[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / dempart / f / general / islam / lovelive / mlgstuff / sonyeon / xivlg ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 68rd Attention-Hungry Games
/d/ - Home of Headswap and Detachable Girl Threads

January 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Tags: leftism (CLICK HERE FOR MORE LEFTIST 8CHAN BOARDS), politics, activism, news

File: a3e0551cce996ab⋯.png (2.36 MB, 1280x853, 1280:853, 235.png)

File: 5c97cc4d8ec9a09⋯.png (52 KB, 546x255, 182:85, hotwheels.png)

File: 566d75ab57d8102⋯.jpg (482.05 KB, 1920x1074, 320:179, GNUlag.jpg)

File: 30c38a19ed462c1⋯.gif (432.16 KB, 300x580, 15:29, FBI.gif)


ITT: ask questions you think don't deserve their own thread, or are simple to the point they don't fit the character limit for thread creation.

This thread can be used by both leftists and non-leftists.

Contributions of individuals in reply to your questions do not represent the posters of this board as a whole.



His argument is a little iffy, but nothing close to the usual lolbert straw man of leftism.



Right before he took the break from youtube he said that he's not an anarchist anymore and he made arguments for why some kind of state socialism is better and more realistic than anarchism. And he's been reading Michael Parenti and Lenin in the meantime so I doubt he went back to anarchism.



Practically speaking, "giving" pure water alone would entail an infrastructure, government and education effort enough to need to totally transform those societies. If only it was as easy as giving people hand me downs - it is not.



If fascism is so bad, explain the spanish miracle under Franco.


File: 993393b61d0d6c0⋯.jpg (577.39 KB, 996x1191, 332:397, Joseph_McCarthy.jpg)

Is there a rational explanation for the new wave of internet McCarthyism of the past few years, as if October 2.0 had just happened?


>Since blacks are disproportionally represented in prison, they must be oppressed

>Since men are disproportionally represented in prison… it's the patriarchy!



economic crises always rouse up the right.



>Francoist Spain


you lot are really desperate for any pretensions of success aren't you?

Franco's spain was a shithole, its economy was in the gutter, corrupt to the bone, underdeveloped and impoverished below the pre-war levels and it stayed that way. The spanish 'miracle' was literally just billions of dollars of US economic aid, liberalization and inviting a bunch of neoliberals to manage the economy. So much for fascism i guess.


File: 8512edf7379dd7b⋯.png (217.19 KB, 720x960, 3:4, 589cfea257c9370dca68f3e7fe….png)

Anyone got some info-graphs, images, articles, or anything debunking racial differences in crime statistics. I've seen them multiple times on here but they aren't so easy to find, basically any information to combat arguments that these differences are because of race rather than other factors. Also if anyone has similar things about the differences in gender that'd be helpful as well, just looking for ways to debunk arguments.



I have an explanation: It's a direct populist reaction to the authoritarianism of the moral police and their perceived political leanings.



Charity only works in a vacuum. It cannot work in a state where the authority of such states are in direct opposition to the well-being of charity.

Case in point is to look at where the vast majority of charitable aid has gone in Africa. The funds and materials meant to feed and clothe starving children created many strong child soldiers and paid for a lot of tanks and guns.


File: a5fa7b52f2aa9e9⋯.jpg (125.6 KB, 398x400, 199:200, a5fa7b52f2aa9e97f64a5d129c….jpg)

Why do people claim stalin was a state capitalist? Is it just a meme or is there truth to it?




the spanish "miracle" is proof of what the left has always said about fascism, that it's capitalism in self-defense when the possibility of revolt becomes evident




By 1950s Titoists (Market "Socialists" of SFRY) needed something (anything, really) to claim that they are not traitors to Communist movement (as ComIntern unanimously called them) and their economic system is Socialist, so they invented new "Marxism" that was not based on economy.

Some geniuses (Djilas) invented enough to start saying that this new "Marxism" defines not SFRY - but USSR (!!) as State Capitalist. This was taken up by Neo-Trots and fleshed out as part of anti-Soviet "Marxism" propagated by Western academia.



>The funds and materials meant to feed and clothe starving children created many strong child soldiers and paid for a lot of tanks and guns.

based charities



>Why do people claim stalin was a state capitalist?

To give a decent answer would require a lot of work, so I'll give you the really short answer:

Stalin's USSR is sometimes called state-capitalist because the mode of production it created was not socialism but rather an extremely rationalized (i.e. coordinated) form of capitalism in which the state largely took on the role of capitalist and directed investment. There is even a quote by Stalin in which he says that the Soviet economy as a whole was seen from the perspective of long-term profit, even though individual enterprises didn't need to be profitable to exist.

A lot of people disagree with this characterization, including MLs but also a significant number of Trotskyists.


Isolationism = Reactionary, right?



>open border policy since no African wants to stay there

>lower GDP per capita than Hungary

The "spanish miracle" is another neoliberal fabrication.


Why does privatization always seem to lead to higher prices? Shouldn't they supposedly be pushed down by the existence of competition?



Race and gender are pretty strong predictors of crime rates. Socioeconomic status is a predictor too, but race and gender remain even if you control for SES.

It's still silly to think that, for example, gender causes differences in crime, but it is certainly a factor that helps explain some of the difference.



generation of monopolies I guess


Would it be worth it/preferrable if the US became a ultra-isolationist reactionary shithole that only kept to itself and leave the american proles to fend off for themselves but in return the entire rest of the world turns socialist and some time later full communism is achieved?




economics is propaganda.



> A lot of people disagree with this characterization, including MLs but also a significant number of Trotskyists.

All actual Marxists disagree with it.

Actually Marxist (be it Trotskyist, Bordigist, or - later - Maoist/Hoxhaist) anti-Soviet position that USSR was State Capitalist had always been made with the assumption that there was no "extreme rationalization/coordinatation" you speak of. That state did not "took on the role of capitalist", but separate enterprises operated independently. However, as we know with absolute clarity today, that was not the case.


Can anyone link me to Stalin advocating for a 4 hour workday? I believe it was Stalin but I'm not 100% sure on that.



terrorism in the name of islam is only believed in by fe-


File: 5c5d6d40e017b2d⋯.jpg (59 KB, 1024x511, 1024:511, 19cb6fa63c7d2b57fca858cf1f….jpg)

File: cfa0105f0ea7182⋯.png (49.58 KB, 628x405, 628:405, archive fo YhjBL.png)

File: b789b8af0e1a560⋯.webm (15.38 MB, 320x216, 40:27, idhrib saroukh al qassami.webm)


>Ben Shapiro



80% of egyptians believe apostasy should be penalized with death but ben shapiro is dumb jew lol haha



Is that tweet real?



mfw my friends say they like Ben Shapiro and I'm just sitting here dying inside.


File: ebb48b66f77164f⋯.png (471.9 KB, 640x751, 640:751, israel9.png)

File: ef5da8970f49965⋯.png (243.68 KB, 540x466, 270:233, israel453.png)

File: 16d47ab7d05fce7⋯.png (480.55 KB, 725x717, 725:717, israel far right.png)


>trying to equivocate Israel's fascism with various prejudices of north african countries

>also whining about muh terrorism

America and Israel are the two greatest terrorist states on the planet. Israel has nukes and is spiraling out of control as America fades away. They are an actual threat to global socialism and will need to be eliminated.



>I-Israel is APARTHEID

>meanwhile jews can not even enter Iran whilst there are arabs in the Israeli government




What are your best rebuttals?

When anything anti-socialist comes up, I really want to be able to sound intelligent rather than making blanket statements and over-generalization.

What I mean is stuff conservitards say like

>I don't want my money going to people who dont feel like working

>Communism has killed millions of people

>Communist nations are poor, just look at Venezuela!

>What do you mean Venezuela isn't a real socialist country? Why can you never admit socialism is bad???

>Stalin killed millions of Ukrainians, it wasn't famine!

>Look how rich America is, clearly the free market works

>Capitalism creates jobs!

>Government is tyranny!

Stupid stereotypical shit like that.


File: 342dfac18f764a2⋯.jpg (108.8 KB, 800x584, 100:73, destruction of the temple ….jpg)


> jews can not even enter Iran

That's a lie. Israelis cannot enter Iran. Jews are permitted entry. You are employing the usual zionist tactic of equating "jewish" with "israeli" (and vice versa.) Iran's policy is appropriate considering how many terrorist regimes and death squads Israel has propped up via training and equipment.


File: b94d7dd4c0750d1⋯.jpg (137.5 KB, 600x296, 75:37, hendrik verwoerd-1.jpg)

File: 8d6f46bd53848b8⋯.jpeg (102.45 KB, 855x495, 19:11, Dc8ol5yXkAA3lCT.jpeg)

File: de8201dee8d7726⋯.jpg (44.22 KB, 450x410, 45:41, kim il sung and khamenei.jpg)


>Jews and citizens of the Zionist entity are the same thing

lmao there are even thousands of Jews living in Iran as Iranian citizens who are officially recognized as a minority group.


File: a11641faa7b966c⋯.jpg (78.58 KB, 494x657, 494:657, 92c8b833380d46627a25ce29b0….jpg)


File: de8cb2065d4607a⋯.jpeg (34.39 KB, 620x400, 31:20, images (3).jpeg)


>What are your best rebuttals?

I personally indulge in taking the bait. Accept their proposition, turn it around into something else for your argument.

>When anything anti-socialist comes up, I really want to be able to sound intelligent rather than making blanket statements and over-generalization.

What I mean is stuff conservitards say like

>I don't want my money going to people who dont feel like working

<Which is why you should be a socialist. In the ussr constitution, those who did not work simply did not eat. Socialism is in fact the perfection of that principle.

>Communism has killed millions of people

< Correct. Killing people in particular ways is the function of any honest political ideology. The question is simply how.

>Communist nations are poor, just look at Venezuela!

<Or is it that poor countries so longer want to suffer as periphery territories under capitalism and thus they choose communism?

>What do you mean Venezuela isn't a real socialist country? Why can you never admit socialism is bad???

<Come to think about it, maybe Venezuela really is a socialist country. The devastation is Venezuela is merely the result of overt class war.

>Stalin killed millions of Ukrainians, it wasn't famine!

<Yeah, I guess you're right. Ukrainians were amongst the laziest and greediest of the peoples of the Soviet Union, disproportionately representing kulakry. Necessarily, due to the collateral damage of dekulakisation, bystander Ukrainians were bound to be affected.

>Look how rich America is, clearly the free market works.

<You are correct, capitalism works exactly as intended. It works too transform uncompensated wealth into a new Gilded Age, rotten within.

>Capitalism creates jobs!

<Under feudalism, the peasants work, the knights fight, the priests pray. The peasant has a job, but does he have the freedom to achieve his human potential?

>Government is tyranny!

<The protection of private property requires government and thus also requires tyranny. The tyranny of socialism is the tyranny of the self. If a socialist state is tyranny and this tyranny serves labor, so be it.

Stupid stereotypical shit like that.

< take the bait and twist it around.



I know, i just want an explanation for this specific phenomenon, is it because of monopolization like the other user said?


Anyone got some reading material against nationalism or just a solid rebuttal to the notion of it?

>People want to be around their own kind! You can't force a bunch of people to live in the same country! X land for x people!



><Come to think about it, maybe Venezuela really is a socialist country. The devastation is Venezuela is merely the result of overt class war.

Wasn't it more so government mismanagement by hiring people loyal to the party but not necessarily skilled, on top of being sanctioned by the US?

><Yeah, I guess you're right. Ukrainians were amongst the laziest and greediest of the peoples of the Soviet Union, disproportionately representing kulakry. Necessarily, due to the collateral damage of dekulakisation, bystander Ukrainians were bound to be affected.

Source on their laziness? Also, why did so many have to die to take out a couple kulaks?

Also just a general /leftypol/ question – why does the /leftytrash/ board exist? Why not just have all that crap move to /leftyb/ and leave this board for actual discussion?


File: c2d01b18a13dcf9⋯.jpg (38.18 KB, 480x540, 8:9, IMG_20181125_214311.jpg)

File: 15c4bcf7b31043f⋯.jpg (340.92 KB, 806x1441, 806:1441, 18737481991.jpg)

Does anyone know where i can learn more about U.S. foriegn meddling/interventions? Im looking for any articles, pdf's or books.


File: 7919b0e5ed85c73⋯.jpg (2.19 MB, 3300x1619, 3300:1619, 2b02395f3bdb06ac506c1f4d80….jpg)


I would start by looking up the topics in pic related and trying to discern the truth of it all





"The Left has a problem with hierarchies and wants to make everyone equal and/or force equality of outcome."

How does one refute this gross and criminal misunderstanding of our position?


File: 8d666e372e9ee75⋯.jpg (256.6 KB, 1100x735, 220:147, 8d666e372e9ee75907002b37dd….jpg)


Equality of outcome is welfare. The real Left; people who want the people to be in control and without private interests going around mucking things about, seek equality of opportunity through the redistribution of the means of production – not the end product, the wealth itself. Everyone has a better chance of working themselves to success under socialism than capitalism, since socialism promotes education and the common goodwill of the people, who will execute such an order to the best of their needs. The real Left has no "problem" with hierarchies – it sees, through a scientific lens, that many of them are invalid and harmful, and that rather individuals should exist collectively, within a society, which enables them to pursue their common interests with as much motivation/labor as they want. There are always things to do, and in socialism, one can do those things without greedy intervention by capitalists, and such an ethos will become the norm then as powers which would attempt their privatization of the productive forces would be rebuked and flatly rejected, if not combated because the people understand that the greedy intentions of one against them is not in their favor, obviously.

Look into the USSR constitution or policy, on top of other socialist states; I heard they had a rule where you could only get paid if you actually worked or something, so that's another point for equality of opportunity.



Just had a friend go


And I calmly go "…what's wrong with socialism"

So they list

>Venezuela being so poor

>Soviet Union being so poor and uneducated

And my brain just hurts. These people are so brainwashed into thinking the reason Venezuela is suffering is because of their economic system…



forgot to mention the mention of Cuba.




Yeah… I guess it's just harder to argue against people who literally won't listen to anything that'd change their capitalist ideology.

>Socialism is evil

>Socialism makes people selfish

>USSR was a shithole

It goes on and on and on. It's fucking annoying



>These people are so brainwashed into thinking the reason Venezuela is suffering is because of their economic system

they are suffering because of their economic system.

on the risk of getting banned (again), I don't see why socialists defend Venezuela.

their government essentially lied to them, they're not socialists, they've been in power for about 20 fucking years, that's how long they've had the army at their disposal, where's the abolition of private property? they hide under the vague and ambiguous "21st century socialism" umbrella, as if it meant anything at all.

they didn't diversify and they suffered from foreign powers fucking with the price of oil, didn't develop proper agriculture for self sustainability, what the government owns is still used to extract surplus value, that's when it's not hemorraging money.

all they did was strangle the private sector as much as they could, and that's what prompted the private sector to stop supplying altogether (hence empty shelves for specific commodities), they take most of their capital out of the country, generating an unbelievable artificial hyperinflation that the government can't control, and the private sector still owns pretty much most of the economy.

all they've done is give capitalist mongoloids a fake example of shit """socialism"""

how is that socialism? why would any socialist defend them?

I don't get it.



Sweet, ill look into these


File: 7a7087fcc79274f⋯.pdf (1 MB, Michael Lowy - Nationalism….pdf)

File: 9602e7757f2b0f3⋯.pdf (139.74 KB, Michael Lowy - Why Nationa….pdf)

File: 1fb50dffdfba6bc⋯.pdf (1.05 MB, Arguments for Socialism - ….pdf)


First two pdfs were written by a trot, but have some good insights. Third one has a really good article on nationalism by Cockshott


File: ef7548495080af5⋯.pdf (6.33 MB, william-blum-killing-hope-….pdf)

File: 99424864cefaa69⋯.pdf (2.44 MB, William Blum-America’s Dea….pdf)

File: b3581b04aba59d9⋯.pdf (3.09 MB, David_F._Schmitz_The_Unite….pdf)

File: bedc3da2aa7b562⋯.pdf (356.03 KB, what_uncle_sam_really_want….pdf)


Some of the best I know



Lots to read



So you use the dialectic and throw their premise right back at them.

As formally expressed by some, the three functions of the dialectic are unity of opposites, negation of negation and the transformation of quantity into quality. Let us apply these elements of the dialectic into our counter argument.


We use the premise here: "Socialism causes poverty" and analyse it through the diamat.

<Socialism causes poverty inasmuch as it causes prosperity. In capitalism, naturally, some are rich and thus some are poor. In socialism, all are prosperous in the regards that matter - education, health and basic needs - thus all must be poor in luxuries such as luxury cars, furniture, ice cream and other excesses. (Unity of opposites)

< The so-called poverty seen in socialism is in fact the rejection of consumerism. Planned obsolescence is unsustainable and is an opportunity cost for society. Billions of smartphones have seen government security apparatuses grow stronger, humans less freer, while human potential continues to be diminished. Therefore, the state ought to regulate this negative trend and check such meaningless technological growth that free society has a chance to get back. Aged aesthetics are a necessary consequence of this. (Negation of negation)

< Thus the trend is towards uniform and true social development. Instead of some receiving futureproof goods that are useless due to their low adoption, we instead see the mass adoption, gradually of a greater standard of living. Instead of skyscrapers against favelas,with such slums stuckin a neverending cycle of clearing and reslumming, we see commieblocks altogether gradually being improved. (Quality into quality)



>And my brain just hurts. These people are so brainwashed into thinking the reason Venezuela is suffering is because of their economic system…

Let me point out the differences in our worldviews in one point. Your train of thought is that "Venezuela is not suffering because of socialism". Your aim here is to relate this to extraneous causes. Rightists meme this as us saying "socialism has never been tried. "

This is a positively undialectical train of thought. This belongs to Analytical Marxism - "no bullshit Marxism". This Marxism is only useful to an extent.

