This year’s New Year edition of Der Spiegel features an interesting piece titled, “Was Marx right after all?” Full of astute observations about the state of capitalism, it’s a piece symptomatic of the anxiety of the ruling class.
Article is from a Trots magazine. No surprise why they sound optimistic about revolution in the west, and why they don’t talk about shifting power dynamics on the world stage. On the contrary I am convinced that Marxism-Leninism is showing us that socialism is everywhere but in the imperial core.
I completely agree. The only thing Marx was wrong about was the idea that a socialist revolution would be lead by the workers from industrialized countries with the most to gain. Instead, we have seen that it is in fact championed by those with the least to lose.
Granted, Marx was unable to take into account mass brainwashing via instantaneous and continuous propaganda via the internet and media, directed by an omnipotent state apparatus in the West that would make an 18th century monarchy look like “Authoritarianism easy mode”.
“Degrowth” and “Keynesianism” are the tip offs for the western chauvinism.
I hate it when radlibs call developmentalist models in the global south “Keynesian,” either when they’re attempting to be sympathetic (Naomi Klein) or when they’re denying global south autonomy with psuedo-marxist language (as in this article).
Why do you say degrowth relates to western chauvinism? From my understanding it is meant to point out the disproportionate rate of consumption in western countries and call for reducing consumption to less extreme levels. Correct me if I am wrong.
Not sure if this is what Bluebodhisattva meant, but one problem with degrowth arguments is their universality. This means the global south is expected to stay at current levels of development just because the global north ruined the environment by its development.
It can also be tied to Green New Deal type movements, which may accept the premise that the north is going to have to do just a little bit more imperialism against the global south to get the resources to shift to renewables. For ‘everyone’s’ benefit.
Degrowth seems to be an improvement, but it’s liable to be co-opted or promoted by people who imply that its okay for capitalism to continue or who are happy for themselves to achieve socialism while the rest of the world waits their turn. Not far from other democratic socialist positions. That’s what we have to watch out for.
exactly, it’s imperialism’s new excuse. “We’re civilizing them!”, “We’re teaching them democracy!” now “We’re saving the planet” and in the end they will not save the planet and kill a ton of people on top.
I’ve been trying to think of a helpful answer all day. Yours is more helpful than anything I came up with.
What would you say is the core aspect, common to Keynesianism whatever the context? Maybe ‘keeping the money flowing even if it means a policy of tax and spend’?
I’ve recently had to read through some Hayek, a staunch critic of progressive taxes. Thatcher based her policies on Hayek, it’s said. In one respect, Hayek was the negation of Keynes. But most if not all the imperial core states will tax and spend to get out of crises and to funnel public money into private hands through ‘austerity’ periods.
This suggests to me that Keynes, as others here have suggested, simply presented one way or saving capitalism from one type of crisis (one where the workers say, ‘Oi, mate, give us some welfare or we’ll do a Bolshevik’). In addition to the fact that Keynesian welfare states only work if said state is exploiting other states. So it can provide libraries and healthcare, but the users have got to close their ears and eyes to the suffering of the global south.
You are right. At the core Keynesianism is about spending to induce demand. This is the macroeconomic aspect but by context I meant there are specialised applications of the theory in areas like monetary and fiscal policies and employment.
I guess “capitalist”. A lot of radlibs tend to be pretty much libertarian-leaning and they hate Keynes for his theory of saving capitalism with regulations.
Yeah. Fun fact: After WW1 Lenin just casually dismissed Keynes theory as nonsense since he didn’t thought it warrant much attention. Little he did suspected that liberal brainwashing will get so far that century later it would be considered dangerously radical idea XD
Well a lot of global north country’s citizens are becoming poorer and more desperate by the day, if the situation continues I think we’ll see some revolutionary situation sprout in the poorest 1st world countries (namely Greece, Italy and the ex yugoslav block) unfortunately, as a member of this group, there are not real based parties, at least here in Italy, the biggest leninist party alienated itself by the masses when they took an anti-vax stance and allied themselves with “anti-system” right wing forces, but I keep my revolutionary optimism, here in Italy, at the end of the civil war the slim majority of the people were for socialism.
I think if we can exploit this revolutionary situation we can - in the worst scenario - prove that communism is not dead in the first world.
Thank you for bringing a brighter perspective! Greece and ex-Yugoslav block have been used as a periphery of the imperial core so there are good chance they will side with the exploited world.
