#reading marx and lenin

[catgirlstalin]

What’s you’re thoughts on Rosa Luxemburg, trots and leftcoms often like to paint her as some sort of “anti tankie hero” but when reading her works and learning about her I don’t think that’s true.

i havent actually read enough of her works to make any intelligent judgment on that yet. but from experience with trots and leftcoms (and honestly a lot of other groups too) there is often a bit of a glorification and white washing going on with communists who were killed before they held any positions of power. because its very easy to project your own views onto someone who died young and fantasize about the great leader they *would* have been. again idk about rosa specifically but in general, if someone only ever talks positively of people who were killed early on, while at the same time only ever criticizing the communists who actually held power (stalin, mao, castro, etc) it probably says more about that person and their own views which they are projecting onto their favorite martyr

mutuals who are more knowledgable about rosa luxemburg feel free to chime in and correct me

[chaosmenu]

soledad brother: the prison letters of george jackson

[communist-hatsunemiku]

to be fair I am a piss poor communist

[ivan-fyodorovich-k]

Catholic Cultural Criticism

Have you noticed how society just isn't Catholic anymore? Nobody takes the authority of the Church seriously or internalizes any of our morals! You know where it all went wrong? When people abandoned Catholicism. What is the solution? Why you'll never guess--

[hedgehology]

“Read Marx, for a better world” by hedgehology

[aoife-godessofsleep]

Its insane that certain self proclaimed “marxists” insist that Lenin differed from Marx and think it is weird for you to maintain that Marx and Lenin actually agree entirely.

Where Marx pointed out the growing international connections Lenin followed his analysis and completed it.

Where Marx developed his theory of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and the theory of lower and higher communism over his lifetime Lenin maintained his analysis against anarchistic slander in S&R.

That is what state and revolution is, it is a maintaining of continuity with Marx’s understanding of the process of revolution and development of socialism it is not a new theory. It has never been a new theory.

[hiyathea]

this feels like some weird GMIL comic

[marblebees]

Okay yall, time to start reading Lenin’s The State and Revolution. This text was published in 1917, but written shortly before during Lenin’s exile in Switzerland. It serves as a valuable look at what Lenin believed going into the October Revolution and formation of the Soviet Union; with which we can compare the outcome and begin to see what worked and what didnt.

Lets start with this passage from Chapter 2, section 1. The Eve of Revolution

So the first thing to consider is Lenin’s use of the word “state” here. In a colloquial sense, the word state tends to refer to any government, but Lenin wants us to understand how he views Marx’s use of state when he refers to communism as a “classless, stateless, society.”

To Lenin, the state as it exists is a function of the owning class, and only serves the function of maintaining the working class in a state of subservience. When he talks about the state, he’s referring to Monarchist and Liberal governments that want to help the capitalist extract as much wealth as they can from the workers. To Lenin, the state as it currently exists cannot be made to function for the benefit of the working class because it is always a function of the owning class. It must, therefore, be replaced with a socialist state that is a function of the working class instead of the owning class.

The key thing that Lenin wants to communicate here is that the state only exists to oppress and restrict classes of people. He believes that the only good state would be one that is able to prevent the owning class from recovering their power, and once they’re removed from any ability to use their ownership to regain power, then the state, as an oppressive body, is no longer needed.

[khizuo]

as a non-Black marxist i have zero qualms about saying to the other non-Black marxists on here — get over yourselves. it's not "idpol" or "fed behavior" to call out anti-Blackness and chauvinism in leftist spaces and yes, marxist spaces. in fact it's incredibly common for Black people who raises points about anti-Blackness in leftist spaces to be fedjacketed.

you guys forget about the contradiction of colonialism in favor of class reductionism almost everywhere except Palestine it seems. also maybe read about New Afrikan revolutionary nationalism and 4th world theory before spouting shit about how Black people in the american settler-colony are part of the Global North or whatever. if marxism is a science then we should be consistently reading Black theorists.

you are not "advancing marxism" by refusing to recognize these contradictions, and you definitely aren't doing it by fedjacketing Black leftists. you're just being incredibly anti-Black.

[jacquelinemerritt]

Postmodernism: It’s a Thing.

