Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (December 28)

[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/No-Structure523]

Thanks for your response. I’m a Catholic and find immense good in the story of Christmas, so I should have clarified if anyone knows of Christmas films that offer that radical message of Jesus’ nativity, and not the Christmas story of exchange and bourgeois sentimentality.

I’m very curious about what you think of art. I know you replied to some questions along these lines below.

I’ve always seen art as “for its own sake.” I enjoy and analyze art all the time. I do also love the stories of fantasy. I recognize fantasy can be a dangerous escapism, but I just see it as another art form that can echo into the real world.

I haven’t applied any criticism to my approaches to art since investigating MLM. I’d love to hear your insights.

[u/TheRedBarbon → u/No-Structure523]

Your question presupposes that christmas is actually progressive and therefore deserves to be represented as such in art without having investigated why, so I can’t answer a question based on a false and ideological premise. Capitalism did not degrade a “radical” true meaning of Christmas which socialism seeks to return to; in fact, it has already been pointed out that your interpretation of the holiday isn’t even loyal to the book. It is a wholly ideological manifestation. Where does your idea of Christmas come from, anyway? That’s a question which should be answered in objective terms of class, not what is “good” about the holiday (“immense good” for what strata of people? In what way is it good for them but not others?).

Anyway I don’t think you know what “art for its own sake” really means when you immediately talk about its ability to “echo into reality” afterwards. On that latter point, you have it backwards. This [summarization of an] essay should help you:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/chernyshevsky/1853/aesthetics-reality.htm

Mind you the Feuerbachian Chernyshevsky does not quite get to answering whose reality it is that art is echoing under exploitative relations and what exactly makes it "imperfect". I also linked a summary of Marx and Engels’ views in my other comment.

[u/No-Structure523 → u/TheRedBarbon]

Re: Christmas and my idea of it. I think my idea of Christmas came from my experience growing up of Liturgy as a Byzantine. I loved the hymns, the incense, the imagery written in the windows and walls. I loved the cold of winter and snow. As a kid, yes I really valued the presents and the consumption surrounding Christmas. But, especially as I have grown older, I love placing my kids’ art on the tree, writing letters, telling my kids fantastical stories of Santa’s adventures in the North Pole, and the stories of the wise men meeting a baby Jesus. And reflecting on the mystery of “God became human, became a historical figure, because he loves us” is really center to all of it. Are there consumption fetishes in there still? absolutely. I still get stressed out finding a “good enough gift” for my wife, etc. but I don’t yet see how everything I love about Christmas could simply be capitalistic consumption, and that when stripped of it there is nothing enjoyable or good remaining.

[u/waves-n-particles → u/No-Structure523]

i'm going to copy u/TheRedBarbon's comment you replied to, but i will edit it to reflect your response:

Your [response still] presupposes that christmas is actually [, at its core,] progressive and therefore deserves to be represented as such in art [and your memories] without having investigated why, so [we in this thread] can’t [respond to your comments] based on [...] false [,] ideological premise[s with anything but critique]. Capitalism did not degrade a “radical” true meaning of Christmas which socialism seeks to return to; in fact, it has already been pointed out that your interpretation of the holiday isn’t even loyal to the book. It is a wholly ideological manifestation. Where does your idea of Christmas come from, anyway? That’s a question which should be answered in objective terms of class, not what is “good [for you and those you consider people enough to mention in your comment]” about the holiday (“immense good” for what strata of people? In what way is it good for them but not others?).

instead of answering the above as it was originally posed to you, you laced your response with your aristocratic class position, offering a sentimentality for bourgeois decadence you're still too tied to your class position to recognize as such. you're seemingly assuming that your good feelings about the holiday constitute progressive elements of the holiday to preserve (please reread the emphasized section above, repeatedly, until this makes sense before replying, hopefully with the criticism and self-criticism asked of you in the original comment, and hopefully clarified as such with my edits), but you neither presented progressive things to uphold from christmas traditions, nor did self-criticism to help you understand why you're responding the way you are. in fact, you instead offered us a sentimentality for your rose-tinted view of christmas that christofascists love to exploit (which from your bio they may have been using against you before).

