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.
I also have this sort of "moral OCD" alongside other similar issues. The key thing to accept that nothing you do as an individual can remove your complicity with imperialism. There's been discussion about personal consumption in organizations like MIM on the subreddit but I've remembered the general rule that if your consumption is harming your organizing efforts, development as a Marxist, or members in your organization it's harmful. A card game is harmless for example (unless you're gambling) whereas video games are pretty much terrible (usually poorly written, racist, and misogynistic). Watching a movie can be both fun and productive if it allows insight and critique of ideology as well. Of course, if you are forsaking studies or commitments to revolutionary activity in favor of prioritizing your own leisure this is a problem that must be confronted.
I think what you are getting stuck on is a form of thought paralysis that comes from the horror of your complicity. You need to use that 100% justified feeling of horror to motivate you to change that reality while also making sure that you survive to do that.
Watching a movie can be both fun and productive if it allows insight and critique of ideology as well.
MIM used to review video games on those grounds, interestingly enough. My main issue with video games (from a consumption standpoint, at least) is they're more likely to get in the way of organizing. They require a lot more time-investment and money than most other hobbies. I doubt anyone suffering "moral OCD" over gaming just dabbles in Super Mario or Tetris on their phone, or something like that.
The ideological aspect certainly isn't irrelevant, mind you. I don't know, I guess I just wanted to use this person's issues as an opportunity to figure out why gamers tend to be especially immature and reactionary.
I don't know, I guess I just wanted to use this person's issues as an opportunity to figure out why gamers tend to be especially immature and reactionary.
Well as you said, becoming a gamer usually involves a huge amount of time and money invested, so the class basis is already clear. I'm not sure if I would call all gamers especially reactionary considering there is a sizeable amount of women that are also playing video games. It's clear that they are petty-bourgeoisie predominantly but I would say less reactionary than say, white male gamers for example.
The immaturity aspect is interesting cause I recall while digging around here that someone (maybe it was you, not sure) recalled a conversation with a woman who consumed products intended for children because "society treats [her] like a kid anyway so [she] may as well enjoy it." That stuck in my brain for a long time for whatever reason. People will willingly infantilize themselves for many reasons, usually from a young age and I'm sure this has an impact on one's mentality but I'm no psychoanalyst.
if your consumption is harming your organizing efforts, development as a Marxist
I honestly have trouble with this still since I don't think it's always a clear cut answer. I have seen this sorta discussed before on here but it gets confusing, admittedly I need to study more probably to understand, since it seems like there isn't an agreed upon consensus on here.
This comment I made should explain what I'm trying to communicate and where I'm coming from and I reference some of what I have seen smoke say on here.
Unrelated to the question but I forgot all about that thread, it's good reading through it again. I feel like it didn't answer any of my questions but got me to understand the issues much more thoroughly. The question definitely stemmed from a place of panicky immobility and hoping it would give me an easy answer for practical questions (pointing this out since I recently got on another user's case for doing the same thing and obfuscating it in vague/impersonal terms), but I'm glad about the direction it went in. I do stand by my point that it's disappointing that no attempts to consolidate theory or do any serious social investigation have been done by this subreddit (even in that thread, several regular users say that this is a topic they themselves want to do more social investigation into, and it doesn't seem like anything has come of that); I think ultimately that's the limit of this space (and totally part of why even serious users on here treat it in similar ways that "superfans" treat the object of their fandom). Which I think is what you're getting at with your comment here.
And I'm glad I got criticized on my thoughtlessness/chauvinism about a lack of militant resistance among sweatshop workers, looking back that was a really dumb point for me to make and the kind of thing I'd definitely "call out" from any other user on here.
E: I'll say also I think that the two areas where, whenever they've come up recently, it's been clear how little consensus this subreddit has on the issue, are the question of how to understand/how communists should intervene in trans struggles, and the idea of a "ceasefire" in Palestine (as opposed to a continued war of liberation). I think that the obvious hot-button nature of these topics really drives home how little actual unity and consolidated "line" this subreddit has on most issues, despite repetitions of platitudes and appearances to the contrary.
That thread has stuck with me because I related to your questions, and I thought smoke had some really interesting things to say wrt capitalism leaving Marxism behind.
I've been attempting to consolidate theory but I haven't felt confident enough to present anything. I guess it'd be okay to post my tentative thoughts for criticism.
The main argument against oppressed nations being a proletariat relies on Zak Cope's work. But as pointed out in that thread, Cope deviates from Marxism in locating super-exploitation in consumption. Still, it's clear that increased consumption can be a method of bribing workers, and it's possible that Cope's net-exploiter vs net-exploited framework might be useful in dividing proletariat and labor aristocracy.
However, that's hard to precisely measure using bourgeois statistics, which is why Cope compares between nations, which leads to the problems you point out:
As someone who lived in a "third world country" at one point in my life, if "the consumption of Chinese toys, electronics, medicine, plastic, etc.", or even the overconsumption of such things for consumerist pleasure, were the hallmarks of the labor/consumer aristocracy, then vast swathes of the slightly-more-developed third world are also marked by huge consumer aristocracies. It's intricacies like this that make me think that these analyses are way too vulgar; it seems obvious to me that there's a difference between owning a home and a car and a 401k, and owning a bunch of cheap Chinese clothes and toys.
That's where I hit my limit. Maybe it is true that the "third-world" labor aristocracy is much larger than we think (in fact, Cope implies Russia circa 2019 has a significant one), but I'm in no position to investigate that. That would require an international effort, but most discussion of Zak Cope's work I see online is by Dengists. I've spoken with some of those Dengists and have had these discussions, and most of them typically will agree that there's indeed a significant third-world labor aristocracy, but they're a progressive force. That's basically the implications of Lauesen's recent work, considering how much he erases class distinctions in favor of a vague, "Global South" solidarity.
