No edit summary |
|||
| (71 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
}} | }} | ||
__NOTOC__ | |||
{{Ideology | {{Ideology | ||
|title=[[File:BecomeRedMari.png]] Eleutherianism | |||
|image=PCB-Mari.png | |||
|caption= | |||
|title=[[File: | |||
|image= | |||
|caption= | |||
|alignments= | |alignments= | ||
{{Info/Communists}} | {{Info/Left Unity}}<br> | ||
{{Info/Communists}}<br> | |||
{{Name|The Dysassembly Line|Citadel.png}}<br> | |||
{{Template:ArtelGang}} | |||
|influences= | |influences= | ||
some random goobers or something | |||
|likes= | |likes= | ||
|dislikes= | |dislikes= | ||
[[File: | [[File:Ismism Icon.png]] People who choose their politics based on balls | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Quote|A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism.|[[File:Marx.png]] Karl Marx}} | |||
==[[File:Marx.png]] A General Critique of Marxist-Leninist States (WIP)== | |||
The Marxist-Leninist implementation of the communist project is the most venerated communist movement among the various communist parties among the world. Despite the praise given to such a movement, this movement is not the real movement for the liberation of the proletariat, which Marx and Engels spoke of in their original texts, and we can see this through the "socialist commodity production" present within the USSR under the tenure of Joseph Stalin, the theoriser of Marxist-Leninist ideology. We can characterise socialism as the end of the commodity form, as well as the wage-labour system, which under the capitalist mode of production, has become our answer to the basic economic problem of scarcity. It is incorrect to suppose that socialism is merely a stage in which private ownership of the means of production is ended; this is not the fulfillment of the socialist project, otherwise, we would conclude that state capitalism is a form of socialism, which is clearly a false statement. The commodity is defined as having a two-fold value, a use-value, and an exchange-value, with the law of value determining that the value of a commodity is determined by its socially necessary labor time (the amount of time "required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity") Despite the nationalisation of industry within the USSR, the economy there still maintained capitalist properties, there was no transcendence of the laws of capitalist economy. Even if we were to suggest the means of production were put in the hands of the labourer, this is of course not the achievement of the socialist project, because without the transcendence of the commodity (which would itself eliminate private ownership of the means of production through the socialisation/decommodification of the MoP), we cannot say socialism exists. Under the USSR, workers were merely wage labourers under ''state'' capitalism.<br><br>But we need to prove this of course, this is multiple useless statements otherwise.<br><br>First, we look at Marx's critique of political economy. | |||
{{Quote|Commodities come into the world in the shape of use values, articles, or goods, such as iron, linen, corn, &c. This is their plain, homely, bodily form. They are, however, commodities, only because they are something two-fold, both objects of utility, and, at the same time, depositories of value. They manifest themselves therefore as commodities, or have the form of commodities, only in so far as they have two forms, a physical or natural form, and a value form.|[[File:Marx.png]] Karl Marx|Capital, Volume 1}} | |||
It is a basic of Marxist ideas that commodities, produced for the specific purpose of being exchanged, have both a use-value and an exchange-value, and the process of commodity production leads to alienation, where labour and its products become detached from the labourers due to the commodified means of production. In the USSR, despite the nationalisation of industries by the state, commodities still followed the law of value, which is not characteristic of a socialist society, as said by Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, | |||
{{Quote|Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; '''just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them''', since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. |[[File:Marx.png]] Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme}}<br> | |||
It is admitted by Joseph Stalin that the law of value operated within the USSR, | |||
{{Quote|In our country, the sphere of operation of the law of value extends, first of all, to commodity circulation, to the ex-change of commodities through purchase and sale, the ex-change, chiefly, of articles of personal consumption. Here, in this sphere, the law of value preserves, within certain limits, of course, the function of a regulator.|[[File:Stalin.png]] Joseph Stalin, Economic Problems of the USSR}} | |||
