[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 19 hours ago

I quite literally answered it in the same comment you're replying to:

Russia is working on wearing down Ukraine’s arms and forces in a war of attrition, spreading them thinner and thinner and advancing slowly and thoroughly.

War is not "take XYZ land and then you've got it," it's a battle between two powers. Even if your goal is to annex certain territory, in this case the four Oblasts that Russia has made clear it intends in taking, taking land outside of the four Oblasts weakens Ukraine's ability to launch counteroffensives and stage troops. It does not mean Russia will keep every bit of land they take. Further, it also gives Russia leverage in treaties.

This is incredibly simple and I'm astounded that you're making me repeat this in ever-simpler terms.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

I think pretty much all socialists are ecological at the same time these days, so I'm not sure what identifying yourself as a degrowth communist adds, kinda like calling yourself a pro-LGBTQIA+ communist or an anticapitalist communist. Lemmy.ml is more than fine for you, I'd say, many will probably have similar issues with specifically aligning with degrowth as I did though.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You keep claiming that there are "physical limits," which isn't a magic spell. Of course there are physical limits, I'm not unaware of it. The problem with degrowth is that in an effort to not spend resources on improving efficiency and developing in a green direction, it counterintuitively costs more to the environment to try to keep present level technology and produce less. You inevitably end up in a Malthusian direction, turning to eco-fascism.

Yes, production of useless waste like fast fashion can and should end. Yes, much of what we produce is wasted and this must be eliminated. This is where I can align with degrowth. However, the idea that we need to work smaller and smaller rather than larger and more efficiently is where the math loses out for Degrowth.

Here's a handy example. For socialists, replacing cars with solar powered trains dramatically reduces emissions while improving transport and lowering resource cost. Degrowth doesn't take this position, though. Degrowth tries to lower present output without building onto newer. This is the trap. We can all agree on cutting out the bullshit, but the answer isn't to try to strip back what we already do.

This is why degrowth leads to ecofascism. With present output and methods, we are unsustainable headed to disaster. People do not want to lower their lifestyles significantly, yet for degrowth to work it needs a population collapse. This leads to Malthusian politics and a desire to eliminate large portions of humanity to live current lifestyles in a more sustainable manner.

The problem is, that doesn't even work. Killing off huge portions of humanity would still lead to collapse at present technology, without advancing it. People will inevitably advance, and grow again, and this time the world will well and truly end for Humanity.

I do agree that I'm more optimistic, but I also believe I am more realistic.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago

I've already answered, though. Russia is working on wearing down Ukraine's arms and forces in a war of attrition, spreading them thinner and thinner and advancing slowly and thoroughly.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

I'm aware that advancements also elevate living standards. However, your conception of this necessitating destruction of the environment is incorrect, and this is not at all the same as capitalism's incessant drive towards accumulation. Degrowth as a focus is the wrong approach, advanced technology like developed rail systems actually save the environment more than car-centric infrastructure. We have to advance further to protect the environment, and combine that with climate-focuses approaches, not slow our advancement and stick with small-scale production, which is less environmentally efficient.

Degrowth is a trap. Environmentalist socialism is necessary, and is the actual way to protect and preserve the environment. Socialism will end fast fashion, incessant trinket production, and more that currently only serve to accelerate capital accumulation, while advancing technology that is more environmentally efficient.

It's really as simple as this.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The "need motive" is not what you think it is. There is not an imperitive to endlessly expand. I am not treating scientific planning like it can bypass thermodynamics, that is a strawman. Profit doesn't just change distribution, it changes production, because profit needs more sales. This creates new demand that then is fulfilled, this is the basics of why socialist ecology is necessary.

Again, the "need motive" does not have the same endless feedback loop that the profit motive does.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago

How so? The US Empire is fascist.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

The reason for overproduction is because the profit motive requires the sale of as many commodities as possible. Socialism essentially means we can scientifically plan production and distribution, meaning we aren't constrained by this any longer. As for the bits you are talking about like fast fashion, planned obsolescence, and the military industrial complex, we aren't at odds here, these are products of capitalism and the profit motive.

Advancement is not a "culture." It is a historical process. You are confusing the problems of capitalism to be problems of culture, and not material conditions, which leads to errors in judgment. All environmentalism going forward requires socialism as a basis, which will end overconsumption because the base of overconsumption is overproduction for sale of commodities.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

Abolishing the NEP in the USSR and moving onto more planned economy ended up being beneficial. However, in the case of China, the NEP-inspired socialist market economy is the reason China is where they are today. New contradictions have arisen, which is of course a gamble, but with that came highly developed productive forces and tight interconnection with the global economy. This has allowed the PRC to reach where the USSR could not, and the developed productive forces are forming the basis of the newly emerging, more planned economy.

