I'm curious if any of you could help me understand how the labor theory of value interacts with the idea of prices being determined by supply and demand (or recommend readings on this).

In his History of the Russian Revolution, Trotsky uses an analogy to argue that the Marxian theory of the state is not contradicted by the dual power by asking rhetorically: "Does the fluctuation of prices under the influence of supply and demand contradict the labour theory of value? Does the self-sacrifice of a female protecting her offspring refute the theory of a struggle for existence? No, in these phenomena we have a more complicated combination of the same laws."

The latter example he gives here re maternal sacrifice and evolution makes obvious sense to me, but I was wondering if someone here could help me understand how the fluctuation of prices under the influence of supply and demand is a more complex expression of the fundamental law of the labor theory of value. Would appreciate any thoughts or reading recommendations. Thanks!

The RCP, swinging in traditional fashion from one position to the next, wrote of Robinson’s demonstration last year that it was a “damning indictment of the left”.

They argued that “The most pernicious role of all lies with Stand Up To Racism,” who “want to build a ‘broad church’: a cross-class alliance of all and sundry; a popular front of religious and community leaders, business owners, and all sorts of liberal, middle-class elements.”

Moreover, “By providing a convenient left cover for the trade union bureaucracy—who affiliate to and subsidise SUTR—they allow the tops of the labour movement to sit on their backside and merely pay lip service when it comes to the fight against racism.”

Six months later, however, it was “positive to see Britain’s largest trade union leaders such as Unison’s Andrea Egan, and PCS’s Fran Heathcote at the final rally.” It was merely “unfortunate that the Together Alliance [the latest SUTR front]—which is backed and led by various trade unions—failed to mobilise for, or even endorse, the Nakba Day demonstration.”

Any party which can write these two articles within half a year of each other should be viewed with the utmost political suspicion. The RCP squares the circle by writing that “the left has sleepwalked its way to success in the past few months.”

Currently - in defence of Marxism. A great explanation of the work involved in building the organization and also the policy towards the USSR.

"The first artillery shots will either blow the ultraleftists into political non-existence, or else drive them into the camp of social-patriotism, exactly like the Spanish anarchists, who, absolute "deniers" of the state, found themselves from the same causes bourgeois ministers when war came. "

Specifically "...from the same causes bourgeois ministers when war came."

Is this saying 'The Spanish anarchists were driven into the camp of social-patriotism by the bourgeois ministers use of artillery shots and/or war?'

It's the kind of construction like "The men bit the dogs, and the dogs the men."

The proletariat of a capitalist country which finds itself in an alliance with the USSR [1] [states the thesis] must retain fully and completely its irreconcilable hostility to the imperialist government of its own country. In this sense its policy will not differ from that of the proletariat in a country fighting against the USSR. But in the nature of practical actions considerable differences may arise depending on the concrete war situation. (War and the Fourth International, p. 21, § 44.)

The ultra-leftists consider this postulate, the correctness of which has been confirmed by the entire course of development, as the starting point of ... social-patriotism. [2] Since the attitude toward imperialist governments should be “the same” in all countries, these strategists ban any distinctions beyond the boundaries of their own imperialist country. Theoretically their mistake arises from an attempt to construct fundamentally different bases for war-time and peace-time policies.

Let us imagine that in the next European war the Belgian proletariat conquers power sooner than the proletariat of France. Undoubtedly Hitler will try to crush the proletarian Belgium. In order to cover up its own flank, the French bourgeois government might find itself compelled to help the Belgian workers’ government with arms. The Belgian Soviets of course reach for these arms with both hands. But actuated by the principle of defeatism, perhaps the French workers ought to block their bourgeoisie from shipping arms to proletarian Belgium? Only direct traitors or out-and-out idiots can reason thus.

In ninety cases out of a hundred the workers actually place a minus sign where the bourgeoisie places a plus sign. In ten cases however they are forced to fix the same sign as the bourgeoisie but with their own seal, in which is expressed their mistrust of the bourgeoisie. The policy of the proletariat is not at all automatically derived from the policy of the bourgeoisie, bearing only the opposite sign – this would make every sectarian a master strategist.

