He’s also against the theory of unequal exchange. He doesn’t just have one or two mistakes, he consistently makes errors; there’s a big difference. Bravo to Cockshott for inventing his own Marxist deviation that nobody follows.
Also, what’s the source for the latter?
No point in speaking about it in the abstract. In practice its social murder against the mentally ill. It is another avenue of war against those this society has disgraced and harmed.
Depression is not as they say, just a “chemical imbalance”. People are depressed for real reasons, not because their brain is faulty, it’s a normal reaction to a hopeless situation; though predisposition to it varies. The point is to not have people be in a hopeless position.
He’s also a homophobe:
https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/08/29/class-and-the-lgtb-lobby/ https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.11.1.0095
He’s also against dialectical materialism, as if all socialists from Engels to Mao to the Marxists of the modern day have missed something this fundamental:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhEbKt3hFRs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiejAjkWyaE
Due to the latter point, I find it hard to consider him a Marxist, this is absolute revisionism. Issues with philosophy lead to issues with ideology, this is a pattern you will notice with the revisionists of the past.
Being an ethnic minority, I can’t relate one bit with this whole fear-mongering about becoming a minority. The only issue with being a minority is discrimination, of which the people who make these talking points often perpetrate.
I find “replacement” to be a massive hyperbole anyway, it’s not like there’s a settler genocide being perpetrated by brown people in the first world aiming to establish their own state. “Invasion” is even worse, there’s no invasion without a military, it has never happened in history.
I don’t get why people call the police. They’re a rather untrustworthy bunch in most countries.
Socialism: what comes after a successful proletarian revolution; proletarian dictatorship, a proletarian controlled state; the big bourgeoisie has been liquidated but other classes might still exist within the society as proletarianization is an ongoing process.
Communism: what comes after socialism has developed to a high stage world-wide; stateless, classless, and moneyless society; the working classes have been merged into one class, the bourgeoisie worldwide has been liquidated.
For a socialist educated populace, the idea of bringing back capitalism sounds ridiculous. It’s why the revisionists had to boil the frog to bring about capitalist restoration in socialist countries, and this was possible because there are capitalist elements within socialism as socialism emerges from capitalism.
Under communism, even the most clever revisionists can’t do anything to revive the corpse of capitalism because it’s just straight up dead on a world scale and the capitalist elements are all but gone.
Under socialism, I don’t believe there should be freedom of speech for reactionaries, there’s still an active class struggle going on in the ideological sphere. Letting old ideas fester in the superstructure runs the risk of capitalist restoration.
Under communism, sure whatever, it’s not like any remaining reactionaries can do anything at that point.
anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism are ideologies of the petit-bourgeoisie, they are too weak of a class to actually impose their ideologies on the world. the only thing you get from libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism in the real world is the big bourgeoisie using it as justification when its convenient, meanwhile they hypocritically use the government for their own benefit.
Not going to judge a book by its cover but that title doesn’t inspire much confidence. I’m guessing it means Social Democracy’s ignored success.
oh i see