[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / choroy / dempart / g / klpmm / pinoy / projared / vichan / webcams ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 78th Attention-Hungry Games
/bimbo/ - Plastic and Fantastic!

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Post last edited at



>I don't like trots so imma just call them SJW identitarians lmao

Fuck the different material conditions of other countries am i rite? Lmao fuck materialism



>pxq = mxv stuff, why inflation is or not just about emission, etc etc. Internal demand, external demandvegetative growth of the population, etc etc.

Literally all this stuff is in Capital.


I can't even find this term on Google.



Sorry forum for more or less just internal talk, but:

After Macri won for a slight margin, I hope you (chastize? can't find the word) any attempt at a blank vote.

I wrote the same in a Milei video, where they were saying "ah, we liberals don't vote". Told them, when opposition gains by 1%, you'll be hitting yourself.

Also..., and hear this vid "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFgosxHTnmk" first, there are statists in peronism, second, they also have a proposal that is: "put private/statal companies, in the sense that they're private, but all workers, or actually sindicate heads, so indirectly all workers, vote in their dirigency. Then, no change in govt will be able to change the dirigency"... The assumption would be, the dirigency of the sindicates would be wrong less times than the nation wide voted one.



nope check the pew research data gain, i know this is an old post but it said 80% of Egyptians who believe sharia should be the law of the land thought so.

And 80% of the population is muslim, 15% christian, and of those muslims like 75% believe sharia to be the law of the land, so we are down to less than half of Egyptians. Not that great but far from some monolithic islamism that right wingers like to believe.



>After Macri won for a slight margin, I hope you (chastize? can't find the word) any attempt at a blank vote.

you don't seem to understand the socialist standpoint.

it's all the same whether Macri or Scioli won, they're not socialists, if there's not a socialist option, then I don't vote.

Macri winning by a small margin means shit when the other option was also a businessman who supports private property, for all intents and purposes, socialism lost by a margin of 100%

and do not compare us with liberals, they're quite literally the opposite of us socialists.

also, Argentine sindicates are bureaucratic hells alligned with capitalist interests.

that's not an opition.

and nationalized companies are not necessarily socialism, if they're run for a profit like private industry, that's definitely not socialism, since it's still exploiting the workers, extracting surplus value from them, for the benefit of others, this is what happens in literally every single state owned company, from the airlines to the petrol company YPF.

Peronism (this is where Kirchnerism falls) is pure cancer.



he's right winger Argentine.

PBI = GDP in our language.



>I think marxists or leftists in general, if they don't already, should try to learn the capitalist "theory"

>First, pointing this at leftists, is because a pretty notorious economist in my country that I respect, said that "marxists in general don't know about economy. Liberals do, they just want a country we don't want"

this sounds something like either Milei or Espert said.

and it's the most retarded sentence I've read in my life.

what do you think the BASIS of Marxism is?

it's called "Capital".

try and guess what it talks about.

and stop being retarded for a second, repeating nonsense other retards spout.



At least Kirchner didn't sell out the entire country to the IMF you fucking moron. You guys are controlled opposition. Equating Kirchner with Macri is fucking retarded when Macaroni is 100x objectively worse for the working class.



> You guys are controlled opposition

Never trust a 4



>Massively expand the welfare state

>Don't diversify the economy

>Start half-baked government projects such as housing promising 150,000 government homes but only complete 35,000

>Tie the entire well-being of your economy to one commodity

>Never end private ownership.

>Nationalize, and then run into the ground, some of your most key industries

>Set price controls on food, leading to business owners smuggling food into others countries borders

yeah, seems like perfectly good economic policy to me. the fucking autism in this thread is insane. MADURO IS NO TRUE SOCIALIST, take off the fucking ideology glasses please.




The sum of prices of each good or service sold (prices of a unit of thing A multiplied by its quantity sold, thing B's price multiplied by its quantity sold, and so on all added together)

= m×v

is equal to the amount of money multiplied by the money unit's average velocity, that is, how often the unit changes hands on average. If five hundred different things are sold for one $ each, this can happen by 500 one-$ coins changing hands, or the first person buys something from the second person, who uses that coin to buy from the third person, who uses it to buy from the fourth person, and so on; so 500 coins each exchanging once or one coin exchanging 500 times or anything between these extremes can happen.

This is indeed already in Capital: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm#S2b

>Hence the velocity of the currency of money is measured by the number of moves made by a given piece of money in a given time. Suppose the circulation of the 4 articles takes a day. The sum of the prices to be realised in the day is £8, the number of moves of the two pieces of money is four, and the quantity of money circulating is £2. Hence, for a given interval of time during the process of circulation, we have the following relation: the quantity of money functioning as the circulating medium is equal to the sum of the prices of the commodities divided by the number of moves made by coins of the same denomination. This law holds generally.


Being working lass is a hole you are stuck in. Being in that situation for long has an effect on your character. Being in that situation is usually not a short-term affair, but something that you are likely stuck in for life, and even your offspring. It is not a psychological hole, a loop of individually self-inflected failure which could be addressed by self-help books or therapy, it's a real material relation with psychological effects.

What liberals are blabbering about when they role-play as radicals is not class society, but classism (the arrogant ways in which some people talk about us proles), and acting offended on our behalf. The solution to classism is developing manners. It's like being OK with slavery existing as long as long as the master greets you by nodding respectfully while applying the whip to your husband.



>Being working class



they are all just as bad for the working class, they all defend private property, because they all own private property, even your beloved Cristina.

they all want to exploit workers and live off our labour, even your beloved Cristina.

what makes you think she's any different? the fact that she used some public funds to give people a few things that don't liberate them from ANY of the problems the class struggle comes with at all?

you shouldn't passionately defend something without knowing what it is, you clearly are a teenager who doesn't even know what capitalism and socialism are, the most basic political concepts.

kill yourself, you retarded Kirchnerista, you're still a braindead liberal.

this is a socialist board, now fuck off.


There’s a black history event coming up at my uni, and my org was hoping to hand out some black Marxist literature to radicalize some people and recruit them. Unfortunately none of us are super familiar with the works of black Marxists. Does anybody know some good, short, pamphlet type works by people like Fanon, Newton, Hampton, Dubois, etc, that could easily be turned into brief handouts?




fuck off tard I bet you support rebels against Assad as well because "lol he's just another capitalist dicktator"

trots confirmed controlled opposition I'm sorry I ever doubted you BO


Why is /leftypol/ so big into privilege denialism? Does this board actually, unironically think racism is over?



>is this or that the official /leftypol/ opinion?

That's what the FAQ thread is for.





now go away, you're not a socialist, you retard.



How do you incentivize work that is more onerous or in higher demand than other work?

I've heard "we automate the bad work away", but that's veering from politics into science fiction.


How do I find Marxist-Leninist groups in my area?



join the SEP, they can tell you if there are groups around you, it takes some weeks to aprove your request tho



>join the Trots

I'd rather lick boots.



*steps all over dead dog shit*

okay, lick 'em up boy


What was that one quote that went something like "The greatest form of theory is practice?" I think it was said by Castro or Guevara or somewho.


Looking for books/ writings on power dynamics.

I've noticed a phenomenon in British politics where the leftist media "celebrities" are far more likely to throw socialists under a bus when they come under pressure from the capitalist media.

Many people accuse them of being crypto rightists, but I think it's more than that, it's not about ideology per se, but about power dynamics and the fact that they have more power in society so are more likely to capitulate to power in order to keep their careers, etc.

Does this make sense to anyone? Who has written about this?


File: 62a2c00855b962c⋯.png (997.72 KB, 966x966, 1:1, FBIdpol.png)


>oppression olympics is anti-racist politics



Cool argument, you're still denying the existence of white privilege





Gimme some neolib rag publicatiins, the worst ones you can think of. Like vice but worse



Thats because /leftypol/ is filled with white men and they take white privilege as a personal insult for some reason.

Also they conflate white privilege with idpol, even if white privilege is a real thing that effects minorities, and idpol are just a way to combat white privilege but became a distraction that corporations are taking advantage of so the workers can fight each rather than them.



its a chan board full of autists, what do you expect? I'd honestly recommend you don't even try to change people's minds here on non class issues, they have their autistic """anti""" idpol opinions and they aren't gonna change them any time soon.

I'm anti idpol, but being anti idpol also requires you to actually accept realities of discrimination and people based on identity. Denying these realities isn't anti idpol, it's just reactionary idpol


File: 867fb05e52e329b⋯.jpg (118.5 KB, 700x980, 5:7, racial harmony.jpg)


Racism in USA is hard to denied, but, capitalism isn't ethno, the averge of blacks are poorest than whites because heredic classism of feudalism and capitalist lasttest era structure was so, till this stopped at end of tweenty century thankfuly to URSS and communist block in the world. USA turned their black people up then change them to bourgeis to controll the masses which claimmed the racism in your country but went each closset to communism. My point is, We are useless figthing againts other workes, we have to struggle for whites or blacks, against bourgeis, Lenin once time did claim for internacionalism and Marx as well.

Black represion ins't black represion, is proletarian represion, either black or white proletaria is prole, and richs are richs, your values are the same shit of /pol/ thinking all jews are capitalists ruling world… Paranoids, Not Socialist, and black facists aren't socialists.



I agree with you completely except that last part, I don't think you understand that white privilege is a social issue. The fact that a man of color gets a harsher punishment than a white man has nothing to do with economic situation, and if we change to socialism over night we would still see black men being shot more than whites by police.

White privilege is something we have to tackle within ourselves, it is a change society needs to make if we want to have real equality. Wouldn't you agree that communism would function better if we end racial prejudice? because this is what I think we should tackle not representation thats why I said idpol is not the answer.



The role of the black man in America, as a slave or under the current system of quasi-segregation, is economic and class-based, rather than just happening to be a case of white men oppressing black men because of their feelings. If there weren't a demand for cheap, exploited labor, much of the arguments for racial "defense" fall apart, and you lose a great driver for such animosity and race-theory. Much of the white people hating on black people does stem from black people being perceived as competition for their jobs, their government spending, the world's resources, and so on, rather than some deep-seated need for racial purity. If you can take away artificial resource scarcity to the degree that it exists today, you lose (at the base level) much of what motivates tribal exclusion. You'd still have explicitly racist institutions and ideology to deal with - for example, the entire school system we have is built on an explicitly racist foundation and exists to perpetuate its own class hierarchy and mode of production, and I haven't seen many socialists seriously question this except for some mealy-mouthed apologies about how it's mean and stuff. But you're not going to get far if it comes off like you're forcing people to think a certain way, rather than fighting the ideological failing of race-science itself, you're fighting a losing battle. Ideologically, race-science doesn't even make sense, but the left shoots itself in the foot by trying to make arguments that race doesn't exist, or that race was an invention of 17th century rich white guys. The left puts itself in the position where they have to defend the ideological points of race-science and eugenics, because there has been a failure of criticism against the eugenics movement in the left (which in my opinion is the greatest failure of the socialists, and why socialism can never gain anything close to popular support unless it's couched in liberal-sounding language).

The criticism of eugenics needs to begin now, and it needs to be fierce, rather than the mealy-mouthed apologies about how eugenics is mean to people. Without that, any attempt at anti-racism, and a host of other issues, is doomed to failure, not just in mass appeal to the people but in theory and the purpose of the socialist movement itself. A fiercely anti-eugenics movement could possibly win great converts if there is sufficient presence to overrun the rightist efforts to claim this share of the population and divert it towards worthless or worse ends.



>The fact that a man of color gets a harsher punishment than a white man has nothing to do with economic situation, and if we change to socialism over night we would still see black men being shot more than whites by police.

Well I'm not american and couldn't say if this is true, so if you have a sources I'll thanks you send me. However, all has do with economic situation, that's is the base of marxism theory, and materialism.

And you can't chance a social issue linked with the system without change the system, otherwise is a contradiction, your country ins't in transition from capitalism to socialism, so you could not figth for black equality if you didn't make the socialist struggle your priority. Becuase in capitalist there aren't equality for neither race. As well you can't figth for children explotation without struggle of classes and counciest that explotation is a focus of capitalism, less or more ya'll have been exploted by bourgeois. If you divide your figth by races, only get a reactionary theory nears to facism and the fail of revolution because you're throwing whites workers from your movent and drive them to capitalists and skinheads groups, while black bourgeois shall support you and your movement, becuase they had realize supporting you, they'll have previleges as rich class, ripping it out to whites, and chance to turn your movent in capitalist again. Just you'll change the status of niggers opressed for whites opressed, that's not real equality.

That's why I think we'd not must talk about 'race/genre privileges', just generate injustificated hate to other races and genres, this is the same question with jews and religions in general, If you want a revolution first you should unite workers and figth together against system, and with the praxis you'll show the world and the racists, that all are in the same row, and for the workes party dosen't matter your color. And also, police shooting niggers more than whites is just because niggers in USA are mostly averge of lumpen with latinos (I'm black colombian btw), gangs and marginal situation of black is just a effect of capitalist, if you eliminate explotation, and give free education and free heath, just with those, you'll reduce the crimilation whetever race you have in your country, polices don't shoot nigger more than white because prejuices, is because they're the often criminal in USA. Your capitalist was racist, most than Europe and Latin America, but here in Colombia is happen the same, people have the prejuice that niggers are criminals, but in Cuba for example happend the same with Batista, and now is different, Che, Fidel, Cinfuegos were whites, and the major of revolutionaries were, but free capitalist country is free racism country because you turn the materialist condition of your people and vanish lumpen.


>White privilege is something we have to tackle within ourselves.

Again, the privileges are the same for any kind of bourgeoisy don't matter which skin you have, how socislists.

>Wouldn't you agree that communism would function better if we end racial prejudice

Communist is a enmacipation of capitalist and evolution of mankind like spice, for reach that, we have to struggle against reactionaries forces but most important make a sociaty free of any kind of prejuices and near it to the racional and cientific facts with internacionalism, but We need a socialist revolution to reach communist, so give your first step first.


File: 2533b0582ad456f⋯.png (16.74 KB, 899x430, 899:430, RUkE4fs.png)

If America and capitalism are so bad and evil why do dozens of millions of people worldwide want to move there? Americans are privileged to live in one of the most successful countries in the world; they can move anywhere they want but there are people out there that want to America but can't.



>all capitalist countries




and I am not arguing against Marxism nor do I think I should discriminate over race, but I believe no one should discriminate over race, this is why I am against any form of white privilege. I do not wish to do to the white man what he has done to me. And I agree that we should prioritize on a communist revolution but again I want to fight against prejudice at the same time. Even if the rascist is a worker I don't want to stand by him for he thinks he is superior compared to me. You may not understand this but being around some one who says something racist is really discouraging and being around racism all the time, where white man gets picked over me even if we are equal turns ME into a black fascist who hates all whites. Why would wanting to end racial prejudice turn the white guys around me into fascist, are they that fragile that if we don't let everything go their way they are going to turn into a Nazi in a second?

>make a society free of any kind of prejudices

we are on the same page, we just disagree on how we are going to get there.


I don't think we can blame economic disparities on cops shooting black men more because why don't cops kill the Asian or the Latino more, especially when these races seem to bring much more of a threat to stealing the white mans job as compared to blacks.

> the entire school system we have is built on an explicitly racist foundation and exists to perpetuate its own class hierarchy

you just admitted to a bit of white privilege, which is great and is all I want white people to do, just open you're eyes, that is all we need you to do and don't look down on the the black man, which I don't think you do.

> But you're not going to get far if it comes off like you're forcing people to think a certain way

all I want is for people to stop having racist thoughts

>race doesn't exist

It would be good if we stopped caring about race

>A fiercely anti-eugenics movement could possibly win

I think I agree but I don't understand what you are saying here.

I feel as if you guys are for the same things as I am, but you can't handle the words "white privilege" like most Americans can't handle "Communism," this is a deep seated idea that has been plant in your brains from years of the media showing you negative things of the black man. The media is always putting down great movements like Black Lives Matter and showing you the bad BLM members who have become close to black fascist because of constant racism and a lack of change . But like Communism you have to look for the good and listen to the greats to truly understand. A recommendation from me is Citizen: An American Lyric by Claudia Rankie, it is the first book I read about this matter and it is a easy read that explains how a person of color lives in the US. Don't let the media guide your thoughts.



>I don't think we can blame economic disparities on cops shooting black men more

My point being that the role of black slavery was, quite explicitly, SLAVERY - white people didn't just decide out of the blue that they wanted to keep black people as slaves to be mean, they did so because the slave economy was lucrative and, in the south, was a bedrock of their economy. The modern prison labor system is similar to slavery, and the behavior of cops is modelled after slave patrols. The racism isn't just an arbitrary act, but relates to the economic role black slave labor and prison labor fills in this country. We see similar patterns in populations that were heavily exploited for labor purposes and could be separated racially, but black segregation was able to entrench in American society in a way that, say, segregation against the Chinese didn't.

Take today, where there is an end to legal segregation (at least in theory), and you see a fair number of black people who do enter the middle class; and accordingly, they tend to adopt the views and norms associated with that class, moreso than any allegiance to a racial caste (even when the society they live in passively supports racism).

Usually the complaint I hear most from my white relatives is all the black people on welfare and disability, and black workers in the government, rather than direct competition in their places of employment. Since employment in America is, for the employee, a zero-sum game, indirect competition matters, and indeed it's far easier to shit on someone of lower SES than it is to fight directly against ostensible social equals. The general tendency is to hit down, rather than engage in fair fights.

>you just admitted to a bit of white privilege

I didn't get much privilege in the school system, though I know the system is incredibly racist against black people. My point was that the school system was explicitly created because its founders saw foreign groups - which at that time included Irish, Italians, Catholics, and a whole lot of other groups - as groups to be subjugated. This principle is built into the system itself, even though few people today will seriously entertain anti-Irish or anti-Italian racism. (Although there certainly is some supremacism lurking in there; the most exactingly racist people I've ever met were school administrator types, and I've even had the misfortune of knowing literal white nationalists.)