Therefore, despite claims of socialism, the USSR retained laws of capitalist economy within its structure, which can be seen as contradictory to Marx's view of socialism. It should not be controversial to suggest that if commodities were produced and those commodities were still subject to the law of value present within capitalist modes of production, the system failed to transcend ''capitalist'' law and therefore failed to achieve socialism, as the economy continued to operate within a framework that Marx opposed in his critique of political economy. Therefore, we can see the USSR as a state capitalist state.<br> | |||
==[[File:Marketsoc.png]] A Critique of Market Socialism== | |||
Market socialism has become quite the disappointment, largely because its premise is one made to be as such in the first place. Market socialists subscribe to heterodox thought that markets can exist within a socialist mode of production, which is a completely flawed form of non-orthodoxy, rather than a revolutionary one seen by particularly beautiful revolutionary theorists across the decades. We can see that within the market socialist economy, the means of production are put in the hands of the producers, but this is of course, as noted with any critique of marxist-leninists to ever exist in the history of mankind, the achievement of socialism, it is merely a step, or even a step within a step. The true essence of socialism comes with the transcendence of the commodity form and the end of the system of wage-labour, and is reaffirmed with the end of capitalist law e.g. the law of value. To suggest that market socialism (which can be summarised no less or more than the social democracy with a fantastical love for cooperatives) is a socialist mode of production is an incorrect idea. | |||
==[[File:AntiNation.png]] The Nation as a Machine== | |||
== [[File: | ==[[File:Synd.png]] The "Socialist" Facade of Syndicalism== | ||
==[[File: | ==[[File:Liberalsoc.png]] On "Liberal Socialism" by Carlo Rosselli== | ||
First, I'm gonna say I sorta skipped through the preface of this book, explaining Rosselli's life, I don't care for what he did, who he killed, how he lived, why he lived, or what/whom he put his dick in, so all of that is useless, I cared for what he stood for, so I moved onto the first chapter instead of reading that. Kill me or something I don't know. Anyways, humorous segment aside.<br><br> | |||
< | Rossselli offers an alternative to Marxian socialism, based upon the principle of liberal democracy. However, liberal democracy, so to speak, is not a viable state for the achievement of socialism. It is only under the dictatorship of the proletariat that we can make progress towards socialism. Liberal democracy shall always benefit the bourgeoisie class and relying upon it as a foundation of a socialist state is insufficiently radical, and exposes Rosselli's weak socialist idea. Further exposing Rosseli's weak socialism is his definition of it, that being: {{Quote|Socialism is nothing more than the logical development, taken to its extreme consequences, of the principle of liberty.|[[File:Liberalsoc.png]] Carlo Rosselli}}<br> | ||
Despite having a clear hatred for Stalin in his liberal nature (you can choose whether the liberal I'm referring to is Rosselli or Stalin here), he copies from his tactics with defining socialism as something it is not. To describe socialism as a logical development taken to its extreme consequences of a principle is fundamentally flawed, as reducing socialism to a vision based upon "principle", rather than acknowledging it as a mode of production with a revolutionary shift in material conditions is overlooking basic theories of socialism. There are systemic changes required to destroy capitalism. Capitalism can pose itself as freedom, it still retains capitalist nonetheless. Socialism is most notably the transcendence of the commodity-form and the end of the system of wage-labour, reaffirmed by the end of capitalist law (such as the law of value), rather than any idealistic principles.<br><br> | |||
