prikryl posted:

knowing that most communist parties have had three "wings" of left-center-right (such as Trotsky - Stalin - Bukharin or Lin Biao - Mao - Deng Xiaoping) that had endless debate over policy within the Monolithic party entity, the splits of which caused untold damage to both the countries in question and the greater communist movement, could we not:

"officialize" the three wings into a """"parliamentary"""" socialism that essentially allows the input of the citizenry into which "wing's" policies are enacted (Green Communist Party, Red Communist Party, Blue Communist Party or something), with the Limit being that no party could re-create capitalist processes unless agreed upon unanimously and with limits set i.e. NEP (also as judged by the Supreme Court equivalent with members from each wing), thus "democratizing" the process while maintaining socialism much in the same way that capitalism maintains itself via the illusion of "choice" of marginally different capitalist parties? in this way would you not also diffuse pressure against the Monolithic party's failures by voting in a new wing should the policies fail or not be to the liking of the populace without endangering the base line of socialism?

well, first, this is what trotsky eventually proposed - he wanted to legalize "soviet" parties that agreed to a socialist constitution.

part of the problem is that resistance almost always uses hegemonic language and communicate their real point through winks and nods. like you need to police the border between rightist-socialism and capitalist restoration, but that's not always obvious when you already concede that rightist-socialism is a legitimate position. a related issue is that rightists have enormous resources in the form of the norms of commodity production and consumption, associated wage differentials and privileges and so on.

another issue is that "left" factions are often rightist in practice. trotskyists are a good example of this. for example, most trotskyist groups call for a move towards planning, but they don't believe the average person wants to jump towards a fully planned economy, and that it could cause too much disruption and chaos. this is also why they criticize forced collectivization of agriculture. so if you look at their actual plans they call for most large businesses (or banks and resources, etc.) to be 'socialized under worker's control', but they want to leave small and medium sized businesses under private control. but this isn't actually planning, it's just state capitalism, it's just basically the government running big businesses. and when trotskyists see this happening they usually oppose it anyways for various reasons. this is really, then, a rightist position compared to someone calling for a planned economy.

this is part of why i was saying that marxism is a sort of "literacy test" - because if you think socialist revolution is desirable, there's a lot that follows sort of logically from this and has been tested in history. if you want to maintain a socialist government then you need most people with active political power agreeing on the idea that a planned economy has certain characteristics and so on. but the problem is that people don't agree on that at all, and there are lots of reasons to look away (material incentives, for example).

an issue though is that there are unintended consequences of consolidating so much power in the truth-procedure of a small minority of communists. you get careerists, you make serious errors, you get corruption more generally, you start confusing differences of opinion with pernicious dissent, etc.

i think these are some of the issues involved but i don't think there is any like total way of fixing all the problems. all we can do is take the concrete situations we're in and do what we think is reasonable.

getfiscal posted:

resistance almost always uses hegemonic language and communicate their real point through winks and nods.

yeah i think this is a huge problem, well put

getfiscal posted:

you can't treat the average person as a dangerous element just waiting to stupidly restore capitalism or something. which is also why i think the world sort of makes some sense, it's not dumb that many people tend to support institutions that give them some semblance of control over their lives in some key areas and avoid risks to that.

and there we are. capitalism has the majority convinced as to what those key areas are and that it is the only system that can provide that control (even though it does not). any resistance finds itself trying to fight an ideological battle on those grounds. and thus are both occupy and ron paulites born

Petrol posted:

and there we are. capitalism has the majority convinced as to what those key areas are and that it is the only system that can provide that control (even though it does not). any resistance finds itself trying to fight an ideological battle on those grounds. and thus are both occupy and ron paulites born

Occupy wasn't strictly reformist though? I can't see how someone in favour of revolution would have a problem with Occupy, unless they were perhaps saving themselves for an officially licensed marxist-leninist movement.

What are the bets that any left movement in the foreseeable future would be strongly influenced by (or an offshoot of) Occupy? pretty high I would think.

drwhat posted:

Petrol posted:
and there we are. capitalism has the majority convinced as to what those key areas are and that it is the only system that can provide that control


i think this is a little reductive as well. as getfiscal is saying, you have to consider what people's responses are to questions like "could socialism ever theoretically work here?" and "would you like your life, your society, your family and everything dear to you thrown into a violent chaotic upheaval in the name of that belief?" everyone puts huge amounts of effort into carving out some semblance of stability for themselves. "the people" are actually people, individuals, each of them with lovers and friends and families, and asking them each to violently threaten everything they know in the name of some "maybe" is the heart of all of this. everyone involved in any kind of revolutionary action individually has to come to the conclusion that there's no alternative, that allowing the status quo to continue is so vile, so directly threatening, so thoroughly unjust that it can't be tolerated one more day.

i don't think the problem really at its core is that people don't accept or understand the idea of the possibility of an alternative system. maybe not in the US, but in at least canada and the uk in my opinion, and i believe in a number of other western countries, there's a not-insignificant section of the population that understands there is a system, and it is deeply flawed, but taking up arms (even in AmericanNazbro's broad, more "socially acceptable" definition of violence) against the form and structure of your life itself is just not an option without some massive catalyst. a traumatic break in a sense, whether it's through external events (not having food, e.g.) or some personal, internal mental change.