All I hear about Italy is that you guys have like 5 different far-right parties and nothing else lol, I hope it’s exaggerated at least
France is at the beginning a general strike, that’s neat, but what upsets me is that people appear unable to realise that the government don’t give a fuck. The people have been banging their heads against a wall for like… 15 years now? Always “demanding x thing” while “let’s seize control” is some forbidden language that shall not be spoke if you don’t want to wake up the ghost Stalin and his big spoon
And thanks to you for having revolutionary optimism! (not a common thing after the 90s)
unfortunately yes our current political situation is worse than shit, we have a new goverment every year, our parties are:
far right party: directly linked to the MSI, founded by ex fascist hierarchs (meloni comes from this party)(FdI)-
rightist seccesionist party that stole 49 millions euros just a decade ago, by buying diamonds in Tanzania with public money. (Lega Nord)-
rightist neoliberal party, founded by a billionare(FI)-
the opposition is basically as bad as them-
party that used to be succdem, now its basically the US democrat party, centre-right people that pose as succdems (PD)-
“anti-establishment” party that was founded by a guy that killed 3 people just to have diplomatic immunity, now its one of the biggest party, they also participated in a child traffiking scheme (allegedly) (M5S)-
Irrelevant leftist party (SI)-
Irrelevant leftist party (UP) -
Irrelevant leftist party (Rifondazione)-
Irrelevant leftist party (PC, the one i spoke of in the old comment)-
Ahah, reliable af
Reminds me of our biggest trots org, they have some relevance but they are absurdly fractional like, literally splitting in new internal factions over the slightest disagreement
It’s late maybe I missed some grammar stuff, I meant that he founded that party because he killed those people, he found the party to get immunity (works in a strange way, basically the parliament needs to vote and the majority needs to ei in order to get you to court, thing that they never do)
All I hear about Italy is that you guys have like 5 different far-right parties and nothing else lol
It’s true in Poland lol. We currently have 22 parties in sejm of which 5 are more or less stable and notable, rest are basically attaching to them or completely irrelevant:
Konfederacja - libertarian-monarchist-fascist don’t ask me how that work, probably it works by getting offices for its top members
PiS - pre-war like protofascism. “Proto” only because Poland is so pacified that they didn’t had to murder people on streets yet (there was some political murders though).
PO - run of the mill neoliberal warmongering conslibs
PSL - (not to be confused with US PSL) - kulak party, peak opportunists only in for offices, which there are even jokes about and they also admitted it themselves.
Lewica - blairites, their practice when in government is completely indistinguishable from PO
All of them are neoliberals and bootlick NATO of course. Konfederacja as only one don’t bootlick EU, although how much is that real and how is posturing is unclear.
> Be PZPR
> Come into power with Soviet aid
> Don’t teach the proletariat about Marxism
> The masses get swindled by the We$t and a certain plumber to overthrow socialism
Exactly, although he wasn’t plumber but electrician. Pretty crappy one though. Honestly he’s the absolute peak lumpenproletarian.
And the crap started in 1956 after Bierut died, very conveniently in Moscow soon after the infamous Khrushchev speech, and Gomułka (who was up to that time under house arrest for nationalist-rightwing deviation) supported by Khrushchev purged the party and the blind eye politics from Bierut time (approved by Stalin) changed from temporary necessity to desired outcome.
Oh you’d be surprised, they legit have a martyrdom obsession. During the yellow vests, hundreds of people were maimed, but they still refused to build a unitary structure. They fought harder than they could to accomplish near to nothing
Because of ideology. In the west, decentralisation is a huge dogma. I think France has a particular sweet spot for bourgeois revolutionary idealism because of the emphasis on the 1789 Revolution in its culture/politics.
For the yellow vest in particular, this proto-anarchist approach to organising was THE point of convergence. It was a moral imperative to them and they stuck to it until no one was willing to mobilize.
So my take on the west is that, given that ideology is an integral part of the material conditions, especially in consumerist mass media societies, the standard of living can go down by insane magnitude before the superstructure starts crumbling slowly (especially since bourgeois revolutionary idealism is currently the baseline of the left)
the standard of living can go down by insane magnitude before the superstructure starts crumbling slowly
This I agree with. Plenty of people were gleefully proclaiming that “Europe will soon come back begging for gas” or that the NATO/EU will break over the economic crisis. Nah, it’ll take quite a lot for that.
Article is from a Trots magazine. No surprise why they sound optimistic about revolution in the west, and why they don’t talk about shifting power dynamics on the world stage. On the contrary I am convinced that Marxism-Leninism is showing us that socialism is everywhere but in the imperial core.
