/edu/ - Education

>>13937
Why are you opposed to multipolarity?

>>13937
>>13948
Broken clock etc.

>>14080
This tbh
>NOOOII0000OOO YOU CAN'T JUST FIGHT FOR JUSTICE BUT ALSO AN IMPROVEMENT IN YOUR OWN AND PEOPLE YOU KNOW'S LIVING CONDITIONS AND ALSO TO BUILD A FUTURE SOCIETY OF COMMUNISM FOR THE NOBLE PEOPLE WHO'S HOT TEARS WILL WILL WATER THE ASH OF YOUR GRAVE!!1 YOU NEED TO FIGHT SO YOUR X IMPERIAL CORE POWER LOSES IT'S HEGEMONY AND LIVING CONDITIONS TEMPORARILY DECLINE BECAUSE YOU ARE EVIL BAIZOU PIG DOG. DONATE TO OLURO RIGHT FUCKING NOW OR YOU ARE GOING TO BE ARRESTED BY BASED JDPON IN SETTLER HADES 4EVER !!11!2!1

>>14077
>apologia for white society
where does he do this? also insults don't make you right

>>13976
Mostly agree, but I certainly think he's got a point when he says
>On the basis of this reasoning, Lenin and the Soviet Union, the latter particularly after 1945, lent support to nationalist movements that could be quite backward and right wing, as long as they were fighting against domination by a Western country in some way. So, for example, the insistence that the Communist Party of China support Chiang Kai-shek and his Nationalists, because they represented the “national bourgeoisie.” The justification was that by withdrawing from the imperialist chain, they would weaken the global capitalist system. Again, this was completely wrong.

>The countries that were led by right-wing nationalist movements never tried to withdraw from the capitalist system. They ended up actually crushing their own workers’ parties using the language of nationalism. The Leninist parties weren’t very successful in opposing this because they held and abided by the same language.

>The Leninist theory of imperialism is still used as a justification for Third World nationalism, which is not progressive in character. Some of the largest communist parties still abide by it, like the Indian, South African, and Philippine. This has been disastrous. The justification is: “We must first fight imperialism, then we’ll settle the national question.” But you can’t — you always have to fight both fights simultaneously.

>You don’t hold the domestic class struggle in suspended animation while you’re fighting your imperialist enemy. There’s always a tussle going on as to which class will define the terms on which you gain your independence from colonialism or from imperialism. In this regard, the Leninist legacy did a lot of damage.

>What’s ironic here was that Lenin was entirely correct in his criticism of the German Social Democratic Party and of the Second International, their decision to vote for the war, and of the workers’ parties across Europe that lent their support to it. So his political conclusion was right. He was entirely correct in saying that the Third International should support every anti-colonial movement in its entirety. But the theory of capitalism underlying it was flawed. You can come to the same political conclusions using a more accurate theory of capitalism, and of capitalism at that time. And that theory of capitalism can also help you avoid some of the more catastrophic errors around nationalism that the Left committed in the postwar era.

>>14084
HOWEVER this part raises an eye brow

<In my view, these are all empirical questions, so we shouldn’t turn them into an orthodoxy. The error was in thinking that capitalism, as it matures, veers toward a monopoly stage. Capitalism, as we’ve known it so far, has always had very powerful impulses toward eroding monopolies, not toward constructing them. It has remained competitive throughout. We can’t predict the future, and maybe there will be a time when you see monopolies taking over the economy, but it hasn’t happened yet.

<What you do see is certain sectors becoming vulnerable to monopolization at certain times, and there are some sectors which are always vulnerable to it — sectors which even mainstream economists realize you need to regulate, like certain natural resources. But that doesn’t mean that the system as a whole has become fundamentally monopolistic.

Correct me if I'm wrong anons, but isn't the point of capitalism to replace one monopoly over another to ensure that the capitalist maintains their income and maintains their position? Yes, one could argue that the capitalist class "erodes" a monopoly, but what exactly does it replace it with? It may erode a state-monopoly and then replace it with a privatised one, or when a private monopoly falls, a state-capitalist one or a competing monopoly may take its place.
Am I wrong for thinking Vivek needs to elaborate because i'm confused by what he's trying to articulate.

uyghas really praising a revisionist in this thread who rejects dialectics LOL
The desire to refute any critique towards the white working class is strong huh.

>>14086
>NOOOOO you can't just criticise Marxism as a whole and update it to relevency within 21st century material conditions because… BECAUSE YOU JUST CAN'T OK.

