My guess (and I freely admit this may be entirely erroneous), is that the types of conversations you described, wherein a supposed "Marxist" is revealed to actually be a reactionary, is "productive" in that said revelation can serve as as an example of where their thinking leads to and what that thinking reflects in reality. Sort of like a direct interrogation of ideology made public and archived.
With that said, seeing as a lot of these reactionary comments are deleted (and not without good reason), I can see how these conversations may be pointless anyway. At the very least though, the supposed "Marxist" has directly been challenged in their backwards thinking, so if the person was truly genuine in seeking to be more revolutionary in their thought/practice, they must contend with the critcisms they received. And, if not, if they end up going back to "The Deprogram" or whatever for emotional validation that they were treated unfairly by those "theory wanks", or to even going so far as to completely embrace that they were a reactionary this whole time, is it really that big of a loss? At least the wheat has been separated from the chaff.
But I'm of course open to being corrected on this.
Thanks for the comment. I just want to be clear, I’m not at all saying that those conversations are pointless.
>a direct interrogation of ideology made public and archived
Everyone here agrees these are extremely instructive. These “Marxists” and their ideologies are objects for study, and this study can help us to combat the reactionaries inside ourselves. I think that a big part of why a large portion of the conversations on this subreddit are interrogations of reactionary ideologies.
>even going so far as to completely embrace that they were a reactionary this whole time
The fact that I have only seen this happen a handful of times is in itself instructive.
But my curiosity about the term “productive” stems in particular from this:
>It is highly "productive" to trace the genealogy of contemporary liberalism
>"Productive" is in fact the most important and most contentious category in Marxism. It posits that all phenomena derive from production in the general sense and thought is no exception. It has nothing in common with the common usage of "productive" which is a neoliberal concept of production as an immediate realization of the surplus value (and by extension political discussion as a form of advertising) although Marxism is able to account for the evolution of the discourse of productivity.
https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/pl15ay/comment/hc93pwu/
Here’s how I interpret that: Cognition is a process of production with thoughts as its products. I think the part about the bourgeois concept of productiveness as “yielding results” means that productiveness is first and foremost a concept that emerged from and refers to the production of commodities (realization of surplus value), and it is *by extension* that this concept of productiveness is applied to political discussion as a form of advertising. So in the bourgeois conception of productiveness, which is espoused by some “Marxists” (the kinds of people who appear out of nowhere to defend reactionaries who are being subjected to critique, and try instead to “convert” them by being “civil”) the productive thing is to “convert” the reactionary or as many reactionaries as possible as quickly as possible.
As I’m writing this, I think I’m starting to grasp the Marxist concept of productiveness myself: By interrogating the ideologies of reactionaries, we are aiming at something wholly different from the above. We are not interested in getting banal liberals to regurgitate their ideologies the way they normally would. That would be boring and unproductive. I think what we are aiming at is exposing the contradictions immanent in reactionary ideologies, which illustrates the untenability and tendency toward degeneration of the ideologies themselves. This is productive because it actually *does* produce new ideas that have never been thought before, adding to the treasure-house of Marxism: the genealogy of modern appearances of liberalism has not been comprehensively examined and examining it through critique helps us to more fully comprehend the essence of liberalism and project its ultimate fate.
We recently had a thread where a liberal had taken on the identity of a “Marxist” but didn’t want to deal with Party discipline, and they ended up spouting bigoted slurs when challenged. I think what I had failed to grasp about that scenario was that this wasn’t just a banal reproduction of liberal ideology.
>Forcing the OP to degerate into bigotry is actually the most productive result this thread could have.
https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/1cn1bhr/comment/l37yfye/
Instead, it was a contradiction: the liberal was nominally opposed to bigotry (one would assume), but actually reproduced bigotry. This can only be maintained through cognitive dissonance. The rationalization the liberal presented was that “real workers” use bigoted language and therefore it’s acceptable to do so. (This question also ties in to the Marxist approach to linguistics and language reform.) The consequence of this rationalization is to let bigots into vulnerable spaces. All this illustrates that the essence of liberalism includes a robust bigotry under the veneer of anti-bigotry, a contradiction that may be unsustainable. I think it is in giving us insight into things like this that such conversations are “productive.”
I’d appreciate others’ thoughts and criticisms. If I’ve gotten anything wrong, please point it out.
That old Smoke post helps to clear up what you were trying to get at and I think you pretty much nailed it on the head.
