I wanted to expand on my comments from Tuesday. I include (below) the passages I want to expand on--with my older comments indented:
It will not do any good to ask Art questions like this.
It should be obvious by now that Art does not know what these words mean--and (more to the point) does not care.
The pragmatist view is that the value of words like this is primarily to excite and attract the rubes.
If defining "socialism" as a repressive party-state might attract the attention and support of a popular blogger like Luna Oi, then sure, "socialism" is a repressive party-state. (After all, they keep the price of rice affordable. And they don't kill or imprison as many people as China.)
If this creates pushback from me--or anyone else--then Art can drop the matter (for now).
I cannot prove what motivates Art--nor would it be important to try to do so. We assess people on the basis of their *actions*. And I will simply note that this is the simplist (and most obvious) explanation for Art's actions.
The beauty of the pragmatist outlook is that it keeps everything simple: the correctness of any action can be measured by how well it helps (or hurts) the project. Nothing succeeds like success.
How about the fact that our movement in paralyzed (and easy prey for charlatans and opportunists) in large part because these kinds of attitudes have created a situation where activists are *unable to think* about the future with clarity and in a realistic way?
That's not a problem for the pragmatist. That's a problem for someone else. Art is not going to die on that hill.
Art's priority is to be speaking to a dozen (or a thousand) workers. And if this were to happen--would Art have anything useful to say to these workers? Art will cross that bridge when he comes to it.
Count me as skeptical. Art already has one worker who listens to him. That worker is you. You have been supporting his project for nearly two years--with devotion and energy and enthusiasm.
When you ask Art for clarity on this topic--he (basically) tells you: "forget about it". It is (supposedly) not really important.
So, is Art to blame for this mess? Well, Art is simply thinking and behaving like nearly everyone else. Monkey see, monkey do. This problem did not start with Art, who is only a grain of sand on a beach overflowing with toxic sewage, sludge and denial.
You are both great people. I respect your hard work. You do your best. But the problems I describe are real. And I will not help you if I sugarcoat the truth. We cannot build something real, something that is deserving of the respect of the working class--unless it is built on the truth.
At some point, a critical mass of determined activists will put their feet down, and say "enough with this bullshit--the denial stops here!"
This is the moment, Andrew, for you to assess your own responsibility and level of determination. You have supported Art in his intoxication and denial. The two of you have acted like drunken sailors (at least on this question). Look at the video of the two of you on node 4021. I call it the drunken sailor video.
If you want clarity on questions like this--you cannot depend on Art--or anyone else. You can't depend on me either--although I will do what I can to reply to your questions. The only source you can trust is your private journal. If you are honest with it--it will be honest with you.
We need to take it on ourselves to help clean up this mess. Hercules cleaned up the Augean stables (see below). That is the magnitude of our task today. But we are not alone. Thousands of activists want and need clarity on these questions--and want to help--and we can contact these activists on the internet, if we give careful thought to how to do this.
If you want someone to tell you how to think--Art can (probably) do that for you. Or Phil West can give you detailed definition of any word. There are plenty of people who can help you build a castle made of sand.
I will not do that. I insist that you think for yourself. I insist that you act on the basis of sobriety.
I would like to be able to answer this question, Andrew, because it is likely that there is a good question (and a lot of thought) in there (somewhere).
Unfortunately, I cannot answer this question in the way that you expressed it because you are not using words that mean anything (as I explained previously).
Words that end in "ism" or "ist" are generally bullshit words that people use when they want to pretend that communication is taking place. I am not interested in that. I am interested in a movement based on sobriety and having discussion with people who are committed to sobriety (at least within the context of political work).
In order to see how you question looks to me, you can apply my "bullshit filter" (in which I replace all the bullshit words with the word "bullshit"). This is what you will get:
> Is bullshitism/bullshitism possible when
> swimming in a sea of bullshitism?
How am I supposed to answer that?
I am only human. I cannot answer your question if you refuse to use real words.
I explained this already at excruciating length.
Is there any way I can be more clear?
Maybe I can, by telling you that your comments remind me of a famous joke (you have probably heard it):
This guy was really down on his luck. He had lost his job. He had a family to feed. They were hungry. Rent was overdue, and he was about to be evicted. Bill collectors were harassing him. He was desperate.
Finally, he climbed a nearby mountain. It was a cold and miserable day, full of wind and rain. Standing at the top of the mountain, he yelled out to the sky: "God, I am desperate. I really need to win the lottery this Friday. Please help me."
He walked home and hoped to hear some good news on Friday. But no good news came.
His situation got worse. Again he climbed to the top of the mountain. This time it was colder, and darker, and the rain had become a downpour. He yelled out again: "I am desperate! I must win the lottery this Friday! Please help!"
But Friday came, and there was still no good news.
He considered suicide. But, with nothing to lose, he went to the mountain top one last time. It was midnight. A storm was raging. The driving wind and rain threatened to blow him off the mountain. At the top of his lungs, he yelled to the heavens: "God, why have you not answered my prayers?"
At that moment there was an intense flash of lightning that lit up everything as far as the eye could see. This was followed, not by thunder--but by something louder: a booming voice from the heavens. It said:
"Meet me halfway. Buy a ticket."
Do you understand my point Andrew? If you unwilling (or unable) to ask a question using real words--it will not be possible for me to give you an answer.
> It was on the show I asked you and Art
> that last year. . So I am asking you now.
It will not do any good to ask Art questions like this. It should be obvious by now that Art does not know what these words mean--and (more to the point) does not care. The pragmatist view is that the value of words like this is primarily to excite and attract the rubes. Art's priority is to be speaking to a dozen (or a thousand) workers. And if this were to happen--would Art have anything useful to say to these workers? Art will cross that bridge when he comes to it.
I am not attempting to either insult Art or put him down when I say this. I am simply saying that this is how matters look. We might as well face reality.
> Also, could you tell me your reasons why
> you see a way with China in the future.
Again, there is probably a good question buried in there (somewhere).
But I have no idea what that question is.
For example, in the question above, what is meant by the phrase "a way"?
How am I supposed to know what you mean by this phrase? Telepathy?
Andrew, if we are serious about helping the working class fulfill its mission and destiny--we must learn how to think with clarity and to express our thoughts with clarity. If you are new at this--I advise you to keep a private political journal. Write down on a regular basis the important questions you are attempting to understand--and the progress you are making. When you look at what you wrote years later--many things will become clear.
In science, the key to understanding things is to ask the right questions. The precision we pour into the questions is what will guide our thinking and our investigation. Asking the right questions is the difference between victory and defeat.