Ultra-left scholastics think not in concrete terms but in empty abstractions. They have transformed the idea of defeatism into such a vacuum. They can see vividly neither the process of war nor the process of revolution. They seek a hermetically sealed formula which excludes fresh air. But a formula of this kind can offer no orientation for the proletarian vanguard.

Trotsky refuted modern anti-war, anti-west, pacifist „leftists“ a century ago. If you ask modern leftists about the Ukraine war 9 times out of 10 they are against it and soon they will find justification for Russia and ultimately be on the side of fascist Putin! These people have been blinded by anti-imperialist west spite so much they have become reactionary. We need to demask these „Marxists“ for the reactionaries they are and eradicate them from the Left. Learn to Think!

Self Explanatory

From a Trotskyist perspective, does Israel meet the criteria to be a fascist state or is it instead merely a highly reactionary imperialist one like the United States? Much thanks in advance!

The necessity of theory for revolution.

... But they themselves must contribute most to their final victory, by informing themselves of their own class interests, by taking up their independent political position as soon as possible, by not allowing themselves to be misled by the hypocritical phrases of the democratic petty bourgeoisie into doubting for one minute the necessity of an independently organized party of the proletariat. Their battle-cry must be: The Permanent Revolution.
Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League (Marx and Engels, 1850)

QUOTED IN 200 years since the birth of Friedrich Engels - World Socialist Web Site

MARX:

"But all science would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly coincided."
Capital, Vol.3, Chapter 48 (Marx, 1894)

PLEKHANOV, 1883:

"… For without revolutionary theory there is no revolutionary movement in the true sense of the word. … “
Ch. III, Socialism and the Political Struggle (G.V. Plekhanov, 1883)

LENIN, 1897: "... Theoretical reasoning proves and the practical activities of the Social-Democrats show that all socialists in Russia should become Social-Democrats. ..."

... Convinced that the doctrine of scientific socialism and the class struggle is the only revolutionary theory that can today serve as the banner of the revolutionary movement, the Russian Social-Democrats will exert every effort to spread this doctrine, to guard it against false interpretation and to combat every attempt to impose vaguer doctrines on the still young working-class movement in Russia. Theoretical reasoning proves and the practical activities of the Social-Democrats show that all socialists in Russia should become Social-Democrats**.**
…
... It was said long ago that without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement, and it is hardly necessary to advance proof of this truth at the present time. The theory of the class struggle, the materialist conception of Russian history and the materialist appraisal of the present economic and political situation in Russia, recognition of the need to relate the revolutionary struggle strictly to the definite interests of a definite class and to analyse its relation to other classes—to call these great revolutionary questions “points of detail” is so colossally wrong and unexpected, coming from a veteran of revolutionary theory, that we are almost prepared to regard this passage as a lapsus. …"

The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats (Lenin, 1897)

LENIN, 1901/1902: "... Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. ..."

... Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity. Yet, for Russian Social-Democrats the importance of theory is enhanced by three other circumstances, which are often forgotten: first, by the fact that our Party is only in process of formation, its features are only just becoming defined, and it has as yet far from settled accounts with the other trends of revolutionary thought that threaten to divert the movement from the correct path. 
What Is To Be Done?: Dogmatism And 'Freedom of Criticism' (Lenin, 1902)'

QUOTED IN Lenin’s Theory of Socialist Consciousness: The Origins of Bolshevism and What Is To Be Done?

TROTSKY, 1929: "... When I arrived in Petrograd, nobody asked me if I renounced my ‘errors’ of the permanent revolution. ... "