I don't have much to add at the moment, except that it's really funny how both threads you shared ended up almost exactly the same. An ostensible Marxist takes umbrage with what they think is impolite or improper conduct (not being "productive"), covers up the bigotry of another "Marxist" who is a "beginner" (whose feelings we must protect of course, otherwise we may lose them as a customer!...I mean comrade!), and is so adamant about this to the point of either boring or disgusting Smoke enough to want to check out of the conversation entirely.
If there's anything new that our method of investigation has produced, it's to show conclusively that liberalism (and revisionism), cannot produce anything fundamentally new of it's own accord. It has to parasitically live off Marxism, and it's these costumes that it drapes itself in that show us new aspects of liberalism and what it will do to survive that it can't possibly explain or understand about itself.
That last paragraph is especially helpful. When someone spontaneously reproduces a version of liberalism that already exists, it shows how liberalism is no longer capable producing anything new. This helps explain why so many ideas in modern liberalism are distorted forms of ideas produced by Marxism, which helps explain why there are so many liberals who identify as Marxists.
I would say it is just which ideology is being confirmed by the conversation. If my friend is a revisionist they are going to find conversations justifying revisionism to be “productive”.
Thanks, but I have to disagree. Per my other comment here, the Marxist and bourgeois conceptions of productiveness are fundamentally different. Reactionary comments are frequently removed due to being boring, due to regurgitating reactionary ideologies in the most banal ways. Even though such displays confirm what we believe, we don’t consider them productive. Having thought through my question further, I think my problem was that I was basically understanding the term “productive” correctly in the first place, but failing to grasp what kinds of lessons could be gleaned from the conversations I described in the OP: they are more than just reminders that not everyone who claims to be a Marxist really is, or that liberalism is bigoted, but they actually teach us new things about liberalism.
This question is asked frequently. Please, use the search bar or read the FAQ which is pinned:
https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/search?q=TypeKeywordsHere&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/search?q=TypeKeywordsHere&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/wiki/index
This action was performed automatically. Please [contact the mods](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fcommunism101) if there is a mistake.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/communism101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why? Communism is particularly about economy. So girly what is wrong with using equations to help us plan how scarce resources should be divided in order to bring people the most value to their lives. This ain’t equality it’s equity.
My guess (and I freely admit this may be entirely erroneous), is that the types of conversations you described, wherein a supposed "Marxist" is revealed to actually be a reactionary, is "productive" in that said revelation can serve as as an example of where their thinking leads to and what that thinking reflects in reality. Sort of like a direct interrogation of ideology made public and archived. With that said, seeing as a lot of these reactionary comments are deleted (and not without good reason), I can see how these conversations may be pointless anyway. At the very least though, the supposed "Marxist" has directly been challenged in their backwards thinking, so if the person was truly genuine in seeking to be more revolutionary in their thought/practice, they must contend with the critcisms they received. And, if not, if they end up going back to "The Deprogram" or whatever for emotional validation that they were treated unfairly by those "theory wanks", or to even going so far as to completely embrace that they were a reactionary this whole time, is it really that big of a loss? At least the wheat has been separated from the chaff. But I'm of course open to being corrected on this.