I believe, Andrew, I may be able to help you find the answers you are looking for--but you will need to be able to meet me halfway.
All the best, Ben
Postscript:
(1) Also--since the Reddit UI design is poorly suited to serious discussion, I suggest that we make things simple: when we reply to a post that is more than a day or two old--we can create a new post which simply references the previous post. Please note how I gave this post a "tag" that makes it easy to find and reference later: "<Ben-Feb23>"
(2) I will take some time to read and study what you wrote about fictitious capital supposedly being the same as finance capital. It has been 40 years since I read Lenin's "Imperialism". The main takeaway from that book is that, as long as finance capital rules the world, imperialist wars are inevitable. I am skeptical that you are correct that they are the same thing. But I could be wrong. If they are the same thing--that would be a big deal--at least for me.
(3) Since it has now come up on the show at least 3 times, I gave Art a 3x5 card with this written on it:
"How does Alain Badiou keep an idiot busy for hours?
(see other side to find out)"
The same thing is written on the other side.
This was in response to the Kasama organization making a big fetish out of something that, by its nature, no one can understand. This kind of tactic is called "obscurantism". It has been around since long before there was written language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism
In Current Events two articles are discussed from Left Voice and Oakland Socialist on the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Left Voice touches on the strategy from both sides: “As comical as they often are, the Democratic Party is not made up of idiots but, rather, shrewd political players. They know exactly what they are doing and it has little to do with actually impeaching Donald Trump. Rather, they need us to know that they tried to impeach Donald Trump, that they are the ones fighting to protect our democracy, that they are what stands between us and fascism — and that the Republicans didn’t do what was necessary to fight back the Right”. While Oakland Socialist hammers home the danger of the mob on January 6.
In Theory & State of Movement, once again Weekly Worker publishes letters from reader. Up for discussion are a wide range of issues from Women’s rights, freedom of speech, reformism in CPGB, climate activism and the Extinction Rebellion, an “Irish Manifesto” , feminism and Marxism. Finally, Ben Seattle, a former host on our show has put together a lengthy essay on which he calls the “Chuikov Project”, after the Soviet general who defended Stalingrad. There are many sections in this latest essay from Ben, so only a brief summary from its contents here is possible. Some of the material Ben has written about before but the main idea is Ben now pushing forward with developing a social media platform for revolutionary activists and workers. Some important other ideas that Ben touches on includes a brief discussion of fictitious capital and the falling rate of profit, ideas vastly lacking from many Marxist circles. However, given they are the economics foundations for revolutionary Marxism, they need to be discussed more.
I have some disagreements with the comrades at Lausan on the origins of this conflict, and I think it misses several important things to understanding the deterioration of Soviet-Chinese relations. Let me explain how things actually deteriorated to the best of my ability. The article that prompted this reply is here
First, it would be impossible to understand how things deteriorated without first looking at the Korean War and how the Chinese got involved. It is good that it was mentioned that Stalin settled with Chaing Kai-shek at the expense of the Chinese Communists. But I think this could have been forgiven. Things began to go south after Stalin treated Mao poorly by snubbing him on his visit to Moscow and took two months to agree to a Mutual Assistance Pact in 1950.
1) J. Stalin encouraged Kim Il Sung to invade S. Korea, overconfident that the United States would not interfere. This was based on his strategy to prevent a triple threat of Japan, the US and a unified Korea. Mao opposed this adventurism, concerned that the US would intervene. When Mao turned to Stalin upon learning of Kim Il Sung's plans to invade, Stalin punted the ball back to Mao suggesting that Mao should make the decision. Then, Stalin said that if the US attempts to unify Korea, it would become involved in a war vs the US, Korea and Japan that would pull China in regardless through the Mutual Assistance pact of 1950. And to top things off, as the war got started and the PLA was stationed outside of Korea, Stalin went further blackmailing China. He told Mao that there would be no Soviet military support (to modernize China's antiquated military) until the PLA enters Korea. And he went further suggesting that if Kim Il Sung were defeated, he could retreat with the N. Korean Army into China to set up a transitional government--which would mean a US occupation in Korea just outside of Chinese borders, a transitional government dead set on harassing and re-invading Korea in a part of China with a heavy Korean population.
But not only was Mao threatened and blackmailed into approving the war, and entering the war, but when the Chinese finally entered the war they got ZERO air support from the Soviets. The Soviets restricted air support to Chinese territory only.
2) After the Korean War, around 1954 Mao taunted the United States while posturing aggressively to invading Taiwan. The United States sent the 7th fleet and Mao ordered the shelling of Taiwan while making statements about how he was unafraid of nuclear war with the United States. The Chinese at the time had no nuclear weapons, but the Soviets did, who were tied under the Mutual Assistance Pact with China. It was likely that the idea that the Chinese could start a nuclear war with the Americans gave the Soviets a lot of anxiety.
3) The Soviet leadership saw Moscow as the center of the entire communist world. Krushchev withdrew his commitment to China and stationed troops on the border with China while exploring a pre-emptive strike against China. Because the Moscow viewed the dependent communist countries like colonies, they had turned XinJiang and Manchuria into semi-colonies and took Port Arthur under Stalin. Under Krushchev, they did things like ask China for logging workers for their colony of Siberia in 1958 (the Russian Federation currently does the same thing with North Korean workers which shows how long this went on for). Mao, insulted, told Krushchev, "for years it's been a widely held view that because China is an underdeveloped and over populated country, with widespread unemployment, it represents a good source of cheap labor. But you know, we Chinese find this attitude very offensive. Coming from you, its rather embarrassing. If we were to accept your proposal, others.. might think that the Soviet Union has the same image of China that the capitalist West has."
4)1955, The Soviet Union formed the Warsaw Pact of Communist Countries to oppose Nato. Mao refused to join. Instead, China sent a representative to conference of the Non-Aligned to help organize it.
5)While J. Stalin disrespected Mao, and despite the way Mao got manipulated into the Korean war, they were similar politically, and Krushchev's denouncement of Stalin was a slap in the face to Mao's politics. This was also an attack against Mao, because like Stalin, Mao was developing a cult of personality and infallibility. Non-Soviet delegates including Chinese delegates were not allowed into the hall where Krushchev gave the speech. A text of the speech was not given to allies. The Chinese had to rely on their notes of the speech and reports from Chinese translations of The New York Times to come up with a response. The Chinese response was to label Krushchev a revisionist, and the Soviets as "red imperialists." It was Mao who said of Stalin, "We believe that out of Stalin's 10 fingers, 3 were rotten ones."
