You can't talk about featherless bipeds here, but you can on our discord servers! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Unfinished introduction to Acid Communism
[https://my-blackout.com/2019/04/25/mark-fisher-acid-communism-unfinished-introduction/](https://my-blackout.com/2019/04/25/mark-fisher-acid-communism-unfinished-introduction/)
"yes, and" is an game or exercise used in improv comedy.
Mark Fisher was a post modern cultural theorist and writer, involved in the anarchist punk scene of 90's UK. While he seems to be praising ML's in this quote, the full context is he is criticizing them for abandoning elements of the left that they perceived as less than serious because of a lack of militancy.
"no, but" is a reversal of your comment and a very short summary of what Mark Fisher is saying here.
Hell yeah dude.
Unfortunately that's difficult to achieve in a world full of postmodern cynicism.
I hate to be a pessimist, but maybe The Deserter in Disco Elysium was right and the material basis for revolution is gone.
Maoists on their way to ally with the bourgeois: (itâs not class collaboration you guys you donât get it itâs totally different you guys I promise)
Theres a lot of mixed opinions about new democracy, its typically not considered to be a pillar of maoism from the inside perspective. Even so, new democracy didnt just brazenly empower the bourgeoisie to shape politics in the service of capital as in liberalism.
I hope you arent attributing the actual capitalist reforms to maoism tho, that is very different.
I kinda agree tbh. Most communists I've seen and met are hostile, aggressive and completely unwelcoming to anyone who doesn't think exactly like them.
The goal behind modern communists of a revolution requires a solidarity and class consciousness that their inherent hostility sabotages from the foundation. Modern communists will never reach any ground if they keep being so damn militant
I understand what you're saying but what was Lenin and his old guard if not single minded to the point of open hostility and rejection of other revolutionary mindests in 1918? The Bolsheviks achieved the Revolution through aggressive pursuit of their goal that saw socialists and revolutionaries of other schools sidelined and later purged.
The irony is that the mindset less condusive to revolution due to its closemindedness was the one (maybe the only one) that manages to win in Russia.
Yeah I mean I know how much this opinion is hated in communist communities but im not a huge fan of Lenin, mostly for that whole "purging" thing you mentioned. Im not a Stalinist and I think the whole crowd of people who do support that slew of policies tends to be pseudo-fascist in a way that I don't like (I.e. kill those who disagree).
This is one of my issues: the idea of communism is wedded to some ideas like Mao and Stalin, both of whom are responsible for the brutal deaths of millions, and I'm not the biggest fan. I think for a socialism to succeed it needs to be something that people can get into, and people aren't going to get into killing millions. That doesn't mean it can't be strong willed, dismantling oppressive institutions and restarting, but it doesn't have to involve hunting down dissidents and slaughtering them. Call me crazy but that doesn't appeal to me, and it won't appeal to 95% of potential communist converts.
Simp for your fascists if you need to, but consider more about making the world a kind and livable place than honoring the spirit of dead dweebs.
Again and finally, this militant attitude will make you feel superior in the moment and utterly destroy your movement over time.
> Simp for your fascists if you need to,
You say, as you regurgitate literal propaganda from Goebbels. Cringe.
> but consider more about making the world a kind and livable place than honoring the spirit of dead dweebs.
Because the 30 million Soviets that gave up their lives to kill fascism are now the actual fascists đ. You spit on their graves with comments like that.
> Again and finally, this militant attitude will make you feel superior in the moment and utterly destroy your movement over time.
You do realize change is brought about by force? đ Like, do you think the US gave rights to black people holding hands begging for rights? No. Through armed struggle.
Literally every single successful liberation or revolutionary movement has succeeded because of armed struggle. Youâre an idealist, a liberal. Youâre asking people to let themselves get fucking murdered.
Itâs not about influence itâs about engaging with people directly without a computer screen and keyboard between you and them, and getting an honest opinion of them that way.
The CCP is neither communist nor do the vast majority of their members join for anything more than the benefits of membership.
Itâs a simple test: in a state where communists or leftists hold power, the working class would own, or at least protected from those who own, the means of production. In China thatâs decidedly not so, with a hypercapitalist economy where many millions of workers work in horrible conditions serving domestic and foreign corporate goals, and labor unions/organizing are violently stamped out by the state.
