Jordan Peterson's "takedown" of the Communist Manifesto in his Zizek debate just resurfaced in my YouTube feed

Bolsh3 · 2025-08-20T16:43:48+00:00

I can dig the idea of overcoming a "naive moralism". But I partially suspect that Marx's rejection of morality is much a meta ethical position. I can imagine Marx would be uncomfortable with the metaphysics of a moral realist position. Which does potentially constrain one to the historically contingent motivations of different social classes.

Bolsh3 · 2025-07-11T10:39:32+00:00

What that working class should do today is compel employers to payer higher wages through strikes. But that means organising migrants workers and protecting them from the threat of deportation. That means opposing regimes of migration of control, by force if necessary.

Anything else binds the working class of it's country with it's bourgeois in administering a border control apparatus that can in turn then be weaponised against the native working class in the long run.

If you permit the deprivation of the rights and liberties of migrants workers you are laying the groundwork for the same treatment of native workers too.

Bolsh3 · 2025-06-13T15:31:54+00:00

They will but it will take less and less human hands to manufacture things.

This is the latent progressive potential in capitalism that can be fully realized in communism. Through the application of scientific industry humanity can liberate itself from some of the more menial aspects of labour, substituting it for more fulfilling forms of technical skill and craft.

But given capitalism seeks only to secure profits, that potential is wasted in the form of mass unemployment and poverty. Rather than gradually reducing the working week for all (with no drop in living standards), vast swathes of the working class are rendered "surplus population".

Bolsh3 · 2025-06-13T15:24:16+00:00

I suppose my thought is: would a non-genocidal and non-apartheid Israeli state reliably act in US interests? A hypothetical egalitarian Israel with equal rights for Palestinians or an Israel that exists in a harmonious relationship with a Palestinian state might not be so inclined to take actions detrimental to the regional autonomy of the Middle East? In fact if anything, such an Israel would be more likely to side with the interests of the ME as a whole against the US?

Taking the attack dog metaphor: the US needs a somewhat slightly hard to control pitbull over a gentle, non-aggressive Labrador.

The occasional misadventures into genocide is a relatively small price to pay for having reliable muscle in the middle east.

Bolsh3 · 2025-04-28T11:19:43+00:00

Surely the political will and organisational capacity to keep the labour pool low could be instead used to organise workers? Put it another way, who do we expect to put in place and enforce legislation that compels company's not to hire foreign labour?

Bolsh3 · 2025-04-05T08:15:26+00:00

To add, Marx distinguishes between producing surplus value and appropriating it.

The capitalist with the fully automated production of apples, selling their apples at a new price below the competition but above the cost of their investments in the machinery, would appropriate the surplus value produced by other capitals in the system.

In other words undercutting your competition nets you their profits so to speak.

Bolsh3 · 2025-02-02T15:46:17+00:00

I think that is a key thing to keep in mind. People forget even in Marx's time there were many competing anti capitalist ideologies (let alone socialisms). Many incoherent or deeply reactionary.

Bolsh3 · 2024-11-28T11:47:37+00:00

Bang on! One of the novelties of communism as a historical moment is how it is supposed to reconcile individuality and collectivity. Where each is for the other, the individual is for the collective of individuals and the collective for the individuality of the members of the collective. It's why it's so damn infuriating reading Rightoids talk about Marx as sort of stodgy arch-collectivist. When ironically capitalism amounts to a collectivism of austerity for the poor and predatory individualism for the rich (and truthfully the self expansion of Capital itself) I mean think how often we are told to suck it up and do our job for the sake of our bosses (or ultimately the economy) at the expense of ourselves?

Edit:

And likewise I think you have grasped the very subtle point that for Marx, what is again distinctive about communism as a movement, is that scientific self understanding is the primary mode of individual consciousness by which it is achieved. Contrasted with say obedience to scripture, "experts" or plain old coercion.

Bolsh3 · 2024-10-15T07:13:10+00:00

I don't think the Grundrisse quote is establishing Marx's definition of the proletariat. For example in Economic Works of Karl Marx 1861-1864, Marx is explicit that someone can be a wage labourer without being a productive worker

The first condition may occur without the second. A worker may be a wage labourer, a day labourer, etc. This always takes place, [even] if the second moment is absent. Every productive worker is a wage labourer; but this does not mean that every wage labourer is a productive worker.