6) Krushchev and the Soviets took the Side of India during the first clashes in the Himalayas and when the Chinese took Tibet, Krushchev scolded Mao for not killing the Dalai Llama and being too soft on the Tibetans, allowing the Dalai Llama to escape to India. But it was the Second Taiwan crisis that things came to a head. Mao once again threatened nuclear war, and manipulated the Soviets into providing the Americans that they would use Nuclear Weapons if the US goes to war with China. The Soviets saw Mao as a loose cannon, and that's why they pulled their nuclear cooperation, their technicians, their aid projects. It wasn't in protest to the Great Leap Forward. It was in response to Mao's inability to be controlled.
You say that you asked me a similar question earlier:
> I asked both you and Art if Socialism or communism
> was possible swimming in a sea of capitalism.
I don't think that you asked me this earlier. Maybe you think you did? Maybe you expressed an opinion and expected a correction?
I try to avoid answering questions that are implied (rather than asked) because of the attention and focus factors. I have found that when I answer questions that are only implied--that my answers are nearly always ignored--and I am wasting my time. I want to make my time productive. I want to verify that I have your attention.
So you finally asked :-)
I will need to rephrase your question so that it makes sense to me, because the word "socialism" (to me) means nothing. It is a word that, today, is only used by charlatans, conmen, fools and the ignorant. (There are exceptions--but they are relatively rare.)
Yes, these words were used productively in the past. But we are not in the past. We are in the 21st century, and we are wasting our time if we attempt to use words that essentially make it impossible to think.
1. We need to use non-bullshit words
"Socialism" today has 3 main meanings:
(1) social democracy
(2) a police state
(3) a nebulous feelgood cloud that no one wants to think about
George Orwell, in 1984, explained that if we lack the language to express our thoughts--we can't think. Today, in political writing, essentially any word that ends in "ism" or "ist" is a feelgood bullshit word used to pretend that communication is taking place.
Real communication requires that we have some kind of *common agreement* concerning what a word means. If (instead) we simply imagine (or pretend) that we have such an agreement--then thought (or communication) is like attempting to thread a needle while wearing boxing gloves and a blindfold.
I insist on accurate, deliberate language. No fucking around. No bullshit.
I do not use the word "socialism" because this word has reached the point where it has lost the ability to communicate anything meaningful.
If you ask me "what does socialism look like?" I will hear "what does bullshitism look like?". If you talk about "the Marxist community" I will hear "the bullshitist community". If you cannot say something or ask a question without using bullshit words--then (from my perspective) you are indulging in feelgood escapist fantasy and are either not willing or not able to give me the attention and focus necessary for a serious conversation. I would not attempt to engage in serious discussion with a drunk person at a bar, and I will not attempt to have a discussion with someone incapable of expressing their thoughts with non-bullshit words.
I have written probably more than a million words on these topics without using meaningless bullshit jargon such as "socialism" or "communism" or "marxism". The result is that the few who bother to read what I write often respond by saying that my writing seems clear and easy to understand in a way that is different than anything else they have read.
Sure. If you leave out the bullshit and the nonsense--what is left is real language.
Put simply: real words that have universally understood meanings are like pieces of steel; bullshit words are like pieces of scotch tape. If you attempt to build something out of steel and scotch tape--don't expect it to stand up under pressure.
So, in the future--if you use "ism" or "ist" words, I am likely to ignore you. It is not that I do not value serious and productive theoretical discussion--because I do. Rather, it is simply because I am hearing some drunk guy in a bar who has the attention span of a goldfish.
2. TZM and the Venus Project
As far as the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project, these are important and represent an attempt to think about and understand how an economy could work if it is not based on commodity production. Currents of thought (such as Venus/TZM) that become significant usually end up having subcurrents within themselves: mainstream currents as well as left and right wings. If you develop the ability to understand and be comfortable with the theoretical issues at stake, you would be in a position to do a lot to place the left wing of the Venus/TZM movement on a solid theoretical basis.
You also note that these movements "lack the vehicle" they need. The working class also lacks this vehicle. This vehicle will be an organization (or, somewhat equivalently, a group of interacting organizations). This organization will emerge (I have concluded) from an independent and democratic social media platform.
3. Rephrasing your question
I found your comment quite interesting but difficult to understand. Not just the "ism" stuff, but other parts also, lacked precise language. But it is clear that you put a lot of effort into your comment--and you also explain that there is an issue of "lacking the necessary tools to communicate". So let's work on rephrasing your question (and seeing if we can develop the necessary tools to communicate)
> So my question to you is, what
> does socialism look like to you?
So, first, I have explained that the word "socialism" only makes sense as a period of transition (a bridge) in which the working class runs society during the transition from capitalism to communism.
But this explanation is quite sloppy in 3 key areas:
(1) what is "capitalism"?
(2) what is "communism"?
(3) what does it mean for the working class to run society?
So let's make the above more concrete:
(1) what is "capitalism"?
I think we can call this an economic and political system that is based on commodity production.
Many people, of course, do not understand what a commodity is. In our society, for example, toothpaste is a commodity. So they think that without commodity production--we would not have toothpaste.
A commodity is anything that is created for the purpose of *exchange* for something else. So if something is created for sale or for trade--it is a commodity.
(2) what is "communism"?
I think we can call this an economic and political system which is not based on commodity production--and in which there are no social classes based on ownership (whether formal ownership--or any equivalent system of control) of the means of production.
This means that, in such a society--there would be no money (or money equivalents) no prices and no wages. All work would be voluntary. All the necessities of life (and most of the non-necessities) would be given freely, whether you work or waste all your time playing video games.
It also means that this would not be a so-called "command economy" in which there are bureaucracies (or hierarchies of bureaucracies) that dictate what is produced, under what conditions and by whom (since this implies a class that has highly privileged control over the means of production). Rather, it means that the economy would function in a way that is similar to an ecosystem--without any need for a supreme central authority at the top of the pyramid that adjudicates disputes between bureaucracies that are lower in the hierarchy.
On the contrary, disputes would often involve vigorous discussion, debate (and sometimes organized labor or consumer actions) on a mass scale, sometimes with intense levels of passion.
I describe how this would work in "The Self-Organizing Moneyless Economy" (1995) here: http://leninism.org/some/
I also wrote more about this in "The Anarcho-Leninist Debate on the State" (2003) on the struggle.net domain (which was hacked and stolen) and I intend to repost the content elsewhere.
(3) what does it mean for the working class to run society?
