[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / chemo / christ / cyoa / doomer / eris / rwby / vichan ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 62rd Attention-Hungry Games
/eris/ - Wherein Is Explained Absolutely Everything Worth Knowing About Absolutely Anything.

November 2018 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Options
dicesidesmodifier

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)

 No.2670891

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.

 No.2705657

>>2705647

Under socialism, granted there's some kind of voucher-based system to reward people for their labor, I suppise the more qualitative liquors would correspond to a larger amount of vouchers. Or if money still exists (as it did in every socialist state to date) they just cost more. Not sure about a fully communist society though.


 No.2705658

>>2705525

>if for instance an average Autism Level of 100 is needed for this to work

For what to work?

>>2705647

Well, it would still have a price, so all the people willing to pay/work more to drink higher quality alcohol.


 No.2705710

File: 86dedbcbe58f0bc⋯.png (41.39 KB, 614x492, 307:246, marx_expropriators.png)

>>2705185

>If this were true, explain smartphones.

I never said that a government implementing neoliberal policies automatically kills all technological development.

>>2705187

>If socialism has to resort back to capitalism to fix their economy then how is it superior?

Because they never had socialism. Socialism isn't meant to be an alternative to capitalism it's supposed to develop from and replace capitalism. See below.

>Saying that the economy wasn't developed enough seems a bit like a cop-out,

The key to understanding Marxist socialism is the idea that human society rests upon its material conditions, or material base. In Marx's theory, capitalism was developing the basis for socialism due to the increasing productivity of labor, increased technology, increased book-keeping and accounting, etc. These conditions were already creating a base for a possible socialist society in places like Western Europe. Literacy was high, organization and accounting was well developed, industries were highly organized and increasingly coordinated. This was a material base in which socialism might possibly develop.

By contrast, in places like Soviet Russia and Mao's China the conditions were ripe for the development of capitalism but not for socialism. Communist parties took power in these countries having to deal with semi-feudal economic relations, low literacy levels, low organization and coordination of industry and enterprise, etc. Rather than having capitalism develop the economy these countries used their own state apparatuses and communist parties to reduce consumption, increase productivity, and direct investment. But even these forms of organizing the economy were often inadequate and themselves lacked experience and the right tools for the job. Lenin himself argued in Soviet Russia that they were reversing the intended order of events by first seizing political power, then allowing the economy to develop towards a kind of monopoly capitalism that could then be transformed into socialism later on. Lenin even wanted to encourage foreign capitalists to invest and build factories in Russia so that they could stimulate development (although this effort largely failed AFAIK.)

Again, material conditions. A lot of socialists (even so-called Marxists) ignore this aspect of the question since it would cast doubt on the validity of Marxist movements in backwards countries. But it's absolutely fundamental to any kind of Marxist conception of capitalism and socialism.

>So I suppose the question is how do you justify a revolution(or even higher income taxes) when the same opportunity was and still is given equally to all individuals?

Here you're making an assumption that all individuals are receiving the same opportunity when in reality this isn't true at all. There are not an infinite number of good paying jobs and graduating from college doesn't automatically give someone a $200,000k yearly salary.

>Have you ever considered that in the "ideal" situation, you're really just forcing your beliefs on everyone else because you want it to be superior?

No.

>>2705255

>socialists that follow a marxist analysis of history acknowledge that for a country to successfully implement socialism said country requires to have already been at least a little developed by capitalism.

Exactly this. Trying to build socialism before having the material conditions to do so is like trying to build a house without laying the foundation or putting up a solid frame.


 No.2705745

Does an "anticapitalist right" exist or are all rightwing ideologies directly or indirectly defending capitalism?


 No.2705773

>>2705745

When it comes to the ideological side of things, yeah, there exist fascists that see themselves as opposed to capitalism. In practice though fascism has never been anti-capitalist, nor has any other right-wing political or economic system. Anti-capitalism is inherently leftist.


 No.2705811

>>2705773

Has any rightwing ideology/movement ever been anticapitalist in practice?


 No.2705948

This is genuinely not about "muh jewish gommunism" or any of that shit, I'm legit curious but was Marx 1/4th jewish, half jew, fully jewish?


 No.2705951

>Capitalism is finit-

hold up. space imperialism is soon here and we will colonize the galaxies, pulling out every single kind of material from them. we will never run out of resources. explain to me why my reasoning is false.


 No.2705959

>>2705951

The human species is more likely to become extinct in less than 300 years than to leave our solar system.


 No.2705964

File: ec9715fe0f8d169⋯.webm (10.29 MB, 640x360, 16:9, Armed Chinese Troops in T….webm)

>>2705773

>>2705811

This is kind of the problem with defining things. Not everyone agrees on what the political spectrum is and what constitutes the left and right. If I'm understanding it correctly initially the Left was Communism and the Right was Feudalism/Monarchy. On this scale I agree with you guys entirely and I would be Left Wing. I have no problem with someone being born with wealth but someone claiming to have a birthright to rule and dictate is borderline insanity. During WW2 the definition shifted again. The Left was still Communism but the right became Anti-Communism. This is largely a horrible way to categorize political parties because it puts Free Market Capitalism next to Nazi Germany even though they have nothing in common. Now in modern day there are two ways to make the spectrum. The first is America's Left being Democrat and Right being Republican. This is the one where people try to say that Nazi's are like Republicans because they are both conservative and value tradition and heritage. This is also a bad way to categorize things because both the Republican and Democrat values have changed drastically over short periods of time. For instance Hilary was anti-gay marriage until 2012 and there's a 2006 video of Obama saying that we need more border control and we need to punish corporations for hiring illegal immigrants. When they realized the potential support they switched sides to gain votes. This scale also doesn't have room for other political parties. For instance the Libertarian Party would be considered center on this scale. The only scale I go by is Left is Communism and Right is Free Market Capitalism. So on this scale you can judge each individual policy by whether or not it implements government control. This is the main reason why Nazi Germany can't be considered Right Wing by any rational argument. You don't invade countries on the premise of spreading Capitalism. You spread Capitalism by deescalating Military forces and opening up trade.


 No.2706076

File: 2465b6921f60385⋯.pdf (189.21 KB, Against the Mainstream_Naz….pdf)

File: c83f47cace84427⋯.pdf (8.49 MB, Fascism_and_Big_Business.pdf)

>>2705964

>The only scale I go by is Left is Communism and Right is Free Market Capitalism.

>This is the main reason why Nazi Germany can't be considered Right Wing by any rational argument.

If the Right is Capitalism that's exactly the main reason why Nazi Germany should be considered Right Wing (aside from its social policies), as should Mussolini's Italy.


 No.2706116

File: f3e6ee9ed9a071b⋯.jpeg (89.97 KB, 1200x627, 400:209, hitler01.jpeg)

>>2706076

How can a political party be Right Wing/Capitalist when they advocate for welfare, healthcare, unprovoked invasion, massive corporate regulations and a 90% flight tax? How can you call a self proclaimed Socialist a Capitalist? Not Socialist German Workers Party. How can you call a country that kills people based on their race, ethnicity and sexual preference a Free Market? They hated the Jews because they owned everything. The banks and the corporations. They hated them because they wanted these things to be owned by the Germanic people. Can you define Free Market Capitalism for me and then explain how a single-party single-state dictatorship who built camps for people to feed them into ovens is somehow a proponent of that?


 No.2706121

File: 0c6d01216f2fe51⋯.jpg (909.42 KB, 3638x1308, 1819:654, nazicapitalists.jpg)

>>2706116

>DURRRRR

Also that quote is from Asser, not Hitler. Hitler killed Asser.


 No.2706122

>>2705951

This is technically possible, but only in the very long term. We'll have shit-to-fan contact far sooner.


 No.2706126

>>2706116

>How can a political party be Right Wing/Capitalist when they advocate for welfare, healthcare

[laughs in Keynesianism/CDU]

>unprovoked invasion

???

>massive corporate regulations

Out of interest, did Britain stop being capitalist during WWII since it did this also?

> a 90% flight tax

Capitalism is when you don't tax people for using a plane

>How can you call a self proclaimed Socialist a Capitalist?

<How can you call a self proclaimed Democrat a Dictator?

>Not Socialist German Workers Party

<Not the Democratic Kampuchea

>How can you call a country that kills people based on their race, ethnicity and sexual preference a Free Market?

[Laughs in Oliver Cromwell]

>They hated the Jews because they owned everything.

Erhm, wait are you stating the jews owned everything or they hated jews because they owned shit? Because those are both factually incorrect.

>The banks and the corporations

Yepp, the Jews owned Krupp

>They hated them because they wanted these things to be owned by the Germanic people.

Yes, this is why they attacked working class yiddish neighbourhoods.

>Can you define Free Market Capitalism for me and then explain how a single-party single-state dictatorship who built camps for people to feed them into ovens is somehow a proponent of that?

Out of interest, what economic system did the Juntas in Latin America operate under? Specifically Pinochet's Chile.


 No.2706128

>>2706116

>welfare, healthcare, unprovoked invasion, massive corporate regulations and a 90% flight tax?

It's still capitalism. Yes, really.

>How can you call a country that kills people based on their race, ethnicity and sexual preference a Free Market?

By understanding what I am talking about.

Also your quote is not Hitler, it is by Otto Strass. Hitler openly defended private property (in the economic sense, before you ape out) and private enterprise.


 No.2706133

>>2706116

>they advocate for welfare, healthcare

The Nazis hardly were, but are you claiming that the modern "welfare state" is also not capitalist?

>unprovoked invasion

I guess the USA isn't capitalist either then lol

>massive corporate regulations

SOCIALISM IS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DOES STUFF

>90% flight tax

That's an extremely specific thing to pick as an example which already shows the stupidity of your endeavours

>How can you call a self proclaimed Socialist a Capitalist?

By looking at their actions instead of (only) their words.

>How can you call a country that kills people based on their race, ethnicity and sexual preference a Free Market?

These things are incompatible with socialism, yet happened for centuries in what you call "Free Market" economies.

>pic

Str.asser, not Hitler


 No.2706136

>>2706133

>The Nazis hardly were

*hardly did this


 No.2706142

>>2700307

It's what would happen if a leftcom actually got into power (i.e. disaster).


 No.2706170

>>2706133

>The Nazis hardly were, but are you claiming that the modern "welfare state" is also not capitalist?

Yes I am, if welfare is achieved through taxes its a left wing policy. If welfare is achieved through donations we call that charity. There's a difference. One is voluntary one isn't.

>>I guess the USA isn't capitalist either then lol

No not really. An easy way to determine how Left Wing a country is, is to simply look at how much taxes they take and how much the government spends. You don't get to 22 trillion dollars in debt by advocating a Austrian School of Economics. In a Capitalistic society Military actions would be completely defensive in nature. In other words we wouldn't occupy countries with force.

>SOCIALISM IS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DOES STUFF

Yes, this is correct. Capitalists advocate for limited government.

>That's an extremely specific thing to pick as an example which already shows the stupidity of your endeavours

A Capitalist government wouldn't punish people for moving. They try to attract people by not having these types of regulations.

>By looking at their actions instead of (only) their words.

Very true. I'll admit I straw maned you there. I admit my faults.

