

To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and thus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific socialism."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm

Last two parapgraphs.

"With the seizing of the means of production by society production of commodities is done away with ... To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat.

You are in denial.

Nowhere does your phrasemongering drivil-formula even appear! Again, the reader can clearly see, you think you can find random passages anywhere from Marx and Engels to support meaningless nonsense.

Yeah mate, keep denouncing Marxism as phrasemongering.

More to the point, not only is the absence of commodity production is not socialism, as Engels makes clear, but commodity production does not equal capitalism!

That's literally what I said in my previous post. I said "Just like the existence of commodities is not necessarily capitalism, the absence of commodity production is not necessarily socialism". HOWEVER, as anyone with a tat reading comprehension knows (or who is familiar with the fallacy of affirming the antecedent). That the absence of commodity production does not equal socialism, does not mean that socialism and commodity production are compatible -- when clearly and undeniably they are not.

Again, reading comprehension.

To quote Marx:

"3 points.
1) Capitalist production is the first to make the commodity the universal form of all products.
2) Commodity production necessarily leads to capitalist production, once the worker has ceased to be a part of the conditions of production (slavery, serfdom) or the naturally evolved community no longer remains the basis [of production] (India). From the moment at which labour power itself in general becomes a commodity."

Right..... This is exactly 0% to do with what's debated. Of course you don't understand this, as you lack elementary reading and reading comprehension skills. Commodity production leads to capitalist production under historical conditions, when the immediate producer has a double freedom (such as freedom from means of production). That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact, and yes it is a fact, that in Marxism, socialism and commodity production are not compatible.

Again:

So as we can see, contrary to the drivil-formula you are aping, "commodity production" is not synonymous with capitalism, and the negation of "commodity production" is not synonymous with socialism (least you think Engels believed "ancient Indian communities" and "family communities of the southern Slavs" were socialist). So not only is non-capitalist commodity production possible, the absence of commodity production does not indicate socialism!

Of course that's not at all what I said or what Marxism says, which is what I'm "aping". You daft idiot.

And he thinks the Bolsheviks were capitalist.

Indeed.

Again, the confused ideas in the mind of Tim Cornelis apparently is "Marxism."

Indeed, Marxism is Marxism, and bourgeois-socialism is not Marxism.

When you admit this, all the drivil you are aping goes right out the window.

Uh no, absolutely not. Again, it comes down to your abhorrent reading comprehension.

More phrasemongering from an open supporter of Takfiri fascists.

You're in denial mate.

Tim Cornelis

20th August 2014, 17:13

This is going to be my last post addressing you.

Deep Sea, your understanding of Marxism is abhorrent. I still haven't figured out of you're a troll or some really really daft idiot with such a big ego that, when confronted with facts and evidence, you continue stubbornly to save face. You keep going on about me "phrasemongering", which is apparently synonymous with Marxism, and "aping" Marxist scholars, when in reality I'm "aping" Marxism, right from the texts of Marx and Engels themselves.

In Anti-Dühring, as I've quoted in my previous post, Engels explicitly describes socialism, as so:

"With the seizing of the means of production by society production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organisation. The struggle for individual existence disappears ... To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and thus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific socialism."

If you have any understand or basic knowledge of Marxism, you recognise that he is referring to society owning and controlling means of production, how this liberates the immediate producers, how the anarchy of the market of capitalism is replaced by conscious planning by those immediate producers. You recognise that wage-labour is replaced by associations of producers, and that this directly associated labour is directly social labour, and you will recognise, based on an elementary understanding of Marx's theory of value, or his theory of the law of value, that the commodity form only arises under private labour; and cannot arose under directly social labour. Consequently, the only conclusion that is consistent with a Marxist analysis is that commodity production in socialism ceases. And indeed, that is what Engels described in the paragraph I cited where he mentions the steam-engine.

Again, this isn't up for debate. It is simply factually assessing what Engels wrote, and you are deluding yourself to an implausible extent. And since it's not up for debate, I'm, this time for real, not going to debate it. I advice you to carefully reread Anti-Dühring, Das Kapital, and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, and you will find that this analysis is correct and factual. At least I hope, your abhorrent readings and comprehension skills does not fill me with confidence.

Deep Sea

20th August 2014, 21:54

There is not much here to respond to that hasn't already been said, but I'll go ahead anyway.

You dug yourself into a hole, and now your ego prevents you from saying "oh right, I was wrong."

Tim Cornelis' denials here are hysterical. There are literally months of posts, comprising literally dozens, if not hundreds of posts, of Western propaganda on the side of murderous Takfiri fascists in Syria. As this can only be an issue of contention for a new reader, I strongly encourage any such person to look through Tim Cornelis' posting history and see for themselves. Tim Cornelis is a mouthpiece for Western imperialism.

