Social Democrats Thread #1

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Ha what does how verbal even mean? I find Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky to be convoluted. I actually was making the point that you can use a name all you want,b ut it doesn't define your economic system. You seem to be accusing me of the opposite.

Obviously there are some limits to my omniscience, but I believe you are a type of empiricist, whether that is a positivist or a pragmatist I do not know for sure, but I think positivist. You don't have to believe you are these things to be them, they are well disseminated throughout the pubic domain, so to speak, they are "default."

Those are the main alternatives to dialectical method, which simply is a way to deal with the bad side of common sense, its an attitude toward thinking about things. Its not a catch-all talisman. The ultimate element out of which knowledge is constructed is real experience and practice.

[Note: I'm not sure what the method of subjective idealism is in a modern context, I am studying this question, but i seems almost everyone is based on empiricism or something parallel since the 20th century began, though if you consider the Post-Modernists and Existentialists idealists or at least subjectivist.... I don't know.]

Marx is difficult at times. It depends what you read. An abridged version of capital is recommended if you try to read that, and be sure only to read Volume 1, unless you really know what you are doing. Many committed Trotskyists don't touch capital until they are old men, as for myself it was one of the first books I delved into of Marx's, I plan on making a redoubled effort once I have better understood method, history and some more economics. I was only 17 when I read Volume 1, and 19 when I read, or misread Volume 2. Volume 3 sits on my shelf. Try reading Engels, though some of it is out of date.  Luxembourg did a book on Marxist economics, as did Rosdolsky (spelling?), from what I gather Luxembourg is not really correct with some issues of economics, but its good and it sums up Marx, from what I hear (I have not read these latter books, a friend of mine did and told me about them).

It would be a mistake to think this is all made up stuff. It is based on a foundation of classical economics and studies done by scientists in the 19th century. The conclusions are not about capitalism in any century, but the fundamentals of capitalism in general. The generalized laws of the process...

Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, Engels, were not just political people, they were genuine intellectuals. They wanted to work out their political conclusions through science.

Trotsky is very easy to read. Lenin's great triumph is State And Revolution,

his Vol. 38 notes on Hegel are very note-like, and difficult without understanding Hegel

Materialism and Empirio-Criticism is straightforward for philosophy.

Lenin IMO is a lesser intellect than Trotsky, Engels Or Marx, but he works so hard, he always tried to make himself the equal of his great mentor Plekhanov, and he was very skilled at studying any subject matter and understanding difficult intellectual problems. The end result is he could run circles around his less-rigorous intellectual opponents, like Bogdanov.

Got to sleep, sorry if I was oblique. Have to sleep. I've been starving myself for my diet and I've had trouble falling asleep. 12 pounds down though in 2 months. Not too shabby.

The abridged versions of Capital are typically made by Western publishers. They are pretty straightforward.

Trotsky is involved (I can't remember how much) with an abridgement of capital with a good introduction called The Essential Marx. The abridgement I read from first was a 1970s anti-communist right wing publication, with a foreword and afterword saying the business cycle was over, workers living standards were rising, inequality was falling....... capital was a hopeless relic, presented as a warning and amusement to smug right wing students.

The book was very dated and in bad condition, especially those appended claims.

Nevertheless, I had little problem with the abridgement. I can't remember where I read volume 1 a second time from..... was it my big fancy copy, was it Essential Marx, was it online, was it that same 70s book? I never bought the Penguin full copy, like I have for V. 2 - 3. They have introductions by "Trotskyist" big head Ernest Mandel. And Now, you see these concentric circles connected to X Y and B^^4+3, in this two-part table?, they illustrate how a commodity uses the bathroom.