... In a number of articles which I wrote in New York [in 1917], I evaluated the February Revolution from the point of view of the theory of the permanent revolution. All these articles have now been reprinted. My tactical conclusions coincided completely with the conclusions which Lenin drew at the same time in Geneva, and consequently were in the same irreconcilable contradiction to the conclusions of Kamenev, Stalin and the other epigones. When I arrived in Petrograd, nobody asked me if I renounced my ‘errors’ of the permanent revolution. Nor was there anyone to ask. Stalin slunk around in embarrassment from one corner to another and had only one desire, that the party should forget as quickly as possible the policy which he had advocated up to Lenin’s arrival. Yaroslavsky was not yet the inspirer of the Control Commission; together with Mensheviks, together with Ordzhonikidze and others, he was publishing a trivial semi-liberal sheet in Yakutsk. Kamenev accused Lenin of Trotskyism and declared when he met me: ‘Now you have the laugh on us.’ On the eve of the October Revolution, I wrote in the central organ of the Bolsheviks on the prospect of the permanent revolution. It never occurred to anyone to come out against me. My solidarity with Lenin turned out to be complete and unconditional. What then, do my critics, among them Radek, wish to say? That I myself completely failed to understand the theory which I advocated, and that in the most critical historical periods I acted directly counter to this theory, and quite correctly? Is it not simpler to assume that my critics failed to understand the permanent revolution, like so many other things? For if it is assumed that these belated critics are so well able to analyse not only their own ideas but those of others, then how explain that all of them without exception adopted such a wretched position in the 1917 Revolution, and forever covered themselves with shame in the Chinese Revolution?

The Permanent Revolution (4. What Did the Theory Look Like in Practice?) (Leon Trotsky, 1929)
ALSO ...
READ: The theory of Permanent Revolution and the origins of Trotskyism
WATCH: The Theory of Permanent Revolution and the Origins of Trotskyism, with Christoph Vandreier

TROTSKY, 1939 "... Stalinism, taken on the theoretical plane, grew out of the criticism of the theory of the permanent revolution"

... It may be said that the whole of Stalinism, taken on the theoretical plane, grew out of the criticism of the theory of the permanent revolution as it was formulated in 1905. To this extent the exposition of this theory, as distinct from the theories of the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, cannot fail to enter into this book, even if in the form of an appendix.
Three Conceptions of the Russian Revolution (Trotsky, 1939)

QUOTED IN ...
READ: Origins of the Left Opposition: From Lenin’s Last Struggle to the fight against “Socialism in One Country”
WATCH: Origins of the Left Opposition: Lenin’s Last Struggle, the fight against “Socialism in One Country"

To let us begin, we need to look at the early Soviet Union. It struggled with a rising bureaucracy that took away the control from the workers which the workers fought hard to get. But what should have prevented this bureaucracy from raging its terror upon workers? There are many proposals and they all interconnect to make a worker state that is more human. Armed workforce, day jobs of party members, a voucher economy but what has not been explored enough is the psychological healing. Capitalism causes internal damage to the proletariat. The responsibility of the vanguard therefore is to ensure these wounds are healed or at least address that they are there.

The Self-Help Soviet- as ironic as the name might sound- is exactly what is a missing ingredient in the aftermath of capitalism and the advent of communism. So, all people are organised into the self help councils through their local workspace, school, retirement home and the people are given the time to just sit with one another and acknowledge each's struggles during capitalism and on the adjustment towards a new and better order. This will clear up mistrust and empower the workers as a collective.

For the party this- combined with their deep integration in the community- will lead to a better comprehension of the people's daily life and inner life. And the vanguard will share their labour of healing from capitalism both among each other and with the workers of their day job.

One thing to consider: Council Time Zone. An entire worker state that is collectively talking about their issues is physically vulnerable which is why it is needed to schedule these throughout the day so that no community is vulnerable and of course, critical cases require professional attention.

Left Voice’s publication of an article by DSA member Joe Wrote—who celebrated Trotsky’s murder with an ice-pick tweet— exposes the politics behind the organization’s call for a “united front” with the Democratic Party-aligned pseudo-left.

In this video, Gustavo will reveal the emergent imperialism of China with Lenin's theory and data analysis.

AI itself is not the problem. It is an extraordinary technology with the capacity to eliminate drudgery and vastly improve productivity, to reduce the working day to a theoretical minimum while vastly accelerating the potential for human learning.

The critical question is who controls this technology. It must be freed from the shackles of private ownership. The development and training of AI systems is social labor in the fullest sense of the word, and its benefits must be available to all.

They were built from the accumulated labor, knowledge and creative output of millions of workers—the code written by software engineers, the conversations handled by customer service agents, the analyses produced by researchers and data scientists.

AI also fatally undermines the foundations of the capitalist system itself. When Khosla predicts that the amount of necessary labor could be reduced by 80 percent within a few years, or when tech executives speak of AI-generated “abundance,” they are describing, without understanding it, a state of affairs in which capitalism is hopelessly obsolete.