>These things are incompatible with socialism, yet happened for centuries in what you call "Free Market" economies.

I'm a Free Market Capitalist not an Anarchist. I advocate for limited government not no government. Life(no one can take your life), Liberty(do as you please as long as you don't nfringe on anyone else's rights), and Property(you have rights to the things you acquire, as long as you obey the first two).

>Str.asser, not Hitler

I'll admit I haven't actually read Mein Kamph but I started it and he was mainly talking about how Jews are like rats. I was also going to ask this forum to recommend a socialist book that would be relevant in this era. I was going to read the Marxist Manifest but that was written in a largely different time and I doubt the context of the book will apply.

People have different ideas on how limited the government should be. Most Capitalists agree with Police, Military and Roads.


 No.2706177

>>2706170

Oh yea also I would like to make something clear. By saying that Nazi Germany were Socialists and are Left wing I am not saying that you guys are Nazis. I am not saying that Democratic Socialists are Nazis. I am not saying that Marxists are Nazis. The Soviet Union definitely had its faults but they are separate groups of people and are not responsible for the others actions.


 No.2706186

>>2706170

<le taxes=theft

<le REAL capitalism has never been tried

<le small gobrenment

arguing with lolberts is a waste of time tbh


 No.2706189

>>2706170

>I was also going to ask this forum to recommend a socialist book that would be relevant in this era. I was going to read the Marxist Manifest but that was written in a largely different time and I doubt the context of the book will apply.

The Communist Manifesto is partly relevant because it outlines the basic problems of capitalism and the necessity of a transition towards another mode of production, yet partly only relevant to the time in which it was written. It's an easy read though and contrary to what many posters on here might tell you I'd say it's a pretty good text to start out with as long as you don't fall into the mistake of taking the 10 proposals for a transitional phase at the end of pt. 2 as Marx' and Engels' general "blueprint for socialism", a mistake newbies somehow manage to make again and again despite the fact that the forewords stress repeatedly that these points basically only apply to the time in which it was written.

However, better texts to start out with would be "The Principles of Communism" by Engels, as well as "Value Price and Profit", "Wage Labour and Capital" and "Critique of the Gotha Program" by Marx.

For more modern socialist literature "Towards a New Socialism" by Cockshott/Cottrell comes to mind. Perhaps also check out "Contending Economic Theories" by Wolff/Resnick, a fairly unbiased comparison between neoclassical, Marxist and Keynesian economics by Marxist authors.


 No.2706193

>>2706186

>arguing with lolberts is a waste of time tbh

You being incapable of a conversation is hardly my problem.

>>2706189

Thank you. I usually try to grab audio books first so hopefully I'll find a few. I like to be able to walk or drive while listening. I find it difficult to just sit and read. I have acquired quite the list lately. I wish there was more on Fascism but since it was condemned so quickly its hard to find good articles or books that weren't written with an agenda in mind by the author.


 No.2706345

>>2706126

a 90% flight tax

>Capitalism is when you don't tax people for using a plane

I can't believe I didn't catch this at first glance.

It has nothing to do with a plane or flying.

A Flight Tax is a tax imposed on someone who made a lot of money in a country, then leaves with their wealth to go to a country where cost of living and taxes are lower. A few years ago Zuckerburg was in the news for this. I think he had to pay a 2 billion dollar flight tax. So for instance in Nazi Germany the locals would bully a Jewish Business. When the Jew realized the situation, they would liquidate their business into cash and leave. They would then be taxed 90% of the money that was liquidated. I might be a little off on this but I know I'm mostly correct on this example.


 No.2706349

>>2706348

There isn't chattel slavery under capitalism silly


 No.2706351

>>2706348

So being born into slavery is a definite no.

However selling yourself into someone's service for a period of time for X amount of money is similar to a contract you would sign for a PMC company or the Military. However if you decide against it after you agree you would forfeit all acquired wages.

If you're asking about prostitutes that would absolutely be legal. As long as there is consent. Keep in mind no lolis. Someone who is under the determined age of consent doesn't have enough knowledge of the world to make that decision. There are good arguments for lowering the age or even raising it to 25 because that's the age that your frontal cortex fully develops. Also all Military service would be voluntary. No permanent slave contracts like we have currently and no drafts. If no one is willing to fight for the cause then the State needs to accept that.


 No.2707206

1. Why has class society slowly dwindled away from slave society to feudalism to capitalism instead of the workers just taking over everything themselves? Why are we only now close to breaking the rule that civilizations have a class?

2. Is it true that Stalin killed intellectuals?


 No.2707255

>>2707206

>Why are we only now close to breaking the rule that civilizations have a class?

Two things come to mind, but others might give a better answer than me:

1) Because capitalism itself has organized workers on a scale that makes large-scale revolution feasible for the first time in history. By making production into a "social" phenomenon, carried out by great masses of proles on an organized base, you're giving these proles the tools to organize themselves against you and revolt en masse.

2) Because there simply didn't exist enough wealth to allow for a classless society. Capitalism has accumulated amounts of wealth never seen before, wealth that should now be distributed in a more egalitarian way by implementing a socialist mode of production.

>Stalin question

You should ask this in the USSR thread on /marx/. Ismail is like a walking encyclopedia of Soviet history and is always fairly unbiased apart from being a M-L himself.


 No.2707278

>>2707206

>Why are we only now close to breaking the rule that civilizations have a class?

In general the formation and perpetuation of class systems has to do with the division of labor. Some must work while others must direct, organize, and manage the work process as a whole. The entire seed of class society is contained within the simple existence of a division between mental and physical labor, although this is not sufficient to create entire classes by itself. Often, classes will emerge due to situations created by wars and conquests. Slave societies often formed out of the conquest of one people by another, in which the losing side then became a population of slaves while the conquerors turned themselves into a ruling class. Ancient Sparta, for example.

But the continued development of the division labor, and the technological innovations that typically arise with it (specialized production etc), contain the seed also of a future classless society in which the great wealth and productivity of society now enables everyone to abandon the old class structure and even the division of labor, much like one abandons a scaffolding once its purpose has been used to construct a new building. The technology developed in the past century has allowed machinery to replace many functions that were previously performed manually by humans. This, in theory, could free us from drudgery if not for the continued existence of the capitalist order and everything that perpetuates it. It was possible in Marx's day to see that a classless society was then becoming possible even if the old system has so far been able to maintain itself.

>Is it true that Stalin killed intellectuals?

Yes, but only in the sense that many Old Bolsheviks and other revolutionaries - often dedicated historians and Marxists, were killed in the purges of the 1930s. As far as I'm aware he never specifically targeted people for being intellectuals as such. David Ryazanov is a good example.


 No.2707282

>When the whites came to Rhodesia they revolutionized the culture and the country was flourishing, but then the stupid niggers drove the whites out and made a socialist dictatorship country which went to hell

how to counter this?


 No.2707766

>>2707282

Socialist Zimbabwe failing because of Mugabe being an opportunist shit not because he's an African nationalist. Show them Sankara's near perfect record before he was thrown out by the French.


 No.2707774

File: d7f92027611c4f4⋯.jpg (80.51 KB, 510x729, 170:243, jumblatt_martyr_pppa.jpg)

File: f1d192c6b33fdd5⋯.jpg (90.41 KB, 320x711, 320:711, 53rdsspf.jpg)

File: cd4733d3c3ac841⋯.jpg (196.72 KB, 530x717, 530:717, south_is_ours_pppa.jpg)

File: 0626a830d3d67fc⋯.png (770.8 KB, 929x593, 929:593, Untitled-8.png)

So how did the SSNP go from being a far right party to a lefty nationalist force in both Syria and Lebanon? Is the SSNP in Lebanon to the left of their comrades in Syria?


 No.2707852

Is hate speech free speech?


 No.2707861

>>2707852

Free speech is bourgeois and and enables reaction


 No.2707971

>>2707852

Yes. Unless it involves calls to violence.

>>2707861

Marx liked free speech. You need it in order to know what your opponents are up to. Otherwise you push them onto anonymous imageboards.


 No.2708073

Is all this DUMPF IS LITERALLY HITLER propaganda to make "The Left" look dumb? He's just a typical Neoliberal who actually hasn't changed anything but all the stuff like Guardian and Souciant is going on that he's the worst ever.

All of this seems like great propaganda for the Right because they can point at stuff Trump has done and say "LOL NO HES NOT HITLER YOU LEFTISTS ARE DUMB" or even normalizes Fascism by calling everything in existence Fascist so the average Prole will say when Fascism actually comes that it's okay.


 No.2708080

>>2707282

IMF is what made Zimbabwe shit, IMF is all that is keeping Europe alive without becoming Socialist. IMF is European Imperialism.


 No.2708303

How the FUCK do people read books? I forced myself to read the brothers karamazow one weekend and it was a fucking chore. Half a year later and I can barely recall anything of what happened. Only leftist book I have ever read was Wage Labour and Capital. How do people commit themselves to reading like 30 books a year?


 No.2708317

>>2708303

>how the fuck do people lift weights

>i tried to pull a truck with my balls and now my fuck doesn't work

>I lifted something once how the fuck do people lift stuff every day


 No.2708339

>>2708317

lifting/training takes only 4 hours a week and feels good as fuck

authors of all books write in 500 sentences something that can be fully explained in five. My high school history textbook gave me a great summary of civilization in a 5 hour read (other than on USSR obviously), why can not all books be short and right to the point?


 No.2708343

>>2708339

You are dumb as shit my dude.


 No.2708417

>>2708343

He's right, you know. Committing to lifting everyday is a hell of a lot easier than committing to reading, say 50 pages of theory everyday. It doesn' take as much effort to work out that use your brainpower to read and comprehend a book.


 No.2708541

File: 310c4b800770e03⋯.png (51.26 KB, 585x470, 117:94, 1504046959779.png)

What will full communism look like? What exactly will society be after the state withers away? How will it function?


 No.2708549

>>2708541

Any attempt to answer that question would be speculative and utopian, although imo it’s still worth asking and trying to come up with answers. One of the best attempts to describe what communism would look like would be the Bread Book. I highly recommend it.


 No.2708553

>>2708339

>authors of all books write in 500 sentences something that can be fully explained in five

This tbh. It’s extremely frustrating because it makes me feel like I must be forgetting something or missing some key point when I read 50 pages and can sum the whole thing up in two or three sentences. In reality too many authors just love to repeat themselves.


 No.2709017

What was the name of that one guy in that pic during a nazi rally in Germany where everyone else is raising their arm in a straight salute, but he's just standing there with his arms crossed? Guy was based. Pls hlp.


 No.2709259

>>2708553

This has easily been the most frustrating part about Capital vol. 2 for me. When ol' Karl goes into the circuits of capital he really just retreads a lot of what he has already said in slightly different ways. I think he probably would have condensed a lot of it if he hadn''t died before finishing it.


 No.2709448

Does globalization make it impossible for a country to transition from capitalism to communism?


 No.2709463

>>2709456

>muh antifa

okay NPC


 No.2709507

Why do men do way more crime than women?


 No.2710213

Am I just a brainlet or is Stirner a difficult read for someone who hasn't read too much philosophy and has only taken a single university course on the subject?


