@Third-worldists: how do you feel about austerity cuts?

[Questionable]

You said "surplus from the third-world does not go to workers in the West". Really? Really? This just blows my mind. Marxists are behind even the liberals here, because even the liberals will admit Westerners are benefiting for sweatshop labor, trade imbalances, and a whole host of other things. American is the richest nation in the world, gets massive commodity imports for pennies on the dollar, uses up more than 25% of the world's oil with less than 5% of its population, and you're going to tell me nobody except the super-rich benefit from this at all? Workers don't get a single dime? It's just an absurdity. Again even liberals get this, it's just Marxists who want to quibble.

This is like those people who say, "well, maybe black people have it bad, but I don't think white people are privileged" or "uhh, maybe some people are sexist against women, but I don't think men benefit from that". I'm so sick of these arguments where supposed leftists aren't going to grant even the most basic premises. People can't budge even an inch.

If the liberals are saying this, then they're wrong, and the fact that you're using them as credibility for your ideology really says more about you than us.

I have company right now. I'll respond to the rest of what you had to say at a later date.

[Thug Lessons]

This is hilarious. You're accusing me of being anti-Marxist while completely discharging historical materialism and singing this song about "historical epochs". That's Oswald Spengler, not Karl Marx. As for all this about "class consciousness slowly developing" because of Occupy and such, all I can do is quote Engels telling British socialists how they were deluding themselves, exactly like you're deluding yourself now.

Do not on any account whatever let yourself be deluded into thinking there is a real proletarian movement going on here. I know Liebknecht tries to delude himself and all the world about this, but it is not the case. The elements at present active may become important since they have accepted our theoretical programme and so acquired a basis, but only if a spontaneous movement breaks out here among the workers and they succeed in getting control of it. Till then they will remain individual minds, with a hotch-potch of confused sects, remnants of the great movement of the ‘forties, standing behind them and nothing more. And–apart from the unexpected–a really general workers’ movement will only come into existence here when the workers are made to feel the fact that England’s world monopoly is broken.

Participation in the domination of the world market was and is the basis of the political nullity of the English workers. The tail of the bourgeoisie in the economic exploitation of this monopoly but nevertheless sharing in its advantages, politically they are naturally the tail of the “great Liberal Party,” which for its part pays them small attentions, recognises trade unions and strikes as legitimate factors, has relinquished the fight for an unlimited working day and has given the mass of better placed workers the vote. But once America and the united competition of the other industrial countries have made a decent breach in this monopoly (and in iron this is coming rapidly, in cotton unfortunately not as yet) you will see something here.

[Yuppie Grinder]

The idea of a class society without cllass conflict is nonsense. If there is no class struggle, what is the mechanism through which socioeconomic superstructure evolves?

[Thug Lessons]

The idea of a class society without cllass conflict is nonsense. If there is no class struggle, what is the mechanism through which socioeconomic superstructure evolves?

For my part I absolutely think there's class struggle in Europe and America. However it's not just a great impoverished proletarian mass against a tiny bourgeoisie, but also a large petty bourgeoisie and massive labor aristocracy whose ideologies are liberalism and social democracy respectively. Not all class conflict is capable of generating a truly emancipatory movement, or even a revolutionary movement at all, and the class conflict in Europe and America isn't capable of generating even the latter at the moment.

[Art Vandelay]

This is hilarious. You're accusing me of being anti-Marxist while completely discharging historical materialism and singing this song about "historical epochs". That's Oswald Spengler, not Karl Marx. As for all this about "class consciousness slowly developing" because of Occupy and such, all I can do is quote Engels telling British socialists how they were deluding themselves, exactly like you're deluding yourself now.

There are certain criteria needed for a situation to be consider a revolutionary one and they were first outlined by Karl Kautsky in the road to power (I'm fairly certain it was that work), however given the fact that you are anything but a Marxist I wouldn't expect you to know that. But yeah that quote is totally applicable because the two situations in discussion are exactly the same.

Give me a fucking break, you're a waste of my time.

[Thug Lessons]

The fact that history goes through periods of revolutionary as well as reactionary epochs. The last revolutionary epoch was from roughly (again this is debatable) 1905-1936 and since then we have been in one of the longest and darkest periods of reactions seen in capitalism. We are just now seeing the stirrings of a new revolutionary period in history (arab springs, occupy movement, etc.) while they are far from class conscious socialists, conscious is slowly developing, sorry it is not up to your speed but all the anti-Marxist analysis in the world won't speed this process up.

I want to contrast this to historical materialism, the Marxist form of historical analysis.

The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange.