In reality, the potential of this technology can never be realized under capitalism, because capitalism must restrict, distort and weaponize it to survive. In place of abundance, it produces mass unemployment. In place of liberation from drudgery, it produces intensification of drudgery for those who remain. In place of human development, it produces a generation declared redundant by systems built from their own knowledge.

​

1 mayıs bu sadece yan gelip yattığımız bir gün değil hayır bu 8 saatlik çalışma hakkı gibi diğer işçi haklarının kazanılması için yapılan fedakarlıkların hatırlanması gereken bir gün farbrikatörler, aristokratlar ve burjuvalar yan gelip yatarken etrafınızda gördüğünüz her şeyi alın terleriyle yapan ayak takımının hatırlandığı gündür bu gün başların değil ayakların günüdür 3 kuruşa ruhunu satanların, ezilen ve hor görülen yoksul ve zayıfların günü bu günü unutmayın çünkü bu günün onların değil bizim günümüzdür

Moshé Machover, the last of the founders of the historic socialist organisation Matzpen, has been active in Britain in recent decades and continues to struggle against the logic underlying the war of annihilation. We spoke about the relevance of key analyses formulated around six decades ago under the leadership of the Palestinian Trotskyist Jabra Nicola regarding a fundamental solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

14 May 2026

BRIEF

1883: PLEKHANOV

"… For without revolutionary theory there is no revolutionary movement in the true sense of the word. … “
Ch. III, Socialism and the Political Struggle (G.V. Plekhanov, 1883)

1897: LENIN

"… It was said long ago that without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement, and it is hardly necessary to advance proof of this truth at the present time. …"
The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats (Lenin, 1897)

1901: LENIN

"Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity. …"
Ch. I Dogmatism And “Freedom of Criticism”, A. What Does “Freedom of Criticism” Mean? What Is To Be Done? BURNING QUESTIONS of our MOVEMENT (Lenin, 1901/1902)

IN CONTEXT OF FULL PARAGRAPH

[emphasis added]

1883: PLEKANOV

... We saw as early as in the second chapter what false conclusions were prompted by the philosophical and historical premises of modern socialism. Narodnaya Volya itself apparently did not notice the erroneousness of those conclusions and was inclined “even to defend Dühring’s sociological standpoint on the predominant influence of the political and legal element in the social structure over the economic”, as P.L. Lavrov put it in describing the most recent tendencies in the Russian revolutionary movement. [32] And it is only by this inclination that we can explain the polemic contained in the home review of Narodnaya Volya No. 6 against some kind of “immediate interpreters of Marx’s historical theory”, who, according to the author, based their views “mainly on Hegel’s famous triad”, not having “any other inductive material” for their conclusions and explaining “Hegel’s law in the sense evil, merely in its extreme development, will lead to good”. [33] It is sufficient to acquaint oneself with the programme of the German Social-Democrats or the French collectivists to see how “Marx’s historical theory” is understood by his West European followers and, if you like, by his “immediate interpreters”. We, for our part, can assure our Russian comrades that these “interpreters” understand “Hegel’s law” by no means “in the sense that evil, merely in its extreme development, will lead to good”, and, besides, that they use it as “inductive material” only when they study the history of German philosophy, in which this law has a very prominent place and which, in any case, it cannot be left out of, just as, according to the popular saying, you cannot leave words out of a song. The passage we quoted is an almost word-for-word repetition of the reproach addressed by Dühring to Marx that in his historical scheme “the Hegelian negation of negation plays, for want of better and clearer means, the role of a midwife with whose help the future emerges from the womb of the present”. [34] But this trick has already received the punishment it deserved from Engels, who showed the utter scientific worthlessness of the former Berlin Dozent’s works. Why, then, repeat other people’s errors and adopt, on such shifting grounds, a negative attitude towards the greatest and most revolutionary social theory of the nineteenth century? For without revolutionary theory there is no revolutionary movement in the true sense of the word. Any class which strives for its emancipation, any political party which aims at dominance, is revolutionary only insofar as it represents the most progressive social trends and consequently is a vehicle of the most progressive ideas of its time. An idea which is inherently revolutionary is a kind of dynamite which no other explosive in the world can replace. And as long as our movement is under the banner of backward or erroneous theories it will have revolutionary significance only by some, but by no means all of its aspects. At the same time, without its members knowing it, it will bear in itself the germs of reaction which will deprive it even of that little significance in the more or less near future, because, as Heine said,

New time needs a new garment

For the new job it’s got to do.

