The Recent Evolution of Capital

[nom de guerre]

Okay, I may have my own gripes about RevLeft, due to the past. But I feel like I've had a recent Marxist epiphany, and this is the biggest community of self-identified Marxists on the net, so I must come here to present it to you, for discussion. For the anarchists in the crowd: I think the conclusions that we're finding suggest your attention as well, because the future of our existences damn well depends on it.

As Marxists, the fundamental core of our analysis is a materialist look on history. We look for perceived material interest - assuming that people act the way they do because they rationally expect to benefit in a material way. This is called historical materialism (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1139269704&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&) - because the logical result of class society is to understand who is benefitting. So basically, to understand history, we have to understand the economy - the material forces of production. Yet I feel lately, many Marxists are focusing on the politics - the social construct that is a result of the mode of production.

I stumbled upon an interview on google from Marxist geographer David Harvey, entitled "On Neoliberalism" (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/lilley190606.html). It very clearly describes the evolution of capital beginning in the 1970s, which has fully emerged into the neoliberal era today. Neoliberalism's intent is "redistributing wealth towards the upper classes."

From the interview:


Originally posted by "David Harvey"
[The crisis in the early 70's] had a lot to do with the stresses within the US economy, where the US was trying to fight a war in Vietnam and resolve social problems at home. It was what we call a guns and butter strategy. But that led to fiscal difficulties in the United States. The United States started printing dollars, we had inflation, and then we had stagnation, and then global stagnation set in in the 1970s. It was clear that the system that had worked very well in the 1950s and much of the 1960s was coming untacked and had to be constructed along some other lines. The other issue which is not so obvious, but the data I think show it very clearly, is that the incomes and assets of the elite classes were severely stressed in the 1970s. And therefore there was a sort of class revolt on the part of the elites, who suddenly found themselves in some considerable difficulty, for economic as well as for political reasons. The 1970s was, if you like, a moment of revolutionary transformation of economies away from the embedded liberalism of the postwar period to neoliberalism, which was really set in motion in the 1970s and consolidated in the 1980s and 1990s.

I highly encourage everyone to read the interview (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/lilley190606.html), as it's a very concise economic analysis of the era that we have emerged into. We are the first Marxists to take up the battle in the postmodern, neoliberal era of capitalism - I feel this requires our attention. Especially because it seems to be falling back into crisis so quickly!

The implications, I think, may be such: as the material conditions have advanced, a new era of capital accumulation came. It was hard to identify only until recent, but it is already shifting right back into crisis. The current recession is un-ignorable - clearly even the neocons can't resolve it with their war (which is only going to get bigger with Iran)! If Marx is right, we're entering the first era where the objection conditions are favorable to revolution - there will be both a crisis in capital and an imperialist war!

I think, because the material conditions have shifted, as Marxists we must criticize if our praxis is still relevant. That is, are our efforts derived from the current material conditions, so they are to be effective in struggle? But, unfortunately, I don't think we get pleasant conclusions with this.

Currently, RevLeft's Marxists are drawn between idealistic political lines. We must remember that politics are only a reflection of the material conditions of the time. I think, ultimately, it's inconsequential if you're a "councilist" or a "Maoist" - all that shit's in the past. It has entered the realm of merely speculative philosophy - and we all know what Marx had to say about that!

I think we need to abandon Leninism as being simply irrelevant. I think we need to democratically reconsider what it is we're doing, and if it is going to actually confront what looks like the upcoming crisis of capital that could bring it all down. As Marxists, I challenge all of you to critically analyze this reshifting of capitalism, and decide if what we're doing is relevant or anachronistic.

I hope this topic isn't driven down to the bottom of the page, or flooded with the inane posts of those who didn't even bother to consider it seriously, or without just posting a gut-reaction.

[Marxist1917]

I definitely agree with what you are saying, we may possibly see a world revolution in the next few decades. But we must not be too optimistic as they were in the early 1900s. Everyone thought their was going to be a revolution then after World War 1, but unfortunately it did not happen.

