QueerCommie

Some time ago I supported Third Worldism and consumed various media explaining it’s theories, but at this point it just seems like one of many copes for a lack of revolutionary energy that place blame outside the self-proclaimed "vanguard" groups and displace the need for actual self-criticism. "Westerners are labor aristocrats" is just a form of complaining that "the proles have it too good" which is a subset of the classic Marxist dogma that "conditions determine consciousness and poeple will spontaneously become revolutionary when things get bad enough.” This is something that many accept, even when rejecting the particular claim that there is no white working class. This position seemingly grants the liberal assumption that regular capitalism is fine and it's only crises and such that are bad; failing to account for the way in which people in poor conditions often follow false explanations for their problems and pursue actions that do not lead to liberation.

“The proles have it too good" is often a claim evidenced by the expanded set of goods that people have access to. As though capitalism didn't continually manufacture new needs. As though access to cars and microwaves weren't mandatory for a modern alienated worker with no time not dedicated to either the reproduction of capital or the reproduction of their own labor capacity.

"The proles have it too good" resembles the sentence "kids have it too good these days." That is not an accident, but it's not surprising that Marxists would have an aversion to that association. Each judgement's purpose is to serve as explanation for something one does not like to see. The boomer sees kids with "poor manners" and explains that they have not faced enough hardship to adopt proper virtuous behavior. The marxist sees people going on with the everyday slog of capitalism and "failing" to revolt and explains "only with worse material conditions would they become revolutionary and pursure their historic mission." It's the same moralist logic.

Alas, the worker (however "aristocratic") does not face the decision everyday of whether to contribute to the existing hegemony or do away with it. One works because one must feed oneself -- regardless of how tasty the food is. The third worldist supposes that people are bribed into going down a certain path when in fact there was no decision before them. When the conditions finally worsen, there is no guarantee of revolution. If there is revolution, there is no guarantee of socialism. Why would people attempt to establish socialism if they don't understand what's wrong with capitalism? When things get bad people have often gone "our rulers are no longer treating us well. Let us change things so that we may have more benevolent rulers once more." People have indeed been driven by poor conditions to revolt but their was no necessity binding them to the pursuit of revolution.

The third worldist claims that people have it better in the west because prices have dropped.

Of course, the price of commodities have dropped. This is the natural result of competition as well as particular aspects of capitalist competition such as the development of technology. This is elementary marxism. By no means does a decrease in profits imply a decrease in exploitation. Capitalists still seek an increase in absolute profit even as relative profits drop, and all profits come from the exploitation of workers. I'm not sure how imperialist super-profits are special or imply a widespread lack of exploitation.

The third worldist cites the New Deal and such as evidence of westerners coming to benefit from capitalism. Yes, workers fought hard and were ultimately placated or met with a compromise of certain reforms. This somewhat improved the conditions of certain people for some time. I have certainly not seen enough evidence to conclude that a significant amount of people, a whole "nation" had their interests shifted in favor of their former exploiters.

There have been "leftist movements" in the west since that time, and yes, they have not accomplished revolution. Why would they have when the dominant rhetoric and explanations are about states that don't benefit the nation enough and immoral elites who are so much worse than the petty bourgeois, or even more abstract idealist complaints like many leaders of May 68. Most people did not have a marxist critique of capitalism and their critiques only reinforced the status quo.

Everyone's "material quality of life is dependent" on the current system. We're still exploited. We go to our jobs because we receive money in exchange for our labor. People would fight to destroy this system if they understood exactly how capitalism exploits them. People don't rise up in many places right now despite the fact that they are "exploited more." Paul Cockshott has shown that baristas, for example, are still very much exploited. https://youtu.be/dEsuQyyv5hc

White people in revolutionary america were not proletarian insofar as they were homesteaders and slave owners. I don't see why proletarians couldn't also be reactionary based on reactionary ideas. The fact that people have acted in a counterrevolutionary manner does not make them less proletarian -- an argument Sakai used time and time again (yes, I have read Settlers). An argument presupposing the classic dogma of a revolutionary "historical mission" for the proletariat. Any complaint that there is a lack of revolutionary activity can be easily rationalized by the explanation "there aren't enough (inherently virtous) proles."

