Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

What do you think of PSL?

POST REPLY

What do you think of PSL?

Good
23
68%
Bad
5
15%
Other
6
18%
 
Total votes : 34
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 31 May 2012, 22:19
Quote:
The only reason we even have factories in China is to aid in the accumulation of capital. Absent this motive, there's no reason to be there.

Yes, of course. Anyway, what i wanted to say that socialism isn't neccessarily "managing the economy in the interests of poor people".

Quote:
A nation does not necessarily have physical borders.

Yes but when the Palestinians talk about their national self-determination they are talking about a state of Palestine, no?

Quote:
They're not talking about nation in the Stalinist sense.

Stalin's works on the national question became the general Bolshevik line on the issue.

Quote:
So US imperialism would help the class struggle in Puerto Rico by protecting it from imperialism?

No, i'm saying that if America turns socialist there's no point in giving independence to Puerto Rico.
How can a socialist state be imperialist?

Quote:
It's an enormously regressive process that certainly doesn't result in the emergence a proletariat. And any revolutionary movement develops as a reaction to the colonizing power, which is no guarantee of a socialist movement.

I disagree. The main reason why Russia had a proletariat in the first place was French and British imperialism.
You're right on the second point, but it's the task of communist parties to organize a worker's movement, if these the "objective conditions" already exist.

Quote:
Stalin's position here is the liberal argument for "developmentalism" dressed up with words like "proletarian", "liberation", and "revolutionary".
Fine.
But what about Marx supporting American imperialism and the conquest of California from Mexico?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1201
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2008, 14:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 31 May 2012, 22:29
Loz wrote:
Yes, of course. Anyway, what i wanted to say that socialism isn't neccessarily "managing the economy in the interests of poor people".


Your entire line of argument fell apart, so now you're going to nitpick again?

Loz wrote:
Yes but when the Palestinians talk about their national self-determination they are talking about a state of Palestine, no?


Yes, but how is that relevant to this?

Loz wrote:
Stalin's works on the national question became the general Bolshevik line on the issue.


What's your point?

Loz wrote:
No, i'm saying that if America turns socialist there's no point in giving independence to Puerto Rico.
How can a socialist state be imperialist?


The same way a capitalist state is imperialist. You're vacillating back and forth between saying that imperialism is a good thing when socialist states do it and saying that socialist states can't be imperialist.

Loz wrote:
But what about Marx supporting American imperialism and the conquest of California from Mexico?


He was a 19th century social thinker. His belief on the issue is out-moded. In other words, he was wrong too.
Image


Forum Rules

Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism.
"Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 31 May 2012, 22:37
Quote:
Your entire line of argument fell apart, so now you're going to nitpick again?

It didn't fall appart. Unless you explain to us why the US won't need to industrialize itself again, which it surely won't do by simply taking its factories back from China. America buys even the electronics for its airplanes from China today.

Quote:
Yes, but how is that relevant to this?

How is it not? If the Blacks and Hispanics are oppressed nations with a right to self-determination then they'd have the "right" to form their own countries. This probably won't happen with the Blacks but might happen with the American South populated by Hispanics which could easily re-join Mexico again.

Quote:
What's your point?

My point is that you cannot speak about "the nation in a Stalinist sense" when it was clear that these are Bolshevik and Leninist lines. So it's a nation in a Marxist and Leninist sense.

Quote:
You're vacillating back and forth between saying that imperialism is a good thing when socialist states do it and saying that socialist states can't be imperialist.

Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. Lenin described what imperialism is. Therefore a socialist country cannot be imperialist.


Quote:
He was a 19th century social thinker. His belief on the issue is out-moded. In other words, he was wrong too.

How is it out-moded and according to whom? Why was he wrong? Did Americans not turn California into one of the richest countries on Earth? The Mexicans didn't even build railroads there.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1201
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2008, 14:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 31 May 2012, 22:46
Christ Jesus. Does anyone else want to take a crack at this? I'm tired of repeating myself every other post.
Image


Forum Rules

Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism.
"Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 31 May 2012, 23:00
Fine. All right.
Just explain us how is Marx's "belief" on the issue out-moded and wrong.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1201
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2008, 14:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 31 May 2012, 23:15
Let me answer your question with one of my own: What was Marx's justification for supporting US expansion into Mexico?
Image


Forum Rules

Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism.
"Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 31 May 2012, 23:21
EDIT: Sorry, i got a bit confused about the author.