Really, lad? From the very wikipedia article that you just quoted in relation to analytical Marxism

>Cohen's book, Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence (1978), in which he attempts to apply the tools of logical and linguistic analysis to the elucidation and defence of Marx's materialist conception of history, is generally regarded as having started the analytical Marxist approach.[1]

>For Cohen, Marx's historical materialism is a technologically deterministic theory, in which the economic relations of production are functionally explained by the material forces of production, and in which the political and legal institutions (the "superstructure") are functionally explained by the relations of production (the "base").[2]

>The transition from one mode of production to another is driven by the tendency of the productive forces to develop. Cohen's accounts for this tendency by reference to the rational character of the human species: where there is the opportunity to adopt a more productive technology and thus reduce the burden of labour, human beings will tend to take it. Thus, human history can be understood as a series of rational steps that increase human productive power.

So it's not that he doesn't disagree with historic materialism or dialectics for that matter but rather he's trying to reformulate them.

Furthermore, not all Analytical Marxists think alike:

>Elster's account was an exhaustive examination of Marx's texts in order to ascertain what could be salvaged out of Marxism employing the tools of rational choice theory and methodological individualism (which Elster defended as the only form of explanation appropriate to the social sciences). His conclusion was that – contra Cohen – no general theory of history as the development of the productive forces could be saved. Like Roemer, he also rejected the labour theory of value and, going further, virtually all of Marxian economics. The "dialectical" method is rejected as a form of Hegelian obscurantism. The theory of ideology and revolution continued to be useful to a certain degree, but only once they had been purged of their tendencies to holism and functionalism and established on the basis of an individualist methodology and a causal or intentional explanation.

/leftypol/ tries to actually read a fucking article/book challenge so they know what they're talking about challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)

>>14087
>So it's not that he doesn't disagree with historic materialism or dialectics for that matter but rather he's trying to reformulate them.
That's a long ass euphemism for revisionism. Unlucky for you that I already read the Wiki page. That shit was an insult to read.

Not only do all of these quotes out this school of thought as positivistic and mechanistic drivel, but there clearly is no dialectics left. With that, the core component of Marxism is discarded while taking in major philosophical antagonists of Marxism that have historically been criticized by actual Marxists in the past, such as Lenin and Ilyenkov. Analytical Marxism is even founded on the same fallacious and Neoliberal premise that human beings are perfectly rational actors which guarantees every subsequent conclusion is false if the foundation is already incorrect. It's downright philosophically idealist even as it treats the progress of human society as the product of their intellect and rational decision-making while also stating no source for where their thinking is coming from. But of course, a "Marxism" founded on analytical theory that possesses no regard for dialectics will just assume we are thinking from some sort of objective perspective where through rationality we positivistically move onward in our organizing of society. Which also explains why Cohen naïvely assumes "human beings" (notice how no class distinction is made and human society apparently acts in unisons) will just take up new technologies because "rationally it would reduce the burden of labor" as if we have never seen capitalist interests CONTRADICT what could arguably be called beneficial for humanity as a whole just to maintain their profit and position of power.

>Like Roemer, he also rejected the labour theory of value and, going further, virtually all of Marxian economics. The "dialectical" method is rejected as a form of Hegelian obscurantism.
Not to pull a guilt by association fallacy here but it's not a good look to act as a "Marxist" intellectual under the same label as people who would ever think this.

They didn't update Marxism to the 21st century they gutted it, leaving nothing behind except the skin. I was already wondering why Chibber's rambling sounded so convoluted to me. I was genuinely wondering if I'm lacking some sort of esoteric knowledge that I wasn't in the know of, falling for all of those "misconceptions most Marxists have" according to Chibber. But after reading all of this I get it now. He's a liberal. That's the same feeling I got reading liberal economic theory. It's not convoluted in the sense that it's profound and complex, but typical to liberal analysis there is no hard basis and you are free to re-select and re-weigh all the factors you want, so you can come up with an infinite amount of different rationalizations for why X posed impact Y and lead to event Z. He's not bringing anything new to the table, it's just liberalism.

>>14077
>It‘s not impossible that Chibber‘s apologia for white society stems from some emotional need to be liked by white people because he wants acceptance into whiteness.
The fact that its possible doesn't mean that it's true. Wtf are you even basing this accusation on?
>>14084
I think a lot of the assumptions involved in the Leninist theory of national liberation need to be reassessed. A lot of its points continue to hold a lot of merit. Imperialism does often take on the character of a primary contradiction, which of course creates a material basis for an alliance between the workers (in both the colonies and metropole) and the oppressed nations as a whole. It's also correct to say that national liberation struggles, even bourgeois ones, endanger capitalism by severing the flow of wealth from the colonies to the core, which is the lifeblood of the modern capitalist-imperialist system.