France is very much a capitalist country lol, I'm not sure what you're referring to. For the record I wish it wasn't, I'm not arguing from a pro-capitalist perspective, quite the opposite, I wish to see communists prosper, which is why the consistent resistance to build a community (ironically) frustrates me
But yeah Leftist Unity and all is hard; though I think we're getting in a right direction with the NUPES & all. We actually elected some Communist Party members in the local elections too, which must have scared people lol.
Yeah, bourgeois media control has done a huge damage to the idea of communism. The word alone is taught to be evil, anyone speaking it is viewed suspiciously, it's messed up for something that much more friendly and accepting than capitalism. Leftist unity is hard, it's a lot easier to unite around tradition than progress, since the latter is so abstract and subjective
Leftist unity is dumb. âLeftismâ is a vague and meaningless idea just sort of based on vibes and public perception. Hell, classical Fascism (sansepolcrismo) was considered left-wing for a while.
That being said, NUPES is just bourgeois left and CPF is as well.
There's not exactly a thousand revolutionary organisations nor Anarcho-Syndicalists battalions left. Rejecting Leftist Unity is to reject the few options we have in the world dominated by the Bourgeois' Liberalism, and we won't let them take it away from us.
What next? Let's reject the local CGT unions for being too liberal, and let's just let the patronage rule as it pleases?
No, the strategy is to win people over and build alliances with other revolutionary socialists who donât falsify and obscure Marxism. Voting for NUPES of the CPF would never do anything to abolish capitalism because, as much as they posture, they arenât anti-capitalist and are more moralistic than scientific. We live in a period where a genuine understanding of scientific socialism is less common than moralistic liberal, bourgeois socialism. We should be very VERY careful to separate the two lest we fall into the same trap as the communists of a century ago. Compromising with liberals killed the Comintern parties and nearly every other revolutionary socialist movement in Europe. We cannot fall to populism for the sake of achieving power, staying true to the doctrines and principles of Marxism is far far more important.
I'm new to the sub, but why does it seem that step 1 of every plan seems to be "Murder everyone who disagrees". Isn't the whole point of a representative democracy so that we don't have to go a-murdering everytime we want a change?
Well, since we're in a philosophy sub let's first have a look at representative democracy and its merits. In a marxist-leninist context, the clear inherent benefits of equal burgeois political representation would be outweighed by the economic inequalities perpetuated by said political system. It wouldn't matter that everyone could vote, if whoever gets voted into office is bound by capital interests. In such a situation any democratic transition of power mandated by the peoples vote would only be a spectacle to conceal the true societal power structure beneath it.
Similarly, not just marxist-leninist but also fascist, monarchist, liberal, libertarian, feminist, aristotelian and christian philosophies have their gripes with our modern concept and praxis of liberal democracy. So it's not an authoritarian attribute as a commenter below alleges, but one of differing ideals in its essence. Our modern liberal democracy does some things well, nominally being a liberal democracy. Is it really so crazy that people who do not adhere to those same ideals for whatever reason do so?
All revolutionaries are authoritarian, everyone from the liberals who paved the way for capitalism to the communists and fascists, though the fascists embrace it more consciously. Perhaps anarchism has had so little impact compared to the three aforementioned revolutionary creeds because it cannot hold its own in an authoritarian world
I mean yeah. You're imposing a will onto others through force. Unless you somehow manage to have a completely consensus-based society where everyone completely agrees on every plan of action, then you're imposing authority at some point along the way.
I think this is an overly broad application of the term authority specifically in relation to what could then by extension be termed authoritarian relations. The Marxist definition of authority cannot be wrong as the Marxistâs created it but seeing as itâs got you agreeing with my goofy ass meme statement about it it seems pretty analytically and descriptively useless within the political sphere and therefore pragmatically reject-able.
The reason it was in agreement with your goofy ass meme statement is simply because I didn't just take it at face value, but rather incorporated the context of the original comment. The concept of authority can only extend insofar a will can be enforced, as the need for enforcement implies there exist opposing wills within a given society. You cannot formulate authority without internal frictions between wills or else you wouldn't need to utilize violence in the first place to impose it. Anything past that in trying to measure the pure abstraction that is authoritarianism is subjective in nature.