>all I want is for people to stop having racist thoughts

So are you going for what, thought control? That's silly. People can think about whatever they want, and no law or initiative is going to enforce the kind of thought control you're looking for. What you can do is examine institutional racism, look at how racists game whatever system they inhabit to continue their practices. Otherwise, you're stuck playing a game reactionaries like to play, where they make these ridiculous assertions that what they're doing isn't REALLY racist, because they can invoke some tortured logic where their actions are justifiable by non-racist reasoning.

Frankly, I don't think other races and cultures are immune to criticism, and there is a great deal to criticize in black culture - and these criticisms often have to come from other black people, because whites are too self-absorbed and vain to get past their own bullshit. I'm more interested in answering real injustices and promoting real integration, than engaging in some thought-policing exercises where other cultures (and by extension, white culture itself) are off-limits for criticism.

>I feel as if you guys are for the same things as I am, but you can't handle the words "white privilege" like most Americans can't handle "Communism,"

Maybe it is that way for some of the people on this chan, but I have no problem with the term "white privilege" so far as it is a meaningful concept. What I don't see enough of, and what should be called out more, is white vanity - that is, the self-serving narratives we are fed in the mainstream media, crafted by white people and for their feelings more than any meaningful goal. We shouldn't have to even argue with such a puerile narrative in the first place, but here we are in a world where Trump's "telling it like it is" is a valid narrative in the world of CNN. We wouldn't be here if this fucking insanity was called out a long time ago and shamed for what it is, the resort of intellectual and moral cowards.



>where white man gets picked over me even if we are equal turns ME into a black fascist who hates all whites

> are they that fragile that if we don't let everything go their way they are going to turn into a Nazi in a second?

Ask to jews and germans, you should read 'on the jewish question' and just study the history of Europe and the facism or better, see your own feeling, if the racisms against you make you a 'black facist' because alienation. Why will diference with whites alienated?, how i said, you cannot end racial , genre, or extreme nationalist prejuice with capitalism system ruling your empire, or even figth in the same time, because new racist just will born and your figth will useless, witout do mention over black opportunist bourgueisy.

In the other side, I'm know what feels when you were discriminate and when others thinkins are over you, I mean, I'm colombian, americans are here just invade us and treat my people like trash, we has been victims of your empire, so…

But not for that I'll want kill all americans. Or think just colombia and latinamerica could turn in socialism.>>2827134


>>where white man gets picked over me even if we are equal turns ME into a black fascist who hates all whites

>> are they that fragile that if we don't let everything go their way they are going to turn into a Nazi in a second?

>Ask to jews and germans, you should read 'on the jewish question' and just study the history of Europen or better, see your own feeling, if the racist make you a 'facist black', how i said, you cannot end the racial, genre, or extreme nationalist prejuice with capitalist or in the same time while figth with this, because new racist just will born and your figth will useless.

>In the other side, I'm know what feel the discrimination and other think over you, I mean, I'm colombian american are here invade us and treat my people like trash, we has been victims of your empire so…

>But not for that I'll want kill all americans. Or think just colombia or latiamerica could turn in socialism.


File: f4e2c89567adee9⋯.jpg (52.73 KB, 640x537, 640:537, 7b5e78f6847535c3652484b22d….jpg)


>Why would wanting to end racial prejudice turn the white guys around me into fascist

It wont. What will is when the white proles start suspecting that anti-racist politics are used as a foil to fuck them over and leave them in the dust, which is exactly the paranoia you now see milked by Republicans in the U.S. and it's not completely baseless. This is exactly what the Democratic Party and the white libs have been doing, though of course what the white proles don't always realize is they're fucking over black proles too.

I'm pretty anti-idpol, but I'm not against black people advocating for their rights. Browse around this board a bit and you'll see that the Black Panther Party are seen as heroes. What I'm against is Leftists who treat shit like NAP Violations and cultural appropriation as things of equal importance with class based exploitation, even though the non-insane aspects of these forms of "oppression" become complete non-issues once class is abolished. I'm against people who invest massively into these elaborate etiquettes of conduct between people of different identity groups that effectively exclude anyone from the lower classes from joining and then when white proles aren't tripping over each other to join the movement it's attributed to their fragility or some shit.

It's not fragility, it's a predictable outcome of treating people who've been kicked in the teeth like they have to learn a new language to be entitled to Leftists attention.

Because of all this, anti-PC edgelordshit has also become codified into inter-white class relations to a degree. Slavoj Zizek wrote somewhere about young proletarian men in the 19th century who'd go around town in gangs torturing street cats to intimidate the petty-bourgeoisie. For white proles saying is another way of engaging in the age old sport of offending middleclass sensibilities. You only have to look at some of the working class Tommy Robinson supporters to see this at play. It doesn't excuse actual racism and it's not the whole story, but it complicates matters further.

I guess my biggest issue isn't even intersectionality, if black and other minorities feel it offers them some insight. My biggest issue is with white leftists who see it as their business to language police and purity control proles and other leftists rather than organize white proles in a way that that's accessible to them. White privilege is absolutely real, but you can't start by telling a burnt out nurse or an unemployed lumpenprole that they need to "own up to their privilege" or some shit. First you need to make sure that people feel like their own needs are understood and taken seriously. Then they'll be open to other things.



> For white proles saying is another way of engaging in the age old sport of offending middleclass sensibilities.

*saying offensive shit



Because the USA is parasitic, it ruins people's lives in other countries and then promises a better life to the educated people in those countries if they emigrate.


File: be4f30dcfed7862⋯.png (321.74 KB, 1213x626, 1213:626, smartmyanmar.png)

What do I say to people (namely the EU) who say that opening garment factories in poor countries like Myanmar is good because they are giving jobs and they are also training people on social responsibility, workers rights etc?


File: 1762b41e2ca3be1⋯.png (109.97 KB, 600x500, 6:5, ClipboardImage.png)

If I want an agrarian, rural economy and Socialism at the same time am I revisionist because of dialectical materialism or something?



Read a lot of books by Ha-Joon Chang he rapes advocates for neoliberal globalization .



It's certainly ahistorical that society would regress to an agrarian pre-industrial society for any meaningful length of time. In the future, I can't imagine the disappearance of rural communities, and I have to imagine that city size will plateau as the population drops to a sustainable level. Why do you want a rural economy as the rule of communism, and not merely one aspect? There is no stasis, stagnation is death.



>country life romanticism

No, that's pearl clutching


File: c27735d1558bc73⋯.jpg (171.43 KB, 901x901, 1:1, b9xc6bahcqh21.jpg)

How can I push socdems/left leaning liberals to a proper anti-capitalist position?



The climate issue



Social mobility stagnating



Infiltrate the campaigns of their farthest "left" darlings (Sanders, Warren, AOC, Omar, Gabbard, ect) and agitate their supporters.


File: d07276a1dbdea61⋯.jpg (176.29 KB, 612x903, 204:301, N1NKjIc.jpg)


It's called dual cardism or dual unionism and is championed by the Wobblies



This is what pushed me to look further left



Yeah, me too. Was always left-leaning succdem but the climate turned me truly anti-capitalist. The climate really is the achilles heel of the right. Clinging to liberal capitalism when it's increasingly obvious that it represents an existential threat to the species is suicidal idealism to the max, and I think more and more people are starting to realize that


I see people define socialism as "worker ownership of the MoP" but that doesn't seem to make sense since co-ops aren't technically incompatible with capitalism. Can someone explain whether this definition is right or wrong?



That's a bit of an oversimplification. Socialism is a society where the means of production are held in common, that is to say, publilcly as opposed to any individual or group. This requires an end to socio-economic classes (owner vs worker) and the end of the wage system in which the owners of the means of production extract the surplus value generated by workers. Prior to the abolition of class and wages, which go hand in had, the working class must seize power and collectively dictate the direction of their society until socialism is achieved.


File: 8ce9407827b71e1⋯.png (695.09 KB, 1190x665, 34:19, Screenshot_2019-03-04_09-0….png)

From the last episode in the chinese Marx anime:

Are these Stalin and Trotsky?


File: 9c83bfe370dbc71⋯.png (1.07 MB, 1000x605, 200:121, ClipboardImage.png)


Definitely Stalin, but im pretty sure the other guy is more likely Kalinin or Kamenev, probably Kalinin.


Why do some leftists hate STEMfags so much but not people who are in the fields of marketing and advertisement when the later is much more reactionary than the former?



it's liberalism. truth is all the departments are imperialist and fascist.


File: 4d5187e540d9d69⋯.jpg (221.35 KB, 900x706, 450:353, napoleon.jpg)

File: 2f4172b72be11db⋯.jpg (245.18 KB, 437x802, 437:802, executed.jpg)

Was Napoleon a traitor to the French Revolution in your opinion? He declared himself emperor but it was still thoroughly a bourgeois regime that spread constitutionalism throughout Europe during the Napoleonic wars.



Complete carpet of the bourgeoisie, reactionary figure.


At least marketing ppl know they're rotten.



>reactionary figure

But he did fight the feudal aristocratic order in Europe at the time. He's not a great guy but isn't that progressive in the grand scheme?



He killed the Holy Roman Empire. Good enough to make up for what else he did. Sad he removed the revolutionary calendar though.



>truth is all the departments are imperialist and fascist.



>At least marketing ppl know they're rotten.

What’s rotten about STEM?



>What’s rotten about STEM?

Have you not met STEM students and workers? They're as labor-aristocratic as you can get outside of maybe doctors or middle management



>Have you not met STEM students and workers? They're as labor-aristocratic as you can get outside of maybe doctors or middle management

No I’m a high schooler who gets an A+ in science class.



>>truth is all the departments are imperialist and fascist.


If you're in an imperialist country, both the STEM and humanities departments get half or more of their funding from the Military Industrial Complex or similar. The curricula are resolutely anti-communist and anti-materialist, even in STEM. The student bodies are absolutely mindfucked and will parrot anything they hear from the professors for a good grade.



oh yeah and if you're a Yank, you can look forward to frat societies full of horrible rich kids, and every single foreign culture club is full to the brim with that country's own variety of gusano/kulak.


Is PSL good?



no. marcyite trots and a total mess, has agents like Prysner hanging out with leadership. also a cult. "give us all your money… for socialism."



Are there any good parties?



Not in the USA. Just go help the homeless or something. And read Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.



Only thing somewhat decent is the Democrat Cops of America, but it really depends on the chapter you’re in (LA is garbage, but New York, Philly and Chicago are bad ass). Don’t waste your time with Stalin and them. Read Marx and Cockshott and study globalization and peak resource / peak oil theories (energy skeptic is a good resource). Also Cockshott has some good strategy videos that you can apply to the US on his YouTube channel, and also check out Mike McNair’s Revolutionary Strategy book to get you up to snuff and in the right direction.



What are some good films and documentaries about the Russian revolution and the rise of the USSR?



Lol yeah. Better then all these Leninist sects. I’ve been involved with the Maoists, PSL, Left Voice, the Humanists all of them and it was all garbage. The Democrat Cops of America is the only org doing anything relevant rn, other then a couple of the trots like SALT which I wouldn’t recommend either.



>Leninist sects

they are trots and cops

hilarious that you say you tried to participate with all those groups, saw the signs of their bullshit, and then fail to see the problem with the demcops, which is literally anticommunist.

>The Democrat Cops of America is the only org doing anything relevant rn

Really, "relevant?" I think the Democrats and Republicans are probably even more "relevant," maybe you should join them. On a more serious note, you could join trade union struggle or just serve the people by assisting a food drive or something.


File: 50cf104acb1f733⋯.jpg (666.57 KB, 3524x1653, 3524:1653, tiny-cars.jpg)

I wouldn't say no to joining a Leninist group on general principle but the ones in reality all seem like exploitative, abusive horror shows and/or cults. I know someone in my D*SA chapter who escaped from one. Exact quote that the experience "ruined my life."

If D*SA isn't your thing either, then don't join. I don't really care. Anyways my view of the D*SA is that it's like the socialist version of the Shriners – you know those old men who meet up for social events to escape from their wives, do "good works" and participate in 4th of July parades wearing the hats and driving tiny cars. I'm a D*SA member and have found it to be a useful interface to do various things, but it's not really a big deal.



What the fuck happens in the world of orgs? never formed part of one, how come certain types are more likely to have pieces of shit like leninist ones or supposedly useless ones like trotskysts


File: a2b9e7c896967d2⋯.jpg (101.41 KB, 800x481, 800:481, shriner.jpg)

I also go to SRA range days though I'm not a member. But I only do that because it's a fun social outing with friends and I like to shoot recreationally (historical military firearms and such). They are smart in focusing as self-defense / beginners training in a straightforward and legal way. If they were anything different I would not go to those events. If you ever plan on forming any kind of DA group with guns then you're making a big mistake and asking to ruin your life with a one-way ticket to the American gulag (the prison system) because the feds already know everything and have you locked and loaded. Don't be a moron. Just look at the alt-right and all their problems.


>What the fuck happens in the world of orgs? never formed part of one, how come certain types are more likely to have pieces of shit like leninist ones or supposedly useless ones like trotskysts

That's a good question and a big one, and I have never been part of a Leninist group. But from what I hear from my friends who were (learning from them over long, boozy conversations where they talked like abuse survivors or refugees), the intensity and frequency of organizing in what are relatively small and tightly-focused groups to begin with creates unsustainable pressure. They meet a lot, with the members expected to study and learn theory pretty intensively, and this also becomes your social life, and you're doing demos and actions together on top of everything else. The one my friends left were meeting weekly (minimum) and that's not including demos, meetings for demos, etc. etc. etc.

It's just an intense pressure cooker kind of environment, and you're also taking orders from central command in another city hundreds of miles away that can be like "drop everything you're doing and now do this." Some members in the local group disagree, and the disagreement then gets intermingled with the built-up interpersonal pressures, and there's an acrimonious coup / split that drives people out of left-wing organizing altogether. Add on top of that a dose of paranoia and suspicion, to the point where they also – again because of the tightly-focused environment – become so inwards-focused they don't know how to talk to people outside of it.

Lenin is interesting though and me and my friends study him and so on. I dunno. My feeling is that you should try to meet people where they're at. The Leninist groups also have a thing where they'll get an intake of new members (like because of Bernie) and then the group's leaders will go "if you like Backstabbin' Bernie this isn't the place for you because he is an imperialist." Well, that is probably objectively true, but these groups drive out 90 percent of their potential recruits right away. However, they see this as worth it because the remaining 10 percent will become committed cadres, but the process of creating these cadres is so combustible that I don't think it really works. But I can say the D*SA has benefited from experienced organizers who cut their teeth in Leninist groups before being expelled / driven away, so the D*SA has them to thank for that.

Toot toot [honking tiny car horn]


File: 1fd3eaf1c361fc2⋯.png (56.12 KB, 1969x1280, 1969:1280, 3fc3e165e33108cd1576fafba2….png)

On the topic of orgs, anyone know what the the Communist Party of Australia, Socialist Alternative, Socialist Alliance and the Socialist Equality Party are like?

I'm not sure whether to join or just form my own (with blackjack and hookers of course)


File: 2453bce10a2ffaa⋯.png (129.33 KB, 489x424, 489:424, 1547979639158.png)

whats the class status of youtubers who monetize videos?

are they just de facto employees for youtube?



The aristocracy has been on the decline for a hundred years before Napoleon even was relevant. Napoleon was protecting bourgeois interests in France. Read on the story of the Bank of France, Slavery, and french historiographical criticism of Napoleon.



>What’s rotten about STEM?

In and by itself, nothing. STEM students however are generally (ofc there are exceptions) shaped to be intellectually limited, only able to solve type cases problems, disregard political issues, ignorant of history & distrustful of social science.



Sort of, it's similar to the gig economy, people "work" for companies under the guise of being self-employed, which is a cynical way of avoiding to provide services like pension and health care to people who sell their labor/time for wages.



>If you're in an imperialist country, both the STEM and humanities departments get half or more of their funding from the Military Industrial Complex or similar.

This is pretty vague term. GPS and the Internet were developed by the Military, yet they are almost always used for civilian purposes and a lot of militaries that are anti-US use this tech. NASA is technically part of the air force yet it’s role (right now) has nothing to do with military use.



He did betray the French Revolution in the sense that he put an end to its most radical and emancipatory phase. But at the same time he consolidated many of its important gains a spread them across Europe. Imagine if say, the Mensheviks had coup'd the Bolsheviks and installed a socdem liberal democracy. It wouldn't be as good as the Bolsheviks, but it would definitely be better than the Tsar and objectively a step forwards in the grand scheme of things.


The absolute best way is to explain the logic of capital to them, how the market selects for antisocial, destructive, and psychopathic traits. The key to getting through to liberals and socdems is to make them under stand two things. First, that the evil shit that happens under capitalism is built into the logic of the system, not the product of a few bad apples. Capitalism is a profit or die business, either you make as much profit as possible, or somebody more ruthless comes along and runs you out of business. This means that even "ethical" porkies will either go bankrupt or at best remain petty bourg for a while until they get squashed by McMegaCorp. The second thing libs need to understand is that this tendency applies to politics as well as business practices. Porkies will always be constantly working to undermine socdem reform, and blinking even for a second causes the whole thing to be swept away. Basically they need to understand that evil under capitalism is structural and endemic, that it literally selects for those traits by punishing ethical behaviour and rewarding psychopathy. I explained this to a friend of mine when we were talking about imperialism and the war in Afghanistan. He was wondering why the US was even bothering to still be there, and I explained the logic of capital demanding constant acquisition of resources to defeat competitors etc. It really made an impact on him.


Is there some table showing the rate of exploitation for different jobs, that compares how much workers make vs. are paid? Especially I would like to see some data on the rate of exploitation of those working for electronics companies such as Foxconn.



oh god fuck off trot



Says the retard calling everything imperialist lmao



>dude the US military isn't imperialist



Nice sleight of hand faggot, you said STEM and the humanities were imperialist.



no I didn't, learn to read you fucking idiot


File: 635e1ecb36e6660⋯.jpeg (643.49 KB, 1242x1790, 621:895, EE96A683-967A-470E-A3FC-D….jpeg)


Apparently Socialist Alternative is another Leninist organization that may or may not be as intense as PSL in terms of the time they require of you to hang out and read theory. I did some research on all of this last night and got some impression of what American Marxist party culture is like.

