Comrade_Improving

The American Revolution threw into crisis the principle of the ‘uselessness of slavery among ourselves’, which seemed established within the liberal movement. Now, far from being confined to the colonies, slavery acquired a new visibility and centrality in a country with a culture, religion and language of European origin, which conversed with European countries as an equal and in fact claimed a kind of primacy in embodying the cause of liberty. Declared legally void in England in 1772, the institution of slavery received its juridical and even constitutional consecration, albeit with recourse to the euphemisms and circumlocutions we are familiar with, in the state born out of the revolt of colonists determined not to be treated like ‘ni****s’. There thus emerged a country characterized by ‘a fixed and direct tie between slave ownership and political power’, as strikingly revealed both by the Constitution and the number of slave owners who acceded to its highest institutional office.

D. Losurdo - Liberalism: A Counter-History

The fundamental law of revolution, which has been confirmed by all revolutions, and particularly by all three Russian revolutions in the twentieth century, is as follows: it is not enough for revolution that the exploited and oppressed masses should understand the impossibility of living in the old way and demand changes; it is essential for revolution that the exploiters should not be able to live and rule in the old way. Only when the ‘lower classes’ do not want the old way, and when the ‘upper classes’ cannot carry on in the old way—only then can revolution triumph. This truth may be expressed in other words: revolution is impossible without a nation-wide crisis (affecting both the exploited and the exploiters).

V. Lenin - “Left-Wing” Communism

Approaching the matter from the standpoint of the proletariat and the proletarian revolution, Engels, like Marx, upheld democratic centralism, the republic--one and indivisible. He regarded the federal republic either as an exception and a hindrance to development, or as a transition from a monarchy to a centralized republic, as a "step forward" under certain special conditions. And among these special conditions, he puts the national question to the fore.

Although mercilessly criticizing the reactionary nature of small states, and the screening of this by the national question in certain concrete cases, Engels, like Marx, never betrayed the slightest desire to brush aside the national question

Engels proposes the following words for the self-government clause in the programme: "Complete selfgovernment for the provinces [gubernias or regions], districts and communes through officials elected by universal suffrage. The abolition of all local and provincial authorities appointed by the state."

It is extremely important to note that Engels, armed with facts, disproved by a most precise example the prejudice which is very widespread, particularly among pettybourgeois democrats, that a federal republic necessarily means a greater amount of freedom than a centralized republic. This is wrong. It is disproved by the facts cited by Engels regarding the centralized French Republic of 792-98 and the federal Swiss Republic. The really democratic centralized republic gave more freedom that the federal republic. In other words, the greatest amount of local, regional, and other freedom known in history was accorded by a centralized and not a federal republic.

V. Lenin - State and Revolution

This book is a very good summary of how the workers are the ones responsible for the creation of value in any society, how the final price of a commodity is not based solely on wages (a fact commonly hidden by modern "economists" and sometimes forgotten even by comrades who mistakenly believe that a raise in wages or social securities for some would lead to an increased exploitation for others) and how the only way for the workers to improve their condition as a whole is through political action.

What do we mean by saying that the prices of the commodities are determined by wages? Wages being but a name for the price of labour, we mean that the prices of commodities are regulated by the price of labour. As “price” is exchangeable value (...) value expressed in money, the proposition comes to this, that “the value of commodities is determined by the value of labour,” (..) The dogma that “wages determine the price of commodities,” expressed in its most abstract terms, comes to this, that “value is determined by value,” and this tautology means that, in fact, we know nothing at all about value. Accepting this premise, all reasoning about the general laws of political economy turns into mere twaddle.

The values of commodities are directly as the times of labour employed in their production, and are inversely as the productive powers of the labour employed.

Part of the labour contained in the commodity is paid labour; part is unpaid labour. By selling, therefore, the commodity at its value, that is, as the crystallization of the total quantity of labour bestowed upon it, the capitalist must necessarily sell it at a profit. He sells not only what has cost him an equivalent, but he sells also what has cost him nothing, although it has cost his workman labour. The cost of the commodity to the capitalist and its real cost are different things.

