I am relatively new here, so please excuse my newbiness, I mean no harm or disrespect. Nor have I researched enough on how the original community was expelled by the CEO of reddit.com inc.
If I can identify with something concretely and not negotiably, is a firm believer of dialectical materialism, so I am not posting questions as an outsider to dialectical materialists. I am only posting questions to dialectical materialists, so idealists don’t waste our time responding.
I do not wish to play devil’s advocate, I usually hate the attitude, but I can’t help to have questions that fit the profile. As a first step I’d like to state that the theory of Marx & Engels and the evolution of Marxism is not one and the same, for reasons that relate to the questions. So here we go.
In the time Marx lived and struggled and in specific when he wrote Capital, the world was smaller, in population, and also scientific knowledge of the world itself. Since then sciences such as anthropology and archaeology evolved rapidly being really young at the time. This and other scientific knowledge was not yet available, so Marx can’t be held accountable for things not yet known. He could also not be accountable for things that happened after his theory was established and based on his material reality.
Even during his life time his ideas and theory affected an amazing portion of working people around the earth, the way they organized and struggled, and the early effects of this influence as partially witnessed during his time. Labor struggle did continue to be influenced and carried on past his time. This struggle had effects on how capital dealt with labor, and also how the state/s tried to remain in power to best serve capital while not collapsing under labor pressure.
Not a static picture A and picture B kind of comparison, but a dynamic process that had its qualitative and quantitative differences in various parts of the world, I think we can safely say that the social democracy was a dialectic product of struggle and capital domination. Not only did the state evolve but also capital evolved in identifying the enemy and source of trouble, as well as the uncomfortable shape of the evolved state. So anti-communism was born through this dialectic process and resulted in the things we very well know now.
Although Marx may have developed the theory to be as scientific as possible, and it is the role of scientific theory to interpret material reality but also form predictions, we can’t expect Marx to have metaphysical abilities to see the future and the details of the dialectic he helped form, as this itself would have been a violation of his own philosophy. Marxists on the other hand did apply theory, sometimes in an idealistic way, to interpret dynamic political/economic processes of the decades that followed.
It is clear through class analysis that the logical proposal for the working class to overpower and defeat the ruling class would be to organize, better, more massively, and more effectively. The other class now being affected by this growing organization (syndicalism) isn’t it expected to defend itself by organizing better itself?
Can it be possible that the state didn’t provide adequate defense and be sufficient organization for the class due to its evolution in the late 19th and early parts of the 20th century in some parts of the world, primarily where capital was mainly based and centered? Would they seek better organization of the nation/state or would they seek further unity among its class globally and try to organize as to be able to control the nation/states?
Marxists seem to have resisted such consideration but I believe that if Marx himself was around he would entertain the possibility of such development.
If so, what is this federation of capital, how does it relate to its influence on different states, and what are the new roles of states within this new framework of capital defense against labor? It appears to be very effective both in accumulation of capital, labor defeat, and on its original goal of anti-communism. But can we revert and conclude it exists because of its effects?
If such possibility exists, how does it effect labor organization and goals overthrowing this federated capital rule?
Can’t give you a comprehensive answer atm, I’ll maybe edit my post later. So for now I’ll just say this: If you haven’t already imo you’d really benefit from reading Lenin. There’s a reason we don’t call ourselves just Marxists or orthodox Marxists, but MLs. Leninism is Marxism adapted and applied to the stage of imperialism. The role of the (bourgeois) state, the creation of internationalized finance capital and the national question are core tenets of Lenin’s contribution to Marxism and essential to understanding how capitalism operates in its current monopolized form.
Because yes, the oppressing class obviously did adapt and will continue to adapt to changing conditions and organized labour movements. This evolution in the late 19th and early 20th century lead to the emergence of social democracy and fascism as better and reactive organizational defences of the bourgeois state.
I think you’d also benefit a lot from analysis of geopolitical economy. Ben Norton does excellent work in this field. I think you might find the organization of finance and currency, specifically the dollar, the world bank and IMF interesting phenomena relating to your question about ‘federated capital’.
Are there any good audio books on the theory you would recommend?
you can have a look at the Socialism For All channel for well-narrated audiobooks (just ignore his other videos, he has some ultra-leftist takes)
I love the audio format, but I’ve never really listened to real, classical theory books as audiobook, so can’t recommend from experience. State and Revolution should be decent to listen to, maybe Principles of Communism too. In general works from the 20th century should be better suited for that, I personally wouldn’t take much away from an audio book of eg Value, Price and Profit. Afaik the classical works all have free audio-versions on Youtube, you’d just have to look for a voice you enjoy.
