Marxist Lexicon

marxists.catbull.com/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm

The good news is that it wasn't a complete waste of time as now we know that you need to read a lot more.

Mah boiiiii! There's only one leftist who I know is aware of this, and this insight alone makes me proud of you.

Really? Cause it seems pretty obvious that in order to combat the totality of capital, we require a totality of our own, with out the jackboots however.

...

can you correct

god damn it, get out of here with your abstract totality bullshit, communism isn't about orienteering subjectivity and reshuffling symbolism. It is the movement that approaches the universal through being as event, as opposed to your autistic monist reading of Hegel - you trite prick

Don't engage A.W. , nothing beneficial will come of it

Buzz words only make you seem intelligent in the eyes of the stupid, user.

At least get better at pretending to have read CH.1 of the Phenomenology or Logic. Marx was a monist until he read Hegel, and so was Lenin. Hegel is the cure to abstract monism.

The vast majority of people can't think about what totalitarianism qua totality means. What is called totalitarianism is the precise failure to constitute a real totality, since a real totality constitutes the very subject and is not alien to it.

But that's wrong though. The prefix "total" in "totalitarianism" refers to the authority of a state which recognizes no limits. It's an entirely different kind of totality than the one you're speaking of. I know you have a habit of redefining words so you can critique people you don't have any actual grounds to criticize, but come the fuck on man. This is pathetic.

Oh, you misrepresent me, I am not accusing Hegel of monism, only you. Buzz words to someone who has never read Lacan or Badiou, maybe, but hey I expect nothing more of someone whose reading of Hegel was that the critique and examination of appearance as phenomenon ignored the teleology of the man himself, and his Kantian influences SPINOZA/JACOBI THROUGH PLOTINUS AND PROCLUS . To be quite honest, your obsession with the logics of Hegel as an absolute totality, in and of themselves, is bordering on troublesome cathexis. This is all of course still absent your perpetual intellectual dishonesty on this board in the representation of the canon of Hegel and the arguments of your many detractors. But, as with your sutured view of philosophy as an independent connection to the truth - avoiding the ontological void of Hegel - it can only be expected that your continual dismissal and condescension can only be expected as necessary affects of your ideology, that which you must believe as universal lest you be forced to confront the ontology of your mode of thought.

You were soundly dismissed here, you left here, went to /leftpol/, were soundly dismissed by multiple theoryanons even there, and return once more to the same abnegation and critique that you faced the first time.

You're very well acquainted with Hegel, but neither with his historicity nor the full, radical implications of his thought. As I've said before, YOUR reading of Hegel renders his system of thought and logic as an abstract totality. This is about the eighth or ninth time I've said it, and you've little more to say than "You must be using terms to seem intelligent to hide a lack of critique" or consistently redefining terms to fit your system of thought. You're a joke.

Added from /theory/ where several posts were made earlier:
>In his inability or unwillingness to bridge the topic of the void of appearance, he is duty bound and summoned to address and reject, or reconcile non-pathologically those events that stipulate a non-particular universal (which he is unable to glean from his own philosophical exegeses). This is why I imagine, though he has admitted to having no formal knowledge of Lacanian thought, he attempted to assert the axiomatic subjectivity of mathematical processes and physical science (cahiers.kingston.ac.uk/pdf/cpa10.8.badiou.translation.pdf, the events theses posted above). Besides the idea that the absolute knowledge is derived from the critique of an existing order of how we know what we claim to know, a presupposing game that already reserves space for a pre-cognitive arbitrary logic (that self-negating essential that we know to be a spook ), he then plays into the contours of transcendental antiphilosophy by assuming that this conjecture represents an absolute without following through on the ultimate question of Hegelian thought: Not the organization of appearance, but how it is that we have something like appearance when it is so consistently antinomic, a fate of contradiction that befalls A.W.' own philosophical presuppositions precisely in that they are not pathological as one would assume, but they are a constitutive abstract which interpolates the individual as subject to a generality, regardless of the subject-thought and emergent multiplicities engendered by an Evental statement.

