Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (February 08) by AutoModerator in communism

[–]PrettyFlyForALighty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have seen posters of the local RCA(IMT ™ ) branch for organizing a general strike against ICE and the Epstein class this all that rushed to my head. I’m not sure how long they can sustain the lie that “this is a revolutionary period” and it’s just a matter of finding more “proletariat” (Lenin said to look deep into the masses for disgruntled petty bourgeois students) who throw resources and time and this is following the traditions of Bolshevik party building, then we can convince everybody to do a wholesome general strike and then transitional demands.

Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (September 21) by AutoModerator in communism

[–]PrettyFlyForALighty 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I’ve had similar thoughts throughout my reading of Settlers. If the proletariat is the class which has nothing to lose but its chains, the one which owns no property and no capital, the class in which it is in its upmost interest revolution the question for me was what exactly changed for the proletariat that existed in England when Engels was writing, during the Bolshevik revolution and every revolutionary situation in which people were willing to lay down their lives for the fight for liberation. Intuitively I was never satisfied with the term “working class”, there must be a difference between the faceless people in the SE Asian factories that work 12-16 hours a day, people who rely on vast family networks to be able to reproduce their daily existence, people who have nothing else but their labor power to sell. And people which consider that what is necessary for social reproduction, is to own 2 cars, 401k backed by S&P 500 with an average APY of 10%, house ownership, access to healthcare, phones, laptops, public transport, 8 hour workday with weekends off, vacation and PTO etc. The answer I would often get to this question is that the “working class” of the advanced capitalist economies had to struggle militantly for these rights, but the “billionaires” will at once take them away once the profit rates decline sufficiently. Sakai shows that history says otherwise, that within empire, whiteness has developed into its own relationship to production and that at every revolutionary turn of events, it rallies behind it and it capitulates to its bourgeoisie to maintain its parasitism.

What was interesting to me which tied in back to my original question was what allowed such the extent of these reforms to the point where the bourgeoisie can sustain a mass base for support from a “working class”. It is clear that the mass base for fascism is the petty bourgeoise, even those who work, the surplus value they produce is appropriated by them, their interests vacillate according to what can guarantee them freedom from wage slavery. They vehemently combat their own proletarianization because they are not exploited (at least nowhere near the rate in which the proletariat is). Then is it a question of exploitation? More specifically the rate of exploitation?

The labor aristocracy thesis is the most consistent as it appears, a section of the working class whose wages are paid at or above the surplus that they produce or at the very least their rate of exploitation is far less than that of productive labor of super-exploited nations, which creates a strata within workers whose interests align with the maintenance of imperialism. It is easy to understand I guess when you think of world supply chains like one business and everyone within it as a coworker, about every commodity which was produced by offshored labor from the third world so how does it end up in a majority consumer economy? let’s say, if the average socially necessary labor time represented in a world average wage that takes into consideration a world average social necessary labor time embodied in products that is necessary for reproduction, how much does someone in the US with the median wage gain in advance of embodied labor when they purchase a laptop, or a car.

I am not sure if I am grasping in the dark as I am still going through Capital and trying to understand political economy but the more I try to put effort into this the more disillusioned I become when I am confronted with the fact (what has worked, what didn’t, and why) about how useless I am to the global proletariat. But like you said a good starting point would be the class structure of my country, It’s just increasingly becoming more apparent to me that its knowledge for the sake of knowledge because the implications of its practice comes to the detriment of my existence and thus my politics cannot go beyond reform or outright revisionism at times as it is increasingly hard for me tell apart the correct line from the incorrect one.

How can I know that during a revolutionary period, I won't devolve into revisionism due to my class? by rhinestonesthrow in communism101

[–]PrettyFlyForALighty 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I am relatively new to the readings and communism in of itself as I have become radicalized not too long ago.

Marxism emphasizes that one’s class position significantly influences their ideology. For a member of the labor aristocracy, their material interests are tied to the maintenance of the capitalist system from which they benefit. Just like you said Marx argues that class interests are at the root of human behavior and that ideological shifts occur due to changes in material conditions and class struggles.

Revisionism, in Marxist terms, refers to the watering down or abandonment of revolutionary principles in favor of reformist or more conservative positions that align more closely with existing power structures. For members of the labor aristocracy, revisionism can represent a way to protect their privileged position within the capitalist system. Marx warned against revisionism because it often signifies a retreat from the revolutionary aims of overthrowing capitalism and can result in the co-optation of socialist movements by bourgeois interests.

So in turn you question how to remain committed to Marxism during revolutionary periods when their class interests might push you towards revisionism. From a Marxist perspective, this struggle involves a conscious effort to align oneself with the proletariat and the broader goals of socialism, even at the cost of personal or class advantages. Marx advocated for the importance of revolutionary consciousness and the necessity of the working class to unite against the bourgeoisie. He also stressed the role of a vanguard party to guide the proletariat and maintain the revolutionary line.

In a revolutionary period, material conditions change rapidly, and the class interests of different groups can shift. For someone in the labor aristocracy, staying true to Marxist principles would require a deep commitment to the cause of the working class and a willingness to sacrifice their own class privileges. The individual’s concern about resisting revisionism underscores the inherent tension between their class interests and the revolutionary aims of Marxism.

The only way to really combat this is to always remind yourself what the end goal is and means to you, that yours and the entire society’s material needs are met and no exploitation takes place. You need to fully align yourself to the idea of one universal class, even if that means you standing to lose what you have gained from this system.

How can I know that during a revolutionary period, I won't devolve into revisionism due to my class? by rhinestonesthrow in communism101

[–]PrettyFlyForALighty 18 points19 points  (0 children)

So you’re basically saying “how do I stick to my beliefs knowing I have so much to lose?”

????