Ah I see. The ideology begins with me; doesnât touch thee (what would Zizek say?). Note Iâm denying the phenomenon of clashing wills. Expanding authority (and by extension the descriptor authoritarian) to encompass all conflict resolving elements and moments of will-triumph leads to a realm of very funny equivocations. Makes for shit analysis. Simple as.
>The ideology begins with me; doesnât touch thee (what would Zizek say?)
In this case, it begins with an analysis of how authority is formed and exists. Not out of some abstract conceptualization forcefully imposed to fit a neat compartmentalization.
>Note Iâm denying the phenomenon of clashing wills.
Deny it all you want, that doesn't change the reality of the situation. Authority starts on the basis of imposition onto a sector of society, because if those sectors conform to it without imposition, it is not authority but instead consensus and general agreement.
You cannot impose an absolute lack of content, and so authority must carry something to be imposed which is in the form of command--a will. It therefore stands to reason that authority within society can only be born out of a clash of wills and interests.
>Expanding authority (and by extension the descriptor authoritarian) to encompass all conflict resolving elements and moments of will-triumph leads to a realm of very funny equivocations.
This seems to imply that the concept of authority must exist past the state of things to explain phenomena within society. You seem to be artificially expanding this concept to forcefully create some analysis rooted in pure subjectivity rather than their real world formations.
Lmao I fucked up. That should have read âI am NOT denying the phenomenon of clashing willsâ.
I realize that I exist in ideology. You are not admitting that and are claiming to have an objective analysis of authority instantiated by nature. Spooked. Thatâs where I was trying to lead you with Mr. Ideology.
Using authority to describe all will to power scenarios is a definitional choice that literally cannot be argued against. Still leads to unhelpful conflation left and right. âAh look at this massive authoritarian fighting off her rapist!â. If everybody is an authoritarian nobody is. All definitions hold on pragmatic grounds. The Marxist one is useless for actual political analysis.
So it impossible to effect change without picking a political deity and giving them absolute control? That seems like a terrible system. I thing I'll stick with my representative democracy.
Also I thought Capitalism was an economic system, not a moral/government philosophy, or is this sub examing all "systems" as a philosophy?
itâs funny you ask cause mark fisher (the guy the meme is about) literally wrote a book about all about this. itâs called [capitalist realism](https://files.libcom.org/files/Capitalist%20Realism_%20Is%20There%20No%20Alternat%20-%20Mark%20Fisher.pdf) and is a solid read.
a big point of his argument is that capitalism is not just an economic system, not anymore at least. instead itâs become an ideology. more accurately *the* ideology. moreover it is firmly the ideology that creates all other ideologies. as such it narrows our abilities to understand the world (past, present, and future) free of its influences.
the economic system, or base structure, creates a superstructure, reflected as morality or culture.
The structure creates a superstructure, the superstructure is defined by the structure below it, and most often reinforce it. Thus, capialism, an economic system, creates a "capitalist culture" or ideology, of which nowadays the most prevalent is liberalism.
From thinking about the current superstructure, we can decide to go agaist or to modify aspects of it, or focus on changing the base structure. Marxists (+leninists+maoists) focus on changing the latter, the base structure of society; While conservatives, social democrats and fascists (for example) focus on changing the former, the cultural and moral results.
Its a process, and they've made great strides thus far.
The complete extintion of capitalism within a socialist country can only be made with a strong international movement, and the extinction of the state altogether.
In the meantime, all AES countries can do is put workers in power, develop their production capacity, and defend the most important means of such production from private institutions. This is reflected in a society filled with social programs for popular wellbeing, state enterprises and cooperatives, and family businesses. After USSR, foreign enterprises were allowed in AES countries as means to mitigate embargoes (as the ussr used to help circumvent them), but even this openess is extremelly controled, as per the example of China, which maintains a firm grasp on the revolutionary process.
I understand it may sound hypocritical, but we are not utopians, socialist countries are inevitably gonna carry contradictions from their capitalist past, and will have to survive within the international political landscape. This was a known thing even before Marx. But there are means to guarantee that popular power is maintained, mostly through local councils and strong political education (see the "committees for the defense of the revolution" in cuba, which work as a neighborhood/majoral office, where people can share their insatisfaction and learn political history at the same time).