Look at how '9mm' here completely discharges any historical materialist approach to understanding the reactionary period from the end of WWII. We are not to look at the economics of the West, we are not to examine imperialism, we are not to perform a class analysis that runs contra first worldist claims, in fact, we are not to perform a class analysis at all! Instead, the answer lies in "consciousness" and "historical epochs", in other words, "in men's brains", exactly as the most basic lessons of Marx and Engels from The German Ideology forward have taught us to avoid. Third worldism is the only position consistent with historical materialism because it is the only theory that explains the defeat of the left in terms of class and economics, rather than the sweet songs of "propaganda", "consciousness" and "hegemony" that Western socialists so often like to sing themselves.

[Thug Lessons]

There are certain criteria needed for a situation to be consider a revolutionary one and they were first outlined by Karl Kautsky in the road to power (I'm fairly certain it was that work), however given the fact that you are anything but a Marxist I wouldn't expect you to know that. But yeah that quote is totally applicable because the two situations in discussion are exactly the same.

Give me a fucking break, you're a waste of my time.

This is absurd know-it-all dickwaving and namedropping and honestly embarrassing.

[Art Vandelay]

That is one of the grossest misrepresentations of my opinion that I have ever seen on this site; what is truly amusing about it, is that I'm usually accused of being the exact opposite a vulgar materialists who only takes into consideration the advancement of the productive forces.

Edit: normally I would defend myself from such accusations, however my opinions are known on the board and the last person that I feel the need to defend myself from is some 'Amerikkka' third worldist

Actually one last question, what part of the world are you from?

[Thug Lessons]

That is one of the grossest misrepresentations of my opinion that I have ever seen on this site; what is truly amusing about it, is that I'm usually accused of being the exact opposite a vulgar materialists who only takes into consideration the advancement of the productive forces.

Then why completely ignore them here? Why does historical materialism go out the window in favor of "consciousness" the second it contradicts your received wisdom?

[Art Vandelay]

Then why completely ignore them here? Why does historical materialism go out the window in favor of "consciousness" the second it contradicts your received wisdom?

It doesn't. Now answer my question.

[Thug Lessons]

Actually one last question, what part of the world are you from?

I'm from Bizarro World, where historical materialism means "we are in an inherently reactionary epoch and history is determined by consciousness".

[Art Vandelay]

I'm from Bizarro World, where historical materialism means "we are in an inherently reactionary epoch and history is determined by consciousness".

Too embarrassed to admit that you're part of the 1st world? That you're enjoying the 'highest standards of living the world has ever seen'? That this fucking laughable movement you are a part of is composed of western students who have taken white guilt to the absolute extreme and posit themselves as the only revolutionaries in the 1st world while completely disregarding the actual working class?

You don't know my views and it certainly isn't history is determined by consciousness. My point was simply that for a situation to be consider revolutionary the following has to be present:

1. a regime hostile to the people;
2. a party of irreconcilable opposition;
3. mass support given to the party;
4. a regime crisis of confidence.

Karl Kautsky; The Road to Power.

The following wasn't present during a large portion of the 20th century and as such there was not a valid revolutionary situation. The fact that you interpret this as me proposing that history is determined by consciousness, is either stupidity, lack of reading comprehension or dishonesty.

[Thug Lessons]

I love that question by the way, because it's like the lefty equivalent of "have you stopped beating your wife?" If you're from a poor country obviously you're just a reactionary nationalist with no working class solidarity, and if you're from a rich country obviously you're a posh middle-class brat who's never worked a day in her life. Damned if you do and damned if you don't! It even works on commies in general! If you're a poor socialist you're just jealous of your betters, if you're a rich communist you're out of touch with "real" poors. Ad hominem funtimes all around.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm going to assume, based off of your last post, that your misrepresentation of my opinion, was due to lack of reading comprehension as well as stupidity.

[Thug Lessons]

Too embarrassed to admit that you're part of the 1st world? That you're enjoying the 'highest standards of living the world has ever seen'? That this fucking laughable movement you are a part of is composed of western students who have taken white guilt to the absolute extreme and posit themselves as the only revolutionaries in the 1st world while completely disregarding the actual working class?

But the actual first world working class won't have a thing to do with your Trotskyist micro-sect either! We're all laughable! No reason to hate.

You don't know my views and it certainly isn't history is determined by consciousness. My point was simply that for a situation to be consider revolutionary the following has to be present:



The following wasn't present during a large portion of the 20th century and as such there was not a valid revolutionary situation. The fact that you interpret this as me proposing that history is determined by consciousness, is either stupidity, lack of reading comprehension or dishonesty.