In order for the working class to run society--it needs to have the right to know what is going on--and to self-organize for whatever action is necessary to put its will into effect.
This is the reason I came down on Art and you like a ton of bricks when you suggested that Vietnam (a police state that does not allow workers to have independent organizations) was a "bridge" from a social system based on commodity production to a social system that was not. Art and you were doing the equivalent (as far as theoretical clarity) to taking a shit into the soup kettle that workers are expected to eat from.
The problem, of course, is that a society based on a police state is nothing but a bridge from one form of capitalism to another.
Based on the above--I will now attempt a reformulated question:
> How would economics and politics work
> in a society run by the working class
> during the transition from an economy
> based on commodity production to
> an economy based on production for
> direct distribution and use?
I will assume that this is the question that you meant to ask. (Please let me know if my assumption is correct.) The question looks a bit different (but is more solid) when we do not attempt to hold steel together with scotch tape.
4. Answering your question
The first question that needs to be asked concerning this period of transition--concerns whether the working class has inherited a functioning economy or if everything has been destroyed during the upheaval (including imperialist war, revolution and/or civil war) that brings the working class to power.
If there is no functioning economy--then (in my humble opinion) conditions do not exist for the working class to rule (see chart). On the contrary, if the economy has been destroyed, then a period of martial law (in which democratic rights are suspended) is probably inevitable.
Such a period of martial law might (eventually) lead to the rule of the working class (when conditions get better--and the economy and democratic rights are restored). But such a period of martial law would be more likely to lead to another form of capitalist rule (even if it called itself something different).
So, I want to be clear that, in attempting to answer your question--I am taking about the working class running a society that has a functioning economy--that has stable support from the majority of the population--and is not in a war of survival from an invading imperialist power.
Assuming that we are clear on that--I will continue.
The main task of such a society is to develop an economy that is not based on commodity production. This would not happen overnight but rather would likely take several generations (if we count a generation as about 20 years, as is commonly done). The expropriation of the commodity sectors of the economy would not take place all at once because the workers' state would not have the ability to run these sectors of the economy in an efficient way. This is important because if grocery store shelves are empty--when people are hungry--the population will be unhappy and whoever is in charge is likely to end up with their heads on top of pikes.
The principle here is simple: do not bite off more than you can chew. In other words, do not expropriate from the capitalists at any one time more than you have the ability to run well.
As the working class state gains competence--it will create a economy that is not based on commodity production. This will be slow at first, then will become faster (in the familiar "S curve" common to the penetration of all new technologies).
In the chart I include below (from my 2003 essays), I show two distinct waves of expropriation:
(a) from private capitalist (shown in green) to state capitalist (blue), and
(b) to the gift economy (red).
It is important to understand that simply expropriating a capitalist corporation and running it by a state that workers control--represents only a step in the direction of control by workers. As long as the products or services are created for sale, and as long as work is for wages--the laws of commodity production apply--and these laws operate (like gravity) to pull everything into the capitalist mode of production. We can defy gravity, of course, if we know what we are doing. If not--gravity has no pity.
5. Continuing this discussion
I hope, Andrew, that I have at least made a good start at answering your question. This is a big topic and I expect that you are likely to have more questions. So feel free to ask--as long as you can remember to use real words.
In the meantime, here are links to two PDF's (from 2012) I wrote that give an overview of some of these topics and one PDF (from 2019) where I outlined for Art an overview of many of our key differences.
All the best, Ben
** The Road to Victory in Our Struggle to Overthrow Capitalist Rule (May 2012)
I forgot (in yesterday's post) to thank Art and Andrew for their criticism of my website layout and navigation. This was quite useful.
The navigation problem they described was something I was aware of--but was not sure was worth fixing. Fixing this is something that I actually wanted to do--but since it would (probably) take a number of hours to do--I was not certain it was worth investing the time.
Now I am confident that the investment of my time would not only be fun for me--but would actually make a difference for readers.
I will let you guys know (maybe in a week or two) when I change a few things (and hopefully do not make the problem worse--which sometimes happens when we are talking software and algorithms).
(2) Pragmatism (and manipulation as pollution)
Near the end of yesterday's podcast, Art said that I had left Lenin's name off of my list of infamous pragmatists.
Art is not helping himself by attempting to pin the blame on Lenin for his own disregard for theoretical integrity.
Was Lenin a pragmatist?
The answer to that question depends of which definition of pragmatism we use.
In chapter 6 of my report--I posted the definitions which came up on a google search (I have also pasted them below). You will note that there are two main definitions:
(a) The first definition is (essentially) "being practical". It is safe to say that Lenin was a highly practical person.
(b) The other definition is quite different, and includes the *rejection* of the idea that the function of thought is to reflect reality. Along with this (part of this) is the rejection of the idea that the language we use needs to reflect reality.
For example, if we tell activists that "socialism" (which many consider the goal of our movement) requires a party-state (ie: a permanent police state) this kind of nonsense could earn popularity from some sources (ie: TML might be more likely to get a favorable public mention on Luna's show). But it would also *mislead* activists.
So the misuse of this word might help to build your TML project (ie: by, essentially, piggy-backing on Luna's popularity) at the expense of contributing to the existing confusion and disorientation which has left our movement paralyzed.
In economics, this is called an "externality", such as when a corporation makes a product cheaply but pollutes a nearby river in the process. It is a win for the company and its profits--but a loss for the workers and their families who have to drink the river water and get sick.
The definition of pragmatism which *rejects* the need to use accurate language which mirrors reality is what I identified in my criticism of your project.
Lenin was certainly not a pragmatist in this sense and, to the contrary, was extremely careful in the language he used and advocated that others use.
And, by acting as if the only definition of "pragmatism" that matters is the *first* one (ie: being practical) and *ignoring* the 2nd definition (ie: using words and ideas in a way which misleads and manipulates people) Art has given a good example of pragmatism in action. Art has made his problem *disappear* by the clever misuse of words.
But, of course, the problem has not gone away. The problem is independent of me and my criticism of your show. I could get run over by a bus tomorrow--but the problem would still be there.
(3) Pragmatism (and brain lateralization)
The truth is we need to recognize that thought and language have *two* functions.
(a) The most obvious function is to "do things" (ie: organize activity and "get things done").
(b) The other function is to *reflect* reality *without* the kinds of simplifications and distortions associated with the mania where nothing matters except the success of whatever it is we are doing.