From what I gather there is currently the most minor of schisms occurring in that sphere (minor from the outside, since these groups are all tiny) over what it means to be a Leninist party.

So in short, a couple of years ago some new orgs started popping up and declaring that groups like PSL, WWP and SAlt weren’t doing revolutionary practice correctly and had a perverted understanding of Leninism. They claimed these parties basically misunderstood what function democratic centralism served at different times of the Russian Revolution, and what form it took, and since at least the 70s have been influenced by a kind of strict party idealism that was derivative of Mao more than Lenin. But in order to better understand these criticisms first the problem should be framed, which basically is that these organizations are too strict about who they let in, and they are more interested in establishing a certain “correct” ideology and spreading it through protest or co-opting events that they are a minor participant in for propaganda. I’ve experience the latter in my city at least when Heather Heyer died, SAlt was at the event agitating over the microphone and I actually remember some people in the crowd complaining that they were talking too much about other things.

But assuming these two things are true, then the criticism regarding the misreading of Lenin states that Lenin can be demonstrated to specifically support strict democratic centralism in the anti-factional sense only after the revolution in response to the civil war. So the criticism is that the intense focus on creating a united front outside the party, restricting membership and attempting to claim oneself as the only vanguard is LARPing civil war conditions, and the suggestion is that Lenin only ever really advocated for unity in action with the ability to openly disagree with party resolutions (which is obviously a necesssity even without reading Lenin’s strategy). Where the criticism about Mao comes in is in regards to party line. It’s said that these groups frequently spend time passing votes “supporting” or “condemning” this or that present or historical issue in order to create an explicit ideological line that members must conform to and support publicly, and the interest in this activity is based on old quotes from Mao suggesting correct ideology leads to correct action, leads to the people following you, and there must be unity in holding correct ideology to make everything else fall into place. The mixing of civil war anti-factionalism and voting on ideology means that you aren’t allowed to disagree with the party period. So this leads to the cultishness, these groups can monitor members through things like social media and such and hold struggle sessions about ideological impurity because it is seen as betrayal of the party line. Included a picture of this preoccupation with ideological conformity being in the application page for SAlt.

So maybe a young, excited ML things ideological conformity is good and useful to root out liberals? The problem as stated by the dissenting Leninists is that it turns the party into an ineffective and menacing social club that constantly engages in idealism and risks degenerating into weird, fringe cults of personality like Bob Avakian. Looking around it seems like the proposed strategy that should replace this model is “base building” or “dual power”, which emphasizes what it sounds like. Building a wide socialist base through consistent and good action, and creating good faith coalitions to further that goal. This still stands in contrast to Democrat Cops of America or Jacobin electoralism, though to their credit a lot of Democrat Cops of America locals are currently agitated by the push from national to vote for all resources to go to electing Backstabbin' Bernie. This doesn’t discount the importance of theory, but suggests that it should always be a priority to make theory more digestible for normal people, and to openly allow debate and dissent as long as nobody is actively trying to defeat party action (like if the party votes to do some kind of mutual aid, like tutoring sessions for kids or free lunches, and somebody actively tries to sabotage this or doesn’t follow through on their commitments).



stop calling trot orgs "leninist" you idiot.



You’re right, but I can’t tell who is who since I’ve read a lot more self-identified Leninists who joined some of these parties and gave their impressions than self identified Trotskyists. Point is that they do tend to follow a democratic centralist structure that is attributed to Lenin’s prescriptions for the vanguard party, and in practice they seem insular and idealist, focusing a lot on having correct ideology and mostly engaging in protest activism. I’ve never been in one of these parties, but I’ve seen them around. It seemed like a fair judgment of how they operate, though they simultaneously seem to value talking about direct action, mutual aid, mass line etc.



I guarantee you very few of these people have actually read Lenin.



>the interest in this activity is based on old quotes from Mao suggesting correct ideology leads to correct action

Jesus Christ I have no idea how people get away with this shit. Not only is this taking Mao way out of context, its interpreting him in a way that is inherently idealist and un-Marxist. I'm not expert on Maoism but I do know that he wasn't an idealist. The statement that a correct line magically conjures up revolution is pure idealism. It doesn't take into account the need for both the subjective (line, organization, theory, etc.) and objective (macroeconomics, geopolitics, etc) conditions necessary for a revolution. People need to realize that the best analysis, the best praxis, the best organization, the best propaganda, etc in the world is useless without the proper objective conditions. What's worse though is that these groups not only disregard objective conditions, they behave as if revolutionary conditions already existed. Their militancy, rhetoric, etc is way ahead of where the working class is at, and as a result they remain a clique of fringe nuts.



>stop calling trot orgs "leninist" you idiot.

They are Leninist though.



No they're not. Trots all call themselves "Leninists" even though Lenin consistently eviscerated Trotsky. They are fakes.


File: ca86ebcf645969d⋯.jpg (102.65 KB, 900x1357, 900:1357, communist-posters-military….jpg)

What are some good books on Cold War history? I'm especially interested in espionage and and the reordering of Europe right after the WWII, but any books on geopolitics in general are welcome.

I can read past bias, but I'd prefer it if I didn't have to grind my teeth to dust every two pages. I powered through Appelbaums Iron Curtain just so nobody can accuse me of only reading stuff that confirms my bias.


File: 0e3b0419784f054⋯.pdf (683.08 KB, StasiStateOrSocialistParad….pdf)


Best I've got. My pdf collection got nuked when my last laptop got nuked. Deals a lot with the relationship between east and west germany and the shenanigans surrounding the DDR's birth.



Yeah Lenin hater Trotsky so much he made him head of the Red Army and also foreign minister. Stalin wasn’t even on the first Bolshevik cabinet. They’re Leninist because they use a Leninist praxis (vanguard party, democratic centralism, etc).



>my own leftist secret society?

Sounds un-Marxist and adventurist



There’s a book on the history of geurilla warfare called “Violent Politics” which covers a number of Cold War conflicts, as well as earlier insurgencies. Iirc the Cold War topics that it covers include Algeria, Vietnam, The Troubles, and Afghanistan.


File: 4f9b2604c6f3e2e⋯.png (9.4 KB, 255x232, 255:232, d3c0f1136f8726e7c98117bc61….png)

I have read a bit of Marx and I have a vague idea of what historical materialism is supposed to be. I want to specify this knowledge and for that I'm looking for a resource. What is in your opinion the text that explains this concept the best from a didactic perspective? It would also be positive if the text you're suggesting focuses solely or at least mostly on this specific issue.


File: 4883974eeb7dafd⋯.pdf (203.76 KB, The_German_Ideology.pdf)


The German Ideology. It presents historical materialism and contrasts it with German idealism, Hegelianism, Egoism, etc. The first part you can probably skip unless you're interested in Marx's critiques of now-irrelevant thinkers like Stirner or Bauer. The real meat of histmat starts in the section labelled "The First Premises of the Materialist Method."


Greetings /leftypol/, I have two questions, both are rather trivial hence me posting in here.

First One;

Was there a reason as to why the Communist Party of China changed their flags aside from aesthetic purposes? The 1921–1996 flag looks far worse than the current 1996-present one, but I’m not a big fan of the strange “ball’ handle on the flag, why did they choose to improve it in every way, but make the handle look terrible? Is there a reason the handle looks this way?


I’m having trouble figuring out what modern day Asserists aim to achieve. In my experience with them, they’re either nutsacs who like the flag, or communists who like the flag. Anything you’d like me to know about Asserism in general is greatly appreciated. Just generally confused about it.



>I’m not a big fan of the strange “ball’ handle on the flag, why did they choose to improve it in every way, but make the handle look terrible? Is there a reason the handle looks this way?

I don’t know where that symbol comes from but I know that it’s closely associated with Maoism.



Why was their symbol changed in the late 90s then?


File: c2e386770390ee8⋯.jpeg (198.97 KB, 1300x1060, 65:53, E8E437AF-8FEB-42B7-A74B-7….jpeg)



Strass.erists who have actual read some Stras.ser former BO of /fascist/ here believe that the means of production in land, natural resources and the means of production should be nationalized. The state in this theory is used to reconcile class-conflict, not eliminate classes. Capitalists are lauded as “captains of industry”, etc. The means of production would be rented out in usufruct to capitalists to use, along with various forms of profit-sharing. Iirc there were also some form of guilds. In terms of governance it supports more democratic elements to some extent. Strass.er was against military drafts, was a Christian and was less anti-Semitic than Hitler. He also advocated for a pan-European federation which would form a pan-European colonial company to jointly exploit Africa and the colonies. Strass.er was completely against class-struggle and believed that “brothers shouldn’t fight brothers”.

I can try to answer any questions.



>former BO of /fascist/ here

How and/or why did you make the switch to your current ideology?

Did the younger Str@sser brother’s ideology differ that much?

>was a Christian

Was he opposed to the whole pagan revival that was being pushed by other German elites/leaders?


File: 8d90648b199526d⋯.jpg (103.55 KB, 640x640, 1:1, 1551703693915.jpg)

How do I stop being a fence sitter?



left is still the less bad in that chart so i would say recognize left is the best path ever

also is that flag new or are you new here? welcome



also the dictators killing millions and Marx never "working" a single day is shit, i know is a meme chart but c'mon


File: c870a84309ddae9⋯.jpeg (627.97 KB, 2390x1226, 1195:613, 3345E826-12C3-4AA9-BA21-2….jpeg)


>How and/or why did you make the switch to your current ideology?

I got sick of /pol/ shit after a year or two of it and began to branch out, realizing I knew nothing about Marxism. I began to see what garbage human beings the people I was around with were. Luckily I never did any IRL activities.

>Did the younger Str@sser brother’s ideology differ that much?

Not sure honestly. I know some rudimentary German and tried to find some of his works on German Amazon but all of the stuff I found on there was literally old books from the 1930s worth nearly €100 or more. Wasn’t worth the price.

>Was he opposed to the whole pagan revival that was being pushed by other German elites/leaders?

Opposed. I don’t have a picture from my copy on my phone anymore, but the last paragraph of pic related has a line about how Europe is on the search for a new order – an order which is born from the deepest roots of Europe’s own past and with a Christian character (paraphrasing). The section were he mentions paganism later he says something to the effect that is not the path for the German people but maybe for other peoples.

Notice too how the “third-position” thought in the first section: how he says Europe wants neither a “dictatorship of money” NOR a dictatorship of the proletariat



Sorry for typos and left out words, sleepy



>I got sick of /pol/ shit after a year or two of it and began to branch out

What are your thoughts on Varg and South Africa after your change?

>Opposed. I don’t have a picture from my copy on my phone anymore, but the last paragraph of pic related has a line about how Europe is on the search for a new order – an order which is born from the deepest roots of Europe’s own past and with a Christian character (paraphrasing). The section were he mentions paganism later he says something to the effect that is not the path for the German people but maybe for other peoples.

Thanks for the information!

>Notice too how the “third-position” thought in the first section

Wasn’t he in the Freikorps? Why did he stop supporting Hitler?

>Sorry for typos and left out words, sleepy

Perfectly fine by me.



>What are your thoughts on Varg and South Africa after your change?

I’ve always thought Varg was a bit of a nut, but I’m still subbed to him. His videos can be fun even if it’s mostly pagan nonsense. Burzum’s pretty good though. Reading about Apartheid and the Bantustans was actually one of the things (along with the Nazi occupation of Poland, resettlement and slave labor) that made me question whether this was something truly desirable. I put myself in these peoples’ shoes and thought about it. First I came to the view that too narrow a nationalism was obviously harmful, then some anons pushed me in the correct way by posting that Tito infograph on socialist patriotism. This is all really condensed but I think it makes sense how I explained it, to some degree.


Yeah, I’m pretty sure Otto was in it. There were various reasons why he stopped supporting Hitler, many of these that he covers in his work Germany Tomorrow (available online and in English). IIRC he criticized Hitler for terrorist methods against his own people (concentration camps, gestapo, mass-imprisonment), a fall in living conditions, real waes, rises in prices, religious persecution, etc. I can’t quite remember what originally caused his dislike for Hitler but those were at least the reasons he gave when he wrote that book, which was published in the early 40s



>I’ve always thought Varg was a bit of a nut, but I’m still subbed to him.

>literally what everyone (including me) who is still subbed to him says

Thanks for answering my Str@sser questions, cleared up quite a bit of confusion. I think that’s it for now.



Glad to help



Are you the enthusiastic Juche Anon from the other threads?


File: d2f101983a3e44c⋯.jpeg (214.29 KB, 1100x619, 1100:619, D74155AF-ECB1-4791-8492-C….jpeg)


I’m probably the main one, but I’ve noticed one or two more who post similar arguments to me with the DPRK flag. Juche is taking /leftypol/ by storm



Because North Korea seems like they are the only country interested in building socialism. Cuba is like a decently distant second.



Dunno about that fam. Cuba is about to become cockshott gang.



Could you elaborate? i've heard about this before




Just go yang gang uncle ted


File: f710109e28a81c3⋯.jpeg (243.69 KB, 1599x946, 1599:946, thumb_15921_default_1600.jpeg)

File: 6d768b0c834359a⋯.jpg (40.73 KB, 409x409, 1:1, cute.jpg)


Anne Frank, she previously was the leader of the Folks Linked Antarctic Lands and she brought real communism for the first time in history, she is jewish so she has an i.q of 3000 and is very cute and brave and doesn't afraid of anything.


File: 0362577f1a30e61⋯.png (15.08 MB, 1500x2630, 150:263, Screenshot_2019-03-09 The ….png)

Would UBI basically castrate any revolutionary potential of people and effectively keep them placated forever under capitalism? What's to prevent some capitalists from just giving people their bread and circuses while keeping the hoard of machine-generated wealth for themselves?



what would the bolsheviks do?



No. Don't worry about scenarios where capitalists aren't slaves to capital, and aren't using any means possible to accumulate more, unless there is a communist superpower pointing a gun at their face. It's like worrying if things started to fall up.



You've basically described anyone dependent on the welfare state for survival, which exists today. No one is going to rebel against the state which is the only reason they have food to eat, unless you have some way to commandeer the farms, food processing plants, the distribution networks, and so on, and can keep them productive on a consistent basis, and somehow handle the matter of distribution by means of a parallel economy.

Basically, re-enacting Russia 1917 isn't going to happen, because capitalism has developed to such a point where departure from the system means a lot (and I mean a lot) of death and problems.

"The people" never have revolutionary potential of their own, never have in human history. Revolutions are waged by those with the means to do so, and for the purpose of seizing power first and foremost. The ordinary people don't want the responsibility of power, they barely even want to vote even if the elections weren't totally rigged (which is why it was so easy to pass off the farce that is liberal democracy as democracy).

I don't think UBI changes anything that doesn't already exist. It's not a way of buying off the masses, because that isn't necessary. It's more a means to keep consumption going at all, which is the same reason Social Security and welfare state provisions exist today. They're a way of directing money from the middle class (because these programs were intentionally designed to be funded with middle class tax revenues) to the lower classes, or of creating money out of nothing (which turns into inflation) to keep consumption going. This was how the New Deal and Keynesian policy was designed, to intensify the conflict between the poor and the middle class (who are never really going to get along even under the best of circumstances). UBI is not a departure from welfare measures that already exist, except that it is probably a temporary measure to be enacted just long enough to scrap Social Security and the rest of the welfare state before the rulers and middle class just decide to raise one part of the lower class to exterminate the rest of the lower class.



Some of the economic mechanics of UBI are discussed here: >>2832581

Basically, in value terms, it does nothing or very little for people already on welfare or working $1k above minimum wage. For people on minimum wage, it is like having an increase to $14 an hour.

HOWEVER, there is another aspect of UBI, which is that its advocates are saying they can just DISMANTLE WELFARE, healthcare, social security, etc. and just move all the money to UBI. This means PRIVATIZATION of those services. EVEN IF the workers received the full value going to those services in the switch, they would quickly get leached dry by the privatized services that are more expensive due to being less centralized and subject to fewer standards/restrictions (more rent seeking).

Yang says the same thing, but that it's a "choice" to move from the existing support structures to UBI.

Here's the problem: say half of the people on existing social support switch over. That will cripple the social support systems, making more people want to switch, until it's totally privatized. So from a plain value standpoint, the UBI is borderline irrelevant. A $15 min wage would be better for employed workers, but not as nice for unemployed. But from a broader understanding of the state and privatization, UBI is very bad.



so to answer your question, UBI will actually make things worse and turn workers more into serfs in many ways. Meaning it will not turn people into labor aristos or anything.


Why do historical illiterates like you think that the ruling class is and always has been a bunch of conspirators wishing the worst for everyone else?

Was the Abolitionism movement among the ruling class (for instance Abraham Lincoln) just fake?



wew lad



>like you

'you' being who exactly?



>Was the Abolitionism movement among the ruling class

It wasn't. next.



lincoln was literally president?







That's what the Abe stands for sweaty.



>Why do historical illiterates like you think that the ruling class is and always has been a bunch of conspirators wishing the worst for everyone else?

That’s not what we think at all. The reality is that capitalism creates an environment that selects for psychopathic tendencies, and rewards the most brutal exploitation possible. As a result companies that are more effective exploiters prosper and defeat companies that attempt to stick to any kind of ethics. The result is that capitalism has an inescapable tendencies towards the worst exploitation possible, and only the resistance generated by the working class can stop it.


Abolitionism had support among the northern capitalist class because the southern rural gentry and their slave labour were competition. It was a conflict between two modes of production.



To add to this, even if the capitalist class was completely made up of peace-loving philantropists, this would not change the exploitative relationship between capital and labor, nor would it ease the tendency of capitalism anon here describes.

Fundamentally we're not focused on individual people or "conspiricies". There's no need for conspiracy to make capitalism an outmoded and exploitative mode of production, it's in the very logic. Likewise, belongin to the ruling class doesn't necessarily make anyone evil. Engels was a factory owner and Lenin a nobleman. Both became dedicated revolutionaries.