However, I believe that the neoliberal era is here, and with it will probably come unprecedented concentration of wealth, probably at a greater intensity than anytime before under capitalism. Also, until now, the working class has not truely been global. But now with globalization, history has caught up to the conditions Marx expected to see before the fall of capitalism.

[Connolly]

If Marx is right, we're entering the first era where the objection conditions are favorable to revolution - there will be both a crisis in capital and an imperialist war

Wouldnt WW2 have been an example of this?

[nom de guerre]

WWII began as a conflict between European capitalist nations - American capital had already consolidated its crisis by 1939, but definitely did use the war to develop the economy.


However, I believe that the neoliberal era is here, and with it will probably come unprecedented concentration of wealth, probably at a greater intensity than anytime before under capitalism. Also, until now, the working class has not truely been global. But now with globalization, history has caught up to the conditions Marx expected to see before the fall of capitalism.

Exactly. Marx didn't think capital would be able to maintain itself from crisis in order to develop itself fully - he thought it wouldn't resolve its internal contradictions, and collapse upon itself fully. In fact, the very few times he ever mentioned the dictatorship of the proletariat was within this context - he thought that, because capital would not resolve its contradictions, the workers had to take control of the state to develop the means of production until communism was materialistically feasible. But we see now, today, how that is completely irrelevant - it's obvious Western capital has left its ascendant phase of development, and is beginning to roll back its reforms. But, at the same time, China is currently experiencing its first age of reform - it's an inevitable result of capital's own development in each country.

So we see that apparently capital can develop its own forces of production to the point where it is materialistically feasible to provide for everyone. Marx identified this as abundance, a necessary prerequisite for communism - otherwise, he said, any attempts to build communism would result in what he called "barracks communism" (what we ended up seeing with Bolshevism - Marx was right again!). This is why he said proletarian revolution must occur first in the advanced capitalist nations.

So we see that we are currently approaching the age of capitalism where, theoretically, the immiseration of the American proletariat should begin to only get worse. Across the 20th century, Marxists tried to grope with why his prediction of the immiseration of the working-class in developed capitalism didn't come true. It turns out that it is coming true - it's just taking longer than Marx, or anyone, could've predicted!

This is obviously more evidence to support my position that we need to reevaluate our common Marxist praxis to deal with the development of the material conditions. It is clear that our efforts in the 20th century did not amount toward anything - so we need to sit down, discuss why, and decide how we can change this for the future. I don't propose abandoning Leninism altogether - I strongly support the struggles of the armed insurrection across the "third" world. But I think it's no longer relevant for communists in the western hemisphere to apply their tactics to our struggle, as it's clear the material conditions don't match up. So we must decide what is relevant for today.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To start off on the pleasant note, I have this article in the Articles forum for discussion:

There is no Stalinism or Trotskyism anymore: There is revolutionary Marxism and reformism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67429&view=findpost&p=1292329899)

You might also wish to consider my hard question:

Has capitalism really simplified class relations?: The hard question on Marx's dictum (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72581&view=findpost&p=1292407496)

On the organizational front, I wish to bring this to your attention (something that even the Second International could have done, but, like Lenin, didn't do :( ):

Why not an international socialist party?: Internationals are too antiquated (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65355&view=findpost&p=1292298744)



Now, for my contentions regarding your post:


I think we need to abandon Leninism as being simply irrelevant. I think we need to democratically reconsider what it is we're doing, and if it is going to actually confront what looks like the upcoming crisis of capital that could bring it all down. As Marxists, I challenge all of you to critically analyze this reshifting of capitalism, and decide if what we're doing is relevant or anachronistic.

You forget the modern trend towards authoritarian capitalism (even in the US itself), which was very alive and well during Lenin's time.

While there are aspects of the original "Leninism" that pertain specifically to the Russian conditions of Ilyich's time, to say that "Leninism" on the whole is "irrelevant" is both premature and vulgar. For example, Lenin considered organization to be a "separate question," which distinguished him from both failed contemporaries (Luxemburg) and revisionist "successor" theorists (notably Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, etc.). In continuity with his consideration, note an example of my modern "Leninism" which absorbs what is generally considered to be a left-communist (specifically Bordigist) idea on organization (the international socialist party).