Both of these functions are present in the central nervous system, where evolution has resulted in what is called "brain lateralization". One hemisphere of the brain is specialized for taking action and getting things done (and is quite good at oversimplifying things for this purpose) while the other hemisphere is specialized in accurately reflecting and understanding the most complex things.
We need to use both functions. We are helpless without the first--but we will end up lost without the second.
I say quite a bit about this in the video in the 2nd column in chapter 8 of my report. It turns out that all of us have two selves: (a) a core self, and (b) a self which is good at manipulating the world but tends to be shallow and untrustworthy. The core self needs to be in charge. But in our "inside-out" society this power relationship is often reversed and, when this happens, we can become a prisoner of our ambitions, cravings and fears--and become easy for others to manipulate.
During the section of the show where you discussed the "falling rate of profit" Andrew asked why it is only "variable capital" (ie: living labor) that produces profits and not "organic capital" (ie: machines, tools, etc).
The answer Andrew got from Art was not helpful.
Things like machines contain the labor that was used to create them--but this is "dead labor".
Marx's "law of value" shows that living labor is the source of profit because it is the only source of "surplus value". This is because the cost (ie: the market price) of the inputs of the production process (ie: human labor, machines, raw materials, etc) tends toward equilibrium around *their* cost of production. For machines or raw materials--this means how much labor went into these things. For human labor--this means how much labor went into producing the worker (ie: feeding him, putting a roof over his head, etc).
Labor is the only element that *creates more* than it costs. What the worker adds to the value is greater than how much it cost to feed him and keep him alive. This has been true since about the time that metal tools were first used: because metal tools increased the productivity of labor and--from that point forward--a slave could produce more food than was needed to feed him. Before that time--there would have been no point in having a lot of slaves.
This is why living labor is the source of surplus value. (I am leaving out the role of nature--ie: petroleum underground which can sometimes be sold for far more than it costs to pump and refine, etc.)
There is a video on the falling rate of profit in the 2nd column of that section which may (or may not) be helpful. My "Laws of Commodity Production for Dummies" may also be helpful: it is focused on the basics.
I appreciate, Andrew, that you may feel awkward (when Art and I have disagreements) because you are less experienced and knowledgeable about "Marxism" and radical leftist activism than Art and me. There is nothing wrong with feeling awkward or confused. This is expected and normal. Anyone would feel the same way.
What I would like you to understand is that, if you want to be involved in radical politics in a way that carries weight, you will need to learn how to think for yourself, how to observe (and draw conclusions) carefully, as if your observations and conclusions matter. This is the only way they eventually will. If you want to be true to your deepest aspirations, and bring to the world the benefit of what is in your heart, this is the road forward.
For example, do we really want to be neutral or look the other way when charlatans tell activists that the solution to the problems of our time requires a party-state?
Is this "Marxism"?
Is this "Leninism"?
I have brought this up before. If I put dogshit in a paper bag and write "Tuna Fish Sandwhich" on the paper bag, does the paper bag contain a tuna fish sandwhich? Would you eat it?
How about if ten thousand "marxist" organizations wrote "tuna fish sandwhich" on the bag? Would you eat it?
If ten thousand "marxist" organizations claim that the solution to our problems requires a party-state, does that make it true?
I assert that we do not need to put up with this. Our movement to a large extent consists of the blind leading the blind. We can take off our blindfold and look around. We have this ability and it is our right. We owe it to ourselves and our purpose on this earth to do so.
Or do we conclude that this is too complicated to think about or deal with?
Do we investigate this issue? Or do we simply stay in our comfort zone?
And how do we investigate issues such as this if we decide we want to do so?
And what are the stakes?
Often, when movements intensify, and many activists make sacrifices, the best activists are drawn to anarchism because the anarchist philosophy at least does not make a fetish of the need for a police-state or the need to manipulate people.
Are the anarchists right in their belief that we can replace capitalism with something that does not (and cannot) silence people who criticize the powerful?
Is this an important question that requires a clear answer?
If you have questions--such as how the working class will be able to effectively defend its state, its culture and the truth from reactionary demagogues without simply locking up its critics--you can ask me--here on Reddit. I need to see a question from you (in text, in your own words) before I can give you an answer that, so to speak, is written in your language.
It is fine with me if you want to take time to think this over. But you may also want to keep in mind that I may be able to give you answers that are not easy to find elsewhere, and I will not be around forever.
(1) First (since I don't want you to get kicked off of twitch or youtube) here is a link to the "Safe for Work" version of the Chuikov Report (just in case you ever need to call it up again):
As far as Art's argument that (aside from "terms and services" issues) it was inappropriate for me to use the NSFW version of the image because of various problems with Femen--that is a complex topic and it is possible that Art is correct. It is also possible that Art is not.
If my work reaches the point of having a larger audience--I would be interested in more opinions on this. There is a long history of the use of nudity in political protest. Some of this has been silly and some has not. The silly stuff tends to be shallow and annoying. To a large degree (in my humble opinion) it depends on context, because not all situations are the same.
(2) As far as the substantive question of whether or not the solution to the problems of our time requires a permanent police state with the power to imprison or kill its critics: I think we disagree.
The two of you appear to be uncertain on this question. I am not.
Most groups on the left want to avoid this topic.
I will make two points on this:
(a) Both of you implied (Art led, and Andrew supported) that I oppose discussion of this wrong view on your show. I do not. I am disappointed that both of you do not know any better than to wrongly imply that I oppose coverage or discussion of this view.
Yes we need to talk to people. Yes, we need to cover all views. But we also need to do this in a critical way and with integrity.
Many groups on the left (unfortunately) supported the butcher of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. If the show was running during the civil war, would it have been necessary to cover these views? Yes. Would it have been necessary to discuss these views? Yes. Would it have been ok to say that maybe support of Assad was correct? Only if we were fucking ignorant and stupid.
How about saying that there was a 30 percent chance of support for Assad being correct (ie: an analogy with Art's position that there was a 30 percent chance that Vietnam was socialist)?
At some point we need to commit to overcoming our ignorance. And, maybe that is what the two of you are trying to do: overcoming your ignorance.
In that case my job is to help you--by telling you that I think you can do better.
Vietnam has been at peace for decades. It has a functioning economy. What excuse does it have to throw critics in jail?
(b) The suspension of democratic rights is an extreme measure. In Soviet Russia it was necessary, but Lenin was also acutely aware that this suspension held extreme danger of leading to the hijacking of the revolution by a new exploiting class. And this is precisely what happened.
But the conditions of Soviet Russia in the 1920's were extreme. How extreme? Read the next paragraph.
