Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Демократия в Деле" channel.

Reading "all" [inconsequentially] texts on Marxism is not as useful as reading Marx himself, and parsing him from Engels and Lenin. The dictatorship over the proletariat is something people might want to avoid this time around.
4
@fellowtraveler2251 That's pretty well contentious on the face of it. Trotsky critiqued Stalin's leadership in the Soviet Union, quite rightly. So have other scholars of Marxism. Stalin was an aberrance, and even Lenin admitted it [cf. de-stalinisation and his letters]. Let's just say the Kulaks weren't given any leeway as proletarians. This is what I mean by "dictatorship over the proletariat". These,...exceptions. Marxism, in general, is very much Engels' own. Not much of Marx, alone, remains. And the difference even then between this classical Marxian theory [whether it's Marxist, or simply just Marx, sans the naive realism/materialism of Engels] or orthodox Marxism [Marxist-Leninism, et al.] is staggering. Marx even warned about this "crude communism" of the first "kind" or "sort" of revolutionary action [and some speculate, like Lukács, that this is a necessary contingent on the revolutionary set of values being implemented to correct or indemnify social relations and stultify/destroy categories which are bourgeois and liable to contradict the moral condemnation against capitalism and capitalists], this warning in his work "Private Property And Communism".
3
@Dhumm81 I didn't say Kropotkin was a Marxist. This is the problem with moronic ideologues,...they can't read what is being said to them, in their face. No one said Kropotkin was a Marxist. I said he expanded on materialist naturalism along with Bookchin afterwards. That's what I actually said. Which is true. Lenin's dictatorship OVER the proletariat was a failure of Marxist dialectical reasoning. Lenin may have made a marked advance, but his failure is his own doing, while nevertheless, his conception was spot-on, if not only after Stalin's theoretic encapsulation of Marxist-Leninism. This is a continuation of Marxian theory & dialectic—Engels is almost entirely a different dialectician, and his notions conform more to anarchic statelessness than Marxian self-managed democratic socialist state union.
2
Krónika Marx defined capitalism as a calculus and ground for a future and yet also impending crisis of conscious, and structure [collapse]. He defined a morality [or a "break" from morality, if you will, defining a more "social morality"]. He defined an outline of historical theory development [in lieu of Hegel] and an outline of a 'scientific' [ie. positivist claim] & 'concrete' dialectic to afford the abstract one of Hegel's some insight into the modern industrial society as per the life of a "proletariat".
2
What about Bookchin? now that would be interesting to address.
1
Entrepreneur Communism and Capitalism have the same entelechy. Just one is actual substantial and fair, at once.
1
6:15 -- Precisely. There is a marked difference between classical Marxian theory and then Orthodox Communist/Marxist theory. Two totally different idioms.
1
58:30 - Also, then there are certain forces of counter-economics, as well [criminality].
1
How do you deal with a bug that thinks everything else is a bug, but it isn't.
1
@Dhumm81 Maybe Engels shouldn't have confused so many things.
1
@Dhumm81 Anybody except the the CIA? I don't know people who don't know everything there is to know about Russian history. Maybe there is your answer, there. But alas, Trotsky: "[a]fter he was exiled and politically marginalized by Stalinism, continued to argue for a united front against fascism in Germany and Spain. According to Joseph Choonara of the British Socialist Workers Party in International Socialism, his articles on the united front represent an essential part of his political legacy."
1
@Dhumm81 I don't just read Trotsky[ism], you assume too much. I'm just elucidating facts, here, not conjecture based on some preconceived political agenda, considering that that is quite malleable, and the arguments between permanent state revolution, international revolution, civil society and it's cohorts, all have been in dispute since the beginning. I don't even know your opinion, and you're just assuming mine. Try again and be more specific about what you are trying to elucidate.