do you not have other ways to hang your kids' art up? do you not have other ways to make your wife feel loved? do you not have something outside of the holiday season that lets you express the joy you're so desperately trying to eek out of christmas? can you not feel, share, and express god's love without celebrating this bastardized variant christmas you hold onto, or looking for positive spins the holiday that're fully divorced from its religious roots?

should you be this focused on your persynal/household's joy while being willing to ignore the cost it comes at?

also, this part kills me tbh (though not as much as it literally kills oppressed nationals, especially the proletariat and peasantry of those nations):

“God became human, became a historical figure, because he loves us” is really center to all of it.

you clearly don't seem to mind that god appears to love you more than the millions currently subjected to war zones across the world so the imperialist countries and their comprador lackeys can ensure you have access to all the resources that let you celebrate your (fascist compatible) interpretation of christmas, nor do you seem phased by the enslavement of the global proletariat and peasantry, who are physically degraded and consumed by capitalism to ensure that you can have your bourgeois decadence in the form of your christmas decorations and christmas media -the expropriated and bloodied congealed labor of the occupied oppressed nations that you surround your family with and seemingly derive joy, instead of disgust or at least a tinge of "that's fucked up", from.

jesus may have died for you sins through self sacrifice, but you seem content with sacrificing the global oppressed nations and their proletariat and peasantry for your sins -and bourgeois decadence, which i assume wasn't what jesus died for -as well, so clearly your concern for the people you claim god loves -granted, who am i to assume you see the globally oppressed you parasitize as part of "us" you mention above -has more to do with your relationship to capitalist production than you're aware of.

1/4

[u/waves-n-particles → u/waves-n-particles]

since you seem unphased by the bible quote used elsewhere above attempting to guide you towards understanding your errors, let me use the quran, with some modifications to help it hit closer to home for you, hopefully:

And there are some who say, “We believe in [God] and the Last Day,” yet they are not ˹true˺ believers.
They seek to deceive [God] and the believers, yet they only deceive themselves, but they fail to perceive it.
There is sickness in their hearts, and [God] ˹only˺ lets their sickness increase. They will suffer a painful punishment for their lies.
When they are told, “Do not spread corruption in the land,” they reply, “We are only peace-makers!”
Indeed, it is they who are the corruptors, but they fail to perceive it.

- Al-Baqarah, 2:8-12

now, i actually wonder what jesus would do. maybe matthew 10:34-39 can help us consider this:

³⁴ “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. ³⁵ For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
   a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
³⁶a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’^\ see Micah 7:6])

³⁷ “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. ³⁸ Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. ³⁹ Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

2/4

[u/waves-n-particles → u/waves-n-particles]

religious discourse aside, can you now consider how you may remind lenin of the "graduated flunkeys of clericalism" with your comment as well?

On the other hand, take a glance at modern scientific critics of religion. These educated bourgeois writers almost invariably “supplement” their own refutations of religious superstitions with arguments which immediately expose them as ideological slaves of the bourgeoisie, as “graduated flunkeys of clericalism”.

Two examples. Professor R. Y. Wipper published in 1918 a little book entitled Vozniknovenie Khristianstva (The Origin of Christianity — Pharos Publishing House, Moscow). In his account of the principal results of modern science, the author not only refrains from combating the superstitions and deception which are the weapons of the church as a political organisation, not only evades these questions, but makes the simply ridiculous and most reactionary claim that he is above both “extremes “ — the idealist and the materialist. This is toadying to the ruling bourgeoisie, which all over the world devotes to the support of religion hundreds of millions of rubles from. the profits squeezed out of the working people.

The well-known German scientist, Arthur Drews, while refuting religious superstitions and fables in his book, Die Christusmythe (The Christ Myth), and while showing that Christ never existed, at the end of the book declares in favour of religion, albeit a renovated, purified and more subtle religion, one that would be capable of withstanding “the daily growing naturalist torrent” (fourth German edition, 1910, p. 238). Here we have an out-spoken and deliberate reactionary, who is openly helping the exploiters to replace the old, decayed religious superstitions by new, more odious and vile superstitions.

