If anything I’ve read too much theory comrade. I’m fully familiar with the arguments you’re citing, though personally I disagree. I disgree with the third-word The Leninist concept of labor aristocracy, though useful (which is not to say we can’t disagree with Lenin: he was a man of his time and what wrong on several points, though not the most important), I think often gets used in a really metaphysical and binary way. The Western proletariat certainly has advantageous conditions of life which are due to imperialism. That goes without saying. However no-where in what Lenin writes, not according to class interest, must the Western proletariat necessarily perceive I think people often make far too much of the idea that the Western working class consciously knows exactly what its supposedly reactionary interests are in that way. That’s not the way that class is lived or experienced. At times that might come through, such as when they vote for the far right in elections during a recession and high levels of immigration, but I think it’s a big assumption to suppose that their have a perfect understanding of their class interest when they do that. They certainly don’t seem to have a rational grasp on it when you speak to them, and so the only way of supporting the argument then seems to me to be to argue that there is some subconscious, structural or superstructural determination of their reactionary positions as in their class interest whether they are conscious of this or not; but this seems deeply unscientific and unverifiable to me - regardless, I think there a bunch of basic arguments, including from Marx himself, which make clear that it is the very nature of capitalism, understood in terms of its class system, which makes the class interests of the working class opposed to that of their bourgeoisie.

The Western proletariat does have a class interest in ending capitalism. The large majority of them have not seen their living standards increase since the 70s, and I strongly believe that their conditions of life would be far healthier and more fulfilling were they to live in socialist and communist societies. Otherwise my fear is that we’re using a very reductive understanding of what class interest or quality of life means, making it excessively consumerist, thereby reproducing mystifying capitalist categories. My fear is that it devolves in a stereotype of vulgar materialism, as opposed to the far more open method of historical materialism which Marx uses (I’m not going to touch on dialectical materialism as that’s more controversial a concept).

Practically, it seems to negate a really basic and essential for of solidarity, and would suggest that every communist in the West should give up, leave the West, or wish for the death of their loved ones. Even practically I don’t see it as a coherent strategy, given not only the previous comment but also because the idea that the working classes of the Global South are consciously very progressive politically is unfortunately often not the case, which is clear to anyone who has lived outside of the West. This is ofc a different point to whether or not there are geopolitical and global economic processes which lead certain geopolitical blocs or their working class populations to take certain views and positions which are progressive as historical material movements. For instance I can simultaneously say at Hamas and the Houthis, in their domestic contexts, are high reactionary in a bunch of ways, while also recognizing that their struggles against Israel and US imperialism are very progressive as far as geopolitics goes. I’d argue that Russia is more ambiguous. I still think that a fully successful communist revolution must be global and so will require a revolution in the imperial core, as Marx, Engels, Lenin, and most communists have thought.

I also think there’s some ambiguity in what we mean by ‘strong’ and ‘develop past neoliberalism’ in what you’ve written. Neoliberalism was a political process of change in policy to reestablish conditions of profitability through programs of austerity. It’s not a different kind of mode of production. It’s still capitalism. This is historical and therefore can, and will, end. Other modes of production will emerge. So I guess you might be suggesting that the West will simply go fascist? I’m also add that I don’t think that revolutions are simply matters of the military strength of the power, but broader socio-economic conditions, though if the question is whether the conditions of the working class will need to become more critical before revolutionary conditions emerge, then I’d certainly agree. Nevertheless that doesn’t imply that the immediate target should be the immiseration of the Western working class.

Obviously this is a theoretical disagreement, not a personal attack. Feel free to let me know what you think comrade.

I’m just not seeing the argument apart from a pessimistic/accelerationist argument. Fascism is not going to make construction of socialism easier; I don’t see how it won’t make it immeasurably more difficult. Even if fascism is inevitable, you’d also have to argue that it should be sped up, which is where it just doesn’t seem like a serious argument to me, because surely the European working class should be given and requires more time to develop?