If products are really systematically sold to people in the imperial core at prices "below their labor value" that strongly implies that prices for consumer goods on the whole are much cheaper in the west than outside. Is that the case? Is there some purpose or explanation for this aside from "bribing the workers?" Obviously, there are professional-managerial workers who play a vital role in the circulation of capital and get payed more for it, but I do not see the labor-aristocratic side of that dominating. Anyway, people buy certain commodities that they did not used to based on manufactured needs, as I have already explained. https://en.gegenstandpunkt.com/article/ideologies-about-consumption-and-consumer-market-economy uses workers in the north and south for different purposes, requiring different things of them, and they are both exploited.

On the whole, it seems like Third Worldists largely repeat liberal talking points about how the modern liberal democratic citizen is liberated from the perils of so-called capitalism, except, twisting it with moral condemnation because we have forgotted about "the little guys" in the global south.

No doubt: somebody who argues this way does not agree with something. But instead of accusing the other of what he does, he accuses him of what he fails to do, thus doesn’t do: the opponent’s conduct falls short in showing respect for the democratic process. So from the outset this criticism doesn’t aim at identifying the antagonism which criticism always presupposes, but the opponent’s authorization. Instead of arguing out the perceived conflict, thus tackling the matter of disagreement, one tries to commit the opponent to a recognized standard, to honor a common value which he allegedly tramples.

This attempt is always paradoxical. One does not take a stand in the name of one’s own interest. That doesn’t come up, even though it’s the driving force for the anger. Rather, one criticizes the other in the name of an allegedly offended value – and thereby documents that one is ready to make one’s own interest – the reason for the annoyance – relative to it, because one wants to demand the same of the opponent. One accuses him of reneging on the democratic process, thus of not subordinating his interest to this standard. One believes, paradoxically, that an opponent who is accused of putting his interest above the democratic procedure, thus of not giving a damn about the esteemed value, can at the same time be counted on, by the mere appeal to democratic values, to nevertheless still subordinate his interest to them. Vice versa, this attempt to appeal to a common higher value rather than to criticize can, however, also be turned against the critic himself: if everything depends on adherence to democratic procedures, objections are dropped if the opposite side can prove that everything took place according to the “rules of democracy.”

Rarely, in appealing to common democratic values, do critics want to follow this implication of their own argument. The popularity of the objection “undemocratic” performs the proof that apparently anything served according to law and rights is harmless. But only because these critics – against all the facts – allow their own kind of dogmatism: actually, if everything would have “really” happened “truly” democratically, the same result would not have come out as the one that did. They trace the decision which doesn’t suit them back to the method by which its came about, and say that it simply couldn’t be democratic – with this result. As if democratic procedures were invented so that all interests find consideration!

These critics are seldom shy in providing evidence that those they criticize lack a willingness to show consideration for others: they are castigated for “locking themselves behind the authority of their office,” as if the responsibility of an office holder was not established so that he can decide according to his own discretion; “formal-legal” arguments are attacked, as if the one criticized is “really” not entitled to the rights he invokes. The main and general point is always the “unwillingness to engage in dialog” on the part of the one under attack, as if readiness to talk about everything would also guarantee that everything is considered. Even the demanded and so seldom held vote, whether it is now legally scheduled or not, indicates whether one decides “autocratically” and does not – as would be proper – hand over his interest, on an equal footing alongside all others, to a vote for everybody’s evaluation. In short: that which, in the opinion of these critics, signifies democracy is missing all over the place. Thus good faith in the philanthropic meaning of democratic procedures always plays the lead role in the critique.

An impartial view of this procedure could show that it is not about consideration of others, but that the whole vote is a method of bullying others: Everyone knows that the vote is decided by the majority. The winner of the vote acquires the right to brush aside the interests of the minority. The minority has to submit to the majority vote and accept that their own interests don’t apply.