In our first critique of the murderer of socialism Rosselli, we shall look at his counterrevolutionary democratic approach. Liberal democracy, in its most freedom-appearing methods, will, from the materialist stance, always operate as a product of capitalist social relations. The state remains always an instrument of enforcing the will of the ruling class, and all of its institutions follow. The proletarian hegemony over the state and therefore over its social structures - the dictatorship of the proletariat - is necessary for the achievement of socialism, for without the capturing of the state apparatus and the forced destruction through any means necessary of all that is counterrevolutionary. It is today, yesterday, and tomorrow socialism which requires the outright destruction of bourgeoisie structures. It is yesterday, tomorrow, and today the liberal socialist doctrine which refuses to recognise this, despite the continuous proof throughout the past class struggles.<br><br> | |||
Next we shall speak of the dictatorship of the proletariat as necessary for the achievement of socialism. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a matter of "political preference" for socialists but a requirement. The bourgeoisie state, regardless of its liberal democratic additions, remains an instrument of class rule, this obviously being the rule of the bourgeoisie. We therefore take the stance that no democratic process, no matter what voting method it may use, can lead to the dismantling of capitalist relations because these capitalist relations are simply the foundation upon which liberal democracy is built upon. To put it into attractive metaphors as liberals love to, you cannot destroy the bottom of the tower (the base economic mode of production, capitalism) and keep the middle (the liberal democratic system) floating in the sky. Liberal socialists may argue that liberal democracy has allowed for the expansion of labour rights, as if this is an advance towards socialism. However, these reforms are always within the framework of capitalist relations (trade unions or welfare for example do not threaten wage labour, nor capitalist law) and therefore do not threaten the dominance of capital. Without the increase in the stress put upon the dominance of capital, we cannot suggest there has been any push towards a socialist mode of production by the liberal democratic procedure.<br><br> | |||
The true power of the state lies not in the choices of the electorate in liberal democracy, not in this "will of the people", but in the economic mode of production within the society. The mistake Rosselli has made is believing in the will of the people, and the truthfulness of liberal democracy, as if an institution formed by the capitalist class shall merit the socialist cause. | |||
The proletariat MUST seize the state and utilise it to expropriate the bourgeoisie, and eradicate the law of the capitalist mode of production. This process will be violent, not because of the nature of the proletariat as a "violent class" or any desire to needlessly cut the throats of the upper classes, but because the capitalist class will resist any threat to its power. This is where we see that under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. | |||
==Reading List== | |||
== [[File: | ===Read=== | ||
*[[File:Marx.png]] The Communist Manifesto | |||
*[[File: | *[[File:Marx.png]] Value Price and Profit | ||
*[[File: | *[[File:Marx.png]] Wage Labour and Capital | ||
*[[File:Marx.png]] Critique of the Gotha Programme | |||
*[[File:Marx.png]] The German Ideology | |||
*[[File:Acidcomf.png]] Capitalist Realism | |||
*[[File:Stirner.png]] The Unique and its Property | *[[File:Stirner.png]] The Unique and its Property | ||
*[[File: | *[[File:Accel.png]] The Wandering of Humanity | ||
*[[File: | *[[File:Bataille.png]] The Accursed Share (Requires re-reading) | ||
*[[File:LeftCom.png]] Marxism and Gramscism | |||
*[[File:LeftCom.png]] Introduction to the Politics of the Internationalist Communist Tendency | |||
*[[File: | *[[File:LeftCom.png]] The Fundamentals for a Marxist Orientation | ||
* | *[[File:LeftCom.png]] The Balkan War | ||
*[[File: | *[[File:Orthlen.png]] The State and Revolution | ||
* | *[[File:ML.png]] Foundations of Leninism | ||
*[[File: | *[[File:LeftCom.png]] Reflections on Mark Fisher's Essay on "Capitalist Realism" | ||
* | |||
=== [[File: | ===Reading=== | ||
*[[File:Lenin.png]] '''The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky''' | |||
**'''Currently Reading: ''' The Constituent Assembly And The Soviet Republic | |||
=== | ===To be Read=== | ||
*[[File:Nietzsche.png]] On the Genealogy of Morality | *[[File:Nietzsche.png]] On the Genealogy of Morality | ||
*[[File: | *[[File:Marx.png]] A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy | ||
*[[File: | *[[File:ML.png]] Economic Problems of the USSR | ||
*[[File:Bordiga alt.png]] Dialogue with Stalin | |||
*[[File:Gentile.png]] The Theory of Mind as Pure Act (boring ahh book) | |||
Revision as of 05:22, 22 November 2024
A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism.
