Sebrof

You are a silly person

I see this mistake so often with Communist parties in the United States. And you have 's on Hexbear who repeat it.

This isn't an inter-imperialist war. The Ukraine War isn't an inter-imperialist war. Western Communists are good at copying and pasting analysis without doing any thinking of their own. And I can't tell you how many times Ive heard that the Israeli and Palestinian workers should unite against their "common enemy", or the Russian and Ukrainian workers should do the same (to fight off Russia, what!?). They lack a materialist analysis and just copy what Lenin said as if what it applies to all situations. They don't actually understand the principal contradiction of Imperialism. They don't understand how a more general contradiction can articulate itself in particular contradictions. Hence why they can't understand that a reactionary theocracy/plutocracy, etc. can play the role of an anti-imperialist. They dont think dialectically. They don't understand dialectics.

Hell I've tried playing their game where you just slam quote after quote, but they cherry pick and close their ears. Convinced that Iran must be destroyed to bring us closer to communism, or Hamas must be crushed to truly free the Palestinain people. Shame.

Lets play the game of quotation. From the big man Stalin himself, in The Foundations of Leninism

Hence the necessity for the proletariat of the "dominant" nations to support - resolutely and actively to support - the national liberation movement of the oppressed and dependent peoples.

This does not mean, of course, that the proletariat must support every national liberation movement... It means that support must be given to such national movements as tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism

And for the part that is hard for liberals masquerading as communists to understand.

This is the position in regard to the question of particular national movements, of the possible reactionary character of these movements - if, of course, they are appraised not from the formal point of view, not from the point of view of abstract rights, but concretely, from the point of view of the interests of the revolutionary movement

And again, the more general contradiction of labor vs capital, proletariat vs bourgeoisie may express itself in particular and concrete ways that may not appear like worker vs capitalist. A contradiction between settler and colonized may not have the apparent form of worker vs capital, but is local expression of this general contradiction. The principal contradiction of imperialism may articulate itself in ways that don't appear to align with a worker vs capitalism binary. And this lack of basic Marxist knowledge plagues so many groups I've encountered. So they becomes clowns with clown ideas. They are lazy bones, as Mao says, who don't want to study the particulars, and only know to look for "worker vs capitalist* in the most basic, unoriginal, and frankly useless of ways.

To drive the point home with quotes as this type loves to do:

The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible reactionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions imperialist oppression does not necessarily presupposes the existence of proletariat elements in the movement, ..., the existence of a democratic basis of the movement.

The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views.

Stalin, who understands dialectics better than these people, are reminding you to inspect concrete reality, and that you can support even a monarchy, if it weakens imperialism.

Understanding dialectics and especially contradictions makes this a no Brainer. Calling for defeat of Iran isn't some big brained revolutionary defeatist a la inter-imperialist war. It is calling for the defeat of actually existing anti imperialism. It is calling for the victory imperialism because one is too foolish and egotistical to understand otherwise. Sometimes these views come from a childish and impatient understanding of socialism as an era of global transition. Sometimes these people want communism right now and stomp their feet and think that removing the Ayatollah now will bring us one step closer. Or taking out Hamas and the IDF both will do it. Idk fully what goes through the minds of clowns

Imperialist aggression against Iran is how the general contradiction between labor and capital articulate themselves right now at this time and place, i.e. via imperialism. Arguing for Iran's defeat is to argue for victory of imperialism. Which does not advance the cause for communism.

Trump does have a shock value to him, but a well oiled and competent imperialist machine with democrats at the wheel is just as deadly, if not more. And democrats deport just as many if not more as Trump has. (Deep apologies for the Vox link). But the decorum of the democrats subdues any revolutionary spirit, any rising worker consciousness, and your constant suggestion of the left (whoever exactly that is in the United States) biting the bullet and working with democrats hampers any independent left movement from developing in the United States.

That is advice that confuses many, and it isn't idealism or purity to suggest that the left has more to lose by working with the dems.

The Communist Party and every non-profit constantly redirects leftist consciousness back to bourgeois electoralism with the Democrats. That isn't the left marching with the Democrats, that is the Dems smothering any nascent movement in the crib and scattering the ashes as the Dems continue to create the conditions for more fascism. Working with them in the way you suggest isn't a death sentence - it atrophies our movement. We've seen time and time again how the dems almost exist simply to co-opt and redirect movements. If not careful, the democrats absorb all the energy and act as a brake on any independent worker movement developing.

The more the masses see this play out, they even begin to see the dems as unreliable and disconnected from meaningful struggle. When the masses reach that level of consciousness about the two parties, then we don't want tell them that they are strategically wrong and they need to be led back to Kamala or whomever. You may not understand how important of a development it can be to get Americans to envision anything beyond the two parties.

That does mean the United States is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The dems are a fetter for a left developing in the US, but Trump is a hammer for us (though one that at least radicalizes more Americans). It is true that the left isn't strong in the United States, but I think you a.) underestimate how damaging the Democrats can be for the left, and b.) overestimate the difference the dems are going to make to stopping fascism.

Though you may say, and I beleve have, that the dems wouldnt stop the fascists, just give the left a few years to build up. But again, working with the dems itself makes it hard for a left to grow and develop independently of a network of bourgeois think tanks and non profits. It's kicking the can down the road, sure, but without the ability to "train" for what's to come. So one gains little from that.