It is this point you must accept the premise of the opposition and turn it on its head through the dialectical materialist method. You must, in this diamat, disillusion yourself that "Venezuela is not real socialism".

Your anti socialist friend says:

> But socialism caused Venezuela.

Using the dialectic, you must say:

< Precisely. The implementation of socialism as done by Maduro within the Western Hemisphere, right in the backyard of a fascist power (Bolsonaro) and a proto-fascist power (Trump) MUST cause conditions of total class war, which Venezuela cannot said to be winning. The suffering in Venezuela it's not so much Venezuela's doing itself as it is Venezuela shopkeepers collaborating with America and Brazil to speculate and hoard foodstuffs. The great mistake of the Venezuelans is not the implementation of socialism in and of itself, but due to the fact they have attempted to implement it in a region of antisocialists powers. However, this does not exonerate Maduro of responsibility for failure to win the class war. This is all the more reason to implement socialism within the United States, as Venezuelan suffering is a function of both American imperialism and Maduro's inability to wage a class war ending in victory. But it is true the attempt to implement socialism in Venezuela had yet to succeed, precisely because it is Venezuela-a socialist country is only as powerful as the country it is implemented in.

Socialism does not admit to utopia and never will. The sooner you realise this, the stronger your points are.



>Just had a friend go

Y'all need to be more selective about your friends.

Assuming they're just an ordinary person saying this and not someone with otherwise redeemable qualities



Some of his efforts were noble but turned out poorly, like trying to end abortions and debt but which ended up in lots of orphans and shortages. He also disobeyed the order that the Soviet Union had created and even went against their efforts for socialism, like when he supported the Czech uprising. His palace is amazing but that's the only good thing he actually accomplished started, rather. In general he just didn't cooperate with the Warsaw Pact and helped fray it apart, like Yugoslavia did.


Anyone have a pdf of The State and Revolution?


File: 7ce1f2ac284727b⋯.pdf (3.36 MB, state-and-revolution.pdf)


File: 64b923fb52a1345⋯.png (996.99 KB, 1842x1036, 921:518, fa85e6fd5b449774c60f1e523c….png)

for the literate people on this board



File: efd349719fae483⋯.png (156.13 KB, 935x594, 85:54, ClipboardImage.png)

Does anyone have a source where I could find the current global rate of profit (simple mean).

Pic related



I have archived that thread here,


and responded here,




nah, but Beria did. A lot more than one.


A friend of mine (who I'd say is more progressive than conservative, but basically apolitical) is interested in learning about socialism. He asked me for some book/article recs because he knows I'm engaged in a communist party. So far I've recommended "Why Marx was Right" by Terry Eagleton and "Blackshirts and Reds" by Parenti. Other or better suggestions? He's someone who mostly reads fiction and philosophy (he unironically did his master's thesis on Nietzsche). I think giving him extremely dry books about economics isn't the best approach which is why I picked specifically those two.


File: d70369f42ff8b14⋯.pdf (7.83 MB, The_Palgrave_Encyclopedia_….pdf)


Are you in some kind of socialist party or org? If not, I definitely recommend you to join one if possible. Being able to regularly discuss topics you have certain doubts about or don't understand with other socialists IRL is an immense advantage, in my experience it's often much more fruitful than shitty online imageboard discussions. It's also hard not to start feeling as some kind of loner/schizo when you don't associate with others who hold a similar world view. Joining an org could also help with that

>Do I really have to be an expert in everything (which is mandatory if you want to debate others)?

If you want to debate a certain topic, obviously it helps to be an "expert", but you don't become one from one day to the other. Just gradually educate yourself on the topics that interest you and don't be hesitant to already engage in as many discussions possible - even if you could lose the discussion because you're too uninformed, because every time you lose a discussion it will make you aware of new counter-arguments that you have to find rebuttals for. This is at least equally important (if not more) in the process of educating yourself as just reading books.


In addition to the books already posted maybe this "encyclopedia of imperialism" will interest you


>His palace is amazing but that's the only good thing he actually accomplished


Are you fucking kidding. The dude destroyed half of Bucharest to build his bombastic palace, where he lived more or less like a literal monarch while parts of the population were starving. He was a megalomaniac who gravely harmed the image of socialism with his actions, and of all those actions the building of his palace was probably one of the least defensible.


What is the difference in material conditions within the capitalist class that causes the split between conservative liberals and for lack of a better word, liberal liberals? Is there any literature on that subject?



I would imagine it just depends mainly on the social climate they grow up in and the societal norms and values they come to adapt.



But does ideology proceed material conditions or is it vice versa?


What do you say when a capitalist says a business owner should own the means of production because he purchased it through hard work? What is the issue with the capitalist model of ownership of private property? Obviously the workers should own it because they are the ones who do the work for profits, but how do you argue that a capitalist shouldn't own it when he did the work to purchase it?



when has this ever happened without IP laws? you've only ever had major startup blowups when patenting was a thing, before that it was all bureaucratic and China-like.



How about a business owner working to purchase his first restaurant location before turning it into a franchise? Did he not rightfully earn the property, even if he is stealing earners from his employees? What if he respects their rights and pays them everything with the exception of his own modest salary and upkeep costs?



How about a business owner working to purchase his first restaurant location before turning it into a franchise? Did he not rightfully earn the property, even if he is stealing earners from his employees? What if he respects their rights and pays them everything with the exception of his own modest salary and upkeep costs?



The argument against private property is not a moral one. The worker is exploited through private property therefore it is in his interest to get rid of it.



There is no net causality, they influence one another until one of the two can no longer recognize itself in the old "way" of doing things. They are in a dialectical relationship.

Of course generally material conditions are dominant, but this does not mean that they "win" over the superstructure, only that, if enough time is given, changes in material conditions will have a greater effect than changes in the superstructure.



According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form. There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents (that is, of things and events whose inner interconnection is so remote or so impossible of proof that we can regard it as non-existent, as negligible), the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary. Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree.




what would believing in a communist economic system but also ethnonationalism and religion make me?

is there any solid ideology this falls into?

i am new here, sorry if this is a stupid question, i just want to learn more



If you want the meme answer: NAZBOL GANG

If you want the real answer: communism is worldwide so it's incompatible with ethnonationalism but you can still be religious if you want. If you just came in here from /pol/ I suggest you browse thru this thread and download the attached .pdf in there:


This will teach you to stop thinking in abstractions and see people as unique individuals while making yourself more powerful, and then I suggest you should read some Marx for a criticism of capitalism, something like Wage, Labour, and Capital and then Value, Price, and Profit. Ask for a .pdf here or find a free copy online




Honestly though, I recommend looking into communitarianism and thinking about this seriously. Read some political philosophers.



Just be a regular communist


why would you want to believe in this?


I'm actually completely fine with that but I don't see the need to mix it up with your political views.



Keen keeps up the same crises predictions ad nauseum. Meanwhile absolute and relative emiseration soften crises for the bosses and have done so since the 1970s reaccumulation of the social.

A broken Keen is right once a Kondratieff cycle.


Is there any curfrently existing state that can rightfully be considecommunist?



States cannot be communist. A state cannot exist where social differentiation by productive relations doesn’t exist.



>States cannot be communist.

They can follow a communist belief system.


Probably not. Cuba maybe.



Communism isn’t a belief. It is a real movement of workers in historical praxis. Outside of from-to-from and rotating-recallable techniques no state has been hegemonised by proletarians in revolutionary action.



>Communism isn’t a belief. It is a real movement of workers in historical praxis.

I bet you refer to CotGP as "Gothakritik".



You want me to tell you exactly what you are in Anglo-Saxon?

Let me spell out my statement in good pre-French words:

We think by smashing bosses so hard in the arse they don’t shit right for a week. We do that, cunt, not some outside higher power.

Now unless you’re willing to engage in a critique of the narrowing of debate inside the class and party during war communism, or the seizure of tsarist ministries intact and their continued running, I suggest you go do something productive like stuffing toilet paper over the drains and turning the taps on before leaving work.




Lol I wrote "fascist", not communist, but because of the ending of "considered" the wordfilter saw it as "red fäscist" and changed it. So, is there any current state that could actually be called fascist?




Can someone please explain to me how digital commodities like vidya/movies have value/price? Making them costs a lot but after you have made it you have an infinite supply, but you have to give them a price to make them profitable. Is their value 0 because they require no labour to produce or?



because of IP laws they are basically able to function the same way as raw materials and finished goods.

the corporation is basically legally entitled ownership over the code the programmers produce as well as the raw materials used in commodity production, so in the end their exchange-value ends up functioning much in the same way.

thought obviously with the rise of the internet IP is slowly becoming a mess, I'm assuming we're going to see a drastic change in the games industry overall over the next few years.



There's a reason why devs want to transform digital goods into services, because they no longer fit the "commodity" category that well.

In many ways they do work as services, but not perfectly, for a vidya for example you have:

- initial production costs

- code maintenance (bugfixing/balance/expansions/DLCs)

- server maintenance (For multiplayer, marketplaces and/or data repositories that allow users to download what they bought)

- security maintenance (DRMs, copyright enforcement)

- other services (costumer support, merchandising, influencers and various other marketing crap)

It may seem that they do not have recurring costs, but there are a lot of them.



so MY money goes to shit like "security" maintenance and marketing?

we live in a society…


To what degree is Arab socialism / baathism actually socialism (in theory and in practice)? Also to what extent is Syria democratic?


What are some factors that determine price? Can it include things like premiums for perceived luxuries that aren't based in socially necessary labor time, or do prices for the same commodity just differ due to lack of information?




not the original guy that asked but:

if the initial production cost was the only necessary thing, how could charge that on the customer under socialism without there being a physical commodity? what would the customer be paying when they buy videogames?

surely you cant distribute them for free just because it's digital, the programming took labour.



>perceived luxuries that aren't based in socially necessary labor time

what do you mean?



well Arab Socialism is kind of a broad term. when it comes to Ba'athism, you have the Syrian type and the Iraqi type. Syria is probably the more "socialist" of the two, and had better relations with socialist countries than Saddam did (not to mention that Saddam was basically an American puppet until relations soured). both countries were pretty progressive for their time, especially in comparison to other Arab countries, but weren't really socialist.

other Arab Socialist countries like Libya under Qaddafi or Egypt under Nasser were basically the same as Syria but with slight differences (Libya ended up persecuting Ba'athists and adopted their own ideology based on the Green Book).

of course none of these countries like i said were really socialist, and did some questionable shit from time to time, but overall were pretty good and are about as close as you can get to being socialist without being socialist i'd say.

as for how democratic Syria is, i wouldn't know. i'd imagine it's way more democratic than other countries in the region though.



You bypass the issue by rewarding the worker directly, by counting their hours spent creating the game as valuable labor hours. This way the product an be distributed without issues and the creators see their efforts rewarded directly.



Well who do you think pays for it?



what? if nobody pays for the games then how is the programmer rewarded?

if you just give him labour vouchers without his labour producing any labour voucer spenditure, surely this is going to generate some economical imbalance, right?


File: 9998a7404402141⋯.jpg (85.32 KB, 736x971, 736:971, gwi yo mi.jpg)

The common 'woke' historical narrative I keep coming across seems to heavily imply a racial interpretation of history, with white people on one side and everyone else on the other. The way people talk about it, mighty whitey just rolled out and conquered the world, because white people.

Isn't that basically an element of Asserism? A race based interpretation of historical phenomena?

pic unrelated



I dont know about Asserism but nothing pisses me off like tumblrtards retroactively racializing history before the existence of racialism/into places that never or had not yet adopted racialist ideology

sage for non-answer



It grates on me too. It's bourgeois dogma Sakai has dredged in Marxist-sounding language, and these kids eat it up because of their inferiority complex. Ironically, they keep parroting this narrative that feeds into this bullshit mighty whitey trope. They way some of these people tell it, you'd think White People just up and decided as a whole to go out and invade the world and kill everybody in it, and then they did. It's /pol/'s fucking wet dream.



>They way some of these people tell it, you'd think White People just up and decided as a whole to go out and invade the world and kill everybody in it, and then they did.

>Implying that all of history after the Roman Empire wasn't created on purpose by an ancient cabal that rules Europe and that shit like the American Revolution, Marx and the Communist Revolutions, World War 1 and 2, and etc were done on purpose as a means of getting final European conquest of the World



Imo, currently no. The last state which can be called fascist (which is debatable tbh) is Francoist Spain, which ended in 1975, but was technically still "fascist" until 1977. That being said though, much like how socialists say the USSR was socialist but stopped in [insert year here], this is also true to the case of Spain. According to wikipedia, Spain stopped having "fascist economics" (if it's even possible for everyone to agree on what qualifies as fascist economics) in 1959, so idk tbh.


Is dialectical materialism deterministic? Not in the inevitability sense, I mean.

As in, it seems to me that the superstructure is often articulated by Marx as being subordinate or in a casual relationship to the economic-material base. So then social transformation is the result of a lagging behind by the superstructure, which comes into contradiction with the changed material base. Social change is therefore a sort of realization of the newly changed material base. Therefore society is always limited and held hostage to the underlying material base, not just economically but consciously.

The big neo-marxian turn, as I see it, is the Freud inspired articulation of the superstructure as an expression rather than mere resultant of the base structure, giving it a certain autonomy which isn't as present in Marx.

Does this sound right? What am I misreading?



I don't see how anything you followed up with has anything to do with your original question, but yeah you're right, though I'd call "neo-Marxism" Nietzchean rather than Freudian.



> Therefore society is always limited and held hostage to the underlying material base, not just economically but consciously.

Isn't that the purpose of securing the means of production? Instead of the material base determining the shape of society, society consciously and rationally works to shape the base to reflect the desired society. We don't need human slaves to grow our food now, we have the knowledge and technology necessary to secure enough food to make it practically free to everyone. Many of the problems we're facing now are due to being held at gunpoint to a base that no longer reflects the desired superstructure.

It's a dialectical process. Yes, the base does play a strong determinate in creating the shape of the society built on it, but people do have the ability to consciously shape the superstructure as well as the base.


Do you guys seriously believe in a "bourgeois conspiracy" of the leading politicians in the west? Would you in person go to the European Parliament, full of highly educated and informed individuals screech that they are secretly plotting to brainwsh the masses into being apathic and that they are only pretending to solve the world's problems?



Nice projection there /pol/.



Conspiracy implies something hidden, if you really think the global bourgeoisie needs to hide their interests you're not keeping up. It's pretty much plain as day if you read their financial papers.



This. Wikileaks has revealed a lot of hidden info though (Podesta the molesta, the Manning video from Iraq and Hillary's intentions for libya)


File: e9b1db12a2937b4⋯.jpg (16.43 KB, 255x168, 85:56, c2f8c81a8ef29be322c15d17fc….jpg)


While "communists are just Nazis with the Jew being replaced by the bouj" is a common liberal argument


Each bouj has some unique interests

For example Musk supports green energy while the prager twins not

But also common class interests

For example communism=bad




Communist support the idea that the ruling class ,due to there wealth , can influence things with ease

But not always fully control everything



As others anons said



The bouj neither cospires nor plays any crazy 4d chess

Unlike /pol/ "the z.o.g USSR was invaded by the other 20 z.o.g western states


Good short books or papers on adorno, horckheimer and hegel? Something you could quote. Need to learn about situationist international and want to start with frankfurter schule



Is this what the indigenous people of the Americas have to look forward too under socialism? because it seems only marginally better than capitalism



File: 6812eac1f594579⋯.jpg (121.02 KB, 1200x1497, 400:499, 1200px.jpg)

What is the socialist/leftist position on free trade and barriers to immigration?



Mixed, commonly pro open borders because socialism is when you're nice to everyone and pro free trade because they're too spineless to stand up to the WTO.




I've seen mixed opinions in the past on both, but am interested in subjective opinions and why. What do you think?



The only purpose for immigration in a society which structurally maintains 8%-10% unemployment is to undercut wages. In the UK they try to pull the trick of saying if we left the EU we would have no nurses - but the government artificially restricts the amount of nurses that can be trained to absurdly low levels because they can pay Eastern Europeans less. When people say "immigrants do the job locals won't do" I always respond with "immigrants do the job bosses won't pay locals to do" and it seems to stump them every time.

Recently free trade has been undermined by the Trump administration fucking up the WTO, so globalisation could recede in the near future.



>The only purpose for immigration in a society which structurally maintains 8%-10% unemployment is to undercut wages.

Immigration undercutting wages. Studies done in the US show this never happens. I'll pull them up tomorrow when I can.

>Recently free trade has been undermined by the Trump administration fucking up the WTO, so globalisation could recede in the near future.

Are you against free trade and globalization? Trump's protectionism has been shown to be a failure. While free trade can negatively effect certain industries in one's own country, it's always a net positive for each country involved. Being against free trade is promoting a return to mercantilism, reactionary.



>Studies done in the US show this never happens

Can you explain how this works? Is this the single exception for supply and demand?

