Fantastic conversation y’all. I’ll have to read Carlos’ work. Recently, I moved to Cleveland and will be working at a union printshop. Carlos and the folks at Midwestern Marxists are absolutely correct that the conditions for revolutionary action with workers is ripe here. Nearly all of my coworkers are frustrated with the decline of their living standards, but there aren’t many organs for that energy or individuals helping their coworkers and friends organize. Protests still seem to be the primary mode of action.
I’m a big fan of Carlos’s work. Trotsky focused his polemic with philosopher James Burnham around a defense of dialectical materialism. He saw Burnham as a reflection of the hegemony of pragmatism as the native philosophy of American capitalism. Trotsky is the devil for Carlos I know, but he’d do well to look into Trotsky’s “In Defense of Marxism.”
Carlos and I plan to have future dialogues on Marxism and pragmatism, specifically around my essay cosmonautmag.com/2022/05/the-rise-and-fall-of-homegrown-american-marxism/ Additionally, it is worth pointing attention to the work of George Novack and his life's long critique of Dewey which was actually written at the behest of Trotsky!!
There is great discrepancy between China's international policy and the reality of domestic exercises of power. I guess it's fair to say that China still honors the spirit of Bandung Conference to this day, and I'm grateful that Carlos mentioned a similar point. But the reproduction of power itself, or how it stabilizes the regime, takes a great toll. The middle class in the super metropolises enjoys great freedom(given that they're fully de-politicized), and this is not happening to the working class. One of the precious heritages from Mao time is the exalted subjectivity of peasants and workers. But this subjectivity is now dimmed, only able to breathe out some occasional sparks. With respect to the attitude toward China, there're obviously two contradicting views in western Marxists, and I think you are both right. It's impossible to merge these two contradicting perspectives, and I guess this very impossibility, this unquenchable parallax, pertains to the essence of all actually existing/-ed socialism. It's our urgent task to theorize this parallax, without which the great tragedies of the 20th century will simply reincarnate. And the critique of "purity fetishism" is definitely a good starting point.
Socialism and communism are two different system. Yes you can start with socialism but you have to move from socialism to communism if not it will Fail like soviet. Also how can you say i don’t know about Chinese communist party if your communist. You guys have to learn about Maoism and how they defeated empire many times if you wanna win
He's got through a lot of bull about 'scientific socialism and 'dialectics' to express that doesn't like people making normative critiques socialist regimes.
"...dialectic..." I think Marxism should abandon wacky Nineteenth Century metaphysical talk and concentrate on material reality. There's no way we can make sense of philosophers like Hegel, once we've encountered Wittgenstein, the Vienna Circle, and the resulting anti-metaphysical critique.
There’s no theory or philosophy without metaphysics. Without it you don’t have any ontology whatsoever; there’s no “material reality”, because that concept doesn’t mean anything without a metaphysical or ontological basis.
It is hilarious for Carlos to call “western Marxism” idealist, when he has such a poor grasp on the history of the icm and does not reconstruct the two-line struggles that played out over the last hundred and fifty years.
@@eIiass if it didn’t work, the US wouldn’t use your taxpayer dollars to do everything to stop socialism. It was working pretty well in the USSR, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cambodia before the United States obliterated the economies of those nations. Embargoes, wars, endless bombing campaigns, military coups, assassination, etc. If capitalism worked, the government wouldn’t have to intervene every few years to stabilize the market. Capitalism only works for the few who can squeeze their way to the top by stepping on others. Capitalism requires a poor working class to do the bidding of the masters. Stop parroting what your news media tells you. The US is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and the workers have zero say over what goes on, no matter what they vote for.
great conversation! have Carlos on again.
Very professional conversation on topics, very controversial, but conclusions are objective, thank you.
Fantastic conversation y’all. I’ll have to read Carlos’ work. Recently, I moved to Cleveland and will be working at a union printshop. Carlos and the folks at Midwestern Marxists are absolutely correct that the conditions for revolutionary action with workers is ripe here. Nearly all of my coworkers are frustrated with the decline of their living standards, but there aren’t many organs for that energy or individuals helping their coworkers and friends organize. Protests still seem to be the primary mode of action.