>>2834006 (me)

*Engels was son of a factory owner I meant to say



around the rose fucks soccdems




>not wanting to deport slaves to Africa en masse



No. Fascism is what happens when a capitalist society is threatened by socialism. It reverts to a more authoritarian form of capitalism to protect the interests of the ruling class. The Confederacy was a quasi-slave, quasi-capitalist society which maintained bourgeois democracy for non-slaves. It was more like ancient Athens.


What is your opinion on eugenics? As a Christian, I am 100% against it.



You mean by very different means trying to better humans? such as abortion of deffective babies or euthanasia for physically and mentally ill individuals? i aprove both of them but with certain standards, of course i would really like for babies with defects to not be born and that we only gave the option for the patients to kill themselves, not killing them without consent.




Eugenics is largely irrelevant in the present, and will be especially in the future. Gene-editing will make eugenics obsolete when the technology matures, while currently the focus should be more on the development on this technology rather than trying to enforce eugenics. Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with it; values and prosperity come before the consent of individuals; if society was so hung up on human rights like this there would have been much slower development of humanity throughout history.



Speaking of which >>2834298


I've heard the following statement in this board some time ago: "we only went to space because of socialism"

Is this true? why would a socialist country be more likely to go to space compared to a capitalist one? did he just mean it was the soviets that started the space race or some shit?



>Gene-editing will make eugenics obsolete when the technology matures

How is gene-editing not just the final form of eugenics?

It proceeds by different means but certainly fits in the realm of maintaining good genetic health.



How should socialist governments respond to protests and demonstrations such as these? The Soviet government only tried to add some new languages to the constitution of Georgia but many Georgians got really upset and the government ended up completely backtracking. If people are willing to flip shit over something this trivial, how could progress ever be made without the fear of some uprising? Should there be a representative sent out to make a statement and then tell people to disperse, or should they use heat guns to make the demonstrators uncomfortable and leave, or what?



I don't see why we couldn't deal with general demonstrations like they are dealt with by the modern western states, i.e. tolerating them until they become threats. But of course, if they are propagating actively counter-revolutionary and/or openly reactionary garbage, they can simply be liquidated, jailed or exiled. From briefly looking at your link, it seems that they were pretty reactionary and that they were engaging in bourgeois nationalism, and that the issue originated from a counter-revolutionary revival of Georgian nationalism. I would not have conceded on that, but pushed the law through appropriately. If they then choose to rebel as it seems was the case, good, less reactionaries to worry about in Georgia.



Yes, I think he meant that effort to explore space in the U.S. was largely motivated by not wanting to give the Soviets a propaganda victory as massive as being the first to land on another planet. And remember, it wasn't left to capitalism and the "invisible hand" of the market, but directed and organized by the U.S. government. I don't know enough about the specific details to be able to comment on the space race in detail, but one thing I note is that after the cold war ended, space exploration and such things considerably slowed down as those budgets were slashed.

I do think that a socialist country is more likely to go into space, simply because going into space is very expensive, labor and time intensive, with many possibilities for expensive and catastrophic failure, and the prospects for making profits in space are still distant. So you cannot rely on private enterprise to do it as it is not profitable enough. I know we have private space companies now, but I think that would be much less likely if the state had not navigated the arduous beginning, absorbing losses and taking on the economic risks, essentially creating the building blocks, the infrastructure, of where private space companies now operate. Capitalists privatize profits but socialize losses. In a socialist economy, we are not subject to the whims and anarchy of private enterprise, but could choose to explore space, without involving profit in that decision at all. Space exploration would be for space explorations sake - i.e. the advancement of the sciences and our understanding of the universe.


File: f85703b7954f2d6⋯.jpg (271.45 KB, 1200x800, 3:2, 1546699319855.jpg)

Is Universal Basic Income a Pro-Worker movement? I've seen Socialists like David Graeber and Noam Chomsky support it but I really don't get how it isn't something that in the end would just play right into the hands of the Capitalist machine.

Getting the government to provide a living income to literally everyone seems like a good excuse for companies to just underpay their workers even more, and might even cause less workers to unionise because they don't feel financially pressured to demand better pay anymore.



no, check out the posts in the USPG or Yang thread



Absolutely not. Supporting reduced working hours with maintained pay is the proletarian alternative as far as reformism goes. UBI is neolib shit



Even the name ”The Freedom Dividend” sounds like something out of a novel about a technocratic dystopia or something.



UBI allows for the elimination of the worker as a class and creates a further dichotomy between the workers and the owners as classes. It should be supported for the sake of ending capitalism but not for the sake of improving workers' lives while under it.



Why can't capitalism sustain the dichotomy indefinitely with UBI?



Because what happens when the labor market is reduced to absolutely minimal levels? You're going to just have the vast majority of people doing nothing whilst capitalists have to continue sucking value out of society to continue?



Won't they just suck value out of machines instead? Have this super-powerful capitalist class enabled by automation while having control of the proles on top.



How do you suck value out of machines?

Value is a property of the interactions between people and resources and people and society..



I should clarify, I'm talking solely about exchange values.



Why do exchange values matter in this case? The ruling class can just take all the use values, and on top of that have effective ownership of others.



>The ruling class can just take all the use values,

What do you even mean by that?

In order for them to "take all the use values" they'd have to literally eject the proletariat into space.



Use values are the actual purposes things are good for, right? Things like using tires to travel, electricity to power a house, and blinds for privacy. The ruling class could have automation provide a luxurious lifestyle for themselves while only keeping the underclass at bay with less commodities; is that not so? I'm saying that the ruling class can use machines to provide themselves use value while denying others the bulk of the luxuries they afford themselves.


File: 05309988d7028b9⋯.png (14.21 MB, 3264x2448, 4:3, ClipboardImage.png)

Hey all. New here .

What do you guys think on behalf of Slavoj Žižek?

Am I understanding correctly, that after supporting Trump ("cynically" supporting as he claims), most bigger journalists stopped interviewing him? And he is kind of looking forward to redeem himself through upcoming debates with Jordan Peterson?

What I don't get about him are his recent interviews to RT - russian pro-Putin propaganda company. He seems to be adequate enough to understand what RT really represents. So what is it? Did he need money? Needed a platform to voice his ideas?

inb4 : dumpster racoon memes



I think Zizek is a massive net positive for the Left. He has made his position on Trump very clear. To "support" either candidate in that election would have been idiotic and immoral, but Trump at least put the breaks on Clintons insane war fantazies and energised parts of tve Left. I'm doubtful we'd be seeing this amount of enthusiasm around the Democrat Cops of America if Clinton was now the president.

RT is no different from CNN, the Fox News or AlJazeera. Zizek goes to where he gets a voice.



Wouldn't you think there would be a rejection of Clinton's way of liberal democracy if she had won and begun to implement things? This election was known for not having any good choices, and actually having one of them in office would piss people off way more than just the mere thought of them, kind of how Trump isn't received well even on the conservative side too.



How did that work with Obama?

People were so terrified of Trump they would have stuck with Clinton come Hell or Highwater, and the vast majority of the Left wouldn't have done anything to undermine her presidency (which is what they were counting on, as shown by the election leaks).

If a vile individual like Trump is what gets Americans to see their system for what it is, then rather him than Clinton who would have done her damnest to lull everyone back to sleep while intensifying the imperial project to the fever pitch.


File: c038d955d6fbefb⋯.png (385.45 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, quote Lincoln.png)





Soft or hard eugenics? Hard, absolutely no. Soft, such as aborting retarded fetuses, then sure. This is nothing new;

You may not be aware, but eugenics was actually a common practice in older times. In some ancient socities only the fittest were allowed to breed, and on one occassion I believe Plato voiced support for state-run mating rights. Even still, obligations for child-rearing were non-existent back then. Simply put, if you had a child and realized that it was retarded or otherwise unable to survive without serious help, the common practice was to leave your child alone in the forest/desert/some other barren land to die, that is, if it wasn't eaten by animals first (babies cry a lot which attracts animals' attention.) Of course if you tried that today you'd go to jail, so it's the parents' obligation to care for their child, which is fine with me. I'm anti-natalist anyway.


But yeah, this, gene-editing. Best solution.




zizek's an imperialist piece of shit



Spicy take.




he said maduro bad but he wasn't okay with invading Venezuela so uh imperialist?



In his interviews he mentioned several times that he sees ideal state as strong bureaucracy taking care of infrastructure and thus leaving space for personal freedom.

Anon might refer to that.

Also it would clear his flirting with russian propaganda machine. Their current narrative is pretty close to reviving making some modern frankenstein-esque version of tzarism and monarchy as I see it.

Maybe he sees a strong authoritarian force, opposing western capitalism in russia, and hopes to use it to his benefit?


>RT is no different from CNN, the Fox News or AlJazeera

I am not sure about the last ones, but I had personal experience with RT reporters. They are lying and manipulative. Far from having any professional qualities, especially in journalism.



Why does a college, that's presumingly a benefactor of the capitalist system, letting a socialist give a talk on their grounds, probably even inviting him to do so?


File: 5170af9f853473b⋯.png (30.84 KB, 640x400, 8:5, poulantzas.png)

I'm reading State Power and Socialism by Nicos Poulantzas, and I'm at chapter 4 where he says that the division of intellectual and manual labour has enabled the state to basically use intellectual labour to help propagate itself.

This I understand, but given that Poulantzas has spent a lot of time talking about the relations of production being key to everything, I don't see (or I can't understand his writing) what this intellectual labour in the service of the state has to do with perpetuating the current capitalist relations of production.

He says "this relationship between the state and the intellectual/manual division of labour implicit in capitalist relations of production is therefore only one stage in the process whereby the state is brought into relation with classes and the class struggle under capitalism. The character of this state, which represents the power of the bourgeoisie, derives from the peculiarities of the bourgeoisie's constitution as the dominant class. Being rooted in a terrain that implies a characteristic specialisation of functions and of intellectual labour, this class is the first one in history to need a corps of organic intellectuals in order to establish itself as the dominant class." pg 61

I just don't understand what this relation is specifically and this doesn't answer the question of why the bourgeoisie don't just make an extremely repressive state instead of the relatively liberal one where they keep the dominant hegemony through intellectual labour? Or does it?


File: cbc6038cb074089⋯.jpg (108.37 KB, 818x1024, 409:512, cbc6038cb074089d97a238c4ac….jpg)

I don't want to go to /marx/ and bother Ismail with some shitty infographic so i will instead ask you guys, how factual is this image? how did Albania manage to do that? and as a side question why the fuck are the so many mass shootings in the US and why did they increase in Albania after the policy stopped?



Its being hosted by some public policy think tank


If you look at the stuff they research its obviously relevant to Wolff's platform.



Hoxha was a very based man but you know the balkans is the Balkans and everyone dreams of a Greater [insert Balkan country]

this page is a short description of what he did


basically that pic is correct for the most part



It would be a terrible shame if Albanians were to suddenly disappear and the land was taken by Serbia…a crying shame indeed. Balkans would be better off as just Serbia, no? Once The USA falls and EU crumbles, there will be a bloodbath and old hatred will come to fruition. Hundreds of millions dead…including gypsies and car thieves like yourself.



what the fuck is your problem


File: 751508719a1287b⋯.png (240.59 KB, 587x596, 587:596, aintfree.png)


>I don't see (or I can't understand his writing) what this intellectual labour in the service of the state has to do with perpetuating the current capitalist relations of production.

The state serves to protect the capitalist class, they help eachother maintain control and establish dominance; capitalists must protect the state to ensure their survival. Selling your labor to the state allows the protection of the capitalist class (think of the police) or as in the matter of intellectual labour, CIA/FBI/etc. which directly protects and reinforces the capitalist mode of production. No state = no capitalism.

>this doesn't answer the question of why the bourgeoisie don't just make an extremely repressive state instead of the relatively liberal one where they keep the dominant hegemony through intellectual labour? Or does it?

I recall an old saying by Christians: "The Devil's greatest trick was convincing the world he doesn't exist."

I'm an atheist, but the point of the matter is, if you had an oppressive state, people will fight back, so certain countermeasures by the state have to be undertaken. They need either consent or distraction because without either people will form up and overthrow them, and even (some) state actors have limits on how far they'll go for an oppressive regime. The state, by virtue of mass media, American exceptionalism, and blind worship of authority manifested in parents and the schooling system, has bred basically a mass brainwashed peoples in service to the reproduction of the state and capitalism. All the state has to do is convince them that they don't want to fight back. They do this with propaganda, concessions, brainwashing, etc. and meaningless distractions. People will fight back when attacked, so the state convinces them they're not being attacked, that what they already have is 'freedom.'

Romans had bread & circuses. Colonials had invented racism. Right now we have identarian social justice identity politics.

You know John Brown? Famous abolitionist who freed slaves? Most of the time after freeing slaves, the hired guards who were supposed to stop him deliberately LET him escape. Because they knew first hand they didn't really want to uphold an unjust system. Propaganda and conditioning gives people the comfortable conviction that what they're doing is ok, and this is what allows them to override their natural instinct against upholding tyranny. After he was caught and executed, what did the liberals have to say about him in their newspapers? Articles calling him deranged, a "terrorist", saying what he did was pointless and violent.




Was looking up sources on this and found some Reddit post where a guy was fucking adamant Albania couldn't have abolished taxes because "communism is when you seize the means of production and share them out and the only way to do that in a moneyless communist society is with a 100% tax" (almost his exact words).

Now I legitimately feel dumber for having read that shit. Polite sage for offtopic but goddamn


How do we approach non profit and development organisations from a socialist perspective?

They are essentially selling themselves to donors and certain individuals are walking away with very high salaries, but how do we conceptualise this in a marxist sense?



my question is why would workers not be alienated from their labour under communism?

it seems to me that collective ownership of the means of production doesn't guarantee the kind of personal freedom and autonomy to work on things that interest and directly benefit you. the kind of autonomy referenced in unabomber manifesto.


If cybernetics is so good and viable now, why don't capitalist nations employ it now? Also, was the primary reason that cybernetics was never adopted because of the equipment of the time? If so, would that mean it's possible now with modern computers, especially governmental cluster computers?



"non-profit" orgs are selling peace of mind, a way to extinguish guilt from proles because they feel they're nothing but consumer whores who, being alienated not just from politics but also communities, see donating as a way to help out when they can't actually directly help those people themselves. The cappies are appropriating the funds for themselves that were supposed to go to help others.it's a scam. furthermore, the same problems that result from capitalism directly cause those problems, charities are bandaids and wouldnt need to exist if we already got rid of capitalism which causes it. In essence, the capitalist running charities is appropriating the volunteers' surplus labour, except rather than taking a fraction of their labour he takes ALL of their labour, since they don't get paid.


>my question is why would workers not be alienated from their labour under communism?

Because the capitalists take the workers' labour and only give them a fraction in payment, that's how profit is created. You need to read Wage, Labour, and Capital; Value, Price, and Profit; and Critique of the Gotha Programme. This is entry level stuff.

>the kind of autonomy referenced in unabomber manifesto

Why are you reading that garbage?


>If cybernetics is so good and viable now, why don't capitalist nations employ it now?

capitalism's contradictions such as Crises of Overproduction and The Falling Rate of Profit means that you can't accurately predict market forces and the production behind those forces.

>was the primary reason that cybernetics was never adopted because of the equipment of the time?

Blame Pinoshit for ruining everything.



I'm not sure what you mean. You'd have to elaborate. Some non-profits do effectively make "a profit" off of operations, but of course it always has to be reinvested into achieving whatever goal the non-profit is chartered for. The ones that don't are sustained by grants, as you said, and represent either non-governmental re-distributive efforts, social engineering, or private development of something considered socially beneficial by the tax authority, but not profitable. If the non-profit can not cover its expenses through operations, then it is just a cost to whatever capitalists sustain it.


What does this mean either? Cybernetic planning was to involve directing production through tracking products, making orders and allocating capital and labor in-kind. Capitalism doesn't have a need for this. Capitalists have an idea for engaging in some kind of economic activity, then they structure the business based on financial projections about what their monetary expenses and incomes will be. They make plans, but each firm is too isolated to really engage in what was conceived by soviet planners and scientists as "cybernetics"


File: 9fa022807077a27⋯.jpg (152.78 KB, 764x514, 382:257, cybersyn.jpg)



They already do. Developing business information systems alone is a billion dollar business. All large companies apply cybernetic planning internally and so do a lot of government agencies (it's commonly applied to railways).

Actually existing cybernetic socialism got cucked by Brezhnev before Pinochet.



>Why are you reading that garbage?

i'm simply referencing it as it's faster than explaining the type of alienation i'm talking about.

to be clear i'm asking about the alienation which is the fault of industrialization, not capitalism as such. working in a factory, even without having your wages unfairly stolen, doesn't offer the kind of autonomy over decision making that i consider essential to being satisfied with your work. by comparison a freelance writer has this autonomy even though they're exploited



>Actually existing cybernetic socialism got cucked by Brezhnev before Pinochet.

Can you elaborate?



Another question: So the difference between cybernetics and current capitalist planning is scale, where capitalists perform cybernetics internally for their own profit, rather than on an integrated national level for needs?


File: a3a9b3084edfdea⋯.jpg (38.8 KB, 705x400, 141:80, viktor glushkov.jpg)


Viktor Glushkov's plan for a nation-wide information network that could improve central planning, OGAS, was denied funding by Brezhnev.



Yes, the technology is used in a constrained manner when it can instead be applied to reach socially desirable and democratically decided goals in… almost anything, really.




Read this: https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-soviets-invented-the-internet-and-why-it-didn-t-work

The minister of finance, Garbuzov, was afraid he would lose funding if Glushkov got his way, and so he convinced the Politburo that it was too ambitious.

I've also heard Cockshott say during a talk that the project would cost as much as the space program and the nuclear weapons program combined, so maybe it was too ambitious.



