Jefbol Thought

This isn’t really an ideology, more so just personal beliefs and thoughts

=Political Views=

[[File:Ormarxf.png]] Dialectical Materialism
Dialectical/historical materialism views society from the perspective of the struggle between classes and the contradictions that have arrived from class conflict. Marx and Engels explain this best when they state:

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."

Under capitalism, this is no different as contradictions relating to the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat dominant capitalism. These contradictions, as Marx and Engels rightfully pointed out, will eventually cause capitalism to collapse under its own weight as class contradictions reach their peak and the proletariat, now class conscious and united under a common myth.

Society's crucial structures according to this logic are the economic base and the societal superstructure. The economic base is best summarized as being directly related to the mode of production, as the relations to the mode of production as part of the base. The superstructure meanwhile relates to everything from education to mass media, and while both the base and superstructure can influence each other, the superstructure tends to be the one being influenced by the economic base as it helps uphold and maintain the current economic structure.

[[File:Situ.png]] The Spectacle of Capitalism
(ill go more deep info situationism here later on)

Under modern bourgeois society, we live under the spectacle, which is described by Guy Debord as “the image of the ruling economy“.

The spectacle is characterized by the brutal and alienating dominance of the commoditization of society, all while distracting the worker from his alienation and exploitation into supporting and keeping the status quo afloat. The illusion of choice in such a spectacle is non-existent, as commodity fetishism triumphs that of the worker’s only free will.

And only when the proletariat gains class consciousness and revolts against this alienation can the spectacle be destroyed once and for all.

[[File:Sorel.png]] The Myth
Georges Sorel in Reflections on Violence introduced his most famous concept, that being of the myth. The myth can be best described as a Marxist analysis of how revolutionary movements believe themselves to have an inevitable victory, and these myths are usually expressed in the form of images and ideas. Now, Sorel also differentiated myths from utopian ideals. Myths, unlike utopias, encourage proletarians to work within Marxist discipline. The myth for revolutionary socialists, is that of the proletarian general strike, which of course must be worked towards in accordance with revolutionary spontaneity.

With us working towards the realization of the myth of the general strike, we must take a hardline anti-reformist stance. Reformism is a form of infantile leftism that will only preserve the capitalist mode of production, creating the most reactionary form of capitalism there is (that of social democracy).

Ultimately, it is us who holds the real scientific and political knowledge, as Sorel stated in Reflections on Violence. "That is why I say that, by accepting the idea of the general strike, although we know that it is a myth, we are proceeding exactly as a modern physicist does who has complete confidence in his science, although he knows that the future will look upon it as antiquated."

[[File:Statist.png]] The State
Now, the Marxist scientific analysis of the state is that it being a structure of class domination, the monopoly on the use of violence against other classes. The proletariat during the revolution must of course, overthrow the ruling bourgeois class and establish supremacy over the forces of violence and authority. However, it's not as simple as it appears.

Marx in "The Civil War in France", taking lessons from the Paris Commune, explained that the working class could not just take control of the existing state machinery, with him stating:

''“On the dawn of March 18, Paris arose to the thunder-burst of “Vive la Commune!” What is the Commune, that sphinx so tantalizing to the bourgeois mind? “The proletarians of Paris,” said the Central Committee in its manifesto of March 18, amidst the failures and treasons of the ruling classes, have understood that the hour has struck for them to save the situation by taking into their own hands the direction of public affairs.... They have understood that it is their imperious duty, and their absolute right, to render themselves masters of their own destinies, by seizing upon the governmental power.” But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”''

Instead, as both Marx and later Lenin stated, the proletariat must destroy the bourgeois state and created their own state functions and machinery. We have seen what has happened when revolutionary movements fail to destroy the state machinery.

Georges Sorel in Reflections on Violence, pointed out how the Jacobins, due to their failure to destroy the feudal state machinery, ended up resorting to the same Old Regime tactics and functions.

This analysis of the DotP degenerating without the necessary abolishment of the old state institutions holds true in the Soviet Union, where the Bolsheviks after seizing power, failed to destroy the Tsarist state machinery. This was catastrophic for socialism in the Soviet Union, as the DotP soon entered into a state of decay right after Lenin's death.

The rejection of Marx’s stance on the need to abolish the bourgeois state machinery is a huge mistake. This belief in the use of present state structures to use as a base for the establishment of the DotP leads to the pacifying of proletarian movements into adopting parliamentarian and social democratic views, and this is exactly what happened to parties like the SPD in Germany.

