Marx, Lenin, Chess!

[IMPress Polly]

I was reading a pretty interesting article recently on how communist revolutionaries Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin were avid chess players (http://inside-left.blogspot.com/2012/11/marx-lenin-chess.html). As highlighted therein, the significance of this fact lies in that the Soviet Union banned sports more broadly (at least early on) on the grounds that their competitive nature was more ideologically aligned with capitalism than with socialism. But, of course, chess is competitive too, so why didn't it ever get banned? Indeed, from 1948 on, with the sole exception of the years 1972 to '75, the Soviet Union consistently dominated the game! Perhaps the fact that Marx and Lenin themselves had been fond of it enabled the convenient oversight. But I also think there was likely something deeper at work. As is also highlighted in the linked article, the political left IN GENERAL has had a history of being fairly critical of mainstream, physical sports and I think we've seen a lot of that lately in the United States (as in throughout the last few years in particular) in regards to football and hockey; two of the more violent sports games that North Americans celebrate. (There's a reason why it's MSNBC that's the most critical of NFL players and the league itself right now, while on Fox News you'll find the subject of domestic violence amongst players generally brushed off or even defended.) Yet, despite this fact, the left has conversely been more sympathetic than the right to games, including competitive ones, revolving around mind power instead of physical ability. Broadly speaking, the left looks for problems with football and hockey while the right looks for problems Dungeon & Dragons, Magic: The Gathering, and video games. What I think explains this difference is the perception of one kind of game being culturally "in" while the others are more often thought of as being reserved for "outsiders" (sometimes erroneously, as in the case of video games in this second decade of the 21st century). You just don't see people getting bullied by their parents into playing trading card games. There's comparatively little fame and fortune attached to brain games; no real celebrity status to be had. People in the check-out line just don't randomly ask you what you thought of last night's Quake tournament. The cultural grip of baseball, football, soccer, hockey, etc. etc. (even golf) is much stronger.

What I'm trying to say is that I think many leftists feel like outsiders and perhaps were either bullied into playing physical sports against their will as kids or were bullied around by jocks at school (I fall into the latter crowd) and so have negative feelings about those types of games. Think about the outsider syndrome for a minute. Who do leftists typically stand up for? Workers, women, racial, religious, and sexual minorities, the poor, immigrants, and so on. In short, all the more disadvantaged social groups. I do think there's something of an outsider mentality that those politics correspond to. Of course none of this is anywhere near absolute, but it's just an overall tendency I've observed. I know I'm fonder of brain games than the other kind and that there's only so much overlap between the two crowds.

[Chris]

I think it speaks to their disregard of physical nature and Darwinian evolution and faith in reason to redesign man and society. Physical sports have only the rules of play without defining outcomes, chess is more like Euclidean Geometry, where from assumed premises logic argues foregone conclusions.

[Peter1469]

I suppose the communists saw chess as a game of wits and strategy, much like statecraft and diplomacy, so that is why they approved of it.

[exotix]

I'm a top-notch chess player so I must be communist.

[IMPress Polly]

I have no skill at chess. I've tried! (What kind of Marxist am I??? :wink:) I do like a lot of other games that involve a fair amount of strategy though.

[Peter1469]

I have no skill at chess. I've tried! (What kind of Marxist am I??? :wink:) I do like a lot of other games that involve a fair amount of strategy though.

Once you know what the basics, the rest is thinking 3 steps ahead. Some people just remember entire game moves and use those. I think that is lame.

[exotix]

Once you know what the basics, the rest is thinking 3 steps ahead. Some people just remember entire game moves and use those. I think that is lame.
I tend to play a war of attrition ... I like to eliminate pawns, knights and queens and get down with Bishops and Rooks ... oh, maybe a pawn or two for the King to hide behind ...

http://i62.tinypic.com/33xaotu.jpg

[Mister D]

I was reading a pretty interesting article recently on how communist revolutionaries Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin were avid chess players (http://inside-left.blogspot.com/2012/11/marx-lenin-chess.html). As highlighted therein, the significance of this fact lies in that the Soviet Union banned sports more broadly (at least early on) on the grounds that their competitive nature was more ideologically aligned with capitalism than with socialism. But, of course, chess is competitive too, so why didn't it ever get banned? Indeed, from 1948 on, with the sole exception of the years 1972 to '75, the Soviet Union consistently dominated the game! Perhaps the fact that Marx and Lenin themselves had been fond of it enabled the convenient oversight. But I also think there was likely something deeper at work. As is also highlighted in the linked article, the political left IN GENERAL has had a history of being fairly critical of mainstream, physical sports and I think we've seen a lot of that lately in the United States (as in throughout the last few years in particular) in regards to football and hockey; two of the more violent sports games that North Americans celebrate. (There's a reason why it's MSNBC that's the most critical of NFL players and the league itself right now, while on Fox News you'll find the subject of domestic violence amongst players generally brushed off or even defended.) Yet, despite this fact, the left has conversely been more sympathetic than the right to games, including competitive ones, revolving around mind power instead of physical ability. Broadly speaking, the left looks for problems with football and hockey while the right looks for problems Dungeon & Dragons, Magic: The Gathering, and video games. What I think explains this difference is the perception of one kind of game being culturally "in" while the others are more often thought of as being reserved for "outsiders" (sometimes erroneously, as in the case of video games in this second decade of the 21st century). You just don't see people getting bullied by their parents into playing trading card games. There's comparatively little fame and fortune attached to brain games; no real celebrity status to be had. People in the check-out line just don't randomly ask you what you thought of last night's Quake tournament. The cultural grip of baseball, football, soccer, hockey, etc. etc. (even golf) is much stronger.