Quote:
How did it happen that over Texas a war broke out between these two republics, which, according to the moral theory, ought to have been "fraternally united" and "federated", and that, owing to "geographical, commercial and strategical necessities", the "sovereign will" of the American people, supported by the bravery of the American volunteers, shifted the boundaries drawn by nature some hundreds of miles further south? And will Bakunin accuse the Americans of a "war of conquest", which, although it deals with a severe blow to his theory based on "justice and humanity", was nevertheless waged wholly and solely in the interest of civilization? Or is it perhaps unfortunate that splendid California has been taken away from the lazy Mexicans, who could not do anything with it? That the energetic Yankees by rapid exploitation of the California gold mines will increase the means of circulation, in a few years will concentrate a dense population and extensive trade at the most suitable places on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, create large cities, open up communications by steamship, construct a railway from New York to San Francisco, for the first time really open the Pacific Ocean to civilization, and for the third time in history give the world trade a new direction? The "independence" of a few Spanish Californians and Texans may suffer because of it, in someplaces "justice" and other moral principles may be violated; but what does that matter to such facts of world-historic significance?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /02/15.htm

And this is what Marx wrote on the British rule in India
Quote:
Now, sickening as it must be to human feeling to witness those myriads of industrious patriarchal and inoffensive social organizations disorganized and dissolved into their units, thrown into a sea of woes, and their individual members losing at the same time their ancient form of civilization, and their hereditary means of subsistence, we must not forget that these idyllic village-communities, inoffensive though they may appear, had always been the solid foundation of Oriental despotism, that they restrained the human mind within the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies. We must not forget the barbarian egotism which, concentrating on some miserable patch of land, had quietly witnessed the ruin of empires, the perpetration of unspeakable cruelties, the massacre of the population of large towns, with no other consideration bestowed upon them than on natural events, itself the helpless prey of any aggressor who deigned to notice it at all. We must not forget that this undignified, stagnatory, and vegetative life, that this passive sort of existence evoked on the other part, in contradistinction, wild, aimless, unbounded forces of destruction and rendered murder itself a religious rite in Hindostan. We must not forget that these little communities were contaminated by distinctions of caste and by slavery, that they subjugated man to external circumstances instead of elevating man the sovereign of circumstances, that they transformed a self-developing social state into never changing natural destiny, and thus brought about a brutalizing worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Kanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow.

England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindostan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /06/25.htm
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1201
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2008, 14:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 01 Jun 2012, 00:08
Look at all of these justifications, colored as they are by 19th century liberal thinking. Developmentalism is rampant throughout it all: the belief that the expansion of capital into new countries was their path to the development of productive forces. Did the US expansion into California develop Mexico? No it didn't. It was the expansion of infrastructure that already existed in the US, which required the displacement of the current population. How is that progressive? It appeals to a very liberal idea of progress which appears to be "More land with advanced technology is progress". Not to mention the euro-centric idea of "civilization". It's not hard to see the rhetoric (Lazy Mexicans or Barbarian Egotism) that clearly promotes the idea that European or European-derived cultures are superior and should be spread across the world at the expense of all others. There's also the matter of the justification by "world-historic" significance which he uses in the same breath that he denounces the idea of being opposed to imperialism for "moral" grounds which is, to be frank, hypocritical. He is bound by the liberal idea of progress: present is better, past is worse and the task of bringing everything to the present is a historic task.

So his support for British rule in India and American expansion into California is based on this

1. Liberal and Eurocentric ideas of "progress" and "civilization"
2. A historicist view that there is only one path to development for all countries
3. The two developmentalist ideas that tearing down states is justified in "developing" them and that imperialism is a way of developing the subject states
4. An equation of technological progress with social progress
5. The belief that expanding capital constitutes "development"

All of these ideas are unconscious features of Marx's thought and they're all fundamental to 19th century social science. And all are outmoded. Marx was a product of his time, so his statements and opinions can't be accepted unconditionally, especially when there's evidence to the contrary.
Image


Forum Rules

Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism.
"Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 01 Jun 2012, 04:45
Indigo wrote:
Look at all of these justifications, colored as they are by 19th century liberal thinking. Developmentalism is rampant throughout it all: the belief that the expansion of capital into new countries was their path to the development of productive forces. Did the US expansion into California develop Mexico? No it didn't. It was the expansion of infrastructure that already existed in the US, which required the displacement of the current population. How is that progressive? It appeals to a very liberal idea of progress which appears to be "More land with advanced technology is progress". Not to mention the euro-centric idea of "civilization". It's not hard to see the rhetoric (Lazy Mexicans or Barbarian Egotism) that clearly promotes the idea that European or European-derived cultures are superior and should be spread across the world at the expense of all others. There's also the matter of the justification by "world-historic" significance which he uses in the same breath that he denounces the idea of being opposed to imperialism for "moral" grounds which is, to be frank, hypocritical. He is bound by the liberal idea of progress: present is better, past is worse and the task of bringing everything to the present is a historic task.