On the other hand, the rejection of the state entirely is also a mistake, as both Daniel De Leon and Vladimir Lenin pointed out. The passage from capitalism to lower-stage communism, and then from the lower-stage to the higher-stage, requires the dictatorship of the proletariat to be in full of force with the weapon of violence at its disposal, at all times. The anarchists and their plan to abolish the state with the stroke of a pen and the bringing about of higher-stage communism immediately, naive of the conditions post-capitalism, will only lead to catastrophe as the conditions + the contradictions of the base and superstructure have not been resolved.

=Political and Economic Essays=

[[File:Succdem.png]] A Marxist Analysis of the Reform-Revolution Debate
A concerning trend of the rejection of proletarian revolution and violence in favor of evolutionary social democratic politics has sprung up in the past few years among the online left. Those who wave the flags of the Democratic Socialists of America and the Labor Party of Britain, and who reject the notion of revolution and Marxist analysis in favor of petit bourgeois opportunism, these middle class liberals putting on the mask of the labor movement will be the downfall of socialism.

Reformism historically and today is a form of infantile leftism based upon the idealist premises of the ability to use state power and electoralism to achieve socialist goals and aims. This is simply a utopian vision and ignores the nature and ethics of the bourgeoisie. Georges Sorel noted in “Reflections on Violence” how the bourgeoisie would weaken its own power for the sake of its own stability and security. Reformism of course does exactly this, and plays right into the hands of the capitalists. The granting of concessions to the proletariat are only that, concessions that can be taken away at any point and have only been made to weaken the labor movement and to keep the bourgeoisie’s power secure. The Christian-oriented humanism of the social democratic reformists will only play into the hands of bourgeoisie, as they are blinded by pacifism and as they reject the notion of the need for a violent proletarian revolution in order to overthrow the system of capitalism.

Social democracy in of itself is the most efficient form of reactionism. It, under the mask of humanism and bourgeois paternalism, creates the perfect illusion of a progressive society. The superprofits accumulated from the rents of the the third world are turned into sustainable welfare, and imperialist bloodshed is turned into a humanitarian endeavor to protect the illusion that is “human rights”.

Reformism in of itself fails to realize that even with these concessions given to the proletariat coming into effect, the structure of the state and the economy remains. You can take a poodle and do all sorts of things to change the poodle’s appearance, but a poodle it remains. And this logic applies to reformism. You can reform the bourgeois state, sure, but it still remains a bourgeois state that must be shattered by the revolutionary proletariat.

[[File:Hedonism-cloud.png]] The Hedonist Left: An Infantile Disorder
In recent years, alongside the rise of BreadTube-style social democratic liberalism, the online socialist community has seen the rise of the "hedonist left". These "leftists" have obstructed socialism by using it to promote liberal hedonistic culture. These hedonist liberals support the decriminalization of sex work and of narcotics, and oppose what they see as "conservative moralism" from socialists who oppose these things. This is a very concerning trend that I argue is detrimental to socialism, as it continues to promote and works to secure the capitalist superstructure and the bourgeois hedonistic individualism associated with it.

 Sex Work and Neo-Feudal Degeneration of Capitalism

Firstly, we touch the subject of sex work. We first must examine "left-wing" pro-sex work arguments in order to properly examine and give a concrete analysis of the industry. So firstly, it is often stated by these people that sex work classifies as a form of productive labor. Paul Cockshott in his article on Unproductive Labor, laid out the two qualifications for productive labor, that of:

1. The labor must be employed out of capital and not revenue

2. The labor has to result in a persistent product that lasts beyond when the labor is first produced

Quite obviously, sex work does not fit either of these. No commodity is produced from sex work, as it instead collects revenue from the buyer. And sex obviously does not last beyond and after the act itself, meaning there is no actual product produced from it.

