Cultural Marxism, Reds Against (W) Freedom

[Sam321]

> Marx is a real smart dude and makes a lot of good points.
> Governmental implementation of "systems" is essentially what ruins "Marxism".
> Karl's works should be seen as a fallible point of departure to discover how peons could balkanize around class lines against the parasitic elite, not used as a top down form of governance that crushes the people its suppose to be "fighting" for.
> Summary: all forms of government will be corrupted. **** all governments. Small scale mutual aid is where its at.

 

[Pistachio]

> Marx is a real smart dude and makes a lot of good points.
> Governmental implementation of "systems" is essentially what ruins "Marxism".
> Karl's works should be seen as a fallible point of departure to discover how peons could balkanize around class lines against the parasitic elite, not used as a top down form of governance that crushes the people its suppose to be "fighting" for.
> Summary: all forms of government will be corrupted. **** all governments. Small scale mutual aid is where its at.

Marx's systems were merely window dressing. The only objective of communism is to come to power and keep it, by any means. Dangle whatever systems in front of the noses of the masses, just come to power.

 

[meatbag]

Marx's systems were merely window dressing. The only objective of communism is to come to power and keep it, by any means. Dangle whatever systems in front of the noses of the masses, just come to power.

have any citations to support your claims?

 

[redspy]

If communism were the worst kind of rule in Soviet Russia, why did their people were fighting the nazies with such resolve and self-sacrifice? Would it not has been easier just to succumb to the nazies invasion? Especially in the light of Ray Peat emphas on learned helplessness? Everything is pointing to the fact that russians and their brotherly folks, from balts to "stan"-republics, were fighting for their _own_ country, their _own_ villages and cities, collective factories, collective farms, collective schools and hospitals. I firmly believe, the only regime able to crush nazies at that time was the Soviet Union, nothing else would ever come close.

 

[Pistachio]

If communism were the worst kind of rule in Soviet Russia, why did their people were fighting the nazies with such resolve and self-sacrifice? Would it not has been easier just to succumb to the nazies invasion? Especially in the light of Ray Peat emphas on learned helplessness? Everything is pointing to the fact that russians and their brotherly folks, from balts to "stan"-republics, were fighting for their _own_ country, their _own_ villages and cities, collective factories, collective farms, collective schools and hospitals. I firmly believe, the only regime able to crush nazies at that time was the Soviet Union, nothing else would ever come close.

It had nothing to do with resolve. The so called Soviet liberation from the Nazis was completely financed and worked out prior to by international banking. Jacob Schiff, for one. Warburg for another.

And nobody was liberated from anything. Nazism was replaced with Soviet communism. From bad to worse.

 

[Pistachio]

have any citations to support your claims?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVUawtZ4s9o

 

[redspy]

It had nothing to do with resolve. The so called Soviet liberation from the Nazis was completely financed and worked out prior to by international banking. Jacob Schiff, for one. Warburg for another.

And nobody was liberated from anything. Nazism was replaced with Soviet communism. From bad to worse.

I would debate you on this and shred your arguments to pieces. It ain't hard, believe me. Just don't feel like waisting amo fighting windmills. If your bubbled reality lets you feel comfortable, I am happy. Let's sip that OJ with cheese and promote good metabolism instead.?

 

[meatbag]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVUawtZ4s9o

It's hard to take him seriously when he says : "communism is something you can't define, but Leninism you can". (see *** below) This reveals that he is simply unable to discuss basic economic concepts. He then proceeds to make up quotes from Lenin and misleads the viewer about what exactly Lenin was discussing - which a person can easily read for themselves in writings from the man himself. Marx, Engels, and Lenin all advocated for self-governance by the population and equated democracy with freedom;

"Complete self government for the provinces, districts, and local area through officials elected by universal suffrage. The abolition of all local and provincial authorities appointed by the state".