What I'm trying to say is that I think many leftists feel like outsiders and perhaps were either bullied into playing physical sports against their will as kids or were bullied around by jocks at school (I fall into the latter crowd) and so have negative feelings about those types of games. Think about the outsider syndrome for a minute. Who do leftists typically stand up for? Workers, women, racial, religious, and sexual minorities, the poor, immigrants, and so on. In short, all the more disadvantaged social groups. I do think there's something of an outsider mentality that those politics correspond to. Of course none of this is anywhere near absolute, but it's just an overall tendency I've observed. I know I'm fonder of brain games than the other kind and that there's only so much overlap between the two crowds.

That's a much more recent phenomenon than you seem to realize. It only happened after the economic nonsense of Marxism was abandoned by the white working class and that class was consequently abandoned by the leftist parties.

[Peter1469]

I tend to play a war of attrition ... I like to eliminate pawns, knights and queens and get down with Bishops and Rooks ... oh, maybe a pawn or two for the King to hide behind ...

http://i62.tinypic.com/33xaotu.jpg

I change it up. But I wouldn't consider myself to be a good player. I get distracted too easily. Now in New Orleans at Saint Louis Square you can play speed chess- you have like 10 seconds to make a move- I do well at that.

[exotix]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdCo8UVxeXU

[Bob]

I was reading a pretty interesting article recently on how communist revolutionaries Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin were avid chess players (http://inside-left.blogspot.com/2012/11/marx-lenin-chess.html). (snip a chunk of her post)

What I'm trying to say is that I think many leftists feel like outsiders and perhaps were either bullied into playing physical sports against their will as kids or were bullied around by jocks at school (I fall into the latter crowd) and so have negative feelings about those types of games. Think about the outsider syndrome for a minute. Who do leftists typically stand up for? Workers, women, racial, religious, and sexual minorities, the poor, immigrants, and so on. In short, all the more disadvantaged social groups. I do think there's something of an outsider mentality that those politics correspond to. Of course none of this is anywhere near absolute, but it's just an overall tendency I've observed. I know I'm fonder of brain games than the other kind and that there's only so much overlap between the two crowds.

As a chess player, no longer as good as I once was, due to not playing strong players, who also played high school football but not on a good team and yet I love pro and college and even high school football, my take on this is different.

It has nothing to do with Marx globally.

I was first taught to play chess by a Japanese player. Once I got the hang of the game, I beat him more than lost to him. Still a fairly decent player, I was a long ways from a very good player. I studied the game. They say reading good teaching books is a waste of time, but you will never become a super player unless you study great games.

I never thought of Chess the way I thought about playing football.

You being female come to different conclusions vs games played roughly vs games of the mind.

If any of you wish to play very very good chess, I can offer some great books to study. It adds fun to the game to fully understand the opening theory and the middle game theory. Bobby Fischer wrote a book that is plain genius on ending games.

I can't help you be a good football player. My deal in school was to learn the plays and try hard to be tougher than those trying to nail me. I carried the ball and perhaps that is why I feel like that.

[Bob]

I tend to play a war of attrition ... I like to eliminate pawns, knights and queens and get down with Bishops and Rooks ... oh, maybe a pawn or two for the King to hide behind ...

http://i62.tinypic.com/33xaotu.jpg

Your competition is weak.

So is Peters.

It is apparent to me that neither of you studied Chess. I don't call knowing how to move pieces, knowing chess.

[exotix]

Your competition is weak.

So is Peters.

It is apparent to me that neither of you studied Chess. I don't call knowing how to move pieces, knowing chess.
I can beat you blindfolded.

[IMPress Polly]

Mister D wrote:
That's a much more recent phenomenon than you seem to realize. It only happened after the economic nonsense of Marxism was abandoned by the white working class and that class was consequently abandoned by the leftist parties.

Not as much as you might think! It mostly just depended on how far to the left you went on the spectrum in the olden days. For example, the Communist Party back in the 1920s and '30s consisted MOSTLY of immigrants and racial minorities and dedicated much of its political efforts to the defense of those groups accordingly. They dedicated entire fronts to these subjects. The Communists and other radical left groups (socialists and anarchists) were also the first to champion the concept of unionizing industrial workers. People don't realize this today, but the industrial workers of that age were thought of and treated much like our low-end service industry workers are today. They composed much of the working poor of that era. The American Federation of Labor resisted moves to try and unionize industrial workers because they saw them as lowly and undeserving. They wanted the labor movement to be an exclusive club only for more "skilled" workers. The radical leftists of the age were more forward-thinking; ahead of even the '30s youth. Generations before the '30s youth created the Congress of Industrial Organization, the socialists and communists had jointly crafted organizations like the Industrial Workers of the World to fight for much the same cause, albeit toward more radical final ends. Likewise, you'll find that 20th century communist countries had a lengthy record of leading the world in terms of feminist policies ranging from access to a wide range of career options to the easing of divorce laws to the establishment of legal reproductive rights to the reorientation of sexual politics. Now maybe the more moderate left wouldn't have supported these things and these groups back in the first part of the 20th century, but the radical left often did, and it's radicals who define ideological poles, i.e. what it actually is to be an ideological leftist or rightist. The communist movement was also much quicker than society more broadly and the more moderate political left to embrace gay rights. The Western communist movement had generally done so by the end of the 1970s, where the general populations of Western nations have only started to embrace gay rights in the last decade or so. Again, it's radicals who define political poles and thus the extent to which one is a political leftist or rightist.