Friedrich Engels, in "On The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State", wrote on prostitution and the history of it, stating:

''"By “hetaerism” Morgan understands the practice, co-existent with monogamous marriage, of sexual intercourse between men and unmarried women outside marriage, which, as we know, flourishes in the most varied forms throughout the whole period of civilization and develops more and more into open prostitution. This hetaerism derives quite directly from group marriage, from the ceremonial surrender by which women purchased the right of chastity. Surrender for money was at first a religious act; it took place in the temple of the goddess of love, and the money originally went into the temple treasury. The temple slaves of Anaitis in Armenia and of Aphrodite in Corinth, like the sacred dancing-girls attached to the temples of India, the so-called bayaderes (the word is a corruption of the Portuguese word bailadeira, meaning female dancer), were the first prostitutes. Originally the duty of every woman, this surrender was later performed by these priestesses alone as representatives of all other women. Among other peoples, hetaerism derives from the sexual freedom allowed to girls before marriage – again, therefore, a relic of group marriage, but handed down in a different way. With the rise of the inequality of property – already at the upper stage of barbarism, therefore – wage-labor appears sporadically side by side with slave labor, and at the same time, as its necessary correlate, the professional prostitution of free women side by side with the forced surrender of the slave. Thus the heritage which group marriage has bequeathed to civilization is double-edged, just as everything civilization brings forth is double-edged, double-tongued, divided against itself, contradictory: here monogamy, there hetaerism, with its most extreme form, prostitution."''

Alexandra Kollontai, a prominent Marxist feminist, wrote in her famous essay, "Prostitution And The Ways of Fighting It", that:

''"I will not take it upon myself to prophesy the form that marriage or relationships between the sexes will assume in the future. But of one thing there is no doubt: under communism all dependence of women upon men and all the elements of material calculation found m modern marriage will be absent. Sexual relationships will be based on a healthy instinct for reproduction prompted by the abandon of young love, or by fervent passion, or by a blaze of physical attraction or by a soft light of intellectual and emotional harmony. Such sexual relationships have nothing in common with prostitution. Prostitution is terrible because it is an act of violence by the woman upon herself in the name of material gain. Prostitution is I naked act of material calculation which leaves no room for considerations of love and passion. Where passion and attraction begin, prostitution ends. Under communism, prostitution and the contemporary family will disappear. Healthy, joyful and free relationships between the sexes will develop. A new generation will come into being, independent and courageous and with a strong sense of the collective: a generation which places the good of the collective above all else."''

This deviation from what was seen as the proper Marxist position on sex work (the opposition towards it) is an example of cultural liberalism creeping its way into online leftism. Those who support the reactionary and neo-feudal institution that is sex work, are nothing more than liberals who should not be taken seriously.

 On Narcotics

Another concerning trend and the probably the most prevalent of them is that of the support for the decriminalization/legalization of drugs and drug use under socialism.

There are numerous problems with this, and we must look into how drugs and the narcotic trade operates under capitalism. Drugs in modern capitalism is an escape mechanism from the conditions of decedent bourgeois society, with its trade thriving from times of economic and social decline. The bourgeoisie historically and today notes this, and it engages in the trade of narcotics around the world either directly or indirectly. Obviously, with us knowing this, narcotics cannot be tolerated under socialism.

 BreadTube and Infantile Leftism

These two main positions of the hedonist left bring me onto the problem of BreadTube and infantile leftism. BreadTube obviously is nothing more than a community of radlibs who will inevitably be liquidated into the ruling bourgeoisie if they ever got a state of power. The community itself represents the spirit of the hedonist left and everything wrong with it; the rejection of Marxist analysis in favor of blindly supporting lumpenproletarian movements such as the sex work activism movement, the adoption of a idealist vision of what socialism could look like, the furthering of liberal humanism and individualism which will only help further intrench bourgeois ideology, etc. We must reject these petit bourgeois liberals, who will only harm socialism.

[[File:Cooperative_Capitalism.png]] Against "Market Socialism"
With the fall of state socialism to bureaucratic despotism and revisionism, a new model for socialism started to be proposed. This model became known as "market socialism" or "cooperative socialism". However, this model has proven itself to just be another form of social democracy hiding behind the mask of "radical democracy".

Firstly, we must examine market socialism as a concept. Market socialism of course advocates for a socialist society based around cooperatives which compete with each other through free markets. Eugen Dühring, an anti-Marxist politician from Germany, advocated for a very similar system, which Friedrich Engels argued against in "Anti-Dühring".

"There will therefore be rich and poor economic communes, and the levelling out takes place through the population crowding into the rich communes and leaving the poor ones. So that although Herr Dühring wants to eliminate competition in products between the individual communes by means of national organization of trade, he calmly allows competition among the producers to continue. Things are removed from the sphere of competition, but men remain subject to it."