The user writes a shortened explanation after being told the initial was opaque and difficult to read:

Additional additions: lacan.com/badeight.htm

Talking past me is not dismissing me any more than me dismissing you, unless by dismiss you mean you ignore everything I say just as I ignore everything you say.

Regarding Hegel you are. Nothing else to say about anyone else or anything else you mention.

I don't, but you go ahead and keep repeating lies. You of all people know about this since your favorite philosophers literally all do this. I mentioned the totalitarian = totality thing because it's a very logical consideration, an amazingly simple one that cuts past what people say and mean towards what the word itself says. Not a hard thing, not asking you to redefine words, just pointing out somet interesting stuff about the etymology itself.

We literally talk past each other, idk how you are this stupid. You literally vomit a >stereotypical< continental logorrhea and are talking to… who? Me? I literally have no idea what you're talking about with Lacan and Badiou, and I give zero fucks now and will continue to not do so. A bunch of people praise them? Pfft, as if I care. The >only< reason I ever comment on your laughable posts is because you attack me. No one else here actually reads your shit and knows what you're talking about. This is why, my autistic comr8, you need to make a habit of an effort to translate back into normal terms. You think I literally talk in Hegelese to people? Have you ever read the shit I write? I go through a great amount of effort to try to write with others in mind when I actually intend to communicate to the world and not my super select club of moontalkers.

So, tips on becoming someone who posts worth a shit here as well as anywhere and irl:
1) Learn to talk like a common person. Sorry, we're not all part of your cult and aren't interested in learning your dictionary.
2) Learn to recognize when you're talking past someone and they are talking past you. I don't know what's so hard about it, but if I can admit it why can't you?
3) Immanent critique is all I accept, I'll never give a fuck about the mess walls of text you call an 'argument'.

Until you learn to talk like a human bean and communicate you're the real joke, user. You're a forgettable word salad with a substance no one but you and your cult can grasp. You are a cult minority of 1 on this board, in its history about 2 other people >could< understand you. Ease off the autism and dial up the social and communication.

If you really are serious in talking to me instead of shit talking over snipes on an anonymous board, you know where to find me. You can talk to me directly in various ways. You can >enlighten me< as to your positions (which just from the conclusions look like garbage, but hey, I'm giving garbage like Deleuze a chance so I'll give you one so long as you put in the effort). Blog back and forth, discord pms, recorded discussion, you name it. I'm not scared of being wrong, but people like you sure seem to be scared of something.

You can lie about you and I, but it doesn't matter. I know my side, you know yours.

Back on topic.

Since you are arguing against idea and not AW as such, I will intervene.

It would make more sense if you started presenting actual arguments.

In my opinion, it is quite obvious that Fascists of the Interbellum era were emulating Communists, except without all the icky bits (World Revolution, forceful expropriation of private property, and putting unwashed masses in charge). Basically, they were equivalent of the modern Fake Left (just like Fascists it likes to present "unified front" - but without "tankies" or "Stalinists", who don't want to let go of the "outdated" Communist ideas), only more pseudo-Communist.

So, explain to me, what makes you think that the Fascist concept of Totalitarianism is not a distorted Marxist idea. To put it in simplistic terms: why totality is not a substitute for community.

If society in the future (second-stage) Communist society (i.e. "Gemeinwesen" as Marx/Engels were calling it; usually referred to as Commune later) decides on something, will it be limited by some sort of "irrevocable rights" of the individual?

I think not. Modern "irrevocable rights" are there only to protect Capitalists. It is Capitalists who defend them - and make them irrevocable in Capitalist society.

In Commune private individuals are no longer capable of influencing society on their own. They cannot decide what others will do, nor can they simply ignore decisions of the whole. Only by achieving organized support can they influence society - which means acting through the "state" (Commune).

