I am relatively new here, so please excuse my newbiness, I mean no harm or disrespect. Nor have I researched enough on how the original community was expelled by the CEO of reddit.com inc.
If I can identify with something concretely and not negotiably, is a firm believer of dialectical materialism, so I am not posting questions as an outsider to dialectical materialists. I am only posting questions to dialectical materialists, so idealists don’t waste our time responding.
I do not wish to play devil’s advocate, I usually hate the attitude, but I can’t help to have questions that fit the profile. As a first step I’d like to state that the theory of Marx & Engels and the evolution of Marxism is not one and the same, for reasons that relate to the questions. So here we go.
In the time Marx lived and struggled and in specific when he wrote Capital, the world was smaller, in population, and also scientific knowledge of the world itself. Since then sciences such as anthropology and archaeology evolved rapidly being really young at the time. This and other scientific knowledge was not yet available, so Marx can’t be held accountable for things not yet known. He could also not be accountable for things that happened after his theory was established and based on his material reality.
Even during his life time his ideas and theory affected an amazing portion of working people around the earth, the way they organized and struggled, and the early effects of this influence as partially witnessed during his time. Labor struggle did continue to be influenced and carried on past his time. This struggle had effects on how capital dealt with labor, and also how the state/s tried to remain in power to best serve capital while not collapsing under labor pressure.
Not a static picture A and picture B kind of comparison, but a dynamic process that had its qualitative and quantitative differences in various parts of the world, I think we can safely say that the social democracy was a dialectic product of struggle and capital domination. Not only did the state evolve but also capital evolved in identifying the enemy and source of trouble, as well as the uncomfortable shape of the evolved state. So anti-communism was born through this dialectic process and resulted in the things we very well know now.
Although Marx may have developed the theory to be as scientific as possible, and it is the role of scientific theory to interpret material reality but also form predictions, we can’t expect Marx to have metaphysical abilities to see the future and the details of the dialectic he helped form, as this itself would have been a violation of his own philosophy. Marxists on the other hand did apply theory, sometimes in an idealistic way, to interpret dynamic political/economic processes of the decades that followed.
It is clear through class analysis that the logical proposal for the working class to overpower and defeat the ruling class would be to organize, better, more massively, and more effectively. The other class now being affected by this growing organization (syndicalism) isn’t it expected to defend itself by organizing better itself?
Can it be possible that the state didn’t provide adequate defense and be sufficient organization for the class due to its evolution in the late 19th and early parts of the 20th century in some parts of the world, primarily where capital was mainly based and centered? Would they seek better organization of the nation/state or would they seek further unity among its class globally and try to organize as to be able to control the nation/states?
Marxists seem to have resisted such consideration but I believe that if Marx himself was around he would entertain the possibility of such development.
If so, what is this federation of capital, how does it relate to its influence on different states, and what are the new roles of states within this new framework of capital defense against labor? It appears to be very effective both in accumulation of capital, labor defeat, and on its original goal of anti-communism. But can we revert and conclude it exists because of its effects?
If such possibility exists, how does it effect labor organization and goals overthrowing this federated capital rule?
Comrade, I will say that I find it hard to follow your logic, both here and in the post in Linux for Leftists.
With respect, it’s hard to understand what’s is the main thesis and what is the support. The amount of counter argumenting when engaging with such lengthy text feels unviable in the media device I use, my mobile phone, point by point, as well though arguments deserve.
Maybe I’m to blame, but I’d suggest reviewing the structure of your arguments, to have a clear main thesis and possibly easier to follow links between the supporting aspects of your discourse, and maybe adding explicit preambles and definitions to help guiding readers through you line of thought.
I appreciate the struggle though. I struggle to make myself easy to understand and make more succinct points. Once I become conscious of it, I’m hoping to make my speech easier to follow along.
First, this is not my primary language, second I may have been under stress, tired, eyes that fail after a few hours on the screen, …
But anything specific you want me to elaborate on I would gladly do my best.
Also my background was more in the natural science rather than social or philosophy. On the other hand, politics is my priority in life, everything else just keeps me fed, dressed, and under a roof. I am always too worried about not having much to retire on and getting too old to continue do the things I do.
The post was really meant to place a few questions/concerns up for discussion to see what the interest for them may be, not really a thesis, or even having a specific goal to achieve by it.
There are all these people around us, working to death in borderline poverty conditions, and unless they work for a small business enough to know the single owner and how his family lives, they don’t see their employer as exploiting them, but barely able to survive to keep them employed. The larger the business the more they see it as struggling. They don’t see the government as able to press anything to improve their confitions and many are thankful the gov. goes out of its way to keep those “businesses alive”. Most, as it seems, even if once were in the left, are too worried some mindless socialists minded administration may force a situation where their employer would shut down and throw them on the street. Meanwhile the real rich are dancing with trillions now, and can’t be seen, touched, or even talked about (except some American fools who play around with being TV stars and hobby political figures - Gates, Bezos, Tesla dude, etc.).
So if what we have is not even considered as useful even by 1% of the most exploited around us, either the theoretical tool is bad, or reality has changed (at least in appearance) to make the tool useless to describe it. If it is the second, then we need to reorganize and redefine things the tool describes. Except for the people I know and meet in general strikes, memorial movement marches, and gatherings, the world proletarian doesn’t seem to be voluntarily adopted easily by any working pesron, especially the younger ones.
Look at the average stock market corporation, whether an industry, a bank, an energy company, even scan ahead and look at the best performers. They owe more than they are worth. They all borrow to the edge of disaster and keep floating as “barely making it” to their thousands of employees. But stock holders are making billions renting them office/manufacturing space, leasing equipment, lending consulting advise, hiding behind little outfits that can’t be seen. We may know what is going on, but it is hard to describe by simply explaining value theory.
And did I mention enough a government that is portrayed as powerless to modify anything under this frail balance of borderline bankrupt employers, while being burried in debt themselves and raising income and sales taxes to make it out of the “hole”.
Then someone pops up here and says “but Lenin explained all this 100 years ago”… no he didn’t because this matrix world didn’t exist back then.