I’d love to be proven wrong though!
I completely agree. The only thing Marx was wrong about was the idea that a socialist revolution would be lead by the workers from industrialized countries with the most to gain. Instead, we have seen that it is in fact championed by those with the least to lose.
Granted, Marx was unable to take into account mass brainwashing via instantaneous and continuous propaganda via the internet and media, directed by an omnipotent state apparatus in the West that would make an 18th century monarchy look like “Authoritarianism easy mode”.
“Degrowth” and “Keynesianism” are the tip offs for the western chauvinism.
I hate it when radlibs call developmentalist models in the global south “Keynesian,” either when they’re attempting to be sympathetic (Naomi Klein) or when they’re denying global south autonomy with psuedo-marxist language (as in this article).
Why do you say degrowth relates to western chauvinism? From my understanding it is meant to point out the disproportionate rate of consumption in western countries and call for reducing consumption to less extreme levels. Correct me if I am wrong.
That is part of it.
Not sure if this is what Bluebodhisattva meant, but one problem with degrowth arguments is their universality. This means the global south is expected to stay at current levels of development just because the global north ruined the environment by its development.
It can also be tied to Green New Deal type movements, which may accept the premise that the north is going to have to do just a little bit more imperialism against the global south to get the resources to shift to renewables. For ‘everyone’s’ benefit.
Degrowth seems to be an improvement, but it’s liable to be co-opted or promoted by people who imply that its okay for capitalism to continue or who are happy for themselves to achieve socialism while the rest of the world waits their turn. Not far from other democratic socialist positions. That’s what we have to watch out for.
Edit: typo.
exactly, it’s imperialism’s new excuse. “We’re civilizing them!”, “We’re teaching them democracy!” now “We’re saving the planet” and in the end they will not save the planet and kill a ton of people on top.
What does “Keynesian" even mean?
Keynesian relates to the work of John Keynes, a British economist. What it means exactly depends on the context.
I’ve been trying to think of a helpful answer all day. Yours is more helpful than anything I came up with.
What would you say is the core aspect, common to Keynesianism whatever the context? Maybe ‘keeping the money flowing even if it means a policy of tax and spend’?
I’ve recently had to read through some Hayek, a staunch critic of progressive taxes. Thatcher based her policies on Hayek, it’s said. In one respect, Hayek was the negation of Keynes. But most if not all the imperial core states will tax and spend to get out of crises and to funnel public money into private hands through ‘austerity’ periods.
This suggests to me that Keynes, as others here have suggested, simply presented one way or saving capitalism from one type of crisis (one where the workers say, ‘Oi, mate, give us some welfare or we’ll do a Bolshevik’). In addition to the fact that Keynesian welfare states only work if said state is exploiting other states. So it can provide libraries and healthcare, but the users have got to close their ears and eyes to the suffering of the global south.
You are right. At the core Keynesianism is about spending to induce demand. This is the macroeconomic aspect but by context I meant there are specialised applications of the theory in areas like monetary and fiscal policies and employment.
I guess “capitalist”. A lot of radlibs tend to be pretty much libertarian-leaning and they hate Keynes for his theory of saving capitalism with regulations.
Ah, so the good ol’ “regulated capitalism will stave off the known issues inherent in the system”?
Yeah. Fun fact: After WW1 Lenin just casually dismissed Keynes theory as nonsense since he didn’t thought it warrant much attention. Little he did suspected that liberal brainwashing will get so far that century later it would be considered dangerously radical idea XD
Well a lot of global north country’s citizens are becoming poorer and more desperate by the day, if the situation continues I think we’ll see some revolutionary situation sprout in the poorest 1st world countries (namely Greece, Italy and the ex yugoslav block) unfortunately, as a member of this group, there are not real based parties, at least here in Italy, the biggest leninist party alienated itself by the masses when they took an anti-vax stance and allied themselves with “anti-system” right wing forces, but I keep my revolutionary optimism, here in Italy, at the end of the civil war the slim majority of the people were for socialism. I think if we can exploit this revolutionary situation we can - in the worst scenario - prove that communism is not dead in the first world.
Thank you for bringing a brighter perspective! Greece and ex-Yugoslav block have been used as a periphery of the imperial core so there are good chance they will side with the exploited world.
