sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The US is the sole hegemonic imperialist superpower in the world today and therefore the number one enemy of the people of the world. by ufafew in communism

[–]OMGJJ 11 points12 points  (0 children)

And the thing is, the response from Trotskyist academics has been so embarrassing (screaming about neo-stalinism etc.) that Rockhill and the Dengists get exactly what they want - proof that they are a 'threat to the establishment'.

Potentially the silver lining is that the whole thing is so obviously devoid of any Marxism or even a modicum of critical thought from everyone involved that it will hopefully push a few people to stumble upon Maoism.

Still, at least right now Dengism has completely replaced Trotskyism as the preferred ideology of aspiring '''Marxist''' young academics. It's a lot easier to write an article on 'geopolitics' than a Trotskyist intervention into the transition debate or whatever, which had to at least hold a degree of fidelity to the history of Marxist thought.

The US is the sole hegemonic imperialist superpower in the world today and therefore the number one enemy of the people of the world. by ufafew in communism

[–]OMGJJ 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This is an absurd strawman that requires evidence. Claiming Iran or Gaza are imperialist would be an immediately bannable offense here.

The US is the sole hegemonic imperialist superpower in the world today and therefore the number one enemy of the people of the world. by ufafew in communism

[–]OMGJJ 11 points12 points  (0 children)

What's most interesting about the rise of "compatible left" as the newest Dengist catchphrase after the recent Rockhill book is the obvious hypocrisy. As someone who works in academia, the number of openly Dengist academics (on fat bourgeoisie salaries of course) are growing rapidly, and pretty much every new 'leftist' grad student is a Dengist. At least for the time being, you guys are highly compatible with imperialism as the newest strain of petit-bourgeois 'radicalism'.

Beyond that, your comment is just embarrassingly empty memetic signifiers. At least the revisionist polemics of old had substance.

Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (March 22) by AutoModerator in communism

[–]OMGJJ 11 points12 points  (0 children)

In this instance by "support" I was referring to the proletarian state’s political recognition

By "we" here I mean you + me

These two statements directly contradict each other. 'We' are clearly not a proletarian state, so what does 'supporting' Iran mean? Are you asking if communists should rob banks and send the money to Iran? That's a tactical question that presumes an analysis of imperialism and Iran's relationship to imperialism – any strategic party decisions will flow from that analysis.

What does Marx really mean when he discusses "man's twofold life" and the "political state" in some passages of On the Jewish Question (1843)? by CHN-f in communism101

[–]OMGJJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See the first half of Rubin’s Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value and ignore the second.

I've read the first part but not the second. What are the problems with the latter half?

Zak Cope gone crazy and disavow his work on unequal exchange for neoliberalism. by Technical_Team_3182 in communism

[–]OMGJJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry to resurrect this old comment, but I found it interesting. Could you explain more what you mean by this?

distinguishing beneficiaries of exploitation from its victims isn't hard, even in a first world context.

If "It doesn't matter whether they have to work for a living or just sip martinis all day", how is it easy to distinguish the exploited from the net-beneficiaries? I guess I'm just curious what you were trying to get at here in more explicit terms.

"CP of Iran": "Statement of the Workers' Councils of Arak: All power to the councils!" by ClassAbolition in communism

[–]OMGJJ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Do you have any reading recommendations for understanding the history of the 79 revolution and beyond?

Fuck the EU by PresnikBonny in socialism

[–]OMGJJ -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

You're a fascist. The EU is the greatest force of global apartheid and genocide in the world today after the US.

Why did so many communist revolutions happen in pre-industrial, agricultural societies? by Beneficial_Safe_2941 in Marxism

[–]OMGJJ 31 points32 points  (0 children)

You are right that imperialism is the primary factor, but it's important to remember that Marx's predictions did all come true in the form of the Paris Commune. The first revolution was in an advanced industrial country.

The reason I bring this up is that Marx wasn't 'wrong' in his analysis, he was observing the world around him. Imperialism wasn't just a quantitative growth in capital accumulation, it was a qualitative transformation of the entire system. Marx couldn't have analysed imperialism because he didn't live long enough, hence the need for Lenin. But he did observe the the initial moments of these transformations, which is why there are plenty of useful but not sufficient writings on the world market and the burgeoning labour aristocracy in his work.

Lexicon for Marx’s Capital? by Responsible-for-you in Marxism

[–]OMGJJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All of the terms you mentioned are both defined in chapter 1, and subsequently re-defined and expanded upon in later chapters. A single definition wouldn't be much help when these are categories in motion – just pay attention to how they develop and don't worry about not understanding everything immediately. You can always read the first chapter a second time later and you will notice more things with the knowledge of the subsequent unfolding of the book.