>Are you against free trade and globalization?

I'm against the WTO, it has restrictions on modes of production.

>While free trade can negatively effect certain industries in one's own country, it's always a net positive for each country involved.

A net positive for each country while workers get poorer - it's bourg GDP bullshit all over again.


File: 7b8944d00d94f31⋯.pdf (746.64 KB, Why Did Adorno 'Hate' Jazz.pdf)

File: 5a7f100b0108182⋯.pdf (377.49 KB, Adorno’s_Politics_-_Theory….pdf)


I have these


File: a04e6b6a8477f94⋯.jpg (58.26 KB, 400x300, 4:3, raichu_chips.jpg)


Can't speak for everyone, but

>free trade

I aim to abolish free trade ultimately but also the conditions that necessitate free trade, such as a restricted capitalist system that thrives off artificial scarcity. I want to undermine this so that everyone will have full access to the fruits of all humanity's labour, but don't mistake this for the "FREE SHIT" conservative strawman, you still have to work for it, and I aim to abolish unemployment also caused by capitalism. In essence, I want a world where the "you don't have a job because you're lazy" line is an actual reason rather than a gross misunderstanding of economics (and possibly also caused by a general feeling of contempt for poor people).


I aim to abolish borders because they're just private property enforced by government security (and also spooks). Remember there's a difference between private and personal property: people can live where they want as long as they get along with their neighbors, but no one is going to seize your house and certainly no one is going to "move 10 families into your home and they all share the same stuff" strawman that conservatives also parrot (i.e. shit that never happened).

I used to be an American "libertarian" (actually called propertarians by the rest of the world) till I read up on Proudhon, Stirner, Marx and others and found out that self-ownership can't actually exist under capitalist exploitation, because it acts against my own rational self-interest. There's a lot of convincing arguments but that's beyond the scope of this post. So I'll give you a condensed version: Suppose you're drowning in the middle of the ocean and a man rides by in a speedboat, he offers to save your life, but in exchange, you have to agree to become his slave for the rest of your life. This is exploitation despite being a voluntary agreement. Sure, no one made you be in the middle of the ocean, but you obviously don't want to be a slave, this is exploitation. You're born into an ocean, and every capitalist is trying to get you on their boat, and the moment you piss him off, he's throwing you overboard.

Reagan once said "A rising tide lifts all boats." But that's assuming you have a boat. You wanna know what happens when the tide rises and you don't have a boat? You drown.



No to both.



>Recently free trade has been undermined by the Trump administration fucking up the WTO, so globalisation could recede in the near future.

Who told you such an idiotic thing?


i was just looking at the board listing and i noticed you guys had a high number of posts relative to the ips, nearly matching /v/ PPH.

whats up?



the thread about the yellow vests has been pretty active



we like to discuss things.


The successes of the Soviet Union during the 30s are often attributed to socialism, and not merely the process of industrialization. What boost did socialism give to the USSR on top of mere industrialization? Was the development of the USSR really a feat of socialism or just industrial managing?


File: 5128187dcbf015b⋯.jpg (131.44 KB, 1024x1001, 1024:1001, sir.jpg)



Just got off work. Going to link this because it lists several references and studies https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages#ch4_ref8


>Our research produced two broad results. First, when Borjas’s methods are extended a few years, the wage elasticity of immigration is −0.2 rather than −0.3 to −0.4. Second, Borjas’s assumption of perfect worker substitutability within cells cannot be correct as the wages of men and women both increased as women entered the workforce from 1960 to 2010. Empirical methods that relax the two assumptions described above likely lead to estimates that more accurately describe the impacts of immigration on native wages and that are either very small or zero (Ottaviano and Peri 2012, Ortega and Verdugo 2014).



If you consider the matter in the simplest of ways, then yes the USSR got better because of industrialization, but the same can be said of any capitalist nation then.



>communism with neoconservative/fascist characteristics

Based and nazbolpilled



What effect then, did socialism bring the Soviet land over, say, capitalism? Did socialism bring anything of its own to the table, particularly through some kind of workplace democracy or something?



You would probably get a good answer from Ismail on /marx/ but some would say that socialism was what allowed the USSR to industrialize that fast in the first place. And they did it without having any colonies, and they provided public education for children during it instead of having child labor, etc.

The USSR only had workers control in an indirect sense (workers party controlling the state, Soviets, unions having a say in setting wages etc.). To my knowledge they never had any sort of "workplace democracy" except for in collective farms. Factories had one manager guy appointed by the state.


File: d43ebf5c08a781f⋯.png (137.6 KB, 901x461, 901:461, 1544098760475 149387710363….png)

Is this accurate?



The four pests thing is correct, but that didn't cause the Great Leap Forward Famine (nor did 45 million die in it, iirc the figure is closer to 20 which is perfectly in line with the time).

The second is a crude exaggeration but yeah the concept of "garden steel furnaces" was something he pushed for which failed massively. Mao was a genius tactical commander, he was a fucking shit economic planner.




Yeah, seen this before and as far as I know he really did order the sparrows to be show, he even had contests for it and people would bring them in on hooks to see who could get the most. Backyard furnaces as well, I'm kind of surprised he was so shortsighted on political management. Should have stuck to being a general and let glorious ML lead China instead.

Anyways, any source for 20 million? I've been hearing it was 60 for a long time.



Actually some of his econnomic plans and ideas helped China become a superpower tho the furnaces were stupid


I may be being a dumbass but isn't China natural home to bamboo, the strongest and fastest growing wood known to man?


File: 6c571fdafba3c3c⋯.png (174.74 KB, 1033x517, 1033:517, Bambusoideae_World_map.png)


Can you elaborate? I know he literated the country and probably oversaw some industrialization and land reform, but what else?


Yea, but what about it? I don't think its the strongest, but they probably could have built houses out of them, however the administration probably didn't think of that.



Tbf with regards to literacy a lot of that was down to adopting pinyin: which makes Mandarin immensely easier to teach.



Haven't heard anything like that, only that it would have been good if it really was implemented. They simplified the characters but no pinyin as I remember.



>referencing studies from a pro-market think tank

Kill yourself.


>What boost did socialism give to the USSR on top of mere industrialization?

I would answer it like this:

1. The USSR industrialized rapidly because the state could take surpluses from across the economy and then concentrate them on giant projects like steelworks, hydroelectric plants, etc. They also had access to a large peasant population that could be brought into the economy which provided them with cheap labor.

2. It's kind of a trick question to ask "how did socialism help the USSR industrialize" since, going by the USSR's own statements, the entire point of industrialization was to build socialism. So we'd be putting the cart before the horse if we put that statement in reverse.

3. The rapid industrialization of the USSR happened because the Soviet government was willing to reallocate surpluses and direct the economy from above (even if this didn't always work out well.) It also should have confirmed the benefits of things like vertical integration, economy of scale, and so on - but I don't think that productivity really reflected this in the case of the USSR. They accomplished a giant leap forward but at enormous cost.


>What effect then, did socialism bring the Soviet land over, say, capitalism?

Eh… if by socialism we refer to state-led development, then it allowed the Soviets to industrialize rapidly and build a modern military-industrial complex capable of outproducing countries like Germany in WW2.

>Did socialism bring anything of its own to the table, particularly through some kind of workplace democracy or something?

Not really… the "democratic" nature of the USSR sometimes referred to by its apologists was pretty minimal. Whatever early forms of democracy existed were increasingly curtailed over time, due to a variety of excuses by the government. To give an example, Stalin visited different parts of the country and personally sacked various local leaders during the collectivization grain crisis. Not saying he was wrong, only pointing out that this particular episode indicated the degree of top-down control that determined how things were managed at a local level.

There's a whole series of books on Soviet industrialization by R.W. Wheatcroft that are really detailed but the files are too big for me to upload on 8chan.



"A draft was published on February 12, 1956. The first edition of Hanyu Pinyin was approved and adopted at the Fifth Session of the 1st National People's Congress on February 11, 1958. It was then introduced to primary schools as a way to teach Standard Chinese pronunciation and used to improve the literacy rate among adults.[22]"



>R.W. Wheatcroft

oops, I meant Stephen G. Wheatcroft. He also co-wrote some works with R.W. Davies.



>, iirc the figure is closer to 20

no, that's still completely made up. there is literally no evidence of 20 million starving



There is, a Chinese bureaucrat did work in the 00s to find out the exact figure, iirc it was 20m: the exact figure is in Lenin 2017 by Zizek. I'll try and find it in my copy.



>Chinese bureaucrat did work in the 00s to find out the exact figure

That tells us nothing, they could easily be another lying Dengist.

>the exact figure is in Lenin 2017 by Zizek




Well considering Deng and latter Chinese governments do they best to suppress public knowledge about it beyond "bad stuff happened during the great leap forward", yeah nah.


I hate nu-Leftypol…



You're just pulling shit out of your ass.


"After the death of Mao, amid an official campaign against the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, the Deng regime released sensational figures suggesting that 16.5 million people died during the Great Leap. “Isn’t it indeed strange”, asked Hinton, “that this famine was not discovered at the time but only extrapolated backward from censuses taken 20 years later, then spinning the figures to put the worst interpretation on very dubious records.”7 Joseph Ball pointed out that “there seems to be no way of independently authenticating these figures due to the great mystery about how they were gathered and preserved for twenty years before being released to the general public.”8"

"By contrast, in Northern Henan Province (where the grain shortage during the Great Leap Forward was supposed to have been severe), five million people had starved to death in 1942. The Government at that time had done nothing to help the local people.20 In the 1990s, I accompanied Ralph Thaxton, my advisor in graduate school, to study (on a Guggenheim scholarship) the region’s famine. When he said that he had come to study the famine, peasants thought that he was studying the famine of 1942-3. During that 1942-43 famine, not only did five million people starve, but many people had to sell their land, their houses, and their children, before fleeing their hometowns. The local government and national government did nothing to help the people there. But nothing like that took place during the grain shortage of the Great Leap Forward.21

Amid the grain shortages, my maternal grandfather died of a disease. My paternal grandfather also died that year at the same age. They were both in their sixties. (Chinese people’s life expectancy was less than 60 years then.) They had been sick for a long time. The grain shortage might have weakened them, and they may have eventually succumbed to disease. But I think there is a significant difference between that and saying that they starved to death. Only people with ulterior motives would blame principally the Great Leap Forward, or the public dining halls, or the people’s communes, for the grain shortage we faced during these three years amid severe natural disasters. The grain shortage was caused first and foremost by natural disasters."

"“That is how you find out how many people starved during the Great Leap Forward? Twenty years after the event? Did they make sure that the officials they were talking to had even been born by the time of the Great Leap Forward?” Let me tell you how I found out if people starved to death during the Great Leap Forward. I went to the places where the famine was supposed to have been very bad. I talked with all the old people in the village and asked them how many people starved to death in their village. In one village, where there were 2,000 people during the Great Leap Forward, some people said that about 100 people died and some people said that 50 people died. I then asked these same people to tell me the names of these people who died and how old these people were when they died. It turned out that in this village of 2,000 people, these old people could only name 15 people collectively, and those who died were all over 60 years old (when life expectancy then was less than 60 years), except one man who was in his forties. But this man was a mentally handicapped orphan, who lived alone, could not care for himself and had nobody else to help him. And sadly, he died prematurely.27 In the last 30-odd years, one heard many stories about starvation and famine during the Great Leap Forward. But most of the stories could not stand close scrutiny and examination. "




That personal account at the end is confusing. So only a tiny fraction starved that are thought to be remembered, but it's even tinier when the names are brought up, and it's even less when you consider many of those deaths were from old age/exceptional cases. If every town was like this there wouldn't even be a "16.5 million"; why use this excerpt for any other reason but to, for some reason, deny the GLF's issues to such an extent that it was practically harmless?


Why didn't the USSR or really any other socialist state have actual socialism? Surely people can be trusted to manage their own workplaces – why was micromanagement so necessary to keep things afloat? Why was socialism never introduced even in the Soviet golden years (~1950-1980)?



>If every town was like this there wouldn't even be a "16.5 million"; why use this excerpt for any other reason but to, for some reason, deny the GLF's issues to such an extent that it was practically harmless?

Because that's the truth, the Great Leap Forward was a resounding success.


File: 66001e4d755a550⋯.jpeg (105.94 KB, 600x400, 3:2, 28B6BBB1-4E25-4813-B6BE-E….jpeg)

File: 3d3ddb47153a3ff⋯.jpeg (676.28 KB, 2000x1252, 500:313, C184D626-EF17-479B-9775-0….jpeg)


At that point the current way of doing things was so entrenched that it was impossible to change things towards communism. If they really wanted to, they could have implemented OGAS (a form of cybernetics) to achieve communism, but they did not. The reason for this is essentially that the rapid industrialization of the Stalin era created a giant bureaucracy that in effect became the new ruling class. They claimed to rule in the name of the proletariat, but in reality they ruled above the proletariat. Luckily this won’t happen again because we’re already industrialized and how the internet, so the micromanaging and extremely bloated bureaucracy is not necessary.



The bureaucracy was a major issue: even in Yugoslavia (which is meant to be the ugly duckling that did try that shit) a lot of the "self-management" was hamstrung by the party and bureaucracy.

There was an attempt at it in the Lenin period USSR (the Workers' Opposition) but latter-period Lenin's paranoia stopped them from being able to implement soviet and syndicate governance of the economy in favour of his NEP.

I mean Cuba is trying to move away from direct planning to cooperativisation, but this is actually more out of direct demand from tourism (which can't work as-well within the rigid confines of the plan). I hope their attempts don't descend into plain market reforms though.

As for why they didn't do it in the 1950s: Well Khruschjov was a planner through and through, he got his first gig managing the mine he worked at before the war. As for Brezhnev, well his entire thing was conservatism so lolno. There was a plan for introducing limited self management (akin to Kadarism) under late Khruschjov called the Kosygin reforms (which was a part of reform programmes that Cornman was looking at during the late 1960s) but ht was booted out before he could approve it or an alternative plan and Brezhnev cancelled all of them.




The Soviet bureaucracy and elites had their own interests to protect, and things like cybernetics conflicted with that. They promoted their own model to other allied states. Even Che Guevara eventually opposed the economic system advocated by the Soviets as being something that would eventually return to capitalism.



The bricks of Moscow



Socialism doesn't mean workplace democracy. I think workplace democracy is cool and all but it's not the thing which determines if an economic system is socialist or not.




So socialism can't happen because there was too much industry, and they didn't implement it from the get-go, and they didn't have a cybernetic economy? I always wondered too why Lenin stuck with the NEP instead of socializing the MoP right away.


What exactly is the difference between workplace democracy and socialism? In socialism the workers control the entire company instead of just a few decisions or something?



>So socialism can't happen because there was too much industry, and they didn't implement it from the get-go, and they didn't have a cybernetic economy?

I mean all those arguments hit upon one fundamental point: those in-charge of the factories wanted to remain so. In the case of the Eastern bloc states it was the bureaucrats. Once you have a bureaucracy with its hands around the levers of economic management, it is harder to get the workers' hands there. That's why you need to at-least start the process of introducing worker self-management right away.

>I always wondered too why Lenin stuck with the NEP instead of socializing the MoP right away.

A lot of it was that the NEP was mostly focused towards agriculture. In 1914, 70% of Russia's populations were peasants. He thought Russia wouldn't be alone in its proletarian revolution ergo it would be fine, but since it was he reorientated towards trying to accelerate the development of "capitalism without capitalists". He knew that agriculture in the USSR couldn't be forced to develop and htus it must be developed using non-interventionist methods. IMO he was right, and the issues with Collectivisation that follow in the 1930s justify him.




As I understand it, the NEP was a ”strategic retreat”, intentended to bridge relations between the peasantry and the prolerariat, which had suffered severely due to the so-called ”war communism” of forced requisitions and so on that was implemented in the civil war. Moreover, Soviet industry was devastated due to WW1 and the civil war, so a socialist economy was not practical. By 1927 industry was restored to 1913 levels and the NEP was abolished by Stalin in 1928.

For any questions about Soviet history, check out the /marx/ board. They have QA threads, and the board owner is an expert on Soviet history.



>So socialism can't happen because there was too much industry, and they didn't implement it from the get-go, and they didn't have a cybernetic economy?

1. Socialism is not some kind of utopian program that can be implemented anywhere. It requires certain conditions to be met before it can exist.

See here: >>2705710

2. The USSR lacked the cultural level and material conditions to build socialism in the 1920s.

3. Because of this, Lenin's goal was to use the NEP to "grow" small-scale production into a socialist system over a long period of time.

4. By the time that higher levels of literacy and better material conditions were achieved, the country was already organized under the control of a top-down bureaucratic hierarchy. This bureaucracy had its own material interests that conflicted with the development of communism, resulting in ideas like cybernetics and other technological advancements being discarded.

5. The inherent contradictions within this system ultimately led to its collapse.

>I always wondered too why Lenin stuck with the NEP instead of socializing the MoP right away.

Well, in his last articles and writings he explains,

Strictly speaking, there is “only” one thing we have left to do and that is to make our people so “enlightened” that they understand all the advantages of everybody participating in the work of the cooperatives, and organizes participation. “only” the fact. There are now no other devices needed to advance to socialism. But to achieve this “only", there must be a veritable revolution—the entire people must go through a period of cultural development. Therefore, our rule must be: as little philosophizing and as few acrobatics as possible. In this respect NEP is an advance, because it is adjustable to the level of the most ordinary peasant and does not demand anything higher of him. But it will take a whole historical epoch to get the entire population into the work of the cooperatives through NEP. At best we can achieve this in one or two decades. Nevertheless, it will be a distinct historical epoch, and without this historical epoch, without universal literacy, without a proper degree of efficiency, without training the population sufficiently to acquire the habit of book reading, and without the material basis for this, without a certain sufficiency to safeguard against, say, bad harvests, famine, etc.—without this we shall not achieve our object.



