Q&A

There is no alternative in a two party system. No organization can exist without being co-opted in this environment if it grows large enough to have real power. The first step we have is to change that.

Regardless, on the local level, they can be used to support socialist candidates if there is enough grassroots for them.

Yes.

Not really, I feel more grateful than guilty in regards to the way I'm able to live. My Dad and my stepmom are high ranking bureaucrats, and I can live pretty comfortably while going to the best school in the state. But that doesn't mean I have to feel ok with corruption, injustice, insanity, and instability in our political economy.

On a fundamental level I'm a selfish person, and I don't like interacting with people, especially strangers. I admire those who do those things, but I'd prefer to make a bigger difference if for no other reason than to feed my ego.

You do understand that the problem with capitalism is that value regulates production, and not that the bosses are mean/unfair.
The bourgeoisie simply personify capital. All the horrors of capitalism are left completely unchecked in Market "Socialism".

Ah, the bourgeois conception of "leaders". So dear to the Left.

meaningless
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch03.htm
"That the workers desire to establish the conditions for co-operative production on a social scale, and first of all on a national scale, in their own country, only means that they are working to revolutionize the present conditions of production, and it has nothing in common with the foundation of co-operative societies with state aid. But as far as the present co-operative societies are concerned, they are of value only insofar as they are the independent creations of the workers and not protégés either of the governments or of the bourgeois"

To do what?

Which one is it?
Which implies your understanding that the Democratic Party is nothing more than part of the apparatus of the bourgeoisie's class dictatorship. But this understanding is incompatible with a belief that you can change things from the inside, which is pure unadulterated Idealism.
So which one is it?

Yes, that's why I support Libeterian Municipalism in the long term. But the problem of value regulating production isn't the only problem with capitalism.

Not true. When surplus value is dispersed and income inequality decreases, so is corruption and instability decreased.

I'm looking at the reality on the ground, some people make decisions, and I want to influence those decisions.

Like I said earlier, I support market socialism since it decreases corruption and instability.

whatever the commit decides on. I don't know enough about the people on it yet to tell you what they want.

In the sense that they're not directly associated with the billionaire and corporate support of the party on the national level and care about labor issues and such.

Like I said, some people make decisions and I want to influence those decisions and eventually make them, I'm a selfish person. You underestimate how much autonomy we have on the local level, after all, all politics are local. I can change things by trying to push the democratic party on the local level more and more to the left until they reject the bourgeois elements of the national party.

Within bourgeois politics, sure. Fortunately, the point is not any reform of politics. The point is anti-politics.
That just isn't true, what gets co-opted is the movement behind it. Instead of continuing to build their own, independent class organizations, the working class goes back into the unions, the party/ies, and other appendages of the bourgeois state.

Reforms that are relevant to the class struggle in the way being imagined aren't made by voting, or the polemics of entryists. They are made by the action of the class when it fights directly against capital and its state.

There is no such thing as "socialist candidates". A "socialist" who volunteers to work for the organ of the bourgeoisie's class power ceases to be a socialist in any meaning of the term. It is no longer the 1800's, capitalism and its state have been completely cemented. The nation-state is no longer developing, it is decaying.

All work into getting grassroots support for these supposedly "socialist" candidates is work that goes towards discouraging independent proletarian action and organization, and encourages the class into organs where it has no power and passivity by the class towards its future where it can build power.

There's no such thing as anti-politics. Everything is politics.

And good luck leftcom with your revolution in the heart of imperialism and global capitalism. Revolutions only occur anyway when reform fails, if anything, you should be supporting us so that if or when the bourgeoisie shut us down, people will actually see revolution and overthrow as a viable alternative.

A guy posted on pol once saying he works for the republicans and that there are some people in the GOP who agree with the alt right but they have to hide their power level for obvious reasons.
So are there people in the DNC who want full communism and are just hiding their power level too?

who has the porky with leftcom mask?

Most are social democrat types, bit one of the other interns is in my college socialist club

pure Utopianism (and shitty imagination at that).
It is the source of the problems, which is why no amount of superficial change will make much difference, and why social democracy is the ideology of state functionaries, not the working class and its historical program.