Another example: While perhaps a party may not yet be the best form of organization for educating and agitating the workers (the ICC, while calling for the international socialist party, isn't yet that party), historically speaking it has been the only viable form of organization at the critical moments of revolutionary uprising and revolutionary defense!


I don't propose abandoning Leninism altogether - I strongly support the struggles of the armed insurrection across the "third" world. But I think it's no longer relevant for communists in the western hemisphere to apply their tactics to our struggle, as it's clear the material conditions don't match up. So we must decide what is relevant for today.

Finally, consider the crux of Lenin's non-organizational matters: revolutionary democracy. Obviously with the small farmer-owners being sidelined in the developed world by corporate farms (and they would actually be non-existent were it not for those immense government subsidies), the remaining "peasantry" in the developed world cannot be counted upon to be allies of the working class proper (which includes hired farm workers).

[nom de guerre]

Then the relevant question for me to ask you is do you agree Lenin's idea that the proletariat is incapable of creating communism for itself and thus must be lead by the vanguard consisting of self-proclaimed "professional revolutionaries"? And, if the latter, do you intend for your vanguard to be the leadership for the post-revolutionary apparatus, and how are you going to attempt to transition to communism a.s.a.p.?

I personally feel like this position of his is a logical result of his material conditions, when the small proletariat that did exist was still marred by the backwardness of their culture. But in our modern era, where the internet is the most free and democratic educational tool and organizational framework man has ever created, the material conditions for a cultured and self-taught working-class are upon us, and thus Lenin's assertion and conclusion are now irrelevant to our current material conditions.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ For the first question, please read Lars Lih's work (Lenin Rediscovered), which I referenced. You subscribe to the "textbook" version of Lenin, which is subscribed by all of the right and, alas, most of the left (including Trots and "tankies").

I will concede this, however: his party was mostly comprised of petit-bourgeois intellectuals (including himself) up until 1917. In the current era, said vanguard of "professional revolutionaries" will have to be comprised of self-educated working-class folks (in accordance with Marx's definition of "communist" as being the most advanced sections of the working class).

For the second question, I asked the hard questions (mind you that you didn't comment on the three links above :( ). Earlier, I even separated out the DOTP from socialism per se for historically validated reasons (I'm not gonna plan minutely the era of socialism, because that is utopian). The vanguard party will have, at a minimum, a guiding role in the era of the DOTP itself.

[nom de guerre]

^^^ For the first question, please read Lars Lih's work (Lenin Rediscovered), which I referenced. You subscribe to the "textbook" version of Lenin, which is subscribed by all of the right and, alas, most of the left (including Trots and "tankies").

My own understanding of Lenin comes from a study group I did with the Socialist Workers Party (US) reading his fundamental works: the Development of Capitalism in Russia, What is to be Done?, Imperialism, and State and Revolution. I also understand it as through my further evolution as a Maoist, and reading through his own selected workers. Personally, I think Maoism is the most logical outgrowth of Leninism, as being the "heir" to revolutionary "third"-world struggle.


I will concede this, however: his party was mostly comprised of petit-bourgeois intellectuals (including himself) up until 1917. In the current era, said vanguard of "professional revolutionaries" will have to be comprised of self-educated working-class folks (in accordance with Marx's definition of "communist" as being the most advanced sections of the working class).

First of all, as Marx claimed, as the foundation of historical materialism, that being determines consciousness. That is, our consciousness and our capability for abstract thought is concretely determined by what we do and our material context in the social organism. This is a fundamental tenet of the methodology of any self-described Marxist.

Considering my last couple posts about the context of the development of the Leninist paradigm, do you see how this is an obvious result of the petty-bourgeois origins of the paradigm itself. History has shown the end result that the Bolshevik party manages an emergent capitalist state - it simply justifies doing so with the rhetoric of the workers and peasants. And also the origins of the paradigm itself lay in a petty-bourgeois lawyer, and were developed by other middle-class representatives. Do you see the logical connection?