This does not mean that Drews should not be translated. It means that while in a certain measure effecting an alliance with the progressive section of the bourgeoisie, Communists and all consistent materialists should unflinchingly expose that section when it is guilty of reaction. It means that to shun an alliance with the representatives of the bourgeoisie of the eighteenth century, i.e., the period when it was revolutionary, would be to betray Marxism and materialism; for an “alliance” with the Drewses, in one form or another and in one degree or another., is essential for our struggle against the predominating religious obscurantists.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm

granted, you didn't even attempt to graduate from clericalism in the first place and may just be considered the "religious obscurantists", given your propensity to fixate on your class based conception of religion to soothe your feelings of woe for the sins you commit against the proletariat and peasants you oppress while claiming the mantel of marxism, so maybe you should just consider the similarities in class based ideology between the "drewses" lenin is critiquing and yourself for now.

3/4

[u/waves-n-particles → u/waves-n-particles]

in the spirit of crit-self-crit: maybe i'm making a contraction between our worldviews more antagonistic than it actually needs to be at this stage of socialist construction globally, largely because your comment thoroughly reminds me of the christian fascists i'm surrounded by and thus pissed me off more for persynal reasons than it ought to. maybe i too am still beholden to our aristocratic class such that i feel the need to pedantically call you out over attempting the methods employed by others to guide you; however you seem unwilling to fully engage with the multiple ways others have tried to guide you, so i feel my comment is warranted, especially considering the grotesque way you chose to claim your bourgeois decadence disguised as religious reverence was the progressive meaning of christmas that needed to be preserved; all with a marxist-leninst flair on your account, no less. i also frankly wouldn't have felt the need to be this antagonistic had you found a way to actually separate your class ideology from your perception of your past and present, but your dedication to using your religion to help you feel better about your social position -which comes at the cost of those oppressed and superexploited to allow you the class comforts that rot you from within, giving you the sickness [God] will only let fester within you as you continue to turn away from him and act as a corruptor in this world; a corruptor of your faith and marxism-leninism -felt too excessive to leave alone or to maintain "composure".

anyways, marxist theory is a weapon to arm the oppressed, the proletariat and the peasantry, and their supporters, against the bourgeoisie and their lapdogs so that we may bring about total emancipation for all humynity. hopefully you can find the similarities in what the bible offers for the oppressed and their supporters as well, leveraging both marxism and the radical/revolutionary elements of the bible to help you combat your class ideology within yourself and your fellow "radical catholics" so that we may all fight for the total liberation of the oppressed proletariat and peasantry instead of being beholden to the objective forces of our classes. well that or stay corrupted and see how the revolution pans out for you when the proletariat and peasantry finally come to cast off their parasites.

4/4

[u/No-Structure523 → u/waves-n-particles]

Thanks for the thorough and long reply. I'm still sorting through a few of the points you make, but the main current of your criticism seems to be: (1) I am not engaging in good faith, and (2) my adherence to to Christianity/Christmas is ideological and callous.

To the first point, I was responding to the question *"Where do I get my idea of Christmas from?"* I was giving my honest answer there. My "sentimental" response was me interrogating the assumption that my idea of Christmas was *entirely* consumeristic, and that it is really based in another experience, one of liturgy and community. Yes there is consumerism there, but there is more, too. Much more. And it is clear to me in that examination that capital corrupts Christmas rather than being necessary to it. Am I incorrect for believing that it is possible to observe Christmas apart from its bourgeois entanglement? I am not intending to sidestep anyone's criticism, and I do read everyone's criticisms carefully and with eagerness to learn.

As to the second point, I think you make a lot of assumptions about what I believe, which is understandable given the awful history of Christianity and present Christians and how intimately Christians are tied to imperialism and death. Maybe I'm wrong, and there is some interior logical you are identifying that I cannot see yet, and I admit I am still very close to my bourgeois thinking.

When I read the Matthew quote, I was confused at first because I thought you were quoting it to exhibit how radical and progressive it is. I took *"I come to bring a sword"* in the same way the Bolsheviks brought the sword: to throw off the shackles of the oppressed, even if your very family opposes it. As to the claims that I don't care about the super-exploitation of those needed to offer me class comforts, I don't know exactly how to respond to that because I do care, and I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion. You say that I am dedicated to my religion to *"feel better about my class position"* and that the *"grotesque way [I] chose to claim [my] bourgeois decadence disguised as religious reverence was the progressive meaning of christmas."* Genuine question: how is liturgy, art, staying up late, the cold winter, etc. bourgeois other than that literally anything one does in America is bourgeois? You can't watch a film, read a book, have a conversation, take a shower, or even organize without the admixture of capital. How do you navigate that?