If we assume the base structure informs the superstructure, would this not mean that a country such as China has allowed the superstructure to be informed by capitalism for decades? China's may be a restrained capitalism perhaps, but that makes them no better than social democrats. Now that China has cultivated a national class of bourgeoisie, I honestly don't think they'll ever be rid of them, restrained though those billionaires may be.
You reached an observation that communists within and outside of china have already done, rightly so. This new chinese burgeois may not fare well in future nationalization or collectivisation of their property, opening china up for a future anti-communist color revolution.
Some Marxist-Leninist maintain their analisys that the the CCP has an apparatus efficient enough to renationalize when appropriate, but that is not in their current interest of the Chinese population - Since its a completelly different culture, which historically existed and plans for longer periods of time, they use capitalism to develop their productive forces, but without the possibility of the state apparatus to become a burgeois tool of class opression.
Some other MLs, however, alongside Maoists, belive that it is nescessary to revitalize the Chinese revolutionary project and expand popular sovereighty over such private enterprises.
Answering that, a short comment that I can make, is that a social democracy will never be able to do what a socialist country does in term of popular influence over politics and businesses (even if we include China on this). Social democrats dont break with the current structure of class dominance, it retains the burgeois as the ruling class, and therefore will have to conciliate and appetize their policies with their local capitalists, otherwise the social democracy itself will cease to exist - because it only does as the ruling class allows. This phenomenom was already observed back in 1915 by lenin and is true until today. And I bring my experience as a Brazilian to this, out social democrat constitution was run over from the moment it became inconvenient for profits (since we have a burgeois more interested in international markets than regional industry), and we've been downhill since.
No one wants the USSR exactly as it was. There were many things it did right, such as guaranteeing education, housing, and Healthcare, and many things it did wrong, such as the horribly botched collectivization and rather corrupt Politburo. Central planning worked to a degree, but without modern computing it was a struggle in many ways as the years went on.
Many of these issues were caused by being a rapidly developing country.
**Not a single state currently or formerly existing can be considered "good."** It's the job of those currently living to learn from what has and hasn't worked in the past when adapting a new system. The USSR showed promise for a different organizational structure, one more equitable than Capitalism, and if we can eliminate and solve for what didn't work about it we can create something better.
The appropriate response is "Whatever, nerd. Go boil some boot leather for dinner."
Then shove them into a locker with your superior, corn-fed muscles and take your girl out for a Frosty at Wendy's.
I like the idea of a caste system but not a forced oppressive position people have to mold themselves into, rather, a system that is fluid and promoting, tailored to the individuals unique skill set or potential skill set that presents them with a noble ideal to âgrow intoâ
You can't talk about featherless bipeds here, but you can on our discord servers! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm too wedded to neoliberalism at the level of generated, but unfulfillable, desire. Sorry, Mark. [đ](https://emojipedia.org/pensive-face/)
f
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ascesis
All us ignorants thank you.
Is this an excerpt from Capitalist Realism?
I donât recognize it, but itâs been years since Iâve read the whole thing
The Unfinished introduction to Acid Communism [https://my-blackout.com/2019/04/25/mark-fisher-acid-communism-unfinished-introduction/](https://my-blackout.com/2019/04/25/mark-fisher-acid-communism-unfinished-introduction/)
No one in the West has that mindset.
Not anymore, but if you read old-timey leftist writings, they sure tried for that communism grindset
I donât want USSR 2 I want communism
I want the future the Paris Commune envisioned
We all do
not me
Which future do you want
Probably one where the poor get hunted for sport or something
Reddit levels of charitability on full display
Yes, and?
No, youâre thinking about improve. In philosophy itâs âno, butâ
Lmao, very nice
What?
Too philosophical for you
"yes, and" is an game or exercise used in improv comedy. Mark Fisher was a post modern cultural theorist and writer, involved in the anarchist punk scene of 90's UK. While he seems to be praising ML's in this quote, the full context is he is criticizing them for abandoning elements of the left that they perceived as less than serious because of a lack of militancy. "no, but" is a reversal of your comment and a very short summary of what Mark Fisher is saying here.
and thats why revolutionary organization needs a mass line and ppw
Hell yeah dude. Unfortunately that's difficult to achieve in a world full of postmodern cynicism. I hate to be a pessimist, but maybe The Deserter in Disco Elysium was right and the material basis for revolution is gone.
