Message from Deleted User in /leftypol/ International #english_theory
1. What is the role of propaganda? What are its aims and how should it be used?
2. What would be the Party policy on donations and other contributions of funds? How should they be used?
1.) The role of propaganda should be to agitate and raise class consciousness against the bourgeoisie.
2.) The Party should reject donations from billionaires (obviously) and from large sources. Should only accept small contributions and dues. They should be used to strengthen the party organizationally, to create more outreach, and to develop programs that benefit the poor/working class and win them to our side.
in my humble opinion.
What country would be one of the easiest to implement socialism in while being one that thrives the most under socialism
Q: Is it possible to have an international Party or can there be only national Parties?
i think it would be possible to have an international party
So do i
Maybe it would have people elected by national parties
That seems like a logical system
And then those at the top vote who the leader of the international party is
But the question is how much power should this party have I would say
@Hezbolshevik As a side note: democracy is a lie. Elections and voting are empty formalities that only sway people away from the correct course of action. In fact, it is a good way to prevent the truth by replacing it with consensus. If there is not question about the truth, if it is intellectually established, then there is no need to vote on it. Similarly, the most class-conscious and politically intelligent people, can be measured and shown without voting. Consensus is a distraction from correct practice and lets false consciousness take root. This must be protected through the authority of the most advance Party members.
So what will national parties pick random names from hats for international party admin?
And I mean voting within the upper echelon of the national party for international admin
@Hezbolshevik No, instead of elections or random choice, the position of the international party admin will just be given to the most capable person, objectively measured.
Democracy clouds the process. If you want the best person for the job then just give the job to the best person, without voting.
Select who has the historical precedent for the most effective and scientific theory and practice. Not the best speaker. Not the best comedian. Not the cleverest talker. Selection should be based on strict and principled past successes in the intellectual field and in practical action.
So how are they selected (as in through what means not what qualities they must have)and who are the people deciding who is selected?
Class consciousness is held strongest in the most revolutionary. There can only be one kind of class consciousness because it is objective reality. It is realised in the joining of theory and practice, i.e. when you have correct ideas and action, class consciousness increases, and since revolution is inevitable, the most successful revolutionaries also have the clearest sense of class consciousness (in a union of theory and practice). The leaders are self-evident. This is why Lenin implemented Vanguardism. This is why Stalin took power, not Trotsky, because his theory and practice was better.
It is not that leaders are hard to find, or struggle to prove themselves. It is false consciousness that does not follow them.
And if they are wrong, they will not succeed.
So naturally the leaders best at what they do would become apparent and subsequently gain power?
Atleast under the right conditions
Class consciousness is not given, it has to be worked for. So when the majority cannot recognise authority, what do you do then? The smart thing to do is support the leader.
Of course, all individuals are at different levels of development. It is true some are better at following orders. Others, have great ideas but have no sense how to implement them. I am sure there are great individuals out there, but no one will listen or act. Then the important thing is to build class consciousness in others, until you get a critical mass to reach the next level of development. I sense most of those with ambitions for revolution are an the early stage. Revolution is coming, but it is not here yet.
At the theory state, it is easy to get distracted about 'what we will do when', but getting there. see what it is like and actually deciding what to do is different. The dialectical process guides it, not out dogmatic assumptions about democracy or consensus. Who are we to say, who have not walked in the shoes to show how it is done?
One more thing, bringing people together under one banner is the highest priority because it builds class consciousness. Those who fracture and split away are certainly lost. There is only one objective reality.
The battering ram has many goes to bring the gates down.
How arrogant do you have to be, to go against all evidences that a process is working, because you know better or have a new idea?
Cheers, comrades. The backlog made for a foot or two of good reading.
I'm writing an article on Malthusianism; that is, a cute phrase for overpopultion theory and the various racist and classist ideologies that have underpinned it historically, Thomas Malthus being the biggest case in point(and sworn enemy of his contemporary Marx). The overpopulation meme seems to be every random jerk's way of neatly wrapping up every social or political discussion in a nice little misanthropic package that hand-waves all structural problems and attributes everything to there just being "too many people, man". I'm trying to show concisely and in a readable way how wrong the assumption is that overpopulation is just "reality" and arguments based around it are purely scientific and transcend ideology; that in fact it's a part of one of the most pernicious ideologies ever spawned. Anyone have any good thoughts, rebuttals?
@Joe Hill In Heaven Sippin' Shine
Overpopulation is an interesting topic for all sides of politics because it is not a direct consequence of capitalism or profit. To say that it cannot or will never pose a problem is incorrect. However, there is a specific way the argument is framed by the ruling ideology. Many economists (thinking Fukuyama here) believe that free market capitalism is the final or most advanced stage of human society. They are not introspective of this point, as they seem to never fully criticise the pursuit of profit in terms of its negative effects on society, because 'it's just better than any alternative...it doesn't matter if it has negative aspects...it's not perfect but it's the best we have' etc etc. The first stage of framing a rebuttal is to questions this assumption and start focusing on these negative effects, as well as challenging their 'whig history' and linear view that we have reached an evolutionary peak in human society.
So, what negative effects exactly? Well, look at any social justice issue and it will almost certainly follow as a result the pursuit of profit at the expense of everything else. Environmental, education, health, infrastructure etc etc. "A rising tide lifts all boats." Wrong.
I would not so much focus on what capitalism actively does that hurts people (imperialism, alienation), but more just bring into questions it's assumption of superiority by focusing on the negative by-products.
Now we can get onto Malthusian economics and overpopulation: what is the significance of population on the capitalist system? Well, it is surrounded on labour and, more recently, consumption. Ask: why do economists even care about population? Answer: it effects profit. Do they really care how population effects the conditions of the population? Nope. Again, I emphasise the focus on the negatives.
And so the conclusion: concerns about overpopulation are a side show to the ruling ideology. Why is it even bad to them? Altruistic concerns about the destabilising effects and threats to peace are nothing but lip service and marketing opportunities to open new markets. They are also setting up to shift the blame when the shit hits the fan, from the profit system to another bogeyman to keep their motives hidden. Their whole argument is theatre. They are not even in a position to care in the first instance because altruism and collective concerns are beyond them, "in the past and antiquated approach", they would say.
Final point: societies with advanced capitalists systems have a declining population, the opposite of overpopulation. Do they seek to argue capitalism as a solution and saviour to more populous nations? What a sham. These advanced societies in the West and East Asian (Japan, South Korea etc.) are cannibalising their own population with the slogans, 'choose a career or a family, you cannot do both', or 'just consume and be a child forever, no one needs pesky responsibilities like children'. They do not want to have to 'pay for' and raise the next generation, that would hurt their profits! The response from governments to fill the gap in labour is immigration. Thus the Malthusian argument gets new vigour, as the ideologues pretend to have a solution for all nations. But indeed, without an objective measure, what is the definition of 'under population' or 'over population'. In this economic only frame, they are arbitrary categories according to the 'needs' of the ruling classes. The pursuit of capital has no solution to the population problem, even if it exists. Again, it is posturing and opportunism.
In response, maybe the free market advocates will say: if absolutely necessary, when immigration is no longer feasible, large corporations will have incentive to provide a population stimulus and 'pay' for employees to create new workers (slaves) for them. But they will only do this if there is no other choice, and still, like immigration, it is a stop-gap measure. Capitalists can only be proactive about profits, everything else is reactionary and suffers as a result. You have to make the argument that private ownership and control of by the few is the 'best possible solution'. It clearly isn't, especially not in this case. And this is where the critique of Marxism comes in.