Why aren't you ML?

ML is clearly the most superior branch of marixsm. It has accomplished the most historically. Modern scholars of Marx are overwhelmingly ML or have ML tendencies. The future lies in continuing their work.

ML scholars:
Wolff
Cockshott
Parenti
Harvey
Hudson
Zizek

Not ML:
Shaikh
Graeber

Other urls found in this thread:

espressostalinist.com/2011/10/26/enver-hoxha-on-pol-pot/
theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/16/peru-nazi-party-leader-believes-conquistadors-jews
links.org.au/node/4667
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03017609508413387
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/
marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/doctrine.htm
libcom.org/library/what-was-the-ussr-aufheben-part-4
marxists.org/archive/jordan/index.htm
viewpointmag.com/2015/10/31/the-productive-subject/
libcom.org/library/communisation-vs-socialisation-suspended-step-communisation-theorie-communiste
marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ot/zizek1.htm.
docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub
executedtoday.com/2011/06/19/1937-jan-sten-stalin-philosophy/
libcom.org/library/class-history-theory-capitalism-communism-ussr-paresh-chattopadhyay.
youtube.com/watch?v=kf9vnvK8sPw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I'm MLMHPP (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Hoxhaist-Pol Potist)

Because I don't like commodity production and wage labor.

Communalism is the future of the Left.

Communalism is idealist

...

No it's naturalist.

It has already spread outside of Rojava to parts of Iraq and Turkey.

if the rojava revolution is successful the pkk is gonna help out maoists and hoxhaist groups in turkey

Wolff isn't ML, Cockshott later rejected ML, and Zizek is an edgy socdem once you get rid of the bluster though I suppose that's close enough to ML.

What is he now

No, they're not. You do realize ML is just shit made up by Stalin, right?

Wolff is definitely ML. He says collectivization ended the famines and shits on markets all the time. In his lectures on marxian economics, he commends the USSR and China under Mao for their accomplishments. He's hiding his powerlevel to appeal to burgers.

Kil yourself pro CIA scum, dont dare to call you a Hoxaist
espressostalinist.com/2011/10/26/enver-hoxha-on-pol-pot/

Communalism has spread to Rojava from it’s homeland. Seriously though Bookchin lived in Vermont and has a lot of it’s based in New England Town Meetings. The fact that it’s spread from here to halfway around the globe proves it’s a good ideology.

...

I don't know, if he's still alive we should ask him.

In my understanding and based on ML reactions to him I don't think that's true.

By that logic fascism is good because there's nazi parties in south america.

I seriously doubt that here GERMAN SUPREMACIST parties in SOUTH AMERICA.

...

...

No but there are Not Socialist parties there. theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/16/peru-nazi-party-leader-believes-conquistadors-jews

Fixed.

Sign me up

...

This doesn't even understand Marx's materialist conception of history correctly.

However, no matter how it is stated, it is not so. To be more precise, while we can make a theoretical distinction between what we call dialectical materialism and historical materialism, they are in fact two sides of the same coin; or rather one and the same thing.

The fact is that there is no Marxist philosophy of dialectical materialism. There are multiple reasons for this. The first is that neither Marx nor Engels described their views on dialectics as “dialectical materialism.” The second is that Marx never claimed to have created dialectical materialism. The third is that Marx did not create a philosophy of dialectical materialism as substantially distinct from what we understand as historical materialism. The fourth and final reason is that both Marx and Engels denied that a new philosophy had been created, and in fact argued that philosophy was an ideology, a form of false consciousness, and that Marx had developed a science of understanding human history. - Jason Devine
links.org.au/node/4667

I like Rojava too much to be a ML

Is it even logically tenable to like both the Soviet Union and Rojava? Because that's where I'm at.

This is what left unity looks like.

Wolff, Harvey and Zizek are definitely not ML's. Or if they identify as such they're very unorthodox ones.


Me neither. Could you point me to a tendency that in it's application successfully abolished commodity production yet?

In the USSR, for at least some 20 years, labour power was not a commodity.


Wrong. He did coin the term Marxism-Leninism, but Stalin's theoretical contributions to ML aren't that significant. Marxism-Leninism mainly consists of Marx', Engels' and Lenin's work, like it or not. Stalin, and Mao, have both made contributions as well but they're not nearly as important.


Even if he is hiding his power level and secretly thinks the USSR and Mao-era China were great, that wouldn't necessarily make him a ML. Despite what people here seem to think, there's more to ML than just masturbating to thoughts of living in the USSR.


