In this thread we have pointless far leftist sectarian infighting with brief descriptions of your ideology to open and...

I like pannakoek but I have to agree more with Mattick on the issues of unions. He rejected most unions as stillborn in regards to class struggle. but still supported the IWW for example

perhaps i was unclear. when i refer to a dialectical picture of consciousness, i intentionally am trying to avoid the vulgar-materialist (monadic) view as well as the idealist dyadic view.

the sensuous act of perceiving the world is the inter-permeation of the subject and object, man and his environment. that is to say, man's mind exists, but only as part of the environment.
the important corollary here is the dialectical implication that the environment as part of man's mind. not in a literal sense, but in the sense that man changes it, and it changes him. this is the root of the materialist conception of history and decidedly [i]anti[/i]-Feuerbachian.

thus, thought is not matter but something that happens in matter. i think that distinction is somewhat important.

there's some scientific evidence for this notion of the "extended mind", too.
quantamagazine.org/the-thoughts-of-a-spiderweb-20170523/

So did Pannekoek, not just in words but also in actions by association of the KAPD (there is historical proof of this, as you can read in Philippe Bourrinet's The Dutch and German Left which I strongly recommend), and he supported them because they were still an authentic expression of the working class. He just thought that they could never overcome their own limitations, and that workers would either abandon unions as they ceased to have any potential at all the longer capitalism modernizes, or that the militant union workers would have to change the form of their organization into a council with others.

This is easily half the threads here.

Anyways anarchist. Pic related categories 1, 4, and 5 are close enough and I doubt most of the board, including anarchists, has bothered to read much of it. Going to start Towards a New Socialism next and then probably move on to Eclipse and Re Emergence of the Communist Movement.

Okay this seems to then be a view that is either wholly different of the types of materialism I just conceived, or to at least be a sort of hybrid between the Marxist as per Marx view and the dyadic one (the Lukacsian one, which I have problems with).

Okay, this is fair. It is fair because it acknowledges that man's thought can of course exist on its own but cannot build upon itself by first informing its environment (material reality) again, not just because we would otherwise have no historical movement of matter, but because the mind would then have to also not be a material cateogry as part of man.

Agreed.

I can accept this.

So I'm looking back, and I suggested that you also thought that the abstract cateogry of nature is dialectical unto itself, but I'm not sure if I read that right. Do you believe it to be so?

I'm going to check out History and Class Consciousness now soon just to see, and will either just ignore or take with a grain of salt his 1967 edit that features a lot of Stalinist modifications and conceptions in it (if anything, History and Class Consciousness as is and without the new distorted Stalinist baggage, might only make it more likable for me as a work lmao).

it probably won't do you much good to read Towards a New Socialism without some background on the Marxist theories of value (which youve probably read, just absent from your list)

I have. I was reccomending texts I think most of the board hasn't read.

I heavily disrecommend Towards a New Socialism because of this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_and_Irish_Communist_Organisation (especially as you are an anarchist) and the fact that, as a Marxist and communist, I see no value whatsoever in a big speculative blueprint that posits itself not just in the stagist framework, but by its decidedly deterministic nature serves no practical use for the workers' movement against capital which must always first and much more pressingly do the task of organizing itself, challenging bourgeois hegemony, successfully seating itself into power, chip away at categories of the capitalist mode of production and only then can start thinking about what to do with the societal superstructure it will be faced to shape.

I do however recommend Eclipse and Re-emergence of the Communist Movement. Especially if you're still planning on reading both, it's best to start with Eclipse and Re-emegence because it's much shorter, is very comprehensive, clear and historical, and likely has a much better fit with an anarchist, even though it's ultimately a Marxist communist text.

I don't think there's really such a thing as an abstract category of "nature". Any such category would just contain everything and be superfluous.

I'm mostly reading TNS for the alleged takedown of the ECP to throw at lolberts. I'll take your advice and start with Eclipse which I believe is communization theory.