"What, then, is the relation of this dictatorship (of the proletariat, the laborers) to democracy? ...In a capitalist society to create the conditions most favourable for capitalist development...this democracy is always bound by the narrow framework of capitalist exploitation and always remains a democracy for the minority - the capitalist class" pg 72

"Democracy means equality. The great significance of the proletariat's struggle for equality and of equality as a slogan will be clear if we correctly interpret it as meaning the abolition of classes. But democracy means only formal equality. And as soon as equality is achieved for all members of society in relation to ownership of the means of production, that is, equality of labour and equality of wages, humanity will inevitably be confronted with the question of advancing farther, from formal equality to actual equality, i.e., to the operation of the rule, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

By what stages, by means of what practical measures humanity will proceed to this supreme aim -- we do not and cannot know. But it is important to realize how infinitely mendacious is the ordinary bourgeois conception of Socialism as something lifeless, petrified, fixed once for all, whereas in reality only under Socialism will a rapid, genuine, really mass forward movement, embracing first the majority and then the whole of the population, commence in all spheres of public and personal life." pg 82

I think what Griffin is misquoting from Lenin is Lenin's discussion of how any attempts at trying to implement socialism require steadfast protection from being undermined by capitalists, as was the case in attempts to introduce communism in both the soviet union (Trotsky, Kruchev, the Nomenkultura see Grover Furr - Welcome to Grover Furr's Home Page) and Deng Xiaoping and the gang of four in China (Towards capitalist restoration? : Chinese socialism after Mao : Chossudovsky, Michel : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive);

"Until the "higher" phase of Communism arrives, the Socialists demand the strictest control by society and by the state of the measure of labor and the measure of consumption; but this control must start with the expropriation of the capitalists, with the establishment of workers' control over the capitalists, and must be exercised not by a state of bureaucrats, but by a state of armed workers."

"We set ourselves the ultimate aim of destroying the state, i.e., every organized and systemic violence, every use of violence against man in general. We do not expect the advent of an order of society in which the principle of subordination of minority to majority will not be observed. But, striving for Socialism, we are convinced that it will develop into Communism; that, side by side with this, there will vanish all need for force, for the subjection of one man to another, and of one part of the population to another, since people will grow accustomed to observing the elementary conditions of social existence without force and without subjection." -pg 68

This simply recognizes that people have to defend themselves against being exploited by someone, or a group, taking everything for themselves. If communism is correctly understood and implemented, there is no state in the sense of the state in the capitalist society. There is only the society;

"From the moment when all members of society, or even only the overwhelming majority, have learned how to govern the state themselves, have taken this business into their own hands, have "established" control over the insignificant minority of capitalists, over the gentry with capitalists leanings, and the workers thoroughly demoralized by capitalism-from this moment the need for any government begins to disappear. The more complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when it begins to be unnecessary. The more democratic the "state" consisting of armed workers, which is "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word", the more rapidly does every state being to wither away." pg 84 -"The State and Revolution"

The interviewers neglect how the so called "free market" has never existed, and that all examples of markets lead to the concentration of power and societal influence, by accumulation of capital, in the hands of a small group. The state of the capitalist society then wields its power in the interests of the capitalists and enforcing and increasing their capacity to exploit both within the capitalist society and abroad . The "Great Reset" and the forced vaccination profiteering are great examples of this playing out in real time.
---
***
Lenin used the terms "socialism" and "communism" in a corresponding sense. The term socialism was used by Marx to refer to the first phase of development which succeeds capitalism and features the workers (the majority, the population of a society) as the ruling class but which will require a state to defend themselves. As this society develops it can enter the "higher phase of communist society" under which the state will be able to wither away due to the societies development.

The primary reason for the a group labeling themselves as "communist" rather than socialist can only be understood when accounting for the history of socialist movements such as the split of the German socialist movement into two parties before 1875 and the term communist was used to avoid association with the other socialist groups. During the first world war Lenin became convinced that most of the world's socialist parties had betrayed the cause of socialism by abandoning internationalism and backing their respective governments in imperialism and used the term "communism" to avoid association with these groups.