As for Mao, China was horribly underdeveloped. Many of his mistakes were in dealing with such an environment, knowledge of agronomics was low and industrialization was non-existent. Under Mao, a solid socialist base was laid out, which managed to created the basis for the modern economy.

As for the Sino-Soviet split, it's a tragedy, and was avoidable.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

I'd read more Russian authors if more were translated into English. Sadly, it's hard to come by, and for the purposes of debunking anticommunist claims, Statesian authors tend to make westerners less skeptical.

As for the person I am replying to, it's really unimportant. Just a western anticommunist.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing.

As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect.

As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt.

5
submitted 1 month ago by Cowbee@lemmy.ml to c/china@lemmy.ml
117

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/45041279

Stolen from r/Marxism_Memes

4
submitted 2 months ago by Cowbee@lemmy.ml to c/MemesOfProduction@lemmy.ml

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/45041279

Stolen from r/Marxism_Memes

1
submitted 2 months ago by Cowbee@lemmy.ml to c/MemesOfProduction@lemmy.ml

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/43729189

Stolen from r/marxism_memes

13
submitted 2 months ago by Cowbee@lemmy.ml to c/philosophy@lemmy.ml

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/43730786

Often times, Marxists use the term "material conditions," and "dialectics." What does this mean? Why do Marxists care so much about material conditions? The answer is that Marxists seek materialist explanations for observed processes as opposed to idealist, and do so dialectically, as opposed to metaphysically. In other words, Marxists apply dialectical analysis to find materialist explanations for phenomena. Dialectical materialism is the world outlook of the proletariat as a class, and serves as the most vital ideological tool for overthrowing capitalism.

In order to understand dialectical materialism, we need to understand its component parts, materialism and dialectics, and their historical predecessors, idealism and metaphysics.

Idealism is, in short, to put ideas prior to matter. Idealism has been used by feudal lords to justify their position above the serfs, forming the ideological basis for feudalism. The 3 major assertions of idealism are as follows:

  1. Idealism asserts that the material world is dependent on the spiritual

  2. Idealism asserts that spirit, or mind, or idea, can and does exist in separation from matter. (The most extreme form of this assertion is subjective idealism, which asserts that matter does not exist at all but is pure illusion.)

  3. Idealism asserts that there exists a realm of the mysterious and unknowable, "above," or "beyond," or "behind" what can be ascertained and known by perception, experience, and science.

Common idealist arguments are appealing to a supernatural "human nature," or "good vs. evil" explanations for processes. Materialism arose over time, as people grew to understand the world more deeply, and especially as a tool to overthrow the feudal aristocracy that justified its existence via the church. In other words, materialism rose to help the bourgeoisie. The 3 basic teachings of materialism as counterposed to idealism are:

  1. Materialism teaches that the world is by its very nature material, that everything which exists comes into being on the basis of material causes, arises and develops in accordance with the laws of motion of matter.

  2. Materialism teaches that matter is objective reality existing outside and independent of the mind; and that far from the mental existing in separation from the material, everything mental or spiritual is a product of material processes.

  3. Materialism teaches that the world and its laws are fully knowable, and that while much may not be known there is nothing which is by nature unknowable.

The type of materialism that overthrew the feudal lords was still underdeveloped, and metaphysical. The bourgeoisie needed an explanation for why the feudal lords were illegitimate, but still needed to support their own static, permanent rule. This was called mechanistic materialism, for the bourgeois scientists saw the world as a grand machine repeating simple motions forever. Mechanistic materialism, therefore, makes certain dogmatic assumptions:

  1. That the world consists of permanent and stable things or particles, with definite, fixed properties;

  2. That the particles of matter are by nature inert and no change ever happens except by the action of some external cause;

  3. That all motion, all change can be reduced to the mechanical interaction of the separate particles of matter;

  4. That each particle has its own fixed nature independent of everything else, and that the relationships between separate things are merely external relationships.

This, of course, has proven false. History did not end with the dissolution of the USSR, despite what modern mechanistic materialists claim. Mechanistic materialism relies on metaphysics, seeing everything as a static abstraction, devoid of its context. It has no explanation for how new qualities emerge, and ultimately fell to idealism to explain the "first mover," ie "God." Dialectical materialism holds instead:

  1. The world is not a complex of things but of processes;

  2. That matter is inseperable from motion;

  3. That the motion of matter comprehends an infinite diversity of forms which arise one from another and pass into one another;

  4. That things exist not as separate individual units but in essential relation and interconnection.

This became remarkable for the proletariat, as it sees nothing as static, and therefore marks the eventual downfall of the bourgeoisie. Putting it all together, we get the following:

  1. Dialectical materialism understands the world, not as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes, in which all things go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away.

In other words, when analyzing events and contextualizing them, we must always viee them as a struggle between the rising and the falling, the old and the new, for example the concentration of capital in markets and the rise in socialize labor.

