/lit/ - Literature

The answer is always Adorno

>>12829736
Here's one OP

>>12829779
Adorno himself also did nothing but criticize

>>12829736
Bookchin's Ecology Of Freedom is excellent in it's criticism of p much everything, including marxism.

But here's some nice essays, start with Listen, Marxist

https://www.marxists.org/archive/bookchin/index.htm

>>12829736
We are already nearly there my friend. The USA in 2019 is nearly exactly what was envisioned.

>>12829813
not really

>>12829736
It can hardly be said that it accomplished nothing. In spite of all their monstrosities Maoist China saw the most rapid industrialization and capital accumulation in world history, even as it collapsed/evolved/changed into Dengism and the current State Capitalist structure they did in fact, play the game outside the accepted 'good' parameters and accomplished something huge, the third world hellhole of not even a century ago is to be the next global superpower.
But you ask about the day after so to speak. I think it would be uncontroversial to say that China's present State Capitalist autocracy isn't exactly desirable as the new global order, but it IS the system to beat these days. No one on the left or right seems capable of envisioning a way beyond this zero level nightmare solution.
In this context, the value of Marx's critique is in understanding the ways existing power structures are attempting to insulate themselves, we're at a point where the typical right wing lines just serve to justify mass capital accumulation by private individuals before the inevitable crash, and the typical left wing lines just try to avoid the problem and make things a little more palatable for consumers on different axes.
So not to claim to represent some monolithic leftist position, I would argue the market vs vanguardism dynamic is a dead end, at least if we want to move beyond the Chinese model which takes it all to it's conclusion. Marxist analysis can help us see the shortcomings of all the 'solutions' we're presented with

>>12830063
>capital accumulation in world history
?

>>12830063
>the third world hellhole of not even a century ago is to be the next global superpower.
This has absolutely nothing to do with marxism or communism, nor does it address the problem that OP posed.

>>12830427
It has everything to do with Marxism. It is no accident that everywhere Communists are still in power they are the most efficient Capitalists, meanwhile the previous "free market" capitalist super power is collapsing under its military-industrial machine which has long since captured its governance.
If the only criteria for selecting management is maximizing circulation and accrual of capital why not just do away with all the middle men and have the party do it. The current paradigms have no real answer to this
>>12830411
GNP if you prefer

>>12830619
But the USSR collapsedunder its own cost, just like those same czpitalists state. What states are you talking about? Cambodgia?

>>12830619
>It has everything to do with Marxism. It is no accident that everywhere Communists are still in power they are the most efficient Capitalists
Yes, that's because they are pseudo-fascistic authoritarians. The fact that they are still in power is more a testament to fascist anti-democracy than Marxism. How is, for example, the modern PRC in any way Marxist?

>>12830869
>Commies = red fascist
Also they are Marxist because they want to achive communism, there are Marxist schools in China, It's controlled by a communist party, etc. I don't get the whole horseshoe "communist are just red fascist " bullshit.

>>12830950
>They call themselves marxist
>therefore they are marxist

They're unironically closer to Hitler than they are to Marx.

>>12830950
>Also they are Marxist because they want to achive communism,
I mean it's a dictatorship over a country with privately owned companies. Does saying 'we're marxist' really just negate that?

>>12830950
What kind of government is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?

What kind of government is the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

>>12829813
illiterate

>>12831004
Sort of yes. Marx himself didn't gave much of description of how should socialist country work like, pretty much everyone can claim to be a Marxist. Especially when the regime claims to be in a "transitionary period" like IIRC all Marxist regimes did.

Current Chinese position is one of rectifying Dengism, e.g. subduing those private companies to national interest.

>>12830980
I guess you are posting a picture which has likeness of yourself because your reading comprehension isn't the best. Read some fucking Dengist shit If you want to understand """socialism""" with Chinese characteristics
>>12831004
It's a complicated issue. While a lot of companies are private they have special rooms for members of the communist party, a great deal of shares are owned by the party, they have 5 years plans, etc.
Also read Deng or go ask some Dengist if you want more complete anwsers.
>>12831027
I have no clue how the government in North Korea works so I'm not going to comment on that.

>>12830063
>super power for thousands of year
>creates worlds most famous trade route
>envy of the British Empire for self sufficiency
>some tankie claims the only reason you’re successful is because of communism

China has been a power house for millennia and the 3rd world aspects (rice paddies, etc) are still there so communism didn’t help at all. Even though China is uniquely positioned to favour communism because of collective attitudes (see Taoism and Confucius) it didn’t work, which is also why state capitalism would never work in the majority of western states. They are also the biggest exploiter of the 3rd world. Having worked in international development finance, I know how horrible their practices are.

>>12831050
>>12831051
But the country is getting less socialist over the years not more socialist. It is becoming more capitalist, it seems ridiculous to say that that is part of the eventual plan to move to full socialism

>>12831064
>But the country is getting less socialist over the years not more socialist.
Incorrect.

>>12831051
>Read some fucking Dengist shit If you want to understand """socialism""" with Chinese characteristics
You mean blatant fucking nonsense that only uses communism for aesthetics and nothing more? Because that's what it is, you retarded tankie.

Just admit you're a fascist already. Read Gentile and you'll find that you agree with him on most things.

>>12831072
They didn't allow private companies until the 80s or so, that was a clear move towards capitalism, and that's when their economy started growing quickly.

>>12831064
I'm sceptical but China has collectivist culture so I could see them pull it off. Truth be told they said that by 2050 they want to have communism so we'll see how they do.
>>12831079
Facsism by definition is either authoritarianism + autistic reactionary-ism or simply authoritarianism. China only fits the second definition and so do most countries if I'm completely honest.