Hence, the "state" (Commune) will recognize no limits. It is an actual true Totalitarianism, as it is understood by contemporary Liberal thinkers ("Lo and behold: Billionaires can no longer rule the world! Surely it is the darkest age filled with unspeakable horrors!").

thanks for the critique
The term 'private property' already implies that it means the MoP specifically
How is accumulation the distinction? Surely the fundamental difference between feodalism and capitalism is generalised commodity production rather than accumulation
On what basis do you think definitions should be made or held? I'd say Marx is a relevant authoity on the definition of socialism and communism.
can you provide quotes? as I understand it Marx differentiates between early-stage communism and communism, which Lenin defined into socialism and communism.
this is literally a thread about definitions, how did you come to the conclusion that it is somehow supposed to change reality? Outside of facilitating discourse? A great many arguments boil down to conflicting definitions, especially on this board with both visiting liberals and local, recurring arguments between leftcoms and MLs
Sure, but it's still descriptive. The fact that 'common ownership' and 'moneyless' are in a sense the same thing isn't obvious to everyone.
I'm not using the anarchist understanding of state, I'm not using the anarchist understanding of Anarchy either. Simply the common definition of a society without the coercive state apparatus.

That is because I have no quarrel with Hegel
Philosophy is naught but a study of language as a horizon of being. That actually wasn't meant as a point to be made, just more that there exist so many strata of nomenclature within philosophy that it makes it very easy for a polemic to devolve into a contest of piety.
You've contradicted yourself (jokingly) from above when you say you had nothing else to say on them. I am still learning English, so it's even worse for me that i must speak in formalistic manners. I always type in that stereotypical "obfuscatory" fashion so often that I've now made a habit of having to explain myself, but like you, I am not like that in real life. The anons here have been patient and coaxing in their interrogating my writing, so that it becomes more than just what appears as theoretical posturing.

...

In Marxist discourse, yes. However, description of Marxist terminology would suggest use of non-Marxist terms, no? Marxist terms should be described in laymen terms whenever possible.

And in laymen terms "private property" means both private and personal. The difference between those two is very important for people.

The fundamental difference is the industry. While you are correct that it necessitates commodity production (due to inability of any producer to be autarkic) which creates possibility for wage labour, this does not explain Capitalist exploitation nor how wage labour becomes inevitable.

I.e. you are missing significant chunk of Marxist theory.

One more difference between the industry and the land (Feudal basis of economy) is that industry could (and should) be created and improved. This is why Capitalists are forced to compete: unlike landowners, they are put in inherently unstable position. It is this bit (impetus to expand) that accumulation of capital describes (from which we can go to cyclic financial crises and, eventually, world wars).

Marx is not an authority on modern-day language - which we must use to give definitions with.

Critique of Gotha programme. It's literally up there in the stickied post in "Absolute beginner material", because it is being quoted almost every day at Revisionists, who - just like Lassalleans in 19th century - want to conflate those terms.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
Socialism:
> But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

Communism:
> In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

As you see, there is qualitative difference. During first half of 20th century we've come to call the first stage as Socialism, while second stage was referred to as Communism.

I am not talking about this thread, but the general tendency to conflate Socialism (first-stage) and Communism (final stage) - it is not based on any arguments, but on dogmatic misreading of Marx/Engels.

I'm sorry, but "tautology" is not descriptive. Both terms are used in Marxist context and do not explain much to the laymen, who make no distinction between "money" and "labour vouchers".

Moreover, there are MarkSoc retards, who attempt to peddle "common ownership" as distribution of MoP among the private individuals. Essentially, trying to make the words to mean "fair private property".

Consequently, no. If description could be easily twisted to mean "barter-based Anarcho-Capitalism", then it needs to be improved.

But what is this coercive state apparatus? AnCap morons would say that state education and healthcare are it. Shall we join ranks with the Ultra-Right and fight together to privatise the shit out of everything?

There are already books out there dealing with it.

...