"Ancient indian communities had steam engines, man, so therefore commodity production and socialism are compatible. Also, I'm totally serious and not a troll for saying this".

Tim Cornelis is reaching on this one. Engels is simply listing examples of any commodity, from things as diverse as steam engines to bushels of wheat, as examples of how labor accounting works in societies that don't use commodity production, but direct planning, as their social mode of production. Tim Cornelis reads "socialism" into the passage, where the word never even occurs (appearing only once in the entire section, because it isn't about socialism at all, but an attack on the "socialitarian" commune idea of Eugen Dühring).

Nope. Again you misread. I already explicitly stated, the absence of commodity production does not make something socialism, but socialism is necessarily free of commodity production.

Tim Cornelis has continually failed to produce any textual evidence of his phrasemongering drivel-formulas, and has essentially admitted defeat by agreeing that, how Marx and Engels use the term, "commodity production" is not capitalism, and the opposite of "commodity production" is not socialism. Tim Cornelis would be well advised, in my opinion, to carefully reread Engels' criticism of Eugen-Dühring "socialitarian" commune.

Yeah totally brah. When he calls this "hypothetical society" the "mission of the proletariat" in its strive for "emancipation". It's not socialism here's referring to.

As would be clear if Tim Cornelis bothered to tell readers, this quote is from chapter 24, which is a different topic altogether from chapter 26, where Tim Cornelis has been insisting a particular paragraph refers to socialism, and not any social mode of production that isn't commodity production. Again, Tim Cornelis thinks he can point to any random text as evidence of his assertions, even if they don't have anything to do with his useless phrasemongering drivel.

Except, except, except, except, except that's literally and explicitly what Engels says.

Except he doesn't. Engels is quite clear they are different. He even says so in chapter 24, which you have quoted out of context moments earlier.

But with the extension of the production of commodities, and especially with the introduction of the capitalist mode of production, the laws of commodity production, hitherto latent, came into action more openly and with greater force.

Here Engels is explicit: capitalist production and commodity production are two different things entirely.

So you admit you disagree with Engel's conclusions which are the product of Marxist analysis. Good.

I "admit" no such thing. You confuse your aping of a second-hand argument developed to attack the USSR with the words of Marx and Engels.

looooooooooooooooooooool. ^^

>Claims virtually to be a de facto scholar of Marxism
>Doesn't know "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" is a reworking of Anti-Dühring's section on socialism

It's important to let any careful reader know that you care so little for the texts you are allegedly analyzing, that you jump from one to the other without a thought as to why this procedure can't work. Nevermind the passage that you quoted from another text seemingly at random has absolutely nothing to do with what you are trying to establish.

That's literally what I said in my previous post.

Yes, and your entire case goes right out the window. That you can't see that is pretty funny.

Right..... This is exactly 0% to do with what's debated.

Except is has everything to do with it. If you can have non-capitalist commodity production, and the negation of commodity production isn't socialism, the drivel-formula you are aping is totally meaningless.

Indeed.

Yes, the Bolsheviks were capitalists. Your little meaningless formula you are aping from the ex-Naxalite tells you so.

The careful reader should ponder on this point for a long time. This is the real function of this argument.

Trap Queen Voxxy

20th August 2014, 22:02

Well i don't think everybody here thinks Mao was the best thing since jesus nailed to a tree. I really don't like the whole cult of personality that build up around Mao anymore then i like the cult of personality that Stalin and Che had around themselves. I know that it's not all their fault but it seems to be very anti-Socialist to me.

I think 'best thing sliced bread' would be a bit more accurate, but I also have been thinking that a 'cult of personality' isn't so bad provided you have a good personality to go on. You know, a really cool cat, like Chairman Meow.

Tim Cornelis

20th August 2014, 22:08

I hope that the "reader", the mysterious Third Worldist guests constantly monitoring this thread, will at least recognise the absurdities peddled by Deep Sea, the constant misrepresenting, the constant slandering yet failing to produce the evidence, and hopefully they will, confronted with the facts, come to reject their bourgeois-socialism. For instance that "If you can have non-capitalist commodity production, and the negation of commodity production isn't socialism, the drivel-formula you are aping is totally meaningless." Which is of course not what Marx or Engels say. It is a misrepresentation of Marxism. Rather, Marx and Engels, and Marxism, state, not that the negation of commodity production is socialism, but that socialism is necessarily free from commodity production. Capitalism is not abolished by removing commodity production, the removal of commodity production is a byproduct of social ownership. Marxism is an important tool, but if it is misrepresented and wielded incorrectly, it can produce absurd outcomes. This can range from Third Worldism, to concepts of 'deformed workers' states', and whatnot. I hope they will read Marxist literature, independently, without Deep Sea regurgitating a butchered up version of it.