Peter wrote:
Once you know what the basics, the rest is thinking 3 steps ahead. Some people just remember entire game moves and use those. I think that is lame.

I joined the chess club in high school because they made everyone join a club and that one sounded the most up my alley. I learned the basics of the game quickly, but never delved into really strategic thinking about it like I should have. Of course I was only fortunate that many of the other people in the chess club were like me and just there because it seemed like the easiest and yet least boring way of passing the mandatory "club" time. There were a lot of other casual players there, so I was able to somehow win about one-third of the games I played even though I understood nothing about serious chess strategy, like thinking multiple turns in advance. I just kind of developed a style around the pieces I liked the most, liking coming up with ways to start moving my knights around as quickly as possible to get at my opponent's back-row pieces while their pawns were still blocking their movement. I didn't really know or especially care what I was doing; I was just passing the time. :grin: Now these days, however, I might be more able to get into a game like chess. I have, after all, always enjoyed games that involve a fair dosage of strategic thinking. However, I will say that most of the games I refer to are a little more malleable/customizable than chess. Chess doesn't seem to offer the serious strategist a comparable range of creative options, which makes me fear the prospect of boredom.

[Mister D]

Not as much as you might think! It mostly just depended on how far to the left you went on the spectrum in the olden days. For example, the Communist Party back in the 1920s and '30s consisted MOSTLY of immigrants and racial minorities and dedicated much of its political efforts to the defense of those groups accordingly. They dedicated entire fronts to these subjects. The Communists and other radical left groups (socialists and anarchists) were also the first to champion the concept of unionizing industrial workers. People don't realize this today, but the industrial workers of that age were thought of and treated much like our low-end service industry workers are today. They composed much of the working poor of that era. The American Federation of Labor resisted moves to try and unionize industrial workers because they saw them as lowly and undeserving. They wanted the labor movement to be an exclusive club only for more "skilled" workers. The radical leftists of the age were more forward-thinking; ahead of even the '30s youth. Generations before the '30s youth created the Congress of Industrial Organization, the socialists and communists had jointly crafted organizations like the Industrial Workers of the World to fight for much the same cause, albeit toward more radical final ends. Likewise, you'll find that 20th century communist countries had a lengthy record of leading the world in terms of feminist policies ranging from access to a wide range of career options to the easing of divorce laws to the establishment of legal reproductive rights to the reorientation of sexual politics. Now maybe the more moderate left wouldn't have supported these things and these groups back in the first part of the 20th century, but the radical left often did, and it's radicals who define ideological poles, i.e. what it actually is to be an ideological leftist or rightist. The communist movement was also much quicker than society more broadly and the more moderate political left to embrace gay rights. The Western communist movement had generally done so by the end of the 1970s, where the general populations of Western nations have only started to embrace gay rights in the last decade or so. Again, it's radicals who define political poles and thus the extent to which one is a political leftist or rightist.



The bold is true only of the United States. Granted, communist parties were heavily Jewish everywhere at least in terms of leadership. Perhaps that's what you meant by "IMMIGRANT". :grin:

Anyway, Polly, the point is that the old objectives of the leftist parties were abandoned before either of us were born. You don't seriously mean to suggest that the current issues of the radical left (racism, gay 'rights', feminism, etc.) were ever more than peripheral when Marxism was relevant (i.e. prior to 1960)? Polly, there is a reason it's called the New Left. The Old Left focused on social class and labor issues. The Left focused primarily on sexual freedom, drugs, and social issues. The reason for that is class war was no longer selling.

[kilgram]

Your competition is weak.

So is Peters.

It is apparent to me that neither of you studied Chess. I don't call knowing how to move pieces, knowing chess.
I played Chess for a while. But in the end I got a little tired and left to play. Even I went to competitions and all that. I was not very good. And I had tendency to make stupid mistakes and I didn't study my games after they were done (a big mistake if you want to improve). Also I was a teenager when I played and left to play.

But I've read that in East Europe, during Communism and post-Communism they gave a lot of importance to Chess and even they had chess education in schools. Is a good form to train the mind, logics, strategy and memory.

[Bob]

I can beat you blindfolded.

I don't know you. I don't play often at all. It takes time to get back in top form. Then you can play blindfolded and I will enjoy whipping you. :grin:

By the way, i am, sure you want me to play with a blindfold on.

[Bob]

I played Chess for a while. But in the end I got a little tired and left to play. Even I went to competitions and all that. I was not very good. And I had tendency to make stupid mistakes and I didn't study my games after they were done (a big mistake if you want to improve). Also I was a teenager when I played and left to play.