Rent, interest, and industrial profit are only different names for different parts of the surplus value of the commodity, or the unpaid labour enclosed in it, and they are equally derived from this source and from this source alone. They are not derived from land as such or from capital as such, but land and capital enable their owners to get their respective shares out of the surplus value extracted by the employing capitalist from the labourer.

A general rise of wages would, therefore, result in a fall of the general rate of profit, but not affect values.

As to the limitation of the working day in England, as in all other countries, it has never been settled except by legislative interference. (...) the result was not to be attained by private settlement between the working men and the capitalists. This very necessity of general political action affords the proof that in its merely economical action capital is the stronger side.

They ought not to forget that they are fighting with effects, but not with the causes of those effects (...) They ought to understand that, with all the miseries it imposes upon them, the present system simultaneously engenders the material conditions and the social forms necessary for an economical reconstruction of society. Instead of the conservative motto: “A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!” they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: “Abolition of the wages system!"

The deep allegiance of the Euro-Amerikan workers to this new Leader and his New Deal movement was born in the feeling that he truly spoke for their class interests. This was no accident. Nations and classes in the long run get the leadership they deserve.

J. Sakai - Settlers

Repeating something over and over isn’t going to make it true. Throughout this discussion, you’ve consistently avoided engaging with what I’ve said to you and kept misrepresenting what I said. I did not avoid anything here. I simply rejected your misrepresentation of what I said.

Wow, this is literally what I was saying a couple of comments ago. You have "engaged" so much with what has been said to you that you can't even point out the flaws in my comments and can only attempt to reflect your own mistakes at me.

I do not use Fchtean dialectics in diamat, but you’re clearly going to keep repeating that

Well, I am only repeating that because you keep avoiding it. And you might say that you are not using Fichtean dialectics but there is a source that disproves you on that, your own post:

Dialectical Materialism describes the cyclical process of development where an initial thesis is countered by an antithesis, leading to a synthesis that retains aspects of both but transcends them to a new level.

In case you didn't make a quick search (which would be on character), from the very first paragraph on Fichte in Wikipedia:

Fichte was also the originator of thesis–antithesis–synthesis, an idea that is often erroneously attributed to Hegel.

Back to you, on your text linked at the top of this post:

Finally, the principle of the “negation of the negation” describes a spiral of development where a thesis is challenged by an antithesis, leading to a synthesis that incorporates elements of both. (Chapter 8)

A mishmash of an attempt to explain Hegelian concepts using Fichtean logic, the fine work of a true muddler.

So even tough you might claim to not use Fichtean dialectics in diamat, your own writing proves otherwise, I wonder why that is.

There is no point trying to have a good faith discussion with such characters. Bye.

And there it is, the ultimate way of avoiding your mistakes, blaming others and turning away, no surprises here.

If there is anything out of this discussion that I hope has become clear to you, it is that if you are going to write a text on a matter that you don't understand, only to stroke your own ego, be aware that there might be people out there that have actually studied it and will call you out on your mistakes.

Well, that is one way to attempt to avoid a question, but it's definitely not subtle.

I don't think it is necessary for me to add more to the "materialism" side of this discussion considering the amount of times I've pointed out your idealism or agnosticism in this thread, while also leaving a great source on the matter which was Lenin’s “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism”.

But what I am asking you now is about Dialectics and if you could possibly give an example of a Marxist source that actually uses Fichtean dialectics, another example of sophistry was not necessary, it's the other Greek word that you are lacking of.

Considering you continue to try to avoid a crucial part of this discussion, I will repeat the question once more: Why do you use Fichtean “thesis–antithesis–synthesis” in diamat?

Why do you use Fichtean dialectics in diamat? Why use contradictions as “thesis–antithesis–synthesis”? Where did you learn that? Have you found a Marxist author using it like I asked you to link me 3 months ago? Do you just replace Hegelian Dialectics or try to mesh both? If you claim that to you the abstraction of “third order” isn’t the conclusion what is the “synthesis” then?

The fact that you think the word salad you wrote corrected anything really says all I need to know. Simply regurgitating things you’ve read does not constitute genuine understanding of the subject you’re attempting to debate. You are utterly incapable in engaging with an argument you’re presented with in good faith and you use sophistry in lieu of argument. I’ve said all I have to say to you.