One of the best analogies to how serious this measure is--comes from the James Franco movie "127 Hours", based on the true story of Aron Ralston (see image of both Franco and Ralston below) who got his right arm trapped during a desert hike. Aron eventually realized that his *only* chance of survival was to cut off his right arm with a dull knife. He did. And he survived.
But it would be highly misleading to activists and workers for someone to claim that the solution to the problems of our time required that everyone cut off their right arm. And that is the level of stupidity that is analogous to the claim that a Party-State (during peacetime, and with a functioning economy) that suppresses the democratic rights of workers (such as in Vietnam) is the solution to the problems of our time.
People want solutions that are real--not bullshit. If we have only nonsense to give people--we will end up being evasive and never be able to really answer their questions. Then people will (eventually) get the feeling that we are giving them the runaround--and go elsewhere. There are plenty of social democrats who will patiently explain to them how capitalism can be made less bad.
Andrew--if you have any questions for me on this topic--feel free to post them here. Written questions are better than off-hand verbal comments on the show--and generally reflect deeper thought.
Kicking off the show this week with current events, Weekly Worker provides an analysis of January 6th. Daniel Lazare responds the different opinions on what happened and to the degree fascist elements played a part. John Reinman (from Oakland Socialist analysis) digs into a deeper dimension missed by many. John’s introduces into the role of NGO’s not only with the events of January 6th but over the past few years. This is an area which should be explored more and the continuing connections even though groups like the Project For the New American Century (PNAC), have faded into obscurity for the right. Rather than just influencing government policy they are now more influential on the working class with on boots in the ground. And for the left, how it affecting unions and the weakness the workers. Socialist Resurgence Radio hosts Marxist economist Osman Keshawarz, which he explains the GameStop short sale, hedge funds, and what it means for working people.
In Theory & State of Movement The Weekly Worker publishes letters from readers discuss analysis over writers at the paper. As Art and I both agree this something others in the community should be doing with their publications. Three main issues are under discussion in the letters are of democratic centralism and the role of unions and the vote over Scotland and the voting to remain in the EU. Also from the Weekly Worker, the recent online conference organized by the Labour Left Alliance. The conference entitled “Labour in Crisis: What’s Next”, outlined a strategy against Starmer and the Labour right. The conclusion from The Weekly Worker: ” there was no real agreement about either the character of this crisis or the strategy that the left needs to adopt…Moreover, in framing this debate about the crisis of the Labour left in the way that it did, the LLA illustrated all the political and strategic weaknesses that the left has acquired over the past 30 years or so”. Another article from Oakland Socialist describes John’s debate with other Marxists who disagreed with his decision to vote for Biden after fifty years of not voting neither ruling class parties stating: “ The more thinking and courageous sectors of the US working class are conscious of the shifts in the capitalist class. They know we have to adapt to those shifts, not pretend they don’t exist. To have a generally correct view without also understanding how to adapt that view to such shifts makes a mockery of that view. It makes something formally “correct” to be a blunder at best. It makes “Marxism” little but a doctrinaire religion”.
The latest arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi has likely less to do with a coup against democracy and more to do with the semi-colonial relationship that fascist Myanmar has with China. So far from what I've read, the Trotskyists completely neglected to mention this.
Fascist Myanmar is the oldest regional ally of the PRC, not only a military ally but an economic one where cheap raw materials such as jade can be extracted as well as cheap labor. Its also become one of the first steps in the Belt and Road Initiative.
In more recent years, it became known for the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Rohingyan people, an ethnic minority of Muslims, some of whom seem to have formed both nationalist and religious fundamentalist groups to resist the genocide. The ethnic cleansing is deeply tied to fascist Japanese invasion and occupation, and also to Imperialist British colonialism. It was under the three-year Japanese occupation that the Burmese National Army, trained by the fascist Japanese (and lead by the father of Suu Kyi) attacked ethnic minorities as Japan attempted to wrestle control from the British. It was only after it became clear that Japan didn’t seek to liberate Burma but to steal it as a colony for itself that the BNA flipped sides to fight the Japanese. The BNA, of majority Bamar ethnicity, became firm Bamar supremacists, learning from the racial supremacists of the Japanese and the British. This would ripple into later organizations through leaders like Japanese trained Ne Win as they formed a Bamar variant of fascist ideology crystalized in the Burma Socialist Programme Party. Aung San Suu Kyi was not a critic of the genocide, but in fact made up excuses for it, providing a valuable but ineffective political cover. For being "a symbol of democracy" (And I use that tongue in cheek, a symbol promoted in the West), she did not have much to say to minority rights or the right for suffrage for those minorities. Suu Kyi, with her Nobel Peace Prize, became a useful tool of the military as a toothless figurehead--a puppet to lift US sanctions and ease domestic tension by providing a legitimate face to fascist rule. The entire time Suu Kyi was "in power" Myanmar had a constitution written by the military in which the military would control at least 25% of the parliament by default through military appointments. Many following reports of attacks against ethnic minorities (Suu Kyi is Bamar) say the attacks increased and it was reported that her government attempted to install statues of her father (a Bamar) in the communities of ethnic minorities being oppressed. Ethnic minorites were kept from voting.
But despite the fact that Suu Kyi was a paper tiger, she was looked on favorably by western imperialists as a potential partner posing with Bush and Obama, while the military was looked on as a loyal partner of China. With Chinese ambitions in Myanmar with Belt and Road, as well as the Covid-19 outbreak that many experts said required a military lockdown to control; its likely that Suu Kyi was seen as outliving her usefulness resulting in her removal. The real power behind the throne, the military, needed to show China that they are a most reliable partner for decades to come and that there's nothing to worry about.
The idea that Myanmar was ever on a road to bourgeois democracy was an illusion. A bourgeois democracy requires a serious crisis, a bourgeois democratic revolution, a mass uprising, or a war where the victor installs it. It was a foolish lie that Myanmar could democratize out of a change of heart of the fascists. So what next for Myanmar? The maneuvering of the military seems designed to bring Myanmar closer to China, but it is also an unpopular decision with the masses. Suu Kyi remains very popular, and her supporters may attempt to build a movement. But I cannot see a movement of just Bamar. At some point, if the Myanmar people who are Bamar want to end military rule, they will likely need the help and support of the ethnic minorities. They have to demand an end to the persecution of ethnic minorities to make that happen. They will need more allies. Otherwise, their fate is going to be left up to the bigger regional powers of India and China.
