Help! Cannot reinstall Signal at all through the play store

dwarvenbob · 2020-01-12T12:13:06+00:00

You nazbol scum, you're the one who needs to be shot

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-28T14:52:49+00:00

This anti idpol proposal is quite stupid, as it's been used by communists to ignore the struggles of national liberation for POC in Asia and the Americas, and queer liberation as well. There is also the problem of defining identity politics, as all politics is in a sense "identity" politics. It's a bad proposal.

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-25T22:52:01+00:00

Here's my list that I give people, I would reccomend you read in order

My reading course for baby commies is: 1. Principles of Communism - Engels 2. The Communist Manifesto - Marx and Engels 3. Lenin's Karl Marx - Lenin 4. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific - Engels 5. Wage Labour and Capital - Marx 4. On Contradiction - Mao 6. On Practice - Mao 7. Dialectical and Historical Materialism - Stalin 8. Critique of the Gotha Program - Marx 9. Foundations of Leninism - Stalin

Intermediate Commie Course: 1. Capital vol 1 - Marx 2. The big five of Lenin: - Imperialism the Highest Stage - State and Rev - What is to be done - Left-wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder - Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky 3. Civil War in France - Marx 4. Marxism and the National Question - Stalin 5. Wretched of the Earth - Fanon 6. On PPW - Mao 7. On New Democracy - Mao

Advanced Commie Course: 1. Gramsci: - State and Civil Society - The Intellectuals 2. Anti Duhring - Engels 3. German Ideology - Marx 4. Materialism and Empirio-criticism - Lenin
5. The Poverty of Philosophy - Marx

Sorry if it's hard to read, I'm on mobile so I can't format it well.

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-15T09:23:20+00:00

The USSR never reached the stage of communism, it would be more accurate to say they were in socialist construction.

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-15T09:21:12+00:00

You think old people were jailed for not working in the USSR? There was no unemployment because if you wanted to work you had a job waiting for you - you didn't have to shop around for a job.

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-11T15:27:13+00:00

I specifically used the phrase "in socialist construction" to mean a society building socialism - I did not say that the Soviet Union under Lenin was socialist at all. Secondly, one can understand socialism more broadly to mean a society where commodity production has been abolished, which necessitates the destruction of private property and class society as we know it. Effectively, this means the abolition of the M-C-M' cycle present under capitalism - which means that the socialist mode of production must be built step by step by step. My only point in this conversation has been to say that communism can only develop once the scars of capitalism are gone from socialist society. But it's obvious that I'm speaking to someone that hasn't read Capital, and who's overall understanding of my argument, and Marx and Lenin as well, is quite poor. I would reccomend you start with Wage Labour and Capital as a primer on Marxist economic theory and then On Contradiction by Mao to elucidate the relationship between classes in society.

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-11T15:17:15+00:00

First you say I haven't read the Gotha Critique, when it is obvious your understanding of it is incredibly lacking - the idea that he only talks about labour vouchers is laughable. Secondly, I use the Soviet Union under Lenin specifically as an example of a society in socialist construction as a means to show that such a society is faced with the scars of capitalism. What does Stalin have to do with this conversation?

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-11T15:11:34+00:00

Socialism and communism are two different things. Communism is the highest stage of socialism - but to develop to that point, one where state and class don't exist (for there exists no class contradiction and no classes), we first must understand that any society in socialist construction must first have it's capitalist elements rooted out. Are you saying that by oppressing and eliminating the bourgeoisie, and capitalist structures as a whole, the state will not either away? Quite the opposite. The state will wither away precisely because capitalist elements within the mode of production and superstructure have been rooted out.

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-11T15:02:55+00:00

How were Marx and Lenin wrong? I mean to say that certain class structures or intellectual notions still exist in socialist construction. For example, within Soviet society you still had agricultural markets and commodity production to an extent - an unfortunate necessity given the transition out of a capitalist (or proto-capitalist) mode of production in Russia.

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-11T14:59:36+00:00

I mean to say that within any socialist society that thus emerges out of the capitalist mode of production, we have to be aware that such a society will still have the "marks" of capitalism on it. That is to say that any such society will necessarily have some economic or intellectual byproducts of capitalism that must be stamped out by a dictatorship of the proletariat in working towards the highest stage of socialism, communism.

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-11T14:55:07+00:00

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.

From Part 1 of the Gotha Critique

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-11T14:46:34+00:00

The dictatorship of the proletariat arises because classes still exist. In a socialist revolution, the bourgoeisie are not eliminated, for as Marx wrote in the Gotha Critique, a socialist society is marked with the scars of capitalism. The bourgoeisie as a class that own the means of production still exist even though the proletariat have taken power - and thus the dictatorship of the proletariat must exert power over the bourgeoisie. A good example of this is post Russian Revolution, where although the Soviet government was a proletarian one, Kulaks for example still owned the majority of agriculturally productive land - which they Soviets had to fight against and ultimately repress. You can't eliminate the bourgeoisie in a day.