Noah from MWM lives in Cleveland.
Valuable conversation
I’m a big fan of Carlos’s work. Trotsky focused his polemic with philosopher James Burnham around a defense of dialectical materialism. He saw Burnham as a reflection of the hegemony of pragmatism as the native philosophy of American capitalism. Trotsky is the devil for Carlos I know, but he’d do well to look into Trotsky’s “In Defense of Marxism.”
Carlos and I plan to have future dialogues on Marxism and pragmatism, specifically around my essay cosmonautmag.com/2022/05/the-rise-and-fall-of-homegrown-american-marxism/
Additionally, it is worth pointing attention to the work of George Novack and his life's long critique of Dewey which was actually written at the behest of Trotsky!!
@@emancipations I’ll be looking forward to these conversations. You two work so well together.
Great discussion!
Killer analysis
Hegel treated the Heraclitean and Parmenidian philosophies dialectically.
There is great discrepancy between China's international policy and the reality of domestic exercises of power. I guess it's fair to say that China still honors the spirit of Bandung Conference to this day, and I'm grateful that Carlos mentioned a similar point. But the reproduction of power itself, or how it stabilizes the regime, takes a great toll. The middle class in the super metropolises enjoys great freedom(given that they're fully de-politicized), and this is not happening to the working class. One of the precious heritages from Mao time is the exalted subjectivity of peasants and workers. But this subjectivity is now dimmed, only able to breathe out some occasional sparks.
With respect to the attitude toward China, there're obviously two contradicting views in western Marxists, and I think you are both right. It's impossible to merge these two contradicting perspectives, and I guess this very impossibility, this unquenchable parallax, pertains to the essence of all actually existing/-ed socialism. It's our urgent task to theorize this parallax, without which the great tragedies of the 20th century will simply reincarnate. And the critique of "purity fetishism" is definitely a good starting point.
Socialism and communism are two different system. Yes you can start with socialism but you have to move from socialism to communism if not it will
Fail like soviet. Also how can you say i don’t know about Chinese communist party if your communist. You guys have to learn about Maoism and how they defeated empire many times if you wanna win
He's got through a lot of bull about 'scientific socialism and 'dialectics' to express that doesn't like people making normative critiques socialist regimes.
Its all ok, degenerated Stalinism can't hurt me
"...dialectic..."
I think Marxism should abandon wacky Nineteenth Century metaphysical talk and concentrate on material reality.
There's no way we can make sense of philosophers like Hegel, once we've encountered Wittgenstein, the Vienna Circle, and the resulting anti-metaphysical critique.
There’s no theory or philosophy without metaphysics. Without it you don’t have any ontology whatsoever; there’s no “material reality”, because that concept doesn’t mean anything without a metaphysical or ontological basis.
It is hilarious for Carlos to call “western Marxism” idealist, when he has such a poor grasp on the history of the icm and does not reconstruct the two-line struggles that played out over the last hundred and fifty years.
He's also right, so there's that.
End socialism now.
End capitalist imperialism ☭
End socialism and communism
End capitalist imperialism ☭
@@kippgoedentell me how socialism or communism could work because it hasn’t yet
@@eIiass if it didn’t work, the US wouldn’t use your taxpayer dollars to do everything to stop socialism. It was working pretty well in the USSR, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cambodia before the United States obliterated the economies of those nations. Embargoes, wars, endless bombing campaigns, military coups, assassination, etc. If capitalism worked, the government wouldn’t have to intervene every few years to stabilize the market. Capitalism only works for the few who can squeeze their way to the top by stepping on others. Capitalism requires a poor working class to do the bidding of the masters. Stop parroting what your news media tells you. The US is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and the workers have zero say over what goes on, no matter what they vote for.
@@eIiass Watch the video
@@eIiassChina says hello. Also Cuba, Vietnam etc.