Originally posted March 7th, 2016

So, recently I’ve taken to reading the work of Film Crit HULK (who you should totally be reading too, by the way), and I came across an older article of his where he argues that postmodernism doesn’t exist. To summarize, HULK argues that there is no actual distinction between postmodernism and modernism, as both artistic movements had the same fundamental goals of questioning the validity of classically accepted truth, whether that truth be how to tell a story, how to express concepts with line and color, or how to construct buildings.

Now, I’m actually a postmodernist, but I still found his argument to be pretty compelling in regards to the weaknesses of our cultural definition of postmodernism and our collective lack of understanding of what modernism actually was and is. And as he argued, those problems lead to problems when attempting to discuss it, as most people just have a general sense of the concept instead of a solid definition.

The thing is, postmodernism definitely exists, and its existence is made clearest when looking at how it can be defined in the context of moral and political philosophy, as opposed to its murky existence in art. To put it simply, postmodernism in moral and political philosophy is the rejection of the modernist paradigm of rationalism, progressivism, and amorality in favor of a return to classical understanding of knowledge and the good.1

Okay, so I recognize that that’s a pretty technical definition that you’re not likely to get unless you’ve studied contemporary, modern, and ancient political philosophy, so I’ll explain what I mean. Modern political philosophy is defined by the works of three particular people: Niccolò Machiavelli, René Descartes, and Thomas Hobbes. All three of these authors’ works are concerned with tearing down the classical notions of the purpose of government, knowledge, and the good2, and in its place building a new standard for those things from scratch.

Machiavelli is first on the scene, and he challenges notions of morality and government by claiming the most effective and most secure rulers are tyrants who engage in an evil and selfish rule. Descartes chooses to take nothing for granted concerning knowledge and builds a systemic approach to knowledge based on the principle that the human ability to doubt is the only absolute certainty. Hobbes then takes Machiavelli a step further and questions the reasons for government existence (drawing of Cartesian doubt) determining that the sole purpose of government is to prevent us from killing each other and provide safety from external threats (the basics of his social contract theory), and by such logic the best government is the one that keeps citizens safe through extreme enforcement of harsh law3.

I could track the development of modernism by philosophers further4, but instead I’m just going to note that Cartesian rationalism and the Cartesian Method (which is quite similar to Newton’s scientific method) led to the rise of industrialism, and social contract theory led to the rise of democratic regimes across Europe and America, wherein democracy itself ended up being espoused as a good in and of itself (a la Lincoln’s American Civil Religion). From here, we can already see a parallel between philosophical and artistic modernism; both began as revolts against the traditional or classical doctrine of what art and the good is, and both developed their own approach to art and philosophy from scratch, questioning the very nature of beauty and thought in the process.

Postmodern political and moral philosophy then was a reaction to the ideals of modernism, with philosophers like Martin Heidegger, Jacques Derrida, and Hannah Arendt emerging as harsh critics of their ideals. Now, HULK actually acknowledges this, and he argues that the reactionary nature of postmodernism makes it indistinguishable from modernism, but in doing so he chooses to ignore the significant methodological departure made by Heidegger and those that he influenced.

Heidegger’s philosophy was, on the surface, a rejection of both Modernist and Classical ideals, but his concern with the etymological significance of language and search for the original meaning of words and concepts was a shift from developing concepts based on evidence to developing concepts based on the “text” itself. Derrida expanded on this with his concept of “deconstruction” as an approach to textual and political criticism (deconstruction is the de facto approach of anyone concerned with systemic injustice), and Arendt used this textual approach to examine the nature of human activity and thought, and propose a return to the “active life” and emphasis on public action present in classical thought.

Most postmodern thought builds on the Arendtian paradigm here, focusing on a return to classical ideals and deconstruction of modernist ideals, with the final addition of note being how postmodernism rejects both modernist and classical notions of human relationship in favor of focusing on developing an empathetic relationship with “the other.” This is also the primary function of postmodernism’s “incredulity towards metanarratives,” as Jean-Francois Lyotard put it, as the emphasis on “the other” leads to a willingness to criticize any overarching concept put forth by society that attempts to denigrate or harm people for perceived differences. Also, as HULK noted, the focus on deconstruction certainly is a metanarrative itself, but the embrace of classical values within postmodernism means that it isn’t simply a rejection of metanarratives, as is commonly misconceived. Finally, it’s also important to mention postmodernism uses the metanarrative of “philosophy” itself as its tool to deconstruct philosophy (this is the stated goal of Heidegger, in fact).