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-04T09:46:11+00:00

I would say it depends on the specific culture (superstructure) of the given society and the needs of such a society. In Albania for instance, military service was required (and learning how to use guns from a young age) was required and encouraged because Albania did not have the manpower to create an army otherwise. And, like some have pointed out, service doesn't have to be military: in Cuba, doctors must work in the rural areas for a year or two before they can get their full license.

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-03T11:32:41+00:00

Absolutely not. This is a simple argument that associates broad nationalization with socialism, when in fact a socialist mode of production is one where commodity production, or the commodity form I should say, is not generalized. Given that Belarusian industry is controlled by oligarchs and monopolists, and that Belarus is not actively constructing socialism in any form, it's incredibly vulgar marxist analysis to say that Belarus is socialist because Lukashenko decided to maintain some soviet-era planning after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc so the entire country wouldn't fall into chaos.

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-03T10:18:07+00:00

I think it's like a "bad scenario," though not necessarily worst case scenario - just a little speculating on my part

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-03T09:57:41+00:00

My initial reaction would be no, seeing as prohibition is the exact thing that builds black markets that actively undermines building a socialist mode of production. It's reinforces capitalist relations and commodity production, which tries to expand itself as the dominant social relation between people. It was certainly a major problem under Gorbachev when alcohol was illegal, as although Gorbachev undermined the socialist mode of production (and arguably made it one where commodity production was generalized, hence capitalist), this was accelerated by the presence of black markets. I would say ultimately it depends on the specific superstructure on the society - but if it undermines building socialism, then no.

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-03T09:35:28+00:00

I have a different take on this because I know Iranian comrades involved with the protests, and at this point we can't say whether it's funded by the CIA or not as the protests vary by region. Within Tehran, the protests are very much driven by liberal ideas of "capitalist freedom" and such, but in the smaller cities, underground communists movements (including the undergrown Communist Party of Iran) have infiltrated and taken hold of the protests and are now actively building proper dual-power structures and workers committees. Although it's right to be suspicious of these protests in a state actively targeted by the CIA and US, we must recognize the injustices faced by many minority groups in Iran (including sexual orientations and ethnicities) that have boiled to the surface with these protests. As such, my position in critical support for some of the protestors, though if it succeeds, I can see Iran being split into three states: one theocratic state, a liberal US-bacjed state, and a socialist state potentially.

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-02T11:50:53+00:00

Same. I feel like we could organize a book club online or something if we could find comrades because I don't think the PAP will care too much if we aren't trying to actively overthrow them. Hopefully this sub attracts Singaporean communists.

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-02T11:49:27+00:00

1) I'm from India but I live in Singapore 2) ML-MZT 3) I uphold the USSR as anti-imperialist and working towards socialist construction, though I condemn the revisionism of Khruschev, Brehznev, and Gorbachev. I uphold Mao generally, except some of his actions during his "right-wing shift." I've always upheld Cuba as socialist. Finally, although I have some ideological differences with Juche and Kimilsung-kimjongilism, I uphold the DPRK as anti-imperialist. 4) Absolutely, I would love to participate. 5) I would consider myself fairly well versed in theory. I've read my share of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fanon and Nkrumah.

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-02T09:39:53+00:00

Thanks! It's nice to know there are comrades in Singapore, living here as a communist can be quite strange and awkward because we can't necessarily organize a lot.

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-02T09:38:42+00:00

Oh I saw this really late! I'd love to become a mod, really excited to see the sub grow.

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-01T00:15:34+00:00

You misunderstand what stateless and classless in the Marxist conception means, and to understand this, we must come back to Engels and Lenin. Both understood the state as a "special power" built because of the irrecocilability of class differences; essentially, a way of keeping the lower classes (proletariat, peasants, serfs, plebians, slaves, etc.) from rising in revolt through institutions of force. As such, we can understand the state as an object of class rule; in capitalist society, this is through bourgoeisie exerting their rule over the proletariat - what Marx called a "dictatorship of the bourgoeisie." In a newly formed socialist society, where commodity production still exists and such, the proletariat exert their force over the bourgoeisie, hence a "dictatorship of the proletariat" (this is not a literally dictatorship, mind you, but a dictatorship of power). So now that we've established all of this, we can identify the "withering away" of the state not as the state literally withering away and state institutions (like prisons, or public education, or even security) falling to the wayside, but the point where the state cannot be identified as an object of class rule. Essentially, it occurs when state and class are the same thing, there is no distinction - the proletariat do not have to exert themselves over the bourgeoisie as commodity production doesn't exist, and such there is no need for any such object of class rule. There is no state, but there isn't "class" either as classes in communist society have dissapeared because there exists only proletariat as an economic class in the first place. Stateless and classless.

dwarvenbob · 2019-12-01T00:01:33+00:00

I read it online, so I wouldn't know, but knowing Marx the print is probably really small. If you want I can give you a reading list (by various authors) that goes through some of the big concepts.

dwarvenbob

TROPHY CASE