  1. Dialectical materialism considers that matter is always in motion, that motion is the mode of existence of matter, so that there can no more be matter without motion than motion without matter. Motion does not have to be impressed upon matter by some outside force, but above all it is necessary to look for the inner impulses of development, the self-motion, inherent in all processes.

In other words, all movement is a result of contradiction. Your foot presses on the Earth, and the Earth presses back on you.

  1. Dialectical materialism understands the motion of matter as comprehending all changes and processes in the universe, from mere changes of place right to thinking. It recognizes, therefore, the infinite diversity of the forms of motion of matter from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher.

In other words, dialectical materialism recognizes that development exists as a change of quantity into quality. Addition or subtraction gives way to qualitative change. A balloon is filled with air, until at a given point it pops due to pressure buildup. Water goes from liquid to gas at its boiling point, and back into liquid when cooling down to said point.

  1. Dialectical materialism considers that, in the manifold processes taking place in the universe, things come into being, change and pass out of being, not as separate individual units, but in essential relation and interconnection, so that they cannot be understood each separately and by itself but only in their relation and interconnection.

In other words, everything is connected, and must be analyzed in context to truly understand it. A worker isn't just an individual, but instead part of a social class of many workers. Wages are not something invented brand new every time, but instead are set by societal standards, controlled by the ruling capitalist class.

Karl Marx created dialectical materialism by turning Hegel's idealist dialectic into a materialist one. Then, he applied it to the progression of society, creating historical matetialism. By analyzing social structures and progress as a dialectical process based in materialism, we can learn from history and analyze where it's going. This is scientific socialism in progress.

If you keep these in mind, you can do your own dialectical materialist analysis. Always seek explanations based on the material, not the ideal, and always do so by contextualizing the processes, analyzing their contradictions, the unity and struggle of opposing tendencies. Quantitative changes lead to qualitative development, and progresses as a result of the conflict or struggle of opposite tendencies. There's much more to dialectical materialism, but this should help serve as a simple overview!

7
submitted 2 months ago by Cowbee@lemmy.ml to c/dank_left@lemmy.ml

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/43732471

Rest in peace, comrade.

For those who haven't read or seen Parenti speak, I highly recommend both the "Yellow Parenti" Speech and Blackshirts and Reds | Audiobook both litanies against anti-communist mythos, an examination of the real successes and struggles in the USSR, and an analysis of fascism.

Michael Parenti's Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media has always been better than Manufacturing Consent. Considering Chomsky's appearance in the Epstein files as being good friends with billionaire pedophiles, On Chomsky is also a fantastic read for why the left should reject him.

Parenti has turned countless westerners into Marxists, and was vital in my own journey to the left. May we carry on his legacy.

123
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by Cowbee@lemmy.ml to c/socialism@lemmy.ml

Thumbnail is Marx's manuscript for The German Ideology. Summary below is a compilation of my notes I wrote when reading Materialism and the Dialectical Method by Maurice Cornforth, along with general knowledge from reading various Marxist authors.

Often times, Marxists use the term "material conditions," and "dialectics." What does this mean? Why do Marxists care so much about material conditions? The answer is that Marxists seek materialist explanations for observed processes as opposed to idealist, and do so dialectically, as opposed to metaphysically. In other words, Marxists apply dialectical analysis to find materialist explanations for phenomena. Dialectical materialism is the world outlook of the proletariat as a class, and serves as the most vital ideological tool for overthrowing capitalism.

In order to understand dialectical materialism, we need to understand its component parts, materialism and dialectics, and their historical predecessors, idealism and metaphysics.


Idealism

Idealism is, in short, to put ideas prior to matter. Idealism has been used by feudal lords to justify their position above the serfs, forming the ideological basis for feudalism. The 3 major assertions of idealism are as follows:

  1. Idealism asserts that the material world is dependent on the spiritual

  2. Idealism asserts that spirit, or mind, or idea, can and does exist in separation from matter. (The most extreme form of this assertion is subjective idealism, which asserts that matter does not exist at all but is pure illusion.)

  3. Idealism asserts that there exists a realm of the mysterious and unknowable, "above," or "beyond," or "behind" what can be ascertained and known by perception, experience, and science.


Early Materialism

Common idealist arguments are appealing to a supernatural "human nature," or "good vs. evil" explanations for processes. Materialism arose over time, as people grew to understand the world more deeply, and especially as a tool to overthrow the feudal aristocracy that justified its existence via the church. In other words, materialism rose to help the bourgeoisie. The 3 basic teachings of materialism as counterposed to idealism are:

  1. Materialism teaches that the world is by its very nature material, that everything which exists comes into being on the basis of material causes, arises and develops in accordance with the laws of motion of matter.

  2. Materialism teaches that matter is objective reality existing outside and independent of the mind; and that far from the mental existing in separation from the material, everything mental or spiritual is a product of material processes.

