Some people say: Since there is to be a rectification movement and since everyone is asked to express his opinions, one-sidedness is unavoidable, and therefore it seems that in calling for the elimination of one-sidedness, you really don't want people to speak up. Is this assertion right? It is naturally difficult for everyone to be free from any trace of one-sidedness. People always examine and handle problems and express their views in the light of their own experience, and unavoidably they sometimes show a little one-sidedness. However, shouldn't we ask them gradually to overcome their one-sidedness and look at problems in a relatively all-sided way? In my opinion, we should. We would be stagnating and we would be approving one-sidedness and contradicting the whole purpose of rectification if we did not make the demand that from day to day and from year to year more and more people should view problems in a relatively all-sided way. One-sidedness violates dialectics. We want gradually to disseminate dialectics and to ask everyone gradually to learn the use of the scientific dialectical method. Some of the articles appearing today are extremely pretentious but empty, without any analysis of problems or reasoned argument, and they carry no conviction. There should be fewer and fewer articles of this kind. When writing an article, one should not be for ever thinking, "How smart I am!" but should put oneself on a completely equal footing with one's readers. You may have been in the revolution for a long time, but if you say something wrong people will refute you all the same. The more you put on airs, the less people will stand for it and the less they will care to read your articles. We should do our work honestly, take an analytical approach, write convincingly and never strike a pose to overawe people.
Some people say that while one-sidedness can be avoided in a lengthy article, it is unavoidable in a short essay. Must a short essay inevitably be one-sided? As I have just said, it is usually hard to avoid one-sidedness, and there is nothing terrible if it creeps in to a certain extent. Criticism would be hampered if everyone were required to look at problems in an absolutely all-sided way. Nevertheless, we do ask everyone to try to approach problems in a relatively all-sided way and try to avoid one-sidedness not only in long articles but also in short articles, short essays included. Some people argue, how is it possible to undertake analysis in an essay of a few hundred or one to two thousand words? I say, why not? Didn't Lu Hsun do it? The analytical method is dialectical. By analysis, we mean analysing the contradictions in things. And sound analysis is impossible without intimate knowledge of life and without real understanding of the relevant contradictions. Lu Hsun's later essays are so penetrating and powerful and yet so free from one-sidedness precisely because by then he had grasped dialectics. Some of Lenin's articles can also be called short essays they are satirical and pungent, but without one-sidedness. Almost all of Lu Hsun's essays were directed at the enemy; some of Lenin's essays were directed at the enemy and others at comrades. Can the Lu Hsun type of essay be used against mistakes and shortcomings within the ranks of the people? I think it can. Of course, we must make a distinction between ourselves and the enemy, and we must not adopt an antagonistic stand towards comrades and treat them as we would the enemy. One must speak warmly and sincerely with a desire to protect the cause of the people and raise their political consciousness and must not indulge in ridicule or attack.
deadken posted:i mean have you actually read lenin on imperialism. imperialism is the system of wars and value extractions through which imperial core nations extract superprofits from the periphery. all the Cool Secret Ops you guys go on about constantly are the means imperialism uses to help institute and police this system, not the system itself. but from what your lad greavsy says you could be forgiven that these things are the fundamental evil in society, that if us imperialism were somehow able to stop doing them and just concentrate on the ceaseless immiseration of billions of people through industrial capitalism, everything would be fine. i mean it's not like he ever actually talks about labour and profit and value, much less any actual labour organising that takes place in his own community, y'know, the things marxists tend to talk about, because the approach he uses has very little to do with marxism. kthxbye
Bourgeois scholars and publicists usually come out in defence of imperialism in a somewhat veiled form; they obscure its complete, domination and its deep-going roots, strive to push specific and secondary details into the forefront and do their very best to distract attention from essentials by means of absolutely ridiculous schemes for “reform”, such as police supervision of the trusts or banks, etc. Cynical and frank imperialists who are bold enough to admit the absurdity of the idea of reforming the fundamental characteristics of imperialism are a rarer phenomenon.
...
In the United States, the imperialist war waged against Spain in 1898 stirred up the opposition of the “anti-imperialists”, the last of the Mohicans of bourgeois democracy who declared this war to be “criminal”, regarded the annexation of foreign territories as a violation of the Constitution, declared that the treatment of Aguinaldo, leader of the Filipinos (the Americans promised him the independence of his country, but later landed troops and annexed it), was “jingo treachery”, and quoted the words of Lincoln: “When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs others, it is no longer self-government; it is despotism.” But as long, as all this criticism shrank from recognising the inseverable bond between imperialism and the trusts, and, therefore, between imperialism and the foundations of capitalism, while it shrank from joining the forces engendered by large-scale capitalism and its development-it remained a “pious wish”.