1
@Dhumm81 Crystal clear diversions from Marx, and using his concepts as puppet strings for a puppet-Marx, Engels concluded more with, than he did understanding Marx. Both had constitutive developments of thought, but clearly [yes, clearly] Engels was a far-cry from Marx's overall work in toto. Only thing Engels did was obfuscate Marx's overall point of reference for the edifice of communism, which is in the given Das Kapital, because in the end from the time it was released, and Engels was working towards his main thesis for the family, based on the anthropic principal of Engels' specialisation, he wrote Dialectics Of Nature, in which led to his complicating the nature of the concrete dialectic into a overly scientistic, "naturalistic" [as in "natural science"] concept, which doesn't get much further without the help of people like Kropotkin and Bookchin, and Marxian theory wasn't helped out until Lenin, et al.
1
@Dhumm81 PS: 'As the most comprehensive and profound doctrine of development, and the richest in content, Hegelian dialectics was considered by Marx and Engels the greatest achievement of classical German philosophy.... "The great basic thought", Engels writes, "that the world is not to be comprehended as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes, in which the things, apparently stable no less than their mind images in our heads, the concepts, go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away... this great fundamental thought has, especially since the time of Hegel, so thoroughly permeated ordinary consciousness that, in its generality, it is now scarcely ever contradicted. But, to acknowledge this fundamental thought in words, and to apply it in reality in detail to each domain of investigation, are two different things.... For dialectical philosophy nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it, except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher. And dialectical philosophy, itself, is nothing more than the mere reflection of this process in the thinking brain." Thus, according to Marx, dialectics is "the science of the general laws of motion both of the external world and of human thought"' - Lenin, V. I., On the Question of Dialectics: A Collection, pp. 7–9. Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1980.
1
@Dhumm81 PPS: I didn't say Engels wasn't a great spokesperson and rhetorician. He was. Even a great polemicist writer.
1
Imagine one is put, suddenly, in a starcraft, a vessel of star-ship: you are put into Star Trek, as it were...there is an alien in front of you: what do you do? act like everything is normal? do you cope? what about the tentacles coming out of their face? is this bearable? no? to be taken out of your, yes, extraneous, but ultimately purposeful circumstances of the here and now, you being placed into the far-flung future [where the Marxian dialectic really can be drawn out to, as it has been done, many a time, by many a dialectician and scientist of their time], is not going to relegate you to a compassionate or even understanding response to this all: you need time to get used to this: you are not there yet, ready to deal with drastic changes in circumstances: it shakes you — it's the same with culture: like the culture of this far-flung future, they needed time for their culture to be used to this [as like from ape to man, and hand to tool-object — like children at play — the adjust].
1
@Dhumm81 You don't even have a point. I've given you several: Vanguardism [even Richard Wolff would agree with this sentiment] is not a Marxian idea, but a idea perceived by Lenin to be Communist because of some rhetorical statements Marx made about philosophical kings. Seriously, that's... a fact — Fuck off,...no offence.
1
Even "dictatorship of the proletariat" comes out of Weydemeyer, which Marx [& Engels, in his "withering away of the state" concept, which crops up in his work] adopted; as such, it's rightly Marxian in theory, but not at all "perfected" or fool-proof; or as it has it on Wikipedia, rightly so: "For Marx, dialectics is not a formula for generating predetermined outcomes but is a method for the empirical study of social processes in terms of interrelations, development, and transformation". So everything is open to interpretation and experimentation. I'd recommend you'd read, say, Axel Honneth for more on that subject.
1
It was all messy and what-not.
1
Hitler Wanted to kill [or "breed out" {wouldn't have worked in his plan, either way}] anyone who would "poison" the "self-hood" [Selbst] of the German 'spirit' ["genes"]. Psychoanalysis [according to Freud!] is based on genetics, too...or at the very least [even though "genes" are his words] the body in connection to the mind [and memories]. It's all very important in concept. Not only was Hitler [and the grotesque gang of thugs he kept] very wrongheaded, and even despicably wrong and deceiving [he used the term "socialist" for the very same reason he used the title "christ", as a means to suggest to the people convincing ideals which would reify in their minds a concrete evincing that was really abstract, and vague, but they believed it anyway, which is how fascism of any sort tends to formulate itself...irrationally and erratically, in history].