The Party did become more proletariat after the October Coup itself. But to claim that the party was responsible to that proletariat is idealistic and ignores the reality of what happened. In fact, in goes contrary to it, as the Bolsheviks had immediately transformed the soviets (the councils they had risen to power based on their slogan of "All Power to the Soviets"!) into ceremonial bodies toward the party itself. This was before the Russian Civil War even broke out, and the infamous "war communism" policy came into effect. To claim the proletariat was democratic control of the party is parallel to the statement that because the Democratic Party has more workers, they are a workers party themselves. In both instances, the workers had no control.

It is clear the Bolsheviks never intended to give power to the workers, but only manage them and reap the benefits through the party instead of individually.


For the second question, I asked the hard questions (mind you that you didn't comment on the three links above :( ). Earlier, I even separated out the DOTP from socialism per se for historically validated reasons (I'm not gonna plan minutely the era of socialism, because that is utopian). The vanguard party will have, at a minimum, a guiding role in the era of the DOTP itself.

I did not respond to those links because the assertion you're making is still fundamentally idealist, and thus is not compatible with the Marxist framework. To state that "your" vanguard will have a "guiding role" in the DofP is to idealistically impose your will on the material conditions of history and society. And i would've thought that after the 20th century, we'd realize, as Marxists, that this cannot be done. Further more, it continually assumes that the revolution needs a vanguard, which cannot be materialistically verified and is thus unsubstantiated.

One cannot argue with a logically incoherent statement.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by nom de [email protected] 30, 2007 12:04 am
My own understanding of Lenin comes from a study group I did with the Socialist Workers Party (US) reading his fundamental works: the Development of Capitalism in Russia, What is to be Done?, Imperialism, and State and Revolution. I also understand it as through my further evolution as a Maoist, and reading through his own selected workers. Personally, I think Maoism is the most logical outgrowth of Leninism, as being the "heir" to revolutionary "third"-world struggle.
Sorry for being at loggerheads with you in this regard. Maoism is not the "most logical outgrowth of Leninism," given its overemphasis on the peasantry and its accommodation of the historically obstructionist "red bourgeoisie."


I did not respond to those links because the assertion you're making is still fundamentally idealist, and thus is not compatible with the Marxist framework.

Who&#39;s the real idealist here? <_<

1) Certain working-class folks will be more class-conscious than others, even into the DOTP itself. These are the ones who won&#39;t use Das Kapital as extra toilet paper, as either you or Martov said (can&#39;t remember).

2) Just as there has been class conflict in all of history, within that same timeframe there are leaders - both "hard" leaders and "soft" leaders (ie., guides) and led. To say that this relationship will disappear in the DOTP itself is almost tantamount to saying that the state can be abolished overnight.

I think you should look a little more into the "dialectic" of spontaneity and organization.

[nom de guerre]

Sorry for being at loggerheads with you in this regard. Maoism is not the "most logical outgrowth of Leninism," given its overemphasis on the peasantry and its accommodation of the historically obstructionist "red bourgeoisie."

Lenin&#39;s theory is directly based in the emphasis of the peasantry. It argues the peasants are a revolutionary class with whom a relatively small proletariat can successfully implement a "workers & peasants state" by a sheer will to power. The further adaptation of Maoism is thus very logically the highest form of Leninism - it&#39;s proven quite effective of making revolution with no proletariat at all.

And as if any variant of Leninism can be without a "red bourgeoisie" - it&#39;s in the very nature of the paradigm itself&#33; Are you unwilling to analyze the material context of Leninism for yourself?



I did not respond to those links because the assertion you&#39;re making is still fundamentally idealist, and thus is not compatible with the Marxist framework.

Who&#39;s the real idealist here? <_<

1) Certain working-class folks will be more class-conscious than others, even into the DOTP itself. These are the ones who won&#39;t use Das Kapital as extra toilet paper, as either you or Martov said (can&#39;t remember).

2) Just as there has been class conflict in all of history, within that same timeframe there are leaders - both "hard" leaders and "soft" leaders (ie., guides) and led. To say that this relationship will disappear in the DOTP itself is almost tantamount to saying that the state can be abolished overnight.

I think you should look a little more into the "dialectic" of spontaneity and organization.

Good method: attack me with no real argument, and then claim I&#39;m not as "dialectically" gifted as you. The historical retort of social-democrats and class-traitors.

