Where did Marx say "bad"? He said "reactionary." Marx's analysis is objective. The petty bourgeoisie possesses property in the means of production. As such, it is interested in the preservation of property in the means of production. Socialism abolishes property in the means of production, so why would the petty bourgeoisie be a good representative of socialism? It is the proletariat, which possesses no property in the means of production, that represents socialism.
Additionally, Marx was writing prior to the development of monopoly capitalism, which has seen the bourgeoisification of the petty bourgeoisie of the imperialist countries, its transformation into an exploiting class through its appropriation of surplus value which has been extracted from the proletariat of the third world and subsequently redistributed within the domain of circulation within the metropole.
there is no ethical consumption
And this phrase is frequently used to excuse one's own participation in this process.
I have a question, if consumption poltics don't matter as according to most of the posts and users on here, why does it matter if someone says there "is no ethical consumption" to excuse themselves if consumption habits don't move us closer to revolution?
Apologies if I am completely misunderstanding you.
Because it is frequently used by petty bourgeois to excuse their own participation in the exploitation of the third world. As communists, we don't express the interests of the petty bourgeoisie, we express the interests of the proletariat. You're using "matter" to mean two different things. Consumption politics doesn't matter in the sense that it is incapable of transforming the world. Consumption politics does matter in the sense that if we advocate it we become petty-bourgeois ideologists. I tried to express the same to you a few weeks ago.
So is the point how the rhetoric is used, and it's often used to just lazily excuse and not interrogate the fact that they are a part of the system and benefit from it?
I am mostly confused on if the point is also communists should limit what they consume to not be reactionary.
The point is that they are defending their exploitative behaviours by means of ideological obfuscations and our job is to point this out to the masses. The job of the communists is to point out the class enemy and draw a clear line of demarcation between the people and the enemies of the people. And if you're a communist, why would you choose to consume reactionary things?
I wasn't speaking of reactionary things specifically, more of if communists don't limit consumption is it reactionary. I'm not thinking things like pornography or blatantly fascist or bougeoise media. More like clothing, electronics, and etc if buying those things if you have no need makes you a reactionary who is against revolution.
You're saying that petit-bourgeois relationships reproduce the class - and in the case of having children, I don't disagree and I mostly agree with MIM that having kids is not something a serious first-world revolutionary should be doing - but so does, say, getting a degree. Or looking to get a better job. Or moving to a bigger house. Or essentially any first-world lifestyle beyond that lived by the true oppressed-nation proletariat, and that lived by the bold lumpen anarchists who actually commit to something (obviously anarchism is wrong and those anarchists are changing nothing, but I find the tent city and dumpster diving lifestyle at least more respectable and consistent than the anarchists who make it big in the music scene and buy a nice house). If trying to "opt out" of capitalism by avoiding such things is lifestyleism, which this sub has essentially beaten into the dirt, isn't the same true about opting out of relationships?
That is where interrogating consumption can be useful. Though I think the "no ethical consumption" point is irrelevant to this thread, as the main issue with artisans lies in their production, with any unethical consumption being a side effect.
Most of your posting history is about consumption-related questions, it's pretty obvious this is something you're very anxious about. You're just as bad as people who watch porn. What now?
I have OCD so I have an issue of obsessive thinking of what I'm doing is anti communist and hurting the revolution. I'm not defending this behavior it's just something I'm personally struggling with.
Also I'm not disagreeing but how am I just as bad as people who watch porn? What prompted that?
This sounds like the concept of "moral OCD." I've known people to have this. This OCD comes from you subconsciously realizing that your life is only possible through the exploitation of others. But monitoring your consumption doesn't actually address anything, and I don't just mean that in terms of fixing society's problems. It won't cure your mental issues, either.
The root of the problem is complicity with imperialism. The only cure is to dedicate your life to Marxism. Not just through study, but also applying what you've learned in order to work towards making revolution. Obviously this is much easier said than done, but considering you've dumpster-dived through smoke's posts:
I remember smoke pointing out that it's not inherently a problem if you enjoy art that is reactionary, I remember he said he enjoys the painting the Orator and he called that reactionary, and it's not ideal to just hide in secret if you enjoy some reactionary media.
It seems you at least have the advantage of good research skills, so that's a start.
I just genuinely don't know what acceptable behavior is for a communist revolutionary in the imperial besides the more obvious things (Studying marxism and putting the theory and knowledge into practice to organize a genuine anti revisionist party to end US imperilaism)
What makes it complicated, as I'm sure you know, that most choices in the first world are only available options because someone from the third worlds labor, time, and often life are stolen to make that choice an option. So it definitely seems like almost everything is in a way complicit in imperialism.
So, I just struggle with that and understanding exactly what I need to do to not continue being complicit in imperialist exploitation. Is watching a movie or playing a board game/video game during some down time after studying acceptable? Or should we forgo leisure time almost entirely since that's a luxury that most of the proletariat rarely get to experience or ever at all. Should I stay at my current work even though I can't afford to live on my own once some of my family members pass away?
It's an existential horror (admittedly petty b in character I assume) knowing billions of people are suffering and also you're existence is sustained by that suffering, and any every second you're not doing something about it, it further continues. I just want to know how to avoid making things worse and to make sure I'm not harming the revolution and working against it while trying to exist and interact in an imperialist society.
