[CounterChaos]

It is apparent to me that things have changed a lot since I lived there (late 70's early 80's). Nor, have I kept track much of political developments. Thanks Negotiator for updating me on the reality.

[daft punk]

interesting post negotiator

[KurtFF8]

Every 20th and 21st century Marxist is working within a degenerative research programme. Such a program makes use of auxiliary theories and hypothesis to explain away the facts rather than predict novel ones. 19th century Marxist theory was a progressive research programme that would have been refuted had it not been for the auxiliary theories and additions appended to it in the 20th century.

I'm actually a bit confused by your account here. Are you saying that examples like Lenin contributing to Marxism via the notion of Imperialism as an auxiliary function are example of the Marxist program as a progressive project, or would the example of Lenin be part of what you're describing as the degenerative research program.

I'm also curious as to why you've only pointed to British analytical Marxists of the 70s and 80s for their attempts to "save the program" and not someone like Althusser whose entire philosophical project seems to be the exact same thing that you are describing here. (As a matter of fact, a lot of what you're saying here has echos of Althusser)

I'd also be interested to see what you think are some of the possibilities for a resurgence in attempts at making Marxism a progressive research program (which I'm assuming the concept of Praxis is important here) would look like or if you think it's just no longer a worthy attempt (of which I would of course disagree).

declining wages; impoverishment of the working class; dissolution of the capitalist mode of production in the advanced, industrialized nations (either through revolution or collapse).

The immiseration of the working class is perhaps the only of these that folks have tried to rescue (probably mostly highlighting austerity as an example).

And of course you left out the crisis prone nature of capitalism and class conflict. I feel that your account of Marxism as being in that level of crisis in the 20th century may be a bit strong. (It's of course something that most post-Marxists agree upon). But Marxism is often pronounced dead, then makes surprise comebacks, even before the the Russian revolution folks were pronouncing Marxism "dead."

[daft punk]

[KurtFF8]

Yes, daft punk, I know that a search of my post will yield 0 results for the term "Trotsky," but there are other things in the subject of Marxism to discuss.

It's also quite telling that you're utterly uninterested in developments in Marxism past the 1940s.

[daft punk]

developments? Like what? Oh shit, I cant post a one-liner. Er, help me out here. Can you summarise the major revisions I mean developments, apart from the Permanent Revolution, which was not contradictory to Marx.

[KurtFF8]

Wait are you really claiming that Trotsky's "Permanent Revolution" was the only advance in Marxism in the 20th century?

Do Lenin's theories of the vanguard party or imperialism not count for you?

And of course you're ignoring important thinkers like Mandel, Gramsci, Lukács, Althusser, Benjamin, Adorono, Mészáros, Horkheimerm etc. etc.

[daft punk]

Permanent Revolution was the most important. Call it what you want, that was what Lenin adopted in April 1917. Without that the revolution wouldn't have happened. And the Stalinists not adopting Permanent Revolution was why all the other revolutions were screwed up.

Yes Lenin wrote some important stuff obviously.

Tell me what Mandel said that was useful, and each of the others, in a nutshell. Off the top of your head.

[KurtFF8]

Wait, so you're claiming that the theory of Permanent Revolution is more important than both the theories of the Vanguard Party and of Imperialism? (By the way, Trotsky built off of these theories of Lenin's to ever be able to arrive at Permanent Revolution, you realize this right?)

Tell me what Mandel said that was useful, and each of the others, in a nutshell. Off the top of your head

in other words :"Off the top of your head, explain the last 100 years in the development of Marxism."

Do you really not know about these thinkers I cited?

[daft punk]

Not more important, but as important. If you want to mention developments in Marxism, summarise them, otherwise you just have a list of names and an attempt to ridicule me which is not debate, not big, not clever.

This is why Trotsky is important today:

Permanent Revolution. He alone predicted the Russian revolution and his formula was what happened - the working class in power in a backward country. This is relevant to all the failed revolutions since 1917, all the Stalinist countries which they intended to be CAPITALIST. The Stalinists ruined all revolutions in every country in the world. Without Stalinism the world would probably be socialist now. It is still relevant in places like Venezuela.

Analysis of the USSR etc. Trotsky said it wasnt socialism, even our Stalinist chum agrees with that, surprisingly. But Totsky predicted it would collapse back to capitalism, and he was right, and the reason he was right is because socialism needs loads of democratic participation by the masses to work. So this is vital
a. to understand why 'communism' failed
b. so that in future any attempt doesnt repeat the same mistakes.

You and Ingliz refuse to acknowledge the lessons from history and so want to doom humanity to repeating the same mistakes.

As socialists therefore you are worse than useless.

[KurtFF8]

Not more important, but as important. If you want to mention developments in Marxism, summarise them, otherwise you just have a list of names and an attempt to ridicule me which is not debate, not big, not clever.

Again, you're asking me to essentially summarize the whole of the developments in Marxism from Lenin on. This is an absurd request. If you're really that unfamiliar with 20th century Marxism except for Trotsky, I think wikipedia articles on those thinkers may be a good start for you. Either that or Marxists.org

You and Ingliz refuse to acknowledge the lessons from history and so want to doom humanity to repeating the same mistakes.

How so?

As socialists therefore you are worse than useless.

What does this insult even have to do with what we're talking about?

[daft punk]

daft punk wrote:
Not more important, but as important. If you want to mention developments in Marxism, summarise them, otherwise you just have a list of names and an attempt to ridicule me which is not debate, not big, not clever.



Again, you're asking me to essentially summarize the whole of the developments in Marxism from Lenin on. This is an absurd request. If you're really that unfamiliar with 20th century Marxism except for Trotsky, I think wikipedia articles on those thinkers may be a good start for you. Either that or Marxists.org

if you cannot summarise the work of someone you say is important why bother mentioning them at all?