Which of several clashing interests will prevail, and which are left by the wayside, is actually the only decsion that a vote can bring about. If it were simply about deciding what is to be done, one must discuss the project and the means to realize it. For substantive decisions, voting would be counter-productive. However, such substantive debates imply a common interest in the substance dealt with. Whoever calls for a vote assumes that, to the contrary, there is nothing to discuss. It thus starts from irreconcilable interests between which it wants to bring about a decision. And voting is only good for this: to decide which interest should prevail over the others.

It is also no mystery why so many praise the vote as an achievement of civilization. They so take for granted the antagonism of interests which they find in capitalism that they think the war of all against all is an alternative that always remains in force. Only if one considers it the most natural thing in the world that the advantage of one is always the disadvantage of the other, if one fears all-around war – in comparison with that, the domination of the minority then seems a desirable recourse.

It is not even true that voting could prevent conflicts from erupting by bringing about a binding decision for everyone. Voting can not produce a bindingness of the outcome. If it is indeed only a vote, then each person is free to compare the majority decision with his interest and align this interest in accordance with the result of the vote. Every loser in the vote can consider whether he supports the result for the sake of the common ground that preceded the vote and is “strained” by this – or whether he doesn’t support it because the differences outweigh their common ground. Then he doesn’t want to be the dominated minority of the majority and parts ways with the others. Resignations and splits are part of political parties and membership groups because people who want something different have to go their own way.

If it is not left up to the voters whether they accept the result, if the vote is thus binding for all involved, then that is because the result is made binding. That, however, can only be the act of a power standing above the voters that can force everyone and forces them to accept the result completely regardless of their own interests. The bindingness of the result for all the opposing interests of the voters exists only as an act of a supreme force which has subordinated all interests.

Contrary to all rumors that “we all” have handed over only “our responsibility” to the state, this force must exist before that and regardless of the antagonistic interests which it permits and imposes cooperation on. Antagonistic interests which by themselves are not at all capable of common ground do not come to a consensus. That must be imposed on them – by a power which subjects them all equally and whose decisions they all have to obey. Mutual subordination under the state force is the precondition of every binding vote. That then is what the voters’ common ground consists of: they are all subjects of the state force. And that is a common ground that does not at all exist between their interests.

If only the state with its power can ensure the bindingness of resolutions that are not to the liking of a good part of those affected, then the vote is also its work. It decides where it allows the vote, where it manditorily dictates it, and where “democracy is out of place.” It schedules a vote or calls it off according to its discretion. In short: the supreme force organizes voting as its means, and not only where the antagonisms of the bourgeois world should take a procedural form useful to the state.

The whole voting process has its starting point in the democratic state power’s relation to its subjects, where it comes into its own: in the election, this “highlight of democracy,” nothing is decided anyway, but consent is acceded. The citizen may “choose” between the different figures who run for political offices in which the reasons of state have already been long defined. And the citizen always says “yes” to the reasons of state, to the purposes of rule, when he “decides” whether he prefers a Republican or Democrat or maybe a Green for president. It would certainly be absurd if, of all things, the supreme force let the sovereign use of its power be given by those it rules over.

But even here – in the highest echelons of power – it proves its value, that it can then give a medium between antagonistic interests, only when this is undisputed in advance – and that elections are only good when they stage-manage acclamation. Only if the exercise of power is stable may elections “decide” something, namely: who may exercise it. In a power struggle for a real alternative state leadership, no vote in the world could prevent a civil war.

By the way, these critics themselves recognize that democracy is a process of exercising power and nothing else. The meaning and purpose of the whole procedure – the “yes” to being ruled – becomes the theoretical yardstick for every criticism: it returns the accusation “undemocratic,” by asking for democratic legitimation: from where do the critics get their authorization? Who gave them the right to criticize? The majority, who are righly called silent because that’s their function in a democracy? No, critics are not allowed to call themselves the majority! They prove this by breaking their silence and having something to object to! Anyone who criticizes can only have entitled this himself: Self-appointed! Shut your mouth!

[Translated and adapted from Sozialistische Gruppe]

Everyone should be familiar with Marx’s essential criticisms of capitalism.