All I hear about Italy is that you guys have like 5 different far-right parties and nothing else lol, I hope it’s exaggerated at least
France is at the beginning a general strike, that’s neat, but what upsets me is that people appear unable to realise that the government don’t give a fuck. The people have been banging their heads against a wall for like… 15 years now? Always “demanding x thing” while “let’s seize control” is some forbidden language that shall not be spoke if you don’t want to wake up the ghost Stalin and his big spoon
And thanks to you for having revolutionary optimism! (not a common thing after the 90s) unfortunately yes our current political situation is worse than shit, we have a new goverment every year, our parties are:
far right party: directly linked to the MSI, founded by ex fascist hierarchs (meloni comes from this party)(FdI)-
rightist seccesionist party that stole 49 millions euros just a decade ago, by buying diamonds in Tanzania with public money. (Lega Nord)-
rightist neoliberal party, founded by a billionare(FI)-
the opposition is basically as bad as them-
party that used to be succdem, now its basically the US democrat party, centre-right people that pose as succdems (PD)-
“anti-establishment” party that was founded by a guy that killed 3 people just to have diplomatic immunity, now its one of the biggest party, they also participated in a child traffiking scheme (allegedly) (M5S)-
Irrelevant leftist party (SI)-
Irrelevant leftist party (UP) -
Irrelevant leftist party (Rifondazione)-
Irrelevant leftist party (PC, the one i spoke of in the old comment)-
tens of other irrelevant leftist parties-
Ahah, reliable af Reminds me of our biggest trots org, they have some relevance but they are absurdly fractional like, literally splitting in new internal factions over the slightest disagreement
Two communists enter a bar, three communist parties come out.
😂
How does killing a bunch of people grant someone diplomatic immunity?
It’s late maybe I missed some grammar stuff, I meant that he founded that party because he killed those people, he found the party to get immunity (works in a strange way, basically the parliament needs to vote and the majority needs to ei in order to get you to court, thing that they never do)
Oh. That makes a lot more sense, thanks.
It’s true in Poland lol. We currently have 22 parties in sejm of which 5 are more or less stable and notable, rest are basically attaching to them or completely irrelevant:
Konfederacja - libertarian-monarchist-fascist don’t ask me how that work, probably it works by getting offices for its top members
PiS - pre-war like protofascism. “Proto” only because Poland is so pacified that they didn’t had to murder people on streets yet (there was some political murders though).
PO - run of the mill neoliberal warmongering conslibs
PSL - (not to be confused with US PSL) - kulak party, peak opportunists only in for offices, which there are even jokes about and they also admitted it themselves.
Lewica - blairites, their practice when in government is completely indistinguishable from PO
All of them are neoliberals and bootlick NATO of course. Konfederacja as only one don’t bootlick EU, although how much is that real and how is posturing is unclear.
> Be PZPR
> Come into power with Soviet aid
> Don’t teach the proletariat about Marxism
> The masses get swindled by the We$t and a certain plumber to overthrow socialism
Exactly, although he wasn’t plumber but electrician. Pretty crappy one though. Honestly he’s the absolute peak lumpenproletarian.
And the crap started in 1956 after Bierut died, very conveniently in Moscow soon after the infamous Khrushchev speech, and Gomułka (who was up to that time under house arrest for nationalist-rightwing deviation) supported by Khrushchev purged the party and the blind eye politics from Bierut time (approved by Stalin) changed from temporary necessity to desired outcome.
I’d imagine getting stomped out by the full force of the capitalist repression machine is a bigger concern
Oh you’d be surprised, they legit have a martyrdom obsession. During the yellow vests, hundreds of people were maimed, but they still refused to build a unitary structure. They fought harder than they could to accomplish near to nothing
I am surprised, yeah. Why do they even bother with the protests?
Because of ideology. In the west, decentralisation is a huge dogma. I think France has a particular sweet spot for bourgeois revolutionary idealism because of the emphasis on the 1789 Revolution in its culture/politics.
For the yellow vest in particular, this proto-anarchist approach to organising was THE point of convergence. It was a moral imperative to them and they stuck to it until no one was willing to mobilize.
So my take on the west is that, given that ideology is an integral part of the material conditions, especially in consumerist mass media societies, the standard of living can go down by insane magnitude before the superstructure starts crumbling slowly (especially since bourgeois revolutionary idealism is currently the baseline of the left)
This I agree with. Plenty of people were gleefully proclaiming that “Europe will soon come back begging for gas” or that the NATO/EU will break over the economic crisis. Nah, it’ll take quite a lot for that.