That being said, I think that the 19th and 20th centuries have demonstrated a few key lessons that can inform the relationship of communists to bourgeois national liberation struggles. Anybody familiar with European revolutionary history will know how the 1848 revolutions unfolded. The bourgeoisie rose up against feudal absolutism, the workers supported them. The question for the early communists at that time was whether the proletariat should assert their own programme during this revolutionary moment, or seek an alliance with the bourgeoisie against feudalism. Marx himself was of the latter opinion, and many in the Communist League broke with him over this issue. But what ended up happening? The revolutionary upheaval unleashed the pent up anger of the workers, who began to assert a more radical program, which caused the bourgeoisie to close ranks with the aristocracy and accept the reimposition of aristocratic power. In other words, the proletariat spooked the bourgeoisie into betraying their own revolution! For the bourgeoisie, private property and profit seeking are sacrosanct, and they will throw their lot in with anybody who guarantees these things against anybody who threatens them.

Fast forward to the 20th century and what do we see? The KMT is founded as a bourgeois, anti-colonial revolutionary force, and within a few decades they are the main agent of imperialism in China. Indonesia's bourgeoisie wins its independence with major communist support, only to turn around and massacre them all less than 20 years later and become the biggest US outpost in Southeast Asia. Attaturk prevents a Western conquest and colonization of Turkey, now his country is a NATO member. Modern Egypt is established by a coup of anti-colonial officers who go on to lead the Arab nationalist movement, but by the 80s they are a major US ally. I could go on, but the point should be obvious: the bourgeoisie are not reliable in any supposedly progressive capacity they are meant to have. They can't be relied upon to challenge feudalism or imperialism so long as they themselves feel threatened by the proletariat. Any such challenge they offer is inherently weak, full of vacillation, compromise, and in constant danger of being abandoned altogether.

Where does that leave communists? Well for one thing it means that if we are to accept the Leninist formula of the natural affinity between the proletariat and the oppressed nations (and I think we should), every effort should be made to subsume the national liberation struggle within the struggle for communism, with the national bourgeoisie taking a secondary role. That is to say, the communist vanguard, dominated by workers and peasants, must become the primary vehicle of the national liberation struggle. This is what was accomplished in China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc., and its no coincidence that these countries continue to resist imperialism today while many others are now aligned with it.

Second, in situations where this can't be accomplished, the communists bust be alert to the vacilations of the bourgeoisie, and take steps to anticipate and counter their eventual betrayal. This is where you'll run into controversy with some multipolarista types, since they hold that anything which may disrupt the stability of an anti-imperialist bourgeois government is counter-productive at best and the product of imperialist subversion at worst. However if we adopt this position, that communists should essentially abandon any effort to develop an independent power base, or keep the national bourgeoisie in check, then they are essentially saying we should just trust the natbourgs to remain committed to the struggle, despite their horrendous record. Imagine a multipolarista of today in the early 60s, when Indonesia was a leading anti-imperialist bourgeois government supported by a massive communist party. Many people saw the trouble brewing, Mao himself advised the PKI to arm itself and prepare for a betrayal. They refused, and no doubt many leftypolers would have dismissed his advice as the work of "ultras" in alignment with imperialism. Obviously that wasn't the case, and it was Indonesia's bourgeoisie that was in alignment with imperialism. The refusal of the Indonesian communists to recognize the weakness of the bourgeoisie on the question of national liberation is why children in that country are still today taught that communism is a witchcraft cult that wants to cut off people's dicks for black magic purposes (I'm not exaggerating, this is the official narrative).

Of course it goes without saying that all of these questions have the most relevance to comrades in the countries where these contradictions are unfolding. For firsties the solution is simple: oppose any and all interventions, troop deployments, sanctions, regime change ops, etc imposed by your imperialist government. It should also he clear that even a bourgeois dominated anti-imperialist government, at least so long as it retains that character, is a good thing and vastly preferable to a comprador regime. We just need to remember the inherent limitations of such states.

TLDR: The "national" bourgeoisie are, when left to their own devices unreliable at best and traitorous at worst. They are most useful when subordinated to communists and workers/peasants. James Connolly was right: only social revolution can defeat imperialism.

