Yes, to reach people we need to be where the people are, and nowadays a lot of people are online. Of course, this shouldn’t and can’t replace real life organizing, but it should supplement it.

From Roderic Day’s ‘The Virtual Factory’:

this doesn’t mean that the amount of time we spend online should be treated as something shameful, silly, or superficial. It absolutely deserves to be handled with greater seriousness and discipline.

(…)

There is no way to retreat into a pre-internet era. Instead of self-flagellating and guilt-tripping, pretending we can escape our wired future by unplugging, we need to take our participation in the medium seriously and in a way that integrates well with our offline organization.

Actually, the authors of this are professors from that university, lmao.

They were even given some grants and awards.

Arxiv and similar services are mostly used in actual academic circles to publish pre-prints or just to get articles out there while they’re still being reviewed by actual journals, so it’s possible that this will be published in a journal at some point.

Thank you for the kind words, comrade!

Maybe a combination of something like the importance placed on forms while neglecting substance, and something like this:

The problem here, in short, is elitism. Unchecked, presumed to have been neutralized in some way by the adoption of a counter-cultural ethos, it festers. The way to solve it, however, is not to shy away from studying or exposing bourgeois propaganda, but to delve even deeper and radicalize our understanding of it.

I think an important distinction to make here is that between the directly oppressed who might just in the earlier stages of class consciousness and class struggle sort of replicate the form through which they are oppressed, and those who are part of the privileged groups but claim to support anti-colonialism, anti-imperialism, etc.

I would also say that due to their often more privileged position, these types, due to their remaining idealism tend to think they have all the answers, and that they know better than others. A sort of western chauvinism which takes its own answers to be the absolutely correct everywhere else. Just because they proclaim, or maybe even truly believe in these causes, they cannot look past their own chauvinism and continue to absolutize their point of view.

Losurdo describes chauvinism, in regards to nationalism and internationalism, but I think his formulation can be extrapolated onto other forms of chauvinism as well:

The repression of national particularities in the name of an abstract ‘internationalism’ facilitates things for a nation intent presenting itself as the embodiment of the universal; and this is precisely what chauvinism—in fact, the most fanatical chauvinism—consists in.

Losurdo also ventures into an analysis of similar phenomena to what you describe and characterizes them as populism which stems from a reductive reading of the theory of class struggle (among other things) which limits it to just oppressed vs oppressor, and tends to lead to putting the oppressed identity on a pedestal without much analysis. He deals with it in chapter 13 of Class Struggle if you want to read it all, which I definitely recommend.

This is a further expression of populism: moral excellence lies with the oppressed who rebel and those who offer help to the oppressed and rebels. But once they have won power, the latter cease to be oppressed and rebels and forfeit their moral excellence. And the one who, by virtue of aiding them, basks in their moral excellence also finds himself in serious difficulties. This is a dialectic already analysed by Hegel in connection with the Christian commandment to aid the poor, which manifestly assumes the permanence of poverty.

Thank you!

there isn’t a great way to measure it

I agree, the answer is far from clear, and it heavily depends on which particular situations are being analyzed and by which metrics.

I also agree about the nature of the debate, but I can see it possibly stemming from the efforts to agitate and organize workers in the European cities, especially at the time and with the conditions being described as worse for the proletariat. This is a useful lens through which to view many of these Marxist texts - they were made in an effort to solve particular questions and practical problems raised at the time, but they still do contain general theory which we can apply to our situations.

I’ll have to add that book to my reading list!

As regards Losurdo, I have nothing but praise for his writing. Class Struggle deals most closely with Marxist theory and is very illuminating in that respect, but all of his works on various aspects of the history of philosophy are excellent! I would say he is by far the best authority when it comes to the various philosophies of the 19th and 20th centuries. The only problem is that not all of his works have been translated to English, but the number is growing.

If I were to hazard a guess, that would be one of the reasons why the Settler States of Amerika managed to both pass and maintain so many explicitly racist laws

Yes, it’s a factor for sure. Another is the fact that the US was from the start designed to be a racial state, and with the genocide of the natives and the stealing of the land, the enslavement of black people, and a constant influx of white settlers from Europe who were allowed to participate in the “white democracy” at least partially, the racial lines were firmly established and persisted even long after the military defeat of the Southern states in the civil war. Similar racial states were also South Africa and Rhodesia, for example, which also managed to keep their racial regimes longer than most other former colonial states.