Removed by mod

Yeah not to suggest that leftists have not always had something of a tendency for division and degeneration into critique to the detriment of constructive solidarity, but this is also not sufficient as an explanation in my opinion. If anything, I’d argue that the contemporary version of this phenomenon, especially in a country life America, is deeply mediated by the social groups that radical groups is emerging out of, and fact it is occurring in a cultural and intellectual climate that is still (and has been since the late 80s), not simply anti-Marxist/communist but actually post-communist. We might nuance this by noting an uptick in interest in socialism among the young and working class, but we should not overemphasize the scale or influence of this. Nor should this lead us to lose sight of the fact that a lot of the young people who identify as radical do so in a way that can be quite vague, and have more to do with individual lifestyle aesthetics than a sense of ‘calling’ for the militant path, nor a sense of direct exploitation. This is partly due to the greater presence or visibility in popular culture of ideas that are more just post-modern liberal identity politics marked for the sake of capitalism, and the corresponding greater influence of radleft and anti-marxist poststructural thinkers in what is presented as radical thought. Which should remind everyone that Marxist and Communist politics are not going to be bred in Universities any more. Marxist historians don’t control the history department as much as they used to in some placed. This is not a personal criticism of all these people but more a recognition of the different reasons, conditions and paths that form of the context of people’s experience of radical politics or thought.

What is more significant is the increased level of labor movement activity. A bolshevik style party cannot simply be willed into existence. It is not a vanguard phenomenon (by definition) because it is ‘above’ or separate to the working class like a set of generals or the state, which would be to misunderstand the military metaphor, but because it is supposed to position itself at the forefront of working-class struggle. It is suppose to identify the key areas of struggle and potential and to act accordingly. So it strikes me that American Bolshevism (album title) would have to be born more fully out of the concrete struggle between an emerging American labor movement, in conjunction and synthesis with groups who also emphasize imperialism, colonialism and neocolonialism, racist and gender and LGBT+ struggles.

Alot of these dynamics reinforce themselves in vicious ways too. Bad interpersonal relationships can generate bad politics and vice-versa.

For what its worth, by far the least sectarian environments I’ve encountered where ones where different militants from different orgs had to collectively organize or help on the group in relation to on-the-ground labor struggles in work places.

I’m not sure why you feel the need to be aggressive comrade. What you’ve described is certainly a real and alienating phenomenon, though I’m guessing you are making reference to the American trotskyist culture, which is somewhat distinct from those in other countries, largely because the history is different, and American trostkyists seem to have been less connected to working class organizations and under even more pressure to conform to Cold War narratives and positions. I’m more familiar with the Latin American and European cases, in which they are by far the most seriously present communist groups in those countries. For example a lot of people here love repping France every time there’s another episode of social unrest, but do not realize that a lot of the organization is being done by trot groups. Again, there are a lot of them, and i’d agree that most are very far from great, but they would agree with that statement themselves.

On the newspaper point: there’s nothing wrong with trying to get literature out there. The question is more one of form. Again, I can think of as many ML and weird left-com and Maoist groups who do the same thing. If that’s sufficient for you to judge all Trots on that basis, then it should be for those other groups, which I suspect is not the case.

Kind of weird and 3edgy4me how that’s not really related to my point but go-off I guess. Kind of weird and disturbing honestly to be wishing (it seems) for their collective demise.

I’m not a trot but as someone who has known alot of them, honestly in this day and age if you’re really under the impression that most people who thinks of themselves as trots are going to become neoconservatives then honestly my suspicion is that you do not actually know many. It might be worth pointing out that while the most annoying and sectarian, indeedly dogmatically detached self-described communists I’ve met are Trotskyist, so are several of the more serious, capable, dedicated militants I’ve met.

If you really wanna spend your time swinging against them instead of considering forming solidarity over a common Marxist and Leninist tradition (you might not think that they are leninists, but they certainly think they are) and discussing non-sectarian methods of organizing, then with respect comrade I really feel your point of view is limited and needs to develop, though I don’t know how much experience you actually have engaging with, or actually trying to organize with, trots.