Basically. When Amazon makes more orders of some product because their information networks tell them that they sell a lot of wizbangs up in New England, they're using computer networks to plan allocation of capital. But, even as big as Amazon is this kind of thing is usually constrained and bordered by this monetary horizon. The "planning" here almost always consists of isolated investment decisions by business units which are making orders, advertising their ability to deliver orders, expanding their ability to deliver some kind of order etc. on the basis of extrinsic monetary signals. Under cybernetic planning, there would be something more like a planning board either directly ordering nearly everything in the economy by allocating capital and labor in-kind for production targets while monitoring the productivity of everything that has already been deployed, or at an even lower stage something more like the soviet union where you had a mixture of direct allocation of capital alongside price-setting to encourage certain kinds of production.



New, accessible book talking about some of this:




>Communism is too expensive

god damn the revisionists, we suffer so much because they fuckd everything up


What is the most commonly used definition of "Marxist" on the left?



Anyone who falls into the leftist tendencies derived from marxist theory rather than anarchist theory for the most part.



Does anyone have numbers on the space program and nuclear weapons program as a % of soviet GDP?



in terms of non profits, is it right to say that the employees are appropriating surplus labour.

They are not owners in a capitalist sense, right? and what are the means of production in a developmental sense?

Let's say an INGO does a project to install 200 working toilets in a rural area in a poor country. The INGO uses high level office staff in the country (who are paid a high "foreigner" salary. They also have local staff who are paid far less. They also buy the toilets. They also pay people to install them. They also conduct feedback surveys etc. They also have some local volunteers who help publicise their work. They also have both volunteers and paid staff in their western home country too.

IN this situation, how is wealth/value generated what are the means of production and who is getting the surplus?



>IN this situation, how is wealth/value generated what are the means of production and who is getting the surplus?

Are the toilets donated? If their revenue doesn't exceed their expenses, there is no surplus generated. It is just appropriated from some other productive activity.



Workers have a direct say in how the factory is run, as well as what factory they can choose to work in. That's their autonomy.


You're correct, but, and I'm not saying you're implying this, but also keep in mind that libertarian marxism is a thing;


Furthermore, anarchism and marxism aren't mutually exclusive, again, not saying that's what you were implying, I'm just throwing this out there.



they buy the toilets with their pool of money.

Essentially the NGOS are providing a service to donors. Is it possible to talk about surplus in terms of service?

Let's say the donor gives $500,000 to the NGO in order to achieve objective X

The money is then split like

>2 foreign workers: $100,000

>10 local workers $100,000

>office space etc $100,000

>materials for achieving objective X $200,000

Could we not say that in this case, the local workers are generating more value than the foreign workers but the foriegn workers are taking the surplus of that value in the same way a manager or business owner would in a for profit business.

Now you could say that the revenue isn't exceeding expenses, but it could also be argued that the foreign workers are taking a huge salary that could go elsewhere

in a service industry, could labour (bodies) itself be seen as the means of production? and can the mangerial class (even though they don't technically own the m.o.p. be seen as exploiters? Is there anyway to conceptualise the line between someone whose wage labour is being exploited and someone who works for a salary too, but makes a lot of money so isn't really being exploited


Anyone got a link to/.pdf of the Albanian constitution of 1946? >>2837484 has me kinda interested and I figured it might have been in the constitution, but it's not in the '76 one at least.


Besides advertisement and dividends, what kinds of things is surplus labor used for? How is surplus labor not an investment into the company through such uses?



a large part is used for the consumption of the bourgeoisie


Why doesn't the CIA go about and Coup the US Government when it's quite clear that Capitalism is destroying the USA with actual Fascists taking over the Government, places like Flint have no water, and Porky like Amazon is wiping out Federal and State Power.

They can even use it as an excuse to invade other nations, instead of bringing about Freedom they will be bringing about Communism.



It's pretty weird when you think about it, i wonder what is the ideology of those who pull the strings, you would think they would realize socialism wouldn't really tale the power away from them, they could just make a Stalinist US or some shit, if power is the only thing they want, of course, they might be some spiritual ass motherfuckers that see communism as demonic. Other explanation is that no one is really pulling the strings, they just don't know what to do.



Because it's already the case, the "liberal democracy" part is just an illusion.



>>2842265 (me)


This is the Cockshott bit that I ment. It is actually "5 times the combined cost of the space program and the h-bomb program".



The GOP is fucking the country, their tax cuts are fucking the World Economy, they are being taken over by League of the South and other groups that literally want to secede from the USA which is fucking Treason. During the Obama years they went after the NSA trying to use it literally break apart the USA. Their supporters take in more tax money then give and they wanna kill everyone that actually contributes.

Walmart and others are taking over Schools causing American society to become Consumerist, private schools mean less educated workers, you are importing religious freaks who go out and do vans of peace, privatization fucks with everything, you're gonna be having a permanent underclass, other nations such as FUCKING ISRAEL which takes all your money are going to the Moon.

Democrats haven't learned a damn thing because all they want is Capitalism with a Happy Face and the GOP is waging total war on Capitalism actually so the whole thing is falling down.

It's not possible anymore for the USA to survive with Capitalism. If I was a Federal Agent who wanted to keep the USA alive I would kill all the fuckers



Can you elaborate? I don't think champagne bottles and valets cost all that much relative to what people are being exploited out of.



> I don't think champagne bottles and valets cost all that much relative to what people are being exploited out of.

You would be surprised how much shit they consume. It really is a lot in terms of value. They also consume surplus through externalities– making your commute longer, polluting your air, gentrification, etc.


File: bb8f943fed2c1ae⋯.png (604.26 KB, 620x1812, 155:453, Screenshot-2019-3-25 Angel….png)


If East Germany wasn't so bad, then why does poor Angela Merkel still hoard food to this day due to her trauma from the communist regime?



women are mentally weak, only snow men survived in beautiful socialist motherland



>And this is the economic constitution of our entire modern society: the working class alone produces all values

Doesn't the bourgeoisie add value through directing and managing a firm? Though it may be exploitative they still do serve a function for it.



Most firms aren’t managed by their owners. The managers are still technically workers.



>doesn't a driver give value to a car by owning and driving it?



Still, don't the owners coordinate the activities at the very top?


Consumer "owners" are different from business owners. They're responsible for going to meetings, overseeing managers at the level below them, acquisitions, business deals, relations, etc. That all certainly seems to add value, as would a manager would – though not directly like a plant worker might.



>auto owners are different from bike owners. auto owners have to get their cars inspected and fueled, and take care of maintenance of its innumerable working parts, know the rules of the road, pay taxes, etc. all this seems to add value to the car


File: c213c6e0ced2fe3⋯.jpg (219.05 KB, 715x700, 143:140, 2.jpg)


A car is not a business though. It doesn't generate value on its own. A car business does, but a consumer product doesn't. A car is not a means of production.



A car is a means of producing value, if it were not, there would be no way to produce value with a car. Try having a "car business" without a car, idiot.



so what you're saying is that owning something doesn't produce value. I'm glad we agree on that.



>Still, don't the owners coordinate the activities at the very top?

Usually not. Most shareholders don’t even bother to cast votes on major company decisions.



>Still, don't the owners coordinate the activities at the very top?

Capital owners of a modest size (businesses that make at least 10s of millions in revenue) are frequently like lords at court with advisers coming to them giving them considered options for action, in my experience. Furthermore, the decisions themselves regarding investment are often not very complicated. Neither are those of who is in executive management roles, which is based on either raw performance or personality. To decide whether a manager is doing their job effectively, the owner simply has to look at business performance for a time and decide if it is adequate. Private business owners are going to be a little more engaged than public shareholders, but you can consider them as not so dissimilar in that the public shareholder is going to be a pure distillation of the private owner. The public shareholder looks at financial statements to decide how their investment looks, and the private owner basically is positioned to be more engaged in looking at projections and deciding how well they've been met.

But as for organizing production, the organizing role serves a function under capitalism, but isn't exclusively possible as the form of the business owner. There is essentially a distinction between being a decision maker, and being an owner. One can be a decision maker without being an owner, so the bourgeoisie as such adds nothing to production but the whole dimension of private accumulation etc.


Poulantzas, State Power Socialism Page 143

>although popular struggles are constitutively present in divisions of the State in the more of less direct forms of the contradiction between dominant and dominated classes, they are also present in a mediated form through the impact of popular struggle on contradictions among the dominant classes and fractions themselves.

>Contradictions between the power bloc and the dominated classes directly enter into contradictions within the power bloc. To take one example, the tendency of the rate of profit to decline- which is a prime element of division within the capitalist class (since, among other reasons, a counter-tendency to this decline involved devalorization of certain fractions of capital)- is in the last analysis only an expression of the struggle of the dominated classes against exploitation.

>thus, the various fractions of capital (monopoly or non monopoly capital, industrial, banking, or commerical cpaital_ do not always stand in a uniformly contradictory relationship to the popular classes (or a given one of them); nor are their political attitudes to the these classes always identical

I get what he's trying to say, But I don't understand the example. Can someone help me?


>began business school HR management major as a liberal

>slowly realized that capitalism is shit from the inside out

>Graduating in a month

Can I do HR or be a manager without compromising my principals? Or should I commit drink bleach?



Just do something else.



You're working in management anon, not an owner of private property. You're fine.



your principals or your principles?

if you're a socialist you can do whatever the fuck you want except for making money off other people's labour.

which means in your case, you're fine.

you should know this though, it's pretty much the basis of the socialist ideology which makes me doubt about how much of a socialist you really are.



just curious why did the ussr collapse if it was so 'great'



How to undo the racial biological lens I see the world in? Is it possible? I don't see everything like this but it's hard not to. Any former right-wingers here? How did you tell your friends that you aren't as hard right as you used to be?



>How to undo the racial biological lens I see the world in?

Read actual biology textbooks.

>How did you tell your friends that you aren't as hard right as you used to be?

Get better friends.


is taxation theft? going by the definition in wikipedia it seems as though the answer is yes depending on one's perspective.

>In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

of course the difference is that taxation goes towards goods and services that help the public, including the one whose income was taxed. so it's more complicated than a simple thievery of a wallet with no intent to give back to the original owner.



>with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

this is the important bit of the definition.

the money take from the pople are funding things they use in everyday life, constantly.

like roads, sewage systems, lighting, general infrastructure, services like public hospitals in some countries, public education and the general funding of the government that keeps the order in the realm.

nobody is depriving the citizen from his money, they're forced to put it to specific use, they make use of pretty much everything it funds, and if they don't, they should.

this is the main reason government corruption is so enfuriating for the working class people, we have very little money and they're effectively stealing from us through taxation.

taxation in burgeois states are shit and we (most if not every single one of us) opose them, but we're ok with them in a socialist state.

I'd recommend to stay away from anarcho capitalist """celebrities""", they're fucking retarded and spout dumb shit like "taxation is theft" among many other things.



I don't think it makes sense to call taxes theft, based on what >>2852913 said. If it is or isn't theft is irrelevant though, since taxes are totally necessary for capitalism to function without collapsing into some mad max hellworld. So unless these ancaps wanna go full DPRK they should shut up.


What theories of Marx about the economy will change, or at least adapt, when everything becomes automated? What are the implications of machines accounting for all "labor power" and the previous "working class" becoming economically useless? Will capitalists just let the world turn to a post-scarcity communist society?

At that stage of technological development would the cycles of boom and bust cease to matter, with the implication being that machines now create all the "use values"? What purpose would there be to stocks, for example, if anytime you needed a product you could simply just get it?

What purpose would imperialism serve if all the resources a nation needs are right within its borders?

The amount of people who would be maintaining these machines would be less and less over time, already from such a minuscule figure already. What would happen when machines would better produce and maintain other machines than humans may, i.e. technological singularity?


why do leftcoms reject the idea of socialism being the transition phase to communism? why are they considered the same thing


1. Can some trot explain to me exactly what "permanent revolution" is?

2. What does "contradiction" mean when said by Marxists? Seems like for Maoists and some ML's it just means "conflict" or "opposition" (as in conflicts between people, classes or sectors of society) but it seems to have a more philosophical meaning in Marx (and perhaps Hegel).


File: 6934237f7c4a585⋯.jpg (139.63 KB, 550x850, 11:17, Dialatic.JPG)


I haven't heard them say that; are you thinking of anarcho-communists? In that case, they largely believe that a socialist stage will feature a vanguard party that will become its own ruling class altogether, which supposedly will have different interests from the working class of a socialist nation. Left-coms believe that socialism needs to happen but that it should be democratic.


Permanent revolution is a theory composed of several aspects. The primary one is that socialist revolution should not stop at merely a national level, but export to neighboring countries, and preferably the more affluent ones, in order to solidify the legitimacy of socialism and prevent it from upheaval by bourgeois powers. This would begin by first successfully achieving revolution at the national level, the democratic and socialist nature of which would inspire revolutionaries around the world, who would later on be aided with material, diplomatic, and military support.

With this, as a result of the security imposed by a world socialist bloc, undeveloped nations could themselves skip straight to socialism because they have the backing of the other powers, whereas isolated, they would be like the USSR was historically – having to rely on measures like the NEP because the administrative cost of transitioning to socialism would have been too great, and they risked attack from outside and sabotage from within. Permanent revolution would throughout all this maintain pressure on the bourgeoisie, which it considers a completely useless and hostile force, which should be replaced with the dictatorship of the proletariat as soon as possible because only a socialist mode of production may fully develop the productive forces, since it is in the interest of the working class to further their own material conditions by such.


Contradictions, on the other hand, I've seen to usually refer to the contradictions of capitalism, such as the falling rate of profit or the fact that an increasing rate of people in developed nations can't afford the products that have been outsourced to other countries, since they don't have jobs (particularly, the ones that were outsourced) to give them spending power. In Hegelian dialectics, contradiction refers to the contrast between two ideas, the thesis and antithesis, which go on to form a synthesis, which would form a synthesis more perfect than the first two ideas, lacking the contradiction that was worked out in the process.



>The primary one is that socialist revolution should not stop at merely a national level, but export to neighboring countries, and preferably the more affluent ones, in order to solidify the legitimacy of socialism and prevent it from upheaval by bourgeois powers.

Does any communist disagree with this? It's not like Stalin by "socialism in one country" meant that socialism should be exclusive to Russia. What should the USSR have done to magically make revolutions happen in wealthy european countries? Besides, the USSR did do a hell of a lot to support revolutions elsewhere, sending weapons to communist parties and anti-colonial movements all over the world.

The downside to trying to export revolution everywhere (other than it costing resources that could be used differently), is that you're gonna fuck up your relations with a lot of governments which leads to further isolation and hostility. If a socialist government in a given country is going to last, it also needs to provide a decent life for it's people and some stability, so you can't really go all in on trying to export revolution, there needs to be some kind of balance.



It also depends on the power of the country itself, fucking I dunno Estonia isn't going to be able to support anti-imperialists in war or spread communism in western countries in any meaningful way.



Socialism in one country refers to a focus on the consolidating of power within a single country and then gradually accelerating efforts for exportation of the revolution as the country becomes more developed, secure, and influential on the world stage. The thinking behind this is that the rest of the world is too formidable to face before developing the nation itself, which is a rather accurate assessment of the Soviet Union in its earliest years, having inherited destruction from war and a lack of development of the productive forces. When the country develops, its differences with permanent revolution subside as it can then begin to transition to the stage of international revolution. Mind the context in which these two theories were developed out of and fit for – Lenin died, the Soviet Union exists, and there is the question of what steps it should take next – what paradigm should be followed for the time.

The line of thinking for permanent revolution is not to force socialism where it isn't compatible; that is, nations with low levels of class consciousness. This would apply more to lands with established socialist tendencies if not performing outright revolutions, such as France, Italy, and China, which actually was the scene of a civil war beginning in 1927, to which advocates of permanent revolution would tend to insist that China deserves more attention that the domestic economy and political scene – the assumption being that the USSR, and the socialist movement as a whole, ultimately, as the subject of such a theory would gain more from an attempt for a socialist China than it would at stabilizing itself first – it's a matter of priority. However, in 1927, and in fact not til the end of the 1940s, the Chinese Communist Party was rebuffed and its victory prevented, which was one of the things that led to the Soviet administration deciding to change course from the NEP to collectivization – a socialist China would have been nice, and was the hope for the SiOC-adherent USSR, though it wasn't a safe bet and they were ready to fall back to plan B much easier than would a USSR following the theory of permanent revolution, which would basically be putting all its chips in on the victory of a revolution in Germany, or China, or wherever. Stalin and other adherents of SiOC, however, gauged this to be too risky of a move. In terms of relations, it wouldn't really matter if they had supported the communists in China from the start because they would still be at odds with the Republic of China, and besides it wouldn't have been seen as all that much of an aggressive measure because China already has a socialist presence – they're receiving aid, not being taken over, though granted such action would not be welcome by the capitalist powers.


How do you convince someone who's only resort against socialism is lack of empirical evidence? The person I'm talking about conceded pretty much all points against socialism like the economic calculation problem etc.. However, it hinges on the idea that while for instance Cockshott's model is an internally consistent model it has no real world implementation from which to draw empirical validity. Capitalism on the other hand while clearly flawed in a lot of aspects has shown the ability to survive even throughout its crisis and not end in total collapse. Therefore the argument goes that while a labor time economy is as good as a plan as it can be to him capitalism seems like the more secure option (solely for the empirical aspect). How do you address this line of thinking?



Start by addressing the fact that capitalism has "survived" only because of imperialism abroad, oppression at home, and ultimately by world war. There is also plenty of empirical evidence of the success of the socialist program, like the fact he likely didn't spend his formative years digging coal.



Been down with him the imperialism road. He says he doesn't really care "about some foreign countries". For him only his well being is important, so if capitalism needs imperialism to survive then it is fine for him. I got him only to consider socialism with arguments that revolve around socialist economies, specifically Cockshott's model, being able to grant a higher degree of labor productivity and ultimately more resources for him. The bar here seems to be extremely high, he is interested in his own well being and to that end he doesn't want to take any unnecessary risks. I tried pushing him on what kind of risks he deems necessary and which ones aren't in order to establish that the standard he puts up isn't all that pragmatic but so far the only result was word salad. I'm wondering whether I should continue to pursue that avenue with him or whether there is a better angle to tackle this from. I also talked to him about the world war point, there he seems to say that he isn't convinced that this will become a problem in his life time so he doesn't really mind.



you can't convince this person, only GULAG can reform him


File: 5ed48aa9429d27c⋯.jpg (1.08 MB, 1997x1292, 1997:1292, Рихард-Карл_Карлович_Зомме….jpg)

I'm not actually a fucking revolutionary or anything. I got into communism because the theory was great, there was always shit to learn, and it opened up how I saw the world. But I'm socially fucked, I lurk everywhere, and I'm pretty timid overall. My question isn't about pessimism or becoming an opportunist, but about just being cut off from everything. I don't wanna talk to other socialists, I barely wanna talk to anyone. I don't want to put myself out there because I don't wanna judge myself.