This is true. If we were to make a proper lexicon, the terminology would have to be such that it is legible to laymen but acceptable from a Marxist perspective. Looks like this thread isn't really taking off though.
Quite, I was trying to open up discussion rather than make the final definitions there and then.
Yes, but modern-day language tends to have distorted meanings for words, that's more or less the reason this lexicon would be necessary in the first place. Socialism isn't 'when the state does stuff', no matter how much American liberals think it is what it means.
In the bits you are quoting, Marx does not write socialism = first phase of communist society and he does not write communism = higher phase of communist society. He writes about the first phase of communist society and higher phase of communist society. Marx uses words like socialist and communist interchangeably.
It was to my knowledge Lenin who revised the original wording and popularised the definitions you use here. Since not everyone accepts this definition, I wrote both in the original post you were commenting. But I should have included that Marx also thought communist society had stages of development.
Fair. What wording would you use to convey the same meaning of what we understand as 'moneyless'?
The concept of labour vouchers doesn't even belong here imo, since they are more a pragmatic means of organising distribution and abstracting scarcity rather than a key part of the theory or organisation of the communist society itself.
Coercive powers the state has to limit people's negative freedoms. The common definition isn't particularly precise, but you can still tell what it means. This could certainly be improved on.
Shit, I thought we were writing definitions rather than a policy manifesto.

Both are intimately linked tbh.

So, I guess, we've got an understanding there.

That's because there aren't many Marxists on Holla Forums (literally "any ideology, except Communist"). "Tankies" also tend to get banned here - just like on r/(pseudo)communism. Not to mention, people don't have time. I am currently replying to discussions I had two month ago.

I.e. deliberately arguing in bad faith. Fascinating.

There is no such thing as "distorted meaning" without context. When words with "distorted meaning" are used between people who have "distorted understanding", then those words function as proper words. There is no inherent superiority in Marxist language. The only reason why we should use it is because terms used by modern language are imprecise and ill-defined.

Consequently, there is nothing wrong with admitting that modern language and language of Marxists are not one and the same thing - and then using modern language as foreign language Marxism needs to be translated to.

Yes. Why did you expect this to happen? My argument was Marx divided Communist/Socialist society into two distinct phases. Consequently, it is not anti-Marxist to separate the concept of "Communist/Socialist society" into two different concepts.

I'm sorry, but this is a distortion. It is not about accepting definitions, but accepting the idea that you do not establish full-Communism in one go. That is what the argument is about. The words are there only to facilitate the discussion. Nobody argues about terminology as such.

I wouldn't. Not in the sentence you were using it. As I said - it's a tautology. There is no "good way" to put two definitions of the same aspect of society side by side without clarifying to that both mean the same thing.

"A society where the means of production are in common ownership" is good enough. Note that I also dropped "under democratic control" - since "common ownership" already means such control. The fact that you use both suggests that there could be "common ownership" without democratic control, which makes no sense.

Then I'd add second aspect, the one your definition is missing: "and are managed under common plan, without exchange-based resource distribution between branches". Here I am repeating the same thing twice, because I'm not sure if the "common plan" is properly understood: we've had examples of commonly owned enterprises competing against each other (either nominally, or actually). And it could be said that there was development under "common plan" (in non-Marxist terminology).

If you conflate labour vouchers (C-M-C) with money (M-C-M), then it becomes a perfect argument to demand abolition of labour vouchers immediately after the Revolution, which would lead to all kinds of problems with distribution. Which is why "moneyless" either should not be used for "laymen" definition - or explained properly, if used.

So we agree that existing definition was insufficient.

As it had been said here already - there isn't much of a difference. Marxist definitions will be explaining their intentions - just as manifesto would.

And as it had been said long ago (in 19th century): Marxism is not a dogma, but a guide to action.

and which ☭TANKIE☭s might they be
No, opening up discussion so whatever I write can be commented and improved on. I'm not sure why you feel the need to frame this as some eristic battle of the minds, imageboard discussion or not. You aren't going to find some kind of 'epic BTFO' in this discussion.
I agree, but when in common parliance socialism means 'when the state does stuff' and communism is 'when the state does all the stuff', we either attempt to bring the meaning of the words to the original one or create a whole new word to mean what 'socialism' used to.
Indeed, and you made this argument against nothing, since I wasn't claiming otherwise. Only that in Marx's texts the words 'socialism' and 'communism' were used interchangeably.
This is a thread about definitions. I feel like you are having a completely different argument to the one that is actually present.
Many MLs would disagree, or define democratic control in a way that does not match a layman's understanding of those words.
Yes, agreement isn't necessarily a bad thing you know. What I'd like you to do here is contribute to bring about a more precise definition.
Indeed, which is why it is so strange that 'revisionist' is thrown around like a perjorative, mostly by MLs.