But I've read that in East Europe, during Communism and post-Communism they gave a lot of importance to Chess and even they had chess education in schools. Is a good form to train the mind, logics, strategy and memory.

Top rank Chess is played a bit different than the poor players believe.

First one must understand chess openings. Do you favor P-K4 or P-Q4. I still use the old style notation so I hope you understand. Do you start with a goal in mind other than just win the game?

Correct study takes hours and hours. You need to understand that the complex game still is a system. Do you know the opponent? How fast can you learn the opponent during early play? Is the opponent moving super fast? If the person moves super fast, if the moves are sound, you must be very careful. The play style is important. Do you know the middle game? How well do you know ending games. We generally see Chess in three parts. It is like many things we do. A race driver has to race and practice to be fast. Tennis pros play a lot and have a full understanding of body position, hitting angles and so forth. Same with golfers or other sports. Chess is a lot more fun once you study some chess teaching books by very good players.

I am studying some books on the Russian game style.

I enjoy a book called Chess Traps by Horowitz and Reinfeld. It opens up your thinking a lot.

[Bob]

Not as much as you might think! It mostly just depended on how far to the left you went on the spectrum in the olden days. For example, the Communist Party back in the 1920s and '30s consisted MOSTLY of immigrants and racial minorities and dedicated much of its political efforts to the defense of those groups accordingly. They dedicated entire fronts to these subjects. The Communists and other radical left groups (socialists and anarchists) were also the first to champion the concept of unionizing industrial workers. People don't realize this today, but the industrial workers of that age were thought of and treated much like our low-end service industry workers are today. They composed much of the working poor of that era. The American Federation of Labor resisted moves to try and unionize industrial workers because they saw them as lowly and undeserving. They wanted the labor movement to be an exclusive club only for more "skilled" workers. The radical leftists of the age were more forward-thinking; ahead of even the '30s youth. Generations before the '30s youth created the Congress of Industrial Organization, the socialists and communists had jointly crafted organizations like the Industrial Workers of the World to fight for much the same cause, albeit toward more radical final ends. Likewise, you'll find that 20th century communist countries had a lengthy record of leading the world in terms of feminist policies ranging from access to a wide range of career options to the easing of divorce laws to the establishment of legal reproductive rights to the reorientation of sexual politics. Now maybe the more moderate left wouldn't have supported these things and these groups back in the first part of the 20th century, but the radical left often did, and it's radicals who define ideological poles, i.e. what it actually is to be an ideological leftist or rightist. The communist movement was also much quicker than society more broadly and the more moderate political left to embrace gay rights. The Western communist movement had generally done so by the end of the 1970s, where the general populations of Western nations have only started to embrace gay rights in the last decade or so. Again, it's radicals who define political poles and thus the extent to which one is a political leftist or rightist.



I joined the chess club in high school because they made everyone join a club and that one sounded the most up my alley. I learned the basics of the game quickly, but never delved into really strategic thinking about it like I should have. Of course I was only fortunate that many of the other people in the chess club were like me and just there because it seemed like the easiest and yet least boring way of passing the mandatory "club" time. There were a lot of other casual players there, so I was able to somehow win about one-third of the games I played even though I understood nothing about serious chess strategy, like thinking multiple turns in advance. I just kind of developed a style around the pieces I liked the most, liking coming up with ways to start moving my knights around as quickly as possible to get at my opponent's back-row pieces while their pawns were still blocking their movement. I didn't really know or especially care what I was doing; I was just passing the time. :grin: Now these days, however, I might be more able to get into a game like chess. I have, after all, always enjoyed games that involve a fair dosage of strategic thinking. However, I will say that most of the games I refer to are a little more malleable/customizable than chess. Chess doesn't seem to offer the serious strategist a comparable range of creative options, which makes me fear the prospect of boredom.

Had you seen East Germany when it was it's most powerful, you would not be kind to Communism. Per Jews I personally know who lived under Communism, they were very disliked in the Communist world.

A good book to help you learn Chess is HOW TO THINK AHEAD IN CHESS, by Horowitz and Reinfeld. Those pair are co authors of some very good books. A book I love and use is THE COMPLETE CHESS COURSE, by Reinfeld. Fred understands the game and is a very good teacher.

Learning GOOD Chess is as easy as playing poor chess. It is true if you know a Chess Master who has time and is willing to play you, he or she can teach you a lot.

My first ever chess book was by Nimzowitch and i did not see that book as a very good teacher.

Some players memorize games. This in my opinion is a terrible thing to do. You need to become adept at systems and not merely moves.

Control of the center of the board is very important. Pawns are more important than some think they are.

A well designed opening has a pawn structure that sets you up to win the game. The Queen should NEVER be moved prior to about 10 moves where you set up the center.

A powerful center formation puts you into very good shape. Think of a V shape with pawns backing you up.

[kilgram]

Top rank Chess is played a bit different than the poor players believe.

First one must understand chess openings. Do you favor P-K4 or P-Q4. I still use the old style notation so I hope you understand. Do you start with a goal in mind other than just win the game?