I'm pretty sure I'm just going through a cycle of depression or something, but how many of y'all know this? What'd you do to get out?



You could try being entirely by yourself and not even looking at what other people say, or limit your exposure otherwise, to develop and figure out your own outlook.

Politically, you can try anti-social socialism, also known as Blanquism.


what is the marxist take on the "time value of money" concept? is it a self-justification for accumulating more capital?



Put yourself out there. Do. Not. Cut. Yourself. Off. You'll just sink deeper and deeper, and getting out gets harder and harder, even as you realize you need it more and more.

I get this every time I'm going through deep depression, and the effect lingers because the ways of coping and running your life you learn while depressed stick. Bad habits and so on.

Go to a reading group or join a Socialist party. Chances are there'll be a dork or two there anyways, and they're accustomed to all manner of freaks and misfits. I know you don't want to, but you have to. It's rough at first, but once you get over the "bump" it feels better, and meeting people will feel like taking a shower. You'll feel refreshed.

I just had this slump where I couldn't get any work done, I'd just lay around depressed drinking and playing vidya. Then I just had to go to a workshop in school, and though terrified I went. I quickly got over myself, because the shit we were working on was interesting, and I ended staying at school till late at night and working 15+ hours a day and exchanging notes with others. Now I'm again having an off week, and though I've got work to do I can't get anything done and don't wanna see anybody.

I literally don't know how I let it get this bad. I used to have iron discipline and a good social life. At one point I had a bad cycle of depression and I just gave up. I'm on my way up, but fuck it's hard. Don't do it, anon.


File: 25b7158bca768a0⋯.jpg (62.52 KB, 1078x1224, 539:612, 25668863e102f74049db2ed2bd….jpg)

Lads, I'm trying to figure out if any socialist State resulted from a coup against an actual democratic State. As far as I already know, the only places where this might have happened were the Eastern European States set up in the aftermath of WW2, plus the 3 Stooges Baltic countries annexed by the USSR. However, it seems evident that at least some of those were the result of genuinely popular uprising, as communism hit the apex of its approval as it drew Hitler's shitfit to an end. However, I can only read so much in a given span of time so getting to read the facts on 10 countries is outside of my capacity at the moment, and googling it would inevitably tell me that all of them were coups ESPECIALLY the ones which were popular remember muh hundred gorillas

Is anyone well read on this?



>actual democratic state




Why do some people describe themselves as "Engelsists"? Wasn't his role pretty minimal and really only elaborated on what Marx started writing?



Even if we talk about liberal democracy, by 1939 the baltics were ruled by right wing dictatorships. Look up Pats, Ulmanis, and Smetona



I've never met a person who called themselves "Engelist", but if they exist, that's fucking retarded. Engels' role was not "minimal" to be sure. He's still very much one of the most important (early) Marxist theorists, as well as a brilliant writer. We also have no way of knowing how much influence he had on Marx's development, though my guess is quite a lot. But he can only be described as a Marxist and Marx's most important collaborator. While his individual work is important, there's no "Engelist" theory independent of the Marxist framework.


Reading this: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch02.htm

What exactly is the difference between labor and labor power? Is labor power just a temporary arrangement of labor sold to a capitalist?


Why'd European Socialism die? Why does China stray further every decade. Did we lose?



Because the first worker's state fell, whatever your opinions of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are. China still has a massive pro-communist proletarian movement, as well as India, and in those two countries you have most of the entire world's proletariat. I think we're in for something good. Class struggle won't just stop.



>Why do some people describe themselves as "Engelsists"?

Useless hipsters.



>>If several workmen were to be asked: "How much wages do you get?", one would reply, "I get two shillings a day", and so on. According to the different branches of industry in which they are employed, they would mention different sums of money that they receive from their respective employers for the completion of a certain task; for example, for weaving a yard of linen, or for setting a page of type. Despite the variety of their statements, they would all agree upon one point: that wages are the amount of money which the capitalist pays for a certain period of work or for a certain amount of work.

>>Consequently, it appears that the capitalist buys their labour with money, and that for money they sell him their labour. But this is merely an illusion. What they actually sell to the capitalist for money is their labour-power.

What do I own? My ability to work. I don't own means of production. I get hired and ordered to do a specific task A using some machinery the boss owns. I get hired by somebody else and ordered to do a different specific task B using some machinery that other boss owns. So, I can put in my CV that I have experience doing task A and task B. But could I go anywhere and then just do task A and B? Not without the necessary machinery, which I don't have. So it can't be the task-doing of person-and-machinery that I'm selling.


What's the deal with Marx-Leninism and State Capitalism?


File: b5affa2b64379a3⋯.jpg (185.17 KB, 1125x2097, 125:233, smug slurping.jpg)


Reactionary here. Do you (leftists) believe that it would be benificial to your movement if it was significantly harder to be a leftist in modern society? I will give several examples of this. Unless the place you work at is run by some super boomer you probably aren't at risk of a firing for being an open hard lefty while an open facist or equivalent right wing ideology can expect to be fired. Also further left communities are allowed to exist online on places like reddit (inb4 'not real leftists', of course but that plays into my question), while the right needs scratch out platforms wherever they can find.

All this considered do you believe that having more pressure from the powers that be would make modern day leftist movements more authentic and dynamic rather than the corporate puppets many of them are? The far-right now seems to be in the position that a lot of left wing movements were in during the height of the McCarthy era anti-communism, where it very much was unacceptable socially to be a Leftist.

Or do you think it even matters? As the far right will either be defeated or assimilated into the neo-liberal machine like the modern leftist has?



> As the far right will either be defeated or assimilated into the neo-liberal machine

But you already are, you faggots keep cheering on one of the most pro-Isreal presidents in US history.

You keep gathering around populists who cry about Muh brown people, but turn around the moment they get and slice of the power pie.

And somehow claim to fight globalism while supporting the US.

You really must do some extensive mental gymnastics to be a right winger, but also claim you are anti-establishment and anti-status quo



First off, have you visited halfchan or 8pol recently? The tide is almost completely against trump as a betrayer and israel shill.

Also I'm a neo-reactionary, not a facist or Not Socialist. The electoral blackpill is part of the ideology my dude. Read Moldbug (not an endorsement of patchwork though).

I'm not really interested in discussing and debating our ideologies, we both know it will end in meaningless spergery. I think discussing strategy is more interesting.

So the question stands, do you think that if the far-left were persecuted in the same way the far-right is now, it would actually improve the movement by weeding out opportunists and forcing you to adopt dynamic strategies to avoid censorship. As well as the added propaganda ability of being able to portray yourselves as underdogs.



*national socialist


File: d5916cebfc9bade⋯.png (145.97 KB, 935x594, 85:54, FallingRateOfPRofit.png)


Your getting the wrong idea. Some leftists want to make it easier for capital to accumulate and speed up the rate of capital accumulation and technological growth. Because for capitalism it’s a self destructive process that can only have one outcome. The emergence of a socialist society. This is what left accelerationism is. No one supports us being persecuted by a police state.


>while the right needs scratch out platforms wherever they can find.

You forget the fact that at least online. The right is a lot bigger than the left. (as long as you don’t count libs as left) If the left as in farleft was as big as the farright things would be very different.


What are the best good faith arguments(no mudpies) against Marxian economics?



>Unless the place you work at is run by some super boomer you probably aren't at risk of a firing for being an open hard lefty

If you try to organize a union and participate in strikes, your employer will do the maximum he can legally do to fuck you up, and going beyond what is legal as long as he expects he can get away with it.

>As the far right will either be defeated or assimilated into the neo-liberal machine like the modern leftist has?

There is no point in time where the far right was outside the capitalists' machine, it was made within it and for its purposes. Hitler meeting big industrialists and getting money predates him becoming the Führer.

tl;dr: You are a fucking idiot.



great rebuttal lol. trot is correct


have any of you had any experience with the burger PSL party? is it a idpoled sectarian party like the rest?



It's not our fault the far right happens to be literal genocide and being edgy as fuck enough to get fired.



File: f8b13c94d6f0a16⋯.png (32.9 KB, 294x294, 1:1, f8b13c94d6f0a16c353ff98168….png)


Is there something funnier and more ironic than modern nazis claiming to be "saving the west" and all that shitty rhetoric? Nazis caused millions of white people to die and looted the fuck out of all the European countries and planned to destroy their cultures. Literally a reflection of everything neonazis attribute to jews.



There is literally nothing about Nazism in that video.



If there was, it would probably be more intelligent, even if it was apologetic.

People who think "save Western civilization with grey wojak edits" is anything more than schizo waffling can be safely ignored.


File: 72eab532586524c⋯.jpg (133.51 KB, 600x600, 1:1, 1420399471434.jpg)



> "W-We're totally not nazis guys"



You saw the video titled "Corporate Parallel States and White Culture" right? Or did the link not work correctly?



Yes, and it's not surprising, since Western reactionaries don't actually give two shits about the plight of most white people.



>Western reactionaries don't actually give two shits about the plight of most white people.

What makes you think that?


File: 41fa8ff9c5c4c27⋯.jpg (75.49 KB, 434x750, 217:375, 00.jpg)

So how does it feel to know while you jerk of alone in your room Xi taps a hot milf?


Im confused by what people mean by idealism. It seems like there are two different definitions that tend to be used interchangeably. One is that ideas are what primarily makes up reality. The second and more oftenly used one is that ideas are the primarly cause for historical change. Now you don't have to believe the first for the second to be true, but it follows naturally from it. Still believing the first is incommon but the second isn't. Do I have these definitions right or am I misunderstanding? Also a common argument I'm seeing is that rascism and fascism are spread through memes and edgy humor. Now that might be true to some extent but isn't this an idealist argument based on the second definition?



TFW no asian milf gf :(


Is worker-oriented socialism all that relevant anymore? I guess if a revolution were to take place now there would still be workers in the short term, but wouldn't the majority of their jobs be able to be automated given a significant and concerted push by the vanguard? If we had a socialist state pop up now in a developed country, would it really be all that relevant to place such a focus on the realm of workers (with all the management of trade unions, workers councils, worker laws, compensation for labor, etc.)?



There are thousands ;)of men around the world that have sex while I sit in my parents house wanking.



If you lived in a trailer smoking meth before Trump you still are. The color of your master is irrelevant, Obama was just more eloquent. His actions were hardly different than Trump. If your mom is gonna have a better (rest) of her life, nobody should require they profit off of it first.


File: 9c996aa6d29727d⋯.png (16 KB, 630x600, 21:20, anarchism.png)

How would anarchists defend themselves from a neighbouring, warmongering state? i think with increased production and great distribution methods a stateless, fully classless society could be possible, but i don't see that happening now.




They won't. Guerillas can defeat larger industrialized militaries through sheer attrition, but you can just about forget about building productive forces or any semblance of civilized life in the meantime. Also, after the war is won, you'd have to ensure that the military leaders that won the war won't abuse their power to prop themselves up as new autocrats.

IMO, it's far better to establish an effective civilian government and simply focus on making it sufficiently democratic instead of hoping that good intentions and ideological fervor keeps opportunists from both within and outside from wrecking everything for their own personal gain.



Disregard trotposting flag



The whole decentralization vs centralization is retarded, since people would just listen to the most qualified person



They'd invite them to their meetings. Then the invaders would never get anything done.


Can I please get some help in regards to a question I have about the power of ideas over individuals?

Forgive me for my rudimentary knowledge of marxism, but this is an honest question in good faith:

From what I understand from reading Socialism: Utopian and Scientific; Critique of the Gotha Program and End of Classical German Philosophy historical materialism dictates that material conditions are exclusively what make history "move".

If this is true, then i would assume that propaganda (ideas) attempts should proove fruitless, specially from reactionary sectors, because it would make the oppressed class go against it's own material interests. Yet Marx in "Critique of the Gotha Program" criticizes the German Worker's Party for not taking an anti-religious stance, as he says for not "liberate the conscience from the witchery of religion." Religion, being an idea connected to medieval superstructure, shouldn't it just disappear over time?

Doesn't the fact that marketing and other forms of manipulation work make a strong argument for idealism? Thank you.



Though people would reasonably do better under socialism than in reaction, it doesn't mean they are aware of such – capitalism and fascism would satisfy their desires for bread and circuses until they don't, in which the material bases become overpowering, and rather demonstrated, unveiled from capitalist efforts to reform and continue capitalism, and there is revolution.

>Religion, being an idea connected to medieval superstructure, shouldn't it just disappear over time?

Connected, but not tied to. It's a sense of tradition that has carried on perhaps because it was deemed not as offensive as witch burning, and gave people inspiration and hope unlike something like the feudal system, which was more so tied to material bases.



Thanks for your answer, but it still doesn't answer the core of my question, which is if reactionary ideology can halt the course of history, doesn't it demonstrate that material conditions aren't the only absolute cause of progress but that there might be some validity to idealism?

One might argue that these ideas, religions and ideologies are the product of class relations themselves. Yeah, I probably just answered my own question.



>One might argue that these ideas, religions and ideologies are the product of class relations themselves.

Pretty much. Remember that politics in general is about the distribution of resources, ie., it's mainly about who gets what, leading to conflicting narratives of why this or that group should get what they get. The strongest narrative usually wins, and for much of human history 'the strongest narrative' just means the narrative that's backed by the most coercive power, which is again basically a material condition.


your thoughts on new Leica's anti-communist add?



Would the USSR be colonizing Mars and Venus by now if it didnt collapse?


New lefty here, what's the deal with idpol? What would you consider idpol discussion? It seems my understanding of the term differs from how it's used here. Is any conversation around identity idpol, or is it only picking ideology based identity idpol?

From my understanding, a black man or a queer not becoming a fascist based solely on the fact their identities not being welcome under it is idpol, but is discussing opinions on identities within a political group idpol?



The whole "Communism in 20 years" or colonizing planets shit came from Sputnik, it made everyone think the USSR was quickly becoming an utopia. People even talked about the USSR surpassing the US



>New lefty here, what's the deal with idpol?

This tends to cause explosive arguments to erupt but I tend to see idpol (in a negative sense) as confusing one's social identity with one's objective class interests, as this obscures the class divisions in society. This could be – as a worker – identifying with the CEO of a major multinational corporation on the basis of "shared social values." But this can work in many different ways. It could be the "SJW" working barely above minimum wage at a Starbucks identifying with Hillary Clinton (a multimillionaire) or an oil-field worker identifying with the CEO of ExxonMobil because "he's a family man" or whatever. Objectively, both workers have more in common with each other as workers than either do with their bosses. Subjectively, as far as they see it, their interests couldn't be more different.

The attraction among certain affluent liberals towards Pete Buttigieg often contains a kind of masked idpol. He's "smart" or so on, and talks a certain way, and has the right credentials – he's "like" them. But this obscures the fact that he really does represent their class interests.



>New lefty here, what's the deal with idpol?

It is the cancer killing the left

The way I see it, identity politics is when you mobilize politically around a specific identity. For example gays mobilizing as a sexual identity to achieve some political goal benefitting them as a group, or white nationalists mobilizing on the basis of a common white identity. Getting caught up in the resulting sperg-outs also qualify as idpol to me.

It's bad for the left IMO because the left needs to create some sort of coalition that can actually seize power (traditionally the working class), and every identity group going about their own merry way chasing their own goals is just chaotic and harmful fragmentation.


Good post.


File: 4695f9ba96ca410⋯.gif (1.54 MB, 480x264, 20:11, Zz5D1iE.gif)


I would add that the conflicts over social identity are often an essentially inter-bourgeois conflict. They emerge from contradictions within the economic material base of society. The way to understand capitalist society is to study these contradictions. And remember that the economy is what matters most. The economy is the base – and the economy shapes the political / social superstructure of society (which likewise maintains the economic base).

This isn't to say you should oppose LGBTs or anything like that. What I'm saying is that social formations (blacks, LGBTs, etc.) can be oppressed and these oppressions maintained for economic reasons, or likewise dissolved for economic reasons. Slavery at one time served productive, economic purposes. White supremacy in the U.S. South was a social system that was created by an exploitative economic system (and the social system likewise maintained it). It ended because of the irreconcilable conflict between it and the rising industrial capitalism of the north based on wage labor.

Anyways, this is a long way of saying that the "chuds vs. SJW" conflict is arising from contradictions in the material base of today's capitalism, such as between globally-connected services and primary-sector producers (including manufacturing). The former favors social liberalism because that serves productive purposes in major cities, plugged in as they are to services operating on global scales. Manufacturing faces risks on the global marketplace. Workers – if they bother to vote at all – are encouraged in our bourgeois-capitalist so-called "democracy" to align with different camps of the bourgeoisie as they fight for which set of economic sectors to favor, as the bourgeosie flatters their prejudices and self-regard without questioning the fact that they're trapped in a system which exploits them both.

And I'm not done!

I think there's a right-wing backlash taking on a nationalistic character because global capitalism is revoking rents paid out to previously-favored social formations in the core imperialist countries (white people of a Christian background basically). This is because organized labor started getting crushed in the 1970s, the working class was defeated, and capital divvied up the spoils. There is no reason, objectively now as far as the market is concerned, to continue dividing up the working class and favoring certain groups within it. It's a long-run reversion to the mean. Unfortunately, these reactionaries are privileging their social position over the economic (here's another contradiction), and specifically their social position, which threatens the economy (see Brexit) because they aim to draw up the bridge. They are also targeting historically disfavored outgroups to direct their ire. From the subjective perspective of these targeted groups (POCs, LGBTs, etc.), it's better to rally around the European Union's common market or American liberal technocracy because that's more "tolerant" of them.