Moi, on multiple occasions. Usually, its global warming or refugees.

There were some other cases when clearly pro-Communist posts get purged, but - as one might guess - people usually stay banned and do not use proxies to debate the ban with screenshots of deleted posts. So it's hard to notice - on an anonymous board - who exactly gets the ban and for what.

Except this fact is not relevant to anything and - given without explanation - would confuse people.

I'm not talking about this thread, but the discussion on whether or not should Socialism/Communism be used interchangeably.

I.e. it is you who is dragging in argumentation that has nothing to do with definitions as such.

Please, elaborate.

Revisionism is when you do not prove your idea, nor challenge some other idea properly (by declaring intent and then refuting the idea), but when you stealthily substitute it with another and pretend that this is what it actually meant all along. I.e. it is falsification of existing theory.

You are not simply stealing someone's authority to defend your own position, you are distorting the their position - destroying the collected experience of Socialist movement.

Would you mind explaining to me, why exactly is it "strange" to oppose this practice and how exactly did you manage to gleam some sort of support of this from the quote?

Bump

you don't think global warming is a thing? I'll actually run you through the tank-o-meter right now:
was the purge of old bolsheviks necessary? what about the removal of german socialist refugees in the 30s? Were tanks necessary with Hungary '56 or CZ '68?
the hotpockets have been rather heavy lately, i've been posting less as a result too. BO seems to want to undermine their own board.
It's a point of contention, especially between leftcoms and MLs. I've seen the argument several times on this board.
When the state and its bureaucracy decides where and how one works it isn't democractic control in the sense that people think of democracy. States dominated by a democratic-centralist vanguard cadre party in general aren't thought to be democratic in any real sense. If one holds that such states are democratic then democracy has to be redefined to something it isn't in common parliance.
I see. Why are Kruschev and Deng called a revisionist then?
So if appeals to authority were dismissed immediately, revisionism wouldn't be a concern?

"we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" or something

it does sound like Marx wants to respect some individual rights in full communism, guys

I don't think global warming is relevant to anything. We are not going to be hit by a super-tsunami tomorrow nor Capitalists will stop polluting the fuck out of everything, if we decide to surrender Socialism in favour of Environmentalism - as Green politicians imply.

I think that so-called "green politics" (as they are implemented now - by Capitalist-controlled states) are harming planet, rather than protecting it.

You want to save planet? You do the World Revolution first. That's the only way it works. Anything else is a delusion.

[banhammer in 3.. 2..]

Loaded question. We are not sharing the underlying assumptions here (unlike you, I do not worship Stalin as almighty and omniscient). Consequently, even if given, my answer would be meaningless to you.

Specifically?

Again - we do not share the same understanding of events. If I'll say that tanks in Budapest were both counter-revolutionary and absolutely necessary, you will not be able to parse this as anything but me claiming that counter-revolution was necessary. Which is the opposite of my opinion.

This trend has been going on for more than a year. If anything, BO had been unbanning me - after repeated posting of deleted posts via proxy.

Again: we are not arguing about terms as such. It's just an intermediary.

Yes, it is. Provided state and bureaucracy are controlled by the people and are used to express their opinion in an organized fashion.

In fact, it is impossible for any large-scale democracy to exist without state or bureaucracy.

By Liberals. I consider such an approach to be the most democratic (given other necessary qualities, of course).

Lenin: "Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners."

"Common parlance" you are talking about is nothing but liberal propaganda.