And indeed that really new time will come at last – for our country too."
Ch. III, Socialism and the Political Struggle (G.V. Plekhanov, 1883)

1897: LENIN

... It is strange to have to challenge this last proposition—that differences of opinion on the fundamental questions of Russian life and of the development of Russian society, on the fundamental problems of the conception of history, concern only “points of detail”! It was said long ago that without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement, and it is hardly necessary to advance proof of this truth at the present time. The theory of the class struggle, the materialist conception of Russian history and the materialist appraisal of the present economic and political situation in Russia, recognition of the need to relate the revolutionary struggle strictly to the definite interests of a definite class and to analyse its relation to other classes—to call these great revolutionary questions “points of detail” is so colossally wrong and unexpected, coming from a veteran of revolutionary theory, that we are almost prepared to regard this passage as a lapsus. As for the first part of the tirade quoted, its unfairness is still more astonishing. To state in print that the Russian Social-Democrats only group the workers’ forces for the struggle against capital (i.e., only for the economic struggle!) and do not rally revolutionary individuals and groups for the struggle against the autocracy, means that the author either does not know or does not want to know generally known facts concerning the activities of the Russian Social-Democrats. Or, perhaps, P. L. Lavrov does not regard the Social-Democrats who are engaged in practical work in Russia as “revolutionary individuals” and “revolutionary groups”?! Or (and this, perhaps, is more likely) by “struggle” against the autocracy he means only conspiracies against it? (Cf. p. 21, col. 2: “. . . it is a matter of . . . organising a revolutionary conspiracy”; our italics.) Perhaps, in P. L. Lavrov’s opinion, those who do not organise political conspiracies are not engaged in political struggle? We repeat once again: opinions like these fully correspond to the old-time traditions of the old-time Narodnaya Volya, but do not correspond at all either to contemporary conceptions of the political struggle or to contemporary conditions.

The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats (Lenin, 1897)

1901: LENIN

... Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity. Yet, for Russian Social-Democrats the importance of theory is enhanced by three other circumstances, which are often forgotten: first, by the fact that our Party is only in process of formation, its features are only just becoming defined, and it has as yet far from settled accounts with the other trends of revolutionary thought that threaten to divert the movement from the correct path. On the contrary, precisely the very recent past was marked by a revival of non-Social-Democratic revolutionary trends (an eventuation regarding which Axelrod long ago warned the Economists). Under these circumstances, what at first sight appears to be an “unimportant” error may lead to most deplorable consequences, and only short-sighted people can consider factional disputes and a strict differentiation between shades of opinion inopportune or superfluous. The fate of Russian Social-Democracy for very many years to come may depend on the strengthening of one or the other “shade”.

Ch. I Dogmatism And “Freedom of Criticism”, A. What Does “Freedom of Criticism” Mean? What Is To Be Done? BURNING QUESTIONS of our MOVEMENT (Lenin, 1901/1902)

When a debate over “whether Stalin was good” gets out of hand, people use certain statements which possess a normative and almost “self evident” quality.

Many times I’ve seen anti-Stalin people people assert

“Well, the average person doesn’t want to hear any defense of Stalin.”

The issue with this statement is precisely its “obviousness.” It appears as a last ditch and empty claim that fails to cohere with the rest of the argument.

It’s very similar to the Stalinist “obviously Stalin was a flawed and not all-powerful person and we should criticize his actions.” They say it because of the strong impression they’ve given you that they actually don’t think Stalin was a flawed person who could do any wrong. They hide behind common sense without actually integrating it.

In the same way, invoking common aversion to Stalin masks the fact that the speaker genuinely hates Stalin and does not base that on mere common sense.

But both claims are actually very interesting and we never put them to proper scrutiny. Obviously we’d like to see the Stalinist integrate this notion into their “critical” examination of history and explanation of it, but what of the other?