In summary, while constant capital (machines, workhouses, and such) is a necessary factor for production, it produces no profit. Profit only comes from variable capital (labor). With automation, less labor and hence less value goes into each good. Increased productivity means that more use values, but those commodities are cheaper in real value*.

It’s not true that more useful goods means less labor is necessary. In the commodity economy where valorization in the highest aim, there can never be enough work. While socialized production would negate this horrible fact, capitalism always wants more labor to exploit.

Yet, the market compels continual automation to give individual capitalists an edge. This process leads to less and less value going into goods and more and more constant capital compared to variable capital. Even if the gross mass of profit grows (which is what the capitalist cares about), the relative profit from production perpetually decreases. And the problem of too much stuff calls for destruction: planned obsolescence, destruction of goods while people have needs unmet, and, of course, wars.

*with inflation, l monetary wealth increases quantitatively without real wealth increasing

Everyone should be familiar with Marx’s essential criticisms of capitalism.

In summary, while constant capital (machines, workhouses, and such) is a necessary factor for production, it produces no profit. Profit only comes from variable capital (labor). With automation, less labor and hence less value goes into each good. Increased productivity means that more use values, but those commodities are cheaper in real value*.

It’s not true that more useful goods means less labor is necessary. In the commodity economy where valorization in the highest aim, there can never be enough work. While socialized production would negate this horrible fact, capitalism always wants more labor to exploit.

Yet, the market compels continual automation to give individual capitalists an edge. This process leads to less and less value going into goods and more and more constant capital compared to variable capital. Even if the gross mass of profit grows (which is what the capitalist cares about), the relative profit from production perpetually decreases. And the problem of too much stuff calls for destruction: planned obsolescence, destruction of goods while people have needs unmet, and, of course, wars.

*with inflation, l monetary wealth increases quantitatively without real wealth increasing

I spent a few months reading theory… and then relapsing into Reddit. Now I’m back and have shit to post.

Yes, that is a spring.

China will not save us. The global proletariat must rise up.

NOWHERE did I say I oppose China. I just thought this was an interesting video. Watch the fucking thing before hating and yelling about ultras.

I went on reddit for some reason recently and got into an argument with a Maoist. I soon revealed I had not done sufficient investigation and was mostly just curious for them to justify their differences in ideology. I repeated a trite talking point that “PPW is not universal” that I have heard many times and listed the vague arguments against its universality which I had heard. I was recommended this book amongst other things.

I read it in its entirety. It’s a theoretical debate for 2019. It opens with a Filipino communist arguing against universality, and that section left me confused. Then a Nordic guy rebuts him and had me thinking Gonzalo may have been right. Another guy comes at him with all the arguments I have heard before, sounding condescending, but rightfully so. I was pretty much convinced but wanted to keep an open mind to why the Maoists liked this. Then a new theory group finishes out with a strong sounding argument for the PCP position.

This question requires further investigation for me to develop an “all sided” perspective, and I can’t vouch for Gonzalo, but I don’t have reason to trust Bad Empanada or any rando on the internet. I must go through more source material when my ADHD compels me.

What I have taken away from the reading is the Protracted People’s War can and should probably be applied in varied situations. It is essentially years of guerrilla warfare against the capitalist state until victory is won over the exploiters. There is no other kind of successful revolution. Our strategy in the west is shit – trying to slowly protest and accumulate support. You cannot win war without practice, and no revolution happens overnight. We will not be ready if a revolutionary situation were to happen tomorrow. The Bolsheviks illegally fought their ruling class for years. European parties were most successful when forced to militarize by fascism, but stupidly disarmed.

PPW does not mean surrounded the cities by the country side. PPW is the universal Marxist element (in the works of Mao), but particularities of every situation must be studied. The IRA fought the British using urban warfare and were relatively successful before right opportunism led to compromise. More advanced theory could help a new BLA or Weathermen be successful in the US. Our ruling class is going and fascist militias are ramping up violence no matter what and we need a more systematic approach than little SRA chapters or whatever.