Because they did that. For example, Khrushchev essentially splintered Central Planning of Soviet Union (attack on "common plan" under which industry should operate) and forced kolkhozs to acquire agrotech (partially restoring private property relations and accumulation of capital in farming sectoring).

Similarly enough, Deng invented some sort "Chinese" Socialism that was based on the assumption that in China of Capitalism as of yet is not hindering economic development (which he maintained up to his death in 1990s) and market economy is somehow more effective that Planned.

On top of it, both were proven to be wrong before they've done it. For example, Stalin personally argued against acquisition of agrotech by kolkhozs - and Khrushchev never refuted anything, initially agreeing that he was wrong and then treated refutation as if it never existed.

No. I explicitly wrote that it is not limited to this alone. And you quoted this bit.

The core of Revisionism is destruction of collected experience. You have to dismiss all of it as "appeals to authority" to do away with Revisionism - but that would leave you repeating the basest of mistakes again and again.

One quote out of context does not make Marx Anarcho-Capitalist.

I tend to agree, at least in the long term. But we should still make sure that there is someone left to actually do the revolution.
well shit, how did you know about my secret shrine to the eternal and infallible science of Dialectical Marxism-Leninism-notatallstalinism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth_conspiracy
shit like this
I'm learning so much of myself. How very enlightening this discussion is becoming.
This is more or less where the problem itself lies.
By just about anyone who isn't ML.
Indeed.
Well yes, turns out we live in a world that is a liberal hegemony currently. But as you yourself many times have pointed out in this thread, we have to be intelligible to the laymen who understand the world through the ideas the liberal-ideological apparatus has imprinted on them. Calling your ML state formulation democratic isn't going to fly under the present circumstances. I don't know how you feel about Juche and DRPK but despite it being called 'democratic' people aren't going to think it is so.
What theory did they falsificate? I believe the CPC was quite clear in saying they were moving away from Mao.
Disagreeing with Stalin tended to have unfortunate results.
No, it would simply mean that 'because Marx/Lenin/Bordiga said so' would stop being an argument, and the actual content of a statement would instead be under examination rather than the author of that statement. Wishful thinking perhaps, but extremely necessary should a democratic centralist system ever work. Thus far the results aren't impressive, what with propensity to leader worship and cults of personality.
honestly this thread has gone quite far from its original purpose, as every thread does on Holla Forums, and this derailing discussion doesn't seem particularly fruitful. I don't mind if you stop replying and we let this thread die.

godless hedonism
philosophical babble
not perfect, but the best system there is
communism
best system for securing prosperity of all
means by which captains of industries create jobs
types of ways the economic is organized, capitalism being the highest stage
put simply, gold is the source of all value. marginalism is also a helpful concept
fair earnings for businesspeople who take risks
no such thing
something to sell for profit
healthy desires
one who sells his labor based on a mutually agreed contract
capitalist who is abstemious and financially disciplined
turning to communistic beliefs. an entirely individual matter tied up with genetics and an unhealthy sense of entitlement, largely from a spoiled upbringing
services
america
emotionally satisfying entertainment during one's leisure time
institution that protects private property through law courts and police
competition among businesses to make a superior product for the enjoyment of the people
a time of bad things, usually caused by sinister individuals and politicians associating to hurt pepole for the thrill of it
organization of society based on criteria of competition, education, intelligence and individual life decisions
the lot of people who made poor choices and do not work hard enough or smartly enough to be successful
the natural order of things
a rare occurence when contracts aren't absent
cultural marxism
cultural marxism waged by minorities and self-hating dominant races
marxist babble for healthy skepticism for extremist ideas
full employment
transaction costs
spread of production worldwide to create cheaper and greater variety of consumer goods. trade benefits everyone
who cares
business cycle
who cares

Would you mind explaining "but"? What this "but" implies? The idea that we need to postpone revolution and start worshipping Eco-Fascist lobby that will always attempt to shift all the blame on Proletariat having too much money?