 No.2710301

>>2710213

If you need to take a univeristy course to understand it then you are a brainlet. therefore you are a turbo brainlet


 No.2710624

File: 330018d60bd3b56⋯.pdf (6.76 MB, Max Stirner - The Unique a….pdf)

>>2710213

What exactly are you having trouble with? Understanding the concepts? Or understanding the language? Are there specific parts?

Attached is an updated translation of The Ego and Its Own.


 No.2710746

>>2710301

I only took a philosophy course to get some more hours

>>2710624

It’s likely the translation. This looks different from

mine so I’ll check it out, thanks comrade


 No.2711108

is feudalism worst than capitalism?


 No.2711286

>>2711108

Probably


 No.2711294

Is the reason for revisionism to constantly have destroyed genuine socialist movements because of the greed of the party elites to have wanted more? If so, wouldn't that mean that greed is human nature after all?


 No.2711415

>>2711294

>Is the reason for revisionism to constantly have destroyed genuine socialist movements because of the greed of the party elites to have wanted more?

Oftentimes. Although we should be careful about what "greed" means in this instance. People don't have a greedy-drive instilled in them. They just tend to be complacent and thoughtless. When their quality of life doesn't improve fast enough, this is a crisis that needs to be resolved immediately. When it's someone else, well, it's a difficult matter that requires further deliberation. This isn't greed, it's stupidity.

>If so, wouldn't that mean that greed is human nature after all?

No one denies this. Socialism is all about greed. The masses should be greedy enough to not allow other people to run off with the profits. "Humans are fundamentally greedy" is an argument for socialism.


 No.2711431

>>2711415

>"Humans are fundamentally greedy" is an argument for socialism

What incentive did all the revisionists like Kruschev and Deng have to pave the way back to capitalism then? Unless of course there exists the chance that these two didn't want their countries to revert back to capitalism and their decisions were just supposed to be temporary.


 No.2711455

>>2711431

Khrushchev didn't revert the USSR back to capitalism, the only thing he really changed was stuff like the MTS. if we exclude the small private plots that existed within collective farms, private property was pretty much nonexistent until Gorbachev came to power. before that the only time economic reform occurred were the many "Kosygin reforms", which were largely unsuccessful and never really took off (nor were they implemented with the goal of restoring capitalism).

i'm pretty sure that even under Gorbachev privatisation was only really a thing in urban areas. i remember reading about how once the union collapsed in 1991 the rural areas were basically the same, though i could be mistaken.

don't take this is me defending Gorbachev either, because i'm not. i also don't really Khrushchev, but this meme of him "restoring capitalism" or "paving the way" for it is silly. if you're gonna blame anyone blame someone like Brezhnev.


 No.2711506

>>2711455

I see. So why would you say revisionism happens? Also, you probably already know this but socialism isn't necessarily just the absence of private property. State capitalism doesn't have private property either but it isn't socialism.


 No.2711519

>>2711506

revisionism, in the case of someone like Gorbachev, came about for a number of reasons. for one, he was only voted in as general secretary because they wanted a young leader that wouldn't die within 1-2 years, and they believed he would continue Andropov's line. of course this didn't end up happening, and it wasn't like they didn't try to stop him or anything. there were many anti-Gorbachev people within the CPSU, however due to things like the creation of the "President of the Soviet Union", the U.S. taking the opportunity to undermine socialism, and the growth of nationalist movements (along with general protests), things spun out of control.

now that we've seen what can happen, the next time that a socialist system is practised, we will take the precautions so something like this won't happen again.

>State capitalism doesn't have private property either but it isn't socialism.

yes, but we're talking about the USSR here. they were already socialist, and no privatisation occurred until the 80s. they didn't just drop socialism or become state capitalist, the system was basically the same from the 50s onward.


 No.2711548

What would actually happen if we did not have a police for a week? Is it true what the rightists say, that people would begin murdering each other, or what?


 No.2711572

>>2711519

Thanks for clarifying that. Oh and just so we're on the same page, I believe the USSR was socialist too but I'm kinda doubtful in believing their socialism from 1928-1950s was the same until the 80s. Some pretty big changes must've happened right¿


 No.2711581

>>2711572

1928-1950? big changes happened during the 30s and then you had WWII, so by the time things had stabilised Stalin was close to dying. all the leaders tried their own little things they tried (Malenkov focusing more on light industry, Khrushchev chabging the MTS, Kosygin reforms under Brezhnev, Andropov would have adopted some elements based on the Hungarian model i believe) but as a whole the system from 1953 onward was pretty much the same.


 No.2711603

File: 188489d36103120⋯.jpg (382.43 KB, 3000x1967, 3000:1967, smoked pork.jpg)

>>2711548

>What would actually happen if we did not have a police for a week?

Basically there would be no change. Police are here to deal with the consequences of upholding private property, not to prevent the criminality (caused by private property most often) from happening in the first place. As Emma Goldman said, “Crime is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, and moral, conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of place doing the things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable, and all the laws on the statutes can only increase, but never do away with, crime.” Kropotkin showed us in Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution that societies evolve because people are naturally collectivist and work together. If you honestly think the moment we remove cops that everyone shows their "true nature" of turning into a violent, bloodthristy psychopathic cannibal, you're insane, but it's the universal excuse used to justify the police prescence and hierarchies. Violent crime has been on a slow decline, the massive prison population consists of innocents and non-violent victimless crimes such as drug "offenses" (smoking a joint, etc.). Of course every society is founded on violence, and measures will be needed to curb unjustified violence, but the police, courts, and prison systems, as they have showed time and time again, are completely incapable of doing this. The "justice system" is NOT HERE TO "reform" you, they are sucking off your surplus labour with prison labour. The highest paying prison in the US only pays prisoners 50 cents an hour. The majority of "crimes" are drug use & stealing property. This is literal wage slavery:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-prisoners-strike-is-reminder-how-commonplace-inmate-labor-is/

Police suck at solving crime:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/01/most-violent-and-property-crimes-in-the-u-s-go-unsolved/

Higher Autism Level cops are barred from joining the police, because porky only wants only the most loyal class traitors:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836


 No.2711621

>>2711603

by the way, the recidivism rate in the US is at 70%. This means 70% of people released from prison go back to being in prison. Businesses generally don't hire felons (of which drug use is a felony) so their choices are to steal, beg, work under the table at some shady business like they do with immigrants (remember higher work pool puts more of a downward pressure on wages, so ex-cons are fighting over cents here because they're competing with minimum wage), or they starve.

So again, capitalists control private property which causes criminals, criminals break laws to survive, police arrest prisoners and they get sent to prison to be forced to work where they make capitalists money, they then use this as a justification to uphold the prisons and police, felons get released and are right back where they started, they have to steal to survive, get re-arrested and sent back to prison, repeat.

Criminals are victims of capitalism.

Police are not here to protect you.

Prisons are not here to reform you.


 No.2711629

>>2711548

You know, when someone tells you something like this

It says more about what they want and think, then what they know about others.


 No.2711635

File: 53fa62432aa058d⋯.png (25.41 KB, 401x252, 401:252, EC37226B-5967-4701-8D9A-F5….png)

Is One Big Union just a libertarian/Syndicalist variation on the vanguard party?


 No.2711810

>>2711548

the anarchist here >>2711603 already made a good response but to add onto it, it's total nonsense that we would just murder eachother

it's not like police stop eachother from committing murders anyways, i don't really think your average person is a violent sociopath just waiting to hurt people


 No.2712065

Why do people become Trotskyists? I have never been able to understand it, I don't understand how Trot orgs continually find recruits, I can see the appeal in pretty much every tendency but trotskyism

In Ireland there are at least 6 different trot organisations, but they do nothing, one has an MLA in the north but that's about it, I don't understand what they actually do or what they're short term goals are

The communist party does ML things, but is too small to do much, but its at least clear what they want to do

The dissidents do dissident things

The various Anarchist and Syndicalist organisations do Anarco-Syndicalist and Syndicalist things and have clearly defined short term goals, and are able to explain what they do when you ask them

But I've talked to multiple trots from multiple different organisations and they always stumble over their words when trying to explain what they're doing

I'm not trying to go out of my way to bash trots, its just confusing


 No.2712082

>>2712065

It's a way to disavow the 20th century revolutions while still remaining Marxist-Leninist. It's also partly because the idea that Trotsky was a more moderate and liberal alternative to the hated Stalin is still taught in schools.


 No.2712099

>>2712065

Because they read Animal Farm as a kid and are still mentally children.


 No.2712107

>>2712065

Trotskyists today are social democrats who have been memed so hard by the left that they don't want to have the social democrat label anymore and now identify with a more recognized left-wing figure but still want to be silly weakling social democrats.


 No.2712130

Will WW3 happen?


 No.2712337

>>2712065

> Why do people become Trotskyists?

If there aren't many other options and Trots seem the most radical.

> I don't understand how Trot orgs continually find recruits,

Campuses. They sell communist-flavoured Liberalism.

>>2712082

> It's a way to disavow the 20th century revolutions while still remaining Marxist-Leninist.

Trots are not Marxist-Leninist - neither nominally (that term emerged after Trotsky got the boot; Trots referred to themselves as Bolshevik-Leninists for some time, but even this petered out), nor in practice (Trots reject ideas that define ML as ML).

>>2712130

Yes.


 No.2712377

>>2712337

Do they really reject ML principles though? They follow democratic centralism too as far as I'm aware, and Trotsky himself wanted a rapid industrialization, as opposed to Lenin and Bukharin who wanted to end the NEP slowly and steadily, not like Stalin who ended it abruptly. As far as I'm aware the only difference between MLs and trots are how to spread socialism.


 No.2712558

>>2712377

> Do they really reject ML principles though?

Yes. ML was defined as the "Stalin's" side in the debate Bolshevik party had in 1920s. Kameneve/Zinoviev/Trotsky held different views.

> They follow democratic centralism

This is general Bolshevik line - the one where LeftCom split off. Trotskyists split happened later.

> Trotsky himself wanted a rapid industrialization

A meme. Trotsky argued for industrialization through light industry (heavy was expected to be imported). I.e. export-based economy, with colonial exploitation of rural USSR by the urban.

What we call industrialization today is the one that happened in USSR and this one is based on development of heavy industry locally. I.e. despite Trotsky using the term "industrialization", the meaning was completely different.

> as opposed to Lenin and Bukharin who wanted to end the NEP slowly and steadily,

Only Bukharin wanted this. Lenin did not suggest anything of the like (in fact, his texts seem to indicate the opposite).

> not like Stalin who ended it abruptly.

"Stalin" means "majority of Bolsheviks". And there wasn't anything unnecessarily "abrupt", as suppression of kulaks should've happened fast - or not happen at all.

> As far as I'm aware the only difference between MLs and trots are how to spread socialism.

Then you need to read more. I would say, the major difference is approach to the question of "bureaucracy".


 No.2712605

>>2712558

>Only Bukharin wanted this. Lenin did not suggest anything of the like (in fact, his texts seem to indicate the opposite).

Lenin in his last writings indicated that the work of building the USSR and achieving socialism would take many years. He even stated that everything done for the first 5 years (1918-1923) was pretty much rubbish and it would take many years after that you achieve real gains.

