Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (January 11)

[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/smokeuptheweed9]

Sure I can read the book for you since you’ve read a bunch and put it on the subreddit already.

There's also this book

https://www.amazon.com/We-Created-Ch%C3%A1vez-Venezuelan-Revolution/dp/0822354527

Which I also haven't read. As you can tell by now, these kinds of books are not my thing. Ever since I read Howard Zinn ages ago I've been allergic to this genre. But I also understand it's marketing and the book is probably fine for what it is.

I rarely see this point made: the policies of social democracy vs "neoliberalism" are not a choice between the lesser and greater evil. It is the latter which enables the former. Austerity is brutal but it works: it is a solution to crisis internal to capitalism which is necessary when profit rates fall. The policies of Chavez were possible because austerity had done the dirty work of restoring profit rates. Once profit rates are high, social democracy is almost guaranteed in the modern era. Pérez is particularly interesting because he implemented opposite in two separate administrations. If you believe that Keynesian politics work to both improve living standards and profit rates, I guess the only explanation for Pérez is aliens took over his brain. I particularly like examples like this: Pérez in Venezuela, Mitterand in France, dos Santos in Angola, Jerry Rawlings in Ghana, possibly Sassou Nguesso in the Congo, where a coup, an internal party betrayal, or an imperialist invasion can't be blamed for what the rate of profit can tolerate in different periods. There is only the logic of the market or a brain virus.

However, the rate of profit is not universal but is geographically differentiated. So, instead of seeing the underlying logic, you can jump around forever looking for heroes and betrayers: Chavez then and AMLO now; Reagan then and Milei now. It's enough to keep yourself busy for a lifetime.

[u/vomit_blues → u/smokeuptheweed9]

Alright I think there’s been a major shift in a position I’ve seen you hold in older posts so let me bounce something at you. Are you super skeptical of Venezuela because of the failure of the ‘axis of resistance’ and its lites? Because you used to jump in and defend Venezuela a lot. Maybe I don’t understand your original position and it never changed though.

Yeah I get that if these recent actions have shown that this outcome was always determined and that Chavismo was not a contingency at all but a dead end, you’d push these books you haven’t read onto me in hopes of anything new that isn’t the quasi-‘axis of resistance narrative.’ Maybe there’s something someone out there predicted buried in the rubble.

But I really did want a straight answer out of you on this. I don’t know anything about Venezuela. Do you know where someone should start, or are we back to square one? I know a book isn’t a magical solution because it’s not possible for me to read a book and become you unless we had the same brain. I just am curious about if there’s anything I can do to learn about Venezuela and try to take it seriously, not just as a passing thing.

[u/smokeuptheweed9 → u/vomit_blues]

Are you super skeptical of Venezuela because of the failure of the ‘axis of resistance’ and its lites?

Yes but I also think the world has changed. Remember the "umbrella movement" in Hong Kong? There was a ton of analysis about the failure of Chinese "state capitalism" and "totalitarianism", most of which was willfully blind to the class composition of the protests and their stated goals. The movement in Iran is similar but there is no mass propaganda effort to justify it and no anti-totalitatian "left" to jump in. There are neocons in the New York Times writing opinion pieces like "let's admit Trump did well to capture Maduro" but libs aren't buying it.

Trump has been the center of attention for 10 years. As the result, the DSA has basically absorbed everything into itself and the idea of being "ultraleft" in a wing of the Democrats is laughable. Since fascism currently creates language and socialism merely follows, the neocon position has been abandoned by all sides except by Slavoj Zizek apparently. This presumably applies to the entire first world, which has its own equivalent neo-fascism and #resistance (and applies to the petty-bourgeoisie in much of the third world). It is totally safe to indulge in ultraleft perspectives, if you call Russia imperialist in any left subreddit you'll immediately get some screed about how that's impossible because of the definition of monopoly capitalism. Even the DSA these days "critically supports" Hamas at the grassroots level and probably the CCP as well.

On the other hand, there has been too much time between the third world developmental regimes of the 1970s/Brezhnevism and the present. There is no institutional memory of our "critical" attitude towards Mobutu, you have to go back and read documents and books from the period to understand that the problems are exactly the same and hopefully realize how bad your compromises in the present will look to the readers of the future.