I post an article about linux and the left and within a few hours there are more messages than anyone can handle responding to. I post on theory, dialectical materialism, and I get 3 people writing a comment. Meanwhile the post on linux was political, it didn’t aim to provide technical debate, but people are more comfortable with the technical part than deal with the political.
Social media of 21st century dynamics even in an m-l community, is very disappointing to see.
Imagine if I pick up on the detail of the mention of IMF/WB/IBRD and argue that those institutions have nothing to do with the federation of global industrial capital, banks like HSBC, DB, Moody’s, … do, and whether true or false it derails the content of the discussion to a separate irrelevant subject.
Right in the middle of ww2 many previous known as powerful countries (economically) gathered under US pressure in Breton Woods and signed an agreement. The content of the agreement really was that private institutions such as the Fed.Reserve, and major banks can credit and debit each other without state intervention and necessary gold reserve transfers to cover deficits. Those participants agreed and signed, and after the war most others followed as not to be left out.
This was a passive move by “states” to allow private sector banking work under the radar of the state, a privilege or authority of the state silently passed to private hands. Why wouldn’t they react, it made states less important and autonomous. Progressively when it came time for states to borrow by publishing debt, this debt wasn’t negotiated by and between states, but by a privately controlled and regulated market. So the global market of debt is privately held and manipulated by those same banking/financing institutions.
The IMF/WB is just a setup/spokeperson to address the issues of all the weak nations that are literally sucked and digested over and over again by those private bankers. GB/UK debt was much higher and less sustainable than the debt of Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy (PIIGS) but the IMF wouldn’t ever go into the UK implementing measures to negotiate and refinance their debt. If US, Uk, De, Fr, Jp, debt was to be deemed unsustainable then this capitalism has collapsed.
Public property was rebranded state property, and as “property” stripped of human rights, can be traded in the market and end up in private hands. We are approaching a stage where states no longer have anything to base a mortgage to borrow more. So a state has become barely a manager of its citizens/residents. This is the only thing that remains for sale. So between state legitimacy and repression there is not much left of the “old state”, and there is little any electoral process can do to change this quality. So capitalism has created its own dead end for itself and the state, and the only ones who must deny this reality are working people themselves who strive for continuity.
A great war can reset many things for yet another cycle of another capitalism (the early one died in the 1930s this one is about to die now. Russia is stuck trying to play national capital and state of the pre-1930s era all by itself.
Those are some of the things I was hoping a scientific theory can explain to the lay man to realize there is something “we” need to do “now” with what we have in front of us.
To explain to a franchised store worker that the owner of the means of production is accumulating capital by exploiting their labor is something the system has been engineered not to reveal to the employee. People just don’t see it. They are not allowed to see it, it is part of the counter measured engineered into modern capitalism. That their state is in debt to finance a fake market of industrialized products and services is something they are locked out of. It has nothing to do with them, but they are ultimately paying for the state’s deficits and mortgage payments. The class enemy has vanished in a way. There is nobody to protest to that is able to address the problems.
We have to admit, those pre-war2 and post war designers of the new world order as a disguise of capitalism is ingenious, bordering evil. Anti-communism and anti-syndicalism are key components of the design.
The strenght of marxism lays down in the tools it provides. World has changed in fact, but not the effectivnes of those tools. Take “Dialectics of Nature” as an example. Clearly outdated from a scientific point of view, but it shows how well Engels applied DiaMat.
I encourage you to look at the “subject index” (Idk if the english version has something like that) in the collected works of Marx/Engels and Lenin. There you will probably find your answers
Comrade, I will say that I find it hard to follow your logic, both here and in the post in Linux for Leftists.
With respect, it’s hard to understand what’s is the main thesis and what is the support. The amount of counter argumenting when engaging with such lengthy text feels unviable in the media device I use, my mobile phone, point by point, as well though arguments deserve.
Maybe I’m to blame, but I’d suggest reviewing the structure of your arguments, to have a clear main thesis and possibly easier to follow links between the supporting aspects of your discourse, and maybe adding explicit preambles and definitions to help guiding readers through you line of thought.
I appreciate the struggle though. I struggle to make myself easy to understand and make more succinct points. Once I become conscious of it, I’m hoping to make my speech easier to follow along.
First, this is not my primary language, second I may have been under stress, tired, eyes that fail after a few hours on the screen, …
But anything specific you want me to elaborate on I would gladly do my best.
Also my background was more in the natural science rather than social or philosophy. On the other hand, politics is my priority in life, everything else just keeps me fed, dressed, and under a roof. I am always too worried about not having much to retire on and getting too old to continue do the things I do.
The post was really meant to place a few questions/concerns up for discussion to see what the interest for them may be, not really a thesis, or even having a specific goal to achieve by it.