Pure delusions with no basis in how capitalism actually functions.
Workers deciding to cut their own pay, reduce their own vacations, etc. is no better than bosses doing it for them.
We don't want "decreased corruption", a liberal bourgeois wish rooted in completely bourgeois notions of the infallibility of democracy, and that the problems with the state are solvable with the introduction of control by "the people", with absolutely no basis in any idea of what the state actually is. Extending the democratic mechanisms of the state, so that the working class is more involved, does just that, integrate them into the state (read "subject them even further to the dictatorship of capital"). Democratic reforms have been introduced historically only to prevent working class independent action.
Neither do we want "decreased instability", we want the working class to be very clear that its enemy is capital and its state, and that the only solution is complete reorganization of society. The last thing socialists want for capitalism is "stability".

So what? Who cares what faction of the representatives of capital have their interests best represented by the state.
see above.
The "Labor" movement only has any progressive content insofar as it is a movement (not ideology) against capital and its state.

Fine, but don't pretend you aren't precisely the enemy of the proletariat.

Politics are global (you talk in the next post about global capitalism and imperialism, so you must already of some understanding of this) and tied to the class internationalist communist program, which has as one of its elements the destruction of the state and thus of politics.
There is no "autonomy". This is precisely the illusions of democracy, and hence why it is the most widespread organizational form of capital's dictatorship.

It is the actions of the working class in its independent struggle that make a difference, pushing state functionaries to the left does nothing helpful for the class struggle.

this one?

I believe I answer this in my last post, let me know if I don't, or not in the way you're thinking!

What would you call the transition worldwide from social-democratic policies during the post-war boom to the neoliberal ones in the current capitalist crisis of profitability that started in the 70's which no reform by the bourgeoisie's parties have been able to solve (simply delay the worst effects of it). Imperialist war is the only solution to the crisis, but the bourgeoisie has largely been unable to figure that out, trying Keynesian tactic after Keynesian tactic, and then switching to neoliberalism. This has happened all over the world. How could this possibly be described but by the tactics of "reform" failing. What do you call Syriza, Obama, (and, if they get into office, Corbyn and Sanders), the shift to the right in social-democratic/labor parties policies globally?
The word is "failure".

Revolution is not the automatic result of the failure of the Left to reform capitalism well enough, if the working class does not become class conscious (which, thanks to the best efforts of the Left [including those like yourself]) may very well not happen. As long as the working class does not engage in independent action, it can not and will not develop its own alternative to the bourgeoisie's impending solution to the crisis: WWIII.

Social-democratic policies cannot be implemented by a capitalism in crisis without simply making the crisis worse later, if they are to implemented at all.
Put another way: which do you think will fall first:
your best-intentioned "socialist" candidates ideology, or the objective necessities of capital to restore the rate of profit via restructuring by its state.

Pic related

I'm pretty much as left as they come but leftcom here is being straight up infantile really. Almost as bad as the vulgar communizers who think tearing up the roads and bulldozing office buildings is the rupture with capital.

From Marx himself, Volume III, Chapter 27.

"The co-operative factories of the labourers themselves represent within the old form the first sprouts of the new, although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce, everywhere in their actual organisation all the shortcomings of the prevailing system. But the antithesis between capital and labour is overcome within them, if at first only by way of making the associated labourers into their own capitalist, i.e., by enabling them to use the means of production for the employment of their own labour. They show how a new mode of production naturally grows out of an old one, when the development of the material forces of production and of the corresponding forms of social production have reached a particular stage. Without the factory system arising out of the capitalist mode of production there could have been no co-operative factories. Nor could these have developed without the credit system arising out of the same mode of production. The credit system is not only the principal basis for the gradual transformation of capitalist private enterprises into capitalist stock companies, but equally offers the means for the gradual extension of co-operative enterprises on a more or less national scale. The capitalist stock companies, as much as the co-operative factories, should be considered as transitional forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, with the only distinction that the antagonism is resolved negatively in the one and positively in the other."

I know its not the same as the Kliman-esque ROP analysis that you are put forth here. But you might want to consider reading Ismael Hossein-zadeh's book Beyond Mainstream Explanations of the Financial Crisis: Parasitic Finance Capital for an alternative interpretation of the rise of neoliberalism.