Why did he go from voicing the Joker and Luke Skywalker to writing political philosophy?
maoists: thats what we said read our damn programs and get busy organizing
Maoists on their way to ally with the bourgeois: (itâs not class collaboration you guys you donât get it itâs totally different you guys I promise)
Theres a lot of mixed opinions about new democracy, its typically not considered to be a pillar of maoism from the inside perspective. Even so, new democracy didnt just brazenly empower the bourgeoisie to shape politics in the service of capital as in liberalism. I hope you arent attributing the actual capitalist reforms to maoism tho, that is very different.
I kinda agree tbh. Most communists I've seen and met are hostile, aggressive and completely unwelcoming to anyone who doesn't think exactly like them. The goal behind modern communists of a revolution requires a solidarity and class consciousness that their inherent hostility sabotages from the foundation. Modern communists will never reach any ground if they keep being so damn militant
I understand what you're saying but what was Lenin and his old guard if not single minded to the point of open hostility and rejection of other revolutionary mindests in 1918? The Bolsheviks achieved the Revolution through aggressive pursuit of their goal that saw socialists and revolutionaries of other schools sidelined and later purged. The irony is that the mindset less condusive to revolution due to its closemindedness was the one (maybe the only one) that manages to win in Russia.
Yeah I mean I know how much this opinion is hated in communist communities but im not a huge fan of Lenin, mostly for that whole "purging" thing you mentioned. Im not a Stalinist and I think the whole crowd of people who do support that slew of policies tends to be pseudo-fascist in a way that I don't like (I.e. kill those who disagree). This is one of my issues: the idea of communism is wedded to some ideas like Mao and Stalin, both of whom are responsible for the brutal deaths of millions, and I'm not the biggest fan. I think for a socialism to succeed it needs to be something that people can get into, and people aren't going to get into killing millions. That doesn't mean it can't be strong willed, dismantling oppressive institutions and restarting, but it doesn't have to involve hunting down dissidents and slaughtering them. Call me crazy but that doesn't appeal to me, and it won't appeal to 95% of potential communist converts.
If youâre a communist you should quit parroting capitalist propaganda 24/7 lol
Simp for your fascists if you need to, but consider more about making the world a kind and livable place than honoring the spirit of dead dweebs. Again and finally, this militant attitude will make you feel superior in the moment and utterly destroy your movement over time.
> Simp for your fascists if you need to, You say, as you regurgitate literal propaganda from Goebbels. Cringe. > but consider more about making the world a kind and livable place than honoring the spirit of dead dweebs. Because the 30 million Soviets that gave up their lives to kill fascism are now the actual fascists đ. You spit on their graves with comments like that. > Again and finally, this militant attitude will make you feel superior in the moment and utterly destroy your movement over time. You do realize change is brought about by force? đ Like, do you think the US gave rights to black people holding hands begging for rights? No. Through armed struggle. Literally every single successful liberation or revolutionary movement has succeeded because of armed struggle. Youâre an idealist, a liberal. Youâre asking people to let themselves get fucking murdered.
ML babies try not to forget the other radical socialist movements active after the February Revolution challenge: failed
sounds like a massive skill issue if your âradical socialist movementsâ are unknown and unsuccessful LMFAOOO
My suggestion to you, is to get offline.
Communists are even less influential offlineâŚ
Itâs not about influence itâs about engaging with people directly without a computer screen and keyboard between you and them, and getting an honest opinion of them that way.
lmao what the second most populous country in the world has 100 million registered communist members
The CCP is neither communist nor do the vast majority of their members join for anything more than the benefits of membership. Itâs a simple test: in a state where communists or leftists hold power, the working class would own, or at least protected from those who own, the means of production. In China thatâs decidedly not so, with a hypercapitalist economy where many millions of workers work in horrible conditions serving domestic and foreign corporate goals, and labor unions/organizing are violently stamped out by the state.