So, going back to my original definition, if postmodern philosophy is “the rejection of the modernist paradigm of rationalism, progressivism, and amorality in favor of a return to classical understanding of knowledge and the good,” can we use that definition to create a similar one for art? I think we can, and given my explanation of how postmodernism approaches these goals, I think it is as simple as “Postmodern art uses the classical tools of art to deconstruct or interrogate either the classical or modern paradigm of art.”

Now, I’m not going to attempt to apply that to any of the arts outside of film and television, but the application of this definition becomes pretty easy: Community is a postmodern show because it uses the format of the sitcom to interrogate all kinds of concepts and assumptions associated with traditional storytelling, and Hot Fuzz is a postmodern film because it interrogates the tropes of action films while remaining an action film. On the other end, a modernist interrogation of sitcoms would be Too Many Cooks, as it interrogates the “TGIF” sitcom era by showing the assumed state of peace and happiness within those sitcoms to be a complete lie, and a modernist action film would be one that distances itself entirely from and critiques the basis for that violence directly (unfortunately, I can’t think of a film that actually does this). Obviously there are many more potential examples I could turn to, and I’d actually be interested in discussing how this definition could apply to mediums outside film and TV, but for now, I feel like I have gone on for long enough about postmodernism and modernism. And I will be damned if they are not complicated to talk about.

Stray Observations

1Eudaimonia, if you prefer Greek.

2This is a slight fib, as Descartes had next to no concern with government, and neither Hobbes nor Machiavelli cared much about knowledge, though they certainly used Cartesian rationalism.

3Both Machiavelli and Hobbes have an incredibly pessimistic view of human nature, and it guides the entirety of their philosophies.

4If you want a much better and more detailed history of the development of modernism, you should read Leo Strauss’ essay “The Three Waves of Modernity.”

Let the record show that I feel like a proper pretentious douche for talking about Heidegger with no hints of irony whatsoever. There’s a similar feeling regarding Derrida as well.

I obviously have no shame in talking about Hannah Arendt, because she’s the freakin’ best.

I also recognize that this is hella esoteric, and that I’m also really failing to do justice to the ideas of any philosopher I mentioned here (it’s why this is a blog post instead of a proper academic paper), but I hope that this was still fairly easy to follow.

Also obviously most films with basic dramatic structure would fall under a “classical” paradigm.

[sh3nlong-promakh0s]

I hate petty bourgeois mfs so much it's unreal

Anyway I'll probably work in data entry again smh bc mfs want me to do that and I need extra money fuck

[dungeonbf]

“kys loser plus my bf has a gun”

[miraclemaya]

i feel like i have like quarter read a lot of theory which of course means i have read no theory

[potatototheleft]

STOP USING THE WORD "ELITES" AND JUST CALL THEM THE FUCKING BOURGEOISE

[squidswithguns]

The theory "debate"

I'm gonna say the "controversial" thing that actually isn't controversial. If you claim a leftist ideology, be it anarchism, socialism, syndicalism, etc. but you're not regularly engaging with theory and practicing self criticism; the most basic and simple things you can do as a leftist. You're not a leftist. you're hopping on a bandwagon.

Theory today is more available and accessible than ever before. there is literally no excuse other than your own unwillingness to engage with the fundamental principles of the ideology you claim. engaging with theory is no longer struggling to decipher dense historic tomes alone. the are innumerable resources out there that help explain these complex topics.

Online libraries like The Anarchist Library (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index) or the Marxist Internet Archive (https://www.marxists.org/) have countless texts freely and readily available for use. Educators like MarxismToday who have whole series breaking down the individual elements of marxist thought in easy to digest videos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZXaZHe901w&)list=PL0J754r0IteXABJntjBg1YuNsn6jItWXQ&index=9&pp=iAQB)

The successful revolutions of Cuba, Vietnam, China, were led not by great men alone, but by an engaged and revolutionary proletariat, in many cases individuals who were illiterate, uneducated, chained to a system of servitude. If you in the 21st century with all these resources available cant do the littlest leg work, you are simply a liberal wearing a costume to be shed at your convenience.

[bluebellthesponge]

i completely forgot that my own copy of the communist manifesto includes historical artwork to illustrate the ideas and talking points with artwork

obviously reading material it’s not necessary at all but i just think it’s neat that the copy 16 year old me found at a half price books happened to be this one