>>12831112
you think the Party will actually give up power and disband, allowing the people to own the means of production? That seems wildly naive and optimistic

>>12831130
I don't know what will happen. I can imagine it happening if there are members who are loyal to communism in the party. In USSR after Brezhnev, Andropov came to power and he seemed to be committed to communism but sadly died because of health problems within just 15 months. I guess there can be a second revolution but like I said I'm sceptical.

>>12831171
>health problems

>>12829736
Lenin was almost entirely practical.
Read any of his works. What is to be Done? -> State and Revolution -> Imperialism is a good start

>>12831233
Yep, from what I recall his kidneys fucked up. He was a chairman of the KGB so I doubt there was some conspiracy against him if that's what you are implying, I don't believe anyone had the balls. Dude even arrested Brezhnev daughter because of corruption.

>>12829736
There are Marxist-inspired societies that actually exist or existed, such as the USSR, pre-Deng China and Cuba. Just look at those.

>>12829813
Two sides of the same coin, but not really. if anything the USSR was more honest about who was in and not in the Party and making the decisions. In the US it's almost impossible to determine who is actually making the decisions and wielding power, and it amounts to no more than a few hundred people at the top echelons of corporate America and intel agencies. So there is something quite similar to The Party but not really. And you get a shit healthcare plan too.

>>12830869
It's Real Communism when the country in question appears to be in a position of relative strength to the US and then Red Fascism when it the successes of the Communist system turn out to have been exaggerated. China is Real Communism now, when they inevitably have an economic downturn at some point in the future the same people will be back to saying it's Red Fascism again.

>>12829736
Hey, take it easy man.

>inb4 janny throws a shitfit and 404s this

>>12830619
ok so you watched a lot of zizek on youtube?

>>12831464
Weren't those societies horrid though?

>>12832465
Probably but most Communists thought they were the greatest thing ever at the time. Similar story with Venezuela, it was a brave and powerful experiment with Socialism until Chavez, being a dumb indio, spent all their oil money on gibs instead of reinvestment or a wealth fund like Norway or KSA (which would allow for the gibbing of more gibs in the long term but indios are not great foward-thinkers) and then had a retarded currency policy and antagonized the US on top of that, so when oil prices went down the whole thing went to shit and the thinkpieces about how Venezuela was Not Real Socialism after all came out. If Cuba ever implodes (which is not likely) I'm sure we'll get thinkpieces about how Cuba was Never Real Socialism.

>>12829736
>I'd like to read more about this, both from people accusing Marxism and Marxists' rebuttals.
Try Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal for the former. She tackle many anti-capitalist falacies in it, many marxian.

>>12832569
>antagonized the US
other way around, bud

>>12832583
The conflict started when Venezuela re-nationalized their oil companies and pursued a pro-Cuban foreign policy. A non-stupid leader would:

>1. Pursue a policy similar to KSA or Norway that doesn't piss off US oil companies, while increasing state revenues, especially when the US is the largest buyer of your oil.
>2. Don't pursue a pro-Cuban policy when the US is trying to isolate Cuba given 1., and is right near you

This is just non-ideological statecraft.

>>12829783
But socialism has been successful every time it's been implemented.

>>12832606
So your answer is just bend over for Americas every whim and desire? I guess that's an answer.

>>12832625

On the contrary, it hasn't been successful once.

>>12832642
All states that are not Russia or China or their protectorates exist in varying degrees of submission to the US. If you are going to take an anti-American line, you should have a plan for how you are going to become a Russian protectorate, as in you had better have Russian soldiers and bases going up in short order.

>>12832656

>>12829813
>imagine being this bluepilled

>>12832656
>>12832569
>>12832465
If those societies are so bad why is there widespread nostalgia for them in many parts of eastern europe? Why does communist party in Czech Republic do well amongst older people? How did China manage to have the highest growth of live expectancy in history? How does cuba have such good healthcare compared to their size? Why does China do better on environment regulation than India? Why did the USSR manage to have a economic system mostly without exploitation?

But I guess since gorby retarded reforms caused a crisis and nationalist made a coup in USSR communism is against human nature. Also 1557643 godzillions dead!

>>12833000
My Father is a Hayekian Liberal, and he still has nostalgia for the old communist state.
Mostly he sees free college and free education as a public good (given certain conditions).
Also, he thinks the communist education system was much better than the Western conception (definitely today and back then to a certain extant).

>>12832625
>it wasnt real socialism
>but it was successful

>>12833000
I's not about the glories of collective ownership, it's more "We wuz strong against degenerate west."

>>12833017
>Also, he thinks the communist education system was much better than the Western conception (definitely today and back then to a certain extant).
This is definitely true in the USSR and honestly anywhere in the world, Western education systems are terrible. Singapore probably has the best model.

>>12833431
I don't know what you mean by that. I'm not one of those "not true socialism" people.

>>12833712
Singapore is more fascist than anything

>>12831489
Have a good time!

>>12833000
>If those societies are so bad why is there widespread nostalgia for them in many parts of eastern europe?
people would shoot you in the head in many parts of eastern europe if you said communism was good

>>12833000
>Also 1557643 godzillions dead!
It's funny how you have to adopt the same tactics as nazis do to shuffle those mountains of corpses under the rug, while also insisting that horseshoe theory is bullshit. Very compassionate of you.

>>12833000
>Why does communist party in Czech Republic do well amongst older people?
More often than not it's because "gypsy scum was kept in check and trannies didn't exist." I always recall fetish threads on /leftypol/ and think "you fuckers would be the first to go to the uranium mines."

>>12829736
Socialist welfare should only be there for those that need it, and should be limited to natives people of a country.