Question for third wordlists:
Why is it impossible for communists to assume political control in core countries and then progressively end imperialism from there? Socialism already exists in the first world, it’s just consummated by the exploitation of other nations. If you could build up the domestic productive forces to be able to maintain or increase living conditions in the first world while also ending the imperialist contradiction of exploiter v exploited nations, then there would t be any need for a new “go down to the countryside” movement for communists.

>>14092
All of those things will exist in communism
T. Fortnite burger lover

>>14091
I’m still waiting for a rebuttal to this from TWists

>>13977
The only way to break this wheel is westerners start going to the third world to develop it and not as pawns of the exploiters.
How can they do that?
Who the fuck knows.

>>14091
Not a third worldist but
>Socialism already exists in the first world
Please jump of a tall place into nothingness

>>14031
>>14025
1st worlders aren't labor aristocrats because they're paid artificially high wages but because their purchasing power is artificially high. They're able to go to a supermarket every week instead of a bazaar every day

>>14097
>their purchasing power is artificially high
no anon it's the other way around. it is the best means of production that set the pace. southern labour power simply becomes of lower value as a result, thereby enabling capital to extract ground rent on them

>>14095
That's implying that Western Capitalists powers are capable of making Partners with the Third World instead of using them for resource extraction like you mentioned.

>>14098
>southern labour power simply becomes of lower value as a result
careful anon, or somebody is going to equivocate value of labor power (meaning cost to reproduce the labor power) with some abstract humanist idea of "value" of people and try to claim that you are saying 3rd worlders are less than 1st worlders rather than what you're actually doing which is describing how capitalism puts them in cheaper living conditions

>>14100
if they do then they're fools deserved of mockery
but actually ground rent can work quite well here because people tend to stay near where they're born. there's no need to invoke unmarxian notions like unequal exchange, a theory that requires arbitrage to not exist. it is enough to observe that capital must avoid raising the standard of living too much in the south, for fear that this will necessitate investment in means of production to compensate for the rising value in labour power

>>14101
>if they do then they're fools deserved of mockery
There are so many arguments about this topic that this describes.
>it is enough to observe that capital must avoid raising the standard of living too much in the south
Yeah it's not like the theory of imperialism needs to be massively revised. Imperialism has developed further but it's not like it's fundamentally changed. The tools have gotten more sophisticated.

>>14102
this makes me wonder: if rates of profits are higher in the south, why are investments not made? we know things like patent laws are used, and surely they fetter the means of production, because we would expect profit rates to converge (within industries, but not between industries) simply because there's more profit per capital to throw around. or are southern porkies more likely to engage in unproductive spending?

>>14103
It would cause too much development. Foreign capital only invests enough to keep the resources flowing, and local capital doesn't have enough money since while they are richer than the other locals they can't get enough money flowing to invest at a rate that can rival imperial capital at all.

>>14104
right, individual capital can act in ways that is detrimental to capital as a whole. could yet lower rates of profit in the north change this dynamic?

>>14105
>individual capital can act in ways that is detrimental to capital as a whole.
It's a little different dealing with international investments though because there's a lot of collusion going on among the bourgeoisie through international finance. They are mostly playing the same game because for now the field is pretty open but it's shrinking because a certain level of development is pretty unavoidable. Falling RoP in the core is also a factor that compromises that status quo of a 3rd world ripe for the taking, but the bourgeois already know that they can offset a lot of these problems (resetting development and allowing the RoP to increase again as capital intensive industries have to be re-developed) by starting a world war or something similarly destructive. Climate change will have that kind of impact but it is happening a bit too slowly to be a full solution, so ramping up hostilities is more or less guaranteed.

>>14090
>This is what was accomplished in China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc., and its no coincidence that these countries continue to resist imperialism today while many others are now aligned with it.

True, but sadly in relation to China the national bourgoise still has a vast amount of power and is responsible for a lot of the corruption within China. While it's true Xi is putting them in line, it's clear that they have far too much freedom- allowing them to exploit loopholes in international law and avoid the Communist Parties jurisdiction, allowing them to exploit other parts of the world.

>It should also he clear that even a bourgeois dominated anti-imperialist government, at least so long as it retains that character, is a good thing and vastly preferable to a comprador regime.
True, but as you said- it shouldn't be trusted, and even if successful, as you say- there's a chance that international capitalism will still be standing.

So if that is the case, we're in agreement that unless the national bourgoise are not- subordinated to communists and workers/peasants- they are not to be trusted nor should they be supported, and at best ought to be criticised ruthlessly and pointed out during the national liberation struggle.