So his support for British rule in India and American expansion into California is based on this

1. Liberal and Eurocentric ideas of "progress" and "civilization"
2. A historicist view that there is only one path to development for all countries
3. The two developmentalist ideas that tearing down states is justified in "developing" them and that imperialism is a way of developing the subject states
4. An equation of technological progress with social progress
5. The belief that expanding capital constitutes "development"

All of these ideas are unconscious features of Marx's thought and they're all fundamental to 19th century social science. And all are outmoded. Marx was a product of his time, so his statements and opinions can't be accepted unconditionally, especially when there's evidence to the contrary.


Thank you thank you thank you. We don't always see eye to eye Indigo, but you are absolutely correct to point this out. Not everything Marx thought was correct. He even corrects himself in some instances in later life, including this one. The point being that progressive thought must evolve when new evidence comes to light or it ceases to be progressive. The PSL understands this.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 01 Jun 2012, 13:30
Quote:
Not everything Marx thought was correct.

Most certainly.

Quote:
He even corrects himself in some instances in later life, including this one.

Source please.

Quote:
The point being that progressive thought must evolve when new evidence comes to light or it ceases to be progressive.

Of course.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 01 Jun 2012, 17:42
Quote:
Look at all of these justifications, colored as they are by 19th century liberal thinking.

Stalin also noted (see the quote from "Leninism") that imperialism, in a way, digs its own grave. So is Marxism-Leninism too colored by the 19th century liberal thinking? I mean, this is the first time i ever heard something like that, Stalin and liberal thinking...

Quote:
Developmentalism is rampant throughout it all: the belief that the expansion of capital into new countries was their path to the development of productive forces.

It depends on the country, some are more successful at this (China), some aren't. But historically that's true. October most likely wouldn't have happened had it not been for British and French ivestment.

Quote:
Did the US expansion into California develop Mexico? No it didn't.

It developed California which is today some hundred years ahead of Mexico. Though it also had a profound effect on Mexico itself through trade and immigration/season jobs and so on.

Quote:
It was the expansion of infrastructure that already existed in the US, which required the displacement of the current population. How is that progressive?

How is it not progressive? It opened up the path for unprecedented development in industry and agriculture and trade.

Quote:
It appeals to a very liberal idea of progress which appears to be "More land with advanced technology is progress".

No, what's progressive is an industrialized, rich California compared to a poor desert it was under Mexico.

Quote:
Not to mention the euro-centric idea of "civilization". It's not hard to see the rhetoric (Lazy Mexicans or Barbarian Egotism) that clearly promotes the idea that European or European-derived cultures are superior and should be spread across the world at the expense of all others.

No, not "European" as in Spanish, Balkan or Italian but "European" as in English and German culture. Of course it's not about "cultures", it's about capitalism and general development that is the grounds for a class-conscious proletariat.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Nov 2010, 16:48
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 02 Jun 2012, 02:04
Loz you might want to take a look, It's from our LA conference a few months ago, hope it clarifies our position. Note, It's not a one-liner, everything I want to say is in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWFywiX9 ... ure=relmfu
Image

In the Soviet Union you destroy free-market, In America free-market destroys you
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2012, 16:12
Ideology: Left Communism
Pioneer
Post 21 Jun 2012, 02:34
Red Rebel wrote:
Wiki. I was replying to your statement that "we" support Iran against imperialism. There are factions within the broader left who support the Greens or a non-existant mass labor movement (anti Green, anti government and anti imperialism).


Absent a workers' movement of the revolutionary Left, I for one support the greens. Liberal-Capitalism is infinitely more progressive than theocracy. Sometimes a bourgeois-democratic revolution's gotta happen before a socialist revolution can take place.

Iran's superstructure is clearly behind its base.
Cm'on baby, eat the rich!!! - Motörhead
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 716
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2007, 23:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 21 Jun 2012, 18:03
I haven't really known the PSL for all that long, but what I've read about it so far looks very encouraging.
Image

"Communism is more about love for mankind than about politics."
Me
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.