No, I’m not going to call myself a Maoist or whatever. There are shitty Maoists and Gonzalo did bad stuff, but the same is true of every leftist group. What matters is what works in practice, and legalist accumulationism is not working. We need to maintain ruthless criticism of all that exists and do investigations instead of resorting to dogma. Everyone has a different perspective, and we all need to realize we won’t convince everyone, so we should keep criticizing and refining. We should not seek “leftist unity” for the sake of tailing the least common denominator. We should seek the best methods (using Marxist analysis) and get people to join us in what works. No, I don’t understand all this or have all the answers, but I recommend people check out the essays. Criticize them too, as a matter of fact.

I went on reddit for some reason recently and got into an argument with a Maoist. I soon revealed I had not done sufficient investigation and was mostly just curious for them to justify their differences in ideology. I repeated a trite talking point that “PPW is not universal” that I have heard many times and listed the vague arguments against its universality which I had heard. I was recommended this book amongst other things.

I read it in its entirety. It’s a theoretical debate for 2019. It opens with a Filipino communist arguing against universality, and that section left me confused. Then a Nordic guy rebuts him and had me thinking Gonzalo may have been right. Another guy comes at him with all the arguments I have heard before, sounding condescending, but rightfully so. I was pretty much convinced but wanted to keep an open mind to why the Maoists liked this. Then a new theory group finishes out with a strong sounding argument for the PCP position.

This question requires further investigation for me to develop an “all sided” perspective, and I can’t vouch for Gonzalo, but I don’t have reason to trust Bad Empanada or any rando on the internet. I must go through more source material when my ADHD compels me.

What I have taken away from the reading is the Protracted People’s War can and should probably be applied in varied situations. It is essentially years of guerrilla warfare against the capitalist state until victory is won over the exploiters. There is no other kind of successful revolution. Our strategy in the west is shit – trying to slowly protest and accumulate support. You cannot win war without practice, and no revolution happens overnight. We will not be ready if a revolutionary situation were to happen tomorrow. The Bolsheviks illegally fought their ruling class for years. European parties were most successful when forced to militarize by fascism, but stupidly disarmed.

PPW does not mean surrounded the cities by the country side. PPW is the universal Marxist element (in the works of Mao), but particularities of every situation must be studied. The IRA fought the British using urban warfare and were relatively successful before right opportunism led to compromise. More advanced theory could help a new BLA or Weathermen be successful in the US. Our ruling class is going and fascist militias are ramping up violence no matter what and we need a more systematic approach than little SRA chapters or whatever.

No, I’m not going to call myself a Maoist or whatever. There are shitty Maoists and Gonzalo did bad stuff, but the same is true of every leftist group. What matters is what works in practice, and legalist accumulationism is not working. We need to maintain ruthless criticism of all that exists and do investigations instead of resorting to dogma. Everyone has a different perspective, and we all need to realize we won’t convince everyone, so we should keep criticizing and refining. We should not seek “leftist unity” for the sake of tailing the least common denominator. We should seek the best methods (using Marxist analysis) and get people to join us in what works. No, I don’t understand all this or have all the answers, but I recommend people check out the essays. Criticize them too, as a matter of fact.

I’m a zoomer and I’ve probably got ADHD, and I’ve read my share of theory, but I understand why it’s hard for some people. Would it be a good idea to intertwine music with political education? I like genres that try to fill my insatiable appetite for stimulation like nu-metal, hyper-pop and phonk. I feel like a lot of overtly political music can come off as cheesy and not one’s kind of music, so it might appeal to some people to incorporate other genres. Might it keep people’s attention more to say have nightcore Engels? What if we just put some bass and distorted guitar under an audiobook. If people don’t have the attention span for that maybe a phonk beat for a banger quote?

Would anyone else be interested in working on this or see value in it? I currently lack the hardware and skill, but I could learn.

Maybe with some Marxism, I know Dialectical Behavioral Therapy is a thing. Either way, mental illness is my current fixation, and I’ll read anything half decent on the topic. Maybe not too long idk (I’m not planning to go through the DSM). Free pdfs or audiobooks appreciated.

All I remember is he comes after Freud, some of his followers are annoying, there’s a Marxist podcast that likes him called ‘the return of the repressed,’ and I don’t think Lukacs liked him.