Why not? I like Rojava, although I don't think what they're doing is socialism (yet). I will admit I'm not the most knowledgeable on the situation over there though.

Never happened because socialism has never happened.


Workers were paid basically the cost of production of their labor. Thus wage labor.

I get that this is bait OP, but MLs are usually fine, it's just not for me. Unprincipled tankies are a loud minority in Marxism-Leninism, and ML theory lets them justify a lot of it. If MLs were more principled and less anti-Hegel I'd consider joining them tbh.

Cause I've read Marx and Lenin and found them good. Cause I've read Stalin and Mao and found them lacking. Cause I've read writers beyond these four.

If you're an ML you simply have a fetish for social democracy with hammer and sickle symbolism. It's a ideology constructed to obfuscate the fact that the world revolution had failed, and that productivist regime that followed would inevitably be capitalist. A 'theory' mediated empty signifiers like "dialectical materialism". Here I'll allow Loren Goldner to speak for me:


>In Bordiga's conception, Stalin, and later Mao, Ho, etc. were "great romantic revolutionaries" in the 19th century sense, i.e. bourgeois revolutionaries. He felt that the Stalinist regimes that came into existence after 1945 were just extending the bourgeois revolution, i.e. the expropriation of the Prussian Junker class by the Red Army, through their agrarian policies and through the development of the productive forces. To the theses of the French ultra-left group "Socialism or Barbarism" who denounced the regime, after 1945, as state capitalist, Bordiga replied with an article " Avanti Barbari!" ("Onward Barbarians!") that hailed the bourgeois revolutionary side of Stalinism as its sole real content.18 (One does not have to agree with Bordiga to acknowledge that this was a more coherent viewpoint than the stupidity of the Trotskyists' analysis after 1945 that saw the Stalinists in Eastern Europe, China or Indochina as quavering "reformists" eager to sell out to imperialism.)

(from Amadeo Bordiga, the agrarian question and the international revolutionary movement, Loren Goldner tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03017609508413387 )

Thus, feel free to place Mao and Stalin next to great anti-colonialists, great bourgeois revolutionaries like Robespierre and L'Ouverture, but their projects were not communist - and to try to apply their theories for the implementation of communism in the 21st century is a mistake. To paraphrase Mao "Concrete analysis of concrete conditions […] is the living soul of Marxism"(Quotations, 22. Methods of Thinking and Methods of Work), but being either a Marxist-Leninist or Maoist, or thinking that the next "stage" (itself an ridiculous ideological construction) of communist theory will arrive from these ideologies shows none such analysis, and complete ignorance of current conditions. There is neither need to industrialize nor to "build" socialism, the only thing we need to do is smash is capital accumulation and the state.

Some Articles for Further Reading:
Karl Marx (1875) Critique of the Gotha Programme marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/

Amadeo Bordiga (1951) Doctrine of the Body Possessed by the Devil marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/doctrine.htm

Aufheben (2000) What was the USSR? Part IV: Towards a theory of the deformation of value libcom.org/library/what-was-the-ussr-aufheben-part-4

Z. A. Jordan (1967) The Evolution of Dialectical Materialism (two chapters exist online) marxists.org/archive/jordan/index.htm

Pierre Macherey (2015) The Productive Subject viewpointmag.com/2015/10/31/the-productive-subject/

Théorie Communiste (2009) The Suspended Step of Communisation: Communisation vs socialisation libcom.org/library/communisation-vs-socialisation-suspended-step-communisation-theorie-communiste

Why is this same thread being made every single day?

We should stop debating over the USSR. MLs and non MLs advocate basically the same society the only difference being that MLs think that soviet union was that society and non MLs don't (this excludes anarkiddies and leftcoms)

So only MLs in other words.

Holy shit Parenti is amazing when he gets into it.

Take for instance muke and the finnish bolshevik. Muke is not an ML and doesn't think the soviet union was socialist but him and Finbol essentially advocate for the same sort of society. (perhaps up until muke went leftcom).

So then what is Shaikh?

You're such a faggot. Anarchism and Leftcommunism were reactions to the theoretical and practical failures of communism. They want pretty much the same society as non-MLs want, they just have different ideas on how to get to it. MLs on the other hand are fine with a state-run economy that operates under the Law of Value and effectively has classes still.

...