"We must show sound scepticism for too rapid progress, for boastfulness, etc. We must give thought to testing the steps forward we proclaim every hour, take every minute and then prove every second that they are flimsy, superficial and misunderstood. The most harmful thing here would be haste. The most harmful thing would be to rely on the assumption that we know at least something, or that we have any considerable number of elements necessary for the building of a really new state apparatus, one really worthy to be called socialist, Soviet, etc.

"No, we are ridiculously deficient of such an apparatus, and even of the elements of it, and we must remember that we should not stint time on building it, and that it will take many, many years."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/02.htm

"Two main tasks confront us, which constitute the epoch—to reorganize our machinery of state, which is utterly useless, in which we took over in its entirety from the preceding epoch; during the past five years of struggle we did not, and could not, drastically reorganize it. Our second task is educational work among the peasants. And the economic object of this educational work among the peasants is to organize the latter in cooperative societies. If the whole of the peasantry had been organized in cooperatives, we would by now have been standing with both feet on the soil of socialism. But the organization of the entire peasantry in cooperative societies presupposes a standard of culture, and the peasants (precisely among the peasants as the overwhelming mass) that cannot, in fact, be achieved without a cultural revolution."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm


 No.2712607

>>2712605

*many years after that to achieve real gains


 No.2712619

>>2712605

> He even stated that everything done for the first 5 years (1918-1923) was pretty much rubbish

In response to claims that "War Communism" was real Socialism or that NEP was real Socialism.

> and it would take many years after that you achieve real gains.

>> "No, we are ridiculously deficient of such an apparatus, and even of the elements of it, and we must remember that we should not stint time on building it, and that it will take many, many years."

Read the rest of the as well:

>> We must follow the rule: Better fewer, but better. We must follow the rule: Better get good human material in two or even three years than work in haste without hope of getting any at all. …

>> If we do not arm ourselves with patience, if we do not devote several years to this task, we had better not tackle it at all. …

>> If we do that it will not be utopian to hope that within a few years we shall have an institution that will be able to perform its functions,

Transition to Central Planning took over a decade (only in 1934 did Soviets recognize themselves as truly Socialist) which does not contradict anything suggested by Lenin.


 No.2712627

I used to be an anarchist but now I want to join an ML organization. How do I find an ML org? I live in Texas and I don't use any kind of social media other than lurking instagram and posting on 8ch. I'm not in college either, at least not yet.


 No.2712661

Is it wrong to be socialist and positivist in the same person?


 No.2712739

File: 82bfab4c725de52⋯.jpg (106.56 KB, 881x960, 881:960, Dld3P30W4AApbD-.jpg)

>>2712619

There are two similar but different issues Lenin talked about in those articles. First, the necessity of building a better state apparatus to administer the country, specifically Rabkrin, and second the cultural revolution needed to lift the masses of Soviet peoples out of illiteracy and ignorance so that they could begin the task of building socialism. Lenin expected that building Rabkrin into an effective organ would require several years and then this organ could be used as a model for other sections of the Soviet administrative apparatus. But the full length of time required to reorganize the state apparatus by itself would take years.

But now we will look at economic development and the NEP period. How long did Lenin say that the NEP should last until they might begin building socialism? Lenin here argues that the NEP period needed to last at least one or two decades. How long did it last in reality? About 8 years. And it didn't end because the material basis for development had been fulfilled - it ended precisely for the opposite reason.

"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."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm

So I stand by my original point: Lenin saw the NEP as "an entire historical epoch" with 10 or 20 years being the shortest possible time required.


 No.2713238

What is National Bolshevism?

And what is the best socialist country in our world today?


 No.2713245

>>2713238

>National Bolshevism

in Russia it's anti-Putin nationalism, everywhere else it's an epic meme

>best socialist country in our world today?

None exist today but Naxals in India control an area larger than Great Britain and the New People's Army operate on most of the islands in the Philippines. DPRK, Syria, and the "Troika of Terror" are all worth supporting despite being either social democracies or revisionist.


 No.2713246

>>2713238

>What is National Bolshevism?

Well, now it's a meme. It used to be a political movement in the Russian Federation that mixed nationalist and communist aesthetics but tended to support liberal politics. They opposed police repression and Putin's authoritarianism, even though their ideology didn't seem to be against authority per se…

>And what is the best socialist country in our world today?

Eh…China is nominally socialist and they have made impressive gains economically in the past two decades. Overall a mixed bag.


 No.2713247

>>2670891

Why do you people look down on Hitler dick riding when you guys ride the dicks of Marx and Engels all the time? Is it because Marx and Engels were actually gay lovers? And Marxism can only be understood in the context of gay lovers? Hmmm

Also you people think boot licking America and its patriotic heros fighting overseas (unfortunately only to make Jews richer, but thats a story for another time) is somehow pathetic and wrong because of muh capitalism n shieeeeet. America is greatest country on Earth, and considering it says in the FAQ you guys are pro guns, you'd think you'd realize that, but hey what else can I expect from a bunch of basement dwellers looking to blame the 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧ideological superstructure🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 and 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧bourgeoisie🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 for all their problems.


 No.2713252

>>2713247

Hitler was a tool of the bourg like all fashies. Marx and Engels were not. Also take your meds.


 No.2713256

>>2713252

>fashies

Is that what the cool commietards are calling sane and rational people these days?

Its strange how you can sit there on your fat, Carl Brutananadilewski ass and say that Hitler was controlled by Jews.

>Implying robbing people of their individuality isn't the most Jewish thing ever

(USER WAS FORCED TO BE """SANE AND RATIONAL""" ELSEWHERE)

 No.2713258

>>2713256

>sane and rational people

define sane and rational, no one said hitler was controlled by jews, business owners are parasites no matter what their ethnicity is


 No.2713262

>>2713258

( ( (Bourgeoisie) ) ) is synonymous with Juden

Sane and rational=people who want to live with their own sub species and hate being forced to live and mingle with others

>business owners are parasites

Niggers are parasi……

Oh wait you can generalize but I can't :C NO FAIR

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

 No.2713263

do not reply to schizos


 No.2713269

No compromise with fascists.


 No.2713271

>>2713262

>( ( (Bourgeoisie) ) ) is synonymous with Juden

The ruling class are simply acting in their own self interest. The j00z that fascists foam about are a cartoon villain that has no logical motive, it is a narrative to justify an unjustifiable ideology.

>hate being forced to live and mingle with others

Which is mandated by… capitalism.

And quit with the kneejerk bans, janny. Don't give them an excuse to pretend to be victims.


 No.2713279

What are some good tips to focus, while reading?


 No.2713290

>>2713279

If you're reading a physical book then you should underline and/or highlight passages that seem significant, interesting, or confusing to you. When you read a passage, try to think of how it connects with other parts of the book. Write small notes in the margins - even one or two words will be good. Sometimes, to avoid losing an important page, you might want to circle the page number so when you flip through the book you can easily find it again.

If you're reading texts in an e-book or online you should create a text document where you can copy/paste lines or passages and write the page number. Example,

p215 In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is.

Later, when you want to remember a particular passage or line you can just open the text document and Ctrl+F to find the keywords.

These might sound like study tips, but they'll help you focus too since taking notes and reading critically will keep your brain active while you read.


 No.2713312

>>2713279

Since >>2713290 already covered more generally some of the points to remember for earnestly engaging with the material you're reading, and I'm in total agreement - I'll say that it can also help to have some sort of ambience. It can be stifling sometimes to read and work in total silence, so I'd say find some relatively unobtrusive background music which can help keep the atmosphere from becoming too drab and noticeable (unless of course you're totally engrossed, in which case you'll be fine)


 No.2713736

hello ima newfag from third world.

right now all the knowledge I have is from youtube western left wing videos and only internet. I have no party affiliation because in my country there're only socdem and center left parties who larp as far-left. and far left parties are closet ethnic nationalist so fuck them.

now where to begin?


 No.2713755

File: 00ca8233b35c36c⋯.pdf (5.3 MB, Graeber - Debt The First 5….pdf)

File: 854efff02e08d98⋯.pdf (705.88 KB, Marxs-Capital-Abridged.pdf)


 No.2713921

How do I actually learn to debate rightists? Yeah I know "READ AND LURK MOAR" but I feel like rightists always have tricks up their sleeves, and when talking to people they can just come up with lies on the spot and I wouldn't know. Have any of you ever engaged in a face-to-face debate?


 No.2713927

>>2706142

care to explain?


 No.2713929

>>2713921

Learn how to detect spooks and mock them


 No.2713930

>>2713921

Get into dumb as fuck debates with them online and work on owning them, reddit is great for this as it aggregates every stupid opinion known to man. If you're really stumped bait leftypol into answering it.

Reading these will help >>2713755


 No.2713942

>>2713930

I meant face-to-face, as in vs. the history teacher. I feel like I need to know the details of everything from economic theory to obscure historical facts


 No.2713946

>>2713921

Well, for some basics, never, ever say "not real socialism". Even if you have some valid reasons and arguments, when debating with righties, the second you say this you've lost. Also, try as much as possible to distance yourself from what they think we represent. Don't go on all about idpol and that shit, don't be anti-gun, you know. Also this is something that could be debatable, but if the debate is just between you and another guy (you know, without an audience) and the topic about "muh gorillions" comes up, you should simply say that most people killed by socialist governments deserved it and explain why.


 No.2713947

>>2713942

Don't get so locked in on what people say, if they're gish galloping you (common) then interrupt them the moment you spot some bullshit (hopefully right at the beginning, don't let them finish).

Most of the people we're up against face to face are outright propagandists (just look at TV anchors), it's easiest to learn their talking points, look up a few reddit threads where these arguments are made and played out, and remember the retorts made when the convo dies. Most of these people have rote learned their arguments and have absolutely zero idea of the actual facts.

>>2713946

This too. "Not real socialism" is one half of the dumbest comorbid arguments I've ever seen. Never make a leftcom tier pedant argument about the difference between DOTP, socialism, and communism, it's seen as a pathetic cop out in the mainstream and seen as pathetic pedantry in leftist circles. Everyone into politics over 25 has had that conversation before.

The lesson to take away is: Grab them by the throat the moment you can and change topic, put them on the defense


 No.2713948

>>2713946

>>2713947

What are some great debates with two respectable debaters from both side that are entertaining to watch but also really deep and includes common anti-leftism arguments by Washington Consensus types?


 No.2713969

>>2713948

I can't think of any. The sort of level you're looking for is so chock full of retards it never gets far enough to be useful and it's below actual intellectual powerhouses that represent movements.

You need to look at retards on the internet, it lets you see which ways the debate can go. There's no point having an intellectual nuke from Zizek or Chomsky if that talking point only comes up 1 in 20 times.


 No.2713977

>>2713948

Now that we are talking about videos and debates……

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmAFk-I7-uQ

I like this one(tho not an actual debate)

Also

>Not watching Roo vs Sargon

This one is…entertaining


 No.2713989

>>2713948

Actually my original answer was shit because I can tell you every single talking point without making you look up thousands of retards opinions

1) Muh gorillions dead because communism

2) Muh cars/potatoes/breadlines

3) tHe UsSr cOlLaPseD

That's literally it.