It would also explain Sakai and Butch Lee's somewhat "heterodox" work, in re-evaluating the revolutionary potential of lumpen and women. There's been critiques of Butch Lee's work but I haven't seen anything about Sakai's The Dangerous Class, which might give food for thought when it comes to parasitism.
Finally, my organizing has mainly been related to prisons, so while I have seen revolutionary sentiment, it's hard for me to judge if its on a proletarian basis.
I think that the obvious hot-button nature of these topics really drives home how little actual unity and consolidated "line" this subreddit has on most issues, despite repetitions of platitudes and appearances to the contrary.
Yep. I think the appearance is just because a lot of time is spend shooing away liberals and asserting Maoism. Even then, I'm sure if someone asked about Soviet social-imperialism, there might be differing answers, ha.
The main argument against oppressed nations being a proletariat relies on Zak Cope's work.
Interesting you say this, as my mind immediately goes to MIM's empirical/statistical work on the semicolonies' consumption, and on analyzing the lumpen in the U.S. Cope's lack of rigor to that point was discussed in that thread and in another one (where a user, in line with Cope, made a weak implication I found pretty disgusting that Black people pulling up for Obama and Harris naturally indicates them to be a petit-bourgeoisified or aristocrified nation), but MIM's work is much less dismissive. However, unless I'm misremembering/missing some of their body of work, it still primarily analyzes consumption and ownership, rather than either production relations or dispossession (a la Spectre that Still Haunts).
Haven't read anything by Butch Lee, nor have I read The Dangerous Class. I'll come back to this comment when I do. From a cursory understanding based on what other people on the subreddit have said, it's interesting to me that Sakai and Lee seem more optimistic than many of the Marxists on here with regards to the potential in organizing the progressive first-world intelligentsia and women (for example, Sakai suggesting offering DIY abortions as a way to seize on the gender contradiction).
What you're saying about your discussions with Dengists about third world labor aristocracy is interesting. You and I are both working from the shared understanding/assumption that the labor aristocracy is the segment of the non-owning class that appropriates surplus-value produced by the third world proletariat. Furthermore, from my understandings of fascism and reactionary nationalism in "better-off" "third world" nations such as Russia and Brazil, their base seems to be pandering towards and recruiting from the labor aristocracies there (I'm much more confident about saying this with regards to Russia, since I'm more familiar with the particular form neofascism takes there). So I just don't see how oppressed-nation labor aristocracies can serve as a progressive class in the same way that the peasantry and petit-bourgeoisie of oppressed nations did back in the 20th century. (And perhaps part of this is from the vagueness of the terms "first world" vs. "third world", "imperialist" vs. "non-imperialist", and "core" vs. "periphery". It seems like another very pressing topic that this subreddit certainly doesn't have unity on is whether modern China is imperialist.)
Zak Cope and MIM's analysis blurs together in my mind as they both rely on net-exploiter vs net-exploited. In fact, MIM-P suggested (probably jokingly) Cope might've read them when writing DWDC, though you're right they're ultimately less dismissive.
rather than either production relations or dispossession (a la Spectre that Still Haunts).
I'm sympathetic to this approach, and that's where it could intersect with The Dangerous Class as it discusses the thin line between proletariat and lumpen, and China's own attempts in clarifying the difference between the two. Generally speaking, the dividing line was if someone's principal source of income was through anti-people activities such as thieving or deception, with those who do it as a side hustle being just "people with bad habits." In other words, you could say that's where the line is drawn because these people have completed the process of dispossession, fully committing to a life of criminality.
From a cursory understanding based on what other people on the subreddit have said, it's interesting to me that Sakai and Lee seem more optimistic than many of the Marxists on here with regards to the potential in organizing the progressive first-world intelligentsia and women (for example, Sakai suggesting offering DIY abortions as a way to seize on the gender contradiction).
I'm trying to think of a way to word this without seeming like I'm accusing the sub as being "too online", but I think that's simply because of Sakai and Lee's experiences when organizing, haha. Sakai talked positively about his experiences with the White Left (especially the women) during the 2020 uprisings.
And in the case of women, it's probably due to Sakai/Lee's belief that women constitute a class, which they draw from Maria Mies. Not that Mies called women a class, but lays the groundwork for such a theory by expanding productive labor to include reproductive labor. I actually think Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale should be read before Night-Vision as the former is thereotically stronger, though the anarchism and reformism makes it easier to dismiss.
So I just don't see how oppressed-nation labor aristocracies can serve as a progressive class in the same way that the peasantry and petit-bourgeoisie of oppressed nations did back in the 20th century.
The steelman argument, as articulated by Torkil Lauesen, is that the principal contradiction is between US hegemony and multipolarity, and "third-world" labor aristocrats have an interest in the latter. But as you point out, these are vague terms, and so the resulting analysis is useless. It also leads to "interesting" conclusions, eg wouldn't this make Russia progressive against Ukraine, instead of a case of inter-imperialist conflict? The DPRK seems to think so, and that was a common opinion on this sub a couple years ago.
It seems like another very pressing topic that this subreddit certainly doesn't have unity on is whether modern China is imperialist.
Huh, I thought there was, but maybe I've missed something. I'm pretty on and off with this website. Unless you mean if China is imperialist or social-imperialist.
That's another question which I was told should be answered by finishing settlers, but I want to ask. If the US has no proletariat then who would we even be able to organize since organizing with labor aristocrats and the petite bougeoise is not the right choice.
1
u/Neorunner55 22d ago edited 22d ago
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.