Karl Marx
A General Critique of Marxist-Leninist States (WIP)
The Marxist-Leninist implementation of the communist project is the most venerated communist movement among the various communist parties among the world. Despite the praise given to such a movement, this movement is not the real movement for the liberation of the proletariat, which Marx and Engels spoke of in their original texts, and we can see this through the "socialist commodity production" present within the USSR under the tenure of Joseph Stalin, the theoriser of Marxist-Leninist ideology. We can characterise socialism as the end of the commodity form, as well as the wage-labour system, which under the capitalist mode of production, has become our answer to the basic economic problem of scarcity. It is incorrect to suppose that socialism is merely a stage in which private ownership of the means of production is ended; this is not the fulfillment of the socialist project, otherwise, we would conclude that state capitalism is a form of socialism, which is clearly a false statement. The commodity is defined as having a two-fold value, a use-value, and an exchange-value, with the law of value determining that the value of a commodity is determined by its socially necessary labor time (the amount of time "required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity") Despite the nationalisation of industry within the USSR, the economy there still maintained capitalist properties, there was no transcendence of the laws of capitalist economy. Even if we were to suggest the means of production were put in the hands of the labourer, this is of course not the achievement of the socialist project, because without the transcendence of the commodity (which would itself eliminate private ownership of the means of production through the socialisation/decommodification of the MoP), we cannot say socialism exists. Under the USSR, workers were merely wage labourers under state capitalism.
But we need to prove this of course, this is multiple useless statements otherwise.
First, we look at Marx's critique of political economy.
Commodities come into the world in the shape of use values, articles, or goods, such as iron, linen, corn, &c. This is their plain, homely, bodily form. They are, however, commodities, only because they are something two-fold, both objects of utility, and, at the same time, depositories of value. They manifest themselves therefore as commodities, or have the form of commodities, only in so far as they have two forms, a physical or natural form, and a value form.
It is a basic of Marxist ideas that commodities, produced for the specific purpose of being exchanged, have both a use-value and an exchange-value, and the process of commodity production leads to alienation, where labour and its products become detached from the labourers due to the commodified means of production. In the USSR, despite the nationalisation of industries by the state, commodities still followed the law of value, which is not characteristic of a socialist society, as said by Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Programme,
Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor.
It is admitted by Joseph Stalin that the law of value operated within the USSR,
In our country, the sphere of operation of the law of value extends, first of all, to commodity circulation, to the ex-change of commodities through purchase and sale, the ex-change, chiefly, of articles of personal consumption. Here, in this sphere, the law of value preserves, within certain limits, of course, the function of a regulator.
Joseph Stalin, Economic Problems of the USSR
Therefore, despite claims of socialism, the USSR retained laws of capitalist economy within its structure, which can be seen as contradictory to Marx's view of socialism. It should not be controversial to suggest that if commodities were produced and those commodities were still subject to the law of value present within capitalist modes of production, the system failed to transcend capitalist law and therefore failed to achieve socialism, as the economy continued to operate within a framework that Marx opposed in his critique of political economy. Therefore, we can see the USSR as a state capitalist state.
A Critique of Market Socialism
Market socialism has become quite the disappointment, largely because its premise is one made to be as such in the first place. Market socialists subscribe to heterodox thought that markets can exist within a socialist mode of production, which is a completely flawed form of non-orthodoxy, rather than a revolutionary one seen by particularly beautiful revolutionary theorists across the decades. We can see that within the market socialist economy, the means of production are put in the hands of the producers, but this is of course, as noted with any critique of marxist-leninists to ever exist in the history of mankind, the achievement of socialism, it is merely a step, or even a step within a step. The true essence of socialism comes with the transcendence of the commodity form and the end of the system of wage-labour, and is reaffirmed with the end of capitalist law e.g. the law of value. To suggest that market socialism (which can be summarised no less or more than the social democracy with a fantastical love for cooperatives) is a socialist mode of production is an incorrect idea.
The Nation as a Machine
The "Socialist" Facade of Syndicalism
On "Liberal Socialism" by Carlo Rosselli
First, I'm gonna say I sorta skipped through the preface of this book, explaining Rosselli's life, I don't care for what he did, who he killed, how he lived, why he lived, or what/whom he put his dick in, so all of that is useless, I cared for what he stood for, so I moved onto the first chapter instead of reading that. Kill me or something I don't know. Anyways, humorous segment aside.
Rossselli offers an alternative to Marxian socialism, based upon the principle of liberal democracy. However, liberal democracy, so to speak, is not a viable state for the achievement of socialism. It is only under the dictatorship of the proletariat that we can make progress towards socialism. Liberal democracy shall always benefit the bourgeoisie class and relying upon it as a foundation of a socialist state is insufficiently radical, and exposes Rosselli's weak socialist idea. Further exposing Rosseli's weak socialism is his definition of it, that being:
Socialism is nothing more than the logical development, taken to its extreme consequences, of the principle of liberty.