There are all these people around us, working to death in borderline poverty conditions, and unless they work for a small business enough to know the single owner and how his family lives, they don’t see their employer as exploiting them, but barely able to survive to keep them employed. The larger the business the more they see it as struggling. They don’t see the government as able to press anything to improve their confitions and many are thankful the gov. goes out of its way to keep those “businesses alive”. Most, as it seems, even if once were in the left, are too worried some mindless socialists minded administration may force a situation where their employer would shut down and throw them on the street. Meanwhile the real rich are dancing with trillions now, and can’t be seen, touched, or even talked about (except some American fools who play around with being TV stars and hobby political figures - Gates, Bezos, Tesla dude, etc.).
So if what we have is not even considered as useful even by 1% of the most exploited around us, either the theoretical tool is bad, or reality has changed (at least in appearance) to make the tool useless to describe it. If it is the second, then we need to reorganize and redefine things the tool describes. Except for the people I know and meet in general strikes, memorial movement marches, and gatherings, the world proletarian doesn’t seem to be voluntarily adopted easily by any working pesron, especially the younger ones.
Look at the average stock market corporation, whether an industry, a bank, an energy company, even scan ahead and look at the best performers. They owe more than they are worth. They all borrow to the edge of disaster and keep floating as “barely making it” to their thousands of employees. But stock holders are making billions renting them office/manufacturing space, leasing equipment, lending consulting advise, hiding behind little outfits that can’t be seen. We may know what is going on, but it is hard to describe by simply explaining value theory.
And did I mention enough a government that is portrayed as powerless to modify anything under this frail balance of borderline bankrupt employers, while being burried in debt themselves and raising income and sales taxes to make it out of the “hole”.
Then someone pops up here and says “but Lenin explained all this 100 years ago”… no he didn’t because this matrix world didn’t exist back then.
I may have not explained my concern enough or adequately, or emphasized it enough, but for the same reasons I try to explain why can’t Marx and Engels be held responsible for not knowing what may have happen next, the same would apply to Lenin and others. The issue here is whether the development and the changing faces of the same monster (capitalism) have promoted a surface reality that traditional theoretical tools do not “readily” explain/interpret, definitely not for many people in the working class. So Marxism-Leninism is drifting more and more to be a tool in the hands of a special elite of intellectuals isolated from their societies.
To say Lenin has all the answers has two possible explanations and an assumption. The assumption is I am asking this because I have not read Lenin, I have not read Mao, I have not read Stalin, but does it matter?
The two leads from the response “read Lenin” follow this mode of thought. Lenin’s completion and improvement on the theory was final, and as a global scientific theory of how the world works, it can describe and predict anything that will happen in the future. Like a magic sphere resembling the universe. (dead end)
A Nothing really changed since the time Lenin wrote about 2.5kg of theory (I have lived with the entirety of Lenin’s writing published in the 50s which my father bought with his very first salary as a merchant mariner with one older cousin sentenced twice to death and in exile in Poland and one in prison for being a member of the party). In nothing really changed in 100 years would have Karl’s, Fred’s, Vlad’s, and Joseph’s hair would be standing up in the air with this one.
B The west developed an urge to conquer China and its labor force, the Chinese government said OK, I’ll rent you the labor force you want, I stay in charge, and opened up a faucet and drained industrial production from around the world in its backyard, together came capital and all the west is left is a market and its marketing. This creates a dynamic imbalance that we haven’t been able to fully grasp or see it unfold. Due to this working people in all continents can’t really see a way out of this, and I am not even sure if they want out. (and this is only a minor unforeseeable complication to things that “have” changed and couldn’t be anticipated by theorists a century ago.)
So we need more and new tools that help people understand. What we have is a manifesto that for 94% of the population of the earth leaves an impression “this doesn’t apply to me, it is useless”. Why read any further and understand any further if the entry level document is irrelevant to their material conditions?
Furthermore, taking over or even reforming the local/state/nation/government not only doesn’t improve conditions in the minds of working people but it would nearly guarantee an abrupt deterioration of conditions. Food and energy supplies are nearly everywhere controlled by neoliberal minded privately controlled markets. People know and understand this in the surface level. Whether you are in Bolivia or Slovenia the material conditions will deteriorate once a government gets in power opposing the rule of multinational banking and trade.
With all respect to Vladimir, he fails to describe today’s dilemmas, anxiety, insecurity, interdependence, globalized capital has enforced.
… fascism the final stage of capitalism … now that is some metaphysical brilliant outlook into the deep future, which may be today, or the day after.
Overthrowing, taking over, reforming the state (any state) today is the most secure way to social disaster, famine, violence, chaos. Meanwhile it will do nothing than changing social relationships from those based on exchange into collective relationships (communal - communism). I may not like this reality but this doesn’t change it. To change material conditions, to leave capitalism behind, there must be an other way which we need to identify and propose as “hope”.
