• quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Propaganda is no excuse to concede the essential Marxist tenets.

    For one thing, 100 years is not a long time.

    Secondly, without proving why a theory is now practically obsolete, appealing to the age of theory is a lazy dismissal. For example, many people’s knee-jerk reaction to Marx is that he’s irrelevant because he lived gasp 150 years ago. So much has changed! Before they had mean wage labor, and now we have nice wage labor!

    Reformism was an issue throughout the 20th century. Both PRC and USSR took active measures to prevent reformists from undermining their respective parties. In Finland, the social democrats allied with the bourgeoisie to win the civil war (1918) and then allied with the Nazis to genocide Leningrad during the Continuation War.

    • Looming mountain@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      I agree that the theory is not obsolete nor has the danger passed. I am not dismissing it because it was written 100 years ago. But I’m specifically commenting on your saying that we shouldn’t align with those groups and that is true, but we should also recognise the material conditions as they are today and not in 1918: vehemently anti-communist, with social media as an important stepping stone (both fascist and socialist), and an interconnectrd world that seems more complex than ever before (I’ not saying it is, the world has always been comex, but it seems that way because we get i formation from all over). So the theory should also adapt.

      • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I agree that the theory should adapt. Just not in that way. Political climate and popular opinion, in a word ideology, are distinct from material conditions and relations of production.

        The historical changes that require updating theory are things like Western financial imperialism that works concurrently to de-industrialize the West while increasing exploitation in the Global South; what Andy Higginbottom calls “super-exploitation”. Michael Hudson and Radhika Desai have also discussed this in detail.

        It has always been difficult and unpopular to advocate revolution, even in Marx’s time. It is not uniquely difficult today even with the Red Scare. There was a time in the early 20th century that there was some modicum of support for revolution in some countries, but in every example it still required a bitter civil war.

        • Looming mountain@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I agree with your first two paragraphs. I disagree with the third. I do think it is more difficult, especially in European countries and definitely in the US, and definitely to go towards a socialist revolution (which is the one, I think, we fight for). I also think you are underestimating the effects of the red scare.

          I do agree that Second thought should not start spouting reformist nonsense like voting will suddenly work or something, but I haven’t heard that from him.

          • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            It’s not how I would have scripted the video, but until/unless I make my own content, I’m not going to bash him too hard. Still consider him a great contributor. I’ll leave it at that — thanks for the discussion