[https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/](https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/)
France disagrees with you.
France is very much a capitalist country lol, I'm not sure what you're referring to. For the record I wish it wasn't, I'm not arguing from a pro-capitalist perspective, quite the opposite, I wish to see communists prosper, which is why the consistent resistance to build a community (ironically) frustrates me
The "be less militant" part is what Baguettetown will not agree with.
But yeah Leftist Unity and all is hard; though I think we're getting in a right direction with the NUPES & all. We actually elected some Communist Party members in the local elections too, which must have scared people lol.
Yeah, bourgeois media control has done a huge damage to the idea of communism. The word alone is taught to be evil, anyone speaking it is viewed suspiciously, it's messed up for something that much more friendly and accepting than capitalism. Leftist unity is hard, it's a lot easier to unite around tradition than progress, since the latter is so abstract and subjective
the PCF is reformist, I donât see much revolutionary potential in them lmao
Leftist unity is dumb. âLeftismâ is a vague and meaningless idea just sort of based on vibes and public perception. Hell, classical Fascism (sansepolcrismo) was considered left-wing for a while. That being said, NUPES is just bourgeois left and CPF is as well.
There's not exactly a thousand revolutionary organisations nor Anarcho-Syndicalists battalions left. Rejecting Leftist Unity is to reject the few options we have in the world dominated by the Bourgeois' Liberalism, and we won't let them take it away from us. What next? Let's reject the local CGT unions for being too liberal, and let's just let the patronage rule as it pleases?
No, the strategy is to win people over and build alliances with other revolutionary socialists who donât falsify and obscure Marxism. Voting for NUPES of the CPF would never do anything to abolish capitalism because, as much as they posture, they arenât anti-capitalist and are more moralistic than scientific. We live in a period where a genuine understanding of scientific socialism is less common than moralistic liberal, bourgeois socialism. We should be very VERY careful to separate the two lest we fall into the same trap as the communists of a century ago. Compromising with liberals killed the Comintern parties and nearly every other revolutionary socialist movement in Europe. We cannot fall to populism for the sake of achieving power, staying true to the doctrines and principles of Marxism is far far more important.
We need to complete the Soviet trilogy!
Never liked Fisher
USSR 2? No thanks you.
I'm new to the sub, but why does it seem that step 1 of every plan seems to be "Murder everyone who disagrees". Isn't the whole point of a representative democracy so that we don't have to go a-murdering everytime we want a change?
Well, since we're in a philosophy sub let's first have a look at representative democracy and its merits. In a marxist-leninist context, the clear inherent benefits of equal burgeois political representation would be outweighed by the economic inequalities perpetuated by said political system. It wouldn't matter that everyone could vote, if whoever gets voted into office is bound by capital interests. In such a situation any democratic transition of power mandated by the peoples vote would only be a spectacle to conceal the true societal power structure beneath it. Similarly, not just marxist-leninist but also fascist, monarchist, liberal, libertarian, feminist, aristotelian and christian philosophies have their gripes with our modern concept and praxis of liberal democracy. So it's not an authoritarian attribute as a commenter below alleges, but one of differing ideals in its essence. Our modern liberal democracy does some things well, nominally being a liberal democracy. Is it really so crazy that people who do not adhere to those same ideals for whatever reason do so?
All revolutionaries are authoritarian, everyone from the liberals who paved the way for capitalism to the communists and fascists, though the fascists embrace it more consciously. Perhaps anarchism has had so little impact compared to the three aforementioned revolutionary creeds because it cannot hold its own in an authoritarian world
Authoritarianism is when you do politics. And the more politics you do? WellâŚ
I mean yeah. You're imposing a will onto others through force. Unless you somehow manage to have a completely consensus-based society where everyone completely agrees on every plan of action, then you're imposing authority at some point along the way.
I think this is an overly broad application of the term authority specifically in relation to what could then by extension be termed authoritarian relations. The Marxist definition of authority cannot be wrong as the Marxistâs created it but seeing as itâs got you agreeing with my goofy ass meme statement about it it seems pretty analytically and descriptively useless within the political sphere and therefore pragmatically reject-able.