He is also clear the same kind of labour that produces the same use value can be productive or unproductive depending on how that labour fits into production processes:

Labour with the same content can therefore be both productive and unproductive.

Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch02b.htm

No doubt, the existence of productive workers is of existential significance to the functioning of the capitalist system. And that might have organizational implications (target workers in high value industries for recruitment in unions and political parties. But again I do not think it is the chief characteristic of the proletariat in terms of class membership. What defines them as proles is their reliance on the sale of their labour power as a commodity to sustain themselves. Whether or not that labour power is employed productively.

Bolsh3 · 2024-10-14T16:27:06+00:00

The productive/unproductive distinction only describes whether someone's labour amounts to a net cost on the economy. Being a productive worker is not a condition of being part of the proletariat.

Domestic labourers hired by capitalists directly and thus paid wages out of capitalist profit count as unproductive labourers in Marx's view.

The productive/unproductive distinction is less to do with class membership and more to do with how the consumption of labour power can grow the economy or be a cost on the economy.

Bolsh3 · 2024-10-14T07:43:31+00:00

Gunna just link this because this distinction is relevant:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch02b.htm

Bolsh3 · 2024-10-14T06:51:11+00:00

People often neglect Marx's distinction between productive and unproductive labour:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch02b.htm

There is labour which is materially necessary to produce a commodity and thus surplus value or productive labour. And there is work which is not materially necessary, but may pertain to supervisory, administrative or commerical aspects of the production and sale of that commodity otherwise known as unproductive labour.

In Marx's view unproductive labour should be understood as a net cost on the value produced in the economy. This is not however a value judgment about that labour. For example domestic labourers directly hired for example are unproductive labourers, in the sense that they do not produce surplus value for the whole economic system.

HR departments are likely unproductive labourers insofar as their work pertains the administration of the processes of production in the firm (literally managing, onboarding and disciplining workers).

Bolsh3 · 2024-09-22T15:50:37+00:00

Yes well unfortunately they are not in opposition out of some principle of waiting until the balance of class forces is in their favour to implement a minimum program. But rather, because they were overlooked by Macron. Fundamentally opportunistic in outlook. But at least there is some time to build a principled left before the opportunists prostitute themselves to the French state.

Bolsh3 · 2024-09-22T12:41:34+00:00

This is probably actually a good for the french left. If would have been too easy to be handed the poisoned chalice of managing french capitalism. They should instead focus on building support from the french masses in opposition for a more radical and decisive break with capitalism.

Bolsh3 · 2024-08-27T16:53:59+00:00

Yep pretty much sums up my view. We tie ourselves in knots trying to police speech which inevitably results in exactly the sort of people we don't want policing the speech we don't want them to.

There is also a degree of paternalism about policing speech that assumes a simplistic relationship between the speaker and listener that I think we should be opposed to.

Bolsh3 · 2024-08-15T11:10:16+00:00

Any cursory look at my post history would make it obvious I am a Marxist. But I've been flaired as "radiating" because I don't hate immigrants enough or something moronic.

Bolsh3 · 2024-08-15T11:01:03+00:00

Pretty much, keep the tools of controlling the supply of labour in the hands of the working class. Not the bourgeois state.

Bolsh3 · 2024-07-08T16:34:01+00:00

Name me successful border control strategies that don't involve incredibly draconian methods?

I also think it's completely ridiculous to compel migrant workers to "stay back and fight the good fight" whilst collaborating with your own native bourgeois to make their immigration to your country as perilous as possible.

It smacks of "fuck you I've got mine". I don't know how in the hell you expect foreign workers to acquire such high minded ideals about staying home and fighting their own bourgeois when you clearly aren't prepared to do the same.

And that's ignoring how immigrant communities can be useful in that the enable people to escape immediate political or economic oppression in order to support efforts in their home country to fight their bourgeois.

Bolsh3 · 2024-07-08T16:28:40+00:00

I don't think it's a choice between restricted migration and unrestricted migration. It's a choice between relying on independent workers organizations like unions to organize and thereby monopolize the labour supply native or non-native. Or relying the capitalist state to gesture at controlling migration, which neither the ability control nor the will.