I don't think an analogy you make to China's history is useful here at all and such an anology isn't proof enough that the Left should work with the Dems in this moment as the Communists made peace with the KMT. I don't believe the analology is enough is argue for that position. That stategic playbook of working with the Dems has already been used, we've seen the lack of anything it tends to build, and it delays the building of proletariat consciousness and institutions.

It's a Hexbear thing. It grows annoying, but it will pass. Just to come back with the next <<bad thing that just happened that will definitely and inevitably lead to a millenium of Western domination>>

Though I understand some of the pain of the Doomers, things are emotional and heavy, and I have my own personal moments of doom from time to time. But I think a good grounding in historical materialism and realizing that this is a long, very long, revolution toward communism helps in keeping the eye on the long-term without getting too sidetracked. But even then, I get the Doom, but y'all gotta not let the Doom consume y'all.

Doomers? On my Hexbear?

news bulletin tradition

Russia will control all of Ukraine in about... 118 years

Do they believe their own bullshit? Because imagine only ever predicting shit with a straight line, where everything is linear, quantitive change is steady and predictable and qualities never evolve. There is no nonlinearity, there is no potential for collapse, chaos, or punctuated equilibrium. The small changes you see today will continue as they are for centuries.

I know it's nerd talk to discuss dialectics, or complexity, but it's mind boggling how undialectical these serious people are. Part of me thinks it just cope on their part to make their masters happy because how could one make that prediction without smelling your own bs and knowing its a completely meaningless number. But banks and think tanks do select for the smoothest of minds.

In Rome's slave based economy, the social relations themselves do not incentive industrialization. Slaves, as an act of understandable disobedience, would break equipment. That discourages investment in expensive tools. Also, if you are a latidundia owner, you don't mind just working your slaves harder instead of investing in more productive tools. As long as slaves are cheap on the market, you can buy more.

Also, the internal market for most commodities was not very large in ancient Rome. Slaves were the most bought and sold commodity (Boer makes this point in Time of Troubles). Transportation was very cumbersome, so most products that were produced were consumed locally. Any transportation would be done by sea, so major centers had to be near the ocean. Land transport was slow and expensive. It would cost the same amount to transport grain some 30 miles on land as it would to ship it by sea from Egypt to Italy.

The economy was also largely agricultural, and the cities were not powerhouses of handicrafts and manufacturing but instead were where the rich latidundia owners lived. There was an urban proletariat, but it was not engaged in manufacturing to a large extent, at least that I am aware of. The poverty and destitution of the urban masses (see Parenti's The Assassination of Julius Ceasar), and the enslavement of those in the country side meant that a large market for commodities did not exist outside luxury items that the slave owners could afford.

The low productivity of agriculture also means that there is less surplus agricultural product that can go toward the non-agricultural laborers like handicrafts. If someone is not engaged in farming, then that is less labor extended toward growing food. So the productivity of agricultural must be high enough to compensate for a laborers moving to handicrafts, manufacturing, administration, etc.

And when thinking of structural incentives, the production of goods was not regulated by increasing profits or by the exchange-value of products. There isn't a large market due to the above reasons, except maybe in luxury goods. And a latifundia owner is more likely to be interested in buying things they (actually their slaves) can't produce on their premises or on one of the other plantations they own. But if possible, the latifundia will produce it itself. Any profits can go to buying luxury items produced elsewhere. But the consumption of the owners and their families is limited by their stomachs. So luxury consumption plateaus for each latifundia. That's less of an incentive to accumulate high profits.

There isn't much competition, nor is the market that big due to poor transportation, communication, and general destitution. So the market saturates pretty quickly in a local area. And so there isn't an incentive to produce a cheaper product, or out compete other latidundias. And as mentioned before, why invest in more productive equipment when we have slaves? Wage labor isn't a major social institution at the time either. So no need to accumulate profits for increasing production.

As Marx mentions in Capital, Instead of exchange value driving the anciemt economy, it was quantity (up to a natural limit, owners can only eat and slaves can only produce so much) and use-value. Effort was put into making a better item for luxury but not into making it more efficiently with less slave labor.

There isn't a drive to accumulate capital, there isn't a drive for ever increasing profits. There aren't many avenues for value to expand and grow, and hence no capitalism.

And the low productive capacity of their means of production (and that includes transportation), in addition to social relations (slavery) that actually disincentivize increasing productivitiy is at the heart.

Others have answered your question, and thethirdgracchi gave a good reading list. A book that I'd like to add which actually touches on much of what others have said is Perry Anderson's Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism. It discusses how antiquity transitioned to feudalism and has chapters deeicated to the historical materialist paths the modes of productions of various European societies took.

It starts with Ancient Greece, to Rome, the barbarian invasions, Charlemagne, the spread of Feudalism to East Germany and Poland and eastern Europe, Spain, Italy, the impact the Mongols had on Eastern Europe and Russia, the stagnation of the Byzantines, and more. It is focused on European history though. It is a very fun book that actually uses the lens of a mode of production to discuss history.

Roland Boer also has a book on the ancient Roman economy called Time of Troubles.

Something that Anderson points out is that a mode of production will not change just because the new technology has come into being. There must be new social relations that put the technology to use in a new way. Even when Rome did improve tools and basic machines, they never applied them toward production.