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment, so much so that it becomes very ironic that it came from you, so I will just give my last point, which was also my first one, but has been skillfully avoided so far.

Why do you use Fichtean dialectics in diamat? Why use contradictions as "thesis–antithesis–synthesis"? Where did you learn that? Have you found a Marxist author using it like I asked you to link me 3 months ago? Do you just replace Hegelian Dialectics or try to mesh both? If you claim that to you the abstraction of "third order" isn't the conclusion what is the "synthesis" then?

I made this point literally on my first comment on this thread, and yet it has never been responded by you. Personally, I think that your muddle might be plenty enough for other matters, but in this one your separation from Marxist Dialectical Materialism is so crystal clear that avoiding it entirely was the only way to maintain your ownership of the truth, so you just looked away and pretended it wasn't there.

So I will end my argumentation by bringing even more attention to what you have avoided the most: Why do you use Fichtean "thesis–antithesis–synthesis" in diamat?

Given that I grew up in USSR, this is the most hilarious thing I’ve been told in a while.

Well, that explains a lot actually. One could argue that growing up in after 60's USSR, a person would be influenced by revisionist ideologies similar to those commonly associated with the infamous western "leftist", one could also argue that the fact that a person who grew up there can't differentiate between agnostic structuralism and dialectical materialism to be an example of a contradiction that played an important part in it's downfall. But here I will do neither for that would only make things more complex, and the if current simpler discussion is already this muddled, nothing would be clear in a more complex one.

You continue to put words in my mouth while ignoring what I’m actually saying. (...) Except I did not claim the other way around anywhere. What I said is that internal contradictions are influenced by external factors.

What you actually said:

many of the contradictions within USSR were a result of the fact that USSR was under siege by the capitalist world.

I am sorry that you dislike the taste of the words in your mouth, but you cannot blame me for they being there, if anything you are trying after the fact to change what you put there in the first place. But it doesn't matter if you try now to claim that "many of the contradictions within USSR were a result of the fact that USSR was under siege by the capitalist world." means the same as " the very real internal deficiencies within communist systems were exacerbated by unrelenting external attacks", the inverted philosophical logic in changing "the external affecting the contradictions" to "the external resulting in the contradictions" makes the difference between yours and Parentis philosophical standpoint pretty clear.

If anything I am the one who could be complaining about words being put in others mouths, for the only thing you could claim that I have been ignoring so far is your continuous attempt to pin on me an argument that the external doesn't influence the internal contradictions, something I've never said in any comment, since it would've been unmaterialistic of me. The only thing that I am ignoring are your attempts of putting words in my mouth, which I shall continue to do so.

As a matter of fact this discussion started with me saying that your (structuralistic) separation between the contradictions and their solutions, leaving the latter to an out of the system third order, due to the misuse of (Fichtean) dialectics was a mistake, which I'm still claiming, except that now I can name more clearly and correctly the source of your mistakes, for as a dialectical materialist I try to study and correct my mistakes about what I'm saying rather than just trying to create the truth.

For a dialectical materialist abstractions are only part of the process of the understanding in our minds, not the conclusion of the process in reality, so if anyone can be blamed for creating a separation that doesn't exist it is only the agnostic of us.

Maybe you should spend a bit of time to actually understand what dialectical materialism is instead of writing pseudo intellectual comments.

Considering that throughout this discussion I have already mentioned multiple times sources of Marxists writers on my points and your mistakes, while all you've brought so far is a misquoted Parenti quote (which I corrected) and your self-given ownership of the truth, I don't think I need to say who is being pseudo something and should spend more time reading rather than writing.

As an example, many of the contradictions within USSR were a result of the fact that USSR was under siege by the capitalist world. The phenomenon Parenti refers to as siege communism.

At first I was shocked of reading this, on a ML instance of all places, to take Parenti's siege socialism and attempt to make it as the result of some kind of struturalistc analysis feels unbelievable, but considering that our discussion has been around the fact that you'd rather use an agnostic analysis over a materialistic one, and that you don't follow Hegelian dialectics and therefore the term "contradiction" means whatever you want, it's then possible to see how one could claim such absurdities.