Social Democrat:
Before the WW1 most of the socialist parties in the world were united by in the so called 'Second International', and the parties each had various names. The most influential was the Social Democratic Party of Germany and the terms "socialism" and "social democracy" were used interchangeably. After the breakup of the Second International and the founding of the Communist, or Third International, the situation became more complicated. Most socialist parties split into two with one section joining the Communist International and the other remained under the leadership of men who were satisfied with the tradition of the pre-war period and revived the Second International in the early twenties, creating an ideological and organization distinction. -"Socialism" by Paul M. Sweezy
-see History of the Second International for info on the second international

What is Communism?
Communism means the form of society, lying beyond socialism, to which mankind will ultimately attain when the inheritance of classes and class conflicts has finally been overcome. Therefore communism can be considered any socialist system which will eventually evolve into this state of overcoming class and class conflict.

Capitalism and socialism are alike in that each guarantees to the individual a wide latitude in the ownership and disposal of the means of consumption. In this sense it can be said that both systems recognize the principle of private property. They differ in their treatment of the means of production. Capitalism recognizes a relatively unrestricted right of private ownership in the means of production, while socialism denies this right and reserves such ownership to public bodies. In the Soviet Union collective farmers who own their land most of their means of production cooperatively are nevertheless permitted to own privately a certain amount of livestock and other necessities of agricultural production

The property systems of capitalism and socialism are of crucial importance not only because they affect the lives of individuals differently, but also because they reflect and condition radically different social structure, each of which has its own laws and developmental tendencies.

Under Capitalism ownership of the means of production is typically confined to a relatively small percentage of the total population; the rest are obliged to sell their labor power in order to live. The property system is thus a legal expression of the basic social structure of capitalism, the division of society into two fundamentally antagonistic classes of employers and wage earners. In such a system societies production is organized thought the market, with each owner or associated group of owners (is this collectivism @Pistachio ?) producing for sale the types and quantities of goods which will yield a maximum profit over the cost of materials and labor power.

Hence, Capitalism operates according to the laws of the market. Finally, it must be noted that the ownership of the means of production and the profits which are derived therefrom are not only a source of consumable income, they also confer the freedom from labor and the command over the labor of other which, taken together, add up to a social power and prestige. It follows that the road to advancement in capitalist society lies through the accumulation of ever more property, and this endless striving to expand the means of production as an end in itself becomes the motive force of capitalist development.

Since under socialism there are no private owners of the means of production, it follows that there is no class of employers and no separate class of workers; in principle everyone is a workers, and the only employer is society itself acting through various governmental and cooperative organs.

In a system without private employers, production for profit, and hence also the organization of production through the market, loses its rationale and must be replaced by production in accordance with a plan. This necessarily implies that the economic laws of capitalism are no longer applicable to socialism. Finally, since private ownership and private profit are nonexistent under socialism, it follows that the driving force of accumulation, the means of advancement in a capitalist society, must also be absent. In its place we have the conscious striving to reach general social goals. which planners in a socialist society must set in order to be able to regulate and evaluate their activities. It is these social goals which become the motive force of socialist development.
- "Socialism" by Paul M. Sweezy

 

[Pistachio]

You are getting caught up in their smokescreen. Communism has never been about economics. It's a trojan horse revolutionary movement.

 

[Pistachio]

I would debate you on this and shred your arguments to pieces. It ain't hard, believe me. Just don't feel like waisting amo fighting windmills. If your bubbled reality lets you feel comfortable, I am happy. Let's sip that OJ with cheese and promote good metabolism instead.?

LMAO! The fact that you bothered to even type this.....hah!

 

[redspy]

LMAO! The fact that you bothered to even type this.....hah!

At your service, pal.

 

[IT'S OVER]

Is he an "ancap" or better he enjoys anti-statism capitalism so therefore he would like to see a privatized kingdom, wh

comunistinha brasileiro hehehe, deve tar felizão pq lula ganhou

 

[yerrag]

It's hard to take him seriously when he says : "communism is something you can't define, but Leninism you can". (see *** below) This reveals that he is simply unable to discuss basic economic concepts. He then proceeds to make up quotes from Lenin and misleads the viewer about what exactly Lenin was discussing - which a person can easily read for themselves in writings from the man himself. Marx, Engels, and Lenin all advocated for self-governance by the population and equated democracy with freedom;

"Complete self government for the provinces, districts, and local area through officials elected by universal suffrage. The abolition of all local and provincial authorities appointed by the state".