>For any questions about Soviet history, check out the /marx/ board. They have QA threads, and the board owner is an expert on Soviet history.

Ismail is problematic... he believes that everything from North Korea to former Yugoslavia was/is socialist. He also downplays or outright denies any analysis of the USSR that acknowledges the bureaucracy as a determining factor in its history. The problem is that if we ignore the party elites, economic managers, and other assorted bureaucrats - we're left with very few answers as to why Soviet history took the course that it did. I've tried to discuss this with him before but he just gets assblasted.


What if a state fixed the values of different commodities at some arbitrary amount, no matter how much or what type of labor went into them?



that's what Venezuela does.


File: fd869510d41ee94⋯.jpg (275.19 KB, 740x1130, 74:113, 1536640482754.jpg)

What was Marx' thoughts on religion exactly? Or any other prominent leftist thinkers? What about more secularized religion? Is there a consensus religion in general only drives wedges in the proletariat or can it potentially be used as a means of unifying them? I used to be a religious man and despise atheists, until I came to realize with the rise of religious zealots like Islam that it might be best to just scrap religion entirely



Their value would not match up with production levels and the variable factors going into them and so there would be inflation/scarcity as a result. And look at Venezuela as >>2743933 said – they are no kidding in at least one kind of scarcity. Planned economies and fixed prices are only good if you have supreme control of the economy; extraction, production, processing, shipment, sales, and very preferably having international-level power and cybernetics. Of course, a state like Venezuela, weak as it is, and with its corrupt and incompetent government, could not manage its economy.



Are right-wingers idealist? I sometimes hear them and their methods being called such especially in opposition to leftism and its dialectics. Indeed, if leftists (or mostly far-leftists, rather) are materialists who use the dialectic method, is it fair to say rightists are idealists…?


I know this is a dumb question if communism and socialism both seek to have democracy in the work place, then what is to stop them from voting to not work?



People by that time would be educated enough to realize that not working would screw their entire society up and everyone would starve; a new kind of "social contract". Even now people have this kind of understanding that if they don't work/vote then nothing gets done and it all falls to hell: "Why should I vote if my ballot hardly makes a difference?" Most people understand that if everyone thought the same way and acted on that it would be much worse.




they wouldn't get paid. no work = no labor tokens.

likewise, if people slacked off and took twice as long to produce goods, then that cost would then be reflected in the price of those goods and people would buy less, resulting in less demand for products and less hours allocated at the enterprise.



Pay is only a transitory measure though, isn't it? Communism is stateless and moneyless, so money would only fit for socialism because people haven't adapted to this sort of mode of production.

Also some products people can't forego and will buy regardless of price, provided they don't make their own source: things like batteries and food people will buy with little consideration of the price because they need it to live anyways.



>Pay is only a transitory measure though, isn't it?

The issue is this: as long as labor is an input subject to scarcity it would need to accounted for and rationed somehow, which means tying people's access to consumer goods with some kind of payment system, ideally labor tokens. This would ensure that people aren't consuming more than they produce (children, elderly, and disabled excluded.) Once a post-capitalist economy is significantly developed it would be possible to imagine a society in which automation and machinery has basically reduced human labor to a minimum, and it won't be necessary to ration goods in this way.

>Also some products people can't forego and will buy regardless of price, provided they don't make their own source: things like batteries and food people will buy with little consideration of the price because they need it to live anyways.

Ideally there would be a feedback loop. If the productivity on a farm is dropping, and this causes the price of food to rise, then the body responsible for planning would need to investigate why productivity was dropping. If it was sheer laziness, then those workers would have to be disciplined. If the tractors & machinery wasn't working, then replacement machinery would need to be allocated, etc. Or, stores could simply switch to buying from another farm with excess capacity and since Farm A had no customers, the planning body would de-fund it.

Relying on people to produce based on level of consciousness wouldn't be feasible. Not because people are inherently selfish, but because the level of consciousness wouldn't be the determining factor in how much needed to be produced or whether or not labor were a scarce resource that needed to be allocated.


Are there any caveats to rapid collectivization? I heard that this results in loss of efficiency in the short term and that farmers are disincentivized with inadequate salaries and these sorts of conditions. If the USSR had no war to prepare for, what would be the most optimal course of action to take regarding agriculture and collectivization?



missed this but guess I can still answer after more than a month

I meant Hoxha's isolationist policies, inspired by his steaming take that Albania was the only genuinely socialist country in the entire world and that autarky should therefore be pursued. Always made me think of a leftcom or trot who has absurdly puristic standards for "socialism" and calls every example of actually existing socialism "state capitalism". It's basically trying to adhere to Marxism in such a dogmatic and extreme way that your analysis actually stops be Marxist and becomes idealist.



>If the USSR had no war to prepare for, what would be the most optimal course of action to take regarding agriculture and collectivization?

Continuing the NEP longer (as Lenin suggested) and democratic instead of forced collectivization.


Why can't pure religious commitment just keep capitalism from being abandoned at some future point, even after a massive collapse?


What was Marx’s ideal society? If not privately owned means of production, who would sell and maintain stuff? Who would govern? How would they govern? How would the economy work?



he said he wasn't sure but imagined something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialism#Notable_utopian_socialists

It's in the CotGP that he mentioned workers would receive what they put in to society and will be taxed for social services, and that they would elect where goods would be administered as they each saw fit.



> What was Marx’s ideal society?

There wasn't one. Marx's point was that future society that would abolish capitalism - whatever it would be - must have specific traits. Consequently, trying to implement society that doesn't have those traits would result in failure, as such society will either be unable to function, or will roll-back into Capitalism.

> If not privately owned means of production, who would sell and maintain stuff? Who would govern? How would they govern? How would the economy work?

Central Planning for social production. I.e. management of economy by those who make it work.


I get that CEOs get paid too much and that advertising and competition are a waste of resources, but how useless is the position of a CEO, assuming socialism is preferred? CEOs have to manage the direction and vision of a company, attend board meetings, communicate with other executives on decisions, overseeing the operation of the company as planned, scouring for potential acquisitions to the company, managing investment options, and in this representing the company through various avenues (which the workers probably couldn't do, seeing as they can't work and represent at the same time, whereas the CEO is a single person that can be delegated to this task). Is this a misreading of what socialism seeks to remove or is such a leadership position in fact unnecessary?



1. Leaders are usually required in any organisation, but the difference between an autocracy and a democracy is that in a democracy, the people elects its leaders. In the workplace, this could mean bosses elected by the employees, instead of selected by a handful of shareholders who only care about their own profit.

2. CEO's aren't universally beneficial to a company, no matter their pay. CEO's are often involved in internal power struggles with the board or with other people in the company, and this can severely derail an organisation's effectiveness. I'm not saying that these kinds of problems wouldn't under socialism, but it's important to note that they're not solved by the current capitalist framework either.



so would you say the syndicalists have it down pretty well? From what I’m getting, it sounds like there’s a desire for both centralization overall… yet decentralization when it comes to the actual unions




thank you, anons


What's the best argument against the knowledge problem?



explain what the problem is first



Modern computing and the Internet of Things.



>>2748323 (me)

Like, I find it incredible that people can argue over the internet that it's impossible to gather and process large amounts of information on a voluntary basis. It's nonsense.


When people say that TRUE socialism hasn't happened, and they refer to the fact that socialism "from above" (like Stalinism, etc.) was all we got in the 20th century. From what I've heard it sounds like Trotsky had a better idea *closer* to Marx when it came to socialism "from below".

So do people today still hate ACTUAL Trotskyites?


File: 1b2b23f989374fb⋯.png (97.28 KB, 586x836, 293:418, liberal vs anticommunist.png)


>When people say that TRUE socialism hasn't happened

This is a right wing meme. Nobody who is serious about socialism says this.



I don't even know why people bother with "not real socialism." Maybe they really believe it wasn't, but it seems dishonest, and right-wingers see through it of course.



"True socialism" is a retarded topic to argue. It never gets beyond semantics. There have been real attempts at socialism, keep it at that.

Then you can stress that all attempts at socialism that went through were either Marxism-Leninism or social democracy. Both failed, but two trials doesn't tell you much. Let's learn from them and try again.



but wouldn't you say that those attempts aren't really what most people here are advocating for? Nor what even Marx advocated for (ex. Marxism-Leninism)?



Trotsky was a commander in the Red Army, known for his ruthlessness. I doubt he would have been THAT much different.



ML is the closest thing there's been to world socialism, you can't just disregard its historical role and hope socialism will sort itself out.



how would you know exactly what Marx advocated for?



From my understanding, it doesn't seem like Marx never wanted state violence, a cult of personality, repression of workers, etc.

When people bring up "socialism killed millions" they refer to Stalinism and Maoism. Stalin killed millions! Mao killed millions! Socialism from above is organized by the elite. From below, it's the workers who organize it themselves, a true dictatorship of the proletariat. Doesn't that sound… better to you?



>it doesn't seem like Marx never wanted state violence, a cult of personality, repression of workers, etc.

how do you know this? did Marx ever write about it or are you just assuming stuff?


>a cult of personality

you can make Stalin responsible for many deaths, incluiding those of some socialists, he went a bit too far, but the "cult of personality" is literally just one of the most retarded cold war propaganda bullshit arguments, perpetuated by the retard known as Nikita Khrushchev

and if there are """elites""" ruling the country, so long as they abolish extraction of suprlus value (I don't consider taxes where the government puts the money they take from you into social services as extraction of surplus value since you're always using these services), does it matter if it's "from above" or "from below"?

I do advocate worker control of the means of production, but they should still answer to the state, at least at first, for better organization since it's probably going to be a planned economy.



>but the "cult of personality" is literally just one of the most retarded cold war propaganda bullshit arguments, perpetuated by the retard known as Nikita Khrushchev

Explain all the statues, the fact they put his remains in the Lenin Grave, and the fact the presidium had a crisis when he's dead then?



>Explain all the statues

he's not the only person to have statues, this does not equate a cult of personality.

it's just like that one meme, americans carved their presidents into a fucking mountain, that's never considered cult of personality, why this?

>the fact they put his remains in the Lenin Grave

how is this an argument? what should they have done with him?

>and the fact the presidium had a crisis when he's dead then?

again, what the fuck does this have to do with a cult of personality?

he was the leader for many years, ofcourse there was going to be a fucking crisis.

Manchester United were the best team in the world for the best part of first 2 decades of the Premier League, and as soon as Alex Ferguson left (he was the manager for 27 years) they became absolute dogshit, this is what happens.

yes, I just compared the USSR with Manchester United.



>he's not the only person to have statues, this does not equate a cult of personality.

He has more statues than fucking Lenin, explain this.

>it's just like that one meme, americans carved their presidents into a fucking mountain, that's never considered cult of personality, why this?

Because it's just a mountain range.

>how is this an argument? what should they have done with him?

Bury him in a grave? Why put him in Lenin Grave?

>again, what the fuck does this have to do with a cult of personality?

It means that the government depends too much on him, and when he's dead, there's no clear procedure to get to the next successor, thus creating a crisis.

>and as soon as Alex Ferguson left (he was the manager for 27 years) they became absolute dogshit, this is what happens.

But did they have a crisis on who to succeed Alex Ferguson?



>He has more statues than fucking Lenin, explain this.

oh god, he's got a few more statues than somebody else, preposterous! this is cult of personality!

also, do you have source for this claim? and check the year in which they were erected.

>Because it's just a mountain range.

why do you keep giving me retarded non answers?

are you trying to get me to insult you?

>Bury him in a grave? Why put him in Lenin Grave?

what's so wrong about that? and why would this make it a cult of personality?

>It means that the government depends too much on him, and when he's dead, there's no clear procedure to get to the next successor, thus creating a crisis.

yes, they depended on their leader for decades, this is what happens.

>But did they have a crisis on who to succeed Alex Ferguson?

are you a fucking yank or something? yes, they did.



>oh god, he's got a few more statues than somebody else, preposterous! this is cult of personality!

Yes, it actually is though.

>why do you keep giving me retarded non answers?

How? I don't see a mountain range is comparable to the same statue in every cities.

>what's so wrong about that? and why would this make it a cult of personality?

It's somebody else's grave. Why bury him there?

>yes, they depended on their leader for decades, this is what happens.

Which means there's a cult of personality on how they depend on him for decades and become a headless snake the moment he dies, this is now how government works.

>are you a fucking yank or something? yes, they did.

Did they start purging his successors?



>Yes, it actually is though.

you are saying literally nothing, and good job on ignoring my request for source, and checking the year in which said statues were erected.

>How? I don't see a mountain range is comparable to the same statue in every cities.

imagine being this retarded.

>It's somebody else's grave. Why bury him there?

ever heard of mausoleums? again, why would this mean there was a cult of personality?

>Which means there's a cult of personality on how they depend on him for decades and become a headless snake the moment he dies, this is now how government works.

see, now you're just throwing the term "cult of personality" around, it means nothing.

>Did they start purging his successors?


you have to be trolling, I'll be ignoring you from now on, I can tell you're a retarded trump supporter just because you don't know Fergie.

have fun.



>you are saying literally nothing, and good job on ignoring my request for source, and checking the year in which said statues were erected.

How in the fuck, when are fucking statues NOT a sign of cult of personality?

>imagine being this retarded.


>ever heard of mausoleums? again, why would this mean there was a cult of personality?

It is Lenin's mausoleum, again, why put Stalin there?

>see, now you're just throwing the term "cult of personality" around, it means nothing

Cult of personality means character worship of said person, every days unto his death.


As in fucking killing them? This is new to me.

>you have to be trolling, I'll be ignoring you from now on, I can tell you're a retarded trump supporter just because you don't know Fergie.

I don't care about football.



>Marx never wanted state violence

And what do you think the DotP is about? It's not what Marx "wanted", its what he knew the people would have to do to save a revolution.

>cult of personality

Debatable, though it's not something Stalin deliberately wanted.

>repression of workers

When? This really depends on the context

>Stalin killed millions! Mao killed millions!

They didn't


>>2748884 (me)


I forgot to make that last part sound like it was sarcastic, I know that it didn't happen lol.

I'm learning little by little, but I see what you guys all mean. Perhaps I came to a misunderstanding with the readings somewhere along the line, but >>2748989 seems to be picking up what I'm putting down.



All the toughening on Stalin fades away when you see his children.

And even his wife.

Apparently, the lies are so bad that even his wife gets sad and kills herself over it.

Stalin fucked up. Badly.



I'm not getting what you're trying to say.



>On 9 November 1932, after a public spat with Stalin at a party dinner, enraged at the government's collectivization policies on the peasantry, Nadezhda shot herself in her bedroom.[3] The official announcement was that Nadezhda died from appendicitis.[4]




Yes I know that, but I don't understand what it has to do with my earlier post. Also that wikipedia article isn't very accurate.



Sounds like propaganda.



Stalin's wife had appendicitis and was going to have surgery before her death. Wikipedia makes it look like they just made something up.




So which is truth, which is lie?

Lost in history.



>Source is a UK 2003 article which states in it such things as "In his office a few hundred yards away, Stalin, 52, was chatting with his prime minister, Vyacheslav Molotov. The subject was their ruthless war to subjugate the peasantry, which was causing famine and widespread loss of life."




It isn't lost in history lol, wikipedia has bias. Stalin's wife had appendicitis but she shot herself. Also the soviet public announcement didn't specify the cause of death.


Explain to me with your mental gymnastics why poor people can't just go to school, get a STEM education and live decently in sane countrues like Switzerland/Norway without sperging. I am all ears.




>go to school

>get a STEM education

do you not know what being poor means? how exactly are you any different from right wingers saying "you lazy commies just need to get a job!"



he propably is a right winger who thinks just that



I said SANE countries. Here you can take an exam whenever you want for only a few hundred NOK and study with books from the library or digital options like Khan Academy. Not hard at all unless you have mental retardation.



ok cool i'm glad everyone is fine and dandy for all you people in nordland but what is your argument then? you're not really making a point besides "we can do this in switzerland and norway".



>SANE countries

>Oil state Norway and Tax haven Switzerland

bretty gud :DDDDD

Anyway, not everyone has the intellectual chops to complete a STEM education. Even if they had that would just mean too many people chasing too few positions. Unless you have government policy targeting full employment, you'll always have a greater or lesser mass of people in the reserve army of labour.



Depending on the course, much of the curriculum will cost you at least a couple of thousand NOK and then the ever-increasing rent comes on top of that. Not saying Norway isn't better than the U.S. by an order of magnitude, but there's still some way to go



There are other countries with something similar to our model like Australia, NZ, Canada and Belgium that do not have any dominant resource.

And STEM is becoming more and more needed, stop lying that there are "too few positions". Hell, if we got a 4 hour workday there would be more open positions for everybody.



Why would porky ever pay two people a full day's wage for four hours of work when he could pay one person a full day's wage for eight hours?

Answer: porky will pull as much as class struggle can wrest from him, through labour struggles.