Muke was de facto an ML until he started to read Marx. Marxism-Leninism is still the 'default' for what many (mistakenly) perceives socialism/communism to be, because ML parties dominated the field until the collapse of the Soviet Union (which killed both the fantasy and their funding). Look at people going around calling themselves "Luxemburgist" or whatnot and still regurgitating the ideas of Stalin.

Muke never "went leftcom", he simply became an actual Marxist.

lel

Marxism-Keynesianism

I'm not him, but how does that oppose what was posted?

He isn't even a Marxist.

Obviously not, he's an anarchist.

Literally wat?

Really?

Don't believe it.

Wait, what is he then?

The irony of leftcoms publishing under the title of a term they clearly never consider and constantly violate in their own theories is funny if not disgusting.

Say what you want, but keep away from misusing Hegelian theory terms please.

Harvey talking about OWS and other anti-capitalist movements said they "fetishized organizational form" implying those movements focused too much on having horizontal power structures. He has also spoke about how it will be near impossible to solve issues such as climate change without centralized power.

He's a revisionist but in a good way.

Whatever, left-communism's only concrete characteristic is that they're critical of Marxism-Leninism and other related Marxist ideologies, so your generalization here is bullshit. Additionally MLs butchered dialectics even worse than 90% of leftcoms did, and a majority of MLs explicitly disavow most of Hegel's thought. Not sure why you'd side with the group that hates Hegel over the one that thinks he's important tbh.

Because AW still hasn't gotten over being NTR'd by Spinoza.

...

As far as I can understand he's a neo-Ricardian but I've read nothing on his works (well, only a short pamphlet on Marx), only things that reference him.
If anyone has information I'd be very happy to hear about Shaikh's ideological position, he seems to be a very strong theorist.

The fuck are you on about?

I'd 100% prefer people did not know Hegel existed rather than have them spewing bullshit that's false. This is literally the same problem leftcoms have with all other Marxists: they say shit that Marx never said or implied. They sully the real theory. All I ask is for them to not sully Hegelian theory, use terms correctly or make up your own.

You leave Spinoza out of this, he's a good boi with good theory unlike leftcoms.

I asked you in another thread about what your view is on Proudhon's analysis of property, or what you think of arguments against property in general, though I didn't get a reply back.

If you have any references or reading to recommend on the matter along with your own view, I'd be happy to hear them, if you are so kind to answer this question, anyway.

...

AW we both know you haven't actually read anything by Aufheben but are just angry it's not daddy Winfield (and his rants on how he's #stillwithher and Putin runs the GOP or whatnot).

Yeah if you're not an autist, I like both to an extent

MLs don't just ignore Hegel tho, they utterly butcher it. Have you really never read any of Stalin's writings on dialectical materialism?
I mean, the ways in which some leftcoms misunderstand Hegelian theory is often interesting in itself, even if they are sometimes bad. Hegel isn't some sacred doctrine that needs to be kept pure, changes can often be good and interesting.

Why cant we all read Cockshott and get along

I didn't answer because frankly I have nothing else to quickly say than what I did say.

1) The dichotomy of private and personal property is completely false and a completely arbitrary distinction around means of production which require more than one person to engage or which everyone else needs to use.

2) Labor is not the ground of property (Lockean labor-mixing) nor is use the ground or property. This is clear with both personal and private property and how we consider its ownership claims.

3) Property is entirely a social phenomenon of recognition.

All I said there was that communists should give up the argument and just argue *against* property.


Fight me over a written argument about it. I can guarantee you based on what you believe alone that whatever they've written is making external reflection jumps, i.e. not working through immanent dialectics nor actual sublation moments.

I'm open to being wrong, you just have to prove me wrong. I don't know why you're butthurt, unlike you I don't tailgate anyone. I write my own critiques and theory. Sorry I don't kiss your, your writers, Marx's, nor Hegel's ass. Bring it.

What? If anything you have been the person to kiss Hegel's ass the most? Doubt you even do it right because you're a brainlet who somehow thought he could just 'read him'.

The fact that you got angry over the name of a group that probably masturbates to Hegel almost as much as you do (I should know, I actually have read them), is enough for anyone here to not take you seriously.

lol no

Look man, call yourself 'inspired', fine. I don't mind, I actually like to see how people use Hegel for themselves. There's a difference between that, however, and claiming you're doing what Hegel does. If you're not doing the method, you aren't doing Hegel, so just don't call it that. It's that simple.