It's would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

So again the quote by Engels:

"With the seizing of the means of production by society production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organisation. The struggle for individual existence disappears ... To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and thus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific socialism."

More important than that Engels said this, is why he said this. Why does commodity production necessarily disappear? Because under socialism production in carried out in association making labour directly social, and this is incompatible with commodity production (explanation is a few pages back by among others Chattopadhyay, excellent Marxist scholar, advice for further reading -- or read Das Kapital, though this can be quite exhaustive, and with wrong guidance -- Deep Sea is one example -- it can be meaningless).

Also, it's highly ironic that Deep Sea would accuse me of supporting Takfiri fascists, when he openly states that Nazi Germany should have defeated the Allies.

Tolstoy

21st August 2014, 00:49

A leader who, while flawed like the rest of us and by no means 100% correct, managed to eliminate the parasitic landlord class and build one of the key nations of the Socialist camp. Alot of the major flaws in his plans was simply that he was too idealistic and didnt anticipate the greed of the lower and midlevel bureaucrats responsible for carrying out his policies.

Plus the Gang of Fours general fuckery and what not did a number too.

Tim Cornelis

21st August 2014, 01:07

Trap Queen Voxxy

21st August 2014, 01:18

Tolstoy

21st August 2014, 01:26

Brutus

21st August 2014, 07:28

Well bureaucracies play a role in putting policies into action in all states, a state can have an operating bureacracy and still be Socialist. Its just that it was the bureaucrats who fucked up the great leap forward, not Mao or the workers

Socialism is the abolition of classes, therefore there wouldn't be a state. State socialism is nothing more than state capitalism.

Trap Queen Voxxy

21st August 2014, 15:58

Socialism is the abolition of classes, therefore there wouldn't be a state. State socialism is nothing more than state capitalism.

The bureaucracy constitutes a class entity of its own? Is this not the material arms of the proletariat that Marxists were talking about? Since when? Is not a monolithic bureaucracy the state being used by the workers to crush the ancien regime? Hmm? Interesting. Also, what you're trying to describe is Communism not Socialism. State socialism seemed to include a state, bureaucracy and so on.

Tim Cornelis

21st August 2014, 19:01

The bureaucracy constitutes a class entity of its own? Is this not the material arms of the proletariat that Marxists were talking about? Since when? Is not a monolithic bureaucracy the state being used by the workers to crush the ancien regime? Hmm? Interesting. Also, what you're trying to describe is Communism not Socialism. State socialism seemed to include a state, bureaucracy and so on.

He clearly says 'socialism is a society without classes, therefore there wouldn't be a state'. He doesn't say a bureaucracy constitutes a class, he says if social classes disappear, the state disappears. Socialism and communism are synonyms in Marxism. The words refer to the associated mode of production that is established after the abolition of capitalism.

Well bureaucracies play a role in putting policies into action in all states, a state can have an operating bureacracy and still be Socialist. Its just that it was the bureaucrats who fucked up the great leap forward, not Mao or the workers

The point is, you ascribe to Mao, and presumably the clique around him, the political power to make decisions. So decisions are made, not by workers, but by some elite. Therefore there was no socialism, or even a workers' state.

The Feral Underclass

22nd August 2014, 22:52

I am still awaiting an answer to my question: Is a shrub a tree?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Geiseric

23rd August 2014, 06:53

If Mao articulated policies, and the bureaucracy executed it, you essentially admit the workers possessed no meaningful power; and therefore that there couldn't have been socialism.

An important point to make is that class struggle still existed inside of Maoist China, and the day to day struggle of the Chinese proletariat and the poor peasantry/serfdom still in large part determined the policies of the Chinese Communist Party, by necessity for their existence as the ruling party.

Although the Bourgeois Revolution wasn't supported by most of the US working class during the Civil War, capitalist productive relations grew as a result of the tumor aristocracy which was failing in its goals to develop an even economy in the fledgling US.

Combined and uneven development plays a large role in spurring political upheaval, which was the main concern of the Maoists. Like slavery in the US, the cancerous Chinese rural bureaucracy which was based in the cities and military imparted a legacy on the KMT and the CCP which played into every part of their political process and necessary alliances.

The NEP happened in Russia and was a retreat due to to Russia's backwards character and isolation, which spurred the growth of Stalinism. If we see the Zig Zags, from the seizure of power by the CCP on a nationwide basis, to their alliances with the rich peasantry and political concessions, the bonapartism of Mao makes alot more sense.

RedHal

5th September 2014, 05:03

RedHal

5th September 2014, 05:04

*double post*

RedHal

5th September 2014, 05:14

Not one or a few, but ALL of his decisions apart from "lets stage some kind of struggle against japan" was absolutely horrible and led to the deaths of his comrades as well as millions of other people. He formed a fucking front with the KMT as they were murdering communists through the whole country.