1) Most of the deaths come from famines caused by collectivization, these famines would have happened another year without collectivization, repeatedly. The Khmer Rouge does not count, it was funded by the USA and was nearly reinstalled by Thatcher. It was overthrown by the Vietnamese.

2) Public transport in the USSR was so good you didn't need a car, it was a vanity item. The reason the store didn't have bread/potatoes was because something else was in stock. The shelves are never stocked with things for the sake of choice (in capitalism everything is stocked to the brim and a huge portion of it is thrown away)

3) The USSR collapsed due to a referendum in favor of it that was ignored, then Yeltsin launched a violent coup with criminal gangs and the Soviet military didn't want to use force to intervene

There you go, that's the entirety of right wing talking points and their rebuttals.


 No.2714003

>>2713989

I have engaged in online debates where these came up and rightists say

>What about Rhodesia?

>Labour theory of value is dumb, supply and demand are the sole factors of price

>Why did people like Yeltsin come to power in the first place?

>The third world is only bad because their markets are not free enough

I know I should read more but these are the biggest which get me


 No.2714007

>>2714003

>What about Rhodesia?

What about it

>Labour theory of value is dumb, supply and demand are the sole factors of price

Not even highschool economic teachers believe that..

>Why did people like Yeltsin come to power in the first place?

Why did people like Lenin came to power?

>The third world is only bad because their markets are not free enough

Then why all shitty products come from 3rd world countries…


 No.2714012

>>2714007

Rhodesia was great until natives chased the Euros off

I meant "how do revisionists get into power and high positions in the first place, shouldn't they try to keep them out? liberal democracy which we have in scandinavia naturally makes who the people trust rule"

I struggle to understand exactly how much we gain from keeping poor countries poor. For example, why is Puerto Rico so shitty? What do they produce?


 No.2714014

File: e62fbd63ef33e5f⋯.jpg (10.99 KB, 300x196, 75:49, 911.jpg)

>>2714012

>Rhodesia was great until natives chased the Euros off

For the euros tottaly

> meant "how do revisionists get into power and high positions in the first place, shouldn't they try to keep them out? liberal democracy which we have in scandinavia naturally makes who the people trust rule"

Eeee

Depends on the one hand we could suggest a different goverment type than the one in USSR on the other democracy(as it is now) imo is shit..

>I struggle to understand exactly how much we gain from keeping poor countries poor

Are you retarded or autistic

Cause they have NO WORKERS RIGHTS AND PAY THERE WORKERS IN FUCKING RICE(true story)

The fuck would they want more competition

Some countries remain poor to produce others rich to consume(tho the workers get shit in all countries)

This is common knowledge


 No.2714020

>>2714014

Another one

>Stalin was literal Satan, Lenin never wanted him as his successor but Trotsky instead

>As general secretary he fired his rivals and only let his cocksuckers in the party

>Socialism will ALWAYS lead to oppressive non-democracy.


 No.2714026

File: 2c8ef4e08ac9ac4⋯.jpg (244.23 KB, 900x788, 225:197, 805882d742bed5fbbe084dce04….jpg)

>>2714020

>Stalin was literal Satan, Lenin never wanted him as his successor but Trotsky instead

Well maybe

No one will ever know, but both of them were communist so…. i dont see the anti-communism here

>As general secretary he fired his rivals and only let his cocksuckers in the party

True

Some people may argue otherwise

Still in the end this has also nothing to do with communism

>Socialism will ALWAYS lead to oppressive non-democracy.

Isnt the point of marxism about bringing a stateless,classless utopia?

So no

Still all those questions are debated mostly among leftists, this board is about leftism in general , so i awnser as genericly as i can


 No.2714067

>>2714026

Lastly,

>Even if crises happen under capitalism we always recover from it, look at Roosevelt's New Deal, which BTFO all the Radicals wanting communism by fixing the economy


 No.2714479

are the big doctors and lawyers who make hella money still consider working class?


 No.2714481

>>2714479

In America doctors are lawyers are petit bourg and cannot be trusted. HMOs are slowly proletarianizing doctors however.


 No.2714499

>>2714481

but there're doctors and lawyers who make very fraction of that money

so what in this situation?


 No.2714507

>>2714479

The term used for them would be labour aristocracy

>>2714481

How would you consider them petit bourgeois if they don't have others working for them

Stop usng it as a term for

>Has money


 No.2714508

>>2714507

>owns practice/firm or is on track to do so

>not petit bourg

Professionals in the first world are not proles and never will be.


 No.2714531

>>2712739

>> He even stated that everything done for the first 5 years (1918-1923) was pretty much rubbish

> In response to claims that "War Communism" was real Socialism or that NEP was real Socialism.

I'm assuming this had been accepted.

> So I stand by my original point: Lenin saw the NEP as "an entire historical epoch" with 10 or 20 years being the shortest possible time required.

This is not the point we are arguing about. The point we debate is: >>2712377

> … Lenin [like Bukharin] … wanted to end the NEP slowly and steadily, not like Stalin

I am utterly unconvinced that this point (whether or not you consider it your "original") is true. Position of Lenin was qualitatively different from that of Bukharin.

> But now we will look at economic development and the NEP period. How long did Lenin say that the NEP should last until they might begin building socialism? Lenin here argues that the NEP period needed to last at least one or two decades.

Lenin does not say that is should last one-two decades, but that "to get the entire population into the work of the cooperatives through NEP" it have to last that long. There is nothing to suggest that Lenin would've been against decision to get peasants into the work of the cooperatives through Collectivization (so as to speed up the process).

> How long did it last in reality? About 8 years.

If we consider the beginning of NEP to be March or 1921 and October of 1931 the end (when it was formally over), it'll be about 10 years.

Either way, let's see what Lenin says in 1921, on the NEP policies:

Lenin: Summing-Up Speech On The Tax In Kind (1921, May 27)

https://marxists.catbull.com/archive/lenin/works/1921/may/26.htm

>> Let me deal in conclusion with the deductions which, I think, Comrade Osinsky has quite rightly drawn, and which sum up our activities. His deductions were three. First: “Seriously and for a long time". I think he is quite right. … But I would not go along with Comrade Osinsky in his estimate of the period. He said “seriously and for a longtime” meant 25 years. I am not that pessimistic; I shall refrain from estimating the period, but I think his figure is a bit too pessimistic. We shall be lucky to project our policy for some 5 or 10 years, because we usually fail to do so even for 5 weeks.

I.e. Lenin expects NEP to last for 5-10 years, but makes no assumptions beyond that.


 No.2714534

File: 3b7eff5cc8993e6⋯.gif (12.27 KB, 250x250, 1:1, map_democratic-republic-of….gif)

Any good sources to understand what happened and what's going on with the DRC?


 No.2714545

What do you guys think about Helene Demuth (Marx's maid) and her son Frederick? Was Karl the one to impregnate her? I was reading some articles on this and the evidence just seems thin, it relies on a supposed "deathbed confession" by Engels, it seems strange that he would do this after guarding Kar's reputation so fiercely for decades.

Anyway, they could really make a TV series about the life of Karl's family, so much crazy stuff to cover here, it's fascinating

>Freddy would be an altogether minor character in any consideration of Engels’s life or Marx’s, were it not for a document, first published in extracts in 1962. According to the story recounted there, Freddy is suddenly a relation of Marx and his family and – in an ambiguous way – of Engels himself. Ostensibly the tale concerns Marx and his alleged affair with the housemaid, but it is Engels who plays the central role in the supposed narrative.

>This typewritten document appears to be a letter dated 2-4 September 1898, written by Louise Freyberger née Asser (1860-1950), three years after the Engels household broke up. As Louise Kautsky, the recently divorced wife of the prominent German socialist Karl Kautsky (1854-1938), she had been asked by Engels, within a month of Lenchen’s death, to keep house for him, and she arrived post haste from Vienna. In 1894 she married Dr. Ludwig Freyberger, another émigré, and he came to live in Engels’s house, too – much to Eleanor’s displeasure, as she disliked Louise and her influence over Engels, then in his seventies (2 K 444; 2 H 725-6).

>The document spins a lurid tale of deathbed revelations by Engels to Eleanor Marx, principally the claim that Marx himself was Freddy’s father. Fearing gossip imputing paternity, Engels is said to have declared ‘the truth’, in case he should be accused, after his death, of treating Freddy shabbily. The date on the document is some six months after Eleanor’s suicide, so if there was a letter, Eleanor was conveniently out of the way, though others mentioned as in on the story to some degree – such as Sam Moore (c. 1830-1911), Marx’s English translator, and Eleanor’s sister Laura – clearly were not. The addressee of the supposed letter, the prominent German socialist and trade unionist August Bebel (1840-1913), or anyone else who had been the recipient of such tales from Louise, could have checked with them.

https://marxmyths.org/terrell-carver/article.htm


 No.2714551

Why doesn't Cuba just trade with other countries? The USA embargo is not THAT restricting.


 No.2714636

>>2714531

>I'm assuming this had been accepted.

No, that's also wrong but I didn't see that point as being important enough to respond to.

Quoting Lenin in 1921 to defend a short and abruptly-ended NEP period is pointless when, by the end of his life, he was convinced that much more time would be needed. The issue wasn't simply putting peasants into a cooperative framework (i.e. getting the population into the work of cooperatives) but also developing the material basis for such a network of cooperatives to function in the first place. Which is why Lenin stated that what was required was universal literacy, proper efficiency (of labor), habits of book reading, safeguards against famines, and the material basis for all of that.


 No.2714653

File: 19567f760cd1ba0⋯.jpg (102.59 KB, 600x400, 3:2, dutch bus in cuba.jpg)

>>2714551

They already do? Their biggest trade partners (IIRC) are Canada, Venezuela, China, Spain, Russia, Italy and the Netherlands.


 No.2714667

>>2680529

Why not?


 No.2714683

>>2714653

You would think that the Cubans would at least change the signage on the bus to something else


 No.2714685

Why did the UK have as many colonies as it did when almost none of them were profitable? Why do you think the West was built on colonialism when in fact it was a net loss for us?


 No.2714687

>>2714653

So Cubans aren't nearly as """economically repressed""" as you leftists claim it is then?


 No.2714716

>>2714636

> Quoting Lenin in 1921 to defend a short and abruptly-ended NEP period

Even by your own admission NEP last almost as long as lower end of Lenin's supposed expectations.

> by the end of his life, he was convinced that much more time would be needed.

Except we are not discussing this, but if Lenin would've been against the decision (the one over 95% of Bolsheviks supported by 1928) to end NEP.


 No.2714718

>>2714687

> [incoherent screeching]

Why can't Right-wingers properly verbalize their thoughts?


 No.2714724

Why have almost, if not all, socialist countries in existence liberalized their economies?


 No.2714725

>>2714718

You always say "Cuba is economically repressed, just look at the embargo from the US" without thinking that Cuba can still trade with the rest of the world. Stop strawmanning


 No.2714729

>>2714724

> almost, if not all

2-3 out of 4-5 is not "almost all". The answer, however, is the same: Khrushchev's Revisionism.