Let's then actually quote the man himself:

One reason siege socialism could not make the transition to consumer socialism is that the state of siege was never lifted. As noted in the previous chapter, the very real internal deficiencies within communist systems were exacerbated by unrelenting external attacks and threats from the Western powers. (Blackshirts and Reds, p.74)

Parenti literally wrote that the external influences exacerbated the internal contradictions already present within the system, because he was using dialectical materialism and therefore saw first the existence of internal contradictions and then those being affected by the external influences, not the other way around as you claimed.

I need to say, having never had a discussion with a western "leftist" before, even though I somewhat knew what to expect, it is still impressive seeing it first hand how one can believe to make no mistakes and their arguments don't require any proof since they personally own the truth, thinking that repeated enough times anything they say will become real.

Leaving that aside, this recent discussion has left me with a question which I look forward to the answer. If you can dismiss dialectical materialism so easily in favor of a struturalistic analysis, and don't care about Hegelian dialectics, why were you writing about diamat in the first place?

Sorry to bother you again with this conversation after 3 months have passed, but this sentence has come back to me a couple of times during this period due to how poorly it was dealt with by me, and just how it crucial it was to our discussion, so I will now attempt to correct that.

Structuralism differs form Marxism in that it tries to take Marxist advancements on sociology and understanding of the structures of society while refuting the knowability of the internal contradictions within said society, therefore negating the existence of the internal contradiction that lead to capitalism's demise. They claim that the problems of capitalist society are consequences of poor implementation of the system, and consequently believe that with just a change in policies and general politics the problems can be fixed, therefore it is the philosophy which gives birth to reformists.

The way that structuralism achieves that separation from Marxist conclusions is by following the agnostic logic of compromising materialism with idealism, in its specific case, it is Marxist sociology with fichtean subjective idealism, it turns Fichte "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" into reality-ideas-structures.

Out of the top of wikipedia's page on structuralism: "Structuralism is "The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations.". (Things are unknowable but their interrelations are knowable, classic agnostic muddle.)

Out of the top of wikipedia's page on Post-structuralism: "Structuralism proposes that human culture can be understood by means of a structure that is modeled on language. As a result, there is concrete reality on the one hand, abstract ideas about reality on the other hand, and a "third order" that mediates between the two." (reality-ideas-structures.)

Looking back in our discussion, you said "I’m not sure there’s much value separating external and internal conditions though as both ultimately feed into the system.", but to study a thing with Dialectical Materialism it is a necessary step to separate from its current context in order to discover its internal contradictions, which is why in his texts Marx himself does so many abstractions, to allow him to understand the internal movements of things.

The condition that materialism demands of every theory, that it must be put to the test of reality, does not mean that one shouldn't use abstractions when creating said theory, in fact it is quite the opposite if we look at Marxism.

Looking even further into our discussion, we can see that it went through this contradiction where I was attempting to simplify things in order to make more apparent the differences between philosophies, mentioning eggs, water, etc., while you kept complicating matters by bringing more complex and bigger things, such as society, environment, etc., making the discussion less clear and hiding misunderstandings behind big words.

While it did annoy me at the time, which lead to my last comment, I can now understand that it wasn't personal, it is of philosophical necessity that agnosticism muddles things, for when the matter being dealt with is clear and simple, the separation that it tries to create between knowable and unknowable loses all reasoning, which is why we can't just discuss over an egg hatching into a chicken, we must to consider how the "chicken will proceed to eat food, produce waste, and so on. It’s part of the environment, and it has a direct effect on the environment." and therefore we can only comprehend it as a structure and not its specific parts, as Lenin would say, pure muddle.

Having explained all this, it would be incoherent of me to leave the same books recommendations as I did last time, considering we can now see that the divergence comes before we get to dialectics, it is between materialism and agnosticism, I will then recommend a single book on the matter, Lenin's "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism". Even though it was written before Structuralism was a thing, it goes on such great detail on the differences between the logic of materialism and agnosticism in general (and idealism as well) that it provides the best method of understanding what separates those fields of philosophy.

May this help you to comprehend the differences between philosophies and the necessity that materialism has of objective knowledge and it's complete compromise with the truth, Good Luck comrade.

Good answer, comrade 🫡

It is always important to remember to think current situations in a materialistic way, and not fall for the idealistic lie that propaganda alone is able to "brainwash" or "control" people.