So, for example, would minority asking for rights under this new system be consider idpol?

What if they're fully behind revolution and this new system, but they ask

"Under this new system, *whatever identity* isn't gunna be fucked, right?"

Is it idpol to discuss your identity, even if it's not to the detriment of the cause? Will it always be a detriment to the cause in some way to ask or discuss these things?



>Is it idpol to discuss your identity, even if it's not to the detriment of the cause?

Well, speaking for myself, I don't think so. Oppression is real. Any leftist who says racial oppression doesn't exist or whatever is a humbug who doesn't know what he's talking about. It's the same with imperialism where nations can oppress others and so on.

The kind of idpol that is not popular here (I hate this term anyways, it's a mangled, Orwellian contraction), is to say that economic issues don't matter, or that social / identity issues is all that matter so vote for Kamala Harris or something like that. Frequently this is like "the Democrats support POCs so we should support Democrats." I mean, I can understand why the status quo is preferable to the right-wing reaction that will make you a target, but the total lack of any talk of restructuring the economy in favor of working people is just going to generate the right-wing reaction anyways.

Like with Trump or something. If you get rid of him but don't deal with the underlying problem, you're going to get someone even worse 10 years from now. The goal of the left is to break out of this trap.



So, if for example, the status quo party accepted whatever minority you are, but the revolutionary party does not, choosing the status quo despite supporting the economics of the revolutionary party is idpol?

But then it wouldn't be idpol to go to the revolutionary party and ask they try and accept you?

And if for whatever reason you need to quash your identity to be part of the revolutionary party (Say, no queers) it would be idpol to not suppress your identity for the cause?

So it is to value identity over economic goals in any circumstance?

Thanks for being so helpful, by the way. I appreciate it.



Those are tough questions and I'm just going to have to punt here and say that the term "idpol" is now starting to break down conceptually. I personally wouldn't join a homophobic communist party, but that's just me, if there were alternatives. If you're in Russia or something then you don't really have a choice if you want to participate in politics at all. But creating a communist party that says "no queers" in the U.S. or Britain or something like that I don't think would "work." I mean I generally accept the argument that there's a historically dominant fraction of American workers of a conventionally white, Christian background with heteronormative and patriarchal social values who seek to preserve that position over the objective interests of the working class as a whole. If anti-oppression is part of your politics, and I think they should be if you're on the left, you should oppose attempts to subordinate people because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. And I don't think that's "idpol" as it's often construed.



Thank you for sharing your take on it, you've definitely helped shape my perspective.



They wouldn't and that's why they didn't last long anywhere. Except Chiapas thanks to them being in a massive jungle.



Anarchism just needs to straight up adopt the standing army despite everything on a sheer practical matter.



Standing armies aren't nearly all the same, even with similar equipment. Armies without proper command, armies untrained, and armies not taught in proper self-management will perform terribly, as you may have heard of Arab armies.



Obviously, but it's pretty clear that any anarchist force that is going to make itself serious is going to need to maintain a constant serious military force.

That doesn't mean we need to immediately adopt the form of the capitalist army system, but it does mean we're going to need to train up and properly take command of ourselves.


What's so important about equality, materialistically? Why can't capitalists just exploit proles more and more while only paying the police properly to keep putting them down, so as to incentivize their role against the workers? Even, possibly investing in more weapons/tactics/etc. to all the better suppress proles?



Equality is a bourgeois meme. There is no way for people to be equal. But property owners can afford to be "equal". They need neither their skill, their body, nor their knowledge, nor any other aspect of themselves. Every bourgeois is as replacable and faceless as the next as far as capitalism is concerned. The only thing the capitalist needs is their ownership, all else beyond that is inconsequential.

The proletariat cannot be equal, because they simply are not equal, their bodies, their lives, their minds are not equal, they need to sell what is special about them to make their daily income. They arguably should not be equal or we would be reduced to the same sad position as the bourgeois, with nothing useful or interesting about ourselves.


File: 4a31b087a7bc866⋯.jpg (144.58 KB, 800x1111, 800:1111, voting.jpg)

What the fuck is going on with this board quality? Is this because of the Zizek and Peterson debate?


File: 5d319e3dc5e4cb7⋯.jpg (12.65 KB, 220x287, 220:287, Alceste De Ambris.jpg)

thoughts on national syndicalism

(not good)



Maybe because people confuse liberalism with socialism with communism.

Speaking of which, despite what Fox News says millennials are not "cocksuckers for socialism."

The truth is, adults are the real idealists, conjuring up grotesque schools of thought to "make the human condition more efficienct" and they end up hurting their contemporaries and their posterity.

Politics are theatrics for grownups.

They will punish any youngin who questions or is indifferent to the wet dreans of his/her elders.



>>2) socialism HAS worked

I hope I don't really have to adress this, do I?

please do



I'm not him but what do you want to have exacly addressed? That socialism always leads to "Stalinism"? that socialist economy can't work? or something else?


I have a barebones knowledge on the subject, but are there any substantial criticisms for historical dialectical materialism? It really does seem a very reasonable almost scientific outlook. I'm personally fascinated by it.

Why isnt it more popular these days?


File: 218dc9b0fea40b9⋯.jpg (65.04 KB, 540x513, 20:19, 81qj9flko2.jpg)

Does anyone have any links to critiques against the concept of "internalized misogyny" from a leftist perspective?



>are there any substantial criticisms for historical dialectical materialism

Maybe criticism of vulgar histmat. IE, criticism of the "linear progression" of modes of production, of histmat without dialectics (IE, without class warfare), or similar distortions of Marx's theory.

But for genuine dialectical and historical materialism, I don't really know of a good criticism.

>Why isnt it more popular these days?

The bourgeoisie put IMMENSE amounts of effort into suppressing it in academia and replacing it with various forms of idealism. They have actually wrecked whole fields of research in the process, holding them back decades, even centuries. Anthropology, biology (especially w/r/t human evolution), history, economics, sociology, linguistics (thank Chomsky for wrecking this field), and more have been in doldrums because of the danger Marxism poses to the bourgeoisie.

Bourgeois ideology has even held back the most fundamental fields of science, such as physics! Cockshott has some good videos on this topic. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum indeterminacy prevented scientists from determining some key laws of quantum particle interactions for quite some time.

Even though the bourgeoisie are practical people and overall want to use science for profit and conquest, certain scientific theories are still off limits for them. It's a cost-benefit analysis: while the bourgeoisie might be able to get some use out of Marxist analysis, overall it is too dangerous for everyone to read, so it is suppressed.



some woman hates herself, so she internalizes it, for some reason



Alright, call it "existing democracies", whatever. You know what I mean.


I'm aware pre-war Europe was mostly on the fascist side, but I'm interested in the post-war interim governments, and how they gave way to the communist regimes which followed. As far as I can see, at least Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia had genuinely popular revolutions, but I'm not sure about the rest.


File: 033470ece029c32⋯.jpg (117.5 KB, 650x650, 1:1, 033.jpg)


I'm terribly sorry for not reading this before. Anon, at leftytrash we often talk about certain… alternative treatments for depression. There doesn't seem to be any such posts there as of this moment, but just hit us up and we'll repost it again, as we have done several times already.



this sounds like an untrue conspiracy theory. I get that the ruling class might have suppressed psychology, biology, and other shit with spooked idealism, but I don't see how they benefit from cockblocking with the Copenhagen interpretation, and how they would even go about it, especially since the people who came up with it were actual scientists? And quantum science shit is no easy math, especially for bourgs.


Communist governments only care about meeting social needs and profiteering would be illegal therefor without capitalism there would be no anime or video games.



do you mean drugs? not the same poster btw




Any instances of science and Marxism/materialism overlapping? One of the most interesting things tbh



>I get that the ruling class might have suppressed psychology, biology, and other shit with spooked idealism, but I don't see how they benefit from cockblocking with the Copenhagen interpretation

I don't get how you can see a literal fact (The Copenhagen Interpretation became official dogma) as an "untrue conspiracy theory." The reason it happened is because the bourgeoisie deluged academia with so much subjective idealism (Machism) that it became official dogma even among scientists.

Here's an example, the one Cockshott brings up:



>The trajectories of the Bohm model that would result for particular experimental arrangements were termed "surreal" by some.[90][91] Still in 2016, mathematical physicist Sheldon Goldstein said about Bohm's theory: "There was a time when you couldn’t even talk about it because it was heretical. It probably still is the kiss of death for a physics career to be actually working on Bohm, but maybe that’s changing."[57]

>Due to his Communist affiliations, Bohm was the subject of a federal government investigation in 1949, prompting him to leave the United States. He pursued his scientific career in several countries, becoming first a Brazilian and then a British citizen. He abandoned Marxism in the wake of the Hungarian Uprising in 1956.[6]



Cockshott's book about econphysics might be of interest to you.



Vulgar/crude materialism is very common among scientists. Marxism was/is naturally very popular among scientists in socialist countries.


why are there few international ML orgs? trots seem to be the only ones interested in building proletarian internationalism


Which Indian Marxist party should I join? Here are two major choices:

1. communistparty.in [Communist Party of India]

2. cpim.org [Communist Party of India (Marxist)]

I've read their histories and some papers (like the election manifesto by CPI-M, caste analysis, etc.) but I still can't make up my mind. Any Indian comrades here?



Why is it? Don't say because government does stuff, please



Chaos theory and dialectics complement each other nicely.




most MLs think that proletarian internationalism is not possible as long as there is inter-imperial rivalry.

Even something like international unions to confront multinational corporations are very difficult



sure you don't


Where did h4cker culture go? The scene and all of that? They got jobs and left?


what are we voting in the EU elections lads



GUE/NGL is probably the only non-meme answer. They are not even for getting rid of the EU though.



what are your opinions on volt? They are liberals, but they're in favor of structural reform which is going to do more for the cause in the long run than electing a leftists party



It sounds a lot like Diem25, but is not the same group? I personally don't think that structural reform, as in towards democratization and against neoliberlism, is possible as the EU was designed to be protected against it, since it started as a business alliance. It would be great if they could be successful, but I think at most they will get things like more integration etc.and anything that is useful to us would probably be supported by leftist parties anyway.




Probably the consolidation of the internet by corporate hands had something to do with it.


where does someone new to socialism start reading?

is there a flowchart?




yea but it's kind of vague

can I just start reading marx or should I read hegel shit first



you don't really need hegel unless you are into philosophy

Das Kapital is obviously the best but this is a nice and short : https://web.archive.org/web/20010617085212/https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm



You read Marx first. If you want an fast introduction I can recommend "Principles of communism" by Engels. You can find it online easily. It should be on Marxists.org but the site doesn't work for me at the moment. After that feel free to read capital if you want economics.




ok thanks guys



join the maoist one


File: 80a16529932e87a⋯.jpg (140.57 KB, 963x728, 963:728, AKG343276.jpg)


he doesn't have to read Marx first. Any of the five heads are a good starting point, and some of them (Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao) have some very digestible and good books/essays. Not to say that Marx doesn't have good intro material either, but just that any of them are a good place to start provided he does read Marx afterwards.


Redpill me on maoism. I dont trust maoists from the first world



Just read Mao. Decide for yourself if MZT is actually distinct from plain Marxism-Leninism, and if so, whether it's applicable in your conditions such that you would call yourself a Maoist.

Personally, I think Mao is really, really good. His writings are downright poetic somehow. They're also really strong theory. I regularly refer to Mao when considering tactics, diamat, practice, self-crit, and more. However, I do not think they represent a major departure or development of Marxism-Leninism. If anything is "Maoism," I think it might be his contributions to M-L combined with his approach to strategy/tactics in agrarian society.

Also worth noting is the history of China under Mao's leadership. He implemented actual, real communism in the Iron Rice Bowl system, meaning he went further than almost any other major communist leader. His foreign policy was/is controversial. I think it may have been possible to make amends with the USSR. However, he practiced real internationalism, supporting revolutionaries and NOT supporting reactionaries in Africa, Asia, etc. It was Deng who flipped Chinese policy.


I posted this >>2882081 in the reading thread but I thought that perhaps it might also go here. Sorry if it's not applicable, but I just want to get as many eyes on it as possible


why are the cia called glow in the dark niggers lmao its literally one of the funniest terms ive heard around here and it oddly fits so well



look up Terry A. Davis


Is there anything of Kautsky's that's still worth reading today? I know Lenin spoke favourably of his early writing and I seem to recall hearing that some of his work was used in Soviet schooling.


Is it possible to increase one's intelligence?


How did the tsaar execution go down? The Wikipedia makes it seem it went extremely unproffessional and messy, but cites a source I can't find.


Easier than your dick :^(


Why are their Maoists in first world highly urbanized nations?


Why aren't you guys NutSac? Can't you see communism doesn't work?



Diagnosis: brainlet



what combination of birth defects and blunt trauma to the head lead you to believe that nutsackism "works" and that communism "doesn't"



Except there is never any "promise" of payoff. There is the expectation, but profit is never a guarantee. If there was, the lottery wouldn't exist.



Jobs for those willing to compromise with capitalism, prison or state execution for those that weren't. You remember anonymous? Before they became a cointelmeme they actually were anti establishment hackers. Then the FBI deduced the identity of one of them and threatened to take his kid sister away (he was her only loving family iirc) unless he ratted on the rest.

And that's what happened to hacker culture, one by one until it was dead.


why do people keep talking about climate change is it even real and how come it got so popular these last few years



It's been talked about for decades, anon. It's getting more coverage now due to the worsening climate and weather, newly released reports about the impending doom and due to the fact that we have precious little time left to do something about it.


Can porky stop the falling rate of profit by keeping capital accumulation at zero? I assume there must be some reason for it not being possible, since this seems like an obvious response to the FRoP, and thus already countered. So why would it not work?


How do you ideally respond to social democrats when they make the argument that we have just not seen evidence in favor of a socialist society?



explain to them that theory is evidence and also the best evidence



Explain to them that:

1. Even the stereotypical "poor" ML-countries heralded large increases in living standards over the capitalist regimes they replaced.

2. It's irrelevant. Capitalism is without a doubt an existential threat to humanity, and to cling to it is pure madness in light of the coming climate catastrophe. You don't necessarily need to be a communist, but if you're not anti-capitalist in 2019, you haven't been paying enough attention. Just explain the perils of capitalism until they've understood the point. Then explain how socialism is the most developed and theorized alternative to capitalism and pretty popular to boot, and thus the only viable horse to bet on.


Don't do this



>Don't do this

the category of "evidence" is pure slight of hand.



what do you mean?



I'm sure you have reasons for saying this, but it would be a lot easier to win over your regular succdem by appealing to socialism's forgotten material successes instead of through abstract philsophical rants. Keep it simple



>Can porky stop the falling rate of profit by keeping capital accumulation at zero?

Enforcing such a rule would effectively abolish the market.


>I assume there must be some reason for it not being possible

Because it goes against Porky’s nature. Capitalists seek to accumulate as much capital as possible.


are you high, nothing you said made sense


What happens to the bourgieous post-revolution? How should communists deal with labor aristocrats? (actual labor aristocrats, not first-world prols)



Well, either they become proles themselves or the wall. Rather obvious.


Does anyon ehave some Cockshott Vaporwave?


File: 74e3133388d654c⋯.png (16.49 KB, 940x400, 47:20, latin-america.png)

Give me the cold hard truth bros.

Will USA ever leave us alone to develop or our own socialist societies?



No. America treats Latin America the way Romans treated the Berbers.


So Lithuanian presidential elections are coming up, does anyone give the slightest fuck about it to warrant a thread?



No, the US is just you but with more money.


File: 7dc240cbc24150f⋯.png (90.1 KB, 1000x526, 500:263, 10.png)


We will take the revolution directly to America to remove the problem



You could combine the eagle's feathers into the teeth of the cog pretty well in a pic like that.


How do I respond to someone who brings up Animal Farm into an argument?



Passive-aggressive innuendo that he's a furry until the day he dies. Alternatively, you can search the web for interpretations of Animal Farm as being rather about criticizing the USSR of Stalin than socialism as a whole. These views are pretty common, claiming this character is Trotsky, that character is based on Lenin etc.


How do you respond to the following:

" Capitalists might appropriate value from their workers but simultaneously they need to put a lot of effort into setting up their business, appropriately reacting to market developments etc. which justifies said appropriation"

Basically I'm asking this, how do you formulate in an unambiguous and concise manner that capitalism is inherently exploitative?


File: 8c4833ead02e414⋯.jpg (333.34 KB, 1173x882, 391:294, 1469576972805.jpg)


>they need to put a lot of effort into setting up their business, appropriately reacting to market developments

That is not a result of being a capitalist, that the result of work. All of thoses tasks can be delegated (i.e CEO, accounting and so on) but the capitalist will reap all of the profits anyway.

As the ones wo manage business of their own pic related



A common reply I have heard here would be that there's skill and work necessary to delegate these tasks in the first place which also serves as a justification. Usually I reply then that the effort of delegating tasks once and therefore receiving the fruits of other people's labor for an undefined amount of time seems more than disproportionate. However, I'm wondering is there a better response to this line of thinking?


This question probably deserves its own thread, but I'll ask here anyway. Why is the fascism a middle class movement? By that I mean why does the middle class support authoritarian populism? I ask this because I saw a Brazilian on 4chan praising Bolsonaro and others like Orban for "saving the middle class" all the while shitting on poor people.




"Value" as marx discusses it is cost of production.

It's arcane and academical and wholly deprecated as a term outside of marxism, but the alternative is letting liberals reinterpret marx



Intermediary classes in a context of widening unequalities are threatened. It's basic mathematics, if the unequalities are on the rise, there is less people in the middle. What this means is they develop class interests.

Now their "absolute" class interest doesn't exist a priori, it's according to the historical balance of power etc.

If the middle class bets on the old structures (market capitalism), they turn fascist, if they bet on the newer ones, they turn revolutionary.



You answered your own question: populism.

The modern "left" concerns itself with social engineering to dictate the new morality to the public (of course devoid of any class struggle rhetoric with any teeth), the fascists win merely by making a passing effort to pretend to care about the will of the middle class.