He puts forth an alternative explanation of the rise of neoliberalism as the complete dominance of finance capital over the economy. He critiques both Kliman's emphasis of the rate of profit and monthly review's emphasis on a failure of consumption and real accumulation caused by stagnant monopoly capital.

Personally I believe the rate of profit is a bit more fluid then Kliman and co thinks but the long-term trend is downwards, even if some strategies could conceivably raise it.

I honestly don't care how many quotes by Marx you can throw at me (I already gave my own that I thought elegantly described the issue at hand, you can take it or leave it), but if you want to play this game, I certainly can (see below for quotes from the Marx for the First International and Luxemburg). But you are also using it out of the context. Co-ops, in the 1800's, might've been a positive development to show that workers can manage production themselves. But they are no challenge to capital in and of themselves. The social relations within co-ops are a challenge only when they overcome the market and establish those kinds of relations between enterprises (i.e. abolishing the enterprise). This is not possible within capitalism, and can only happen in the DotP.

"Restricted, however, to the dwarfish forms into which individual wages slaves can elaborate it by their private efforts, the co-operative system will never transform capitalist society. To convert social production into one large and harmonious system of free and co-operative labour, general social changes are wanted, changes of the general conditions of society, never to be realised save by the transfer of the organised forces of society, viz., the state power, from capitalists and landlords to the producers themselves"
(Marx)
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1866/08/instructions.htm

"The workers forming a co-operative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to take toward themselves the role of capitalist entrepreneur—a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of production co-operatives which either become pure capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate, end by dissolving."
(Luxemburg)
marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/ch07.htm

Thanks! I'll look into it.

I actually disagree a lot with Kliman, and agree with an analysis based on the hegemony of finance capital in the imperialist phase of capitalism (Lenin, Luxemburg, Bukharin). I completely disagree with Kliman's denial of the financialization of the economy. I would assert the effects of fictitious capital (which capitalists rely on in light of a low ROP in actual production).

I would argue neoliberalism is one of the ways that the bourgeoisie has tried to manage the crisis and attempt to restore the profit rate (utilizing various counter-tendencies Marx described).

So, while I think it still is largely caused by the LTOFRP and the structural changes it causes, I do think there are countervailing factors. In the long run though, the LTOFRP creates a barrier which will determine the success of various reforms (or attempts at even building movements for reform).

What would constitute anti politics then? Better yet, when building the mass movement, what exactly are we suppose to do before the overthrow? Out of all the possible actions we could take, how can we avoid both "lifestylism" and participating in the political process?

Encouraging workers' independent activity, organs, and class consciousness.

Fight for the extension of strikes past when the unions call them off, for them to cross picket lines, for workers to act against the state, parties, unions, etc. And providing an internationalist communist perspective at every turn,

There is a difference between being a leader, which is fine, and leadership politics (seeking at every turn to be a leader, to have "the masses" around you, no matter what the activity or quality of those masses is/are).

I don't have anything against political party organizations providing a communist perspective and clarifying the class program, but they are the vanguard precisely because of their opposition to capital and its state, and the vanguard is not necessarily one particular group throughout the entire process, nor can the working class delegate its tasks to the vanguard (the role of the vanguard is not to seize power on its own as a substitution for the entire class).

Join an internationalist communist political organization to encourage working class independent activity and a communist political (in effect, anti-political) perspective.

Yeah I thought this was a key-failing of his otherwise rather good book The Failure of Capitalist Production why he thinks that capitalism somehow hasn't changed since the 1970s or even Marx's time is odd to me.

I would agree but whether the rate-of-profit was temporarily restored in the 80s, mid-90s, and just before the 2008 crash is subject to fierce debate. I believe most Marxists can agree that the long-term trend of the rate of profit in the developed world is down, despite whatever temporary upswings have existed.

But it also depends on how you define "profit" as the FIRE sector is parasitic upon the real economy based around production and consumption. When you tabulate all the banks, real estate schemes, and service industries producing little or no value then you'd have to figure that the production of surplus value is rather high. I'd even say if these factors were removed you would probably see that profits in the realm of industry are higher then typically assumed.