>>13924
>this man is the personification of this board and I refuse to believe otherwise
you are overestimating this board. do you think people are here are just being edgy or ironic when they say stupid shit? try to correct them, take the bait, and you will get banned. which might be a hint on your question:
>how has the board missed the work of Vivek Chibber?
the naive answer is that maybe their favorite twitch streamers haven't talked about him yet

anyway, I wish there was a better term than "thirdworldists". all the relevant organizations in my third world country have historically rejected stuff like the unequal exchange theory since the 60s. it would also be hard to find a relevant party in the neighboring countries that follow or base their agenda on these theories. it is misleading

>>14106
nukes make another world war very unlikely. although if it does happen, the profits to be made rebuilding by >survivors would be great of course. also much of the south (esp. Africa and South America) would not get hit directly and might see a golden age as a result
>>14108
TWism seems defeatist to me

>>14109
>nukes make another world war very unlikely
A conventional war between nuclear powers sure, but ramping up proxy wars is likely to happen.

>>14110
wars between nuclear power aren't likely to stay conventional for long

Vivek 'Pulling the trigger on every Third World uyghur' Chibber

>>14112
Vivek "Mao Zedong Thought? I think not" Chibber

Vivek "Nuclear exchange on unequal exchange" Chibber

Good thing nobody here would take an Analytical Marxist serious, right? Haha… right?

>>14115
>muh philosophical traditions
healthcare pls

>>14116
It‘s not about traditions, it‘s clearly not Marxism if it rejects core components of it.

[s]
>>14117
<yuo are doing an analytical marxism and probably also an imperialism by rejecting teh unequal exchange, a core concept of Marx

>>14119
none of this has anything to do with Chibber's views

>>14119
>*randomly quotes some crap from Wikipedia about Analytical Marxism*
Fascinating. Two problems:

1. Self-labeling in politics doesn't mean much. I'd need to hear from Chibber himself whether he approves of e. g. methodological individualism and so on.

2. I don't see how a reference to that article amounts to an argument for unequal exchange as something in the real world or even just as something in Marx.

>>14121
I agree with the first point to an extent. We would need to hear from Chibber what he explicitly beliefs in regard to Analytical Marxism. Still isn‘t a good look to be part of the same school of thought. These people quoted aren‘t just random people, they are basically the founders of Analytical Marxism. Secondly, I didn‘t say anything about unequal exchange. That‘s not what I was talking about.

>>14119
>Elster is all of analytical Marxism

Lmfao no

Chibber isn’t even influenced by Elster, he’s influenced by Wright

>>14115
My impatience with continental schizo bullshit and my exasperation with MLs who use vague appeals to keywords without engaging in substance simply so that they can rhetorically bludgeon people with catechisms is starting to make analytical Marxism look real good

>>14096
Literally Lenin has the same opinion as me
>Thus, at the present time we are confronted with the question- shall we be able to hold on with our small and very small peasant production, and in our present state of ruin, until the West-European capitalist countries consummate their development towards socialism? But they are consummating it not as we formerly expected. They are not consummating it through the gradual "maturing" of socialism, but through the exploitation of some countries by others, through the exploitation of the first of the countries vanquished in the imperialist war combined with the exploitation of the whole of the East.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/02.htm
Lenin here is saying that socialism is being consummated in the west by the exploitation of peripheral nations.

We need to get Chibber on here just for the spectacle of watching the guy verbally slap down the schizos and crypto-reactionaries on here

>>14125
>Lenin here is saying that socialism is being consummated in the west by the exploitation of peripheral nations.
Yet in no moment western nations ever had vanguard parties taking power for good, achieving any control over the MoP or establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat, worse, socialism lost power in these nations and replaced with a wish to become a social democracy that don't break with any relation of capitalism, especially imperialism.
lenin here is just wrong that the exploitation of the periphery would bring a revolution in the west, a hundred years have passed and this never happened, with and without the USSR here.

>>14127
Literally the vanguard party in America that led it to develop socialism with the use of colonial proletariat exploitation for the benefit of the homeland was the Democratic Party that led the new deal to cultivate the social fabric of American workers being accustomed to white picket fences and 75K annual salaries and whatnot. Furthermore, the rate of profit has consistently been falling as you know since you are on this site, this realistically means that profit planning is becoming a reactionary way to conduct economics, and more and more firms in America are abandoning profit planning to just maintain their monopolies on the world market which they use to feed their homeland. This is America becoming socialist. It’s just not the same socialism as the USSR had built, it’s more of a bourgeois socialism.

>>14129
Yes it’s literally in the communist manifesto you dumb retard. Marx talks about like eleven types of socialism.