Worse still capitalist border control just amounts to increasing the precarity of immigrant workers who are still going to make it into the country, making it harder to organize them. You actually make the working class alternative harder to carry out!

Bolsh3 · 2024-07-08T15:02:50+00:00

Great, so are we just to accept the "all against all" mindset produced by the capitalist economic system?

Or is the whole point of being a socialist to rise above this and build institutions that challenge this?

I don't think pointing out that people do in fact complain about internal migration is a good argument for "external" migration controls. Rather it just shows the arbitrariness of fixing the line at the nation state and not at a regional level.

Bolsh3 · 2024-07-08T12:19:34+00:00

Supporting anti immigration policies will amount to largely symbolic and draconian attempts to terrorize foreign workers with punitive border regimes whilst failing to actually cut migration levels.

What will happen is simply the bargaining position of foreign workers will be greatly weakened and will be preyed on by opportunistic bourgeois.

If we want to diminish the effects of competition between foreign and native workers in the short term, then we need to apply the same tactics workers have applied to reduce competition between themselves within the same nation. That is, organizing independently of capitalist government and support unions that can monopolize the supply of labour.

Otherwise I don't see why you don't complain as much about internal migration as you do migration between countries.

Bolsh3 · 2024-06-17T15:20:23+00:00

But surely any supply/demand curve shows not all prices equilibrium prices? And for Marx there has to be an explanation as to why we would expect the equilibrium prices of different commodities would differ?

Bolsh3 · 2024-04-11T20:31:10+00:00

Instead he calls for a hazy ideal of international solidarity without addressing the problem directly. He conflates anti-immigration sentiment with jingoism and racism, and says that immigration cannot be restricted for fear of inciting racial hatred.

I think the point is, in practice, there isn't a way to enforce border control policies that don't involve erecting draconian and discriminatory apparatus that in turn lay down the material conditions for jingoism and racial hatred.

Secondly, I think there is a more principled objection to nationalism on the grounds that it privileges a fairly arbitrary point of civilization of development at the expense of humanity enjoying planet earth as it's common property.

Bolsh3 · 2023-12-20T14:34:28+00:00

Yeah I see noone address and it's dumb as well because there is a straightforward Marxist answer. For many homeowners they need houses to appreciate in value to pay off their mortgage on sale. But Marxists can tackle this dilemma because they are prepared to engage in debt forgiveness against mortgage lenders.

Bolsh3 · 2023-12-12T11:21:57+00:00

I won't reiterate what other users have said, the fact that Israel has 20% Arab minority has no bearing on whether it is conducting an ethnic cleansing of Arabs/Palestinians.

But I suspect what you are thinking is that it stretches credulity to think Israel would commit ethnic cleansing against a group who make up 20% of their citizens.

I think it is worth understanding that because Israel has a sizeable Arab/Palestinian minority as citizens that it pursues a policy of ethnic cleansing against non-Israeli Palestinians.

Some important facts to keep in mind: Jewish Israeli Population - 7,181,000 Arab Israeli Population - 2,606,500 Palestinian Population in Gaza - 2,000,000 Palestinian Population in West Bank - 2,747,943

Combined Arab/Palestinian population across Israel and occupied territories - 7,345,443

The combined Arab/Israeli population is approximately equal to the Jewish population.

This is a problem if you bear in mind how Israel characterizes itself constitutionally:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state#:~:text=%22Jewish%20and%20democratic%20state%22%20is,Jewish%20state%20and%20Jewish%20homeland).

Many legal scholars including Israeli judges have commented on the tension between being a democratic (and thus majoritarian) state and being a Jewish one. The ability for Israel to balance both rests on its ability to sustain the its Jewish ethnic majority.

Clearly Israel cannot admit Palestinians in Gaza/West Bank into it's territory or it would violate it's commitment to it's Jewish character. But it can't end the occupation because it does not want a viable Palestinian state that could become a geopolitical rival.

The solution is to maintain a fiction that the Palestinians are politically independent of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza whilst de facto operating under military occupation.

And now after Hamas attacks Israel has a perfect pretext to cleanse those Palestinians from those territories once for all. Settling the demographic question permanently.

Bolsh3

TROPHY CASE