Given the many problems which we face today on the left in terms of theory and its application to and derivation from history alone, we must ask ourselves some questions which will require us to re-explore the Marxian tradition to replenish the insights which we have taken for granted and to extend the tradition (particularly its application to the modern world). I am not saying that Marx is outdated in the quite the same way that post-Marxists and liberal scum claim, what I am calling for is to stop taking the major theoretical developments which Marxists have made as being given since right now we can't even take liberal-democratic values as given any more after poststructuralist, neoreactionary and even leftist attacks which appear to be strong (such as the formal rejection of dialectics) but rest upon some of the most blatant straw men. I propose that we examine some of the buzzwords which are used by leftists today and discuss what they actually mean as well as what many leftists insinuate them to mean. For example: anti-imperialism; dialectical negation; bourgeoisie; revisionism; reformism… We have a mess to clean up even if we already have the tools to sort it out, so let us use those tools right now unless we need to build them first.
I expect that squabbles will start, particularly between anarchists and Marxists. For the sake of whatever remains of the Communist movement, do not let them descend into useless and meme-heavy shitflinging. At least demonstrate that you have a greater reading comprehension than a 12-year-old.
Left Buzzwords
THIS IS ALL THIS THREAD WILL BE
Lenin hat nigga and that ancom namefag probably
Firstly, classes.
No own MoP
Own MoP
already been banned
at least for now no more threads will be derailed by her
I'm sorry but its hard to take anyone who claims 'bourgeoisie' or 'reformism' are buzzwords seriously.
Honestly I think that things need to go further than this, a lot of far-left literature needs to be updated and simplified if we want people to actually read it. That doesn't mean that 'advanced cadres' shouldn't read originals, but for people just learning about communism. For example, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism could easily just be rewritten by:
a) replacing all the late 19th and early 20th century examples and statistics with late 20th and early 21st century ones - otherwise a lot of people think stuff like that book is not longer relevant (obviously they are wrong)
b) getting rid of all the polemics against people like Kautsky and Bernstein whilst keeping the core message there. This should be obvious, there are no supporters of Kautsky still alive
c) getting rid of other stiff which is basically irrelevant now, like Lenin's critique of colonialism, which isn't really a thing any more except in very few cases like Puerto Rico.
The same applies to pretty much all leftist books. We could also do with cutting out all the antiquated vocabulary. I think if this were to happen then far-left ideas would become a lot more accessible and widely read, and we wouldn't have to worry about 'buzzwords' because ordinary people will actually be able to read the books for themselves.
Maybe instead of attacking Kautsky and Bernstein, we attack modern reformists like AOC and Bernie Sanders.
prole-working class
bourg-investor
petit-bourgeois-small business owner
lumpen prole-homeless/criminal
MoP-factories and farms
what else
Id say that the lumpen proletariat only consists of criminals, scabs and other proles that actively work against their class interest. The homeless are normal proles in the reserve army of labour.
Socialism.
Or, you could think about not using 'buzzwords'…
I would like to expand on the lumpen
That includes Mafia bosses and members,drug dealers and junkies but also political thugs(see the "proud boys" in usa)
Also some mafia lawyers or other scammers and corrupt members of society could be consider lumpen
While they dont harm anyone they do live
parasitically
This
Marx meant smething similar to gypses rather than what we see in the streets today
I also nominate working class and petit bourg as terms that are not used in the way they should be, but perhaps point to real phenomena in their misuse
So now that we have all these ideas, let's discuss what many leftists think they mean and more accurate meanings as far as the Marxist tradition can be concerned as I was planning earlier. To start: socialism, Communism and Marxism are often confused while in truth the three are irreducible to each other as concepts. The first is a kind of society which generally (for there are bourgeois socialisms too, such as the utopian variant of socialisms) relates to some kind of common ownership and coordination; the second is a dynamic movement initially towards the abolition of exclusive (private) property and the advancement of the commons; the third is a theory which at its heart concerns the nature of the social world, which not only cannot be documented using bodies of thought which are reducible to religion-like moral doctrines, philosophical frameworks (complete with ethics) or empirical sciences, but cannot be explained using a combination of all three kinds of knowledge. To my knowledge, Marxism binds its variant of Communism to class society while Communists seek to weaponise socialism.
socialism existed before Marx. it should be taken to mean – and only mean – Utopian socialism. as it always has been and virtually is today.
Capitalist class
Working class
Workers’ State
Small capitalist
Criminal underclass
Socialism
Communism
I think that the rest of the terminology doesn’t need to be updated. The only question is how exactly to even spread Marx’s ideas in the modern day. Simply clarifying terms is a first step, but it won’t get people to read his works. We need something more to do that to spread his ideas.
Then what of 'scientific socialism'?
Sorting out whatever we're referring to and filling in any gaps in our present understandings is key before we even get to propaganda.
Before Marx, socialists were people that wanted to reform society, usually along religious or social lines, without wanting to change the material circumstances and processes which produced the problems that they're reacting against. You know Thomas More's Utopia? That was socialism before Marx.
Scientific socialism is the application of dialectical analysis to currently and previously existing society in order to understand why things are like they are and why in order to devise a framework for change. That's why Marx called himself a Communist, to distinguish their theory from the idealist socialists.
Now depending on who you ask, socialism is the 'lower stage' of communism, the transitory period betwern full capitalism and full communism, as things like private property, markets, and other trappings of capitalism are phased out and new social mechanisms replace them.
This is why the Manifesto should still be required reading. Marx explains most of this in summary.
I know about bourgeois socialisms and other socialisms before Marx. There were communisms before Marx as well. I remember the idea of socialism being the 'stage' before class society is no longer in existence, which is why I believe that socialism must be regarded as a weapon as far as Communists are concerned. These are much easier, but things like 'reformism', 'opportunism' and 'revisionism' require much more study to unpack - it is not enough to say that both refer to our disagreements with non-Marxian-Communist socialists or even that they are un-Communist deviations from any theory and praxis which are worthy of the Communist label. Was this not one of the problems which the more forceful Bolsheviks faced while Mensheviks were waiting for conditions to become 'dialectical' enough?
Define what you mean by parasitically, and define what you mean by NEET.
What constitutes the lumpenproletariat is relative because material conditions, and thus culture, vary regionally. It's frequently a buzzword when people inject their own biases into it and try to use it as a euphemism for "niggers".
The modern scientific method didn't exist in Marx's time, so holding it to such a standard is intellectually dishonest. Also frequently hypocritical, since the vast majority of critics from this angle hold liberal democracy to a different standard.
I agree, of course it's stupid to treat Marx's method as one should treat general relativity even if we ignore the fact that the modern scientific method is different to that which existed when Marx was busy constructing it because Marx is not dealing simply with things that empirical science can represent unlike physics (which explains why Popper's charge of unfalsifiability is a sham; he treats it as a bourgeois 'social' science which it obviously is not going to satisfy). However, this is not what is meant by 'scientific socialism'. I believe that the term came from Proudhon independently of Marxism and was also used by Engels to describe Marxism. Are there subtleties which I'm missing? Also please note that I don't just want this to be about my own personal misunderstandings because even though it saves a lot of time with regards to clearing them up, it's not what I was intending to do with the thread. This should be about other peoples' learning too.
Scientific socialism can be summed up with this:
In other words, when Marx uses the words “scientific socialism”, he is talking about the fact that his analysis is based on REAL premises that can be empirically verified, which is different from utopian socialism, which is based on imaginary premises. Note that while scientific socialism is BASED on premises that can be empirically verified, it itself is not entirely empirically verifiable. That would be the difference between scientific socialism and science as we now conceive of it.
The muddy style can't point the savings.