Then there's the interesting question that you pointed to about fictitious capital and the "malfunctioning" of real capital accumulation. Richard Westra would probably argue that it has to do with the malfunction of capitalist pricing after the transition from textiles to heavy industries (see: ''Unleashing Usury…")

I think in reality finance is its own parasitic entity and left to itself would consume capitalist production without the help of low profits or price malfunction and maybe even without monopolies. It was probably only the bourgeois assault on rentier interests (royal trading monopolies, landed classes, pre-capitalist usurers etc.) that made capitalism possible in the first place. I mean usury wrecked Rome and late medieval society and they did not have capitalism.

You're right that by the early 70s Keynesianism was in systemic crisis for a large variety of reasons. Why we had to have neoliberalism instead of some other model or even just Keynesianism with diminished expectations is something I haven't figured out yet. Most analysis makes it a question of capitalist agency and not necessity.

It's just what Rousseau had in Geneva plus democratic socialism basically, when implemented that is, I think the strategy to get there can be stretched from what bookchin envisioned.

I'm not a social democrat, and agree with what you say is their ideological function for the most part, but actually changing the mode of production is not superficial. It will have a big, positive impact even if there will still be progress to be made.

Not according to Papa Wolff.

I agree, but without a capitalist there to accumulate wealth from firms prices will be lower or higher wages depending on the situation in the market, but always an improvement compared to a capitalist mode of production.

Democratic reforms have historically been an improvement from monarchy, feudalism and military dictatorships.

Also, read Rousseau.

That's what you want leftcom. I want people to be better off.

If there's an actual revolution, which I doubt will occur, I'll lend my hand. But until then, I intend to do things my way.

Politics have global effects, but all the causes are local. I do believe in an international socialist program, but that's a long way away, and I think move the US towards socialism is the first step in that direction.

Whatever you say m8. I think people tend to take the easy route whenever it comes to politics, not many people will go out and agitate unless shits gotten really bad, and I'd prefer things not get that bad.

You just said politics are global, didn't really explain your anti-politics position.

I would call that right wing reformism. Believe it or not, those things occurred because people supported them, sure most were manipulated into supporting them, but that's what happened. Plenty of people supported Reagan and Clinton because they thought neo-liberal reform was good for them, but now that facade is falling apart.

For the sake of human life, I'd say that is a good thing.

Syriza was doomed to fail thanks to the situation it was in and the people at its top. Obama was only a normal liberal with some neo-liberal tendencies. Nobody except right wingers thought he would reform or end capitalism. Corbyn and Sanders at least understand the problem.

Go talk to a regular person on the street about revolution and they'll probably tell you to fuck off. They don't see revolution as a viable option and rightly so since at this point in the society it would do more pain and suffering than good in the short run.

That's why I'm a market socialist in the short run.

I don't intend to rely on ideology or resolve like you do, I am more willing to rely on the material results of changing the relations of production. People will be much more willing to embrace communism when post scarcity is achieved when there are no more capitalists controlling everything at the top.

Market socialism is not a different mode of production from the capitalist one. If there is value, it is capitalism.

It is called capitalism because it exists on the dominance of the self-expansion of value (capital).

Market socialism keeps literally all that the same. It is completely irrelevant if the capital is collectively owned by the entire enterprise.

You are vastly overestimating the size and extent of capitalist consumption.
That doesn't disprove my point.

fuckin kek
the class consciousness needed for moving towards socialism can only come during class revolution

Do you even critique of political economy?

Now that is just silly. Modes of production are not huge, well-defined categories like that. Changes in modes of production are quantitative before they become qualitative.

No, it is called so because there is owned and controlled by capitalists who extract surplus labour through exchange-value in the market. Thus why it was called the capitalist mode of production long before it was called "capitalism".
Market socialism, while having a lot of the same problems that a market inherently has, is not capitalist in any way shape or form. There being exchange does not imply capitalism, as exchange existeed well before capitalism.
Capitalism implies a capitalist class interacting with the mean of production to extract surplus labour.
This does not exist in market socialism.

I hope you realize you sound a lot like an ancap who says capitalism is only free markets. Using your definition, feudalism and slavery was also capitalism.

I don't think so.