Whether you agree with them or not, most actual militants who are Trotskyists have their ideals in the right place. On a moral or ethical level, most of them are motivated by the same disgust with capitalist society and same hopes for a communist society as other communists. On a political level they are normally also self-consciously Leninist. In fact the reason they have such a tendency to splits and factions is because there’s an almost theological emphasis on the need to recreate continuously that genesis of the Bolshevik through splits with those they perceive (even if metaphorically) as Mensheviks and reformists, so that the part remains in a correct revolutionary position necessary at the revolutionary conjuncture. I’m in strong ideological disagreement on a bunch of points, and don’t really like their culture, including that of their interpersonal relationships, but frankly that’s not a problem unique to Trotskysists (Maoists, MLs and anarchists I’m looking at you).

Also, frankly, there’s no surer way to alienate potential communists from what you’re doing that to be beefing over the political conflicts in the Soviet Union of the 20s and 30s. I’m not really able to see it as anything other than self-indulgent, given that it seems obvious that a mature position would include very serious critiques of both Trotskyism and the USSR (for the record, if you talk to more intelligent Trots, they often have several quite scathing critiques of several of Trotsky’s positions).

Interesting example of how neoliberal strategies of extending the reach of financial instruments seems to inevitably come for the lower and middle classes’ (or broad working class’s) savings.

I haven’t had the time to look at the proposals in any detail, but in essence, it seems that he’s just restating the classic economic logic that the source of investment is savings, and so if there is a mismatch between them, this will cause a negative output gap in growth, both due to demand and suppl-side factors. It is also obviously motivated by the concerns of mainstream economists that the lagging productivity (in particular of labor, because labour is the source of all value and how they form a common unit of value and productivity measurement, as Marx understood) is a serious issue and that AI is the way to deal with it. Also interesting the classic decrepit European realization that they are falling behind the US and China (and Russia, for that matter) on these fronts. Though it is strange how that ignores other key factors determining investment, like expected returns and interest rates (which are rising). Also, if private businesses are already unwilling to invest because they know that savings and income are too low, and people not willing enough to engage in borrowing sprees, to make their expected returns on investment profitable, then how would an investment fund financed with savings deal with this issue? He might argue that more efficient capital markets and new investment vehicles leverage savings might deal with that, but it is again not clear to me that the private sector is going to be that motivated. Most of the interest of private firms so far in AI has been either in superficial labor-saving areas like branding, website design, and potentially in more efficient systems of labor surveillance, monitoring, control and time-management, as opposed to any real tremendous gains in real labor productivity, though the future is ofc an unknown country. It also seems to ignore the naturally monopolistic tendencies of a sector like investment in advanced AI software and hardware, which would not suggest to me that the Europeans can easily compete with the US or China, who have a head-start in terms of concentration, advantages of scale and greater levels of government support.

Funny also how none of the French liberals are asking which social group’s savings are going to bear the brunt of this. There is ofc no mention of the trillions in the bourgeoisie’s offshore bank accounts. Given the high rates of taxes (at least perceived) in France already it’s not clear how this would be popular with anybody.

Daddy chill

It might also just accelerate the fascicisation of Europe, which is likely good for no-one, let alone for Europe’s working class. Unless one’s holds to some kind of accelerationist theory of revolutionary conditions.

Sometimes I do really wonder how many Trotskyists people have actually met.

I’ve honestly watched The Patriot more times that I care to remember (there’s something hilarious about Smel Bigsom to me). Honestly ridiculous. Not only because it fits into the general theory (like Braveheart) that Gibson despises the English and likes to be in movies that portray them as unambiguously depraved (critical support) but also because how fucked up the depiction of slavery and race-relations is.

Honestly at the end of the day I just watched it for the vibes of war crimes against British colonial troops.

Birth of a Nation.

The Patriot.

deleted by creator

If you think this doesn’t exist then you haven’t spent enough time differentiating Marxism from liberal identity politics.

Does anyone know if the reports their ambassadors used to sell drugs when on trips, and that they sell meth internationally, has any truth to it?