Correct study takes hours and hours. You need to understand that the complex game still is a system. Do you know the opponent? How fast can you learn the opponent during early play? Is the opponent moving super fast? If the person moves super fast, if the moves are sound, you must be very careful. The play style is important. Do you know the middle game? How well do you know ending games. We generally see Chess in three parts. It is like many things we do. A race driver has to race and practice to be fast. Tennis pros play a lot and have a full understanding of body position, hitting angles and so forth. Same with golfers or other sports. Chess is a lot more fun once you study some chess teaching books by very good players.

I am studying some books on the Russian game style.

I enjoy a book called Chess Traps by Horowitz and Reinfeld. It opens up your thinking a lot.
In Spain we didn't use this notation, but I understood it.

Exactly, the openings are very important. I had some Chess books of openings and studied some of them. I usually played opening with P-K4.

[IMPress Polly]

Mister D wrote:
Anyway, Polly, the point is that the old objectives of the leftist parties were abandoned before either of us were born. You don't seriously mean to suggest that the current issues of the radical left (racism, gay 'rights', feminism, etc.) were ever more than peripheral when Marxism was relevant (i.e. prior to 1960)? Polly, there is a reason it's called the New Left. The Old Left focused on social class and labor issues. The Left focused primarily on sexual freedom, drugs, and social issues. The reason for that is class war was no longer selling.

I think you're misunderstanding somewhat. The Old Left was focused mainly on issues of economic class (e.g. worker vs. capitalist) while the New Left has focused mainly on issues of social class (e.g. addressing issues of racism, sex disctimination, heterosexism, etc.) and world peace. That is the essential difference. You can look it up in the Port Huron Statement of 1962 (which defined the term "new left") if you don't believe me. They listed their three main issues as racism, ending the Cold War, and ending poverty (in that order).

Anyway, these are semantics. You're discussing prioritization levels rather than actual politics, which is kind of missing the point. The point is that the radical left has indeed (overall anyway) always concerned itself with matters of both economic and social class, and that it is radicals who define political poles (i.e. what it is to be a leftist or a rightist, as applicable). The mentality of the left revolves around the idea of equality, and that's because the average adherent (especially of the far left) fits into a disadvantaged social group. For example, you won't be surprised to learn that I know a fair number of other Marxists and that most of them belong to the ranks of the working poor. I doubt that the overlap between that social position on the one hand and those politics on the other is purely coincidental. That's the kind of thing I mean to highlight when I refer to leftists as frequently being characterized by outsider mentality.

[kilgram]

I disagree, old left focused in class questions that include economic (class) and social issues like woman rights, homosexual rights... For example anarchists like Emma Goldman or Spanish Durruti gave a lot of importance to woman rights, and the first even to the homosexual rights.

They considered that to emancipate everybody had to get the same rights and abolish the differences between classes and sex, too.

The difference is that Progressive today only focus in a few social questions that would not affect the economics issue. Mainly because they are part of the same party, the party of the status quo. In USA DemRep, in Spain PPSOE...

But the true left is continuing focusing in the same topics as the "old left". The Progressive are liberals not leftist.

[IMPress Polly]

I'm in agreement with you when it comes to objectively defining "leftness" as primarily economic in nature. To the extent that you move away from egalitarian economics, you're moving rightward and rightward movement along the spectrum of cultural issues will tend to logically follow. (That's why, for example, there aren't too many feminist Republicans in this country. One who doesn't value equality in the area of economics probably won't value it much in other areas either.)

[Mister D]

I think you're misunderstanding somewhat. The Old Left was focused mainly on issues of economic class (e.g. worker vs. capitalist) while the New Left has focused mainly on issues of social class (e.g. addressing issues of racism, sex disctimination, heterosexism, etc.) and world peace. That is the essential difference. You can look it up in the Port Huron Statement of 1962 (which defined the term "new left") if you don't believe me. They listed their three main issues as racism, ending the Cold War, and ending poverty (in that order).

Anyway, these are semantics. You're discussing prioritization levels rather than actual politics, which is kind of missing the point. The point is that the radical left has indeed (overall anyway) always concerned itself with matters of both economic and social class, and that it is radicals who define political poles (i.e. what it is to be a leftist or a rightist, as applicable). The mentality of the left revolves around the idea of equality, and that's because the average adherent (especially of the far left) fits into a disadvantaged social group. For example, you won't be surprised to learn that I know a fair number of other Marxists and that most of them belong to the ranks of the working poor. I doubt that the overlap between that social position on the one hand and those politics on the other is purely coincidental. That's the kind of thing I mean to highlight when I refer to leftists as frequently being characterized by outsider mentality.

Polly, the bold was exactly what I just said.

Semantics? No, I'm discussing the overall goals and motivation behind a movement. The issues you seem to care about most were in fact peripheral for the Old Left. Better still, racism and old fashioned mores were common among the old leftist parties as the Africans training in Moscow knew all too well. You are trying to present this transition from Old Left to New Left as some kind of natural evolution which it was most assuredly not. To top it off, the New Left could be charactrerized as a rebellion against the Old Left. Class struggle was rejected in favor of a host of other issues. There was a reason for that...:wink:

[Mister D]

I disagree, old left focused in class questions that include economic (class) and social issues like woman rights, homosexual rights... For example anarchists like Emma Goldman or Spanish Durruti gave a lot of importance to woman rights, and the first even to the homosexual rights.