In a semi-direct democracy where everybody would vote for a good minimum wage that wouldn't happen.



Oops, I misread

Well, a 4 hour workday/UBI might become necessary later down the line so it might happen.



I mean it’s okay to admit that these previous societies were bad: Low standards of life, state violence, censorship, personality cults, and killing people trying to leave the country.

It’s better to just admit we don’t want everything they wanted… because if we go “Yes that was real socialism” then it looks like we’re trying to bring back oppression and tyrany. Even though there’s tons of propaganda against the USSR, China, and North Korea, there’s no sugar coating the truth about everything. They’re by no means perfect and utopic.


what's the best way to do any kind of agitation or activism when you're basically penniless.


Why would it be impossible to create a capitalist society independent of growth, as many new economists are pushing, with progressive taxation, a carbon tax and a gradual reduction in working hours?



>I mean it’s okay to admit that these previous societies were bad

If you want to see what bad is look at what Russia, Albania, China, etc were like before socialism



>Why would it be impossible to create a capitalist society independent of growth, as many new economists are pushing, with progressive taxation, a carbon tax and a gradual reduction in working hours?

the capitalist system of production only functions due to the profit motive. if we imagine a situation with zero or negative growth there would be no incentive for capitalists to invest and the entire situation would begin to crumble and fall apart. capitalism needs profit, and profit requires either making production more extensive (expanding the market size) or making production more intensive (reducing costs, increasing exploitation.)


I was arguing with a fascist saying that climate change will cause a massive migration crisis, and he said "we can just shoot them down when they come here" and it got me thinking. Would it theoretically be possible to have another world war to destroy value to get a new economic boom? In WW2 only about 1% of the world died, isn't 80 years of economic prosperity worth the sacrifice?

(I am not advocating for this, only suggesting that capitalism technically could be sustained with mass murder)



I think the key factor was the devaluation of capital and not the death of human beings.



I never said those countries were good. That's not the point. When people think of socialism they think censorship, oppression, personality cults, tyranny, starvation, state-violence, and state-imposed moralism. Lots of it is propaganda, but as I said… there is no sugarcoating everything. Don't feed the stereotypes, call out false flags when you see them, and educate outsiders.


How would I go about forming a union at my job?


File: f4209d7271d88b2⋯.jpg (186.07 KB, 937x812, 937:812, BTFO.jpg)


Find your fellow POC, Womyn and Queer compatriots and tell them that they are being opressed by having the same wages as their fellow desk jockeys. Then tell them to strike until they are compensated for millions of years of opression by getting higher wages.



Any serious answers



Find someone who's unionized and tell them you want to unionize. That's what I did and a week later we had union guys outside of our workplace handing out pamphlets.

You could also just talk to a union that's local to your area and covers your field of work.

The thing that sucks is, if you're in a red state you're fucked, because the right-wingers love taking it from their overloards.



I guess just starting my own union is out of the question?


File: a17d4c7bad87f98⋯.jpg (55.17 KB, 660x680, 33:34, it tastes bad.jpg)


Real talk: without invoking bullshit about 'privilege' can anyone name me a single right that straights have that gays don't?

Before I learned about IDpol being basically spooked up bullshit I always thought (and still do actually; and I mean to tear down the cause of it, capitalism, anyway) that the privilege argument was bullshit because it's not the government's fault that some people just so happen to prefer one 'type' of person over another. For example, gays and straights both have the right to employment, but maybe companies hire straights more often than gays, so SJWs consider this to be 'straight privilege'; my line of thinking is that you can't blame this on regular straights just because employers are dicks who won't hire someone who is gay, it's not straights' faults. I know it sounds like a propertarian argument, and maybe it is, but you gotta admit it's a good point, yeah? But like I said the real problem is capitalism anyway and I understand that.

and for the bonus round: can you name me a single right granted to whites that blacks don't have? AGain, no 'privilege' bullshit, cite me the actual law that says it.

The only actual 'inequality' I can think of, is probably (last I checked) a ban on transexuals serving in the US military (for "health reasons") and while this might be an exception, at the same time, I really don't fucking care. THe government is preventing you from throwing your life away in imperialistic wars. Oh, you're so oppressed. Fuck off. And I am completely against women 'serving' in the military, no, not because of any fedora-tipping bullshit, but because everyone should be banned from joining the military, and the military shouldn't exist. Ah, equality.



It's privilege by virtue of a lack of disadvantage, and why it has a tendency to get silly with oppression olympics. Whites don't get extra rights, but blacks, gays, whatever, get treated worse by being deprived of those rights by people who can get away with it. Wealth is regularly dropped from this because the school of thinking is full of middle class/rich chancers.

A black cop could absolutely treat some broke rural white guy like shit and get away with it but that's getting a bit to close to the truth for the people pulling the bait and switch.



Why can't we just agree to destroy capital once every 50 years to always have an economic boom?


>The Soviet Union fell because it was corrupt and that's the nature of communism




Oversimplification. Collapse was caused by a deeply embedded bureaucratic class of opportunists who were created out of necessity during industrialisation.



What stops a bouj in ancapistan from declaring a new government?

What stop a high ranking Nazi from leaving Jews leave in exchange for some shekels?

What stops the bouj now from 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧supporting)) a lolbert politician?

The answer is laws and morality

Corruption exists in all societies with little regard to the economic system

If we think the worst that could happen regarding any system/idea then we would still be eating each other





How could this have been avoided? How is this not an inherent fault of socialism?



>How is this not an inherent fault of socialism?

Oh shit you're right, this assertion that you've not supported with any evidence or reasoned argument must be true. Well guys, I'm a socially progressive anarcho-monarchist now, socialism is gay and wrong.



It's a problem inherent with being in bumfuckistan in the early 20th century.






I'm not sure that it could have been avoided in the USSR… they really lacked the material conditions to build socialism and so they decided to jump-start the process of economic development using the Communist Party and the State as tools to direct and mobilize the country. It worked in a way but it caused problems long-term like the other anon mentioned. The overly top-down approach created a class of managers/bureaucrats who first and foremost wanted to protect their own social and material privileges within the system, just like any manager in a big company wants to do.

The idea originally held by Marxists (and acknowledged by Lenin, at least on paper) was that the future proletarian state would be a kind of radical democracy in which "the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things." The "state" would no longer be a group of people whose job is to manage other people, but rather society as a whole managing its collective property. Special administrative roles would not be any different from any other job, and bureaucrats/managers would receive the same wages as an ordinary working person. In a country with universal literacy and basic education it wouldn't be a huge problem, since every individual could potentially do administrative work and there wouldn't be a need for a hierarchy of managers and bureaucrats. This was even something that Lenin himself noted.

Capitalist culture has created large-scale production, factories, railways, the postal service, telephones, etc., and on this basis the great majority of the functions of the old "state power" have become so simplified and can be reduced to such exceedingly simple operations of registration, filing, and checking that they can be easily performed by every literate person, can quite easily be performed for ordinary "workmen's wages", and that these functions can (and must) be stripped of every shadow of privilege, of every semblance of "official grandeur".


In Marx's notes on Bakunin's work, he answers this question:

>The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?

>Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune.


Of course, many people forget these things…



>What stops the bouj now from supporting a lolbert politician?

I know you're being rhetorical, but the real reason is that controlled markets have a higher return on investments than free markets. It's simply not in a bouj's class interest to support something that would lead to their drainage of their wealth.



Remarkably unhelpful and just makes you look like you and your ideology collapses under criticism.


Why does Socialism have a history of banning media and freedom of expression, particularly in China? Did Marx, Lenin, or other influential thinker actually recommend this?



i'm going to keep reiterating until one of you faggots answers me



No, Marx was a strong free speech advocate. It makes sense, because his newspapers were often censored and shut down by the government. Lenin is a bit different, he did advocate for censorship of papers that were agitating for counter-revolutionary activity while the situation was unstable in Russia. But of course, nearly every nation does that when the situation is dangerous. I don’t think any real Communist would advocate strict censorship in a stable period, most of the cases of that happening are due to people who are “Communist” in name only.



>just makes you look like you and your ideology collapses under criticism

Oh no muh optics. Good job responding to me and not responding to the people who made materialist arguments. It's almost like you came in here in bad faith and I saw through your shit. Kill yourself.



it would depend on the goal of your activism.

ignore money for a second and just explain what you'd like to achieve.



Banning bourgeois media and 'expression' is necessary when your country is under constant assault by imperialists that are actively working to undermine it.



I'm a different person, fucktard. People like you who can only argue through sarcasm make leftists look bad.



How about media like League of Legends and various games? Is the banning of other ideas really worth it? Are citizens really so disloyal to communism theyll be swayed by minor ideas found in games and shows?


Is socialism liberal, conservative, centrist, or outside that spectrum? From Wikipedia:

>Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

Is there something more to this definition or are we all just a bunch of libs? What's the difference between Democrat-style, or even 18th century European liberals and socialist liberals then?



Oh, so you're not the same guy, you're another asshole who's convinced by shitty arguments. You're birds of a feather since he drew retarded conclusions from a sample size of 1, and you're doing the exact same by assuming I can never argue without sarcasm. I fucking hate shitty right wingers who think people are obligated to engage their bad faith bullshit with le rational argumends. No, you deserve to be ridiculed. You should be ashamed of how stupid you are.


File: 7f7c1a14e41313e⋯.jpg (300.6 KB, 1259x506, 1259:506, liberalism.jpg)

File: b0c24bd7316d9bc⋯.png (92.2 KB, 1198x647, 1198:647, the trick of liberals.png)

File: 69c75b36c7444f3⋯.jpg (615.2 KB, 878x954, 439:477, liberal love for science.jpg)

File: c4da579f0f89a22⋯.png (314.14 KB, 1187x2403, 1187:2403, Harry Potter.png)

File: 7da328a1f0bd76e⋯.jpg (206.06 KB, 720x724, 180:181, 7da328a1f0bd76ed4f20f0f8ce….jpg)


All of these are liberal. Marxism is anti-liberal.


I want to learn skills for living sustainably from fellow leftists. I'm a huge idiot and looking these things up on my own wouldn't be sufficient to teach me. I need to have my hand held through the process of actually learning. But I want to learn practical skills so I can be useful to my fellow comrades in a non-abstract way.

How do you build a system for water purification? For starters


I have read these 'classic' marxist texts:

>Wage Labour and Capital

>Critique of the Gotha Programme

>Principles of Communism

>The Communist Manifesto

>Value Price and Profit

>The Right of Nations to Self-Determination

>State and Revolution (reading it now)

Now tell me which ones are most urgent to read next.



imperialism the highest stage of capitalism and what is to be done are good if you want more lenin stuff


can anyone find that famous french maoist (student) song on youtube? I forgot it's name and can't find a title



German Ideology?





How many party leaders of the liberal demoracies do you guys think have sociopathic tendencies?



probably most of them.



Unironically though. Most libs in positions of power are just turbo-normies who actually have the slightest of intelligence to manipulate all the other ones.



Is there a way to find out? We (as in the people who trust the liberal democracies) put so much trust in them that it is hard to imagine them as not well-meaning. For example, growing up Jens Stoltenberg was the prime minister of my country and under his management we survived the 2008 crisis and his father was part of the global comission on drug policy and red cross, but now he is the leader of nato so people now trust nato.


Calling them "turbo-normies" makes it look like you think you are more special and enlightened than them. Why would they give a shit about politics if they were normalfags?



>Calling them "turbo-normies" makes it look like you think you are more special and enlightened than them

Honestly, most socialists probably have some brain wiring that capitalists don't, more specifically one responsible for empathy and planning ahead. It's not socialism that's full of contradictions and which causes immense socioeconomic strife, and besides, there are a disproportionate amount of smart people in history who were socialist.

>Why would they give a shit about politics if they were normalfags?

Politics is all about governance. A typical, greedy person who has the ability to bend others to their will will many times succumb to the temptation in spite of the destruction and foolishness of such in the long-term.



One thing I have been wondering about is why do we have party leaders at all? Why is this one person more important and noteworthy than anybody else? This is the case with socialist countries as well, why did Stalin, Mao, the Kims and many others become such big personalities?



Not all the figures you mentioned supported their personality cult all that much, like Stalin for example insisting in a private letter that he not glorify him too much, but at the same time people were parading in the Red Square with huge posters of Stalin. I guess there it's a symbol of unity and appreciation for the person's achievements, which many other people would not have achieved. Politics is hard business, you have to manage all the parts of economy, bureaucracy, and think about things continuously in the past, present, and future. Most people would not have been able to lead the Soviet Union to victory in World War II as they don't have the inclination/will/know-how to do so, and yet we have political vanguards to do those things for them. I don't really like the whole personality cult business and eventually it is to wither away with the state, however some persons truly are remarkable.



But why do we vote for leaders, like Hillary vs Trump, instead of the parties themselves? Why do we always associate one person with a party and make them a synonym for the party? Why is it that when I search for a political party there always comes up one person who "represents" the party? Is politics just a gay popularity contest?



My view is that liberal political parties play into the whole presidential system, which is maintained because so far in history, collective leadership has hardly worked because people just mostly bicker and get nothing doing and eventually someone capable takes charge regardless. With this is the benefit of having this one person represent the country at meetings and such, whereas you couldn't stuff a bunch of representatives in that room if it is supposed to be some kind of international meeting. It's quick and easy, but they don't give them too much power in case they have the wrong idea, so there's checks and balances. Besides, party platforms are pretty wide anyway and it more so matters to the particular capability of the leader. If people want to vote for Democrats or Republicans, they want to vote for one that properly addresses the times, not just some overly-broad principles that don't really say or claim anything. Of course, people are still caught up in broad slogans like "Military" or "Hope", but they vote for the specific individual that they think will do best for them. Most people are willing to jump ship to other parties if they so see it.



I think that trust is misplaced. I can think of many examples of corruption from my home city that were never investigated or punished. The mayor, IIRC, was a big supporter of toll roads. Someone later discovered he had been paid large fees by a toll road company in his capacity as an attorney while being mayor. Another county commissioner used his friend's money to win an election then rewarded his friend by giving him and his wife high-paid positions in local government. (His friend was going broke at the time…)

There was also the case of a local attorney who deliberately withheld evidence to secure the conviction of an innocent man. (He did this because, as a prosecutor, a high conviction rate looks good on his resume and helps him get elected to public office.)

The list goes on and on… this is the reality of politics in any system.



who country?


Is North Korea reprehensible for their treatment of Otto Warmbier? Granted he did commit a crime but stealing a poster doesn't warrant torturing him into a coma. Why did the Norks do this if they assumingly don't want bad relations with the rest of the world, and a potential travel ban as had happened with the US which cut down on their funds even more?


Is Porky stupid enough to let climate change potentially tear up world capitalism in its lifetime, that is, within maybe a dozen years or so? Or are they just trying to make as much money as possible now and then retire to their riches once it all falls to hell?



Porky is mostly old people that will be dead by the time AGW becomes their problem.



Capitalism cannot deal with climate change and will be destroyed by it. That is a good thing. Honestly it's been extremely disheartening to see all these "eco-socialists" or whatever advocating for class collaboration in order "save the climate" via regressive taxes or toothless multilateral agreements.




How exactly will AGW cause the collapse of capitalism?


How do you distinguish between "negation of negation" and "normal" negation, aside from neg-o-neg being preceded by normal neg? It seems to me to me pretty arbitrary, something you can liberally shift around by shifting the point at which you start describing a historical development.


Should I join the Democrat Cops of America? I tried joining the PSL chapter in my area, but they are pretty disorganized and aren't doing any actual work, only forums and demonstrations. The Democrat Cops of America is not an ideal choice, but they seem to be doing actual organizing with the unions and working class in my area.

Are there any viable Marxist-Leninist organizations that I could join?



No, there are no viable organizations in your area.


Can you give an example of an issue or topic where various leftists would have a different perspective to help me see the nuances between marxists, anarchists, communists, Trotskyists, MLs, Maoists, etc. I'm curious about the difference in their interpretations and approaches to the world.



Capitalism requires constant growth, which invariably leads to environmental destruction and eventual collapse. Mainstream economics are frequently criticized, even by non-Marxists, for fetishizing growth as being inherently desirable, sometimes to the point of ignoring the laws of physics.

This means capitalism will either be replaced for long term stability, or end its own existence by slowly killing the human race.


Can someone explain

>What was living under feudalism like for free men?

>Why did some areas have lots of free men?

>Why is feudalism contradictory?



How would a non-Marxist criticize growth? Do they want a new form of capitalism? Or do you mean just anprims and feudalists?



Whigs were mostly traders, bankers etc.

Tories represented the landed aristocracy

Something similar was seen in almost every imperialist bourgeois state strong enough to impact cultural norms in a big way, more mobile capital leads to more open worldview, I suppose.


I come from /pol/ but I am not a nazi. I am a left leaning libertarian. Am I welcome here?



No shit. Familiar with much left wing theory? As in outside of meme infographics.



Great and no. You are speaking moonrunes to me right now. From my few glances around this place it seems less doom and gloom in relation to /pol/. It reminds me of my first days on half/pol/ 4-5 years ago. If you will, tell me about your left wing theories.



/leftypol/ isn't a hivemind, but cockshott is what's hot right now


smith, ricardo, keynes, schumpeter

don't bother with the likes of friedman or hayek, they're ideologues and not even worth the label of bourgeois economists




>This process has become controversial. Both conservatives and feminists have objected that laws, originally meant to protect women, are in danger of becoming ineffective; if men who claim to be women are treated as legally being women this not only goes beyond the intention of the original law, but it may place women at a disadvantage.