Because of the question about "purge of old bolsheviks". IRL no such thing happened. A third died before 1937, another third died in inter-faction war trying to accuse each other of treason. Nobody actually planned any purges.

> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth_conspiracy
Lack of links to Russian version raises a few questions. Either way, I have problems seeing this as "removal of german socialist refugees".

You are the one who tried to apply a "tank-o-meter" to me by asking stereotypical questions. I am simply explaining that trying to fit my answers into stereotypical Procrustean paradigm is not going to give you useful information.

What problem?

No. It's just you have 20 flavours of Liberals to choose from and think this is all there is to it. For example, neither Technocrats nor Monarchists would give a fuck about democracy at all. If you start going back to Athenian democracy, you will learn that they wouldn't even recognize your democracy as actual democracy. And don't get me started on Muslims.

Well, I'm not the one trying to use the term "under democratic control".

Marxist.

Nonsense.

For example, Yaroshenko was all kinds of retarded and was going around literally sending letters to every member of Politburo and many members of Central Committee with demands to REMOVE STALIN, claiming him to be being incompetent idiot and anti-Communist. His theories were refuted - more than once (final refutation even ended up in Stalin's final books), but he refused to agree - continuing his trolling campaign even after getting several meeting with members of Central Committee who told him to cool down. "Unfortunate results" were limited to him getting a month of prison for hooliganism and transfer out of Moscow to province.

Moreover, Khrushchev had plenty of opportunities to refute Stalin's arguments after his death - he never did.

It never was an argument. Referrals to Lenin/Marx are used as a reference to commonly known (and accepted) arguments that they've made - and which are needed to be taken into account. If anyone *cough* Ismail *cough* attempts to pull this off (i.e. use simply "because Marx"), you are perfectly justified to call them dogmatic pseudo-Communist.

However, Revisionists falsify arguments - so you can't solve their problems at the root. Not without completely abandoning all theory that was developed and starting every discussion from scratch.

I don't agree. Results are extremely impressive.

Not really.

Defining term "Revisionists" is hardly derailing.

Well, not for MarkSoc cause.

Meh. There are quite a few posts informative posts.

*neurons activated*

State
woke af

The only correct thing on the list

I like how this term is just bluntly name-dropped as though everyone is supposed to understand what it means with no explanation

Hegemony
is also nice.

that's exactly what it means. can you stop being so hysterical?
Oh, ok. Stalin just happened to be the last one standing, after those who didn't die of natural causes were mysteriously killed by various state organisations.
it was an example, I couldn't find anything better on a quick google.
The tank-o-meter is the exact opposite of that, it allows one to gauge the level of tank in an individual, it's not just 100% tank or 0% tank.
Ensuring that 'the state and bureaucracy are controlled by the people and used to express their opinion in an organised fashion'.
? I obviously didn't include people who don't care about democracy in the first place.
MoP aren't supposed to be under democratic control?
'peasants are the revolutionary class'
'ally with national bourgeois against international bourgeois'
I believe you are going to have to put some qualifiers on the 'Marxist'.
Agreed.
How do you define 'falsify' in this case? Do you think it impossible that people genuinely have different intrepretations?
Well, we aren't concentrating on defining or strictly discussing definitions.
That part isn't but all the fluff around it is.
Flag autism? Is that what this has come down to?
Let us keep going then.

Multiple posts incoming.