They considered that to emancipate everybody had to get the same rights and abolish the differences between classes and sex, too.

The difference is that Progressive today only focus in a few social questions that would not affect the economics issue. Mainly because they are part of the same party, the party of the status quo. In USA DemRep, in Spain PPSOE...

But the true left is continuing focusing in the same topics as the "old left". The Progressive are liberals not leftist.

The focus of the Old Left was overwhelmingly economic. That a fascist sympathizer has to explain this is quite disturbing!

[kilgram]

The focus of the Old Left was overwhelmingly economic. That a fascist sympathizer has to explain this is quite disturbing!
And social, too. However they believed that changing the economic system they would change the social system.

[Mister D]

And social, too. However they believed that changing the economic system they would change the social system.

If that's true, why the split between the Old and New Left? Any way you look at it, class war was abandoned in favor of anti-racism, feminism, etc. by the 1960s. Maxists lost the war for the white working class which helps explain their hatred for us.

[Chris]

If I might interject some economics....

Economics though is social, economies being social orders.

Class is an artificial construct, differences like sex are natural.



Polly, there is a reason it's called the New Left. The Old Left focused on social class and labor issues. The Left focused primarily on sexual freedom, drugs, and social issues. The reason for that is class war was no longer selling.

More like the Marxists had lost the debate over the economic calculation problem:


The seeds of the calculation debate had been planted by a host of economists before Ludwig von Mises posed the central question "in such a form as to make it impossible that it should ever again disappear." Mises' article, adapted from a lecture of a year earlier, appeared in the spring of 1920 entitled "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" (pdf). The famous challenge of Mises was uncompromising and to the point: "Where there is no free market, there is no pricing mechanism: without a pricing mechanism, there is no economic calculation."...

The main effect of Mises' arguments has been best summed up by the renowned socialist economist Oskar Lange: "It was [Mises'] powerful challenge that forced the socialists to recognize the importance of an adequate system of economic accounting in a socialist economy. Even more, it was chiefly due to Professor Mises' challenge that many socialists became aware of the very existence of such a problem." But the real effect, was to force the socialists to retreat from a pure advocacy of Marxian socialism to a compromise watered down with "competitive" infusions-market socialism.

...In the course of intense discussion throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the socialist economists were honest enough to take Mises's criticism seriously, and to throw in the towel on most traditional socialist programs: in particular, the original communist vision that workers, not needing such institutions as bourgeois money fetishism, would simply produce and place their products on some vast socialist heap, with everyone simply taking from that heap "according to his needs."

The socialist economists also abandoned the Marxian variant that everyone should be paid according to the labor time embodied into his product...

@ Economic calculation problem (http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem)

Marxists abandoned Marxism for social democracy and took up sexual freedom, drugs, and social issues, as Mr D is pointing out.

[Mister D]

IMPress Polly I just don't think what Chris and I have said is particularly controversial. I think you're imposing a continuity on the history of the left that just isn't plausible or appropriate. It's not a ideological assertion to suggest that central planning is simply inefficient. If that was not the point of central planning and command economies I wouldn't offer that criticism but that was the point. Marxism was a materialist, economically oriented philosophy that simply sought to distribute wealth differently. The problem is that central planning and command economies stifle the creation of wealth. That is ultimately why it was dropped.

[kilgram]

If that's true, why the split between the Old and New Left? Any way you look at it, class war was abandoned in favor of anti-racism, feminism, etc. by the 1960s. Maxists lost the war for the white working class which helps explain their hatred for us.
The new left are traitors to the left and they are not leftist. They are liberals.

[kilgram]

If I might interject some economics....

Economics though is social, economies being social orders.

Class is an artificial construct, differences like sex are natural.




More like the Marxists had lost the debate over the economic calculation problem:



@ Economic calculation problem (http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem)

Marxists abandoned Marxism for social democracy and took up sexual freedom, drugs, and social issues, as Mr D is pointing out.
Class is not any artificial thing. It is something real. It is a consequence of an economic model.

And obviously, if we analyze deeply, every human thing is artificial. Every human analysis of something is artificial... is an human creation. We create concepts to study reality.

[Chris]

Class is not any artificial thing. It is something real. It is a consequence of an economic model.

And obviously, if we analyze deeply, every human thing is artificial. Every human analysis of something is artificial... is an human creation. We create concepts to study reality.

Artificial was not contrasted with real, as in fake vs real, but with natural, as in what man makes vs what man does not. Man makes classes, he does not make sexes, races, etc. The point being Marxism through equalization seeks to make what's natural unnatural.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=773298#post773298)
Top rank Chess is played a bit different than the poor players believe.

First one must understand chess openings. Do you favor P-K4 or P-Q4. I still use the old style notation so I hope you understand. Do you start with a goal in mind other than just win the game?

Correct study takes hours and hours. You need to understand that the complex game still is a system. Do you know the opponent? How fast can you learn the opponent during early play? Is the opponent moving super fast? If the person moves super fast, if the moves are sound, you must be very careful. The play style is important. Do you know the middle game? How well do you know ending games. We generally see Chess in three parts. It is like many things we do. A race driver has to race and practice to be fast. Tennis pros play a lot and have a full understanding of body position, hitting angles and so forth. Same with golfers or other sports. Chess is a lot more fun once you study some chess teaching books by very good players.