Despite having a clear hatred for Stalin in his liberal nature (you can choose whether the liberal I'm referring to is Rosselli or Stalin here), he copies from his tactics with defining socialism as something it is not. To describe socialism as a logical development taken to its extreme consequences of a principle is fundamentally flawed, as reducing socialism to a vision based upon "principle", rather than acknowledging it as a mode of production with a revolutionary shift in material conditions is overlooking basic theories of socialism. There are systemic changes required to destroy capitalism. Capitalism can pose itself as freedom, it still retains capitalist nonetheless. Socialism is most notably the transcendence of the commodity-form and the end of the system of wage-labour, reaffirmed by the end of capitalist law (such as the law of value), rather than any idealistic principles.
In our first critique of the murderer of socialism Rosselli, we shall look at his counterrevolutionary democratic approach. Liberal democracy, in its most freedom-appearing methods, will, from the materialist stance, always operate as a product of capitalist social relations. The state remains always an instrument of enforcing the will of the ruling class, and all of its institutions follow. The proletarian hegemony over the state and therefore over its social structures - the dictatorship of the proletariat - is necessary for the achievement of socialism, for without the capturing of the state apparatus and the forced destruction through any means necessary of all that is counterrevolutionary. It is today, yesterday, and tomorrow socialism which requires the outright destruction of bourgeoisie structures. It is yesterday, tomorrow, and today the liberal socialist doctrine which refuses to recognise this, despite the continuous proof throughout the past class struggles.
Next we shall speak of the dictatorship of the proletariat as necessary for the achievement of socialism. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a matter of "political preference" for socialists but a requirement. The bourgeoisie state, regardless of its liberal democratic additions, remains an instrument of class rule, this obviously being the rule of the bourgeoisie. We therefore take the stance that no democratic process, no matter what voting method it may use, can lead to the dismantling of capitalist relations because these capitalist relations are simply the foundation upon which liberal democracy is built upon. To put it into attractive metaphors as liberals love to, you cannot destroy the bottom of the tower (the base economic mode of production, capitalism) and keep the middle (the liberal democratic system) floating in the sky. Liberal socialists may argue that liberal democracy has allowed for the expansion of labour rights, as if this is an advance towards socialism. However, these reforms are always within the framework of capitalist relations (trade unions or welfare for example do not threaten wage labour, nor capitalist law) and therefore do not threaten the dominance of capital. Without the increase in the stress put upon the dominance of capital, we cannot suggest there has been any push towards a socialist mode of production by the liberal democratic procedure.
The true power of the state lies not in the choices of the electorate in liberal democracy, not in this "will of the people", but in the economic mode of production within the society. The mistake Rosselli has made is believing in the will of the people, and the truthfulness of liberal democracy, as if an institution formed by the capitalist class shall merit the socialist cause.
The proletariat MUST seize the state and utilise it to expropriate the bourgeoisie, and eradicate the law of the capitalist mode of production. This process will be violent, not because of the nature of the proletariat as a "violent class" or any desire to needlessly cut the throats of the upper classes, but because the capitalist class will resist any threat to its power. This is where we see that under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.
Reading List
Read
- The Communist Manifesto
- Value Price and Profit
- Wage Labour and Capital
- Critique of the Gotha Programme
- The German Ideology
Capitalist Realism
The Unique and its Property
The Wandering of Humanity
The Accursed Share (Requires re-reading)
Marxism and Gramscism- Introduction to the Politics of the Internationalist Communist Tendency
- The Fundamentals for a Marxist Orientation
- The Balkan War
The State and Revolution
Foundations of Leninism- Reflections on Mark Fisher's Essay on "Capitalist Realism"
Reading
The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky
- Currently Reading: The Constituent Assembly And The Soviet Republic
To be Read
On the Genealogy of Morality- A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
- Economic Problems of the USSR
Dialogue with Stalin
The Theory of Mind as Pure Act (boring ahh book)