1
Trying to critique capitalism without marxism is nuts It is. But interesting enough, the one of the first people to use the word 'libertarian' was a Communist. Joseph Déjacque was his name.
1
52:40 - Yes, the method is scientific in a sense [not positive science, but negative science].
1
@mianfeng4406 The simplicity of the situation is easier to explain: capitalism will centralise...always...and forever. So whatever detriments people find in that e.g. nationalistic, liberal economic, fascist, detriments...it won't matter to capitalistic endeavor. Civil society is the totality of capitalist endeavor. Eventually, labor will be much more important than even any "right"; the morality and legality of "rights" and the labor of society and that of the state, are all at odds with one another. If you value love, marriage, family, freedom, you're gonna need to take into account [as with social justice warriors and their sense of justice] the sense of equality, fraternity, liberty, happiness, and solidarity: lest people will resort to nationalist, fascist, socialist, and communist means to meet the ends people wish to meet, as you put oh so delicately, by their own accord - even in collective groups. Mutuality will be the defining factor of people's choices.
1
One of the greatest disasters to the democratic process is Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" *correction - Joseph Weydemeyer's - Not Marx's. Marx talked about this concept, and elucidated some of it, but I am sure you haven't really read it now have you? And back in the old days...when the words were written..."dictatorship" simply meant the "dictates thru which society is framed". The proletariat being "dictator" would only be an example of democracy, just entwined with the industrial revolutions idea of socialism and then liberality, as seen by socialists in that era: the fact is, very rich and well-off people tended to predominantly exploit workers, and then expect everyone to just bask in the glory of the city. Well, now the city is muck. Happy now?
1
The LTV was debunked by the Austrian School economist Eugene von Bohm Bawerk over 100 years ago Age old propaganda. Bullshit. The LTV critique [Capital vol. I & III "contradiction" in the 'transformation problem'] was blown-out by Rudolf Hilferding at the time of it's subsequent release. Get over it, there is more merit then you give credit for, Austrian marginalist economics have led us down the prim-rose path for the success of a few very cunning people, who are greater liars than any socialist could ever hope to be [even if they exist].
1
@mianfeng4406 Marx abjured from the Communist Manifestos stated goals. This should be well-known, but it isn't. PS: Marx didn't invent the concept of the dictator of the proletariat...I told you who did elucidate that concept, first, though, it was Joseph Weydemeyer.
1
PPS: Chinese-style socialism [literally what it is called] isn't based on classical marxian theory, nor is it even based on orthodox Leninist theory.
1
@mianfeng4406 >Now the city is muck Right. You will always find a reason to call it muck. Trust. If it's not "punk anarchists" it'll be some other trouble maker you don't like...everyone should just shut up and put their hands in the muck and 'get to work', right?...except reality doesn't work that way, people aren't that stupid.
1
@mianfeng4406 Not really, but you can believe whatever nonsense you want to believe.
1
@mianfeng4406 European civil society before Capitalism was not influenced by Capitalism Sure it was, the entire staging ground comes out of manifest destiny and an explosion of civil unrest, due to poverty, and inhumanity.
1
Socialism has a contradiction that it has not resolved: If you liberate people to their full potential, they will not be equal. Then, you have to beat them down so everyone will be equal. See the problem? No, because you are inventing that problem. No one has to beat anyone down.
1
@mianfeng4406 Morals and ethics matter, and you're claiming people "have to beat people down" to be equal. No. You're delusional. And labor is the determinate value. Business goes where labor is cheapest, or most abundant, it goes where it can make a profit. That's based on labor time. Marx was right. He'll keep being right.
1
@mianfeng4406 "Chinese style" socialism isn't "An attempt to deal with the failed Leninist, blah blah blah" - You just pulled that out of your ass. "Chinese style socialism" is just Maoism, it's not a "response" to Leninism, it's a nationalist form of heterodox Marxist theory.