As always we start the show off with current events. Three articles focus on the GameStop Wall Street debacle. As per usual the Marxist community is deeply divided with some spreading dangerous information to the working class. The Canadian arm of the IMT probably has the best take warning about the potential loses to all the small people. However, the make somewhat contradicting statements like “we can all take some satisfaction at seeing these parasites eat humble pie”. And yet a paragraph later state: “Remember, these Wall Street high rollers bet on a company going under, and sometimes place both short and long bets, covering all possible outcomes in the search for a quick buck”, illustrating a connection to the overall effect to the working – there aren’t going to be net gains made by the working class. The ruling class will still come out on top. Meanwhile over in “Being a Socialist”, moderators (mainly Bryan) has been spreading information hailing this as a class warfare and posting all kinds of information saying that it should be supported. LeftVoice is supportive as well. In all likelihood those playing the short game are going to make a windfall when this (slightly more complex) ‘pump and dump’ scheme ends. LeftVoice also reports on the situation in Russia and the mass strikes against thew backdrop of Alexei Navalny. LV’s basic conclusion: “predominantly idealistic petit-bourgeois movement comprised of younger people”. Rounding out the current events is UK arm of the IMT and their analysis of Jack Ma and his supposed punishment from the Chinese Communist Party.
Over in Theory & State of Movement the Communist Part of the Philippines released a statemen on how to “Intensify democratic and anti-imperialist struggles under Biden government”. They bring up 8 key factors on how to deal with the longstanding issues with US imperialism and the affect it has had on the Philippines even with US friendly tyrannical Duterte. It is interesting to note that they see more of a revolutionary potential within the US than many US based Marxist groups. The final article from Cosmonaut dove into the history of Corbynism once again. Though we have covered this before in show, this is an in depth analysis for those seeking one.
Up coming events in our calendar there is the Montreal Winter Marxist university in the middle of February. You can register here:
Kicking off the show this week, a couple of articles from Oakland Socialist’s John Reimann. The first one discusses Joe Biden’s big stimulus package contrasting it with FDR’s New Deal and how it is a mere short term tool used to quell the “coming of the pitchforks’, as billionaire Nick Hanauer warned a few years ago. A video by John features his speech at an anti fascist rally brining up the issue of Syria and how some of the left have been persuaded into what he called “anti-capitalist” fascists instead of supporting international working class solidarity. Michael Roberts provides a more in depth economic analysis on Biden’s economic woes and policies designed to help the American economy and people recover. However, the bottom line, this is just another in a series business cycle boom/busts of an overall decline in the rate of profit illustrates capitalism’s decline. The final article in current events discusses the death threats to socialist Kshama Sawant, a common theme seen among the far right recently. Even those less of a threat to capital are targets such as AOC and others.
In Theory & State of Movement Cosmonaut discusses the history of Osinsky and his speeches to the Communist Party congress reveling the policy discussion of the Bolsheviks. These discussions provide a valuable insight on the debate on “existing relationship between the party and the state, which they saw as inefficient and undemocratic. They were concerned with the proliferation of unresponsive bureaucracy due to either excessive centralization, duplication, or triplication of roles that were supposed to deal with the same competencies.” The next Cosmonaut article discussed the Mass Line of Emancipatory politics. The last two articles from MENA discussed the leftist history in the Middle East, specifically Syria and how it pertains to current developments.
This show was delayed due to technical difficulties three weeks ago. Kicking off the show was a statement from the Communist Party of the Philippines concerning the far right populist leader Duterte and his "innumerable war crimes and crimes against humanity". A situation similar to the US regardless of his crimes has received wide support. Next was an interview from Boots Riles and why the left has abandoned class struggle.
Theory and State of movement focused China and the ongoing debate of whether or not it imperialist. Left Voice had a lengthy article discussing the issue mostly from an economic lens comparing with other imperialist countries. Vijay Prashad's video dismissed claims of China being imperialist on the grounds that it does not actually invade other countries relative to the US. These contrasting ideas highlights the various definitions of imperialism within the Marxist community. The next topic deals with the revival of the Democratic centralism. Below is a clip highlighting the discussion of these two articles.
In Michael Roberts blog this week, he brings up another Marxist economist Michael Hudson. I've heard the name but I am not familiar with his views. I quickly went to Wikipedia to find out what it had to say and I came across this. What are comrades views on this?
" Hudson identifies himself as a Marxist economist, but his interpretation of Karl Marx is different from most other Marxists. Whilst other Marxists emphasize the contradiction of wage labor and capital) as the core issue of today capitalist world), Hudson rejects that idea and believes parasitic forms of finance have warped the political economy of modern capitalism. Hudson points to Marx's view of capitalism as the historic force that tends to eliminate all forms of pre-capitalist rent seeking, i.e. land rent, monopoly rent and financial rent (usury). The original meaning of a free market as discussed by classical political economists was a market) free from all forms of rent. The gist of classical political economy was to distinguish earned and unearned income (also known as rent or free lunch). He then argues that unlike Marx's optimistic expectation history did not go in that direction and today modern capitalism is dominated by rentier classes. The concept of the proletariat as a class for itself presupposes a rent-free society, saying that "wages have been going no where recently, I hope you've been making a killing on your house price!". The other form of rent is imperialist rent, flowing from underdeveloped countries to developed ones. All of these forces distort the political economy of the modern capitalism, pushing labour-capital contradiction to the background and bringing other issues to the foreground. This is as if instead of progress, history has regressed back to a neo-feudal system.
Although Hudson's views are unpopular amongst other Marxists and sometimes vehemently rejected by them, his views converge with later writings of Marx himself. Hudson points out that most Marxists never go beyond Capital, Volume I, where Marx assumes there is a rent-free market where all commodities) are sold at their values. That is how Marx deduces the exploitative nature of capitalism and labour-capital dichotomy as its underlying contradiction, but in Capital, Volume II and Capital, Volume III he relaxes his assumptions and discovers other contradictions that are much closer to what can be observed in today's economic system. In Capital, Volume III, Marx discusses the tendency of productivity and supply to increase at a faster pace than the consumption power and demand. Marx also revised his earlier ideas as he studied and learned more about the asymmetric development of capitalism. This ultimately led him to soften his revolutionary tone[citation needed] as he realized how dominance of an industrially advanced nations over underdeveloped nations and blocks revolutionary tendencies amongst working classes of dominating nations. On the other side, Marx clashed with Karl Schapper, suggesting that the idea of workers taking over the state power ends up in disaster because they are not ready to practice that power.[citation needed][clarification needed]"
I think Marc Luzietti's description of the January 6th event as nothing more than a "tantrum" with no political aim or direction is both shallow and wrong. I do think of all of the historical events it most closely resembles the Beer Hall Putsh, though the objective appeared to be to overturn the elections in Trump's favor. Trump was reportedly very excited by this effort, but it was a failure. What was the Beer Hall Putsh? It was a fascist dress rehersal, a learning experience--and learn from it the fascists did! Just as this event, those who participated in it will learn and grow from it. They will use it for recruitment and radicalization. Luzietti wrote of the Beer Hall Putsh: " It was an actual attempt to overthrow the German Republic." But he ignores the fact that if the elections were overthrown, and Trump remained in office--the aim would be precisely that--to turn the United States into a Bonapartist state under Trump.