I am studying some books on the Russian game style.

I enjoy a book called Chess Traps by Horowitz and Reinfeld. It opens up your thinking a lot.


In Spain we didn't use this notation, but I understood it.

Exactly, the openings are very important. I had some Chess books of openings and studied some of them. I usually played opening with P-K4.

As a beginner player, I used that same opening move. I can use that or other opening moves. Being away from the game for some years, I need to go back to study my openings again as I advise others to do.

I love to use what is called the Stone Wall attack which opens with P-Q4.

[Bob]

I played Chess for a while. But in the end I got a little tired and left to play. Even I went to competitions and all that. I was not very good. And I had tendency to make stupid mistakes and I didn't study my games after they were done (a big mistake if you want to improve). Also I was a teenager when I played and left to play.

But I've read that in East Europe, during Communism and post-Communism they gave a lot of importance to Chess and even they had chess education in schools. Is a good form to train the mind, logics, strategy and memory.

I don't spend all that much time studying my mistakes. I know it when they happen and I spend more time on looking for better solutions.

If a person can master their first 15 moves, they ought to be in good shape.

[kilgram]

Artificial was not contrasted with real, as in fake vs real, but with natural, as in what man makes vs what man does not. Man makes classes, he does not make sexes, races, etc. The point being Marxism through equalization seeks to make what's natural unnatural.
And?

Classes are generated from an economic system. An economic system that is destructive.

Equalization seeks to make what's natural unnatural? What the fuck are you saying? Seriously. I don't understand this natural/unnatural and I don't care about it. As if what was non natural was bad or everything "natural" was good.

And what do you pretend to say with that comment about "equalization"? And, the left does not seek equalization, seek equality, equality of rights and opportunities. Thing that you don't seem to understand.

The right talks about equality of opportunities, but I don't see it in your economic and social systems. I see privileges, privileged and non privileged classes.

[Bob]

Kilgram
I opened a chess topic thread

[kilgram]

Kilgram
I opened a chess topic thread
Why did you mention only me? :)

I am not the only one that I talked about something different but relatively related.

[kilgram]

I don't spend all that much time studying my mistakes. I know it when they happen and I spend more time on looking for better solutions.

If a person can master their first 15 moves, they ought to be in good shape.
Probably, I was not able to master my first 15 moves. I was pretty bad. But with practice, everything can be improved.

[Chris]

And?

Classes are generated from an economic system. An economic system that is destructive.

Equalization seeks to make what's natural unnatural? What the fuck are you saying? Seriously. I don't understand this natural/unnatural and I don't care about it. As if what was non natural was bad or everything "natural" was good.

And what do you pretend to say with that comment about "equalization"? And, the left does not seek equalization, seek equality, equality of rights and opportunities. Thing that you don't seem to understand.

The right talks about equality of opportunities, but I don't see it in your economic and social systems. I see privileges, privileged and non privileged classes.


And try responding to what I said.


Classes are generated from an economic system.

Demonstrate they're not a construct of Marxist economics.


An economic system that is destructive.

Demonstrate this, don't just assume it.



Equalization seeks to make what's natural unnatural? What the fuck are you saying? Seriously. I don't understand this natural/unnatural and I don't care about it. As if what was non natural was bad or everything "natural" was good.

Such language! If you don't care, why ask?

It's not assumed what's natural is good, only that what's natural cannot be changed, and to try to change is futile, fruitless, if not destructive.


And what do you pretend to say with that comment about "equalization"? And, the left does not seek equalization, seek equality, equality of rights and opportunities. Thing that you don't seem to understand.

I mean the same thing you do. Don't fuss so over mere words. You want the sexes to be equal but they are naturally different.


The right talks about equality of opportunities, but I don't see it in your economic and social systems. I see privileges, privileged and non privileged classes.

Opportunity is assumed, everyone has the opportunity to work and improve themselves.

Where do you see privilege? Is it perhaps you that sees it rather than me who expresses it?


If you want to speak of equality, then speak of equality before the law. The law should treat everyone equally, no special treatment. The law should be like the rules of a game, how the pieces move, not the outcome of the game, the law should not handicap Bob because he's better at chess than you or vice versa.

[IMPress Polly]

Mister D wrote:
@IMPress Polly (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=399) I just don't think what Chris and I have said is particularly controversial. I think you're imposing a continuity on the history of the left that just isn't plausible or appropriate.