Why do I get mad at Marx and Marxists for this? Because they tend to claim to be doing exactly what Hegel did when in fact they're not. Just learn stuff, use words for what they mean, easy stuff.


'Rational kernel', the sanctity of 'true' non-mystical dialectics, the desire to stand on top of Hegel because he was so great, only to fail when one knows what the fuck Hegelianism actually is. Marx didn't obsess over it for nothing, the guy literally thought the method was indeed science, especially after the Grundrisse period, til the day he died.


Thought so.

but I thought he hasn't read marx

...

To be fair most Marxists build upon Hegelianism because it's a fairly solid foundation to build upon, and I wouldn't say that most attempts at this are worse for it. A naive understanding of Hegel doesn't usually ruin a theoretical endeavor as long as they get most of the important shit right.

Anyways, calling something that has been influenced by Hegel "Hegelian" isn't inaccurate. Hegel would likely have hated most "Hegelians" today just like Marx hated the "Marxists" of his time.

It's a solid foundation only for people who understand it. There is an at-face mystique to Hegel's work which blinds you with how obvious a lot of it seems after the fact, but this is deeply mistaken. If one does not actually know how to engage the method, the conclusions are not actually obvious nor convincing, nor should they be. I see a lot of people just get swept away with it for wrong reasons and not as a solid foundation.

I'm also not saying one can't call oneself Hegelian as inspired, just not Hegelian as Hegel.

He's read Gothakritik, and some of Marx shorter texts on economics, which is enough if you don't want to be an ML, considering Gothakritik is literally nothing but shitting on that project avant la lettre.

Hopefully he'll start on Capital after finishing Anti-Dühring. Capital gets unfairly propped up as this difficult work that requires you to read Smith and all these introductions (most of which will only harm your interpretation rather than help it) but that isn't true at all. Capital might be a bore at times, and does require taking notes and re-reading certain parts, but Marx clearly and methodically writes out his line of argument, for a general understanding there's nothing that is 'unclear' or obscure.

It spread from Syrian Kurdistan to Iraqi and Turkish Kurdistan. It's still only Kurds and their internet fanclub who give a fuck about it.

There is significant Communalist presence in Vermont. Also, your logic is really faulty.

Got any recommended reading for the philosophically illiterate to build up to Hegel?


That's true, but wasn't Proudhon critiquing the right to property, and this distinction was present in earlier philosophical work, too? Having accepted that definition then he attacked private property; so afaik for his intents, the distinction made sense, as to him personal property didn't share the problems he found.

What are the arguments?

Every ML project has ended in terror and repression, it has accomplished the most historically because of how similar is to fascism, so thy are free to "do" whatever they want yet never getting further than social democracy down the barrel of a gun.

I read Marx.

Haha: marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ot/zizek1.htm.

Thank fuck his brains are not on the side of LARP zombie communism.

Haven't read any of these but you should hopefully have a good base with Plato and the most important medieval philo, like Descartes, Aquinas and so on. Kant, Fichte, Schelling are vital too.

You want to go hard? Take this docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub

Nope, you don't need to know much about other philosophy to read Hegel. In the Science of Logic, he starts off with no assumptions whatsoever. There's references to philosophers every now and then, but you don't need to understand them to understand him.

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Stalin sucked so bad at hegel he eventually had his teacher executed. How's that for "Butchering Hegel"? executedtoday.com/2011/06/19/1937-jan-sten-stalin-philosophy/

There's a reason we call it Stalinism you chump. It's not an actual ideology. It's a creepy pseudo-intellectual cult.

You're agreeing with me here. I literally said that MLs butcher Hegel, how the fuck did you misinterpret that? Lmao

Socialism worked and it makes you mad.

Yes they were so capitalist the entire capitalist world worked together to destroy them.
Because that makes sense.

why are Hegel maximalists so eager to reveal their ignorance of philosophy?

I'm not a Hegel maximalist nor Hegel expert…

You're too dumb for me to be mad at you user

our friend AW in this thread also thought you could read Hegel without reading any of his forerunners, now he has brain damage

Frankly, no. I've come to realize that I'm 1) autistic 2) autistic enough to obsessively decipher things on my own. My philosophy background for Hegel was very basic, but I already had massive autistic tendencies for systematicity and conceptual unification to begin with, so figuring out Hegel's was very quick for me.