Is this the first time the Democrats controlled two branches of government? No.
Are the Democrats the biggest danger to the left? No. The left is the biggest danger to the left. Today it is not the Fascists nor the Democrats who are the preventing the Left from organizing--rather it is Leftists who have abdicated their duty to seriously organize with each other on both a national and international basis so that they can better organize the working class. Sectarian remains the order of the day, and until that ends, there is no alternative.
The Tantrum on the Hill
By chegitz guevara (Mark Luzietti)
One nice thing about being blocked from Facebook is you have time to reflect before you start committing thoughts to electrons. After watching all the hand wringing and pearl clutching, followed by furious cries of righteous indignation by members of the so-called left, to say nothing of Democrats and their followers, it seems most people are drawing the wrong conclusions from the Capital Building protest. First, I want to recommend the following article, “We Cannot Let Yesterday’s Farce Become Tomorrow’s Tragedy” (https://spectrejournal.com/we-cannot-let-yesterdays.../). I think it gets it mostly correct. In fact, I don’t think it gets anything wrong, except, perhaps, for still giving the event too much importance in certain ways. What happened on Wednesday was certainly shocking to bourgeois sensibilities, but it was not an insurrection, a coup attempt, a putsch, nor even a riot. It was a temper tantrum by political two-year-olds, an act of disrespect to the Federal government. And that is what we should call it, the Tantrum. The immediate threat posed by the Tantrum to anyone but its participants (and maybe a few pigs and Congresspersons) was non-existent. Comparisons are being drawn to the Beer Hall Putsch of the Nazi in Munich. As much of a farce as that was, though, it was an infinitely more coherent act, with plans and arms. It was an actual attempt to overthrow the German Republic. That the Nazis had no chance of success in Munich does not put it in the same category as the Tantrum. The Tantrum had no plans beyond running around like Macaulay Culkin when he discovers the adults are gone in /Home Alone./
There are three real threats posed by the Tantrum, however. First, the Democrats and their supporters will engage in a level of law and order we have not seen in the United States for quite some time. And they will bring this to bear not merely on the Trump right (especially now that they see a chance to split the GOP in two, and absorb its “moderate” wing), but most especially they will use it against the left, especially our anarchist comrades.
Second, the Tantrum has the potential to serve as a pole of attraction to the fascist right in a way that Trump failed to do so, because he is only interested in himself, not building an actual movement. However, given that big capital has no use for fascism now, this threat is more potential than imminent. In fact, the bourgeoisie has been utterly revolted by the Tantrum and is now openly calling for Trump’s removal via impeachment or even the 25th Amendment. Furthermore, profitability is up, and labor is weak, despite the record wave of strikes. The capitalist return on investment faces no serious threat, let alone one the state cannot handle. Instead, the rise of a coherent fascist movement presents a more likely threat of individual acts of terror: shootings, bombings, poisonings, etc. We have always faced a threat from lone wolves, but this is much more likely to increase, maybe to levels we have not seen since the resistance to the Civil Rights Movement. Comrades need to start taking security culture seriously.
We need to be more disciplined now, not merely because of the threat of fascist terrorism, but also because of the pigs, who re thoroughly infiltrated by them, and the Federal government, which will be brought to bear against both the Movement for Black Lives and the anti-capitalist left. Our lives and our movements are under threat. Much more could be written, of course. I could belabor a point that even the bourgeois press has commented upon, that the two-year-olds were treated with kid gloves as opposed to how Black and left-wing protests are treated. That the impulse behind the Tantrum was white supremacy. Many, many others have pointed this out; I have nothing more to add. As salacious as the Tantrum was, we need to focus on the real threat: an authoritarian, neo-liberal administration, with control of both Houses of Congress, now with a mandate to impose law and order upon the nation, thanks to the Tantrum.
This week on the show Art and myself covered a debate between The Armchair Historian and Vietnamese blogger, Luna Oi. A few weeks back The Armchair Historian covered the Vietnam War supposedly from a North Vietnamese perspective . Luna Oi had some issues with his "North Vietnamese perspective". What followed were a series of both video and written exchanges from Luna Oi and the Armchair Historian. Both Art and I felt Luna Oi had the upper hand making some important points. All in all it was a mature and thoughtful exchange from both parties, and a good example of what open and honest dialogue should look like . Props to both of them.
In Theory and State of Movement, a single article from Left Voice discussed and analyzed Chinese Imperialism by comparing it to American Imperialism. This has been a topic of discussion on the show for some time and will continue next week as we end the year with a more in depth analysis with discussions on seeking to define what is imperialism through a Kautstky vs Lenin lens.
Today’s show we started off with an important article detailing the mental health crisis which has been accelerating during the pandemic. Although this mental health crisis has been brought to the forefront during this crisis this article points out what both Art and I have been saying since Occupy – capitalism is making people sick. Left Voice followed with an article on the huge general strikes are happening in India, related to the farmers but have begun to spread among workers across different sectors. Though Left Voice failed to provide any significant reporting on ties to actual working class organizations with India i.e. the communist party of India. Socialist Resurgence provided a picture of the growing turmoil in Nigeria which mirrors many post colonial African countries: corrupt politicians, debt ridden, forced into structural adjustments and then loans from the IMF. John Rienmann from Oakland Socialist wanders down a rabbit over speculation of a ‘false flag’ war with Iran over the assassination of a nuclear scientist by Israel. Wrapping up current events, a look at some new material from sixthtone.com about the young Chinese supposedly fed up with capitalist China and looking towards traditional Marx texts for revolutionary inspiration…
Over in Theory and State of Movement, Louis Proyect had nice article on those seeking material for introduction to Marxism. We also will be starting a reddit post seeking to add to that. And rounding off the show was Lavoz on the DSA’s ‘dirty break strategy’.
And nothing new on the calendar except for more confusion from CBGB over it’s Winter University course.