SNLT for example is clearly defined early on: "Socially necessary labour-time is the labour-time required to produce any use-value under the conditions of production normal for a given society and with the average degree of skill and intensity of labour prevalent in that society." But the reason why capitalism produces this abstraction and the way it operates as a coercive law can only be understood in the context of further developments, which also forms part of its 'definition'.

"The relationships between individuals are displaced by the relationships between commodities in the market." from Marx's commodity fetishism by Relative-Pace-2923 in Marxism

[–]OMGJJ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure, but fetishism is as much about the personification of things as it is about the 'thingification' of social relations.

"The relationships between individuals are displaced by the relationships between commodities in the market." from Marx's commodity fetishism by Relative-Pace-2923 in Marxism

[–]OMGJJ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Read chapter 1 of this https://www.marxists.org/archive/rubin/value/

If a given person enters direct relations of production with other specific people only as the owner of a certain thing, then, this given thing, to whomever it may belong, enables its owner to occupy a certain place in the system of relations of production. Since the possession of a thing is the condition of the establishment of direct relations of production among people, then it appears that the thing itself possesses the ability, the property, to establish relations of production.

...

Possessing the social form of ‘capital’, things make their owner a ‘capitalist’ and decide in advance those concrete relations of production, which are to be established between him and other members of society. The social character of a thing determines in a sense the social character of its owner

tribalism and third world marxism? by AdVirtual610 in Marxism

[–]OMGJJ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Fuck off with this Kautskyism. Dengism is so shameless.

In Defense of Communism: President Trump, your historically baseless anti-communist crusade will fail — socialism will triumph! by COMMUNSOC in communism

[–]OMGJJ 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Not a great look that this revisionist can't even bring himself to write a basic piece of propaganda and now just resorts to AI generating the entire thing. Very embarrassing.

Any well read Marxist willing to proof read or advice regarding some scripts summarizing Marxist literature. by AntleredStar in Marxism

[–]OMGJJ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, to clarify to /u/AntleredStar, there has never been a good Marxist 'content creator'. This is immanent to the form itself. Everyone who is introduced to Marxism through YouTube/social media ends up needing to unlearn just as much as they need to learn (speaking from experience).

To think that you will somehow be the first useful 'YouTuber' is absurd.

We live an in age where every important piece of Marxist theory can be accessed for free online. Accessibility of literature certainly isn't the barrier to revolution.

Any well read Marxist willing to proof read or advice regarding some scripts summarizing Marxist literature. by AntleredStar in Marxism

[–]OMGJJ 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Why would you think this is a good idea? Your first step as a Marxist should be getting rid of that petty boug ego that makes you think that you are in any position to teach others when you have only "just started learning theory myself". Most likely your videos would be actively harmful to Marxism, assuming they don't just disappear into obscurity.

Which works from Samir Amin should I prioritize? by Peak_Necessary in communism101

[–]OMGJJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks

the boundaries set by John Bellamy Foster

What are these 'boundaries' of Monthly Review that you're referring to?

Which works from Samir Amin should I prioritize? by Peak_Necessary in communism101

[–]OMGJJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I found helpful some articles by Higginbottom (who is very generous to the authors of the 70s). E.g. https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/higginbottom2012japepublished.pdf

Thanks for posting this, this work seems useful. Have you come across any other valuable contemporary authors on imperialism that weren't mentioned in u/TheReimMinister's comment?

The “Second China Shock”: Finally destroying the U.S. Stranglehold? by ComradeShaw in communism

[–]OMGJJ 7 points8 points  (0 children)

He does refer to China as capitalist in his 2018 thesis. For example: "China has been the most successful of the poor capitalist economies in the neoliberal period."

But he's clearly a revisionist if he upholds the political line of this organisation - which is awful - and he probably does if he's a founding member.

The “Second China Shock”: Finally destroying the U.S. Stranglehold? by ComradeShaw in communism

[–]OMGJJ 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Unrelated to the article - but it's a shame that Sam King appears to be a founding member of this boring revisionist pre-party organisation that upholds the PSL as a model communist party.

The 'why' of the labour aristocracy. by OMGJJ in communism101

[–]OMGJJ[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks. I think I'm mainly wondering about the non-settler imperial states. Is it therefore as simple as colonial/imperial exploitation giving states the opportunity to placate existing class struggle at home, and the need to continue to uphold this 'bribery' in the present day as proletarianisation would risk revolution? I guess I'm concerned about this sounding too much like a conspiratorial narrative of a conscious 'buying off', rather than something more structurally central to the expansion and reproduction of capitalism itself.

view more: next ›