In a libertarian paradise, men, women, and trans people would be treated equal under the law. No gender specific laws. Biologically transfolk will always be their birth gender, but legally they should be able to identify as a trans male or female. A third and fourth gender they will be known as. But equal in rights to biological males and females.


What stops people in a communist society from favoring one group instead of other and neglecting others in the process? What stops me for instance in a workplace from teaming up with a few other people and becoming bosses of the rest of the workplace? Or me favoring someone and giving him more than the others?



Because by that time people are gonna call you out on your actions. No reason to team up because resources aren't scarce, unless you plain want to control others for that reason alone for some dumb impulse. If you start mistreating others then people will push back, and that will be the ethos of the time.


File: 0023274a5ad7e45⋯.jpeg (50.61 KB, 250x361, 250:361, E83BB1EC-8D6E-44CF-B9EF-F….jpeg)

Was there a “anuddah shoah” during the Haitian Revolution? I hear /pol/tards saying this often but they actually have a sizeable White/mulatto population today which is surprising given their demographics were South African-tier in the 18th century


Thanks for deleting the r/CTH fags getting BTFO and all the replies from the other thread, I love knowing I'm right but having no reason as to why.

Bunch of fucking redditors. God this place is fucking insufferable.



It's not genocide if it's classicide.



Seriously, I fucking hate you "people", you're a bunch of authoritarian yankee cunts that ruin everything you touch, including this board.

I want you all to die. God forbid someone expose you bunch of beta faggots cheering on the death of the working class.

I fucking hate you all.



It was but I mean look at the circumstances, I'd fucking kill everyone too.



Who are r/CTH and what's their ideology? I hear about them a lot here… but I don't dare visit their page.



Goon socialism


Did any socialist country employ attacks against first-world economies? As in, pumping them full of forged notes to inflate them, urging other countries to stop supplying to them, etc. I know Brezhnev supported OPEC in sanctioning America for oil, causing the oil shortage of the 70s.



DPRK is engaged in a lot of criminality which sometimes goes into this territory like counterfeiting and cyber ransoms + bank robberies.


File: 4da97b8c227b233⋯.png (122.88 KB, 480x360, 4:3, iu.png)

Where did Marx explicitley define what socialism and communism are? Gib excerpts if you can.


What is the difference between state capitalism/planned economy and socialism? inb4 "the workers are in charge in socialism instead of the bourgeoise"


In light of Jason getting rekt in the debate, how IS fascism the last refuge of capitalism, as Spencer asked?


File: b740e957c194c78⋯.jpg (15.02 KB, 247x400, 247:400, wall-st-front-cover.jpg)


>state capitalism

A term used by some leftist (mostly anarchist) to indicate that states with planned economy (second world) were similar (in essence) with capitalist states(aka the workers are still oppressed ,just by the state)

>planned economy

Wikipedia that


Meaningless term tbh

Everyone has a different theory on what it is

Anyways, if someone thinks himself as a socialist, they don’t like capitalism much….

Most people here will say that socialism is the state between capitalism and communism (each "socialist" state had a different form of socialism)


start by thinking about the fact that so called fascists only agree on hating communists…




It's so easy for fascists to unite, because their ideas are so simple and uniform. They don't have varying interpretations of what "scientific" means because they don't care for a scientific analysis of history and material conditions. To them it's about tradition, the way things were, and hardly much more. Fascists agree with each other so much too on the basis they don't have so many issues to analyze:

>Do you hate negroes?

<Mmm hm.

>Do you hate communist Jews?

<Mmm hm.

>Do you want foreign people out and even take over their countries?


>Ah okay so we're basically the same.

With far-leftists there are much more factors to consider, such as the notion of labor vouchers, the degree of internationalism, the amount of bureaucracy, the role of the state in the revolution as opposed to the people's, the degree of trade and reliance on capitalist powers, civil law, etc. With fascists their answers to those topics are all the same: just do what awr ansesturs did. Quite a difference in mindset.



The coroner who examined his body stated that there is no evidence he was tortured.




How did he fall into a coma then? Shock? No coincidence he went into one of the world's most brutal dictatorial regimes and came back half-dead.



While i dont understand what your post has to do with mine

We still hadnt clarify what fascism means….

What you describe is an ethnic chauvinist who while most of them are fash , some of them may be leftists(or atleast vote left) ,we have a lot of spooked leftist in my country..


File: fcf50ab38cec310⋯.webm (1.63 MB, 640x360, 16:9, defector on dprk dictator….webm)


>How did he fall into a coma then?

By attempting to hang himself and failing by being discovered.


>No coincidence he went into one of the world's most brutal dictatorial regimes and came back half-dead.

The DPRK has imprisoned visitors before and none of this happened to them.



File: ae804f021c95c1b⋯.png (446 B, 32x21, 32:21, 32px-Flag_of_Venezuela.svg.png)

Question: What is the reason for Venezuela's hyperinflation?



Quite simple: a lot of Venezuela's fiscal stream was dependent on oil sales. When the price collapsed, they printed money instead of acquiring emergency credit (Read: IMF). It was a bad move yes, however a lot of it was motivated by A) fear of having to dollarise B) memories of the last IMF bailout in the 1980s (that lead to a riot that caused 2k deaths in Caracas in one day alone).


How does socialism solve the problem of alienation. If I understand correctly when Marx talks about alienation he means the worker is alienated from the product of his oh labor because it doesn't belong to him it belongs to the capitalist. But under socialism how is this functionally any different. Even if you say the product of his labor belongs to workers as a whole it still doesn't belong to whoever made it.



The alienation occurs in capitalism, like you said, because the worker's labor becomes embodied in commodities which are appropriated by the capitalist and then sold. The worker is thus separated from a part of himself in the process of production.

It could be argued that alienation wouldn't exist in socialism because the worker, having embodied his labor in a product, is compensated for an equal sum of labor's product. This compensation isn't merely wages, which are only a small part of the total value put into motion, but rather the full product of that labor. When the worker receives his credit/voucher/token for 1 hour's work he can now withdraw products equal to 1 hour of abstract social labor, meaning that he doesn't lose anything. (We'll ignore deductions for social funds.)

Of course, we are assuming here that by socialism we mean a system in which wage-labor has already been abolished and workers are paid in labor vouchers or something similar. If wages continue to exist then capitalist-style appropriation and alienation of labor also continue to exist.


Question about the concept of "Permanent Revolution"; recently, I had been wonderig if people really interpreted correctly what Trotsky's theory of TPR actually was (I haven't read any theory by Trotsky so I wasn't sure about it either) but I came across an explanation of TPR that I had never seen before and was wondering if any anons here that have read Trotsky can confirm if it's correct. Basically, the guy said all the Permanent Revolution means is that in countries with uneven development (basically developing countries with large segments of pre-capitalist production plus pockets more advanced capitalist production, like was the case in pre-revolution Russia) the bourgeoisie is gonna be too comfy in the hybrid system to have their own revolution to go full capitalism. The example of combined and uneven development in Russia that Trotsky was working with was the fact that most of the country was peasant based agriculture, but at the same time the largest factories in the entire world were steel works in Petrograd. Because of this, the Russian bourgeoisie was doing mighty fine under feudalism, so while they had some complaints about their political rights they had no material incentive to support a revolution to fully establish capitalism.

So the proletariat and the peasantry will instead be the revolutionary group that take a revolution straight to socialism, skipping the capitalist stage altogether. The “Permanent” part of PR comes from the proletariat and peasantry taking the initial revolution that overthrew feudalism in Russia and established the bourgeois Provisional Government, and pushing through to socialism.

The success of that revolution is then dependent on other countries that have more widespread advanced capitalist production having their own revolutions to sustain socialism. So the internationalism Trotsky uses to later criticize the USSR does ties into the theory, but the main point is how to base your strategy as a revolutionary socialist organization in a largely pre-capitalist society.


Would porkies let countries unite, particularly developed ones? Say, if Czechia and Slovakia wanted to reunite, or if Yugoslavia did, or if Benelux did – provided they remain as they have economically and don't start disrupting the world order by going off the petrodollar or something, would their unification be tolerated by the ruling class? Or would they be against it, seeing as how it removes divisions among people that could be exploited?



Only if it ended up increasing their profits.


File: 9d5490abc31e97d⋯.png (324.54 KB, 576x566, 288:283, 9d5.png)


Did you guys know there are people in VENEZUELA tho?



The only white people there at the time were either labourers or slave owners. They had legitimately racist policies in which British or French descendants (though Polish and Germans were exempt) can't own land. Most of the labourers moved back to France, and the few whites who either defected into the revolution (which is why Polish-Hatians are seen as the good guys there) or couldn't afford to travel back just stayed behind.


>But Anon, the History Channel/Time/other popular authority says communist regimes killed 100 million people! How can you still support communism?

Looking for a response against the supposedly credible authorities rather than debunking the gajillions.


File: 4868d3147c32162⋯.png (164.92 KB, 481x371, 481:371, unidentifed.png)




hewwo? owo

i've never used this site before but i was talking with a friend and, correct me if i'm misinformed; i've never done any leftist reading Cuz I'm Lazy but: it's known that capitalism creates competition among its victims in order to weaken them so that it stays in power, and that's what creates the need for discrimination; if you hate the people who are being made slaves, why liberate them? however, i'm wondering how instating socialism would remove the need for identity politics; i'm transfeminine, and i would like to have rights, and i'm told under socialism there would be no need to discriminate against me, but there's also no need to now, so how would instating socialism help to remove, or at least severely reduce, bigotry among individuals?

there's also a large possibility that i have no clue what i'm talking about, and if i don't, :(



The capitalists consolidate their power by tricking individuals into beliving that their respective groups are the cause of all society's ills. The racist blacks accuse the racist whites, and vice versa, and so on. While they're fighting eachother this takes the heat off the capitalists who are the real cause of all this. Socialism does away with capitalism and with it, society's ills. If there are no problems, there are no groups to blame the problems on.



i guess i'm just not seeing how removing problems to blame on people will fix it; particularly with lgbt+ issues, how would it fix the prejudices and misinfo about subjects that seems to be the cause of the homophobia, etc? among the people themselves, rather; is it that people would simply start thinking logically about things for once, just because the problems were fixed? probably a silly question anyway but i guess i'm just not understanding it completely


File: c1b07ce8d3c81f5⋯.jpg (450.07 KB, 809x1659, 809:1659, Screenshot_20190105-152500….jpg)

I see comments like this that are brought up all the time when talking about labor vouchers. How would you guys address the arguments found in this comment ?


File: 52a08742268e499⋯.png (1.76 MB, 1676x937, 1676:937, 52a08742268e49913c627ab370….png)


I'm pretty drunk, but what the hell.

Paragraph 1: Division of labour and so on. Marx answers this literally in the first 5 pages of Capital. When calculating labour value, we calculate similiar labour.

Paragraph 2: Yes, yes it does. The brain sourgeon has been afforded for free the education necessary to learn his trade, so it doesn't really seem fair he should be paid more fore plying it.

Paragraph 3: An hour of work does not translate to a litre of milk. The commodities will be priced by the labour they contain.

Paragraph 4: A stupid fucking question. This is where the calculation comes in. The price of a commodity (counted in labour vouchers where 1 voucher=1 hour of labour value) is decided by the labour content in said commodity. Division of labour coupled with technology has made sure that the price of any given commodity necessary for daily subsistance is far lower than what a worker puts out daily.

Paragraph 5: If only argument you have against planned economy is "this sounds like planned economy" you should fuck your mother and die.

Paragraph 6: What the fuck does this even mean?


What's the ideal situation for gun ownership in a socialist utopia?



Everyone recieves rifle and handgun training starting at age 13. Everyone is armed and bred to be responsible. However, people may go for years without even lifting their firearms.


File: 4f10ac3dfdb2a8f⋯.jpg (63.43 KB, 780x468, 5:3, Mexican anti-cartel vigila….jpg)


Sex education in america is shit, socialism will fix it with actual education.


Hear me out: communities need to be able to decide who gets to own a gun, possibly a neighborhood assembly to decide: they will be incentivized because every person needs to be able to protect themselves and eachother, this incentivizes more protectors, a centralized government could easily use 'mental illness' and 'dissent' as an excuse to take away guns.

>but the nofunz libs

Education, gun safety classes, and propaganda to establish the new peoples' protection militiamen or "The Neighborhood Watch, but this time for real" as the only legitimate form of force. As Marxists always assure us, ideals alwats come second to material interests; we gotta put the fear into the liberal, make him scared and then reassure him that only he and his community are responsible for their own saefty, and the government will not help them or be unable to help them. It'll be Socialism with a Balaclava'd Face.

…or alternatively, we just ban liberals from voting. Communism overnight. Whaddya think?



Anti-gun sentiments are the least of the problems that liberals pose. The majority of them only advocate gun control to spite right wingers or because they're completely uninformed on the topic.



>It hurts wages

Maybe research the issue more



Yes please read the Cato Institute paper saying it is so.



The west has enough immigrants for its multicult project. Now is the time to do damage control and shut down borders. 3rd world workers and refugees should be helped locally.



I feel a bit moderate on the whole "bleh bleh what about doctors shouldn't they get paid more" issue because while I want full abolition of the capitalist class and private property ownership, I think within those constraints there should be a slide into greater equality to account for the fact that people's experience is so tied up in pay scales and valuing different work very differently. So I'd say that while I think ideally everyone would be paid extremely similarly, maybe initially there could be a wage differential of something like 3 times the lowest wage at the top, and a scale existing in there. So if people really think doctors must be paid more than someone who makes a chair, that is fine. The doctor can be paid more for now, they don't get to own property or employ people though.

But I don't know where he thinks prices come from otherwise. They're calculated by costs and a markup. Every time he exclaims "what are these magic fairy dust calculations!?" I have to ask where he thinks prices come from right now, and why he thinks this is an incredibly unique or correct way to ration goods?

However, ultimately I don't think the only cost in a planned economy would be labor time, and I don't think it has been in the existing socialist countries. Resource scarcity is taken into account as well, even if it isn't always formalized as some kind of value attached to resources based on their scarcity. There has to be some kind of premium on the more rare resources to show the relatively greater cost of using them.



The LTV?



I guess the bitch was property then


Underrated Hegelians and go!


what the actual fuck did he mean by this

>But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

>But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.




Why is it significant? What does it disprove? What do the economists say to attack it?



>Why is it significant?

it proves that people who own means of production make money off other people's labour, effectively stealing from them

>What does it disprove?

nothing really, I mean it disproves a lot of retarded notions but not one specific argument.

it's important mainly because of what I said above.

>What do the economists say to attack it?

that labour isn't the source of value, which is ridiculous.






I should add that there are many critiques from economists to the LTV, the one I said theire is the main one, but another important one is the calculation problem.



so… how do they measure value then?



according to marginalism (the current mainstream economic system in the world) the value is subjective, this is where the the free market through MaGiC and mYsTeRiOuS forces (refered to as "the invisible hand of the free market") comes into play and an item/service has the value whomever wants to buy it assings it.

so for example, if you make a chair or whatever and want to sell it, and I want to buy it and I'm not willing to pay more than idk 10$, that's the value it has, until somebody else comes along and "competition" kicks in and this competition is supposed to magically determine the actual value of the chair because I won't compete further than I'm willing to pay, which means if the other guy wants to pay $20 for it but I'm only willing to pay $19 then $20 is the value of the chair because that's what the free market decided it was.

(according to the LTV) this is obviously not the real value of the chair, it's just the price, as the value of something shouldn't be different if the forces that built this something are the exact same, value isn't subjective, it's given to an object/service by the amount of labour it required to make it, it's constant, prices fluctuate, value doesn't.

if you're interested in learning the most basic concepts of the LTV I'd recommend you to read both "wage labour and capital" which explains worker exploitation in basic terms, and then "value, price and profit" in which Marx gives a very, extremely, abridged version of the explanation for the LTV without much empirical data, it's about, both texts are a few pages long, maybe 40 or something like that.

if you want to study it in full, then you're gonna have to read "Capital" by Marx, it's extremely long and detailed.



People who work longer/faster will be counted as providing more work and get higher remuneration. One may think it would be nice to set standards of what and how much people consume based entirely on needs with zero weight on individual contribution, but written laws don't enforce themselves. So weighting needs more and more can't happen quicker than technology and common social attitudes allow for.



How is use value defined then? Isn't that very subjective?



It's not a one-dimensional scoring or ranking. It's not the question whether you like something or not, so it's not really subjective. Use value is what something is useful for by virtue of its known physical characteristics. Think of two siblings getting presents for Christmas, seeing what they got there is mutual envy, so they swap a couple of things. This swapping can increase the happiness of each, but it doesn't change the use values of the objects.



>sub species

You deserve worse than a ban, faggot.


File: f16484ebefaed3f⋯.jpg (169.46 KB, 641x914, 641:914, 10.jpg)

File: f400002ed72c2d4⋯.jpg (125.48 KB, 646x895, 646:895, 11.jpg)

File: bb592b9ab6c895b⋯.jpg (126.99 KB, 642x880, 321:440, 12.jpg)



That cheesy comic is a bit silly. I read it here:



It appears to be a translation of Japanese->Spanish->English (I think the original was Japanese because of the verticality of the speech bubbles, and there are some Spanish leftovers, like when characters go jajajaja, that means hahahaha). I give it two stars out of five. I guess it's supposed to be the early 20th century before WWI, but it doesn't quite all feel like that (like when one dude makes a joke about selling organs). The ending is really off. The main character is used to making cheese just with his father, then goes into big-scale biz, and then gets depressed and so goes back to the old ways. But the old technology cannot compete with the new tech, so going back to the old ways isn't really a realistic option. Another thing I didn't like about it is exactly that bit with use values you bring up.