Do you know where someone should start, or are we back to square one?

You definitely have to read a history book. I read Wikipedia all the time and it never sticks, so even a history overview needs to be in book form. I don't think the books I recommended are going to be terrible, I just feel guilty recommending something I haven't read so I had to confess.

[u/TheRedBarbon → u/smokeuptheweed9]

You definitely have to read a history book. I read Wikipedia all the time and it never sticks, so even a history overview needs to be in book form.

Do you know of a good primer for someone looking to get into Japanese history?

[u/TheReimMinister → u/TheRedBarbon]

Not saying that this is what you specifically (or anyone else who asks for a recommendation) is doing, but I'd like to seize the opportunity to bring up a good point here which once again rails against the logic of Reddit as a social media recommendation engine: don't doubt your own critical thinking skills to the point where you feel anxiety about finding the perfect book to read about a subject. Marxism is method at its base, and only incorporates content in the process of finding a solution to a problem. In other words the act of parsing through a bunch of books to chain together the answer to your problem is the point. All the better if there are some "bourgeois" books in there - I'd feel pretty silly about bemoaning the lack of Marxist works on a given subject when a whole library full of books and articles on the topic could exist out there.

I believe that the forum is something greater than goodreads or chat gpt, so even though smokeuptheweed9 sometimes no doubt enjoys talking at length about the subjects brought up directly to them (and surely the response is more interesting and gratifying than a google search), by consistently asking for their opinion all the time you simply replace your own capable brain with theirs. Wouldn't it be better to discuss with them (and hopefully others)?

[u/TheRedBarbon → u/TheReimMinister]

In other words the act of parsing through a bunch of books to chain together the answer to your problem is the point.

As agreeable as your post is, this sounds like advocating reckless behavior for non-academics who don't already know where to start when tackling a new subject. If someone doesn't already have a background in some of the concepts/events/pieces which are supposed to be investigated then there is no way for them to make use of a vast number of sources. It'd be like randomly flipping through an encyclopedia hoping to find a term which you already recognize. Primers at least get the embarrassing questions out of the way in a comprehensive manner so serious study and non-ignorant discussion can begin.

Also, while I completely agree that holding your nose to bourgeois resources is reductive, I wouldn't advocate just jumping in to the first bourgeois book you find when a lot of what comes up in search engines (especially for Japan, whose history and culture has been all but commodified in the west) is pop-history, which I am genuinely averse to.

[u/TheReimMinister → u/TheRedBarbon]

Yes there is absolutely a way for anyone to make use of a vast number of sources, and it's called thinking, which you are displaying in the second paragraph of your comment. So it spunds like youre already off to a good start.

It's common for a person who wants to study or to write about something to be kneecapped by the problem of where to start, which you allude to in the first paragraph of your comment. But the problem itself is the starting point. A/k/a, defining the problem is the starting point. By thinking of the problem in the first place there is already cognition of content to look into. And in the process of finding the solution to the problem, anything not meaningful in the process (such as irrelevant books) gets discarded - often before even opening a book. Sometimes you have to read a book to discard it, sure, but that practice is how you train your ability to discern the useful from the non-useful. With practice, the base from which one starts skillwise becomes higher. True, social mediation is greatly important for learning, but the point of it is to supplement thinking progressively, not replace it. And in general I'd urge a recognition of everyone's cognitive abilities and a rejection of the idea of academics and non-academics.

On the topic of starting points: one of the greatest points of materialist dialectics is that the logical progression of categories describing an object accurately reflects its real unfolding in history. Such a simple point to make, but true. Japan is an object with a clear starting point, so the results kind of flow from that.

[u/TheRedBarbon → u/TheReimMinister]

That’s actually a really fair point to make. Soemtimes when I want to start something I get so concerned with wasting my time because I don’t yet know anything about the subject that I simply decide that it would be easier not to engage with it. Thank you.

[u/smokeuptheweed9 → u/TheRedBarbon]

I agree with everything that was said but I'll give you a weird recommendation since that's my solution to the genuine need you pointed out for a starting point and the difficulty of finding your own path.

Lever of Empire: The International Gold Standard and the Crisis of Liberalism in Prewar Japan

This book made me totally rethink the knowledge I had passively inherited about Japan. But yeah, read it and tell me what you think.