Does there not exist the natural world, i.e. nature: all that is both not man nor of his creation? (Relatively) fixed categories within it like the Earth, the sun, oxygen, and developmental things such as the general history of the universe, which overwhelmingly follows primarily its own laws that man can barely alter or interact with but can only move around with or act in accordance to?

of course, but as man exists only as a result of the development of the universe according to those laws, i see no reason to treat him as distinct from them.

My point is that by all means, nature is not a dialectical category: it does not obey to anything but its own violent, senseless laws. It merely produces accidents and miracles by these laws without in betweens. I here agree with Zizek who says that there is no such thing more stupid than nature. Its laws are entirely rigid: only categories like man or other species (much more primitively) can stand outside of it, and they stand outside of it by virtue of their non-naturally dogmatic, dialectical existences.

oh absolutely! dialectical development can only happen through inter-permeation of distinct antagonistic elements. nature contains many such elements, but it has no antagonistic elements of its own. natural laws are under no obligation to take dialectical forms and the attempts of stalin to impose that logic onto the sciences individually rather than as parts of nature really set back soviet research

Communalist(especially regarding strategy, I do not agree fully or can judge Bookchins various more theoretical contributions), emphasizing the class nature of struggles in local politics and the necissity to have a destiction between politics and statecraft. I think that without democracy the class struggle dies, and that the dictatorship of the proletariat cant be in a similar form as the dictatorship of the capitalists. Dislike unions as they are not able to create propper dual power, but I see ansyns as the best kind of anarchists and think that any kind of communist should have no fear of allying with their local ansyn union. I despise MLs especially for their focus on parties, but I am starting to read more Marxist stuff . I am critical of Democratic Confederalism as it compromises the fundamental enlightment basis and because it waters down its defition of captalism to much, but I support Rojava as there is a real socialist movement there.

Besides the two PDFs I recommend:
The Politics of Social Ecology: Libertarian Municipalism by Janet Biehl

The Ecology of Freedom is worth a read, it makes you understand the reasoning and how Bookchin embeds itself into the leftist tradition of thought. But its not really a general argument for Communalism.

whether or not man stands outside nature is a bit of a technical question but we're in agreement that nature is not dialectical unto itself, anyway.

If man does not stand outside of nature but inside of nature isnt then the relation dialectical? So its not just a technical question imo.

I'm a Marxist-Leninist.

Essential reading, in no particular order:

The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) - Stalin

Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism - Kuusinen

Is the Red Flag Flying? - Szymanski

Dialectics of the Ideal: Evald Ilenkov and Creative Soviet Marxism - Oittinnen, Levant

Fundamentals of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy - Konstantinov

Political Economy: Socialism - Kozlov

On Contradiction - Mao

Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR - Stalin

Dialectical and Historical Materialism - Stalin

if man stands inside nature, then his relation is not with nature, but with other elements inside of it, such as his environment, the means of production, the prevailing ideology, etc.

if man stands outside nature, then his relation to nature is dialectical

i don't think it's logical to say either case implies nature is dialectical "unto itself". if nature were dialectical unto itself, it could be subdivided discretely into dialectically inter-permeating categories, as we do with class society. the laws of nature however are unchangeable in our experience, so conceiving of nature as a product of development of contradictory and interacting categories is a non-sequitur.

lol

I think we're pretty much in agreement on a fundamental theoretical level then, or at least if my further investigations into Lukacs double check that.

This especially I am in agreement with. By reading that text above by Cyril Smith it really becomes apparent that "dialectical materialism" as the new Stalinist term refers to something that funndamentally contradicts Marx and Engels or even Marxism as it was until that point generally understood by most. I think it lies mostly on Stalin misreading Anti-Dühring (notably ignoring the negation of the negation here) and Engels' rough and unfinished Dialectics of Nature, which contains a few things that such either (for whatever reason) a rather different understanding of dialectics than henceforth and the natural-dialectical suggestion (suggestion, because Engels seems to write very suggestively rather than with certainty here). See: edensauvage.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/marxs-dialectical-method/ imo.