Marxist economics goes beyond pure economics, you have to understand historical materialism and social development in general. Anyway, there is no FOOD here and I am STARVING. I've only eaten 160+100=260 calories. My God, I'm going to die. My hands are shaking. Patience, patience.

find it to be developing the answer to a question which Marx fabricates from his confusion trade

 What? Confusion trade? He doesn't set out to be confusing. It's actually quite simple up to where you've read

C+V+S= Value
Constant Capital (Fixed+Circulating) + Variable Capital (Wages) + Surplus Value = Commodity Value (Not Price)

Commodities = Means of Subsistence and Means of Production

Variable Capital vs. Surplus= Portion of the Day expended on reproducing workers needs. Say, in 1904, it takes 1/3 of the day to reproduce workers needs, in 1703, 1.9/3, in 1023, 2.2/3, in 3000BC, 2.92/3. Different levels of productivity, different modes of production.... etc. etc. etc. ETC.

This is all easy stuff I can easily remember off the top of my head, Volume 1 is easy-peazy, Lemon-squeezy

Oh well got to go



Edited by RoyFairbank - June 27 2012 at 13:00

I'm waiting for the discussion about the writings of Pol Pot...

The T wrote: I'm waiting for the discussion about the writings of Pol Pot...

Did he have any writings? He believed in executing intellectuals, so it would be hypocritical of him to have a book out... then, most dictators have their vanity treatises, like Gaddafi's Green Book.

Doesn't take a very creative mind to recognize Pol Pot has nothing to with Marx, just a little familiarity with the historical and theoretical questions.

Pol Pot was like a tribal village thug who takes over claiming he is bringing an "improvement" of the best Western Democracy, only he said the best Socialism, as the United States, the usual model of third world dictators, had just bombed his country and destabilized it politically, paving the way for Pol Pot and social insanity.

Ironically Pol Pot was defeated by Vietnamese invasion, encouraged by the Soviet Union, which saw in Cambodia under the Khymer Rouge an ally of China, its rival. 

Here Is Why Our Elites Are Not Fixing The Economy
"

Our Benefit

In a democracy a successful business is the result of our investment in infrastructure, education, and a system that enables our businesses to thrive. A business can't deliver products except over the roads or ports or the Internet our government built. Our police and firefighters protect our businesses. Our schools and universities train and educate the inventors and managers and line workers. Our scientific research brings about the innovation that leads to new technologies and products.

"Entitlements" are the things We, the People are entitled to as citizens of a democracy. Those who do well as a result of our investment in our system pay back through taxes, good jobs and great products. When we were a democracy we were entitled to a minimal level of retirement, and health care, education, protection if we lost our jobs, protection of our environment, protection from corporate fraud, and other things that are now disappearing.

Now that democracy is gone, a wealthy few are living off our past investment, and cutting back on the things we used to do for each other...

The reason our leaders are not doing anything to fix the economy is because, from the viewpoint of our real leaders, the economy is working just fine."

Edited by Slartibartfast - June 28 2012 at 09:29

The T wrote: ^I knew all of that Roy. But since you're talking about books by mass killers like Lenin, I figured, why don't we go the extra step?

Lenin is not by any means a "mass killer." He was the leader of a country in the midst of a brutal civil war.

Would you call Lincoln a mass killer? Lenin didn't have a Sherman's march, he did not have a Dresden or a Hiroshima either.

Russia was invaded by the Entente from all sides (British from the North, French from the South, United States from the Pacific, Japan from the South East, Germany from the west, the Whites from a huge radius.

Lenin and Trotsky won because they had the support of the people, quite unlike the Whites, who only had the support of the Entente. The Whites committed many atrocities, executing anyone sympathetic to the Reds.

There is nothing "friendly" about the Cheka, but how does this compare to Search and Destroy in Vietnam? And isn't it similar to the suspension of the right to a fair trial and publishing rights by Lincoln, and the Patriot act?

Without context the social assumptions of capitalism automatically are accepted.