The belief that the causes of events are observable and mutable.
The systems of the world gradually changing by running into their inherent flaws and substitute systems being created to circumvent such flaws.
A class system of commoditized social relations; whereas previously, one's social power depended upon that person's status, it now ostensibly depends on traits of that person's possession.
Democratic control of the means of production.
A classless society.
Transferable things guaranteed to an individual or corporation by a state, used for obtaining rent.
Things useful for creating useful goods.
The process of how things are created.
What must be sacrificed to create something.
The mercantile manifestation of rent.
The human peculiarity of being able to produce more than is consumed.
Something produced to be sold.
An aesthetic fixation on a particular facet of human existence; the converse of materialism.
Labor, sold as a commodity.
The way rentiers are able to attract more capital, and hence greater ability to extract rent, to themselves than non-rentiers.
A moralistic observation of the nature of wage-labor; not actually important.
Not the faintest idea.
Not really sure on this one, either. I'd be inclined to say "other people doing what you want without any reciprocal care from you", but I'd just call that "power", and hegemony seems to imply a more absolute form of it.
Also not sure on this one; I don't think it's the superstructure, and if it's not that I'm not sure what characteristics it has that the superstructure is missing. I think it's mostly just a pejorative to mean "things leftists don't like".
The folks to whom the military and/or police answer to.
The commoditized production of things of aesthetic value.
A dialectical contradiction some facet of the world faces that will force some change to it.
Differing relations to power.
In a given capitalist social relation, they who provide rent, whether that be through working for a wage, buying goods sold for a profit, taking a loan with interest, or providing money for rent.
Antonym of proletariat. A word I'd find a better term for, personally; its root seems to imply a person of educated, cosmopolitan, urban nature, when in fact it's very possible for a bourgeoisie to have provincial characteristics.
A person's view of the ideal society.
Considering social constructs like they are natural, immutable rules of the world.

Obtaining material wealth from someone by threatening to expose them to an abyss of either natural death or artificial violence otherwise.
Not sure; seems to just mean poking holes into aesthetics that happen to owe their existence to power relations because justice demands it, which is dumb, but in theory would just mean a leftist, class-conscious form of skepticism, which is most certainly not dumb.
Policies advanced to move to a different point on a "Pareto frontier" of outcomes more favorable to a demographic one is aesthetically inclined to, rather than advancing said Pareto frontier. Not actually always a bad thing; unfortunately probably unavoidable given scarcity. However, often serves as a distraction from "advancing the Pareto frontier", and encourages those from whom prosperity would be removed to fight against popular movements.
Someone's aesthetic tastes overcoming their material interests, causing them to advance idpol measures against demographics they belong to. I'm not exactly so hot on the idea of universally applying this to all non-prole communists and all prole non-communists, though; communism should be interpreted as "increasing the Pareto frontier", not simply shifting to a more proletarian-friendly and bourgeois-unfriendly position on said frontier (which is a pretty meaningless idea, btw)
The function of unemployment in capitalism; in regions closer to the center of capitalist power, explicit threat of force becomes taboo, so the more implicit threat of starvation through unemployment is used more; this threat, however, is only credible if it's known that workers can be replaced very easily, which is the function of the reserve army of labor.
Those most motivated to change things in a given social context. I don't really buy this framing, personally; it again sets up the "proletariat" v "bourgeois" as two mutually exclusive groups of people rather than roles in various social relations and again thus establishes a Pareto frontier of their interests on which it is understood that Communism is simply a shift upon it, which I don't like as a framing.
I've never heard of this.
The liberal country is largely illusory; yes, it has a parliament and an army, but that parliament and that army cannot really do anything of real significance to stop rentiers from doing as they please; rentiers, thus, organize their businesses on a worldwide scale, gradually undermining the foundations of traditional identities.
Meaningless gobbledygook.
As the dialectic continues, the process of production becomes ever more efficient, and less and less labor is required to produce an interval of goods. The thought is, then, that firms gradually become less and less able to extract rent from labor, which is considered to be the only unit of production.
Again, don't know.

The result of capitalism's neutering of the parliament and identity politics - people become convinced that all that can be done is advancing X at the expense of !X, and as such become completely unconcerned if not spiteful with all !X. The distinguishing characteristics of X and !X are reified into things with moral value; it becomes necessary to advance X's characteristics and destroy !X's characteristics even if neither will even help X's condition.
A phrase which I don't like; it treats Marx's formulation of history as prescriptive rather than descriptive and the "Pareto treatment" of the class war of being an organized "Proletariat" advancing itself at the expense of a "Bourgeoisie" as being so true that any alternative formulation or suggestion that things might be more complex than that as incorrect and somehow anti-Communist.

I don't know the rest of them.