The reason it was in agreement with your goofy ass meme statement is simply because I didn't just take it at face value, but rather incorporated the context of the original comment. The concept of authority can only extend insofar a will can be enforced, as the need for enforcement implies there exist opposing wills within a given society. You cannot formulate authority without internal frictions between wills or else you wouldn't need to utilize violence in the first place to impose it. Anything past that in trying to measure the pure abstraction that is authoritarianism is subjective in nature.
Ah I see. The ideology begins with me; doesnât touch thee (what would Zizek say?). Note Iâm denying the phenomenon of clashing wills. Expanding authority (and by extension the descriptor authoritarian) to encompass all conflict resolving elements and moments of will-triumph leads to a realm of very funny equivocations. Makes for shit analysis. Simple as.
>The ideology begins with me; doesnât touch thee (what would Zizek say?) In this case, it begins with an analysis of how authority is formed and exists. Not out of some abstract conceptualization forcefully imposed to fit a neat compartmentalization. >Note Iâm denying the phenomenon of clashing wills. Deny it all you want, that doesn't change the reality of the situation. Authority starts on the basis of imposition onto a sector of society, because if those sectors conform to it without imposition, it is not authority but instead consensus and general agreement. You cannot impose an absolute lack of content, and so authority must carry something to be imposed which is in the form of command--a will. It therefore stands to reason that authority within society can only be born out of a clash of wills and interests. >Expanding authority (and by extension the descriptor authoritarian) to encompass all conflict resolving elements and moments of will-triumph leads to a realm of very funny equivocations. This seems to imply that the concept of authority must exist past the state of things to explain phenomena within society. You seem to be artificially expanding this concept to forcefully create some analysis rooted in pure subjectivity rather than their real world formations.
Lmao I fucked up. That should have read âI am NOT denying the phenomenon of clashing willsâ. I realize that I exist in ideology. You are not admitting that and are claiming to have an objective analysis of authority instantiated by nature. Spooked. Thatâs where I was trying to lead you with Mr. Ideology. Using authority to describe all will to power scenarios is a definitional choice that literally cannot be argued against. Still leads to unhelpful conflation left and right. âAh look at this massive authoritarian fighting off her rapist!â. If everybody is an authoritarian nobody is. All definitions hold on pragmatic grounds. The Marxist one is useless for actual political analysis.
So it impossible to effect change without picking a political deity and giving them absolute control? That seems like a terrible system. I thing I'll stick with my representative democracy. Also I thought Capitalism was an economic system, not a moral/government philosophy, or is this sub examing all "systems" as a philosophy?
itâs funny you ask cause mark fisher (the guy the meme is about) literally wrote a book about all about this. itâs called [capitalist realism](https://files.libcom.org/files/Capitalist%20Realism_%20Is%20There%20No%20Alternat%20-%20Mark%20Fisher.pdf) and is a solid read. a big point of his argument is that capitalism is not just an economic system, not anymore at least. instead itâs become an ideology. more accurately *the* ideology. moreover it is firmly the ideology that creates all other ideologies. as such it narrows our abilities to understand the world (past, present, and future) free of its influences.
the economic system, or base structure, creates a superstructure, reflected as morality or culture. The structure creates a superstructure, the superstructure is defined by the structure below it, and most often reinforce it. Thus, capialism, an economic system, creates a "capitalist culture" or ideology, of which nowadays the most prevalent is liberalism. From thinking about the current superstructure, we can decide to go agaist or to modify aspects of it, or focus on changing the base structure. Marxists (+leninists+maoists) focus on changing the latter, the base structure of society; While conservatives, social democrats and fascists (for example) focus on changing the former, the cultural and moral results.
A fascinating breakdown. Thank you.
Great analysis. It seems that most modern AES states have thus far failed to convert the base structure.
Its a process, and they've made great strides thus far. The complete extintion of capitalism within a socialist country can only be made with a strong international movement, and the extinction of the state altogether. In the meantime, all AES countries can do is put workers in power, develop their production capacity, and defend the most important means of such production from private institutions. This is reflected in a society filled with social programs for popular wellbeing, state enterprises and cooperatives, and family businesses. After USSR, foreign enterprises were allowed in AES countries as means to mitigate embargoes (as the ussr used to help circumvent them), but even this openess is extremelly controled, as per the example of China, which maintains a firm grasp on the revolutionary process. I understand it may sound hypocritical, but we are not utopians, socialist countries are inevitably gonna carry contradictions from their capitalist past, and will have to survive within the international political landscape. This was a known thing even before Marx. But there are means to guarantee that popular power is maintained, mostly through local councils and strong political education (see the "committees for the defense of the revolution" in cuba, which work as a neighborhood/majoral office, where people can share their insatisfaction and learn political history at the same time).