Communists and Anarchists are most certainly not the same. I’m not really sure how anyone can entertain this idea if they have actually spent times in active anarchist and Marxist circles, let alone engaged in militant activity with either where both the need for cooperation and the apparent inevitability of conflict and tension become obvious, and make obvious in turn that these difficulties do not just boil down interpersonal issues or grievances but are political in nature. There are profound conceptual, theoretical, ideological, practical and organization differences, as well as sociological.

It’s all well and good to say that they are ‘fundamentally the same’ (what does ‘fundamentally/essentially the same’ even mean here? It seems vague, ambiguous, or if you are choosing as the criterion for that that we want the same form of society at the end of the day, this amounts actually only to a very weak form of agreement in all honestly. It’s like saying that Communists are the same as Reformists Socialists because the latter also want (sometimes genuinely) a form of socialist economy and are genuinely deluded as to the means to get there (i.e. reformism). The difference is in terms of political method, and the distinction is one of revolution vs reformism. Sure, Communists share a belief in the need for revolution to get there with anarchists, but they have different different concepts, theories, practices, conceptions of organization and politics, which implies deep theoretical and practical-organizational differences.

Furthermore, Communism in this sense remains an ideal (which is fine), towards which we agree on the most general and abstract features and agree further that this is the ideal form of society which we would like, indeed must for the sake of the human species, move towards. The anarchist conception of revolution is very different from the communist conception, and what comes during the revolution, how we get there, what is necessary, how we should actually do all the actual work of organizing the working class (which marxists recognize as necessary but which anarchists have either been unwilling to do the work needed to accomplish or who they neglect as many now see focus of parties on class-based organization to be a form of class-reductionism), disagree on the fundamental questions of revolution, the state, parties, legislation, prisons, and so on.

There are also Christian Communists (non-Marxist) would also want a stateless, classless, moneyless society. I commend them for that, and they are definitely potential allies, but that doesn’t mean they are going to be reliable political allies in the long-term, nor does it imply that their views are fundamentally the same as mine. The fact that they are not going to be ready to do the things necessary to actually construct socialism, let alone communism, means that realistic political unity with them is limited at best. The same goes for anarchism in the minds of Marxists, most obviously MLs.

The period of transition from capitalism to communism will likely take hundreds of years. Socialism is a centuries-long project which we have only just begun. Calling the immense, profound differences of opinion between Communists and anarchists over this historical process towards Communism something which does not amount to a fundamental difference seems not only confused, but positively idealistic to me.

Saying that the difference lies simply in the means to get there is ignoring the fact that this is a massive difference with direct implications for the feasibility of long-term, substantial, deep political cooperation. It also reflects that the routes through which Marxists and Anarchists get to the conclusion of the need for revolution for the sake of a classless, stateless, moneyless society are very different.

Just to give a revealing sense of the depth of this divide: There are people in this thread who have cited Murray Bookchin, who towards the end of his life not only explicitly stated that he would rather side with liberal governments against Communists because the former believed in ‘personal freedom’, but then later when on to repudiate anarchism right at the end of his life, calling modern anarchists a form of lifestyle movement with no real political potential, and it’s worthwhile to note that he came to this conclusion during the 90s and 2000s, i.e. when Marxism and Communism were at their lowest ebb and the international leftist movements in the West were being dominated by anarchist and post-left lifestyle movementism, calling for distributed (non-existent) networks of supposedly distributed organization based on ridiculously minute identitarian difference (i.e. identity politics). The period since the 90s have done nothing but refute the idea that the predominance of anarchists on the western left would revitalize the prospects for revolution there. The opposite is the case. The potential for revolution has correlated inversely with anarchist predominance. Frankly this doesn’t surprise me, as the anarchist circles I’ve encountered have almost always been far more bourgeois, less proletarian, than Marxist circles (especially if we are talking about militant circles), though I admit that this is anecdotal.