while the status quo remains as it is, we instead choose sucking it up and going into work one more day, and maybe buying something to make our lives a little more tolerable, maybe a dinner with someone you love, a few beers, some drugs, a shitty movie, whatever: the drudgery of life as it is, instead of realistically entertaining the thought that the system could ever be changed.

its fair enough to say that ideological discourse exists as a practical reality as well as a social analysis but their really doesn't have to be a dramatic break cos social analysis is in itself a practical reality just as much as it can be individuated

drwhat posted:

Petrol posted:

and there we are. capitalism has the majority convinced as to what those key areas are and that it is the only system that can provide that control



i think this is a little reductive as well. as getfiscal is saying, you have to consider what people's responses are to questions like "could socialism ever theoretically work here?" and "would you like your life, your society, your family and everything dear to you thrown into a violent chaotic upheaval in the name of that belief?" everyone puts huge amounts of effort into carving out some semblance of stability for themselves. "the people" are actually people, individuals, each of them with lovers and friends and families, and asking them each to violently threaten everything they know in the name of some "maybe" is the heart of all of this. everyone involved in any kind of revolutionary action individually has to come to the conclusion that there's no alternative, that allowing the status quo to continue is so vile, so directly threatening, so thoroughly unjust that it can't be tolerated one more day.

This is why the young are so drawn to transformative ideologies. It's all very well to speak of "the people" or "changing history" or whatever. But a lot of you are missing one very fundamental fact: Human beings are animals, the closest thing they have to a "point" is the biological urge to reproduce and ensure their offspring get to reproductive age themselves.

of COURSE a large percentage of people are going to become "reactionary" as they age and have children. The idea that plans for some weird metaphysical unity of 7 billion people is worth jeopardizing the future of their genetic line for is pretty silly really.

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

drwhat posted:

Petrol posted:

and there we are. capitalism has the majority convinced as to what those key areas are and that it is the only system that can provide that control



i think this is a little reductive as well. as getfiscal is saying, you have to consider what people's responses are to questions like "could socialism ever theoretically work here?" and "would you like your life, your society, your family and everything dear to you thrown into a violent chaotic upheaval in the name of that belief?" everyone puts huge amounts of effort into carving out some semblance of stability for themselves. "the people" are actually people, individuals, each of them with lovers and friends and families, and asking them each to violently threaten everything they know in the name of some "maybe" is the heart of all of this. everyone involved in any kind of revolutionary action individually has to come to the conclusion that there's no alternative, that allowing the status quo to continue is so vile, so directly threatening, so thoroughly unjust that it can't be tolerated one more day.

This is why the young are so drawn to transformative ideologies. It's all very well to speak of "the people" or "changing history" or whatever. But a lot of you are missing one very fundamental fact: Human beings are animals, the closest thing they have to a "point" is the biological urge to reproduce and ensure their offspring get to reproductive age themselves.

of COURSE a large percentage of people are going to become "reactionary" as they age and have children. The idea that plans for some weird metaphysical unity of 7 billion people is worth jeopardizing the future of their genetic line for is pretty silly really.

swampman posted:

You can convince people to like Marxism but you can also convince them to like homeopathy and breakfast cereal.

I really don't want to sound rude here, i like you Swampy, but this is a classic example of Marxian elitism; As if to the average citizen of the west, breakfast is somehow comically less important than Marxism.

A solid, regular breakfast will contribute something from a quarter to a third of a persons total energy over the course of a life that can span up to a century, not to mention determining on a daily scale how they work, play or study during each day.

Given the fragmentally small part that Marxism plays in our political system and debate even over the past few years (the most obvious period of capitalist buffoonery for quite some time), breakfast cereal is more relevant to the average person than Marxism by such a monumental degree that even a simple offhand statement like yours is enough to signal to The People (or "the mob" as you call them) that you do not share their interests or experiences, and should thus be treated with suspicion if not outright contempt.

until the Left learns this it will never, ever stop sabotaging itself

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

swampman posted:

You can convince people to like Marxism but you can also convince them to like homeopathy and breakfast cereal.

I really don't want to sound rude here, i like you Swampy, but this is a classic example of Marxian elitism; As if to the average citizen of the west, breakfast is somehow comically less important than Marxism.

A solid, regular breakfast will contribute something from a quarter to a third of a persons total energy over the course of a life that can span up to a century, not to mention determining on a daily scale how they work, play or study during each day.

Given the fragmentally small part that Marxism plays in our political system and debate even over the past few years (the most obvious period of capitalist buffoonery for quite some time), breakfast cereal is more relevant to the average person than Marxism by such a monumental degree that even a simple offhand statement like yours is enough to signal to The People (or "the mob" as you call them) that you do not share their interests or experiences, and should thus be treated with suspicion if not outright contempt.

until the Left learns this it will never, ever stop sabotaging itself

prikryl posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

swampman posted:

You can convince people to like Marxism but you can also convince them to like homeopathy and breakfast cereal.