Kautsky broke with Marxism by advocating in the epoch of finance capital a “reactionary ideal”, “peaceful democracy”, “the mere operation of economic factors”, for objectively this ideal drags us back from monopoly to non-monopoly capitalism, and is a reformist swindle.
Lenin's entire point is to take petit-bourgeois anti-imperialist critiques and link them the fundamental contradictions of capitalism, not to condemn anti-imperialists for not being anti-imperialist enough. besides this, focusing on economics instead of politics and the political contradictions of capitalism in the present world configuration is the wrong way. I have no idea what you're even arguing here for except that you're wrong but too stubborn to admit it.
deadken posted:but from what your lad greavsy says you could be forgiven that these things are the fundamental evil in society, that if us imperialism were somehow able to stop doing them and just concentrate on the ceaseless immiseration of billions of people through industrial capitalism, everything would be fine.
ya know i have my issues w/ greaves and got into a scuffle w/ him over whether or not Syria has engaged in neoliberal reform under Assad. but this is such a gross misrepresentation of everything he says.
i don't see how a single individual focusing on covert ops instead of the wider system of global capitalist exploitation is somehow crowding out analysis of the latter by other people. from what i can see Monthly Review does a good job of combining analysis of covert operations as a tool of imperialism with a wider analysis of imperialism itself.
the two subjects are by no means mutually exclusive.
deadken posted:i mean it's not like he ever actually talks about labour and profit and value, much less any actual labour organising that takes place in his own community
I've never convinced one person with any argument against capitalism ever. I'm a net loss when it comes to the marxism. I'm a convert, but such an idiot that people are reluctant to embrace it if it means associating with me.
aerdil posted:man the fact that mao managed to get people to sit through all these long speeches has gotta mean he was on to somethin
i generally assume that these sounded punchier in the original chinese
deadken posted:i mean have you actually read lenin on imperialism. imperialism is the system of wars and value extractions through which imperial core nations extract superprofits from the periphery. all the Cool Secret Ops you guys go on about constantly are the means imperialism uses to help institute and police this system, not the system itself. but from what your lad greavsy says you could be forgiven that these things are the fundamental evil in society, that if us imperialism were somehow able to stop doing them and just concentrate on the ceaseless immiseration of billions of people through industrial capitalism, everything would be fine. i mean it's not like he ever actually talks about labour and profit and value, much less any actual labour organising that takes place in his own community, y'know, the things marxists tend to talk about, because the approach he uses has very little to do with marxism. kthxbye
Yeahno. Read more Lenin. Next time's a ban.
aerdil posted:One-sidedness means thinking in terms of absolutes, that is, taking a metaphysical approach to problems. In the appraisal of our work, it is one-sided to affirm everything or to negate everything. There still are quite a few people inside the Communist Party and many outside it who do just that. To affirm everything is to see only the good and not the bad, and to welcome only praise and not criticism. To talk as though our work is good in every respect is at variance with the facts. It is not true that everything is good; there are shortcomings and mistakes. But neither is it true that everything is bad; that too is at variance with the facts. Here analysis is necessary. To negate everything is to think, without prior analysis, that nothing has been done well and that the great task of building socialism, the great struggle in which hundreds of millions of people are participating, is a complete mess with nothing commendable about it. Although there is a difference between many of those who hold such views and those who are hostile to the socialist system, these views are very mistaken and harmful and can only dishearten people. It is wrong to appraise our work either from the standpoint of affirming everything or from the standpoint of negating everything. We should criticize those people who take such a one-sided approach to problems, though of course we should do so in the spirit of "learning from past mistakes to avoid future ones and curing the sickness to save the patient", and we should give them help.
Some people say: Since there is to be a rectification movement and since everyone is asked to express his opinions, one-sidedness is unavoidable, and therefore it seems that in calling for the elimination of one-sidedness, you really don't want people to speak up. Is this assertion right? It is naturally difficult for everyone to be free from any trace of one-sidedness. People always examine and handle problems and express their views in the light of their own experience, and unavoidably they sometimes show a little one-sidedness. However, shouldn't we ask them gradually to overcome their one-sidedness and look at problems in a relatively all-sided way? In my opinion, we should. We would be stagnating and we would be approving one-sidedness and contradicting the whole purpose of rectification if we did not make the demand that from day to day and from year to year more and more people should view problems in a relatively all-sided way. One-sidedness violates dialectics. We want gradually to disseminate dialectics and to ask everyone gradually to learn the use of the scientific dialectical method. Some of the articles appearing today are extremely pretentious but empty, without any analysis of problems or reasoned argument, and they carry no conviction. There should be fewer and fewer articles of this kind. When writing an article, one should not be for ever thinking, "How smart I am!" but should put oneself on a completely equal footing with one's readers. You may have been in the revolution for a long time, but if you say something wrong people will refute you all the same. The more you put on airs, the less people will stand for it and the less they will care to read your articles. We should do our work honestly, take an analytical approach, write convincingly and never strike a pose to overawe people.