Quote:
You and Ingliz refuse to acknowledge the lessons from history and so want to doom humanity to repeating the same mistakes.



How so?

Quote:
As socialists therefore you are worse than useless.



What does this insult even have to do with what we're talking about?

I have spelled it all out in detail, no need to repeat myself. Stalinism is worse than useless as far as I'm concerned. There are some Stalinists who do good stuff, despite their Stalinist views, but the ideas of Stalinism have worked against socialism for decades as I have shown.

Tell me, what are your views on Spain?

[KurtFF8]

if you cannot summarise the work of someone you say is important why bother mentioning them at all?

Well I mentioned quite a few authors. You're asking for a summary of most of the writings of 20th century Marxism which is quite a silly request.

If you are really unfamiliar with all of those authors, I can point you in the right direction for introductions to them if you'd like. (as I said earlier Marxists.org is a good place, and the wiki articles can at least help contextualize them)

I have spelled it all out in detail, no need to repeat myself. Stalinism is worse than useless as far as I'm concerned. There are some Stalinists who do good stuff, despite their Stalinist views, but the ideas of Stalinism have worked against socialism for decades as I have shown.

Tell me, what are your views on Spain?

You haven't spelled anything out in detail: you've made a bunch of posts full of rhetoric against the "evil Stalinists" who "hate socialism" etc. etc.

You ignore the fact that the other Marxists you argue with on these issues are explicable trying to build socialism while bringing down capitalism. But because they disagree with your particular flavor of Marxism: they must be dismissed as enemies! It's quite sad and is the worst form of sectarianism.

I'm glad to see that you think some Stalinists do good stuff, but when you approach every conversation with other Marxists as if you're looking to start yet another battle about Stalin, it's quite frustrating and counter-productive. (As would be bringing the Spanish Civil War into this thread for no apparent reason other than for you to try to find a reason to disagree with my views on)

[daft punk]

Kurt, you are not a Marxist you are a Stalinist. You defend Stalinism and Stalinism was counter-revolutionary. You have said nothing concrete about it whatsoever. All you do is the cheap meaningless jibes. The Stalinists killed the socialists in Russia and sabotaged revolutions elsewhere and all we get from you is pathetic whinging about my supposed 'sectarianism'.

The irony is incredible. I am writing about how Stalinists physically annihilated the socialists, and you call me sectarian, without blushing! Incredible!

[Devrim]

Yes it is the worst thing that happent to humanity which make the people slaves of the system.

[ingliz]

Permanent Revolution

Permanent hopelessness more like.

Trotsky said it wasnt socialism

So what? It was being built.

[daft punk]

And it was so great it lasted less than a lifetime. More than a lifetime if you were a socialist obviously.

[KurtFF8]

Kurt, you are not a Marxist you are a Stalinist. You defend Stalinism and Stalinism was counter-revolutionary. You have said nothing concrete about it whatsoever. All you do is the cheap meaningless jibes. The Stalinists killed the socialists in Russia and sabotaged revolutions elsewhere and all we get from you is pathetic whinging about my supposed 'sectarianism'.

The irony is incredible. I am writing about how Stalinists physically annihilated the socialists, and you call me sectarian, without blushing! Incredible!

Is it possible for you to post without sounding like a Trotskybot? It seems like you're unable to post without making the most cliche sectarian attacks imaginable.

And when you don't have a good response to what a poster says you just say "Well you're just not a real Marxist!" Just because you don't know much about 20th century Marxism other than what Trotsky said about a few things doesn't make you a superior or "more correct" Marxist, I'm sorry to tell you.

Funny for you to accuse others of "cheap meaningless jibes" considering this post is nothing more than an irrelevant off topic sectarian rant.

[daft punk]

Is it possible for you to post without sounding like a Trotskybot? It seems like you're unable to post without making the most cliche sectarian attacks imaginable.

And when you don't have a good response to what a poster says you just say "Well you're just not a real Marxist!" Just because you don't know much about 20th century Marxism other than what Trotsky said about a few things doesn't make you a superior or "more correct" Marxist, I'm sorry to tell you.

Funny for you to accuse others of "cheap meaningless jibes" considering this post is nothing more than an irrelevant off topic sectarian rant.

Two questions. Do you consider yourself a supporter of Stalinism? You do to me. That makes you a Stalinist.

Do you consider Stalinism to be Marxism?

If so, how do you explain the following
1. Marxism says socialism has to be international, Stalin said the opposite. This is crucial ABC stuff.
2. Marxism is about the workers in power, Stalin wanted the revolutions outside Russia to be capitalist. In Russia the workers were not in power either, the bureucracy was.
3. Stalin killed all the Bolsheviks.
4. Socialism has to be democratic. No Stalinist country was.
5. All the Stalinist countries have collapsed now, to capitalism, more or less, as Trotsky predicted. If they were socialist, as you claim, how come it was so rubbish it failed? Do you consider a failed state to be a shining example of socialism to inspire the masses?

Do you say to American workers, ' we want America to be like the old USSR, you know, the crappy dictatorship which sold out to capitalism in the end'. Is that you best offer?

It is pathetic beyond belief.

[KurtFF8]

Two questions. Do you consider yourself a supporter of Stalinism? You do to me. That makes you a Stalinist.

Wait, I'm a Stalinist because to you I'm a supporter of Stalinism? That's a hell of an application of a materialist analysis, comrade. So to rephrase what you've just said "You are a Stalinist because I say so!"

And if you want to keep ignoring my posts to go on your own rants, I can do the same back at you and ignore your pointless off topic attacks as well.

You sit here and post with an assumption that you have a vastly superior understanding of Marxism, when you aren't even familiar with the works of most Marxists of the 20th century!

So please stop with your "pfft you just don't get it" stuff.