I think you're waffling on the consciousness thing, this is still disregarding historical materialism even reworked. You're explaining it entirely in terms of the politics, not economics. Again, a materialist analysis begins with the real economic conditions and class conflict, not with the cultural/political superstructure. Now, I'm not a vulgar materialist myself, and I'm not going to deny that politics and culture are important, but any analysis of revolution or the lack thereof that does not include any class analysis is not consistent with historical materialism. Again, Engels for emphasis: "From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought ... in changes in the modes of production and exchange."

[Art Vandelay]

Again, Engels for emphasis: "From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought ... in changes in the modes of production and exchange."

Which doesn't contradict anything I've said...

Lenin:

The regime is split; there is a crisis in the regime.
The middle class is wavering between the revolutionary forces and the ruling class.
The working class is ready to fight and make the greatest sacrifices.
The existence of a revolutionary party and leadership.

Kautsky:

1. a regime hostile to the people;
2. a party of irreconcilable opposition;
3. mass support given to the party;
4. a regime crisis of confidence.

Again simply positing that certain criteria are necessary for a situation to be revolutionary does not disregard material conditions and changes in the productive base. Do you think I'm trying to say there criteria arise in a vacuum? They arise due to developments in the productive base. Like in all honesty, what on earth are you talking about? I'll repeat, you are either not understanding the concepts that I am saying here (and Marxists have been saying for over a century) or are being purposely dishonest.

[Thug Lessons]

Which doesn't contradict anything I've said...





Again simply positing that certain criteria are necessary for a situation to be revolutionary does not disregard material conditions and changes in the productive base. Do you think I'm trying to say there criteria arise in a vacuum? They arise due to developments in the productive base. Like in all honesty, what on earth are you talking about? I'll repeat, you are either not understanding the concepts that I am saying here (and Marxists have been saying for over a century) or are being purposely dishonest.

Well, you certainly haven't stated any changes in the productive base that could account for this, and just talked about consciousness and politics instead, so how would I possibly know that? You can't blame me for not reading your mind. Anyway, what are these changes, and how do they explain the lack of any significant revolutionary activity in the West in decades? I've outlined mine, (labor aristocracy), and that's something Marxists have been explaining for over a century as well.

[Art Vandelay]

Well, you certainly haven't stated any changes in the productive base that could account for this, and just talked about consciousness and politics instead, so how would I possibly know that? You can't blame me for not reading your mind. Anyway, what are these changes, and how do they explain the lack of any significant revolutionary activity in the West in decades? I've outlined mine, (labor aristocracy), and that's something Marxists have been explaining for over a century as well.

There is only one determining factor and that is the further development of the productive forces. Upon the defeat of the international revolution in the 1920's, one thing was for certain: capitalism as a economic system was not yet finished developing the productive forces of society. I don't disagree with the theory of the labor aristocracy (to a certain extent, it was obviously proven true during Lenin's time, however how useful it will be to describe the coming revolutionary situation and economic collapse is debatable), however the lengths that you've extended this theory to flies in the face of Marxist analysis; Lenin would roll over in his grave if he knew of the movement which had bastardized his theory to this extent.

[Thug Lessons]

There is only one determining factor and that is the further development of the productive forces. Upon the defeat of the international revolution in the 1920's, one thing was for certain: capitalism as a economic system was not yet finished developing the productive forces of society. I don't disagree with the theory of the labor aristocracy, however the lengths that you've extended this theory to flies in the face of Marxist analysis; Lenin would roll over in his grave if he knew of the movement which had bastardized his theory to this extent.

Not so at all. From Imperialism and the Split in Socialism: "Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle, it will be definitely decided only by the socialist revolution." Lenin was never committed to a position that stated the majority of the first world working class was revolutionary. And subsequent struggle revealed that, in fact, the majority of the first world was, in fact, in league with the social-democratic and liberal reformists. Tony Cliff later wrote a decent article outlining where Lenin's Imperialism got it right and where it didn't go far enough. This is an actual class analysis, one that deals with the relations of production, rather than some simplistic hand-wave about "the productive forces aren't developed enough". That's not a class analysis.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/clif...6/rootsref.htm

[Art Vandelay]

I was being overly simplistic for the sake of the conversation, but I'm done with this discussion. I'm not sure why I've stayed involved in it for as long as I have. Although Tony Cliff rejected the theory of the 'labor aristocracy' so I'm not sure why your invoking him her. Anyways have a good day, sorry for running out on a discussion, but I'm not that interested in polemics with 3rd worldists.