Use values are not subjective, else you couldn't refer sensibly to N units of something like a coat to N units of that use value, which is something Marx does.


What is wrong with the right-wing argument that a 6- hour work day/4 day work week would fuck up our gdp and make us uncompetitive? How did it not screw up the economy last time we shortened the obligatory/minimum labour time?



Apparently it's because people perform a lot better with breaks. In fact, you'd be surprised to know that many people do almost nothing at their jobs just because they don't want to. It seems paradoxical but in this case less really is more. Look up the benefits of less working hours.

Meant to post this yesterday but the captcha came up after I tabbed out thinking it was sent.


How is capitalism creating things like incels or sjw?



I don't think it creates incels, and social justice is nothing but fighting for economic equality within capitalism.



US, being the global capitalist hegemony, has managed to repackage negative freedoms into their all encompassing Inalienable Freedoms™. Americans fucking love paying twice as much as everyone else for shit healthcare because this has become a core part of their society. The reason this happened was because they wanted to keep as many socialist causes out the country as possible, because there are reds under the bed. This obsession with individualism even to their own detriment and the country at large has been dubbed hyperindividualism, and is literally where the origin of the term "snowflakes" came from, and why the genesis of the SJW movement was obsessed with weird pronouns, outlandish hair colors, even self diagnosing as a multitude of debilitating mental illnesses as ways to express individuality. Intersectionality fits well with it and is a mainstay of it today because it focuses on the individuality of everyone, emphasising the numerous differences in each person. Incels are just the reaction to its later forms.

Is this post any good I'm sleep deprived as fuck lmao



1. Density of labor

2. GDP growth is not the ultimate goal of a communist economy. Growth in productivity, for instance, does not imply growth in value produced.



SJWs are the result of capitalist-funded think tanks polluting genuine leftist spaces with a manufactured theory called "intersectionality", which governs all modern SocJus theory.

Incels are alienated young men who realized that mainstream society had nothing to offer them, and the SJWs hated them by default so they latched on to /pol/. There has been vigorous debate here as to whether this is actually capitalism's fault.


How do you guys justify having a materialist worldview when the double slit experiment showed what it did?



>SJWs are the result of capitalist-funded think tanks polluting genuine leftist spaces with a manufactured theory called "intersectionality", which governs all modern SocJus theory.

You're overthinking it.

They're a product of American culture, and therefore, capitalism.


If materialism explains racism because we needed a reason to justify slavery then why is racism still such a huge issue 150 years after the civil war ended it?


How does one counter the claim of "you don't know how much X people need" when it comes to central planning?



We need to justify prison labor and reconcile capitalist fantasies about social mobility with the reality of visible hereditary poverty?



The quantum challenge : explaining materialism


Materialism and Empirio-criticism (outdated in science, very up-to-date in philosophical argument)



Because it's still useful to the ruling class in maintaining denizen classes (prison slavery, non-citizen migrant workers, etc), in dividing the WC, and in promoting wars.


Just gather the data, make targets, and adjust if people change their consumption patterns.


What would be the motivation and incentives to do anything under communism?



those who don't work, don't eat


What was socialism with a human face, and did it deserve to be crushed



Have you ever done anything productive that you actually wanted to do?


Are there any studies that prove immigration lowers wages?



Probably, but it depends on many different factors. Overall, it is adding to the national reserve army of labor. But if they're denizen workers, they mainly lower wages in specific fields where they work illegally or with reduced rights. The obvious solution is:

1. Demand full citizenship for all workers in a country.

2. Demand full employment.

3. Demand extensive rights and entitlement to wages for all workers.

The fascist/succdem solution is:

1. Maintain the underclass/denizen status of migrant workers, thus maintaining lowered wages.

2. Terrorize the migrant workers (further driving them into desperation and lower wages).

3. Tell citizens that they're special.


File: 8bc075b0b2780ce⋯.jpeg (58.01 KB, 960x539, 960:539, 4C087885-AD1D-4D92-9566-6….jpeg)

I need solid proof confirming the tienamon square “massacre” did not happen. Please assist.


Need to do my undergrad philosophy capstone and need a topic by next week. Besides the basics I've studied Marxism and African philosophy. Anybody have any ideas, needs to be a pretty specific scholarly thesis



because reals > feels



Why did the USSR have shortages in the late 80s? What factors caused them?



a shtity transition to a market based economy and opening up to the west, mainly. shortages also happened in other countries like Romania, Poland, and Bulgaria due to loans.



Productivity is a spook.


>demand full employment

Full employment? Is this your way of saying "slavery"?



>Productivity is a spook

Honestly at this moment you mongoloids use SPOOGS :D for every single fucking thing


Should I put up flyers asking if any Sanderistas want to meet up to talk politics and try to radicalize them?



Full employment is unironically liberating.



shouldn't they already be organized and have meetings that you can crash?



Bro the College Dems here don't even meet regularly it's a terrible campus


Is leftypol BO a tranny or it is a fake?



it doesnt matter


Is the removal of the Federal Reserve, return to Gold Standard, and ending Social Security that the extreme lolberts want a good or bad thing.



I mean from an Actual Leftist viewpoint.




Here's a leftist position on those things.

>nationalize the fed

>switch from fiat to labor credits

>end welfare by simply having a universal standard of living

Gold standard sounds nice until you realize fiat still exists. Still, nothing wrong with trading for actual gold, jewels, or other things that are actually worth something, but not fiat.

Welfare can easily be dismantled by ensuring everyone has food, clothes, and housing. At that point, why keep welfare around?


File: 85e9bd5632f7afc⋯.jpg (15.77 KB, 600x238, 300:119, IMG_20190129_162619_516.JPG)


And that pornhub video, is it really him?




No lmao. Do you believe everything /pol/ claims about this board?



>I need proof to confirm my bias

Fuck off Dengist.



Even if it were true how does it materially affect this board? /pol/ can't help but believe that certain behaviors have magical effects on all things associated with it or created by the person who participates.



une révolution n'est pas un diner de gala ?

ludwig von 88

only maoist song i know



wtf I am right-wing now :—-DDD



it's some tranny the /tv/ BO hooked up with


File: a115a3c8c667f3c⋯.png (626.28 KB, 300x1647, 100:549, Marx is gonna say the n-wo….png)

File: 34d3351740ad7be⋯.jpg (91.38 KB, 900x593, 900:593, jewish nigger lassalle mar….jpg)



File: 4008e56d4c1cdce⋯.png (279.5 KB, 607x688, 607:688, 1497657784895.png)


No it's okay he is black so he can say it


File: dd569fd02f3fff0⋯.jpg (61.27 KB, 600x900, 2:3, obama.jpg)


By Martin Luther King… the Black Israelites were right!


Are there any preferred presses I should be purchasing books from? I would rather support a co-op press (like Black and Red if it had a bigger catalog) than a porkie one.


File: e0e354c204cdda0⋯.jpg (502.77 KB, 1920x1280, 3:2, 4ONUwgTN2gGFrSJIeTySU8uo02….jpg)


Literally going over to North Korea and buying their books.



Who are some prominent leaders couped by western countries during the cold war that weren't communists?



The first president of the republic of cyprus was neutral and somewhat anticommunist yes he was couped with the help of the pro-american greek junta

The coup failed and the president-preist returned after turkey took half the island



How could oppressive, revisionist or unpopular regimes like DDR, Baltic countries, Poland, Vietnam, China and Czechoslovakia have been prevented?



Peron; he was an anti-communist socdem along Huey Long lines that had a sympathy for nazis fleeing Germany but was also anti-capitalist. He was overthrown by the Argentine Junta that's most famous for invading the Falklands & kidnapping 30k children.

Also the US helped kidnap and assassinate a Christian Democrat Italian PM during the years of lead.



Those are all massively different regimes, so let's go one-by-one:


Was repressive because it wasn't an organic nation and as such had to fight the natural instincts of its own people to form a united Germany. Tbh Stalin note B should have been accepted by Adenauer the Rhenish fuck.


Classic case of "socialism by the sword", was doomed to fail because there was no proper domestic class conscious socialist movement. Best example of why invading and installing socialist regimes is a bad idea.


Similar to the aforementioned, but also because the Soviet-model didn't properly work with the agrarian nature of Poland and the trade unionist movement was shunned by the Communist leadership, not accepted and integrated.


Main issue here was the fact that there was no proper model for developing a backwards nation like Vietnam along socialist lines: something that has actually started to be worked on by marxists in India


China is the same issue as above, but more in terms of scale. Mao tried to introduce central planning in an agrarian economy that also had industrial elements, and then tried to compensate for the bureaucratisation (which was admirable) by a cultural revolution that in the end did not sort much. One of the most interesting proposals was that Titoist samoupravni socializem would have actually worked better in China because it in Yugoslavia allowed for industrialisation and spread of wealth throughout the country while generating a well educated populace. And the emigration issue would not be one within China because China had yet to witness the classical rural→Urban movement of an industrialised society. But alas we got Dengism instead.


Tbh Duchek did nothing wrong, Brezhnev killed one of the best chances for developing a socialism that would have lasted beyond 1985. Czechoslovakia had a unique status in the eastern bloc because it was perhaps the only pre-WWII government that was accepting of soviet help and alliance: Benes himself was rather pro-Soviet despite being a nationalistic socdem. However, such a movement from organic structures means that Czechoslovakia, like Yugoslavia, was always going to be sovereignist: which ran up against Brezhnev's paranoid conservativism. '68 was inevitable with Brezhnev.



"how could they have been prevented from failing?" was my question. were they doomed to fail?



IMO Baltics were, the rest nah.

Vietnam & China needed secure paths to developed an agrarian society both politically & economically towards a demos that would be able to articulate socialism outside of its modern, vulgar dengist form. I don't think Leninism was the correct path for them.

DDR was sorted doomed but that would have been prevented with Stalin note B. The DDR is unique because a socialist Germany was far from impossible, but the DDR in its unique conditions of being economically underdeveloped & having to deal with the organic desire of its proletariat to unite with their brothers to the west is a nigh unstoppable force.

Poland required first an adoption of the heritage of the Polish socialist movement, and secondly a use of syndicalism to bring-in the nationalistic urban proletariat. I mean Solidarity itself was, as Zizek put it, founded upon Leninist principles: just in opposition to a Marxist-Leninist state. What Poland unironically needed was syndicalism.

Czechoslovakia was trying to self-right with the Prague Spring, it should have been let to do that, perhaps follow a Yugoslav model of development from there.



Why did every country in the eastern bloc fail at the same time?



Oh and ofc, there's Mohammad Mossadegh.



Mostly because all of them had the conditions for collapse since about 1980, but with the trigger that was Perestroika & the issues in Poland & Hungary that got the ball rolling. For the record, Yugoslavia should be considered a separate course of events.

Mostly it had to do with the stagnation era of the 1970s eroded support for the ML regimes by either stagnating or in a few cases (Albania, Romania, Poland) declining standards of living. The inability of the Central Committees to adapt to the issues thrown-up by the 70s stagnation laid the seeds for showing that they were incompetent and thus didn't have a plan for moving things forward. So when political crisis after political crisis mounted, a lot of CCs were just paralyzed. When bringing down the hammer didn't work, they turned to talks: but they had alienated a lot of the populace by bringing down the hammer in the first place. Ofc every eastern bloc state was unique and had some personal factors affecting things: Romania is the best example of this. But in summary, Gorbachjov's attempts at reforms were too little too late: the moment to fix things was about 1981, passed that everything was doomed to failure, all that was needed was a spark.


Why didn't socialist states undermine capitalist ones with sabotage to ease the advantage incurred from imperialism? The Soviets and the Chinese, for one, could certainly have sent a couple teams over to destroy infrastructure by just cutting cables in the ground or throwing filth in aquifers. This would have noticeably reduced the stability of capitalist powers and diverted their resources for low cost. Heck, even sending a few dudes to start forest fires is an easy way to cause millions in damages and affect tons of industries for basically no principle. Why did in all those years did they seemingly not do this?


File: f18877cf0b85d0d⋯.png (44.14 KB, 500x338, 250:169, pepe cig.png)


>why didn't communists act like cartoon villains


Does anybody know in which of Lenin's works he starts to grow increasingly pessimistic for socialism after the German Revolution fails? I heard that just before he died he wrote a bunch of stuff that tried to address what to do now that the USSR was in total isolation.



Well, why was there a stagnation in the 70s in the first place?

And isn't the point of socialism to eliminate the need for economic growth?


How can socialism be justified from a biological perspective? Isn't socialism, equality and communism an impossible goal due to r/K selection, competition, and survival of the fittest?



Communism has nothing to do with egalitarianism. Just get straight to the point and ask about the jews.



Capitalism isn't any more 'justified from a biological perspective', whatever that means. Competition under capitalism is not fair, either at the personal level or the corporate level. If anything socialism is more meritocratic because success doesn't depend on how much money you have behind you. Socialism is about genuine equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.



How is it not legitimate praxis? If the Soviet Union was the only stable country in the world that wasn't having its backbone ripped straight out it would certainly have fared better, right?



Read Kropotkin



No, /pol/. Social Darwinism is horseshit, and cooperation is a better survival strategy than competition.


File: faebf2f262b8fa5⋯.jpg (39.75 KB, 640x480, 4:3, Meghan-McCain-640x480.jpg)


>survival of the fittest

Imagine seeing fail children like Meghan McCain and Wyatt Koch and thinking that they are the apex of human evolution.


File: fd4f7069a5d10d5⋯.png (600.92 KB, 750x563, 750:563, koch son.png)


Forgot Wyatt.


My gf is into Kpop, how do I get her to embrace Juche?



Show her the material conditions of kpop stars



Send her Monranbong band songs and tell her its k-pop



Put her through the process of someone becoming a k-pop star until she's so broken and defeated she'll do anything for you.

Like embracing Juche. Yes.


File: 96ef4d6ceeba33a⋯.png (362.25 KB, 733x1268, 733:1268, 1512117554246.png)

I've got a few questions:

1. I'm sure this has been asked before, but what are some easier to digest means of taking in Marxist economic theory? I want to actually understand Marxist economics and the science of Marxism, but as I am now, can't bring myself to read through capital. Any recommendations?

2. What are the best ways to argue against the "100-million" argument? I'm familiar with various counters discrediting the numbers or explaining them rationally, but anyone who spouts such a misguided argument is a closed-minded idiot, and what I would prefer is a way to quickly shut it down for the sake of appealing to those listening to the debate rather than my opponent. Obviously the capitalist toll is higher, but how can I formulate that explanation effectively during an argument rather than saying "preventable poverty killed millions", which is a fairly easily refutable claim, even if it can be attributed to capitalism.

3. What are the best ways to explain that the capitalist means of ownership is inherently flawed? Often people will say "He worked hard to own his property or make his business, so why shouldn't he be able to?" Of course that ownership is based on the flawed perspective that people should be able to own and collect land, and that such a right was only really devised under feudalism and other primitive systems, but again, for the sake of swift and effective rhetoric, how can I better comeback with that?



File: 436166f0590fda1⋯.webm (15.56 MB, 640x358, 320:179, Moranbong 2019.1.1.webm)


Show her this


File: e49920b264dbeab⋯.jpg (31.59 KB, 355x355, 1:1, IMG_0364.JPG)

When should I stop feeling feels about the Spanish civil war


File: 1a6890c4d9d6b22⋯.jpg (60.48 KB, 1280x571, 1280:571, 2.jpg)


Ehhh dude they blow you up today(or destroy your revoloution)

you blow them up tomorrow

so chill




I'm sorry, but I chortled.



Toppling Franco's regime was the first issue brought up by the Soviets at Potsdam. Blocked by the British.


I remember hearing Jeremy Scahill talk about how the CIA had operatives on the ground during the early stages of protests against Gaddafi (before the NATO bombing) . Does anyone have a source for that, because I tired looking up YouTube videos where he said it and several articles and all I'm getting are articles that were released after the NATO bombing began about CIA ops "sharing Intel" with rebel groups.

Perhaps I am not remembering it correctly, but I have brought it up in conversations and I want to make sure I'm not just spouting BS.


>LTV is wrong because people have their own subjective valuations of things according to their personal conditions




that's use value, not exchange value



that's not value, that's use value, you can't compare use values as it is impossible to measure and equate commodities qualitatively, the only thing they've got in common in this social context of exchange and equation (and therefore the one thing that rules exchange-value) is their labour content, that's why commodities are equated quantitatively.

literally explained in the first chapter of das Kapital

why won't people just read a tiny bit is beyond me.

just the first fucking chapter.

or at least value price and profit.


Why do you guys paint Amerixa as the divine bogeyman for all of the worlds problems? I mean yes, the government has abused their power and other nations suffered, but it's not just the Yanks. Even if America didn't exist, all of the second world and "third world" countries would just as easily impreialize and oppress their neighbors.


what are some of the standard opinions on gambling

i never see anything about stricter regulation on gambling or abolishing it altogether, but it seems like a really shitty exploitative thing that left nerds should be more against



You're really ahead of the curve with this one, can't wait for the incessant hair splitting debates over gambling, GERFs and Native American casinos.