The obvious explanation for this is just the more general observation that most anarchists in the real world despise Marxists. In anarchist circles in private the discourse than ML’s are a bunch of homophobic, transphobic, sex-worker-phobic, misogynistic red fash is very, very present, and honestly pretending otherwise is simply ignoring the obvious truth that becomes evident if you actually spend much time in read-world anarchist and Marxist circles, simply for the sake of preserving the appearance of an artificial, digital ‘left unity’ which neither has any bearing on actual organization nor does it provide a serious basis for any actual platform of organized socialist activity. We can get together for the same marches, social movements, or for forms of local mutual aid and aid for the homeless or refugees, but this does not ever really extend beyond that in my experience, and the reason is that anarchists have a fundamentally different conception of politics and organization to Marxists, and especially to MLs.

Sure. But this is, frankly, a pretty idealist take imo that ignores not only the fact that in actual practice there is frequent tension and conflict which has real basis, but real and deeper theoretical differences as well as ones of praxis and organization. We can wish for this form of left unity you are describing all we like, but it doesn’t erase the deal differences between communists and anarchists.

In my personal experience, Communists have been far more eager, happy or willing to work with anarchists when it comes to practice on the ground than vice-versa, and I think it’s important to note that these forums are not representative of the actual relations between Communists and Anarchists on the ground, which are frequently tense because Marxists will often spend months agitating and entering workplaces, doing the grunt work, only for reformists and anarchists to show up at the end at points of more intense political struggle and gain political credibility for their ‘participation’. Another related issue here is that, in practice, anarchist circles are on average more liberal, individualist and identitarian than Marxist orgs interested in forming parties. The emphasis on decentralized, distributed organization, justified by whatever post-structural idealist nonsense is currently in fashion, is not conducive to working with actual Communist (read: Leninist) orgs.

Not to mention that - and this is again to indicate that these forums like Hexbear are in no way indicative of actual relationships between Communists and Anarchists - that most anarchists despise Communists, most obviously Leninists, and would despise Lemmygrad and Hexbear types most of all. Like the view of us as ‘Red Fash’ is close to the mainstream view among most Anarchists, and it’s frankly ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

Okay yeh I seen this.

I think this is just referring to negotiations for a ceasefire or end to the conflict but not a full surrender of the Ukrainian government no?

It’s also difficult for me to gauge how serious these reports are. They could be psy-op work by other side. Perhaps to convince people that the yanks are down to negotiate and then blame Russia when it inevitably does not materialize. I could be wrong, but it seems to me like neither side has any real incentive to negotiate for the time being. The US and Ukraine may be hoping that Russia also bleeds themself enough from attrition on the front lines that they are eventually content with just the Donbass and Crimea. I’d be very interested to see whether or under what conditions Russia would actually come to the table. What incentive do they have now? If the US gets to the point where the situation for Ukraine is so dire that they are willing to get negotiations going and push Ukraine to accept giving these territories, then why would Russia in that situation not simply also have no incentive to negotiate? Why not push up to Kiev? I guess the main obstacle there and possible source of WW3 style crisis would be if there is a nuclear standoff as Russia pushes all the way through Ukraine and the US starts setting nuclear-use related red lines.

I think what you referring to by mainstream here is probably just ‘popular commercial American-style music’. But most of this music has always been bad. If you listen to the first white commercial Jazz from the 20s it was also garbage.

But there is also always a huge amount of good music. I think it also depends on what you listen to. This becomes even more clear if you listen to non-American music, whether of traditional or contemporary genres. It’s mainly a question of the means and effort you have available to search and find good music.

I can’t speak to genres like rock or indie or metal as I don’t listen to them, but Hip Hop/Rap is a good case study at the moment because I think we’re in another local peak for quantity and quality after the big one of the 90s, with a difference the RnB influence is less pronounced, G-Funk declined, Trap took a central position, and there is more range of experimental style due to digital technology and the international evolution of the music. There are a bunch a young American rappers at the moment who are up there with the best imo. However as it also has a central place now in popular music and has never been more culturally influential, the relative and absolute quantity of poor stuff has also never been larger I think.