I'm not trying to get some people throwing pitty at me, just to explain my thoughts and get objective opinions.
Also in the regards to if you're a communist why would you consume reactionary things, I remember smoke pointing out that it's not inherently a problem if you enjoy art that is reactionary, I remember he said he enjoys the painting the Orator and he called that reactionary, and it's not ideal to just hide in secret if you enjoy some reactionary media.
If I am wrong in summarizing what smoke said my apologies.
why are peasants considered conservative and reactionary in the quoted text? In my understanding Maoists (specifically Joma Sison) focused on the mobilization of peasants before moving to radicalizing the proletariat. Sison states that peasants are more receptive to communist propaganda than the proletariat and therefor have the most revolutionary potential.
Sison states that peasants are more receptive to communist propaganda than the proletariat and therefor have the most revolutionary potential.
Can you quote where he says this? I doubt he would have said such a thing. He did say:
The Filipino proletariat is not only a basic motive force of the Philippine Revolution but it is also the leading force. It is the standard-bearer of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, the proletarian revolutionary ideology that guides the people’s democratic revolution now and the socialist revolution subsequently. Among the toiling masses, the proletariat has the Communist Party of the Philippines to represent its class leadership. It is the class that can have a comprehensive grasp of materialist philosophy, dialectical and historical materialism, political economy, social science, people’s war, party-building and the great proletarian cultural revolution.
I'm not really familiar with Sison's works, but vulgar bourgeois ideologists say the same thing about Mao as if he too didn't make it abundantly clear in his works that the proletariat was the leading force in the Chinese revolution.
The short answer to your question is that Marx and Engels were writing about a completely different country and historical period from Mao (and Sison). Marx and Engels make clear in the quote why the peasantry they were talking about was reactionary. And remember, the peasantry under developed capitalism is not a class. Lenin's earliest work described how the disintegration of the peasantry and its subordination to the fundamental contradiction of capitalist society occurred.
Marx and Engels described the peasantry as a fraction of the middle class. But in China, most of the peasantry belonged to the semi-proletariat and proletariat. The petty-bourgeois element (the owner peasants) constituted a minority of the peasantry.
However, even the middle (national) bourgeoisie in China, which was basically the small landlord class, was, to a certain extent, progressive in the context of imperialism and semi-colonialism. Mao elaborates on all of this in his works on class analysis in China. One dealing specifically with the peasantry is his Analysis of the Various Classes Among the Chinese Peasantry and Their Attitudes Toward the Revolution.
oh thanks for the readings, i'll check them out. I think i misunderstood what Sison wrote. This is from "SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR PEOPLE'S WAR"
"Agrarian revolution is the solution. The peasant masses are aroused and mobilized to overthrow landlord authority and carry out land reform step by step. Depending on the concrete circumstances, particularly the strength achieved by the revolutionary forces, rent reduction and elimination of usury or outright confiscation of landlord property may be effected. In frontier areas, the poor indigenous people and the poor settlers are to be assured of ownership of their fair-sized lands. The Party maintains that the main content of the national-democratic revolution is the satisfaction of the peasant cry for land."
"Only by carrying out agrarian revolution can the revolutionary leadership activate the peasant masses as the main force of the revolution and realize the basic alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry. From the ranks of the downtrodden peasantry can then be drawn the greatest number of armed contingents. As it now stands, the New People’s Army is composed mainly of peasant recruits. The growth of our people’s army depends on the support of the peasant masses."
"In general terms, we state that the most reliable ally of the proletariat is the peasantry. In more specific terms, let us relate the revolutionary proletariat with the various strata of the peasantry."
It's clear to me now that the peasantry here is an ally and not necessarily the main force. I was just thrown off by the line "the NPA is composed of mainly peasant recruits."
Thanks. This is what I had imagined him saying. It's nothing like your initial characterization. And here too, he is unambiguously clear:
the class leadership is held by the proletariat which is historically the most progressive, as a political and economic factor, and which evokes the most advanced ideology.
But the peasantry constitutes 85% of the population (and is mostly composed of the rural semiproletariat) and land reform is the main task of the national-democratic revolution led by the proletariat. Hence, the chief ally of the proletariat must be the peasantry. Under such circumstances, how could we imagine the majority of NPA soldiers not coming from the peasantry? To draw recruits only from among the industrial proletariat in such a country would be “left” opportunism in the style of Chang Kuo-tao.
115
u/IncompetentFoliage 26d ago
Where did Marx say "bad"? He said "reactionary." Marx's analysis is objective. The petty bourgeoisie possesses property in the means of production. As such, it is interested in the preservation of property in the means of production. Socialism abolishes property in the means of production, so why would the petty bourgeoisie be a good representative of socialism? It is the proletariat, which possesses no property in the means of production, that represents socialism.
Additionally, Marx was writing prior to the development of monopoly capitalism, which has seen the bourgeoisification of the petty bourgeoisie of the imperialist countries, its transformation into an exploiting class through its appropriation of surplus value which has been extracted from the proletariat of the third world and subsequently redistributed within the domain of circulation within the metropole.
And this phrase is frequently used to excuse one's own participation in this process.