"What, then, is the relation of this dictatorship (of the proletariat, the laborers) to democracy? ...In a capitalist society to create the conditions most favourable for capitalist development...this democracy is always bound by the narrow framework of capitalist exploitation and always remains a democracy for the minority - the capitalist class" pg 72

"Democracy means equality. The great significance of the proletariat's struggle for equality and of equality as a slogan will be clear if we correctly interpret it as meaning the abolition of classes. But democracy means only formal equality. And as soon as equality is achieved for all members of society in relation to ownership of the means of production, that is, equality of labour and equality of wages, humanity will inevitably be confronted with the question of advancing farther, from formal equality to actual equality, i.e., to the operation of the rule, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

By what stages, by means of what practical measures humanity will proceed to this supreme aim -- we do not and cannot know. But it is important to realize how infinitely mendacious is the ordinary bourgeois conception of Socialism as something lifeless, petrified, fixed once for all, whereas in reality only under Socialism will a rapid, genuine, really mass forward movement, embracing first the majority and then the whole of the population, commence in all spheres of public and personal life." pg 82

I think what Griffin is misquoting from Lenin is Lenin's discussion of how any attempts at trying to implement socialism require steadfast protection from being undermined by capitalists, as was the case in attempts to introduce communism in both the soviet union (Trotsky, Kruchev, the Nomenkultura see Grover Furr - Welcome to Grover Furr's Home Page) and Deng Xiaoping and the gang of four in China (Towards capitalist restoration? : Chinese socialism after Mao : Chossudovsky, Michel : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive);

"Until the "higher" phase of Communism arrives, the Socialists demand the strictest control by society and by the state of the measure of labor and the measure of consumption; but this control must start with the expropriation of the capitalists, with the establishment of workers' control over the capitalists, and must be exercised not by a state of bureaucrats, but by a state of armed workers."

"We set ourselves the ultimate aim of destroying the state, i.e., every organized and systemic violence, every use of violence against man in general. We do not expect the advent of an order of society in which the principle of subordination of minority to majority will not be observed. But, striving for Socialism, we are convinced that it will develop into Communism; that, side by side with this, there will vanish all need for force, for the subjection of one man to another, and of one part of the population to another, since people will grow accustomed to observing the elementary conditions of social existence without force and without subjection." -pg 68

This simply recognizes that people have to defend themselves against being exploited by someone, or a group, taking everything for themselves. If communism is correctly understood and implemented, there is no state in the sense of the state in the capitalist society. There is only the society;

"From the moment when all members of society, or even only the overwhelming majority, have learned how to govern the state themselves, have taken this business into their own hands, have "established" control over the insignificant minority of capitalists, over the gentry with capitalists leanings, and the workers thoroughly demoralized by capitalism-from this moment the need for any government begins to disappear. The more complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when it begins to be unnecessary. The more democratic the "state" consisting of armed workers, which is "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word", the more rapidly does every state being to wither away." pg 84 -"The State and Revolution"

The interviewers neglect how the so called "free market" has never existed, and that all examples of markets lead to the concentration of power and societal influence, by accumulation of capital, in the hands of a small group. The state of the capitalist society then wields its power in the interests of the capitalists and enforcing and increasing their capacity to exploit both within the capitalist society and abroad . The "Great Reset" and the forced vaccination profiteering are great examples of this playing out in real time.
---
***
Lenin used the terms "socialism" and "communism" in a corresponding sense. The term socialism was used by Marx to refer to the first phase of development which succeeds capitalism and features the workers (the majority, the population of a society) as the ruling class but which will require a state to defend themselves. As this society develops it can enter the "higher phase of communist society" under which the state will be able to wither away due to the societies development.

