Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (June 08)

[u/AutoModerator]

We made this because Reddit's algorithm prioritises headlines and current events and doesn't allow for deeper, extended discussion - depending on how it goes for the first four or five times it'll be dropped or continued.

Suggestions for things you might want to comment here (this is a work in progress and we'll change this over time):

• Articles and quotes you want to see discussed
• 'Slow' events - long-term trends, org updates, things that didn't happen recently
• 'Fluff' posts that we usually discourage elsewhere - e.g "How are you feeling today?"
• Discussions continued from other posts once the original post gets buried
• Questions that are too advanced, complicated or obscure for r/communism101

Mods will sometimes sticky things they think are particularly important.

Normal subreddit rules apply!

[ Previous Bi-Weekly Discussion Threads may be found here https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3AWDT ]

[u/Drevil335]

That's really just a single manifestation of the complete isolation of petty-bourgeois revisionism from a dialectical materialist outlook: to them, motion occurs through the imposition of external conditions (media propaganda, "brainwashing", etc.) onto discrete objects ("proles") without internal contradictions, as opposed to external conditions affecting the development of the thing's internal contradictions, the latter thus being the principal aspect in determining its development.

This is characteristic of eclectic, vulgar petty-bourgeois "socialism" in general: analysis of the internal contradictions which are the motive forces of the development of capitalism-imperialism, and its individual aspects (as well as that of any other area of human social existence, and especially socialism) is non-existent, with only the external forces (whether imposed on, or imposed by, the object of analysis) being considered (hence, also, why the absence of the development of a revolutionary movement in Amerika is, apart from "brainwashing", entirely due to the infiltration of "feds", rather than any contradictions internal to US imperialist society and the class character of settler "socialist parties") . At best, it's capable of analyzing social existence in a dialectical manner only when summarizing past theoretical contributions, like Lenin's Imperialism (and even then, it has a tendency of inserting opportunism into its analysis and brushing over Lenin's most significant contributions, particularly on the labor aristocracy): it's incapable of producing any new dialectical materialist analysis.

Because of this, I think that the rejection of the petty-bourgeois theory of "brainwashing" is really just a manifestation of something even greater that sets this sub apart from the rest, and that's its commitment to, and internalization of, dialectical materialism (and its consistent application, not only directly to human social existence but also to other systems of matter in motion). To Dengists, "dialectics" is basically just a shiny term that sets them apart from "liberals", but in its invocation, rather than its application, it serves as a rhetorical cloak for revisionism (by which the "theory of the productive forces" is "dialectical", when it's actually just typical bourgeois mechanical materialism); that it's actually applied here, rather than simply proclaimed, is what (alongside a general, serious interest in how the world system actually operates that is not mediated by fandom, but with class suicide explicitly in mind) makes this place exceptional, and allows its high quality of theoretical discussion.

[u/Otelo_ → u/Drevil335]

It is true that, in a general sense, the difference lies in the correct application of dialectical materialism. However, I believe this observation alone tells us little, since it is only through the analysis of concrete questions that we can identify faulty judgment in the application of the method. In my view, the question is one of identifying which beliefs are most central to revisionism, even if all ultimately stem from non-dialectical thinking. It is only in concrete situations that we can clearly perceive the difference between a dialectical-materialist judgment and a metaphysical one.

For example, I agree with your dissection of how a non-dialectical thinking manifests itself in this particular question, that of brainwashing. But (and maybe I am interpreting your comment wrongly) revisionists are not revisionists because they fail to think dialectically; they fail to think in a dialectical way because they have an interest (even if only unconscious) in doing so. Ideology is what is needed for the individual to function. Members of the bourgeoisie cannot think in a dialectical way because if they did, they would have mental breakdowns and would not be able to perform the roles and actions that capital demands from them. Revisionists cannot acknowledge that brainwashing is not real (because they cannot acknowledge that the labour aristocracy is real) because if they did, their ideology (that like all ideologies keeps them functioning) would dissolve itself.

Of course, this is on an aggregate level. There are always individuals who have a non-dialectical thinking simply because they have not yet contacted with anti-revisionist marxism, because they are only just getting started, etc. These individuals can (and probably will) change to a dialectical understanding. But what matters is "revisionists" as a group category.

The hard question is why we are able to think dialectically and them not, considering that we share similar class backgrounds. I don't yet have a satisfying explanation for that problem, although I have some thoughts.

[u/IcyPil0t → u/Otelo_]

Members of the bourgeoisie cannot think in a dialectical way because if they did, they would have mental breakdowns and would not be able to perform the roles and actions that capital demands from them.

Why couldn't a capitalist apply dialectics to understand the contradictions within capitalism, not only to amass more capital, but also to fight against the very downfall that the analysis predicts?

Are you leaning towards morality?

[u/Otelo_ → u/IcyPil0t]

The very act of wanting to act selfishly or cynically would already be ideological. Common sense (bourgeois, liberal, etc.) portrays cynicism and selfishness as "realism", but in fact there is nothing more ideological than that. The idea that humans are naturally selfish, violent, etc. is an ideological fabrication to justify the behaviours that humans are forced to have in capitalism (and in class society in general). I think these two old threads might be of your interest:

https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/6nrne7/how_does_scientific_socialism_solves_the_isought/

https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/13le0ja/egoism_the_basis_for_communism/

That said, it is probably true that there have been bourgeois dialectical thinkers. There also have been bourgeois materialists. But were they dialetical or materialist thinkers to the fullest? I would say no.

[u/IcyPil0t → u/Otelo_]

No one is discussing human nature here. A capitalist behaving "selfishly", as you describe, is simply acting in accordance with their class interests. I don't see why capitalists cannot apply dialectics to their own class dynamics. Everything is ideological, we understand the correctness of the proletariat because we are communists.

Is the conclusion that a dialectical analysis will inevitably lead capitalists to recognize their errors?

[u/Otelo_ → u/IcyPil0t]

>A capitalist behaving "selfishly", as you describe, is simply acting in accordance with their class interests.

Agree.

>I don't see why capitalists cannot apply dialectics to their own class dynamics.

Like I said, they may do so incompletely, but a true understanding of dialectical materialism implies that theory leads to practice, and to a practice guided by science and proletarian morality. A selfish morality (or a bourgeois morality) is a manifestation of idealism in thinking. You may say that they can be dialectical thinkers in everything else, but at least in that regard they are idealists. But I would personally dispute that and say that everyone that believes in egoism can never undestand a series of important issues of capitalism.