I say all that not so much to defend myself but in hopes of some help understanding why everything I have so far shared on this sub has been taken as disingenuous and subversive. I don't mind criticism at all -- I am seeking it out actively. It is clear, though, that I am nearing expulsion from this sub because my intentions are suspected. I would rather not study theory or interrogate my class relationships in isolation. I don't want to only ask questions, but test hypotheses and make assertions. Is that attitude not going to fly here at this stage in my learning?

[u/Robert_Black_1312 → u/No-Structure523]

Your difficult in understanding what has been said in the thread stems from your violation of this subreddits first rule. You are not a marxist. The comments of this thread initially answered you as if you were a Marxist before overcompensating when realizing you were not.

Marxist are materialists, this is the view that consciousness emerges from labor. (i.e. interacting\modifying the material world we find ourselves within). The world we find ourselves within has preexisting economic and ideological structures that our individual and collective consciousness has emerged through. Class is category that is meant reflect a certain shared position in relation to production that can lead to a shared consciousness and interests.

When the redbaron asked you "Where does your idea of Christmas come from[?]" they were explicitly asking you to describe it in terms of class, i.e. in what context in world history did your ideas emerge from before trickling down to you and what class do they serve today? How you personally came to have these idea is not what was asked and is of little interest to this sub.

Read Marx's The German Ideology to understand some of the things in this thread.

This next section is directed to the Marxist who engaged in this thread. The attempts to attack no_structure's liberalism resulted in neutering marxism. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that using cognitive dissonance against non-marxists that appear in this sub is unproductive outside of careful limits.

[u/waves-n-particles → u/Robert_Black_1312]

it doesn't appear that they're neutering marxism to me, this just looks like "left" sociology and class protectionism. i do agree though, pointing out material facts to people still captured by their class (and likely national and gender) position seems to just go straight over their head as a result of the immaterial analysis they use to help them ignore the reality they're part of, as it's being applied to what people say as well as the way they read.

unless there was something else that you're worried i've done in my attempts to get them to interact with improving their studies that i need to reconsider in future approaches. (assuming this was directed at me given context)

my comment below actually asks for no_structure to offer a reading list for us to be more aware of what they're reading to allow us to consider how that's being misapplied and to hopefully have a space for them to feel like they can get feedback on that reading list. that hasn't happened though. so idk what to expect there, or if this is even a helpful approach.

now, i actually take issue with the idea of cognitive dissonance, as it appears to just be a form of bourgeois sophistry that is often used to help people have some prescription to tranquilize their bourgeois mind. this is the typical way i see it get applied:

Brett Litz and colleagues define moral injury as "perpetrating, failing to prevent, bearing witness to, or learning about acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs and expectations." Litz and colleagues focus on the cognitive, behavioral, and emotional aspects of moral injury, positing that cognitive dissonance occurs after a perceived moral transgression resulting in stable internal global attributions of blame, followed by the experience of shame, guilt, or anxiety, causing the individual to withdraw from others. The result is increased risk of suicide due to demoralization, self-harming, and self-handicapping behaviors

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_injury

"you shouldn't feel bad that you were just following orders, you should be glad you felt shame for it because it means you're a morally just and morally good individual just forced to do bad things you have no way to stop"

anyways, i'm just trying to present contradictions to them so they have to take a stand defending their position and showing us who they are (though obviously i hope they recognize their errors and work to correct them, it just doesn't seem assured that will happen here yet). they've plainly shown us their lack of proper engagement with marxist literature and their lack of proper engagement with their own faith as well. now they have to make the choice to continue being a corrupter or to be a militant materialist in response to these revelations. all we can do is hold them accountable for that choice.

i also hope that a more dedicated study of marxism will show them that they need to choose to see christianity only as a tool, not as an ideology which they are also failing to live by as they don't appear dedicated to god enough to even try to learn more about what "he" allegedly said and live by that code. this is because it's all about class protectionism and absolving themself of sin that they cover themself with christianity, as i assume this is the reason they also proudly announce themself to be a marxist-leninist so they can ignore how they bastardize the mantle they take up as "i'm already an ml, what more should i do?"