The primary reason for the a group labeling themselves as "communist" rather than socialist can only be understood when accounting for the history of socialist movements such as the split of the German socialist movement into two parties before 1875 and the term communist was used to avoid association with the other socialist groups. During the first world war Lenin became convinced that most of the world's socialist parties had betrayed the cause of socialism by abandoning internationalism and backing their respective governments in imperialism and used the term "communism" to avoid association with these groups.

Social Democrat:
Before the WW1 most of the socialist parties in the world were united by in the so called 'Second International', and the parties each had various names. The most influential was the Social Democratic Party of Germany and the terms "socialism" and "social democracy" were used interchangeably. After the breakup of the Second International and the founding of the Communist, or Third International, the situation became more complicated. Most socialist parties split into two with one section joining the Communist International and the other remained under the leadership of men who were satisfied with the tradition of the pre-war period and revived the Second International in the early twenties, creating an ideological and organization distinction. -"Socialism" by Paul M. Sweezy
-see History of the Second International for info on the second international

What is Communism?
Communism means the form of society, lying beyond socialism, to which mankind will ultimately attain when the inheritance of classes and class conflicts has finally been overcome. Therefore communism can be considered any socialist system which will eventually evolve into this state of overcoming class and class conflict.

Capitalism and socialism are alike in that each guarantees to the individual a wide latitude in the ownership and disposal of the means of consumption. In this sense it can be said that both systems recognize the principle of private property. They differ in their treatment of the means of production. Capitalism recognizes a relatively unrestricted right of private ownership in the means of production, while socialism denies this right and reserves such ownership to public bodies. In the Soviet Union collective farmers who own their land most of their means of production cooperatively are nevertheless permitted to own privately a certain amount of livestock and other necessities of agricultural production

The property systems of capitalism and socialism are of crucial importance not only because they affect the lives of individuals differently, but also because they reflect and condition radically different social structure, each of which has its own laws and developmental tendencies.

Under Capitalism ownership of the means of production is typically confined to a relatively small percentage of the total population; the rest are obliged to sell their labor power in order to live. The property system is thus a legal expression of the basic social structure of capitalism, the division of society into two fundamentally antagonistic classes of employers and wage earners. In such a system societies production is organized thought the market, with each owner or associated group of owners (is this collectivism @Pistachio ?) producing for sale the types and quantities of goods which will yield a maximum profit over the cost of materials and labor power.

Hence, Capitalism operates according to the laws of the market. Finally, it must be noted that the ownership of the means of production and the profits which are derived therefrom are not only a source of consumable income, they also confer the freedom from labor and the command over the labor of other which, taken together, add up to a social power and prestige. It follows that the road to advancement in capitalist society lies through the accumulation of ever more property, and this endless striving to expand the means of production as an end in itself becomes the motive force of capitalist development.

Since under socialism there are no private owners of the means of production, it follows that there is no class of employers and no separate class of workers; in principle everyone is a workers, and the only employer is society itself acting through various governmental and cooperative organs.

In a system without private employers, production for profit, and hence also the organization of production through the market, loses its rationale and must be replaced by production in accordance with a plan. This necessarily implies that the economic laws of capitalism are no longer applicable to socialism. Finally, since private ownership and private profit are nonexistent under socialism, it follows that the driving force of accumulation, the means of advancement in a capitalist society, must also be absent. In its place we have the conscious striving to reach general social goals. which planners in a socialist society must set in order to be able to regulate and evaluate their activities. It is these social goals which become the motive force of socialist development.
- "Socialism" by Paul M. Sweezy

Thanks for this deep dive.

I can't help but think of Machiavelli's "the ends justify the means" when reading about this, in order for the architects of communism to attain utopia as capitalism progresses to socialism to communism.

In a theoretical framework, it sounds like a nice well thought out plan. In implementing this, without turning men into rigid automatons, it is doomed to fail. In order to take away the concentration of power in the capitalist system, an even greater concentration of power is needed to shepherd the slow transition from capitalism to communism. And this is where the rubber meets the road. Scores of people will have to be bulldozed to pave the way for the new order. And this is the justification for an even greater abuse of power.

And the past century, we learned this lesson. A few intellectual teaching in universities, never having worked the field, have the audacity to experiment with society and scores of lives, to test this theory.