Actually Mao was against the alliance with the KMT, but the order came from Stalin and the Comintern. Mao was not the head of the CCP during this time, and this disaster was one of the reasons why Mao rose in the CCP, because he was against it!

Ocean Seal

7th September 2014, 01:06

Someone seriously recommended Jason Unruhe...

Maoism is a romanticist(1), voluntarist and idealist(2) bourgeois socialism (3).

(1) Romanticist because it invokes vague notions of "the people" and mass mobilisation.
As opposed to our rigorous definition of the proletariat.

(2) Voluntarist and idealist because supposedly socialism, among other things, can be willed in and out of existence and made through policies enforced and designed from above.

Like you know:capitalism.

(3) bourgeois socialism because Maoism upholds the notion of "socialist commodity production"

Capitalism (not bourgeois socialism)

Millions died as a result of disastrous and ill-advised policies.
I'm not really a Mao fanboy, but can we please not just rehash bourgeois nonsense like this? Maoism = pretty good third world capitalism. But come on you are seriously going to blame the deaths of the Chinese on "policy". If that isn't romanticized idk what is. There are constraints on what China can do as a result of material conditions which I'm sure you understand based on your condemnation of romanticism. Mao's policies were actually pretty great, doubled lifespan, rural health care improved, starvation ended, and women's rights significantly improved.

Tim Cornelis

7th September 2014, 02:03

As opposed to our rigorous definition of the proletariat.

I think there is a substantial and qualitative difference between a proletarian class analysis and vague populistic sloganeering (e.g. "serve the people").

Like you know:capitalism.

Capitalism (not bourgeois socialism)

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Doesn't the bourgeois in bourgeois socialism reveal it already?

I'm not really a Mao fanboy, but can we please not just rehash bourgeois nonsense like this? Maoism = pretty good third world capitalism. But come on you are seriously going to blame the deaths of the Chinese on "policy". If that isn't romanticized idk what is. There are constraints on what China can do as a result of material conditions which I'm sure you understand based on your condemnation of romanticism. Mao's policies were actually pretty great, doubled lifespan, rural health care improved, starvation ended, and women's rights significantly improved.

And what part about saying "Millions died as a result of disastrous and ill-advised policies" is rehashing "bourgeois nonsense"? The Great Chinese Famine was largely caused by various policies, such as forcing peasants into steel production, using pseudo-scientific biological approaches (as developed by Trofim Lysenko), and killing 'four pests' which resulted in a locust plague ruining crops. I'm sure you would agree that these policies were disastrous and ill-advised, so I'm not sure where it becomes "bourgeois nonsense" (which would also imply that you would regard the target of this bourgeois propaganda to be non-bourgeois).

And I also don't see the connection to women's rights. Women's rights can be advanced without burying grain seeds deeper and closer together than advised by actual science you know.

Ocean Seal

7th September 2014, 02:33

I think there is a substantial and qualitative difference between a proletarian class analysis and vague populistic sloganeering (e.g. "serve the people").
One this forum I have yet to find a working definition for the working class. Instead I usually find people debating over whether or not cops,cashiers,service workers, social workers, doctors, lawyers, subsistence farmers, etc, etc are workers. And while the people is a nebulous term, it is essentially in the Maoist lexicon referring to his bloc of four classes I can assume.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Doesn't the bourgeois in bourgeois socialism reveal it already?
Sure but that is why it shouldn't be called by an oxymoron.

And what part about saying "Millions died as a result of disastrous and ill-advised policies" is rehashing "bourgeois nonsense"? The Great Chinese Famine was largely caused by various policies, such as forcing peasants into steel production,
Which had rather large upsides for industry, industry which only a few years later virtually eliminated starvation from China.

using pseudo-scientific biological approaches (as developed by Trofim Lysenko), and killing 'four pests' which resulted in a locust plague ruining crops.
Hindsight 20/20. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Lysenko a would be geneticist beyond his prime during this era.

I'm sure you would agree that these policies were disastrous and ill-advised, so I'm not sure where it becomes "bourgeois nonsense" (which would also imply that you would regard the target of this bourgeois propaganda to be non-bourgeois).
Fox news constantly spouts bourgeois nonsense (sentiments of the bourgeoisie which are non-sensical) about bourgeois regimes around the world like Libya under Qaddafi/ Iran etc.

And I also don't see the connection to women's rights. Women's rights can be advanced without burying grain seeds deeper and closer together than advised by actual science you know.
I would certainly hope so, or you can only guess what those MRA's would say. I'm just saying you have to take the bad with the good and when you say that his policies were out killing millions it sort of implies that about all of his policies.