>>2714725

> You always say

> Stop strawmanning

Your hypocrisy is off the charts.

>"Cuba is economically repressed, just look at the embargo from the US"

What is your point? Do you even have one?


 No.2714732

>>2714729

Mate, I said in existence for a reason. Not just Cuba, the DPRK, China, Vietnam, and Laos. Also it seems awfully undialectical and unscientific to put all the blame on Kruschev, considering, you know, he was just the leader of one of country, not the entire socialist sphere.


 No.2714735

>>2714729

The point is that you say the reason why Cuba is not as wealthy as countries like Scandinavia is because they are being sanctioned and hindered by the capitalist countries, but that is not a fact, and though Cuba has an ok standard of living there are lots of things wrong, just look at all the old buildings and such.


 No.2714744

File: fe7c1c14e59f257⋯.jpg (66.19 KB, 600x361, 600:361, rhodes_on_imperialism.jpg)

>>2714685

>Why did the UK have as many colonies as it did when almost none of them were profitable?

This isn't true. Some colonial endeavours were and overall loss, but by no means all and many were immensely profitable. The UK retained and tried to retain control over unprofitable colonies like the north american thirteen colonies because there was a potential for future profit, a long-term investment.

However the benefit of colonisation was not the direct profitability of colonial enterprises but rather increasing the profitability of the colonising state. The UK didn't colonise India hoping to get rich off of taxing it or through sheer looting, although a good deal of that happened too, but rather to monopolise its markets. The profitability of native british industry could only be maintained by having buyers for the produced goods. By having an immense empire in which there was a effective single market monopolised by british companies yielded immense profits. There were numerous British colonial endeavours which were embarked upon solely at the initiative of a single company seeking a particular monopoly. The empire also provided a guaranteed source of raw materials for industry and more importantly cut other european powers off from accessing these resources.

The expenses of the British administrative state were insignificant compared to the boons enjoyed by british capitalists.

To claim that colonialism was a 'net loss' to the colonisers is to display a complete ignorance of the needs of economy. Without the empire as vast as it was Britain would never in a million years have been the world's leading industrial power. Imperialism is a necessary element of capitalist development, its not something you can opt out of.


 No.2714749

>>2714744

So basically

>though the state suffered a net loss, the private companies earned a lot from the monopolies which were imposed on the colonies

?


 No.2714756

>>2714749

hardly, the british state also made a lot of money off of the companies in the interest of which it was acting. Britain didn't get poorer in the slightest by investing in colonialism, at least until WW1 and the post-war period when the british state's expenses were becoming overwhelming and british capitalism was massively outcompeted by American capitalism which had used the war to break all of the UK's key monopolies. That's when losses were cut by giving out independence with a side of colonial debt to continue subsidising the uk without it having to spend much money on military presence abroad.


 No.2714773

>>2714716

As early as 1920, Lenin spoke about electrification like this:

"This is a long-term task which will take at least ten years to accomplish, provided a great number of technical experts are drawn into the work. A number of printed documents in which this project[6] has been worked out in detail by technical experts will be presented to the Congress. We cannot achieve the main objects of this plan—create so large regions of electric power stations which would enable us to modernise our industry—in less than ten years. Without this reconstruction of all industry on lines of large-scale machine production, socialist construction will obviously remain only a set of decrees, a political link between the working class and the peasantry, and a means of saving the peasants from the rule by Kolchak and Denikin; it will remain an example to all powers of the world, but it will not have its own basis."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/nov/21.htm

Bear in mind that this plan for electrification of the country would take at least 10 years. And this electrification plan was to build the infrastructure, or the base, for modern industry, which would then be the base for socialist construction. But the point isn't whether 5 years or 10 or 20 years were necessary. The point was the need to develop the material and cultural basis of actually beginning socialist construction. Lenin's time-frame for achieving more than a transitional period (i.e. the "socialist" in Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) became longer as he realized how far they had to go.


 No.2714818

get fucked or fuck others

I mean, start your own small business or work as a labour?

what to do?


 No.2714835

>>2714818

It doesn't matter. Do what you want/what suits you. If you can start a business then do.


 No.2714947

>>2714732

> Mate, I said in existence for a reason. Not just Cuba, the DPRK, China, Vietnam, and Laos.

Breaking News: neither China, nor Vietnam, nor Laos ever became Socialist (though, I'm guessing, you don't know what the word means).

> Also it seems awfully undialectical

If you don't know what the word means, don't use it.

> put all the blame on Kruschev

I'm not putting "all the blame", I'm naming the problem. That's what we call it.

>>2714735

> The point is that you say

Will you stop trying to strawman my position on Cuba?

> the reason why Cuba is not as wealthy as countries like Scandinavia is because they are being sanctioned

There are multiple reasons, not sanctions alone. For example, the major contributing factors would be the fact that Cuba was piss-poor in 1960 and got immense blow to their export-oriented economy with the fall of USSR.

Though, the very fact that Cuba can't trade with US (neither sell to nor buy from; neither directly nor through third party) obviously does hinder it.

> there are lots of things wrong

And many things right.

> just look at all the old buildings and such.

Or look at tens of thousands of dollars of free medical care people receive - the one US apparently can't afford.


 No.2714948

How exactly do the winners of the Nobel Prize of economics earn it? Who judges an economist's work and deems it "great to society"? Friedman got it and his policies realized in Chile lead to poverty and unemployment.


 No.2714953

>>2714947

>Imagine unironically believing all those countries were never socialist

Saying the reason why socialist countries always end up liberalizing their economies if fucking Kruschev's fault is the most infantile and retarded thing I've ever heard here. I mean ffs, it's one thing for MLs to say it was Kruschev's fault in the case of the USSR, but all fucking socialist nations? You're a retard.


 No.2714956

>>2714948

That is mostly because there is no "Nobel Prize for Economics". It's official name (it has had many) is the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences", and it is awarded and was formulated by the Swedish Riksbank. Back in the late 60's, the Riksbank was attempting to pass policy that would allow it to act unilaterally and independently of the legislative process; however, there was a great deal of skepticism regarding the empirical value of market economics which was impeding the process. The bank chose to conceive a prize which would be awarded in the name of Alfred Nobel and awarded in the same manner as the already existing Nobel prizes. This was used as public promotion and PR for the credibility and feasibility of continued and unimpeded pursuit of market monetary policy, outside the purview of purely legislative action - and it worked. Now the prize is colloquially referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics, despite being unaffiliated in all but name and perception with the actual prizes and their standards. Their award panel was never independent and competent, and the Nobel family has sought disassociation with the faux prize since the beginning


 No.2714959

>>2714948

to whoever pushes the CIA agenda the most


 No.2714970

How exactly are African countries being exploited? If they were, why would GDP per income be on the rise and almost all of them have about 5% economic growth? I thought they were supposed to always be poor, but they are trading and becoming better and better.


 No.2714974

I know it's a Sargon argument but I still think it's a valid one; what if the workers don't want socialism?


 No.2714979

>>2714953

Why are Right-wingers so retarded? I mean, it's not that hard to have reading comprehension above zero, but they consistently fail. It's like only retards can willingly join suicide cult of Invisible Hand. Oh, wait…


 No.2714985

>>2714974

> I know it's a Sargon argument but I still think it's a valid one; what if the workers don't want socialism?

It's impossible for workers (barring specific exceptional individuals) not to want higher wages, easier jobs, secure employment, better social services, respect, and everything else any sane human being would desire.


 No.2714987

>>2714985

I suppose you're right, but if all workers were to be indoctrinated by rightwingers to fall for retarded spooks like muh nation, muh traditional values, muh free market and shit like that, would that mean socialism would never be possible?


 No.2714992

>>2714974

People don't "want" abstract concepts. They want material benefits. Socialism is the only way to provide for humanity without imperialism.


 No.2714995

>>2714992

Does that mean all capitalist nations are directly or indirectly imperialist?


 No.2715002


 No.2715123

If Rojavá are imperialist puppets for receiving american aid, then were the Bolsheviks imperialist puppets for receiving german aid?


 No.2715131

>>2714995

Only if they are developed enough to support imperialism.

It's called "the highest stage of capitalism" for reason.


 No.2715135

>>2715131

What does "developed enough" in this sense mean? At what point does a country turn into an imperialist power?

>>2715123

Germany didn't put military bases in the Soviet Union AFAIK


 No.2715142

>>2715135

Source on american military bases in Syria because of Rojáva? Because afaik that's just a braindead anti-imperialist marcyite meme.


 No.2715146

>>2715123

The arguable difference is that Germany wasn't the global hegemon and had imperialist rivals that held it in check. It was imperialist, yes, but its imperialism was nothing compared to modern America's. That means that receiving American aid today is much more dangerous than receiving German aid in the past.

>>2715135

Once a capitalist country becomes sufficiently developed, the falling rate of profit leads to a merger between its industry and its banks, and the economy transitions from exporting goods to exporting capital itself.


 No.2715149

>>2715146

I understand what you're saying but regardless of Germany not being the global hegemon at that time that still doesn't adress the question of if the Bolsheviks were an imperalist puppet or not for receiving aid from an imperialist nation.


 No.2715191

How can I start to get into Hegel? I’ll take anything from books on his philosophy to actual good works to start with by him


 No.2715223

File: 2321425a0014e87⋯.jpeg (81.96 KB, 546x708, 91:118, ancap-2.jpeg)

>>2714987

> I suppose you're right, but if all workers were to be indoctrinated by rightwingers to fall for retarded spooks like muh nation, muh traditional values, muh free market and shit like that, would that mean socialism would never be possible?

NB: I'm the anon you were replying to; the one who answered "yes" is a Right-wing guest (all hail heil lack of IDs).

No, you can't "indoctrinate" people into "retarded spooks" forever as Capitalism tends to constantly present workers with more and more problems: lower wages, worse (or no) jobs, worse products, worse (or no) social services, constantly growing resentment (I mean, working is practically amoral in our culture now; while lazy and degenerate usurers are glorious "leaders of industry" and "work providers"), imperialist wars, and so on and so forth.

This means that workers would always be stimulated (in original meaning, as pointed stick for motivating cattle) to change status quo. However "traditional/Liberal values" simply can't function as the framework (theory/ideology/understanding of the world) that will provide desired changes. To put it bluntly, they are not developed to be practical, scientific understanding of the world, but as an excuse of status quo. And nobody ever accomplished anything with excuses.

Consequently, it is inevitable (maybe after numerous failed attempts) for workers to have no other option but to resort to Socialist approach (desperate people will try anything) - as they can't surrender (not in entirety) and no other method can solve practical problems that stand before them. Obviously, given opportunity to actually discuss problems (not by "electing" talking heads to do it in their stead), most of workers would discard overwhelming majority of "retarded spooks" before even trying them. Right-wing is incapable of honest discussion precisely for this reason.

The only "bad ending" one can expect is extinction of mankind before Capitalism is abolished (which is increasingly possible outcome).


 No.2715225

>>2715123

>>2715135

>>2715146

> Bolsheviks

> receiving german aid

There was no "german aid", you fucking retards. A whole century had passed and people still can't find any evidence of it.