Some people say that while one-sidedness can be avoided in a lengthy article, it is unavoidable in a short essay. Must a short essay inevitably be one-sided? As I have just said, it is usually hard to avoid one-sidedness, and there is nothing terrible if it creeps in to a certain extent. Criticism would be hampered if everyone were required to look at problems in an absolutely all-sided way. Nevertheless, we do ask everyone to try to approach problems in a relatively all-sided way and try to avoid one-sidedness not only in long articles but also in short articles, short essays included. Some people argue, how is it possible to undertake analysis in an essay of a few hundred or one to two thousand words? I say, why not? Didn't Lu Hsun do it? The analytical method is dialectical. By analysis, we mean analysing the contradictions in things. And sound analysis is impossible without intimate knowledge of life and without real understanding of the relevant contradictions. Lu Hsun's later essays are so penetrating and powerful and yet so free from one-sidedness precisely because by then he had grasped dialectics. Some of Lenin's articles can also be called short essays they are satirical and pungent, but without one-sidedness. Almost all of Lu Hsun's essays were directed at the enemy; some of Lenin's essays were directed at the enemy and others at comrades. Can the Lu Hsun type of essay be used against mistakes and shortcomings within the ranks of the people? I think it can. Of course, we must make a distinction between ourselves and the enemy, and we must not adopt an antagonistic stand towards comrades and treat them as we would the enemy. One must speak warmly and sincerely with a desire to protect the cause of the people and raise their political consciousness and must not indulge in ridicule or attack.
As josip lenin said in his famous, Imperialism: THe Longest Stage and Area of Capitalism: my wife borat. Thank u. We will be cutting the cocaine cake in private, please leave the envelops at the door as u leave *mic drop* *picks mic back up* Dont forget to read my latest piece 'Borat Leninism' in the New York Inquiry Blogthink *fumbles mic*
Making some side gig money working memes, Kriss? Greets. I run the Heinous Headshots Meme page as well as teh So Damn Social Dem Memes page. Share, comment, and like? Btw great Click Hole article Not Even Marxist Hermeneutics Or Pictures of Cats Quiz. Papa likey!
{Another HeadShot Killa Klan Joint}
HenryKrinkle posted:ya know i have my issues w/ greaves and got into a scuffle w/ him over whether or not Syria has engaged in neoliberal reform under Assad. but this is such a gross misrepresentation of everything he says.
i don't see how a single individual focusing on covert ops instead of the wider system of global capitalist exploitation is somehow crowding out analysis of the latter by other people. from what i can see Monthly Review does a good job of combining analysis of covert operations as a tool of imperialism with a wider analysis of imperialism itself.
the two subjects are by no means mutually exclusive.
yeah you know what this is true, there's nothing that damaging about greaves et al because his constant frothing apoplexies about filthy imperial bourgeois plots, all day every day on twitter, do precisely as little real damage to capitalism or the communist movement as my facetious marxist analyses of game of thrones. but at least my stuff is fun to read and i know that what i'm saying isn't really true
they're a derridean, they're a trot, they're a bad anti-imperialist. nah, just an asshole
deadken posted:HenryKrinkle posted:ya know i have my issues w/ greaves and got into a scuffle w/ him over whether or not Syria has engaged in neoliberal reform under Assad. but this is such a gross misrepresentation of everything he says.
i don't see how a single individual focusing on covert ops instead of the wider system of global capitalist exploitation is somehow crowding out analysis of the latter by other people. from what i can see Monthly Review does a good job of combining analysis of covert operations as a tool of imperialism with a wider analysis of imperialism itself.
the two subjects are by no means mutually exclusive.yeah you know what this is true, there's nothing that damaging about greaves et al because his constant frothing apoplexies about filthy imperial bourgeois plots, all day every day on twitter, do precisely as little real damage to capitalism or the communist movement as my facetious marxist analyses of game of thrones. but at least my stuff is fun to read and i know that what i'm saying isn't really true
but nihilism is really boring
animedad posted:yeah otoh twitter is a corporate product meant to sell ads and extract surplus value from us through all waking hours, and reporters that suck #onthere should be reminded 24/7 by a user with a tiny Lenin avatar that there is no chance their sucking will ever be ignored or forgotten.
lol, i love this
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/russia/
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. The Accounts of British Officials in Russia.
Chapter 2. Further Secret Accounts
Chapter 3. Historical Roots of Tsarist Foreign Policy.
Chapter 4. Preliminary Remarks on the History of Russian Politics
Chapter 5. Pan-Slavism (from Engels)