1
@mianfeng4406 This is all done in the name of the God, Equality Well, there is along history there.
1
@mianfeng4406 Nope: ""Simple average labour, it is true, varies in character in different countries and cultural epochs, but in any particular society it is given." - Capital, Vol. 1
1
@mianfeng4406 Marx confuses the order of abstractions: facts with descriptions, descriptions with inferences, etc. No he doesn't. You are just not comprehending reification.
1
31:25 - Thanks Marginal Utility.
1
Small mistake, but the implications are something people would probably wish could be cleared up. Good on Professor Wolff for making this clarification for everyone to see.
1
Joseph Alois Schumpeter Brilliant man.
1
How is it possible that a country can be so much so the inverse of what it claims itself to be?
1
Sokal affair, have you read about it? it's about how some language in some texts [Baudrillard, Delueze, etc.] confused Sokal and guess what he did? he then wrote a paper which he got published, and he used that paper to critique the used of language in peer reviewed texts, criticised the peer review system for allowing this. What he didn't understand is what he was originally reading. Postmodernism isn't "anti-science". It might go into post-structualism, but that isn't anti-science, either. Postmodernism isn't even usually ascribed to by the ostensibly denoted "postmodernist philosopher". They just don't really insist in such labels, only people apply them to them for the sake that they write about 'the postmodern condition' [you aught to read about that], and they write within postmodernity [which you and I live in].
1
Russian history, American history, Chinese history, European history All of these are intricately connected [and then some], yet hugely different scenarios. America is just as divided on the issue of state as Russia was the issue of national spirit [actually, both, in the case of America].
1
I can do what capitalists do, anywhere: watch: buy very very high - buy low - hold off - move quick, market crash
1
A de-stabilised workers' state.
1
I'm starting to see a clearer picture here. People complain about "corporate socialism", and I can see why. But here's the thing: clearly any kind of socialism works better than capitalism in regards to social projects, social endeavor, and in regards to nationalistic endeavor - there is literally no excuse to be against it as a so-called "conservative". The entire thing is a lie. American "conservatives" preach against socialism, yet, in every way, they are given a better productivity - and what's more, at-bottom, these "conservatives" want and need social ends to be meet in order for them to be pleased [yet, they just do not realise this]. These "conservatives", alot of them are "Christian": they preach to "care only for Christians" and just "screw everyone else", screw civil society, screw it all, it's all for them only...the Vatican doesn't even purport to believe stuff like that, anymore, but that doesn't stop the American "Christian". They are socialist in the worst possible sense of the term...they only care about THEIR OWN, and that's it...like the nasis, they only care about their "racial" society, those ends which pertain to THEIR OWN SOCIAL GROUPS, and "SCREW EVERYONE ELSE". BUT YET! Yet they keep trying to promulgate this praise for "Capitalism", which they claim has been usurped by "cronies", so they claim to "hate socialism", yet they don't realise that it is capitalist and CAPITAL ENDS which have driven all roads to Rome, NOT "leftists". And they claim now, in some circles, that "fascism" and "national socialism" are "leftism" and only "leftism". They don't understand that civil society was opened up by the "classical liberal", either. Notice that one thing is consistent here...America. America is a walking/talking contradiction. There IS NO "right-wing" in America...just populists who conflate national socialism with leftist, and then claim that their nationalism and socialism [their "Christian" or "western" driven society, ONLY] isn't exactly national socialism [because they don't hold to or understand any racist "theory", they only pertain to racist ideas that have no backing in any sense, none at all, it's pure malice and instinct]. There IS NO "conservatism" in America, in these circles [what are they "conserving" when it is what they praise that got their country to where it is, that is, to a place "they can't accept". Well, it's just the thing...they are so supremely abject and/or confused that it doesn't matter...rhyme or reason doesn't matter with these people].
1