it's because they haven't read it

:matt-jokerfied:

no seriously, on the recent chapo episode with brace they went on this 10 minute rant about the book and then every admitted they had never read it

good stuff

  • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Imagine if they were to read third worldist theory lmao, they'd self combust

    Imagine your average American leftist podcaster reading this:

    Unequal exchange means, rather, that the problem of the class struggle needs to be looked at on the world scale, and that national problems cannot be treated as mere epiphenomena accompanying the essential problem of the "pure" class struggle. It means that the bourgeoisie of the center, the only one that exists on the scale of the world system, exploits the proletariat every­where, at the center and at the periphery, but that it exploits the proletariat of the periphery even more brutally, and that this is possible because the objective mechanism upon which is based the unity that links it to its own proletariat, in an autocentric economy, and which restricts the degree of exploitation it carries out at the center, does not function at the extraverted periphery.

    The constitution of a world system, with the characteristics that this possesses, has not only made possible the development of socialist trends at the periphery, but has also shifted the principal nucleus of the forces of socialism, from the center to the periphery. It is a fact that transformations in a socialist direction have broken through only at the periphery of the system. To deny this is to deny the changes that have occurred in the world system, ultimately to deny the existence of a world system, and to forget that the periphery, integrated into the world system, has been very largely poletarianized.

    • Samir Amin, Unequal Development
    • Chapo_is_Red [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Chapo guys famously went on a liberal podcast and argued in favor Iran having nukes.

      I don't think they'd self combust.

    • KingPush [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      This quote is almost just restating Trotskys theory of Permanent Revolution. This might go into more detail, but these ideas have existed in left wing thought since the very beginning. It’s workers of the world unite of course.

      • ShittyWallpaper [they/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        I read the other day that the USSR failed to rally the working class of other countries to join in the revolution. That’s a Trotskyite idea, yes? It’s never been super clear to me whether Trotsky’s ideas were flawed or if people’s issues with him were more based in his personality and actions

        • TrashCompact [none/use name]
          ·
          2 years ago

          Part of the issue with Trotsky is that he was so petty and resentful that it seemed to dictate everything he did after a certain point. I hold that he is probably the most significant single figure in the compatible left's history, which is to say he was an immense anti-communist actor in consequence. He had not half as much interest in building communism as he did in attacking Stalin specifically.

          "No!" The doctrinaire Trot cries, "Haven't you heard of his theory on campism? We must be a third camp, neither the imperial core nor stalinism, and oppose both!"

          Oh yeah? Go fuck yourself. When your boy was in Mexico and the US Government, which was prosecuting the heads of America's communist party, asked him to testify, he agreed.

          Why? Was it to protect the leftist movement in America however he could? Or at all? No! It was to use the trial as a platform to denounce stalinism. You can see there that even in private correspondence with his "fellow" leftists in Latin America, not a single word is spared for helping the organization that is being beheaded or otherwise helping advance socialism in any way except for decrying stalinism.

          This guy was an absolute crank in the end and the only bad thing about his assassination is that it didn't happen sooner.

          • TrashCompact [none/use name]
            ·
            2 years ago

            The Great Famine was just a single famine, and the other two famines were in the decades before and after.

            I hate Trotsky and think he's a hack, but it's worth considering if his method would have prevented the creation of the pseudo-petite-bourgeois kulaks who made the famine so much worse.

              • TrashCompact [none/use name]
                ·
                2 years ago

                The kulaks were a historical class of peasants/small time lords, but their position was slightly transformed prior to the famine by earlier collectivization efforts that made the heads of local collectives essentially national bourgeois. At least, that was what I remember being told of it.

                They also killed an insane amount of livestock along in with destroying grain and farming tools.

        • KingPush [he/him]
          ·
          2 years ago

          The idea of permanent revolution isn’t about exporting revolution, though that’s the common misconception. The basic idea he came up with in 1905, during the first revolution. It basically states that the strength of the western bourgeoisie makes revolution in Western Europe unlikely initially.

          Because the western bourgeoisie is so powerful, they also end up controlling capitalist development outside the imperial core. This led to a situation in Russia where you had the development of capitalism, and a corresponding Russian proletariat, but with no development of a Russian national bourgeoisie. Therefore, it’s easier for socialist and communist movements to gain traction in the periphery, as they have no national bourgeoisie to confront.

          But this also means that national liberation movements cannot be led by the bourgeoisie in these peripheral countries, as they are kept impoverished by western capital. Only the working class has this ability, and because the working class will have to lead the movement, it behooves them to go beyond overthrowing the Tsar, Qing Emperor, etc. Instead they have to continue the revolution, which is where the term “permanent revolution” comes from and create socialism.

          And that I think is basically what the author of the above quote is saying as well, though with different vocabulary to what Trotsky would use.

            • KingPush [he/him]
              ·
              2 years ago

              It means going beyond a political revolution, and beginning to construct a socialist society. So, in Russia you had the overthrow of the Tsarist regime in the February revolution. But the liberals in Russia were extremely weak, so they couldn’t hold political power. So in order to sustain the revolution, the Bolsheviks had to take power in the October Revolution. From there, you see the beginning of an attempt to build a communist society.

              So the basic concept is that in peripheral states, the national bourgeoisie are either weak or compradors. Therefore it has to be the masses who overthrow the colonial or semi-colonial regime. And then there interests are still ultimately still proletarian so they have to continue the revolution and seek the establishment of socialism. They can’t (or maybe rather shouldn’t) construct a new capitalist state.

                • KingPush [he/him]
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Trotsky says in essence yes, Stalin says no. I don’t think Lenin was trying to copy Trotskys specific program or anything, but I think Trotsky’s analysis on how revolutions develop is sound.

                  The problem is that it’s not just analysis, but also a prospective political program. Stalin’s grievance is somewhat technical and has to do with the relationship of the peasantry to the new state. They both wrote a bunch of polemics. Stalin wrote ‘Trotskyism or Leninism’, and then Trotsky wrote ‘Results and Prospects’ in 1905 which is where he lays out the basic theory, and then ‘The Permanent Revolution’ which is a defense of the theory from Stalin’s criticism.

    • ShittyWallpaper [they/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      It means that the bourgeoisie of the center, the only one that exists on the scale of the world system, exploits the proletariat every­where, at the center and at the periphery, but that it exploits the proletariat of the periphery even more brutally, and that this is possible because the objective mechanism upon which is based the unity that links it to its own proletariat, in an autocentric economy, and which restricts the degree of exploitation it carries out at the center, does not function at the extraverted periphery.

      Talk about a garden path sentence. Am I understanding this right?

      [The center’s owners exist across the whole world. They’re the only class that this is true for. They exploit both the center’s workers and the periphery’s workers. However, they exploit the periphery’s workers more brutally. This is possible because the center’s economy is more self-centered, so it’s easier for the center’s workers to push back on brutality. The periphery’s economy, however, is focused on exports.]

      It’s very possible I’m misreading the sentence or misunderstanding the meaning of the words “autocentric” and “extraverted” in context or in practice

      • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yeah the original work is in French, this is a translation. Which is why some sentences don't go over well. But you understood it right as far as I can understand