  3. Materialism teaches that the world and its laws are fully knowable, and that while much may not be known there is nothing which is by nature unknowable.


Shortcomings of Metaphysical Materialism

The type of materialism that overthrew the feudal lords was still underdeveloped, and metaphysical. The bourgeoisie needed an explanation for why the feudal lords were illegitimate, but still needed to support their own static, permanent rule. This was called mechanistic materialism, for the bourgeois scientists saw the world as a grand machine repeating simple motions forever. Mechanistic materialism, therefore, makes certain dogmatic assumptions:

  1. That the world consists of permanent and stable things or particles, with definite, fixed properties;

  2. That the particles of matter are by nature inert and no change ever happens except by the action of some external cause;

  3. That all motion, all change can be reduced to the mechanical interaction of the separate particles of matter;

  4. That each particle has its own fixed nature independent of everything else, and that the relationships between separate things are merely external relationships.


Moving from Metaphysics to Dialectics

This, of course, has proven false. History did not end with the dissolution of the USSR, despite what modern mechanistic materialists claim. Mechanistic materialism relies on metaphysics, seeing everything as a static abstraction, devoid of its context. It has no explanation for how new qualities emerge, and ultimately fell to idealism to explain the "first mover," ie "God." Dialectical materialism holds instead:

  1. The world is not a complex of things but of processes;

  2. That matter is inseperable from motion;

  3. That the motion of matter comprehends an infinite diversity of forms which arise one from another and pass into one another;

  4. That things exist not as separate individual units but in essential relation and interconnection.


Dialectical Materialism

This became remarkable for the proletariat, as it sees nothing as static, and therefore marks the eventual downfall of the bourgeoisie. Putting it all together, we get the following:

  1. Dialectical materialism understands the world, not as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes, in which all things go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away.

In other words, when analyzing events and contextualizing them, we must always viee them as a struggle between the rising and the falling, the old and the new, for example the concentration of capital in markets and the rise in socialize labor.

  1. Dialectical materialism considers that matter is always in motion, that motion is the mode of existence of matter, so that there can no more be matter without motion than motion without matter. Motion does not have to be impressed upon matter by some outside force, but above all it is necessary to look for the inner impulses of development, the self-motion, inherent in all processes.

In other words, all movement is a result of contradiction. Your foot presses on the Earth, and the Earth presses back on you.

  1. Dialectical materialism understands the motion of matter as comprehending all changes and processes in the universe, from mere changes of place right to thinking. It recognizes, therefore, the infinite diversity of the forms of motion of matter from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher.

In other words, dialectical materialism recognizes that development exists as a change of quantity into quality. Addition or subtraction gives way to qualitative change. A balloon is filled with air, until at a given point it pops due to pressure buildup. Water goes from liquid to gas at its boiling point, and back into liquid when cooling down to said point.

  1. Dialectical materialism considers that, in the manifold processes taking place in the universe, things come into being, change and pass out of being, not as separate individual units, but in essential relation and interconnection, so that they cannot be understood each separately and by itself but only in their relation and interconnection.

In other words, everything is connected, and must be analyzed in context to truly understand it. A worker isn't just an individual, but instead part of a social class of many workers. Wages are not something invented brand new every time, but instead are set by societal standards, controlled by the ruling capitalist class.


Conclusion

Karl Marx created dialectical materialism by turning Hegel's idealist dialectic into a materialist one. Then, he applied it to the progression of society, creating historical materialism. By analyzing social structures and progress as a dialectical process based in materialism, we can learn from history and analyze where it's going. This is scientific socialism in progress. Human thought is shaped by our social experience, forming class consciousness and ideology. How we produce and distribute determines our ways of thinking.

Socialism and communism also have their own contradictions as well, and just because we progress on to socialism does not mean we cannot fall back to capitalism. The dialectical materialist world outlook understands that nothing is static, and there is always new contradiction and new movement from that.

If you keep these in mind, you can do your own dialectical materialist analysis. Always seek explanations based on the material, not the ideal, and always do so by contextualizing the processes, analyzing their contradictions, the unity and struggle of opposing tendencies. Quantitative changes lead to qualitative development, and progresses as a result of the conflict or struggle of opposite tendencies. There's much more to dialectical materialism, but this should help serve as a simple overview!

67

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/43729189

Stolen from r/marxism_memes

6
submitted 2 months ago by Cowbee@lemmy.ml to c/dank_left@lemmy.ml

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/43729189

Stolen from r/marxism_memes

8
submitted 2 months ago by Cowbee@lemmy.ml to c/dank_left@lemmy.ml

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/43728612

Stolen from r/Marxism_memes

262

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/43728612

Stolen from r/Marxism_memes

190

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/43726548

Stolen from r/Marxism_memes

view more: next ›

Cowbee

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 2 years ago