Is a state more effective at propagating class consciousness than the leftcom alternative, and how so? Also, what can a state do to promote class consciousness in regions lacking such (think the Baltics, Poland).



why wouldn't we? USA is the embodiment of imperialism.

just because there are other (maybe even less powerful) imperialist states it doesn't mean that criticism over a specific imperialist state is wrong.

what you're saying basically is "why would you blame X person for being a rapist, he's just the one with the highest amount of rape victims, but if X person didn't exist, somebody else would be in his place, so stop hating him"

your argument is completely retarded.



he had lenin deaded


How are you supposed to convince a Norwegian normie liberal that we should abolish private property? We have it so nice here already, we don't have a lot of debt, we have everything we need, and it will be like that for a very long time. There is also the fact that they see capitalism as the version we have here, whilst socialist countries always become corrupt oligarchies.



Climate. Climate, climate, climate. It's the hill on where the liberal must either abandon crapitalism or his own common sense.

Redpill them on planned obsolescence, over-production, every environmental malpractice and how capitalism incentivices all of it.



And what about the William Nordhaus types who propose a carbon tax and discredits anything else as too radical and extreme?



Ask them why you should trust liberal capitalist democracy to save you from climate change when the markets and market-friendly politicians have done fuck all about the climate crisis the last three decades.

Also try to make them understand that where we're going, climate-wise and technology-wise, liberalism won't. Ain't nobody got time for the Declaration of Human Rights when you need to guard your precious clean drinking water from 200 000 000 climate refugees in the year 2050.


File: 91957895573cba4⋯.png (326.58 KB, 1431x3472, 1431:3472, Screenshot-2019-2-13 List ….png)

How is the concept of labor hours relevant when different countries/companies/branches have different efficiency rates?



Because labor hours are measured in Socially Necessary Labor time, the average time it takes to make something. If the 1st world countries take less time to make something due to machines, 3rd world economies that are highly connected to them will have to do more work (with less machinery) for the same final price, wasting labor.




>67.32$ per hour


Most Americans make far lower than that. Don’t know about Europe but America’s wealth is mostly due to a ultra-wealth ultra-large Porky population, but prols making very little. Our average yearly income is 50,000$ per person, but half of people make under 30,000$, which isn’t much when you factor in the cost of rent and private healthcare.


What is idealism exactly, within a Marxist context? I've heard it is wrong because it's the view fascists use in their attempts to justify their beliefs, e.g. they're bad and we're good because of the ideals we stand for. But I've been thinking recently that perhaps ideals in this sense are correct; people are different, and have different interests inherent to them from the beginning. Certainly it seems that people are born with certain inclinations such as greed or altruism, which they will tend to naturally despite environments that push against this innermost trend. The notion of socialism could very well be an idealistic one in part as some, most people even, don't care about socialism and what it stands for beyond getting stuff from it – they just want to be supplied for, but don't have sense for the undoing of slavery for various peoples targeted under capitalism; they care more for their own ethnic ingroups than they do for any cosmopolitan affiliation, and they are just naturally careless in general. So also, how doesn't socialism have to take on an idealistic perspective combating against such people, assuming it is purely materialistic?



Idealism is the belief that consciousness determines reality. You can see idealism in all aspects of bourgeois ideology:

>economic value is just subjective!

>we invaded for democracy, so it was good!

>people are homeless because they choose to be!

>Marx didn't account for my oppression as a woman even though I'm bourgeois!

etc etc

When you learn to sniff out idealism, you will realize how completely rotten the theoretical and ideological foundations of bourgeois thought are. The opposite of idealism is materialism. Materialism is the belief that there is an objective material reality outside of people's consciousness, which determines consciousness. Even consciousness itself is a material phenomenon in materialism, meaning that it in turn influences surrounding matter (IE, theories enabling invention and industry, motivating revolution, convincing people to build places of worship, etc). However, this is very different from saying that consciousness determines reality, which would mean, eg, that the world doesn't exist if someone (frequently God) doesn't perceive or conceive of it.

Reading material:







now to address your actual post:

>people are different, and have different interests inherent to them from the beginning.

Everyone is born with the same material interests in terms of what they need, however people in class society are born into opposing interests because the exploited and the exploiters are fighting over the product of social labor.

>Certainly it seems that people are born with certain inclinations such as greed or altruism, which they will tend to naturally despite environments that push against this innermost trend.

Totally irrelevant. A "greedy" poor person is most likely to stay poor. An "altruistic" rich person is most likely to stay rich.

>The notion of socialism could very well be an idealistic one in part as some, most people even, don't care about socialism and what it stands for beyond getting stuff from it – they just want to be supplied for,

This is the OPPOSITE of idealism, this is basic material self-interest at its plainest! This is precisely what Marx says will lead to revolution!

>but don't have sense for the undoing of slavery for various peoples targeted under capitalism; they care more for their own ethnic ingroups than they do for any cosmopolitan affiliation

In all the history of real class struggle, this has never been the case. Look at today: there is a global alliance between communists, revolutionary Muslims, Bolivarians, revolutionary Christians, indigenous peoples, etc. This alliance was not only guided by theory that proves the necessity of solidarity, but the hard reality that the oppressed depend on each other's help to overthrow the oppressor. Of course there are labor aristos who do not care about their "fellow" worker, they are temporarily occupying a special position where they can share in the spoils of imperialism, and their time is limited.


Why do communist parties have more support from metropolitan areas than the country side? Shouldn't the people in the country be the real working class? Or is it so that the city people experience the inequality far more?


What's wrong with business owners taking surplus value from their workers? Of course people get less than they make, because their surplus value has to go to things like electricity, upkeep of machinery, and all those other expenses. Business owners don't even take that much for profit relative to their company's net earnings.



>Of course people get less than they make, because their surplus value has to go to things like electricity, upkeep of machinery, and all those other expenses.

This is separate from the profit extracted by the capitalist. Obviously it exists in any economic system.

>What's wrong with business owners taking surplus value from their workers?

<What's wrong with people taking what isn't theirs?



>Business owners don't even take that much for profit

Bullshit, then what would the incentive be to start a business? 99% of businesses fail within 3 years, no one is going to take a chance like that unless there is at least a promise of a payoff.



You should read more, that is a broad question. Even read more history of the way 20th century socialist states operated. It isn't as simple as "if walmart workers got profit share swallowed into wage share they'd only get $xx amount of money! That is so small!" because the forms of consumption available, production itself, has conformed to the logic of capitalism (to varying degrees by country). There are possibilities of consumption and production which are precluded, completely absent because capitalism is what directs production and it has its own constraints. So even beyond the direct ratio of dollars going to profit or wages, what we'd be talking about in another context regarding what is sort of "possible" to render to workers if capitalists stopped existing as a class wouldn't take dollars into account much at all, but would be looking at real resources available to achieve this or that thing. And this isn't just a total abstraction, you can literally look at several of the 20th century socialist states to see how they successfully achieved some massive restructuring of production and consumption in ways that would be inconceivably expensive for a country like America. Of course, they were still very expensive in terms of resources and labor for the 20th century socialists, but the point is they were capable of doing it while often even expanding the sorts of privileges workers were already granted. And of course, we'd want to do even better the next go around.

But I'd call what you are engaging in here a deep internalization of capitalist ideology. It appears you're looking at currency as representative of what would be possible to buy if the money was just shuffled around. This is a really limited view of things, as though the world was filled with supermarkets and stores that are indomitable fixtures of reality, and everything in those stores has a price, and those prices are roughly indomitable, and socialism would simply be dividing the money the boss makes to the workers so that they could buy more clothes and TVs at Target as it currently exists. Like capitalism itself and the way it has shaped production is actually immutable, and we are just asking for the boss's salary.



You are talking about two different ratios like they're the same thing.

Rate of Surplus is the ratio of surplus value / wages. This determines how exploited people are. The rate of surplus in developed economies today can often range from 0.6 to 1.0, depending on wages and intensity. This means a third or even a half of your working day is doing unpaid labor!!!!

Rate of Profit is the ratio of total investment to profits. This includes electricity, materials, machines, etc.

Now here's the thing. Prices aren't magic. The price of any commodity INCLUDES the price of all the materials used in it, along with the price representation of the new labor value expended on it. What this means is that, under normal circumstances of circulation, the capitalists collectively CAN'T lose money. Every investment they collectively make is subsequently paid back to them from the labor of the workers. If one single capitalist gets ripped off on an investment, the one who ripped him off gets the gains, meaning the wealth of the porky class hasn't changed. So when you are looking at the social share of profits, the investments into machinery and electricity are irrelevant. You need only to directly compare the various incomes and consumption of the capitalists to the workers and their wages, and nothing else.

Now there is something else you need to consider, which is the way that porkies distort society. When porky spends all his money on luxuries, he isn't just making his life better than yours, he is actively making your life worse. When porky puts his golf courses and mansions smack dab in the middle of a city, he's taking up living and recreational quarters that workers could use, and making their commute longer. When he buys luxury sports cars, that's work put into cars nobody needs that could be put into helping people. You can just go down the list… It's GOOD we won't be able to afford the porky lifestyle just by redistributing the surplus, because the porky lifestyle is insane and unsustainable.



No not really. I'm for isolationism.



He didn't explicitly define communism, and he didn't use the term socialism.

Critique of the Gotha program is where he described higher and lower phase communism.




I hear trots say this bullshit all the time.

>The only true socialism was in Russia from 1917 to 1921



>That last graphic

>Hate speech is violence

How can people say shit like this…



Marx also describes his ideas for a communist/socialist economic structure in Capital Volume 2. He lays out the way that the capitalist economy works, and then points out the ways that certain parts of the circuit would be cut out in socialism. It aligns with COTGP and it's actually not vague at all.


Why has Anti-Imperialist Liberalism always failed throughout its existence. American Liberals didn't want war in 1812 but it happened, Republicans didn't want World War 1 and World War 2 but it happened, much to the cries of Libertarians and Paleo-Cons the USA became an Empire.



Note that if the USA didn't get into World War 2 the USSR would've conquered all of Europe lol



Talking about this.

>British anti-imperialism emerged in the 1890s, especially in the Liberal Party. For over a century, back to the days of Adam Smith in 1776, economists had been hostile to imperialism on the grounds that it is a violation of the principles of free trade; they never formed a popular movement.


As someone with no experience in academic literature whatsoever, what is the bare minimum I have to read before reading Capital?



nothing really, but to be fair knowing the very basics of marxist economic theory would help a lot, because his phrasing is rather difficult at times when he's explaining, so if you are already familiar with the basics it'll be easier.

but no requirements other being able to read.

I'd recommend you to start with some introduction to marxist economic theory.

you could read his own "Wage Labour and Capital" or "Value, Price and Profit", or you could read Ernest Mandel's "Introduction to

Marxist Economic Theory", although there's some sperging against the Soviet Union since he was a Trotskyist, the economic theory bit is superb for an absolute rookie or even a brainlet.



Quick correction. On WWII, only one person in the house voted against warm Everyone else was for it since they were fighting a imperialist empire. Ironic isn't it?


File: f99c938dd3e5005⋯.png (47.4 KB, 640x792, 80:99, trot.png)

What are the defining characteristics of Trotskyism in the modern day? Is it fair to say that it is basically a more purist, 'ultra-left' strain of M-L? Does the original split between Stalin and Trotsky still matter?



I'm from Argentina, I think this is the country where trotskyism is the strongest (if not the only) form of leftism.

their whole spiel against Stalinism is that it wasn't real socialism because they didn't abolish wage labour, it wasn't a democracy (the people didn't rule shit, it was a select tiny group of friends who ruled the country) and they killed everybody who opposed them, even socialists.

they call the soviet union "state capitalism" and a "degenerated workers state" for all this, and in all honesty I can't argue against it.

apart from that, they're just regular socialists, they call themselves Leninists but they recognize that this country has no revolutionary potential so they try to take part in the bourgeois elections.

they want to democratize the government, you know getting rid of the chamber of senators and deputies, since they're all businesmen and not workers, and give the people the power to propose and pass laws.

they obviously want to expropriate all private property but not all at once, first they want all the big industries (or most of them), petty bourgeois businesses would be allowed to exists on par with socialism for a while.

they ask people to not participate in bourgeois elections if they can't vote for them (we have ballotage here and they never make it to the second round)

and the 2 (out of like 300) deputies they have pretty much abstain from voting in pretty much every single law project.

they're still pro-violence as long as its used to defend the working class, they're the first (if not the only ones) that are always there when there's a manifestation of sorts, and when there's a riot they're the ones destroying things and setting everything on fire.

I think they're pretty based.

the only negative thing about them is that they are always using identity politics and supporting them, like using gender neutral language (this is ridiculous), or taking stands on social issues like abortion, trans rights, etc.

it's disgusting but it does boost their support a bit, so I don't know, I still identify as a member of their group whenever they ask me (hence the 4th flag), but I don't really like labels all that much, I'm primarily a socialist.



Honestly, the different between various strands of Marxism are almost nonexistent in the president day. Sure, in the 20th century, being a Trotskyist vs a Stalinist vs a Leftcom did actually matter. But nowadays it purely a semantic difference, as the main split between Marxist groups what if the Soviet Union was socialist or not. Now that the Soviet Union is gone, we are all starting for the same point. There is no real reason for us Marxists to be divided.



The union only will make us stronger!


Is Venezuela really socialist? If not, why do people think so? And what evidence is the best that we can use to prove that:

1) it isn't socialist

2) socialism HAS worked



>1) it isn't socialist

most of the economy is in private hands, they've not collectivized anything and they haven't nationalized any industry whatsoever other than the oil company PDVSA, which still has ties with multinational oil companies, so what's the fucking point? I don't know.

they are no different than social democracies in the rest of the world, but they are a lot (and I do mean A LOT) more anti imperialist than social democrats, this is what has earned them the "insult" of "socialist" by the right wingers, that get attacked by the Venezuelan government all the time.

>2) socialism HAS worked

I hope I don't really have to adress this, do I?



Thanks alot!



1: other response answers this pretty well. The workers dont have any control over the means of production, and thus by definition is not socialist. They have a private economy.

2: USSR and Cuba are the best examples of it working. For arguments sake, however, rely on empirical evidence and studies. This is perhaps the best example. Keep in mind how in spite of these results, the strongest powers on earth were violently and cruelly opposing socialism globally.




My man, there is actually a book by an academic named Bruce Moon called "The Political Economy of Basic Human Needs" from the early 90s that has a very broad study of standards of living across the socialist countries and capitalist countries at similar levels of development. Another paper cited the Moon study as having a wider scope than the article you posted, which is what got me interested in it. It isn't available on libgen, but my library has it. I was thinking about getting it and scanning it or something like that since it seems otherwise unavailable. If I do I may post it here.



Today the difference for me is between orthodox dogmatists (the remnant of Stalinist orgs) vs. outright SJW identitarians like >>2820248 describes (the remnant of a particular variety of Trots, at least over here in Latin America). Marxists as a whole should really forget the labels and elaborate original theories and strategy according to their own local situation.



Not a question, don't know if this fits there.

If this fits, you may want to change the thread wording as "[things] that don't (…)".


I think marxists or leftists in general, if they don't already, should try to learn the capitalist "theory", cogs, terms, logics and wtv, for various reasons.

First, pointing this at leftists, is because a pretty notorious economist in my country that I respect, said that "marxists in general don't know about economy. Liberals do, they just want a country we don't want".

Second and third, While the country is still capitalist,

2nd: To be able to discuss with liberals… More or less in their terms. And throw the "better for the people" opinion there.

3rd: To be able to opine in general about the country on economic matters… And then occupy public charges, or be able to lead people in other terms than "no, we want socialism (and we can argue for that), that's our line" and wtv.

4th, We may even gain insights for our socialist structures.

For example, knowing about PBI, the pxq = mxv stuff, why inflation is or not just about emission, etc etc. Internal demand, external demand, PBI per capita, vegetative growth of the population, etc etc.



>I don't like trots so imma just call them SJW identitarians lmao

Fuck the different material conditions of other countries am i rite? Lmao fuck materialism



>pxq = mxv stuff, why inflation is or not just about emission, etc etc. Internal demand, external demandvegetative growth of the population, etc etc.

Literally all this stuff is in Capital.


I can't even find this term on Google.



Sorry forum for more or less just internal talk, but:

After Macri won for a slight margin, I hope you (chastize? can't find the word) any attempt at a blank vote.

I wrote the same in a Milei video, where they were saying "ah, we liberals don't vote". Told them, when opposition gains by 1%, you'll be hitting yourself.

Also…, and hear this vid "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFgosxHTnmk" first, there are statists in peronism, second, they also have a proposal that is: "put private/statal companies, in the sense that they're private, but all workers, or actually sindicate heads, so indirectly all workers, vote in their dirigency. Then, no change in govt will be able to change the dirigency"… The assumption would be, the dirigency of the sindicates would be wrong less times than the nation wide voted one.



nope check the pew research data gain, i know this is an old post but it said 80% of Egyptians who believe sharia should be the law of the land thought so.

And 80% of the population is muslim, 15% christian, and of those muslims like 75% believe sharia to be the law of the land, so we are down to less than half of Egyptians. Not that great but far from some monolithic islamism that right wingers like to believe.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / dempart / f / general / islam / lovelive / mlgstuff / sonyeon / xivlg ]