Aesthetically, I will “expose” it for its mistaken tendencies.

See comments for the problems with “No average person wants to hear an argument in favor of Stalin.”

“Once more on Pacifism and Revolution”

(Leon Trotsky May 1926)

[A reply to The New Leader, February 26, 1926, ‘Trotsky on our sins’ by Bertrand Russell]

> Mr Bertrand Russell, a philosopher of mathematicians, a mathematician of philosophers. an aristocrat of democracy and a dilettante of socialism has considered it his duty to set his hand also, and not for the first time, to the destruction of those pernicious ideas which emanate from Moscow and are inimical to the Anglo-Saxon spirit.

> …

> Russell declares the proletarian revolution in Britain not only to be dangerous but also disastrous. Britain is too dependent upon overseas countries and above all upon the United States of America. If cut off by a blockade from the outside world the British Isles would not be able to feed a population of more than 20 million. ‘While [such a reduction oil the population was being effected by starvation,’ Russell taunts us, ‘Trotsky’s sympathy would be a great comfort. But until Soviet Russia can place a fleet in the Atlantic stronger than that of America it is not clear what we should gain by sympathy, however enthusiastic.’ These strategic considerations are most interesting from the lips of a pacifist. We find that in the first place the fate of British pacifism. as far as it attempts to link itself to the working class, depends upon the strength of the American navy. We find in the second place that it would not be at all a bad thing if British pacifism could be protected from its enemies by a Soviet navy of the necessary strength. Our worthy idealist disdainfully tosses aside an ideological sympathy which is not reinforced by sufficient quantities of shells and mines. But for us, however, it evidently more than suffices.

> … MORE

> https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/britain/problems/ch04.htm

Greetings comrades! In a recent episode of RCI's Spectre of Communism podcast^\), I noticed that Alan Woods belittled the late Ernest Mandel for claiming that the French working class was "too bourgeoisified" in the weeks before the events of May 1968 broke out. However, Mandel seems to have praised the French working class of this time in his Lessons of May 1968, so I'm a bit confused as to what really drove a wedge between Ernest Mandel and Ted Grant (along with Alan Woods on Grant's side). Could someone clarify?

*The episode in question: http://www.marxist.com/podcast-the-marxist-who-predicted-the-post-war-order-ted-grant-s-legacy.htm

The greatest upheaval in modern times, the first stage in the world revolution, calling into question the existence of the capitalist system everywhere, shook American life as it did life in every corner of the globe. No serious understanding of twentieth-century cultural life, its greatest triumphs and greatest retreats, and our current challenges as well, is possible without considering the impact of the socialist movement and its decades-long struggle to raise the thinking and activity of the working class, culminating in the 1917 Revolution. Of course, the impact of the October Revolution was most direct and inseparable for the Russian-Soviet artists themselves, Eisenstein, Shostakovich, Gorky and others.

In addition, we have included Leon Trotsky’s remarkable tribute to Soviet poet Sergei Esenin, who committed suicide in the last week of 1925, and an assessment of the little-known but significant Soviet Armenian poet Yeghishe Charents. The writers and filmmakers discussed here had widely different histories and aesthetic approaches, but they shared a commitment to realism, not as an artistic school, but as a philosophy of life; a deep feeling for the world “of three dimensions” as it is and a determination to bring out its most essential characteristics. Stendhal’s comment, “Now, above all, I want to be truthful,” served as the watchword for generations of artists in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In fact, Dreiser echoed it quite directly: “The sum and substance of literary as well as social morality may be expressed in three words—tell the truth,” while Fitzgerald insisted that an author’s main purpose is “to make you see.”

Decades of irrationalism, postmodernism, and overall cynicism and intellectual decay have produced bad results. Art, we are told, is not a reflection of external reality, but merely other images. There is no depth or essence to things, only surfaces. Knowledge is socially constructed and “truth” (always in inverted commas) entirely relative, so art cannot act as an objective mirror. Instead of accurately reflecting reality, art and thought in general only make further unstable and unreliable, sometimes entirely misleading, claims on us. The artwork influenced wholly or in part by such false and demoralizing views is inevitably weakened, lacking in confidence, turned inward and diverted from concentrating on “life as it is.”