In a market socialist system, there will be rich and poor cooperatives. Poor cooperatives will go out of business and rich cooperatives will grow into capitalist monopolies. Wage labor (the labor market is still retained), the generalization of commodity production (the economy is still run for profit), and private property (that of the petit bourgeois type in that it is privately-owned by a collective) would still be retained under such a system, creating what is essentially just a form of petit bourgeois socialism.

Now, let us look at some examples of market socialism. For this, we'll look at the most famous example, that of Yugoslavia. The Chinese newspaper, the People's Daily, wrote an essay on the question of Yugoslav "Socialism".

''In 1956 the Tito clique encouraged local administrations to foster private capital by its taxation and other policies. In 1961 the Tito clique decreed that private individuals have the right to purchase foreign exchange. In 1963 the Tito clique embodied the policy of developing private capitalism in its constitution. According to provisions of the constitution, private individuals in Yugoslavia may found enterprises and hire labor. With the Tito clique's help and encouragement, private enterprise and private capital have mushroomed in the cities in Yugoslavia.''

The Yugoslav model retained private capital, the generalization of commodity production, private property, and wage labor. Unemployment in Yugoslavia was rampant, reaching about 16% by the 1980s. Inequality was rampant, especially among the different republics. In no way could this system be considered to be socialist.

[[File:AntiDem.png]] Socialism Is Not Democratic
=Best/Worst Parts Of My Ideology?= Neo-Glencoeism- Best:Being culturally left Worst:Everything else

=Political Journey=

2006-2019


 * [[File:Apolit.png]]
 * [[File:Trumpism.png]]
 * [[File:Farm.png]]
 * [[File:Natcon.png]]

2019-2021


 * [[File:Tradcon.png]]
 * [[File:Agrnac.png]]
 * [[File:Jacksonian_Democracy.png]]
 * [[File:DistributistPFP.png]]

2021-2023


 * [[File:Sorelia.png]]
 * [[File:Proudhon.png]]
 * [[File:Agsoc.png]]
 * [[File:Long.png]]

2023-2023


 * [[File:RevSynd.png]]
 * [[File:Minsocf.png]]
 * [[File:LaFollete.png]]
 * [[File:Proudhon.png]]

2023-


 * [[File:Ormarxf.png]]
 * [[File:Sorel.png]]
 * [[File:Situ.png]]
 * [[File:Impossible.png]]

=Relations=

The Sigma Grindset

 * [[File:Yoda8soup.png]] Yoda8soup Thought - Reject democracy and populism and embrace impossibilism, and you’ll be perfect.
 * [[File:Arthurwp_marx.png]] Arthurwp Thought - Not bad, pretty cool actually.
 * [[File:O'Langism.png]] O'Langism - Pretty cool, though I’m not an anarchist.
 * [[File:Neokira2.png]] Neo-Kiraism - Cool
 * - Your ideology is fine, and Mao was one of the better MLs.
 * [[File:CheeseCom.png]] Cheese Communism - Cool ideology even if goofy.
 * [[File:LeninisBasedsmall.png]] CanadianCommunist - Pretty cool, though I'm not the biggest fan of Stalin and Marxism-Leninism, and also your section on theory is extremely fucking goofy.

Alright

 * [[File:Borker thought pixels 4.png]] Borker Thought - Tolerable ideology, cool guy.
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - Pretty alright for a Marxist-Leninist.
 * - Average possibilist.

Soy and Not Even Funny
''
 * [[File:Tomjaz.png]] Tomjazzism - ''"The optimist in politics is an inconstant and even dangerous man, because he takes no account of the great difficulties presented by his projects; these projects seem to him to possess a force of their own which tends to bring about their realization all the more easily as, in his opinion, they are destined to produce more happiness. He frequently thinks that small reforms of the political system and, above all, of government personnel will be sufficient to direct the movement of society in such a way as to mitigate those evils of the modern world which seem so hideous to sensitive souls. As soon as his friends come to power he declares that it is necessary to let things alone for a while, not to be too hasty, and to learn to be content with whatever their good intentions suggest; it is not always self-interest that dictates these expressions of satisfaction, as people have often believed: self-interest is strongly aided by vanity and by the illusions of poor-quality philosophy. The optimist moves with remarkable ease from revolutionary anger to the most ridiculous social pacifism."
 * [[File:Guard-Occo.png]] National Fracturism - I have a lot to say about your ideology. Firstly, your economic system is nothing special, just the same economics that exist in Germany but with more cooperatives. Your take on the reform or revolution question seems to be driven by your bourgeois conception of rationalism, in that revolution is irrational attempt at revenge by classes, as well as your humanist tendencies in which you deem revolution to be evil because of its use of violence. Another thing related to this is how you deem yourself to be some sort of anti-humanist, but your arguments against Marxism are entirely based in liberal humanism, in that you believe Marxism and the DotP to be "anti-human" and "evil" because it is the proletariat using violence and force against the former oppressor class. I don't think you've read political theory, which is why I'm not as mean as I could be, but please read Marxist theory.
 * [[File:Panth.png]] Pantheonism - An incoherent mess of ideologies, pure autism. And plus you have a Wikipedia understanding of Sorel as “big boogie man proto-fascist”.
 * [[File:PosadasComrade.png]] Mega Posadism - LARP
 * [[File:Omega1065.png]] Omegaism - Seems like an ok guy, but basically your average neocuck liberal.
 * [[File:Brazlib.png]] Brazilian Liberalism - Another day, another liberal neocuck.
 * [[File:NeoGlencoe.png]] Neo-Glencoeism - Another neocon.