This article also provides an eye-opening view into the various financial practices used by western capitalists to exploit entire countries.

There were some forms of slaves getting their freedom individually though

Certainly, but I don’t think these played nearly as much of a role as class struggle and legal abolishment of slavery, even if the condition of recently freed slaves was on average hardly better than while they were slaves. In the US especially, they were still barred from owning property and were more or less forced into indentured servitude or similar relationships.

I admit, I don’t have much knowledge on specific circumstances of slaves in colonies other than the US. The US did have lots of white indentures servants, but they were still treated better than black slaves or even free black people. Even with their contradictory talk of liberty while holding slaves, the laws the US enacted in fear of slave uprisings sometimes ended up limiting what the slave owners themselves could do with their slaves. Not only were free black people prevented from organizing in all ways - even talking on the street among free black people was dangerous at times, education of black people, slave or free, was forbidden because it was seen as dangerous - even when slave owners wanted to educate their slaves, they couldn’t. Other laws also affected slave owners limiting what they could do with their slaves and enforcing certain things as mandatory, especially when it came to harsh punishments. Laws forbidding race mixing also prevented slave owners from recognizing any children they had with slaves which they might’ve wanted to recognize and limits were placed on individual slave owners from freeing their slaves. In their panic and fear of slave uprisings, the “liberty loving” slave owners created a society where even their own freedoms were limited.

I don’t think your analysis of the slave-proletariat comparison is quite what is meant by Engels here. Individual slaves that managed to escape did not have a good time, and in most cases did not make it very far. In the US, there were laws in place that mandated all free citizens to aid in the capture and return of escaped slaves and even if someone wanted to be an innocent bystander, they could be charged as helping the slaves escape. Slave relation were very much class relations - take a look at the Santo Domingo/Haiti revolution for example.

I made a comment on the cross-posted version of this post which includes some discussion of the slave-proletarian comparison which you can check out: https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/925271

I’ll give some of my own thoughts and then add to some of yours.

Principles of Communism was a fun re-read for me, and I found the text much better and more informative than I remember it being from when I first read it during my initial introduction to Marxism. I read it together with the Manifesto and it didn’t really stay in my mind as that much of an important work - it was overshadowed by the Manifesto, I guess. Now, I would definitely say it doesn’t deserve that fate and has a firm place of its own in Marxist theory.

It clearly defines certain important terms and concepts and compares them to similar ones present and even prevalent at the time of its writing, and talks about many thing which we still see today, for example, the periodic crises of capitalism and the realities of class struggle. I certainly see it being a beneficial read for workers organizing in 1847 and can see why it still remains a staple Marxist text, especially one that’s recommended to people newer to Marxism.

As for some of its faults, the big thing that jumps out to me is the talk of labor as a commodity, which is to be expected since this is a text from 1847 and Marx didn’t complete his critique of political economy by then. The commodity which the proletarian sells is later corrected to labor-power which is a change in texts from 1859 onward, and which Engels explains in his Introduction to Wage Labour and Capital quite nicely.

I found the bit about proles potentially being worse off than slaves strange.

This was a quite common assessment in those times. Whether it was correct or not isn’t that clear. Slaves, while not free and, as such, not treated as people but property, were still given food, water, and shelter by the slave owners who has some interest in maintaining them as their property. Of course they were still slaves, and were treated horribly as such, especially in the US South. On the other hand, especially the early proletariat, while recognized as more human than the slaves, was largely just treated as mere labor machines, working longer than 12 hours per day for very small wages and even being worked to death in some cases. They mostly lived in horrid, overcrowded, unsanitary conditions. If they had lost their job, they had no guarantees or social safety nets and would lose their housing and be unable to afford food. Practices of jailing and then basically enslaving through workhouses of people without jobs were quite common. The condition of the proletariat improved massively when it started to organize and gain some ground through class struggle. So, while from our modern perspective a statement like that is clearly absurd, things weren’t so clear back then. The slaves, while their position is clearly worse in general, could have had some better outcomes than the early proletarians.

The way he described the ‘civilized’ Europeans spreading technology to the ‘barbarous’ nations is definitely problematic in its framing.