I really don't want to sound rude here, i like you Swampy, but this is a classic example of Marxian elitism; As if to the average citizen of the west, breakfast is somehow comically less important than Marxism.

A solid, regular breakfast will contribute something from a quarter to a third of a persons total energy over the course of a life that can span up to a century, not to mention determining on a daily scale how they work, play or study during each day.

Given the fragmentally small part that Marxism plays in our political system and debate even over the past few years (the most obvious period of capitalist buffoonery for quite some time), breakfast cereal is more relevant to the average person than Marxism by such a monumental degree that even a simple offhand statement like yours is enough to signal to The People (or "the mob" as you call them) that you do not share their interests or experiences, and should thus be treated with suspicion if not outright contempt.

until the Left learns this it will never, ever stop sabotaging itself

ahh yes, addressing concern over your ideas with condescension and dismissal, surely that will help us overcome our reputation of being out of touch and help us build a mass support group.

gyrofry posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

drwhat posted:

Petrol posted:

and there we are. capitalism has the majority convinced as to what those key areas are and that it is the only system that can provide that control



i think this is a little reductive as well. as getfiscal is saying, you have to consider what people's responses are to questions like "could socialism ever theoretically work here?" and "would you like your life, your society, your family and everything dear to you thrown into a violent chaotic upheaval in the name of that belief?" everyone puts huge amounts of effort into carving out some semblance of stability for themselves. "the people" are actually people, individuals, each of them with lovers and friends and families, and asking them each to violently threaten everything they know in the name of some "maybe" is the heart of all of this. everyone involved in any kind of revolutionary action individually has to come to the conclusion that there's no alternative, that allowing the status quo to continue is so vile, so directly threatening, so thoroughly unjust that it can't be tolerated one more day.

This is why the young are so drawn to transformative ideologies. It's all very well to speak of "the people" or "changing history" or whatever. But a lot of you are missing one very fundamental fact: Human beings are animals, the closest thing they have to a "point" is the biological urge to reproduce and ensure their offspring get to reproductive age themselves.

of COURSE a large percentage of people are going to become "reactionary" as they age and have children. The idea that plans for some weird metaphysical unity of 7 billion people is worth jeopardizing the future of their genetic line for is pretty silly really.

dude that is so fake

getfiscal posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

swampman posted:

You can convince people to like Marxism but you can also convince them to like homeopathy and breakfast cereal.

I really don't want to sound rude here, i like you Swampy, but this is a classic example of Marxian elitism; As if to the average citizen of the west, breakfast is somehow comically less important than Marxism.

A solid, regular breakfast will contribute something from a quarter to a third of a persons total energy over the course of a life that can span up to a century, not to mention determining on a daily scale how they work, play or study during each day.

Given the fragmentally small part that Marxism plays in our political system and debate even over the past few years (the most obvious period of capitalist buffoonery for quite some time), breakfast cereal is more relevant to the average person than Marxism by such a monumental degree that even a simple offhand statement like yours is enough to signal to The People (or "the mob" as you call them) that you do not share their interests or experiences, and should thus be treated with suspicion if not outright contempt.

until the Left learns this it will never, ever stop sabotaging itself

you've got a disease.

well what do you think is responsible for the ongoing failure of Marxist ideas to have more influence over (at least Western) populations?

btw i fully admit that the dynamic i described is obviously not universal and in fact quite the opposite elsewhere.

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

swampman posted:

You can convince people to like Marxism but you can also convince them to like homeopathy and breakfast cereal.

I really don't want to sound rude here, i like you Swampy, but this is a classic example of Marxian elitism; As if to the average citizen of the west, breakfast is somehow comically less important than Marxism.

A solid, regular breakfast will contribute something from a quarter to a third of a persons total energy over the course of a life that can span up to a century, not to mention determining on a daily scale how they work, play or study during each day.

Given the fragmentally small part that Marxism plays in our political system and debate even over the past few years (the most obvious period of capitalist buffoonery for quite some time), breakfast cereal is more relevant to the average person than Marxism by such a monumental degree that even a simple offhand statement like yours is enough to signal to The People (or "the mob" as you call them) that you do not share their interests or experiences, and should thus be treated with suspicion if not outright contempt.

until the Left learns this it will never, ever stop sabotaging itself

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

gyrofry posted:
whats material condishuns preshus


yes and the mass availability of food products as a material baseline is one of the results of postwar prosperity that many people appreciate, so of course they are going to respond negatively when someone attempts to elevate themselves above the pack by sneering at it.

"i don't even have a television" is the same sort of slightly inverted class snobbery whereby instead of the traditional bourgeois method of showing superiority through visible wealth, one proclaims a moral superiority through a somewhat contrived asceticism and a rejection of (some) material goods.

Marxists are so arrogant, they think they're better than people (who are little more than animals anyway), why won't they just gerra TV and watch X Factor blah blah blah.