I don't know about Proudhon, never read him. I don't see how or why one would want to call something property which is in fact not property. The thing about personal property is that it's just an arbitrary limit to property.

The arguments I'm talking about is arguments against 'private property' as means of production but a defense of personal property. Ultimately it doesn't work when push comes to shove without imposing arbitrary limits in how property can be used between individuals.

Because I learn from history.

There is no personal property under the Communist Idea either.

Is Autism truly the birth of all tyranny? Lacan was right about the sickness of intelligentsia.

Is there any good explanation of how property functions under Communism, then? This is really roasting my cashews.

It would all be in common. A person might have a collection of stuff, that they may keep around them for the duration of their life, without others really having any access to it, but if so this would ONLY be for the reason that having this arrangement of stuff around them, from the perspective of all society, cultivated this person in such a way as to bring out their usefulness to the whole of society. Diversity and uniqueness of people would exist only insofar as it was a function of rational society to furnish whatever multitude of talents and perspectives within it were deemed to further purposive social evolution. Diversity would not spring out of the multiplicity of isolated, particularized individuals and their blind interactions, indeed individuality (thought of as a relic of bourgeois ideology) would cease to exist as such, and you would not mourn its abolition. Outside of occasional aberrations, there would be no one that might choose to arbitrarily horde stuff for their own inward, egoistic, idealistic/immaterial (private) purposes, nor would anyone arbitrarily choose to try take it away from you for theirs. But no one would tend to find this situation disagreeable, according to how it goes, you as you are now only might react emotionally against such a picture due to your faulty consciousness as a hangover from obsolete conditions. Communism is about totally reforming the person and superseding the merely human. There's a reason Marxists don't like to go into too much detail about the goal and how it's supposed to work, polemicizing against "utopian blueprinting", and why "German Ideology" was pushed by the Soviet state, and so on.

sorry dude but you can't meme your way out of an explanatory alternative. either you believe in a transitory period or you don't. just meme'ing your way out of questions like this makes you seem disingenuous or even worse, utopian

...

m-ls are dogmatic when it comes to lenin and stalin, they quote lenin like scripture and generally believe marxism has reached it's peak with lenin and there's nothing else to be discussed.


nice b8

you can read hegel if you've read some intro work on kant and understand aristotelian thought.

wew comrade

Since when is Zizek ML?

nah im a socialist not an authoritarian social-democrat/state-capitalist

David "I’m not a Leninist" Harvey is not a leninist, I really wish people would stop calling him that. He promotes a pragmatic synthesis between the best aspects of marxism with the best aspects of anarchism

+I really don't think Michael Hudson is a leninist either, from what I've gathered he's a marxist/post-keynesian that very much influenced Graeber in his writings on debt. I don't think Hudson spends much time writing about revolutionary vanguards or what Lenin or Engels had to say about modern matters

You can have him

...

You can learn from history and denounce ML and the USSR without swallowing Resnick and Wolff's terrible takes on it: libcom.org/library/class-history-theory-capitalism-communism-ussr-paresh-chattopadhyay.

This is brilliant bait.

communism is the real movement to create superpowers

Leave. Communalism is nonsense.

This.

When I made this thread I was hoping for more discussion of the content of various contemporary scholars. So less infighting and more talk about theory.

this

no you can't.

t. never read any serious communalist theory
this is you, but with communalism

Test me nigger. Some of Bookchin's concepts, such as that of liberatory technology, are useful, but only to the extent that they are compatible with already existing communist theory. Bookchin's premise which leads him to the conclusions which distinguish his ideas from those of serious communists, is the idea that domination of man by man is the root cause of domination of nature by man. This is idealist, unscientific nonsense which lacks any explanatory power, or empirical falsifiability.

Laughable.


No one has done more to defend Marx than Shaikh you cowards. He's definitely a Marxist.

youtube.com/watch?v=kf9vnvK8sPw

Your criticism applies to dialectical thinking in general. Marx's conception of history is no more falsifiable then bookchin's, but falsifiability is merely one way to judge truth. What you should be asking is what is more coherent and posses greater explainatory power, because if you stick to falsifiabilty as your messure of truth then you might as well dismiss marxist thought entirely. Furthermore, there's more to bookchin's thought then that. That's merely one component of dialectical naturalism. Arguably, the best way to describe his historical outlook is through the synthesis of first and second nature, an outlook which he arrives at through applying marxist and kropotkian thought to modern anthropology. Read ecology of freedom if you haven't already