This is a feature that oscillates back and fourth somewhat in Marx and Engels, although they seemed to form a good anti-colonial line by the end. They mostly - and by Engels’ own admission, perhaps erroneously - focused on the economic side of class struggle, especially in Europe. In terms of solid theory, this is a problem solved by Lenin who fully expands the theory of class struggle to encompass all aspects, and not just the binary of proletariat-bourgeoisie which is dominant in the West. The seeds of this are present already in Marx and Engels, but aren’t conclusively worked out. For a full discussion on this I would recommend checking out Losurdo’s Class Struggle, specifically chapters 4, 5, and 6 - although the entire book is an amazing read.

P.S. - The link to the Principles of Communism in your post just leads to this post and not to the text itself.

I think your argument here speaks to and can be connected with a broader phenomenon that we can recognize even before capitalist relations became dominant. The relationship of religion as the opium of the masses that masks and justifies certain exploitative relations in society while at the same time providing benefit to the oppressed as spiritual respite and allowing them to feel good in spite of their material conditions.

Of course, the problem persists and is even worsened in capitalism along with massive alienation. Today in the West, the place of religion was largely taken by consumerism of various kinds and I think that your analysis of the stim industry fits into that nicely. As you also say, we shouldn’t attack people engaging in this type of consumerism nor should we focus on individual decisions, but should understand the material conditions that create the need and seek to build a better society where such practices cease to be necessary.

This is just chauvinistic, liberal nonsense. Incoherent screaming about Russia interfering with the supposed “democratic processes” in the West. I’ll just quote one of your finishing statements about a country run by capitalists which still has a hereditary monarchy to highlight the absurdity of your entire article.

The battle to preserve the integrity of British politics and protect the nation’s democratic soul is ongoing, and it requires the unwavering resolve of its citizens and leaders alike.

Even apart from white chauvinism, people seem to be buying into western chauvinism in general, and from there it’s not a long road to this kind of sinophobia and anti-Asian racism.

I’m glad to see this is back. I think you should repost the original concept/plan for this so people who haven’t seen it before can easily get on board.

I think another point to consider with European 20th century fascism is the distinction between Judeophobia and antisemitism and the latter’s creation in response to the social and economic rise of Jews in the 19th century. Judeophobia died down in the West but antisemitism is still quite prevalent. As @Beat_da_Rich pointed out, the same thing is being done today against China (example 1, example 2), and we also see some Chinese people joining in on the anti-China rhetoric. We also see other far-right movements in the West using the same tropes of “conspiratorial cabal” or “controlling elites” - for example in transphobic or anti-“woke” messaging (which is sometimes also linked to anti-China messaging).

Roderic Day summarizes the distinction between racism in general and the specific phenomenon of antisemitism/sinophobia by defining the latter as “Racism but specifically against ‘races’ that are powerful enough to challenge the ‘white race’” which I think is a good description. It highlights how the phenomenon is created and centers the fact that the main targeted group can change in relation to its economic and social status.

Today’s Nazis still do hate Jews, but the main enemy now seems to be China and Chinese people. Many fascist groups today even like Israel due to it being a colonial, apartheid ethno-state. At least from what I’ve seen, a lot (most?) of the more mainstream, specifically anti-Jewish propaganda today is targeted more towards individuals like Soros or specific organizations/companies rather than Jewish people as a whole.

Gabriel Rockhill also has work on fascism as innate to capitalism and the false narratives of fascism being defeated in WW2 by liberalism.

Here’s a really good article on fascism which broadens the definition from the commonly understood one, and connects fascism to colonialism and capitalism/liberal democracy in general.

Unfortunately, I think most of the libs will just go along with whatever the mainstream view becomes, regardless of contradictions. Not like they really care about any of this anyway.

The substance is the actual thing in reality while the form refers to various ways it’s presented outwardly in specific circumstances. Good examples are how the rule of the bourgeoisie is the substance of capitalist states but the form can differ (liberal democracy, military dictatorship, etc.), or how class struggles (substance) take on different forms in different contexts (proletariat vs bourgeoisie, colonized people fighting for national liberation, etc.). On a rhetorical level, liberalism, for example, talks about defense of human rights, equality, and freedom (form) while in actuality (substance) liberalism justifies exploitation, slavery, genocide, etc. which we also see it doing materially.

Your comment here reminds me of Lenin’s view of dialectical epistemology and human knowledge in general from his notes where he puts it as eloquently as ever:

Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge.

(…)

Human knowledge is not (or does not follow) a straight line, but a curve, which endlessly approximates a series of circles or a spiral.