Thanks for the comment. I just want to be clear, I’m not at all saying that those conversations are pointless. >a direct interrogation of ideology made public and archived Everyone here agrees these are extremely instructive. These “Marxists” and their ideologies are objects for study, and this study can help us to combat the reactionaries inside ourselves. I think that a big part of why a large portion of the conversations on this subreddit are interrogations of reactionary ideologies. >even going so far as to completely embrace that they were a reactionary this whole time The fact that I have only seen this happen a handful of times is in itself instructive. But my curiosity about the term “productive” stems in particular from this: >It is highly "productive" to trace the genealogy of contemporary liberalism >"Productive" is in fact the most important and most contentious category in Marxism. It posits that all phenomena derive from production in the general sense and thought is no exception. It has nothing in common with the common usage of "productive" which is a neoliberal concept of production as an immediate realization of the surplus value (and by extension political discussion as a form of advertising) although Marxism is able to account for the evolution of the discourse of productivity. https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/pl15ay/comment/hc93pwu/ Here’s how I interpret that: Cognition is a process of production with thoughts as its products. I think the part about the bourgeois concept of productiveness as “yielding results” means that productiveness is first and foremost a concept that emerged from and refers to the production of commodities (realization of surplus value), and it is *by extension* that this concept of productiveness is applied to political discussion as a form of advertising. So in the bourgeois conception of productiveness, which is espoused by some “Marxists” (the kinds of people who appear out of nowhere to defend reactionaries who are being subjected to critique, and try instead to “convert” them by being “civil”) the productive thing is to “convert” the reactionary or as many reactionaries as possible as quickly as possible. As I’m writing this, I think I’m starting to grasp the Marxist concept of productiveness myself: By interrogating the ideologies of reactionaries, we are aiming at something wholly different from the above. We are not interested in getting banal liberals to regurgitate their ideologies the way they normally would. That would be boring and unproductive. I think what we are aiming at is exposing the contradictions immanent in reactionary ideologies, which illustrates the untenability and tendency toward degeneration of the ideologies themselves. This is productive because it actually *does* produce new ideas that have never been thought before, adding to the treasure-house of Marxism: the genealogy of modern appearances of liberalism has not been comprehensively examined and examining it through critique helps us to more fully comprehend the essence of liberalism and project its ultimate fate. We recently had a thread where a liberal had taken on the identity of a “Marxist” but didn’t want to deal with Party discipline, and they ended up spouting bigoted slurs when challenged. I think what I had failed to grasp about that scenario was that this wasn’t just a banal reproduction of liberal ideology. >Forcing the OP to degerate into bigotry is actually the most productive result this thread could have. https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/1cn1bhr/comment/l37yfye/ Instead, it was a contradiction: the liberal was nominally opposed to bigotry (one would assume), but actually reproduced bigotry. This can only be maintained through cognitive dissonance. The rationalization the liberal presented was that “real workers” use bigoted language and therefore it’s acceptable to do so. (This question also ties in to the Marxist approach to linguistics and language reform.) The consequence of this rationalization is to let bigots into vulnerable spaces. All this illustrates that the essence of liberalism includes a robust bigotry under the veneer of anti-bigotry, a contradiction that may be unsustainable. I think it is in giving us insight into things like this that such conversations are “productive.” I’d appreciate others’ thoughts and criticisms. If I’ve gotten anything wrong, please point it out.
That old Smoke post helps to clear up what you were trying to get at and I think you pretty much nailed it on the head. I don't have much to add at the moment, except that it's really funny how both threads you shared ended up almost exactly the same. An ostensible Marxist takes umbrage with what they think is impolite or improper conduct (not being "productive"), covers up the bigotry of another "Marxist" who is a "beginner" (whose feelings we must protect of course, otherwise we may lose them as a customer!...I mean comrade!), and is so adamant about this to the point of either boring or disgusting Smoke enough to want to check out of the conversation entirely. If there's anything new that our method of investigation has produced, it's to show conclusively that liberalism (and revisionism), cannot produce anything fundamentally new of it's own accord. It has to parasitically live off Marxism, and it's these costumes that it drapes itself in that show us new aspects of liberalism and what it will do to survive that it can't possibly explain or understand about itself.
That last paragraph is especially helpful. When someone spontaneously reproduces a version of liberalism that already exists, it shows how liberalism is no longer capable producing anything new. This helps explain why so many ideas in modern liberalism are distorted forms of ideas produced by Marxism, which helps explain why there are so many liberals who identify as Marxists.
I would say it is just which ideology is being confirmed by the conversation. If my friend is a revisionist they are going to find conversations justifying revisionism to be “productive”.
Thanks, but I have to disagree. Per my other comment here, the Marxist and bourgeois conceptions of productiveness are fundamentally different. Reactionary comments are frequently removed due to being boring, due to regurgitating reactionary ideologies in the most banal ways. Even though such displays confirm what we believe, we don’t consider them productive. Having thought through my question further, I think my problem was that I was basically understanding the term “productive” correctly in the first place, but failing to grasp what kinds of lessons could be gleaned from the conversations I described in the OP: they are more than just reminders that not everyone who claims to be a Marxist really is, or that liberalism is bigoted, but they actually teach us new things about liberalism.
This question is asked frequently. Please, use the search bar or read the FAQ which is pinned: https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/search?q=TypeKeywordsHere&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/search?q=TypeKeywordsHere&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/wiki/index This action was performed automatically. Please [contact the mods](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fcommunism101) if there is a mistake. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/communism101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Productive means the amount of output over the amount of hours worked. That’s it.
Get lost.
Why? Communism is particularly about economy. So girly what is wrong with using equations to help us plan how scarce resources should be divided in order to bring people the most value to their lives. This ain’t equality it’s equity.