/siberia/ - Off-topic

>and how this is a useful insight for understanding why powerless political parties tend to wind up like cults
They dont, usually powerless political parties simply dissolve.

Finished reading this.
Short read.
Yes, this monarchist reads theory.

>>530029
stay in your containment thread

>>530029
Did you like it? Do you think he is correct?

>>530025
Engels' work Principles of Communism reflects the next stage in the elaboration of the programme of the Communist League following the "Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith". This new version of the programme was worked out by Engels on the instructions of the Paris circle authority of the Communist League. The decision was adopted after Engels' sharp criticism at the committee meeting, on October 22, 1847, of the draft programme drawn up by the "true socialist" M. Hess, which was then rejected. Comparison of the text of the Principles of Communism with that of the "Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith" proves that the document written by Engels at the end of October 1847 is a revised version of the Draft discussed at the First Congress of the Communist League. The first six points of the Draft were completely revised. Engels had felt compelled at that time to make some concessions in them to the as yet immature views of the League of the Just leaders. Some of these points were omitted in the Principles, others substantially changed and put in a different order. In the rest the arrangement of both documents coincides, though there are several new questions in the Principles: 5, 6, 10–14, 19, 20 and 24–26 (sic). The Principles of Communism constituted the immediate basis for the preliminary version of the Communist Manifesto. In his letter of November 23–24, 1847 to Marx Engels wrote about the advisability of drafting the programme in the form of a communist manifesto, rejecting the old form of a catechism. In writing the Manifesto the founders of Marxism used some propositions formulated in the Principles of Communism.

having a simple text summarizing principles basically makes u a religion if u think about it

>>530025
This is not a new observation.

>For Maitland “the party should be the material apparatus for integrating the conscious minority and the unconscious mass.” The mass is “unconscious,” however, for the same reason that it is powerless. The “conscious” minority could not alter the one situation without changing the other. It cannot bring “consciousness” to the masses unless it brings them power. If the consciousness and the power depend on the party, the whole class struggle question takes on a religious character. If the people that constitute the party are “good” people, they will gives the masses power and consciousness; if they are “bad” people they will withhold both. There is no question of “integration” involved here, but only a question of “ethics.” Thus we may trust not only in abstract conceptions as to what a party ought to be but also in the good will of men. In brief, we must trust our leaders. What parties can give, however, they can also take away. Under conditions as they are, the “consciousness” of the minority is either meaningless, or it is connected with a power position in society. To increase “consciousness is thus to increase the power of the group that incorporates it. There arises no “integration” between “leaders” and “led”; instead, the existing gap between them widens continuously. The conscious group defends its position as a conscious group; it can defend this position only against the “unconscious” mass. The “integration” of the conscious minority and the unconscious mass is only a pleasanter-sounding description of the exploitation of the many by the few.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1941/pannekoek.htm

>>530030
<stay in your containment thread
>implying I can be contained

>>530031
I thought it was concise and useful reference.
It was useful reading the distinctions made between proletariat, serf, and others, as well as reactionary socialists, bourgeois socialists, and democratic socialists.

>>530025
>Did you know that both religions and secular ideologies constitute worldviews and people can feel passionate about them?
That said, I would argue that Marxism is more like Confucianism than a religion. Not in the sense that Marxism upholds caste systems, harmonious orders or filial piety like Confucianism, but in the sense that it is a secular philosophy around temporal, human social forces which often competes with religions (and has a tendency to get called a religion for this reason) and is centered around a series of "sage" figures, with Marx taking the role of the original "Great Sage" similar to Confucius.

>>530047
Marx meets confucius reference?