 No.2715791


 No.2715822

File: c8d70ba135e81bc⋯.jpg (202.56 KB, 1280x931, 1280:931, 1484768484403.jpg)

Why do people say work hours will be shorter and productivity will be higher under Socialism/Communism? Also, I know this is a meme question, but how will games, anime, and media still be good when under a planned economy? Finally, how does socialism and communism make up for the progress given because of competition between companies and such? And I understand monopolies negate those benefits, but let's say in a theoretically monopoly-less capitalist economy.


 No.2715823

Why has communism never been achieved?


 No.2715862

>>2715823

Revisionism and imperialism.


 No.2715931

Why is it that we never see conspiracy theories in other countries like Africa or Mexico? How come it is always the US?


 No.2715934

>>2715931

What do you mean

Are you trying to say that other countries don't have their own conspiracy nuts?


 No.2715938

>>2715934

No, I mean conspiracies about other governments within their countries. There are tons of people that blame the US for everything but how come there are no conspiracies involving other governments.


 No.2715975

>>2715862

Why is revisionism so common?


 No.2715991

>>2715938

The US's reach is such that you can blame it for everything and still usually be right. It's like firing a gun into a crowd. You'll usually hit SOMETHING.


 No.2716012

>>2715975

Most of the 20th century communist states were very similar in constitution, they all had similar problems. Their contexts were different, which resulted in some variable outcomes. But once the USSR fell, the impetus to largely abandon the socialist project was overwhelming for remaining ML states. However, the party elites didn't want to abdicate control of the state, so you commonly had liberalizations with central authority. What this did reveal (apparently to the surprise of liberal commentators in the developed countries) was that liberalization doesn't necessitate the rise of democracy. On the contrary, many old socialist parties enjoyed public support as they liberalized, like the widespread confidence in the party in China.


 No.2716032

>>2715975

>Why is revisionism so common?

Because when you use Marxist ideology to legitimize your state there will always be a temptation to revise and edit Marxist texts to justify your actions, rather than base your actions on Marxist texts or ideas.


 No.2716313

>>2715975

Imo, it's largely because the ideology which lead 20th century socialism (MLism) is simply too prone to falling to revisionism because of its nature. Also this >>2716032


 No.2716369

>>2715938

Because conspiracy theories about the US are correct


 No.2716504

>>2716313

What's the alternative to MLism then? One that is less prone to revisionism


 No.2717029

>>2716504

Any type of socialism which implements direct democracy. For example, cockshottian socialism would be the perfect way imo to have a centrally planned economy (with some self-management elements if necessary), democratic centralism, and direct democracy. This type of socialism would be pretty damn hard to fall to revisionism.


 No.2717183

>>2715822

1. By eliminating redundant and unproductive labor.

- For example the US Insurance industry employs 2.7 million workers in several competing companies. Most of these positions could be eliminated if insurance services were centralized and run as a non profit program. -There would also be a large number of redundant workers in luxury services sector who would instead share work in necessary sectors of the economy.

-Finally the unemployed population of able workers (about 8%) would also share the existing workload.

2. Productivity would be higher because under capitalism there is a disproportionally small incentive to invest in labor saving machinery. This is because machinery used in production must be purchased at a price that includes both costs of production and a profit to the capitalist class. Labor used in production is purchased only at its cost.

3. Multimedia will continue to be produced but without the restrictions currently imposed by profit-seeking firms. It will not be geared towards advertisers or micro-transactions but will be a free art created by the associated producers for the purpose of expressing their creativity.

4. I don't know that competition is a greater force in innovation than collaboration, but there is no reason you cannot having competing groups under socialism if that is what the producers wanted to do. In the soviet union for example there were different space agencies competing for funding. There is no reason you cannot have capitalist levels of competition in socialism, but it is unclear why people would choose this over collaboration.


 No.2717296

>>2715822

Why do people say work hours will be shorter and productivity will be higher under Socialism/Communism?

Because in a socialist society everyone has to work but also owns rights to what society produces, which means that people would have an incentive to reduce workloads an invest more in labor-saving tech. The goal will be to increase productivity and keep work

>Also, I know this is a meme question, but how will games, anime, and media still be good when under a planned economy?

there will be no anime in socialism.

>Finally, how does socialism and communism make up for the progress given because of competition between companies and such?

there will probably still be certain types of economic competition between enterprises in order to achieve improved productivity. but even if we assume that overall there will be a loss of innovation due to lack of competitive focus, we would also gain a great deal by abolishing private intellectual property and making all scientific and economic data available to the public.


 No.2717327

>>2717296

<The goal will be to increase productivity and keep work

and keep work to a minimum, ffs


 No.2717858

How do you approach the anuddah shoah problem? It's not so easy to just dismiss people when they don't have a good framework for how the world works, because it just makes them angry. How do you explain that there's no anuddah shoah to people without getting into the nitty-gritty of genetics or political theory?


 No.2717960

This is an extremely ambiguous question but would any of you happen to know the name of a revolutionary who looked a lot like young Stalin and died in a cop shootout when he was 34?


 No.2720396

>>2717029

Could you elaborate as to why that would be and how direct democracy would work with socialism?


 No.2720437

>>2720396

Direct democracy is the best form of representation of the people in a socialist society. With it (if we're talking in the case of a DotP) the vanguard don't become disattached from the masses which is what most MLs agree on as to being a big element of why revisionism occured in the USSR.


 No.2721728

You leftists always say "Every modern GPT product has been invented by government funding and would never have come through the free market." Prove this with 5 (five) clear examples.


 No.2721798

>>2717858

The demographic change happening in Western countries (and their former colonies) is very real. There are pressure groups who want to see whites (and specific national groups) decline but there's also a larger systemic issue involving the reality of mass migration due to both political and economic reasons. In short, I don't think it's wise to dismiss demographic change because it can't be dismissed. But it needs to explained objectively and not in the form of a conspiracy theory. If the far-right wants to give complete agency to a Jewish conspiracy then they need to explain why so many non-Jewish leaders acquiesce.


 No.2721831

What are "dialectics"? Is it a method for understanding the world, or is the world inherently dialectical? Are all relationships between things dialectical relationships, or just some? What distinguishes dialectical materialism from "mechanical" materialism?


 No.2721836

>>2721831

https://empyreantrail.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/dialectics-an-introduction/

Rezd this, it's hard to to explain this properly in a few words.


 No.2721903

>>2721831

> What are "dialectics"?

In short, it is thinking about things as processes, as something moving/changing.

> Is it a method for understanding the world, or is the world inherently dialectical?

Yes.

"Or" makes no sense, as method of understanding the world must reflect qualities of the world, while the qualities possesed by the world cannot not be noticed unless understood through the method. I.e. it can only be both.

> Are all relationships between things dialectical relationships, or just some?

As long as it is real things that we discuss and the period of time is not (relatively) short, the answer is "all" (since the world changes).

> What distinguishes dialectical materialism from "mechanical" materialism?

See above. The fact that you are thinking about things as processes, as opposed to thinking of them as unchanging objects (or processes that go through unchanging cycles).

>>2721836

Is this A.W. blog? For some reason I think that it is.


 No.2721907

>>2721903

Thanks.

>Is this A.W. blog? For some reason I think that it is

It is. Click the "menu" button.


 No.2722044

>>2721728

>You leftists always say "Every modern GPT product has been invented by government funding

Never heard that claim.

>Prove this with 5 (five) clear examples.

It is logically impossible to prove a statement of the form "every thing of type X" with a list of examples, unless the number of things of type X is equal to the number of examples. So in your case, you have to believe that there are no more than 5 of that type. Do you believe that? Also, inventing by funding is a strange formulation. Please rework your question into something coherent.


 No.2722063

>>2722044

We libertarians believe that the free market and competition makes inventing and R&D necessary. However, leftists say that all the technology behind the inventions are rooted behind state funding.


 No.2722066

Why wouldn't it just work to give third worlders

>pure water

>washing machines

>bicycles

to improve them drastically?


 No.2722149

>>2722066

Because charity is counterproductive, the point is to make "third worlders" independent, Thomas Sankara speeches on YouTube Express this very well I think


 No.2722177

>>2722063

>However, leftists say that all the technology behind the inventions are rooted behind state funding.

Libertarians I'm assuming the burger definition is being used here don't seem to realize that their concept of what government is does not apply to the left wing. Leftists do not worship The State™ in the same vein that libertarians oppose The State™. We do not care about your notions of The State™.


 No.2722178

>>2722149

giving them these tools would make them independent retard


 No.2722179

>>2722177

https://youtu.be/tGy_StiU7yo?t=4m

i am referring to this argument


 No.2722186

>>2722179

Badmouse is back huh? Cool.


 No.2722188

>>2722186

>>2722179

is he still an anarchist?


 No.2722189

>>2722179

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


 No.2722191

>>2722188

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.


 No.2722201

>>2722066

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.


 No.2722205


 No.2722211

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


 No.2722486

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?


 No.2722758

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

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


 No.2722777

>>2722486

economic crises always rouse up the right.


 No.2722796

>>2722211

>Francoist Spain

>Fascism

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.


 No.2722860

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.


 No.2722865

>>2722486

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


 No.2722867

>>2722066

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.


 No.2722896

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?


 No.2722924

>>2722796

>>2722211

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


 No.2722940

>>2722896

Meme.

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.


 No.2722942

>>2722867

>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


 No.2722972

>>2722896

>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.


 No.2724554

Isolationism = Reactionary, right?


 No.2724578

>>2722211

>open border policy since no African wants to stay there

>lower GDP per capita than Hungary

The "spanish miracle" is another neoliberal fabrication.


 No.2725743

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


 No.2725747

>>2722860

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.


 No.2725754

>>2725743

generation of monopolies I guess


 No.2725764

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?


 No.2725767

>>2725743

>supposedly

economics is propaganda.


 No.2725795

>>2722972

> 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.


 No.2728353

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.


 No.2728453

https://youtu.be/g7TAAw3oQvg

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


 No.2728612

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)

>>2728453

>Ben Shapiro


 No.2728760

>>2728612

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


 No.2728848

>>2728612

Is that tweet real?


 No.2728851

>>2728612

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


 No.2728853

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)

>>2728760

>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.


 No.2728858

>>2728853

>I-Israel is APARTHEID

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

hmm…


 No.2728859


 No.2728860

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.


 No.2728861

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

>>2728858

> 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.


 No.2728956

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)

>>2728858

>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.


 No.2728960

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


 No.2728964

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

>>2728860

>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.


 No.2729677

>>2725767

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


 No.2729898

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!


 No.2729900

>>2728964

><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?


 No.2729979

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.


 No.2729986

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

>>2729979

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


 No.2729993

>>2729986

Thanks


 No.2730062

"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?


 No.2730068

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

>>2730062

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.


 No.2730083

>>2728964

Just had a friend go

"IF WE ELECT BERNIE WE'LL BECOME A SOCIALIST COUNTRY."

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…


 No.2730084

>>2730083

forgot to mention the mention of Cuba.


 No.2730086


 No.2730087

>>2730086

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


 No.2730092

>>2730083

>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.


 No.2730094

>>2730086

Sweet, ill look into these


 No.2730095

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)

>>2729898

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


 No.2730098

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)

>>2729979

Some of the best I know


 No.2730137

>>2730098

Lots to read


 No.2730149

>>2730083

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.

