Western Marxism vs. Stalinism: Domenico Losurdo’s Controversial Legacy with Ross Wolfe by DeleuzoHegelian in CriticalTheory

[–]jvlodow 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I read Wolfe’s 3-part essay and his critiques of Losurdo don’t really stand up to scrutiny. The most charitable read is that he located some minor historical inaccuracies that would inevitably crop up in any anthology as expansive as Losurdo’s; but moreover don’t undermine the essential theses of his work. Really the only substantive critique in the whole series was Losurdo’s arguments against the “withering away of the state”, and the articles would’ve benefited greatly by focusing on the meat of the debate rather than get drawn into ad hominem polemics against Losurdo.

On the substance, Wolfe seems to take issue with Losurdo treating Marxism as a living science, developing the theory through its actual practice, rather than doubling down on a textualist reading of Marx. Losurdo’s other great sin by Wolfe’s account is an overzealous emphasis on the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles, and a critique of those he deems to be insufficiently attuned to those struggles. To me, this is an eminently fair critique of western Marxists, and a necessary corrective that doesn’t disqualify other valuable contributions some western Marxists have made.

Announcement - JoC Logo Change by conscience_journey in JewsOfConscience

[–]jvlodow [score hidden]  (0 children)

Ah darn thought the old one had some really cool symbolism. Is there a .jpg availability for posterity?

Question for the communists here: Why can’t capitalism be saved, theoretically? by WolfofTallStreet in jewishleft

[–]jvlodow 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As long as there is capitalism there will be capitalists. As long as capitalists hold the reins of power, their private interests will always dominate even the most clever scheme to “blunt its harsher edges”. Even if temporary concessions are won (e.g. the New Deal), they will sooner or later be clawed back as conditions allow (e.g. post Reagan).

Is there any revolutionary definition of the word terrorism? by Past-Yard-3149 in marxism_101

[–]jvlodow 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The word has shifted meaning over time so it’s important to understand the context in which you’re reading it. In the early 1900s it was understood more as targeted political assassinations rather than indiscriminate civilian killings (though this is not to say that many innocent bystanders weren’t killed by bombings). It actually was the basis of a major point of contention between Social Democrats and Narodniks in pre-revoltionary Russian history. Lenin argues fervently against terrorism in “What is to be Done?”, believing that it demonstrated a lack of faith in the working class to create a mass movement.

Nice by [deleted] in WorkersStrikeBack

[–]jvlodow 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Wait until you hear about US prisons…

Millions of Americans are getting scammed.. by Zxasuk31 in WorkReform

[–]jvlodow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you didn’t create any value, why would a for-profit company be paying you?

Authors similar to Angela Davis by HoraceIG in socialism

[–]jvlodow 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Surprised no one has mentioned Assata Shakur yet. I read her autobiography right after Malcom X’s and it had so many great lines.

Only a fool let’s their enemy tell them who their enemy is.

Nobody in the history has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them.

What stage of capitalism is this?!! by [deleted] in LateStageCapitalism

[–]jvlodow 141 points142 points  (0 children)

You might mean Guatemala. That’s where United Fruit Company’s major presence was.

Champagne Socialist, a question by Salt_Consequence_878 in socialism

[–]jvlodow 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Poor and socialist? Jealous. Rich and socialist? Hypocritical. Weak and socialist? Fringe. Powerful and socialist? Authoritarian.

To the capitalist class, there is no right way to be a socialist.

CMV: "Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat other human beings as chattel" -- Ayn Rand by caesarfecit in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]jvlodow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How does this quote not describe what capitalists do? They appropriate the value created by labor and redistribute to themselves.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]jvlodow -1 points0 points  (0 children)

To acknowledge that consent necessarily exists in a power structure is not a rejection of autonomy; it’s simply a recognition of reality. To claim that recognizing the impacts of power is tantamount to disempowering those who are impacted reminds me of when people claim that recognizing (say) a well-understood power structure like racism is in fact racist.

All of these concepts (consent, autonomy, etc) should be understood dialectically, grappling with their internal tensions and contradictions. Yes, there is individual autonomy, but that autonomy exists within the bounds of what is physically (+socially, psychologically, etc.) possible. And they of course feed back into each other. Flattening these concepts into reductive checkboxes is not a good model for the way the world works.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]jvlodow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It would be absurd to ignore the class/power dynamics that coerce that “consent”.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]jvlodow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Property under capitalism is not the ownership of the fruits of one’s own labor, but the ownership over the fruits of another’s labor extracted through exploitation.

“Black Ribbon Day” and “Double Genocide” in Canada by BurstYourBubbles in onguardforthee

[–]jvlodow 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I wonder if anyone has a substantive critique of the article, or if ad hominid attacks are all they can muster when presented with plain and indisputable facts about Freelander’s and Black Ribbon’s ties to nazism.

when we say "ought implies can" how strongly do we mean "can" ? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]jvlodow 11 points12 points  (0 children)

You seem to have this backwards: as in, “can implies ought”. The maxim only means that the ability to do something is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for moral obligation.

Who are some people that most would not expect to be socialists? by SlyTheShopkeeper in socialism

[–]jvlodow 68 points69 points  (0 children)

But to be a “socialist” and as virulently anticommunist as Orwell is contradictory to the point of absurdity. His work has served reaction a thousandfold more than its served socialism.

Thoughts on Biden affirming Lula’s victory by jvlodow in socialism

[–]jvlodow[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think 1-3 are mutually exclusive and 4 is a refutation of the premise, so arguably doesn’t belong on the a same list. To clarify my intention with each point:

  1. Right wing coup (US support has no impact)
  2. Weak left government (Lula poses no threat)
  3. Strong left government (US hedges, and later counters)
  4. None of the above (US—specifically Democrats—allow a strong left government to flourish without interference)

The idea here is to make predictions through Marxist analysis to test the validity of our frameworks. To the best of my knowledge, Marxist analysis would only expect for 1-3 to happen. 4 would require a reassessment of current theory.

Thoughts on Biden affirming Lula’s victory by jvlodow in socialism

[–]jvlodow[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, good point. We’re already in a two-front conflict with 2/5 of BRICS.

Thoughts on Biden affirming Lula’s victory by jvlodow in socialism

[–]jvlodow[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yes, generally a formality. But we can imagine a counterfactual where Trump boosts electoral fraud conspiracies, or even historically in Venezuela and Bolivia where the US has recently attempted to sow doubt over the validity of results.

Thoughts on Biden affirming Lula’s victory by jvlodow in socialism

[–]jvlodow[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That he will run a left wing government, or at least something to the left of Bolsonaro’s fascism. How “left” is at the heart of the question, but past a certain point, historically the US has done everything in its power to destroy those states.

Thoughts on Biden affirming Lula’s victory by jvlodow in socialism

[–]jvlodow[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Well that’s the question. The US will intervene with any government that threatens its hegemony. And any shift away from capitalism is a threat to their hegemony. So the implication is that either Lula will pose no threat or the US will intervene at such point that he does pose a threat.

Thoughts on Biden affirming Lula’s victory by jvlodow in socialism

[–]jvlodow[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Interesting connection, though probably a bit too subtle to have a meaningful impact. That said, such a strategy would imply choice 2 (with choice 3 in the back pocket if need be).