But, for same of organization:

1) Yes, certain people are more conscious than others. But if Marx is right, then their consciousness is determined within the parameters of their objective material conditions - that is, they only begin to "see" that revolution is in their interests when their own material conditions are no longer fulfilling. The Leninist attempt to beat it into the heads of workers that the party is for them is an exercise in futility - unless you&#39;re proposing that we abandon Marx&#39;s assertion that being determines consciousness and that material conditions prevail.

And these are the arguments one usually hears from a "dialectician" - whatever that means&#33;

2. First of all, you shrug-off your use of the concept of leaders by saying "they&#39;re really more like guides." This both rejects what actually has happened in history, and the Marxist assertion that revolution must be "by the workers, for the workers". Lets brake it down more clearly:


Just as there has been class conflict in all of history, within that same timeframe there are leaders - both "hard" leaders and "soft" leaders (ie., guides) and led.

From the vantage point of the worker, semantics about "hard" leaders or "soft" leaders is meaningless. Instead, what is relevant to our everyday life is the issue of whether or not this leader is going to have you shot for disagreeing for him; and whether our individual voices have an effect on policy, or if it comes straight from the leaders&#39; pen. It&#39;s an issue of authority and democracy.

But the leadership/lead dynamic is not a "class" issue - it&#39;s a result of the division of labor into manual and intellectual spheres. This is a very important tool for early capitalist development - it is the foundation for the assembly line and for all modern commodity production. It is thus to be understood as a social construct of capitalist society - so when we observe that when applied in non-capitalist societies the function it serves is to reproduce capitalistic relationships, we can more easily understand why that is.

We need the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to crush the bourgeoisie, not because we workers are incapable of abstract thought or leading ourselves.

But you&#39;ll never hear a Leninist say that&#33;


To say that this relationship will disappear in the DOTP itself is almost tantamount to saying that the state can be abolished overnight.

Marx said this relationship would have to disappear before the DofP. He said that capitalism would develop the material conditions far enough so that a cultured proletariat would emerge - and that this was a prerequisite for revolutionary consciousness. This is why he thought the revolution could only be made by the working-class itself - and not forced down onto it from above&#33; You cannot revolt first, and then convince workers of the superiority of your ideas. The Bolshevik coup perfectly demonstrated why this is a-historical and thus idealistic.

The question, again, comes down to: do you think Marx was right?

I do, so I&#39;m going to repost this amusing image-summarization:
http://www.redanarchist.org/images/marxleninmusic.gif

[Led Zeppelin]

What do we have here, another RAANite (at least, I assume you are one given your theoretical line and the picture you posted which is from their site) who thinks he has all the answers to the world&#39;s problems?

You haven&#39;t stumbled upon anything new, buddy. Your crap theoretical line has been espoused here so many times in the past it takes about 3 minutes for the search to finish on a high-speed internet connection.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[nom de guerre]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 01, 2007 02:43 pm
What do we have here, another RAANite (at least, I assume you are one given your theoretical line and the picture you posted which is from their site) who thinks he has all the answers to the world&#39;s problems?

You haven&#39;t stumbled upon anything new, buddy. Your crap theoretical line has been espoused here so many times in the past it takes about 3 minutes for the search to finish on a high-speed internet connection.

Sorry to burst your bubble.
I like that cute picture, as it neatly sums up the distinction between Marx and Lenin, but I fail to see how my "theoretical line" makes me a "RAANite". And your crap response conveniently ignores any of the actual points I made in favor of dogmatic submissiveness. Way to be a failure at raising any valid intellectual point. Please try again - that is, if you&#39;re capable of doing so.