No, because man is not interacting with another dialectical category, but rather a ruthlessly dogmatic one. Man stands in nature, yes, but all man does in nature is obey or ignore certain limitations or openings nature gives to him.

hm.. interesting. i think you may be right that nature is not a dialectical category because it contains immutable natural laws.

if man is outside nature, than his relationship to it cannot be dialectical, nor can his relations to things inside of nature [this seems like a logical implication, not sure if i can prove it. let me know what you think].

if we accept the above proposition it seems like historical materialism requires us to conceive of man as a part of nature, as his dialectical relationships to his environment must be intra-categorical (vis-a-vis nature as a category).

No State and Revolution? Das kapital? Or what is to be done?

...

its like pottery

The way I understood the purpose of this thread was to outline the specifics of each tendency. Obviously Marx and Lenin are to be read, but 95% of posts already list them, so what's the point? If I was talking to a non-leftist, I'd recommend them Marx and Engels first obviously.

It is also that nature produced things like man: things that do not respond to nature's laws and whims like most of its dogmatic creations do, which by definition I think constitutes a break.

I think there are elements of man that are still (who knows?) manifestly dogmatic and "natural", but that man's very ability to be sensuous and inventive (as Marx says "observe reality and raise structures into his mind") he no longer listens to the whims of nature. Nature only gives him certain barriers at a given time, and man does with them as he wishes (these wishes and possibilities being affected by the historical movement of matter, of course).

I think I'm in agreement here, yes.

I use the "anarcho communist" flag but honestly id call myself a "minarchist socialist"
maybe id like bookchin but I havnt read'em.

It's a little bit ridiculous how you guys think discussion of literature is like a test of orthodoxy where you have to chant Marx in every sentence like a Muslim does with Mohammed. If you are reading Stalin before reading Marx and Lenin you are retarded and beyond saving.

its a tankie stereotype to read stalin and certain works of lenin without understanding marx. you need to relax its just supposed to be funny

You're not missing much.

I'm just busting your balls buddy.

I think I can call myself a Marxist-Leninist, basically what any succesful leftist movement has called himself(no pun intended)
The ideology basically consist on having a socialist revolution leaded by a vanguard party, (wich will taken place in different forms depending on the material conditions), and applying state socialism to develop a planned economy, having a workers controlled democratic state (what did only happen to some extent in the USSR).
Abolishing commodity production after some time and much later stablishing communism (stateless ,clasless….) after some time when the material conditions are possible for it.
About some good works:

Marx and Engels:

-“The Principles of Communism” by Engels
-“Critique of The Gotha Programme” by Marx
-“Wage Labor and Capital,” by Marx
-"Das Kapital"by Marx

Stalin and Lenin

-“The State and Revolution” by Lenin
-“Imperialism and The Highest Stage of Capitalism” by Lenin
-“Left-Wing Communism: An Infintile Disorder” by Lenin
-“The Foundations of Leninism” by Stalin
-“Dialectical and Historical Materialism” by Stalin

Further M-L development:

-“Combat Liberalism“ by Mao
-“The Mass Line“ by Mao
-“Economics Cannot be Separated from Politics“ by Che Guevara

Other great books/critques by non necessary Mls:

-"Reform or Revolution" by Rosa Luxembourg
-Eclipse and re-emergence of the communist movement - Gilles Dauvé

On economics:

-"Towards a new socialism" by Paul Cockshott adn Allin Cottrell
-“Against Hayek” by Allin Cottrell and W. Paul Cockshott
-“Calculation, Complexity And Planning: The Socialist Calculation Debate Once Again” by Allin Cottrell and W. Paul Cockshott
-“Marx’s Theory of Value and the Transformation Problem” by Anwar Shaikh
-“Economic Problems of Socialism in The U.S.S.R” by Stalin

Some more "philophical" works:

-"The Society of the spectacle" by Guy Debord
-"Lenin and philospy and other essasy" by Althusser
-"Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses" by Louis Althusser

why is critique of the gotha programme there if you believe you can have socialism and commodity production.