>DUDE, USSR WAS POOR AND VENEZUELA IS POOR LMAO AND SOCIALISM CAUSES THIS.

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)


 No.2730164

>>2730083

>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.


 No.2730226

>>2730083

>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


 No.2730512

>>2690310

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.


 No.2732910

Anyone have a pdf of The State and Revolution?


 No.2732916

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


 No.2734232

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

for the literate people on this board

>>>/marx/10655


 No.2734412

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


 No.2734479

>>2734232

I have archived that thread here,

>>>/netcom/1306

and responded here,

>>>/netcom/757


 No.2734513

>>2676183

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


 No.2734666

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.


 No.2734677

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

>>2734592

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.

>>2729979

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

>>2730512

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

>good

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.


 No.2734829

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?


 No.2734873

>>2734829

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.


 No.2734906

>>2734873

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


 No.2735071

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?


 No.2735073

>>2735071

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.


 No.2735083

>>2735073

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?


 No.2735084

>>2735073

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?


 No.2735615

>>2735071

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.


 No.2735621

>>2734906

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.


 No.2735712

>>2734906

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.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm


 No.2735786

>>2670891

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


 No.2735839

>>2735786

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:

https://8ch.net/leftypol/res/2733349.html

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


 No.2735840

>>2735786

NazBol

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


 No.2736055

>>2735786

Just be a regular communist

>ethnonationalism

why would you want to believe in this?

>religion

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


 No.2736064

>>2736058

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.


 No.2736072

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


 No.2736082

>>2736072

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


 No.2736094

>>2736082

>States cannot be communist.

They can follow a communist belief system.

>>2736072

Probably not. Cuba maybe.


 No.2736111

>>2736094

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.


 No.2736115

>>2736111

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

I bet you refer to CotGP as "Gothakritik".


 No.2736129

>>2736115

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.


 No.2736131


 No.2736152

>>2736072

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?


 No.2736158


 No.2736229


 No.2736673

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?


 No.2736676

>>2736673

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.


 No.2736707

>>2736673

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.


 No.2736718

>>2736707

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

we live in a society…


 No.2736776

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


 No.2736778

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?


 No.2737479

>>2736707

>>2736676

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.


 No.2737480

>>2736778

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

what do you mean?


 No.2737484

>>2736776

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.


 No.2737647

>>2737479

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.


 No.2737652

>>2736718

Well who do you think pays for it?


 No.2737790

>>2737647

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?


 No.2738180

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


 No.2738205

>>2738180

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


 No.2738227

>>2738205

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.


 No.2738236

>>2738227

>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


 No.2738260

>>2736152

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.


 No.2738268

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?


 No.2738281

>>2738268

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.


 No.2738296

>>2738268

> 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.


 No.2738623

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?


 No.2738631

>>2738623

Nice projection there /pol/.


 No.2738635

>>2738623

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.


 No.2738641

>>2738635

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


 No.2738655

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

>>2738623

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

No

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

Part1


 No.2738661

>>2738655

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

But not always fully control everything

Part2


 No.2738664

As others anons said

>>2738635

>>2738641

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


 No.2739382

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


 No.2739456

>>2670891

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_minorities_in_the_Soviet_era


 No.2740220

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

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


 No.2740228

>>2740220

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.


 No.2740290

>>2740228

>Mixed

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


 No.2740298

>>2740290

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.


 No.2740315

>>2740298

>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.


 No.2740318

>>2740315

>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.


 No.2740347

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

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

>>2739382

I have these


 No.2740823

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

>>2740220

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).

>immigration

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.2740833

>>2740220

No to both.


 No.2740835

>>2740298

>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?


 No.2740973

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?


 No.2740982

>>2740973

the thread about the yellow vests has been pretty active


 No.2740985

>>2740973

we like to discuss things.


 No.2741015

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?


 No.2741485

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

>>2740318

>>2740315

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

>Conclusion

>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).


 No.2741488

>>2741015

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.


 No.2741561

>>2685406

>communism with neoconservative/fascist characteristics

Based and nazbolpilled


 No.2741566

>>2741488

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?


 No.2741570

>>2741566

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.


 No.2741661

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

Is this accurate?


 No.2741667

>>2741661

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.


 No.2741671

>>2741661

>>2741667

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.


 No.2741676

>>2741671

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


 No.2741677

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


 No.2741680

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

>>2741676

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

>>2741677

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.


 No.2741683

>>2741680

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


 No.2741689

>>2741683

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.


 No.2741708

>>2741485

>referencing studies from a pro-market think tank

Kill yourself.

>>2741015

>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.

>>2741566

>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.


 No.2741715

>>2741689

"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]"


 No.2741716

>>2741708

>R.W. Wheatcroft

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


 No.2741727

>>2741667

>, iirc the figure is closer to 20

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


 No.2741734

>>2741727

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.


 No.2741780

>>2741734

>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

Fuck OFF ZIZEK BRAINLETS


 No.2741792

>>2741780

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.

>Fuck OFF ZIZEK BRAINLETS

I hate nu-Leftypol…


 No.2742021

>>2741792

You're just pulling shit out of your ass.

http://www.rupe-india.org/59/introduction.html

"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. "


 No.2742029


 No.2742042

>>2742021

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?


 No.2742200

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)?


 No.2742241

>>2742042

>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.


 No.2742250

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)

>>2742200

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.


 No.2742255

>>2742200

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.


 No.2742329

>>2742250

This.

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.


 No.2742421

>>2742329

The bricks of Moscow


 No.2742543

>>2742200

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.


 No.2743328

>>2742250

>>2742255

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.

>>2742543

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?


 No.2743412

>>2743328

>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.


 No.2743419

>>2743328

>>2743328

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.


 No.2743557

>>2743328

>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.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm

>>2743419

>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.


 No.2743930

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?


 No.2743933

>>2743930

that's what Venezuela does.


 No.2743943

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


 No.2743948

>>2743930

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.


 No.2743998


 No.2744498

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…?


 No.2744837

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?


 No.2744853

>>2744837

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.


 No.2744925

>>2744837

>>2744853

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.


 No.2744939

>>2744925

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.


 No.2744984

>>2744939

>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.


 No.2745360

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?


 No.2745404

>>2713927

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.


 No.2745405

>>2745360

>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.


 No.2745442

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


 No.2745879

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?


 No.2745892

>>2745879

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.


 No.2746279

>>2745879

> 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.


 No.2746304

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?


 No.2746358

>>2746304

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.


 No.2746415

>>2746279

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


 No.2746514

>>2746279

>>2746358

thank you, anons


 No.2748279

What's the best argument against the knowledge problem?


 No.2748320

>>2748279

explain what the problem is first


 No.2748323

>>2748279

Modern computing and the Internet of Things.


 No.2748327

>>2748279

>>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.


 No.2748720

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?


 No.2748782

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

>>2748720

>When people say that TRUE socialism hasn't happened

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


 No.2748792

>>2748782

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.


 No.2748804

>>2748782

"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.


 No.2748831

>>2748782

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)?


 No.2748854

>>2748720

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


 No.2748859

>>2748831

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.


 No.2748863

>>2748831

how would you know exactly what Marx advocated for?


 No.2748884

>>2748863

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?


 No.2748891

>>2748884

>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?

also

>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.


 No.2748932

>>2748891

>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?


 No.2748945

>>2748932

>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.


 No.2748948

>>2748945

>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?


 No.2748968

>>2748948

>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.


 No.2748974

>>2748968

>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?


 No.2748981

>>2748974

>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?

yes.

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.


 No.2748989

>>2748981

>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.

Wut?

>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.

>yes.

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.


 No.2749123

>>2748884

>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


 No.2749133

>>2748884 (me)

>>2749123

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.


 No.2749147

>>2749123

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.


 No.2749234

>>2749147

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


 No.2749239

>>2749234

>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]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadezhda_Alliluyeva#Death


 No.2749249

>>2749239

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.


 No.2749250

>>2749239

Sounds like propaganda.


 No.2749256

>>2749250

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


 No.2749258

>>2749249

>>2749256

So which is truth, which is lie?

Lost in history.


 No.2749265

>>2749239

>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."

Doubt.jpg


 No.2749266

>>2749258

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.


 No.2749324

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.


 No.2749325

>>2749324

>poor

>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!"


 No.2749332

>>2749325

he propably is a right winger who thinks just that


 No.2749348

>>2749325

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.


 No.2749353

>>2749348

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".


 No.2749354

>>2749348

>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.


 No.2749362

>>2749348

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


 No.2749365

>>2749354

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.


 No.2749369

>>2749365

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.


 No.2749370

>>2749369

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


 No.2749371

>>2749369

Oops, I misread

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


 No.2750040

>>2749234

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.


 No.2750044

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


 No.2750168

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?


 No.2750452

>>2750040

>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


 No.2750455

>>2750168

>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.)


 No.2750649

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)


 No.2751080

>>2750649

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


 No.2751508

>>2750452

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.


 No.2751581

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


 No.2751586

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

>>2751581

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.


 No.2751593

>>2751586

Any serious answers


 No.2751597

>>2751581

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.


 No.2751692

>>2751597

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


 No.2751966

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

>>2751586

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.


 No.2751976

>>2751966

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.


 No.2752040

>>2751080

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


 No.2752412

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

Response?


 No.2752415

>>2752412

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


 No.2752419

>>2752412

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

Also

>>2752415


 No.2752423

>>2752415

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


 No.2752436

>>2752423

>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.


 No.2752437

>>2752423

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


 No.2752447

>>2750044

Reiterating


 No.2752472

>>2752423

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".

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch03.htm

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.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

Of course, many people forget these things…


 No.2752512

>>2752419

>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.


 No.2752513

>>2752436

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


 No.2752516

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?


 No.2752517

>>2752447

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


 No.2752536

>>2752516

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.


 No.2752543

>>2752513

>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.


 No.2752555

>>2752517

it would depend on the goal of your activism.

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


 No.2752559

>>2752516

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


 No.2752632

>>2752543

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


 No.2752634

>>2752559

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?


 No.2752639

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?


 No.2752659

>>2752513

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.


 No.2753404

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)

>>2752639

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


 No.2753427

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


 No.2753472

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.


 No.2753474

>>2753472

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


 No.2753483

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


 No.2753484

>>2753472

German Ideology?


 No.2753610

>>2753472

capital.


 No.2753624

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


 No.2753630

>>2753624

probably most of them.


 No.2753632

>>2753630

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.


 No.2753634

>>2753630

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.

>>2753632

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?


 No.2753636

>>2753634

>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.


 No.2753637

>>2753636

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?


 No.2753644

>>2753637

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.


 No.2753650

>>2753644

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?


 No.2753658

>>2753650

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.


 No.2753664

>>2753634

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.


 No.2753674

>>2753664

who country?


 No.2753698

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?


 No.2755118

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?


 No.2755146

>>2755118

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


 No.2755149

>>2755118

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.


 No.2755160

>>2755146

>>2755149

How exactly will AGW cause the collapse of capitalism?




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / chemo / christ / cyoa / doomer / eris / rwby / vichan ]