SweetLava

The question itself might be misleading here. Considering Marx's dialectic was derived more from Hegel, the beter question would be 'how is there a contradiction inherent in concrete labor?'

So - how is that?

Here's the way I'm approaching the question. First, I'm disposing of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis and I'm replacing it with concrete-negative-abstract.

That is to say, there is a contradiction inherent in the concrete, and through the 'negative' process (the mediation process, the process that 'transforms' into the new, the sublation), we arrive at the abstract.

Where does Marx differ in his dialectic here? I know he critiqued both the Young Hegelians and the Hegelians in general for a similar problem. I'm still working out the details here...

On to the 'labor' question: concrete labor is based on the social divison of labor, into separate tasks (i.e., welding, farming, selling shirts, knitting sweaters); abstract labor is general form of labor, the aggregate sum of all labor activities.

Since I'm still uncertain on the differences between Hegelian and Marxist dialectics, I could be wrong on my assumptions following to the next issue.

Is the 'negative' in this case the labor process? Concrete labor, each specific role, is divided up for commodity production. When those commodities are put to market under capitalism (where the commodity form dominates), they meet a common exchange, the universal money-commodity. This is the basis of alienation and commodity fetishization.

Then through the labor process/valorization, labor is passed into its abstract form.

What am I getting wrong here? What exactly is the inherent contradiction? Is it that concrete labor has no value without entering capitalist relations (under an economy of generalized commodity production)? Since labor-power itself must have both a use- and exchange-value?

Or am I way off base?

This is about the fact that indigenous people make up a disproportionate amount of the military population

But when talking to people in general, how do you open dialogue with not just indigenous, but also black and Latino/Chicano veterans and younger people trying to join? A lot of people are lured in by poverty, others are looking for discipline or they have strict families who try to force/impose it.

Is there any advice on having these conversations? I believe it's important to be respectful and mature about it, to not go on lecturing and complaining.

a classic iykyk

tl;dr - I do NOT like Christian Zionists, give me the resouces to understand and address their bullshit

The Christians followers of this have been talking about the "end times" with very little explanation. I tried looking into their most recent ranting and raving about the red heifer theory, but I was shocked to find that the most popular results were from people who genuinely believe that shit.

I want an explanation for this insane theory. There's something deeply antisemitic about it and I want to get to the bottom of it.

I don't want to criticize this belief by brushing it off as a bunch of loonies, dismissively pointing to the beliefs as not worth my time. I want to know exactly what it is so I can properly address it, at least mentally.

What does finance capitalism serve? When look at the progress of original capitalism, when compared to feudalism especially, there were some clear long term benefits. But what has the capitalism of the neoliberal era done?

Doesn't the existance of the US and UK in the neoliberal era for so many years just mean that we found a way to be fascist while maintaining the liberal-democratic order and bourgeois freedoms?

Or could a modern socialist state wield the teaching of financial capitalism in a progressive manner that can be seized for the benefit of the people without such a socialist state being imperialist or engaging in un-fair or un-equal exchange across borders?

To get straight to the point, I've been trying to move right back to reading from the original Marxists, esp. Marx and Engels themselves.

I think the online left and people organizing in real life are not paying enough attention to the trends at hand. Some people we are calling comrades today are going to be fascists, and I believe as undisputed fact.

People are making reference to an "industrial" versus "financial" capitalism, or reference to a so-called PMC class, or reference to a "critical support" of countries like Russia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and many others. I see a lot of talk about multipolarity and geopolitics.

At first glance, this doesn't look harmful, but if we go back in time and imagine similar debates as though it were still World War I? These would be the ones first to try to pull a Mussolini and jump from Communist and anti-Imperialist to writing fascist theory.

As these perversions of Marx continue, I really do fear that a lot of middle-class (and those middle-class falling to proles) will see this and end up re-inventing fascism.

There is far too much crude and vulgar anti-capitalism, anti-liberalism, anti-imperalism. It's a grave error. Liberalism is born out of the French Revolution and brought us progressively towards radical socialism and Communism. Capitalism, for all its faults, brought us progressively towards alternative structures and the ability for workers to seize mass production for their class. Anti-imperialism, for some of its faults, brought us the Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese, and Korean revolutions, all but one with total victory.

But I hear people calling themselves anti-capitalist, anti-liberal, anti-imperalist as if there was nothing more behind those words. We're in World War III it seems, but people who are clearly infiltrated and have a lack of understanding of serious conflicts are running left-wing parties. What are they doing? Who is there to critique them? Over the years we've had to deal with nonsense from the IMT, Midwestern Marx, the Black Hammer Party, PCUSA, and so on. There is no working class party with the tools and experience and support base to properly analyze and critique them.

I think we need to request of working class parties a way to redefine the use of anti-imperialist forces and the idea of nationalism and ideas of "oppressed nations" and the way the Global North and Global South are organized. To be blunt, Palestine is one of the only places on this earth where a real national liberation would be legitimate. From so many years of a weakened leftist movement, it looks like decades of work are going to be put in to fix it.

I get the idea that Cuba and North Korea are the last breath of Communism on this planet and, for how much of a fight they put up, they are still struggling. Hard. N. Korea is reliant on Russia. Cuba is facing so many leaving the country while their economy hasn't fully recovered, and they are turning to private sector to fix problems while still under a painful embargo. These are not pleasant places to live and I can't think of anyone in the real world that would see this socialism and decide it's the way to go. So much progress is squeezed into these tiny countries and there's nothing to show the world for it. On top of that, if Palestine doesn't get a real success in the near future, we are pushed even further back in terms of progess while the leftist movement is barely getting back to development.

I am still Marxist-Leninist, but I hope people understand that the mistakes of leftist movements today are going to be the framework for fascists tomorrow. I won't lose hope, but a lot of people will.

Who is going to be the one to transform the contradictions of today into the working class movements of tomorrow, speaking figuratively?

Sorry to let down many on Lemmygrad and Hexbear with this statement, but neither the rise of China nor the fall of the US will be way to success. Those are just inevitabilities based on present conditions, but the events alone aren't going to do much. The fall of the US might even put hell on some of the most vulnerable people on earth. And the rise of China isn't going to inspire much except a vague sense of "economic stability and prosperity".

At this point, my position is almost right in the middle, right between the average (in-practice) Marxist-Leninist and the average (in-practice) ML-Maoist. My views are starting to diverge a little too much from what I see online, but my views are still useful in real life situations and among the real world, which is a good sign, but it doesn't even look like half the people calling themselves some form of leftists are even trying to understand what they are doing. The world is moving too fast and too dangerously for so many people to make these deadly errors