Commodity production occurs differently under socialism, as a remnant of the old, capitalist society but not strictly capitalistic in nature - similarily how feudal societies entertained primitive commodity production. Basically commodity production under socialism is in abeyance between production for use and production for exchange; but subliminal pressures to push down wages and increase work hours are non-existent.

You should really read "Is the Red Flag Flying" by Albert Szymanski

marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-6/red-flag.pdf

what did he mean by this

national-egoist. races aren't spooks, there are actual differences between them.

check
check
check
50% check, 50% not check, it's a transitional process, completely abolishing the law of value can only be perfected when some sort of post-scarcity is reached.

oh so you dont produce for exchange in socialism then

= no commodity production under socialism eh

It doesn't occur at all. Socialism/communism exclusively knows the production of goods and services as direct use values.

See which is from Gothakritik which you should actually read.

can't make this shit up

Producers do not exchange the products =/= entire abolishment of production for exchange in its character right away, a form of commoditiy production still survives, but it operates very differently than under market capitalism. You know it's hard for you guys to grasp but Marx didn't foresee everything and to have an overly dogmatic black-and-white thinking and refusing to engage in a more nuanced perspective on how the mode of production in the USSR actually constituted itself but yelling state capitalism at things isn't helpful. Philosophical abstract concepts aren't absolutes in their practical application in the real world.

Infantile

see

...

and the dictatorship of the proletariat is not socialism

Indeed, there isn't. What there is a revolutionary transformation of society (sic., in the words of Marx) that still entirely occurs under the capitalist mode of production under proletarian dicatorship, and from the ruins of that society arises a communist mode of production. This transformation of society is not "half-socialism, half-capitalistm" or "just 50% socialism or capitalism": it is still fully capitalist because at its most basic, the germ of the capitalist society remains for as long as the state confirms its existence.

I just showed you two letters in which Marx directly argues against such nonsense, but also argues against the notion of "muh Star Trek future levels" of industrialization as indispensible for the communist movement to exist and find its estabslishment as mode of production and you're still being a knucklehead. Perhaps reading was never your strong suit and listening and viewing is more up your alley, so here is a dude called Kliman who, using direct citations from Marx, shows us the same: marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/video-the-incoherence-of-transitional-society.html.

In what aspect? It seems to me that MLs see the dichotomy between capitalism and socialism as market versus state. There's countries with public spending above 50% of GDP. If anything modern day capitalism requires more and more state intervention to properly function. Even privatization is a farce as they are always replaced by public-private partnerships, which end up costing more than nationalized services/industries.

That's not what I implied, I implied that there can be grey areas inbetween production for use and production for exchange, which alone doesn't constitute capitalism but rather an accumulated interlodged wholesome analysis. I never said that you can measure in percentages wether or not it's capitalism or socialism, that's why I called it socialism, the same way nobody would call the Roman Republic capitalist just due to the existence of production for exchange, markets and money. It's a game of semantics, really - you can dispute wether or not the USSR was socialist all you want; my argument is that the USSR wasn't capitalist, and many communists have come to the conclusion to call this emerged transitional stage socialism.

The USSR was the communist movement for a long time. The reason communism was never achieved was because the reaction had put the proletariat under unbelievable pressure. I never claimed that you need replicators for communism to exist,if I did so, I wouldn't have claimed that the USSR was socialism either.

No I don't think so, although this is part of it if you talk about capitalist markets. I have to go now because I need to get up early tomorrow but I recommned you "Is the Red Flag Flying" by Albert Szymanski which gives you good insight into the Marxist-Leninist approach and then post again what you think about it

I mean I should add to that that the state can be a capitalist actor just as well and replace the old bourgeoisie, that's why Lenin said we need to smash the state and build a proletarian one on top of that