I'm merely suggesting that there exists more continuity than you're giving credit for; that a view favoring equality in one area tends to lead in the direction of supporting it in other areas. You're mostly highlighting a nuance (a prevailing cultural focus at this time or another) and making it out to be more than it is. In reality, the shift of the First World left toward focusing on cultural issues can be mostly explained by the fact that they're rich countries, as in most people do not live in anything near poverty therein anymore. The American left, for example, was heavily focused on labor issues back when the average American belonged to the poor and working classes. Since the balance of the population has graduated to a middle class status post-WW2, economic issues are no longer quite as pressing upon the overall majority, as their loyalty to capitalism has been bought. Check out oh say southern Europe, Latin America, or the Middle East though and you'll find that what First Worlders often describe as the "old left" centered on socialist economics is very much alive and thriving there. Why? Because those are poorer countries wherein, generally speaking, most people can be described as either poor or low-income. And I've got news for you: there isn't going to be a First World forever. What we're headed toward in the long run is what one today might call a universal Second World status, wherein industrialization has occurred and most people live in urban areas, but wherein nonetheless most of the world's population belongs to the ranks of the poor and working classes while an untaxed, aristocratic caste of capitalists with no national loyalties sits atop vast economic empires of wealth and privilege spanning the entire world. Even here in the United States, we have witnessed a definite revival of economic populism in the last few years, with Occupy Wall Street in 2011 having been followed up by the advent of a rapidly growing movement to unionize the working poor that is now achieving tangible results (like significant minimum wage hikes and electoral victories) in many U.S. cities. That's because more and more Americans are falling out of the propertied middle class. In other words, rest assured that the "old left" is coming back...yes, to this country. And proclamations of Marxism's death have been greatly exaggerated. Marxism is alive and well in southern Europe an Latin America and there are today a remarkably fast-growing number of prominent Marxist philosophers as well.

[Chris]

Marxism is alive and well as neomarxism. Its central planning is why "more and more Americans are falling out of the propertied middle class" and the rich are getting richer.

[Mister D]

I'm merely suggesting that there exists more continuity than you're giving credit for; that a view favoring equality in one area tends to lead in the direction of supporting it in other areas. You're mostly highlighting a nuance (a prevailing cultural focus at this time or another) and making it out to be more than it is. In reality, the shift of the First World left toward focusing on cultural issues can be mostly explained by the fact that they're rich countries, as in most people do not live in anything near poverty therein anymore. The American left, for example, was heavily focused on labor issues back when the average American belonged to the poor and working classes. Since the balance of the population has graduated to a middle class status post-WW2, economic issues are no longer quite as pressing upon the overall majority, as their loyalty to capitalism has been bought. Check out oh say southern Europe, Latin America, or the Middle East though and you'll find that what First Worlders often describe as the "old left" centered on socialist economics is very much alive and thriving there. Why? Because those are poorer countries wherein, generally speaking, most people can be described as either poor or low-income. And I've got news for you: there isn't going to be a First World forever. What we're headed toward in the long run is what one today might call a universal Second World status, wherein industrialization has occurred and most people live in urban areas, but wherein nonetheless most of the world's population belongs to the ranks of the poor and working classes while an untaxed, aristocratic caste of capitalists with no national loyalties sits atop vast economic empires of wealth and privilege spanning the entire world. Even here in the United States, we have witnessed a definite revival of economic populism in the last few years, with Occupy Wall Street in 2011 having been followed up by the advent of a rapidly growing movement to unionize the working poor that is now achieving tangible results (like significant minimum wage hikes and electoral victories) in many U.S. cities. That's because more and more Americans are falling out of the propertied middle class. In other words, rest assured that the "old left" is coming back...yes, to this country. And proclamations of Marxism's death have been greatly exaggerated. Marxism is alive and well in southern Europe an Latin America and there are today a remarkably fast-growing number of prominent Marxist philosophers as well.

Polly, this is the second time you repeated what I already said earlier. See bold. Yes, capitalism won the battle for the hearts and minds, so to speak, of the white working classes. That was my point. The New Left represented a conscious shift in light of what was an ideological defeat.

[Ethereal]

The new left are traitors to the left and they are not leftist. They are liberals.

Can you give specific examples of these "liberals"?

[Animal Mother]

Why I hate progressives/marxists/communists/ is mainly that they are not only willing to trade their own liberty for security (aka "rights", aka house, job, food, etc provided by society) but mine, too.

They want what they are unwilling to work for themselves. Rather than start cooperatives or start communes they go to meetings, try to vote it in for everyone.

What assholes.

[Chris]

The difference in a nutshell...

http://i.snag.gy/Wfrtr.jpg

[IMPress Polly]

Ethereal wrote:
Why I hate progressives/marxists/communists/ is mainly that they are not only willing to trade their own liberty for security (aka "rights", aka house, job, food, etc provided by society) but mine, too.

They want what they are unwilling to work for themselves. Rather than start cooperatives or start communes they go to meetings, try to vote it in for everyone.

What assholes.

Although I could argue that your main point (that workers are society's exploiters and capitalists the honest, hard laborers of the world) is the exact reverse of the truth, there is little question in my mind that you're set in your views, so I won't waste my time trying. However, with respect to the bolded claim, I'd say that's painting with a very broad brush, as socialists and communists both in this country and elsewhere start up plenty of cooperatives and communes, and the pattern of doing so has distinctly increased since the last recession! But while I cannot speak for the whole of the radical left, I can say that Marxists are also political, recognizing that a socialist economy governed by politicians loyal to the capitalist class is an oxymoron. You can't have both of those things!

[Chris]

Although I could argue that your main point (that workers are society's exploiters and capitalists the honest, hard laborers of the world) is the exact reverse of the truth...

That wasn't anything he said, but, please, go ahead, argue it, polly. Clearly state your premises, then argue the point.