=Comments= CanadianCommunist - hmmmmm, i kinda like it, add me, Bruh add meee
 * [[File:Ego-CommunizationSprite.png]]Ego-Communization Add me bro
 * [[File:Murb.png]] Neo-Murba - add?
 * - Can you add me to relations when you make it?
 * [[File:Jefsynd.png]] Jefbol Thought - yea ill start on relations tomorrow most likely
 * - nice self insert also quite based! Can you add me when you get the chance comrade? :)
 * [[File:O'Langism.png]] O'Langism - Add me back, comrade?
 * [[File:PosadasComrade.png]] PosadasComrade Add me pls?
 * [[File:Neokira2.png]] Meowxism - add me
 * [[File:O'Langism.png]] O'Langism - Why are you anti-abortion?
 * [[File:Jefsynd.png]] Jefbol Thought - mostly personal objections, but i wouldn’t ban it under my hypothetical rule, and i am fine with it in certain circumstances like rape or teen pregnancy
 * Add me?
 * - Thoughts on imperialism, colonialism and racism?
 * [[File:Jefsynd.png]] Jefbol Thought - good when i do it quite soy and unfunny

Neo-Majapahitism - add me
 * - Added you, also wanna add me back (btw I'm not completely anti-revolution, I just prefer to minimize needless violence)

TEB - Add me? Glencoe- added you back add me Neo-Glencoeism- add me
 * [[File:Libcon.png]] ResponsibleCitizen - Thoughts on Charles Maurras (whom Georges Sorel praised, along with the Action Française)?
 * [[File:Jefsynd.png]] Jefbol Thought - he didn’t praise them, and letters that sorel wrote have revealed his whole stunt with action francaise and cercle proudhon was basically just to find his student eduard berth a new political home as sorel was retiring from politics
 * [[File:apocalypsnukeball.png]] Domestic Church - What are your thoughts on sex besides accepting LGBt?
 * [[File:Brazlib.png]] Brazilian Liberalism - Add me
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - My criticism of you was so dumb lmao that's my bad. I updated it on my page, could you update yours as well? thx
 * [[File:Jefsynd.png]] Jefbol Thought - updated 👍👍
 * [[File:MiskaAlt.png]] Miškaism add me, comrade
 * [[File:Esopinochet.png]] Mr Whooper Manism-Add me tanksexual
 * [[File:Brazlib.png]] Brazilian Liberalism - Add [[File:NightmareBrazLib.png]] Nightmare Brazilian Liberalism?
 * [[File:NeoUnopxl.png]] NeoUnoGamerism - Add me?
 * - Add me?
 * [[File:PosadasComrade.png]] PosadasComrade- Add my new page.
 * - Add me, you Totalitarian.
 * - I have added you to your page. Please add me.
 * [[File:Tomjaz.png]] Tomjazzism - I must say, I find your criticism pretty confusing. I'm not that different from Yoda, yet, you have very different views on our ideologies. I've never really called for reformist policies as being able to achieve socialism, and am critical of even those movements I most support, like Rojava's persecution of sex workers.
 * [[File:Jefsynd.png]] Jefbol Thought - you still retain an optimistic perspective of how socialists can achieve power, and while yoda does still retain some liberal tendencies, they’re not as present in his beliefs anymore and he has much more things that make up for his kautskyist tendencies on reform (BASED ROJAVA)
 * [[File:NeoUnopxl.png]] NeoUnoGamerism - add me back?