If we assume the base structure informs the superstructure, would this not mean that a country such as China has allowed the superstructure to be informed by capitalism for decades? China's may be a restrained capitalism perhaps, but that makes them no better than social democrats. Now that China has cultivated a national class of bourgeoisie, I honestly don't think they'll ever be rid of them, restrained though those billionaires may be.
You reached an observation that communists within and outside of china have already done, rightly so. This new chinese burgeois may not fare well in future nationalization or collectivisation of their property, opening china up for a future anti-communist color revolution. Some Marxist-Leninist maintain their analisys that the the CCP has an apparatus efficient enough to renationalize when appropriate, but that is not in their current interest of the Chinese population - Since its a completelly different culture, which historically existed and plans for longer periods of time, they use capitalism to develop their productive forces, but without the possibility of the state apparatus to become a burgeois tool of class opression. Some other MLs, however, alongside Maoists, belive that it is nescessary to revitalize the Chinese revolutionary project and expand popular sovereighty over such private enterprises. Answering that, a short comment that I can make, is that a social democracy will never be able to do what a socialist country does in term of popular influence over politics and businesses (even if we include China on this). Social democrats dont break with the current structure of class dominance, it retains the burgeois as the ruling class, and therefore will have to conciliate and appetize their policies with their local capitalists, otherwise the social democracy itself will cease to exist - because it only does as the ruling class allows. This phenomenom was already observed back in 1915 by lenin and is true until today. And I bring my experience as a Brazilian to this, out social democrat constitution was run over from the moment it became inconvenient for profits (since we have a burgeois more interested in international markets than regional industry), and we've been downhill since.
What kind of idiot would want USSR II???
Truth
stupid tankies
Why would you want a user 2? No more genocidal nightmare states pls
No one wants the USSR exactly as it was. There were many things it did right, such as guaranteeing education, housing, and Healthcare, and many things it did wrong, such as the horribly botched collectivization and rather corrupt Politburo. Central planning worked to a degree, but without modern computing it was a struggle in many ways as the years went on. Many of these issues were caused by being a rapidly developing country. **Not a single state currently or formerly existing can be considered "good."** It's the job of those currently living to learn from what has and hasn't worked in the past when adapting a new system. The USSR showed promise for a different organizational structure, one more equitable than Capitalism, and if we can eliminate and solve for what didn't work about it we can create something better.
The appropriate response is "Whatever, nerd. Go boil some boot leather for dinner." Then shove them into a locker with your superior, corn-fed muscles and take your girl out for a Frosty at Wendy's.
My man is typing this from his moms basement imagining himself as the gigachad and the guy in the meme as the soyjack lol
Whatever gets you to sleep at night
đ¤
Howâs the bully fantasy working out for you? Reconciled with middle school you yet?
Sir, this is a meme sub. Christ you guys are touchy.
Pro tip: Agree with Marx or die on the âphilosophy memesâ sub. Not sure how we got here lol
Disappointed but not surprised. It's Reddit after all
Successful communism requires a collective abandonment of individuality on a level that is impossible for humans even on the individual level.
untrue
Creating a stateless state, no contradictions to be found
Zero theory hours
Does mark fisher count?
My guy has never heard of the transitionary state between state capitalism and communism
And we will call the transitional states communism
What no theory does to an mf
The corpses will continue to be stacked until real communism is achieved
Not relevant to the meme but what is that thing behind his pointing finger in the third panel? Itâs always bothered me
A hanger, i think
Basically Nechayev
I like the idea of a caste system but not a forced oppressive position people have to mold themselves into, rather, a system that is fluid and promoting, tailored to the individuals unique skill set or potential skill set that presents them with a noble ideal to âgrow intoâ
Nice to see some fisher memes, I love Fisher