Seeing as how you&#39;re not a Marxist, however, I don&#39;t have my hopes particularly high.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by nom de [email protected] 01, 2007 01:07 am
Lenin&#39;s theory is directly based in the emphasis of the peasantry. It argues the peasants are a revolutionary class with whom a relatively small proletariat can successfully implement a "workers & peasants state" by a sheer will to power. The further adaptation of Maoism is thus very logically the highest form of Leninism - it&#39;s proven quite effective of making revolution with no proletariat at all.
Since you yourself were a Maoist once, I&#39;m not surprised at your Lenin-to-Mao connections. <_<



The petit bourgeoisie as a whole (it just so happened that the peasantry formed the bulk of this class in Russia) is revolutionary only to the extent of "revolutionary democracy." You then mention "will to power," but the one material condition was already there, and dare I say came into existence at around the time of the Crimean war: the abdication of the bourgeoisie from their historical "duty." The revolution was "delayed" primarily because of a lack of organization.

I&#39;ll connect this with one of the three "sources and components" of modern scientific socialism, paralleling the three "sources and components" of the ultra-orthodox scientific socialism (what Lenin called "Marxism"): Russian and Italian socialism, having proved themselves theoretically and practically superior to the old French [utopian] socialism.

Unlike the thinkers of French socialism, at least some key thinkers of Russian and Italian socialism (not just Lenin) considered organization to be a separate question.



Who&#39;s the real idealist here? <_<

1) Certain working-class folks will be more class-conscious than others, even into the DOTP itself. These are the ones who won&#39;t use [i]Das Kapital as extra toilet paper, as either you or Martov said (can&#39;t remember).

2) Just as there has been class conflict in all of history, within that same timeframe there are leaders - both "hard" leaders and "soft" leaders (ie., guides) and led. To say that this relationship will disappear in the DOTP itself is almost tantamount to saying that the state can be abolished overnight.

I think you should look a little more into the "dialectic" of spontaneity and organization.

Good method: attack me with no real argument, and then claim I&#39;m not as "dialectically" gifted as you. The historical retort of social-democrats and class-traitors.

If you actually read my PM, you&#39;ll have noted that I&#39;m not a "dialectically inclined" socialist. <_<

That brings me to another "source and component" of modern scientific socialism: historical materialism instead of dialectical materialism.


1) Yes, certain people are more conscious than others. But if Marx is right, then their consciousness is determined within the parameters of their objective material conditions - that is, they only begin to "see" that revolution is in their interests when their own material conditions are no longer fulfilling. The Leninist attempt to beat it into the heads of workers that the party is for them is an exercise in futility - unless you&#39;re proposing that we abandon Marx&#39;s assertion that being determines consciousness and that material conditions prevail.

I&#39;ll get back to you on this later. <_<



To say that this relationship will disappear in the DOTP itself is almost tantamount to saying that the state can be abolished overnight.

Marx said this relationship would have to disappear before the DofP. He said that capitalism would develop the material conditions far enough so that a cultured proletariat would emerge - and that this was a prerequisite for revolutionary consciousness.

I do suppose you have some sort of a point. After all, many business are transforming themselves to be organizationally more "flat" (steep vs. flat "pyramids") thanks to advances in information and communication technology.


You cannot revolt first, and then convince workers of the superiority of your ideas.

Um, you can convince workers of the superiority of your ideas, organize the subset that is more willing to take up arms, then revolt and lead with those who took up arms with you. <_<

[nom de guerre]

Again, with the reworking of the Lenin piece.

I feel like the weakness of Lenin&#39;s argument is the vagueness with which objective material conditions are defined, let alone if they are "favorable" or not. For example, there are many different factors that take influence in revolution. A list (that some may recognize from before):

Population of different classes/growth or shrinkage/age distribution
Class mobility/stratification
Specific type of class rule/well-entrenched or unstable
Demonstrated organizational capacity of exploited class(es)
Previous revolutionary history
War likely or in progress/defeat likely or imminent
Quality/class basis/size of existing revolutionary movements
Influence of religion/racism/sexism/nationalism, etc.
General level of technological development/general condition of infrastructure

These are examples of the objective conditions Marxists are intellectually obligated to consider in their analysis. These are the types of issues Marx discussed, for example, in The 18th Brumaire, or The Civil War in France. They are the fundamental conditions Marxist

The source of Lenin&#39;s simple analysis is his denial of these conditions. For example, he flat-out says the first is inconsequntial, the third is unfavorable but can be struggled against, and that the final one can be "worked out later". His positive arguments for the possibility of successful transition to socialism lead by the Party are based on superfluous observations: Russia has a new labor-market of ex-serfs, Russia has an abnormally weak bourgeoisie, Russia has had some populist uprisings. In fact, the only real material condition in favor of a proletarian revolution was the War - which, understandably considering the social-democratic support for it, was thus given heavy precedence in importance in Lenin&#39;s theoretical work.