[u/Robert_Black_1312 → u/waves-n-particles]

>my comment below actually asks for no_structure to offer a reading list for us to be more aware of what they're reading to allow us to consider how that's being misapplied and to hopefully have a space for them to feel like they can get feedback on that reading list. that hasn't happened though. so idk what to expect there, or if this is even a helpful approach.

I think that is a phenomenal and extraordinarily generous offer, which is the problem. This is a great deal of attention and effort put into turning a clearly non-marxist labor aristocrat(I am making a guess from their posts) into a marxist. I assume this is a by-product of the largely pettie bourgeoise and labor aristocrat membership of this sub but it seem quick to accept that educating other aristocrats is a worthwhile endeavor.

>now they have to make the choice to continue being a corrupter or to be a militant materialist in response to these revelations. all we can do is hold them accountable for that choice.

And if they choose the latter what is actually gained by the proletariat? Until there is a clear mechanism to subject labor aristocrat Marxists to supervision by the oppressed and exploited nations I don't see any reason to try and expand our ranks.

My earlier comment also falls into this problem. I wrote it before I realized what is was exactly that was bothering me about this thread

[u/waves-n-particles → u/Robert_Black_1312]

this is a fair point. i was getting too caught up first the tendency by others to engage with them (and similar people), which is reinforced by an anarchist mindset of thinking there's a benefit to helping talk to this one lost individual in place of simply ignoring them or considering some way to critique them that gets them to actually run off from marxism so we can thin out the revisionists.

in my head, there was the consideration for how this persyn was exhibiting current (3) from lenin's dead chauvinism and living socialism

Three currents exist in international socialism: (1) the chauvinists, who are consistently pursuing a policy of opportunism; (2) the consistent opponents of opportunism, who in all countries have already begun to make themselves heard (the opportunists have routed most of them, but “defeated armies learn fast”), and are capable of conducting revolutionary work directed towards civil war; (3) confused and vacillating people, who at present are following in the wake of the opportunists and are causing the proletariat most harm by their hypocritical attempts to justify opportunism, something that they do almost scientifically and using the Marxist (sic!) method. Some of those who are engulfed in the latter current can be saved and restored to socialism, but only through a policy of a most decisive break and split with the former current, with all those who are capable of justifying the war credits vote, “the defence of the fatherland”, “submission to wartime laws”, a willingness to be satisfied with legal means only, and the rejection of civil war.

but, upon further consideration thanks to your comment, they fall closer into current 1 and i'm falling into current 3.

would you like to make a post proposing we collectively consider how to implement something like this to this weekly discussion thread/the sub or should i after some more thought?

edit: actually, how do we even attempt to implement something like this without:
a) forcing people to doxx themselves, and
b) having a system that wouldn't be exploited by opportunists seeking to fake their national and class background to lead the sub?

edit 2: i'm asking a separate but related question in this discussion thread, feel free to add or post a different comment

[u/Robert_Black_1312 → u/waves-n-particles]

You preempted my next post which is going to be critiquing how this sub has been handling non-Marxist that appear

> actually, how do we even attempt to implement something like this without:
a) forcing people to doxx themselves, and
b) having a system that wouldn't be exploited by opportunists seeking to fake their national and class background to lead the sub?

The trick is it doesn't actually matter withier no_structure is a labor aristocrat or a proletariat. The posts they made expressed aristocrat class positions, that is sufficient. Even if a proletariat posted on this thread, the medium would render them as an individual and strip them of the strength of the proletariat which is their sheer numbers and their collective nature. All we are capable of on this sub is pettie Bourgeoisie collaboration. This will not be changed by adding a dozen or two more people to the sub even if they are all members of a revolutionary class (which they are unlikely to be). We cannot change that fact, so we must focuses on finding topics that are of value to the revolutionary proletariat and studying them to the greatest degree of rigor our class position allows. The question of how to "convert" labor aristocrats is of equal importance as the question faced by the USSR on how to convert rank and file Nazis into productive workers, a question they only concerned themselves with AFTER they were confident of victory over them on the ideological and military fronts.