NOTE: Lenin is often confused with Stalin. Lenin died in 1924 but was disabled from 1922 onwards. There was a struggle in the leadership, and the bureaucracy undertook a coup-de-tat by 1927. In the 1930s Stalin began his purges and the building of the GPU. This the polar opposite of Lenin's wartime policies.


Edited by RoyFairbank - June 28 2012 at 10:29

The T wrote: Strangely enough, I know a lot about soviet history (has always been fascinated). I know all of what you told me. And yes, Lenin ordered murders and deaths. It doesn't matter if there was a civil war in his midst. And the fact that there have been more atrocious tyrants with much higher body counts doesn't suddenly make him an angel.

The T wrote: Strangely enough, I know a lot about soviet history (has always been fascinated). I know all of what you told me. And yes, Lenin ordered murders and deaths. It doesn't matter if there was a civil war in his midst. And the fact that there have been more atrocious tyrants with much higher body counts doesn't suddenly make him an angel.

So you would call every leader in a civil war a monster?

What empirical bullsh*t. It's impressionism.

Your not taking in the context at all, its just

Sensory Phenomena = A + B + C=  verbal logic = Murderer!

Lenin was at war. Every War has executions and murdering of the enemy!

You didn't listen to a thing I said, what about Lincoln and Sherman's March, Suspension of Legal Rights and Freedom of Speech?

What about Dresden and Hiroshima, Japanese Internment?

What about American involvement in Russia, deploying troops directly against Russia and funding the Whites?

None of this matters? That is why a dialectical attitude is essential, or else we fall into bourgeois assumptions parading around as Pure Verbal logic.

The revolution occurred in a wrecked, devastated, conquered country barely out of the middle ages. Lenin was fighting a revolution against determined and ruthless enemies. Is he supposed to go on his knees and clutch the cross and the bible?

Is that what America did after Pearl Harbor? Or 9/11? What about VIetnam? Much less then complete invasion and subversion! Is that Lincoln did in the US's own civil war, which did not involve foreign invasion, luckily for him. He blockaded the South, sent men in total war campaigns against the civilian population, burned and murdered and raped. Supressed dissent at home, put down New York with the military.

None of this mattes? Without the historical truth in all of its relations, you just have dry verbal submission to capitalist assumptions. Not good enough!


Edited by RoyFairbank - June 28 2012 at 15:29

Bernie Sanders Storms the Senate Floor and Challenges Congress’ Koch Whores

^So murder is an a-historical force?

Murder is bad
You who have killed
You are bad

A is B
C is A
C is B

The Logic of Senseless Words!

What makes Dresden and Hiroshima, Mai Lai war crimes, and what makes Lincoln's war policies historically necessary, despite internally containing criminality and "murder," and what makes Lenin's war policies (including execution of Whites!) unavoidable, is historical context.

Murder is a driving force of human history, pacifism is impossible! As long as there is class society, there are breaks in distribution and control, across societies and nations. This is always resolved by violence of one sort or another!

How many wars are were there in the 20th century? 19th century? Did they simply originate in the "badness" of the human psyche?

Lincoln had a bad psyche, so he ordered Sherman's march, Truman had a bad psyche, so he ordered Hiroshima, Lenin had a bad psyche, so he executed and imprisoned Whites, Johnson had a bad psyche, so he ordered operation Rolling Thunder, The Jacobins had a bad psyche, so they executed the Girondins......

So history is jumble together and resolved into good psyche and bad psyche of individuals!

The circumstances of each historical episode inform as to the content of that episode.

Lenin was dealing with full border invasion, backward country, the resistance of the Whites, international isolation.

Maybe desperation is objective and not located in the human psyche?

Was the same objective desperation present in dropping Fat Boy and Little Man? Or Mai Lai? Or Rolling Thunder?

On the other hand, was objective desperation to be had in Lincoln's policies.

Examining the historical context, you can say yes and no, and understand history.

"Not to Laugh, Not to Cry, But To Understand."




Edited by RoyFairbank - June 29 2012 at 07:23