Lenin&#39;s simplicity of analysis is unacceptable within the Marxist paradigm, and clearly obviously the root of the outcome historical development. I feel there are plenty of other Marxists upon which to build a theoretical foundation for today.


That brings me to another "source and component" of modern scientific socialism: historical materialism instead of dialectical materialism.

I&#39;m glad we can at least agree on this&#33; Have you ever read Marx&#39;s Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: Introduction? I think it&#39;s from the mid-1850s. I feel like it&#39;s a succinct and concise elucidation of historical materialism, without the metaphysics of diamat, that can serve as a foundation for the argument that Marxism is a scientific study of history.


organize the subset that is more willing to take up arms, then revolt and lead with those who took up arms with you.

Unfortunately, that didn&#39;t even happen at the Winter Castle.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by nom de [email protected] 01, 2007 04:41 pm
Lenin&#39;s simplicity of analysis is unacceptable within the Marxist paradigm, and clearly obviously the root of the outcome historical development. I feel there are plenty of other Marxists upon which to build a theoretical foundation for today.


That brings me to another "source and component" of modern scientific socialism: historical materialism instead of dialectical materialism.

I&#39;m glad we can at least agree on this&#33;
^^^ The funny thing is that I actually base my "Leninist" analysis on historical materialism. I have my fair share of criticisms on Lenin&#39;s theoretical contributions, particularly regarding imperialism (even though he absolutely "pwned" both Kautsky&#39;s ultra-imperialist "Empire" ramblings and Luxemburg&#39;s "let&#39;s dump the goods on the periphery" stuff). He was on the right track in the "popular outline" before going off that track by overemphasizing colonialism in "Imperialism and The Split in Socialism" a few months later.

As for the "simplicity of analysis," there is a reason why a certain "popular outline" was written as it was. :(


Have you ever read Marx&#39;s Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: Introduction? I think it&#39;s from the mid-1850s. I feel like it&#39;s a succinct and concise elucidation of historical materialism, without the metaphysics of diamat, that can serve as a foundation for the argument that Marxism is a scientific study of history.

Alas, no. :(

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by nom de guerre+December 01, 2007 07:59 pm--> (nom de guerre @ December 01, 2007 07:59 pm)
Led [email protected] 01, 2007 02:43 pm
What do we have here, another RAANite (at least, I assume you are one given your theoretical line and the picture you posted which is from their site) who thinks he has all the answers to the world&#39;s problems?

You haven&#39;t stumbled upon anything new, buddy. Your crap theoretical line has been espoused here so many times in the past it takes about 3 minutes for the search to finish on a high-speed internet connection.

Sorry to burst your bubble.
I like that cute picture, as it neatly sums up the distinction between Marx and Lenin, but I fail to see how my "theoretical line" makes me a "RAANite". And your crap response conveniently ignores any of the actual points I made in favor of dogmatic submissiveness. Way to be a failure at raising any valid intellectual point. Please try again - that is, if you&#39;re capable of doing so.

Seeing as how you&#39;re not a Marxist, however, I don&#39;t have my hopes particularly high. [/b]
Ahh yes, I also forgot that people like you are the one&#39;s who get to decide who really is a Marxist and who isn&#39;t, because that&#39;s just how cool you are.

Disregard what Marx actually wrote on the subjects, as long as you believe that you&#39;re right; you&#39;re right.

The reason I am not interested in replying to your theoretical equivalent of horseshit is because I have done so many times in the past, and frankly nothing came out of it but petty insults and claims of superiority (from your side).

Some people like masochism but I&#39;m not really into it, y&#39;know?

But, if you post shitty pictures from RAAN to "look cool", I feel compelled to reply to that garbage.

So once again; sorry to burst your bubble.

http://www.healthcarevox.com/uploads/burst_bubble.jpg