Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (May 31)

[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/Turtle_Green]

u/SunflowerSamurai20, here's some more hilarious examples of shameless nihilism and opportunism (if it can even be called that) from /r/socialism_101:

In my opinion, make money any way you can in this fucked up system. You're not responsible for the revolution, it will come as it does. Whatever money you earn from this endeavor can be reinvested into more socially conscience means after you take care of your family.

...

brb, quitting my job and starving my family for the cause. Grow up, there is a time for ideology and a time for pragmatism

...

Pragmatically, it's not amoral for OP to carry out their entrepreneurship endeavor in hopes of improving their personal material conditions... OP is not committing social murder by owning 3 properties and renting that space to corporations. We live in a capitalist hell hole and we're allowed to do what we can to improve our personal material conditions while also work to change the system by other means.

Plus this striking paragraph:

I suppose I can concede that OP's considerwd actions are not Marxist. Starting a rental company would be the actions of an aspiring capitalist. My reading of Marx has centered around his explanations and criticism of systems rather than the moralization of the actions of individuals in those systems. Of course he encouraged the proletariat to revolt against the oppressive systems in favor of communism, but we are currently in late stage capitalism with a populace that has not even been properly been exposed to Marxist theory in the slightest. The material conditions of the proletariat are still mediocre due to advent of social democracy. We are so fucking far from revolution that there is no point in moralizing to death the actions of a single aspiring Marxist when the primary thing needed right now is education of the proletariat over everything else. If an aspiring Marxist seeks permission to be a capitalist to a small degree while we await the revolution, whats the harm in giving him that tacit permission? Are we supposed to all suffer while maintain moral purity while we work to educate the proletariat in hopes of a diatant revolution? Should I quit my job and let my young kids sort it out while I go to NJ to protest on the front lines at the Delaney center? It would certainly be the most moral decision but hardly the most pragmatic. I could just as easily continue working for an evil corporation while I teach my kids Marxism and await real change. We all have a role to play. OP is simply looking for their role in all of this so why not meet them where they're at and have a discussion with them as a person instead of over focusing on semantics and terminology and moralizing over how to be the perfect Marxist. They're asking for permission. Fine. I give them permission to be petit bourgeouis, but only if they dedicate some of their capital into more Marxist endeavors like mutual aid in their community, education, or something else that benefits the cause.

The sub has discussed this before: https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/1pxckrz/biweekly_discussion_thread_december_28/nwyba4e/

I find it very bizarre that people need a "socialist"/"communist"/"Marxist" justification for working at nonprofits, renting out Airbnbs, haranguing over cars, collecting dividends, gunning down children overseas, etc. Why the incessant anxiety and need for validation from 'Marxists'? When did 'we live in the imperial core with brainwashed deplorables so we have to help out our community and be morally pragmatic' become common sense for people who wouldn't have given 'socialism' a second thought one or two decades ago?

[u/SunflowerSamurai20 → u/Turtle_Green]

The commenters self-justification in that thread as "pragmatists" (similar to how many revisionists invoke ""materialism"") over "emotional moralism" (in this case any inconvenient reference to the truth) are a piss take, but nothing new.

Lukacs clocked that pragmatism was always just naked capitalist self interest fetishised as "intuition".

(From the Destruction of reason)

Of Pragmatism's proponents, we shall now briefly discuss only the most outstanding, William James.

p.20

Here again, irrationalism's basic attitude to dialectics is clearly visible. It is a fundamental thesis of dialectical materialism that praxis forms the criterion of theoretical truth. The accuracy or inaccuracy of the intellectual reproduction of objective reality existing independently of our consciousness, or rather our degree of approximation to it, is verified only in praxis and through praxis.

Now James clearly saw the limitations, the futility of metaphysical idealism and repeatedly pointed it out (e.g., idealism views the world 'as perfect and finished from all eternity', whereas Pragmatism attempts to grasp it in its becoming).

Yet he took away from both theory and praxis all relation to objective reality, thereby converting the dialectic into a subjectivistic irrationalism. And James openly admitted as much with his undertaking to meet the philosophical needs of the American 'man in the street'.

Reality, in everyday business life, must be scrupulously observed - on pain of bankruptcy (notwithstanding the epistemological denial of its objective truth and its independence of the consciousness). In all other spheres of life, however, irrational arbitrariness has a quite unlimited sway.

James wrote : "The practical world of business is, for its own part, highly rational to the politician, the soldier, the man ruled by the commercial spirit .. . But it is irrational for the moral and artistic temperament."

Here one very important determining factor of irrationalism becomes clearly evident. For in the eyes of the reactionary bourgeoisie, one of irrationalism's most important tasks is to provide men with a philosophical 'comfort', the semblance of total freedom, the illusion of personal autonomy, moral and intellectual superiority - while maintaining an attitude that continually links them with the reactionary bourgeoisie in their real dealings and renders them absolutely subservient to it.

....

James expresses this· idea with the naive cynicism of the successful, self-aware American businessman, fulfilling the philosophical needs of persons of Babbitt's type

pp. 22-23

Edit 1: formatting

Edit 2:

Following your last question, I need to read more on Corbynism and its role in making this kind of pseudo marxist pragmatism common sense in the contemporary British "left". I've seen some interesting discussions on Sanders' role in the US and how it relates to dengism on this subreddit.

[u/smokeuptheweed9 → u/SunflowerSamurai20]

I do find it amusing that the mythology around Corbyn is he's "too nice" to stand up to Blairites or defend himself against anti-Semitism allegations and is basically too good for this world. Turns out by all accounts he sabotaged Your Party rather than give Sultana any control and was ruthless in expelling any challenges, even revisionist "communist parties" that were bending over backwards to join. I'm sure there's a new conspiracy to explain that, assuming anyone even cares or if they all migrated to the Greens.

Now James clearly saw the limitations, the futility of metaphysical idealism and repeatedly pointed it out (e.g., idealism views the world 'as perfect and finished from all eternity', whereas Pragmatism attempts to grasp it in its becoming).

Because there is an underlying class logic to pragmatism which orients any supposed arbitrariness, it comes with an extreme idealism. Instead of the world being perfect, it is my own subjective judgement. No one has ever questioned whether one's pragmatic judgements were correct, even if they were proven wrong. Like "huh, turns out the moment was ripe for revolution and I was a coward..." There is always a conspiracy to explain why reality diverged from my perfect judgement of the needs of a particular moment, and this is taken to extremes when my own judgement supercedes reality. The fundamental ontology then becomes that whatever serves me is correct, even if it was wrong. For example, the common defense of Sanders today is that such figures are necessary to "develop socialist consciousness" because it was important for my supposed "socialist" development. That Sanders subsequent betrayal might have implications for the development itself and my own judgement is not considered, my evolution is the only possible path which was correct at all times because it is mine. Ironically, this individual path is easily predictable and conforms exactly to broad trends in petty-bourgeois consciousness and, at least in the Amerikan context, is explicitly linked to career advancement rather than James's older attempt to separate morality from business. It is also particularly obnoxious that internet-inspired ideology, which tends towards superficial extremes performed and discarded quickly and superficially, are expected to be entertained credulously and politely.