Need help understanding this paragraph from Critique of the Gotha Programme:

"Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning."



>Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products

The weaver does not have to give his linen directly to the farmer in order to get wheat.

>the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them

The amount of human labor expended to produce a use-value is not what makes valuable in a socialist society.

>since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor

Because individual labor contributes to the totality of use-values produced in the socialist society rather than merely to one individual commodity as it does in capitalism.

That is how I take it anyway.



Say we have a factory that produces steel and a factory that produces coal. In capitalism, the steel factory has to buy the coal from the coal factory, and the coal factory has to buy steel from the steel factory. However, within the coal and steel factories, resources are re-allocated without buying and selling. The resources are just moved around. And if one company makes a steel factory on top of a coal mine, they would probably allocate the coal and steel resources between the two without buying and selling. This would even give them a competitive advantage. Both of these factories are in the sector, "production of the means of production," since nobody eats/wears/plays with steel or coal.

In socialism, the entire sector producing means of production is treated like one giant company. So there is no point in having a company buy and sell stuff with itself. It's activity that slows things down, rather than actually making things more efficient. Energy spend on trading and bartering is lost energy. Instead, the various factories just give each other what they need outright (according to a central plan). This has yet another advantage of being able to rapidly shift resources to places they're needed, without having to worry about funding in one particular factory. In this sense, the law of value does not apply here in the slightest. The labor value of this or that MOP is almost irrelevant within this sector, because the resources are allocated according to the plan based on need, not according to which factory has the most money stored up.


Why did neo liberalism win out ? It seems to me that social democracy is the best way to manage capitalism. I mean sure your not making absolutely the most money possible but I think the ruling classes would be able to realize that a strong welfare state is as necessary as say the military and police in keeping the system in order?



Because it's unsustainable. The nordic welfare received lots of privatization since they couldn't 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧compete on the market🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 . Maybe someone more knowledgeable than me could expand on this. Truth is liberalism like it is now can certainly continue for the coming future. Revolutions happen when problems with food arive, not when you can't pay medical bills.


File: a35b35fa2227ac2⋯.jpg (166.37 KB, 639x680, 639:680, postal_JUST.jpg)


>when an individual wants to sacrifice his narrow private interests and work for the common good, its the common good that suffers

Can someone explain to me how exactly that works?


>Why did neo liberalism win out ? It seems to me that social democracy is the best way to manage capitalism.

Capitalism is primarily focused on acting in its own immediate self-interest, its not about "sustainability", its about making a quick buck, right now, regardless of the future costs, and if anyone gets in the way, they are forcefully removed or killed. If they don't act immediately they lose out to other capitalists who do and perish in the system. Capitalism is brutal.

>I think the ruling classes would be able to realize that a strong welfare state is as necessary

To quote another Anon some long time ago, "Capitalists don't need to care about their workers so long as they keep working."

>military and police in keeping the system in order

Militarians are imperialists and police are slavers. Their job, whether they realize it or not, is to perpetuate the capitalist system. The whole 'selfless hero' narrative is propaganda because otherwise without it nobody would bother joining up. Which narrative sounds more attractive to you?:


>Join the police and help protect your community!

<Join the police to keep isolated ghettoes in poverty leading to increased crime where we throw them into for-profit prisons for slave labour and then release them back into society with no skills or job opportunities to which they will commit crime again


>Join the military and help protect your country!

<Join the military and kill innocent people so your capitalist bosses can pillage their resources and make defense contractors rich while inspiring resistance movements who want to actually protect their country from imperialists like us, to which we will label them terrorists and have you murder them to keep their oppressed nations under our puppet governments

Read Emma Goldman.


Is socdem welfare better than laissez-faire capitalist choice? I mean, people pay taxes to fund things like healthcare anyway – they're paying either way. Is the socdem way of managing taxes to give people subsidized stuff better, or is it the same, or worse?


Is there anything wrong with using actual slave labor to build up your production?



Well yeah, most people would want to live in a socdem state than a neoliberal one.


Ethically? Probably. But labor is labor. You can't distinguish slave from prole labor.


Is the EFF and Julius Malema good comrades or are they basically just Black Nazbol exploiting ethnic tensions and using Marxism for easy votes and political power and plan on killing whites even non ruling class ones just for the sake of it?

There is a lot of propaganda and disinfo going around (especially related to muh white g enocide) and given SA and it's history this muddies the water. Nazbol/idpol genocide trash can get fucked no matter who though since better Leftist organizations can exist and be run.


File: 6effe4b66eebb30⋯.png (1.12 MB, 1000x560, 25:14, EFF_whites_1.png)

File: 9ca298262c30fe1⋯.jpg (23 KB, 300x370, 30:37, EFF_whites_2.jpg)

File: 36a3b55a543e89b⋯.jpg (119.94 KB, 1024x684, 256:171, EFF_whites_3.jpg)

File: 7769b04a1620e65⋯.jpg (89.75 KB, 634x422, 317:211, maloooo.jpg)


The EFF has white members. Although the white woman wearing the beret in these pics (Kim Heller) left because she found it too authoritarian in regards to "differing opinions" generally.

Good article on South Africa:


The EFF's seems pretty based tbh but I hear it has an anti-Indian streak, and is corrupt. I hear the Socialist Revolutionary Workers' Party is better and is closely associated with the National Union of Metalworkers:




Feminists aren't a fan of the EFF and they've been accused of anti-european racism, but if there are whites in the actual party and the party seeks to recreate Chinese / Sankaran success, it's doubtful they'll be any worse for europeans than the ANC has.



Thank you comrade, I suspected false accusations when a Marxist party especially in SA exists. Especially when cherry picking anti-apartheid songs are brought into light.



And there were black SS soldiers.


File: f1e45814270a2c4⋯.png (576.47 KB, 750x422, 375:211, EFF-Marches-to-SABC-750x75….png)



Yeah. I mean I'm not South African so I can only judge from a very far distance away. My guess is they could've done a better job reaching out to whites but their base is ultimately rooted in the black urban proletariat which has moved into the cities in large numbers post-Apartheid. I've heard Malema cite China as a model which would be good.

Trevor Noah accused Malema of wanting to genocide white people the other night, but he took out the context. A reporter asked Malema if he wanted to kill white people, and he said "I'm saying to you, we've not called for the killing of white people, at least for now. I can't guarantee the future." Cue the horror. But then Malema said "If things are going the way they are now, there will be a revolution in this country I can tell you know. There will be an unled revolution, and an unled revolution is the highest form of anarchy."

Which is probably true and it's why the revolution needs to led by a party of the working class.


Like hell there were


File: 0a1e8023e1154fd⋯.jpg (49.98 KB, 797x509, 797:509, laughter-free-arabian-legi….jpg)


Here's a full video of that Malema interview. He even says in that clip that if there is an unled revolution, *he* would be killed too because he's sitting in parliament. So he's comparing himself to white people. Context matters.



Yeah yeah the Free Arabian Legion (which was a Wehrmacht unit, not an SS one) ain't the same as membership in the Nazi Party. Try again clown



They were fighting for the Germans because Germany was fighting against France and Britain. 99% of the blacks in the Wehrmacht were from the parts of Africa colonized by France and Britain. They didn’t know the horre of the Nazis, but they knew the horre of colonialism.


File: 1c2b721da6cfbc7⋯.png (74.79 KB, 201x235, 201:235, ClipboardImage.png)

What are your thoughts on Eric Lerner? I think he is quite underrated here and on other leftist sites.


Is there anything remediable about kautsky?


File: 0fa34b304c264ef⋯.png (8.12 KB, 204x179, 204:179, big ass.png)

Does anyone into Cockshott's central planning or labour vouchers in general entertain the idea of implementing some form of UBI in such a system? Or would such a policy fuck too much with the general incentive to work, even assuming reduced working hours and plenty of available luxury goods, and therefore only be feasible in a FALC scenario? I haven't read any Cockshott so apologies if he does address this somewhere.



It'd be cool if his fusion project worked.


He already allows for welfare spending through a deduction from income. I don't know that it would serve much purpose however.



His works while Marx and Engels were still alive are pretty good. The Economic Doctrine of Karl Marx is one of the best reading guides for Capital I know.


File: 2e91c00a2e26bdb⋯.jpg (56.3 KB, 600x600, 1:1, Nevada-tan_Transforms.jpg)

What compels so many people nowadays into all this gnostic new age-type shit? I'm mainly talking about the tons of people of all kinds that basically believe that we live in an oftentimes fatalist fake world (simulated reality, demiurge, dmt, etc.) and because of this we must resign ourselves to some higher spiritual reality. Is it capitalist (or any class society in general) realism in action, people struggling to let go of religion, or is it something else?



Also forgot to mention the blatant anti-individualism and collectivism these types of people espouse. Look at how much they will ramble on and on about how everything is connected (why that matters so much to so many people I don't know) in one way or another and how "the ego" is the source of all evil in the world.



It is people trying to find meaning in a world where the status quo is made out to look like it is indestructible by all of the "end of history" type shit, while the world still feels wrong, almost unreal. Anyway, watch Hypernormalisationn (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh2cDKyFdyU) as it will explain this better than I can.



it's a way to cope with the cognitive dissonance of living in the modern world.

>greed is bad

<money is the ultimate measure of success

>human rights are indivisible and universal

<some people starve to death outside shops full of spoiling food

and so on.

Also the idea that nothing will ever change, and things can't change except for the worse, something in the vein of >>2891864 . This is the result of a blindness to history I believe.



I think it's mostly people who have a need for some sort of spirituality but don't like organized religion for whatever reason.



Cockshott himself is against basic income as a measure in the here and now: https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/what-is-wrong-with-the-idea-of-basic-income/ In the comments, he points out that in a socdem dream society with a big "socialist sector" co-existing with the private sector it would amount to the former subsidizing the latter. He is also highly skeptical about it ever working within a planned economy (he had a thread on RevLeft about that).

What can be continuously produced without any person doing anything? I think we would be screwed. What UBI advocates seem to believe who aren't techno-utopians is that with a UBI, people would still put in a sufficient amount of work. But this belief isn't grounded in any data. Within a communist society one could do a complex survey asking every individual how much of which activities they would be willing to do for free and what for vouchers if this or that part of their individual consumption got covered in a way independent of them lifting their individual fingers to work for it, and then determine a solution. There isn't even a sketch of such a system by le-gay-spacecommunismXD crowd, since they are just libs who clog up leftwing communication channels with their "humor" and pseudo-radical posturing same with "open borders RIGHT NOW". They don't think about how to get there because they aren't genuine.



>What can be continuously produced without any person doing anything?

Obviously a lot given super-efficient machines are now producing just about everything. People would live off the value of what machines make. Socdem welfare can last if the government is strict enough, like China's, though ideally they would seek communism through pouring resources into automation development to eliminate the cumbersome state.



If you understand his labor credit system, you'll see why UBI is completely worthless to it. Welfare, healthcare, retirement, unemployment, etc will all be provided for. Even a number of basic goods could be allocated free of charge if deemed appropriate, like Venezuela's CLAP or Cuba's food tickets. However, every able-bodied and able-minded person has to work.


Is there a marxist analysis of georgism I can read anywhere?


What are some great rebuffs of the "but the capitalist takes all the risk" argument.



that he's just risking the labor values that he accumulated by exploiting others.

workers have 10x the risk every day trying to make sure they can sell the only thing they have, their labor power.



Heart attack statistics.


Why is Fascism demonized so much in the West? There has to be a reason for it.


Often I hear the argument that because throughout history socialism failed time at time again it is evident that it is a bad idea. If beyond that no deeper justification for the argument is given and we uncritically grant the failure bit can this be in essence reduced to a correlation equals causation fallacy?



Because it brought war to Europe. They don't really have a problem with supporting fascists across the globe as long as it doesn't hurt their holdings in the west.

As other anons keep mentioning, fascism is just capitalism in crisis. When there's no crisis, there's no need for fascists, you have the police and state to guard your interests.




It's an appeal to power, authority and violence. Demonstrating that failure of socialist states came directly from coordinated and persistent hostility from capitalist states will yield no condemnation. Bootlickers like this are easy to deal with, because bootlickers lick boot, it doesn't matter whose it is. Also, launch we launch the nukes next time.


File: e94b91479d7e088⋯.png (185.27 KB, 543x510, 181:170, 7fea3d702713fb00dfda41e046….png)


Thing is, though, the capitalist earned that particular risk by using their brain to get ahead of everyone. It's like spending the warm months accumulating food while everyone else is playing outside and wasting time, and come winter half of everyone's stock gets destroyed due to disease – people who barely prepared would starve, while the person who had foresight and management skills still has plenty to go around. It is true that being a menial worker is statistically more conducive to harm than a manager, but that's because they earned that risk, very similar to how a procrastinator is probably statistically more likely to be stressed – their stress was the outcome of poor decisions.

Even then, this disregards the fact that many times entrepreneurs lose their money and they just have to keep trying over and over again, learning from past mistakes and seeing how they can improve next time – a worker never tries, never seeks to improve, and never perseveres. If they lose their job, they can find another one; if a capitalist has their business go bankrupt, then they lose an intense amount of input that has more often then not, personally cost them.


Is Deindustrialization an inherent stage of capitalist development?



It's called "outsourcing"



Privatization in the 90s more or less destroyed all the industry in my country, so there's something to this.



If 'being smart' is your criteria for what people deserve then a lot of criminals like human traffickers or people who just steal from the rich are way smarter than most and thus deserve everything. The distinction between a smart thief and the food hoarder in your example is quite arbitrary.

This is why 'being smart' is a retarded criteria. Its basically only used selfishly: If you outsmart someone else, well you deserve it, if someone else outsmarts you, its unfair. While it is somewhat natural behaviour to think like this, and on an individual level makes some sense, a society organized according to this principle will fall to ruin. Here a more objective standard should be applied: How much work do you put in for the whole society, who is pulling more of his or her weight. From this perspective, Capitalists are nothing but parasites.



Because after WW2, the US in their capacity as the de facto hegemon of NATO has been the chief enforcer of the interests of global capital, from toppling any remotely socialist country (or any country refusing to sell out their infrastructure and resources to global capital) to completely controlling the policies of all vassal states within NATO and enforcing the IMFs policies.

As for your "what if" argument, we don't live in a "what if" world. Global capitalism would be in a much weaker position without the US, or even with a weakened US. The US at the moment is the enemy of all working people throughout the globe, and no what if can change that



>Now that the Soviet Union is gone, we are all starting for the same point

Not true. People who denounce the USSR as "state capitalism" and regurgitate capitalist propaganda cannot call themselves communists. Anyone that isn't in a position to do dialectical scientific analysis of history can't call himself a marxist


File: 25302562945a662⋯.jpg (143.4 KB, 392x445, 392:445, fdf59ad643159032c6433ac68f….jpg)


Neither human traffickers, nor those who steal from the rich, nor any other kind of criminal of that sort is "smart" like you have classified it, because if they really were smart they would have done much more with their earned gains than merely sustain their selfish interests; that is, they would reinvest much of their proceeds towards ventures, improving real estate, and stocks, so as to, in the proper smart fashion, maximize the gains of their capital. Not all capitalists are of course smart – many businesses and other capitalist investment vehicles fall, along with their beholder, because they just weren't smart enough, though of course naturally the ones that are smart rise above to the top. Thieves may nab something for themselves every once in a while, but their "business" is precarious and unstable as is a more proper and knowledgeable income flow, such as that of a capitalist. One can't fund their business for all that long by stealing from others.

In the case of someone outsmarting me, well, that would be a matter of my own foolishness, prolonged occurrence of which would of course very reasonably lead to failure as a capitalist. However, a smart person would not let others exploit them because they would be knowledgeable and proactive against attacks – the same intelligence that permits a businessperson to make capital gains is very usually the same force indicating for them the need of security, which of course only a foolish person would discard – that is, a person who's fortune was merely a precarious fluke itself, which does not have the necessary attitude to defend it, so naturally it falls.

Capitalists run and form the world. The world's socio-economy has not ever failed in capitalism, despite its occasional crises stemming from things such as competition and its complementary lack of the centralization of resources; things not inherent to the system of capital accumulation itself, though rather troubling factors imposed by states and anti-monopolic measures and such. Without the leadership of capitalists we would have no world, and though you may complain that your job is unsatisfactory, you have to remember that this is a requisite of a society whose productive forces increase and develop throughout time – you can not, of course, work as easily as you may have under feudalism yet have the technology and resources of today. Capitalists are not a monolith, yet the smarter ones among them are the ones that have driven the world forward and permitted life for billions of people. Though you may say that the (dumber) capitalists have killed millions of people, you must remember that the vast majority of the world's population, yourself included, would not have been born were the productive forces (guided by the smarter capitalists) this advanced. Such capitalists, in their ingenuity, have given the basis for life-saving medicines, more convenient transport, the very Internet we all communicate on, and so forth – if ordinary people were so great, why have they not created these things by themselves? If they truly did feel themselves opposed to the way of capitalists, and if their will is so great, then why have not they overthrown such an order yet? It is simply because ordinary people are… not smart, to put it lightly, and are best used to generate capital, not manage it – which is properly the task of the capitalists.



>Global capitalism would be in a much weaker position without the US, or even with a weakened US.

How? Global capitalism is not being held together by the CIA. Shit, they can barely even get anything done these days, and the stuff they are able to do is all handled by local collaborators, their complete and utter failure in Venezuela being a prime example. This isn't the sixties anymore, and capitalism is not so centralized as it was, but neither is it any weaker.



Thing is, though, the thief earned that particular risk by using their brain to get ahead of everyone. It's like spending the warm months accumulating food while everyone else is playing outside and wasting time, and come winter half of everyone's stock gets destroyed due to disease – people who barely prepared would starve, while the person who had foresight and thieving skills still has plenty to go around. It is true that being stabbed by a robber is statistically more conducive to harm than being the stabby robber, but that's because they earned that risk, very similar to how a procrastinator is probably statistically more likely to be stressed – their stress was the outcome of poor decisions.

Even then, this disregards the fact that many times robbers lose loot during their run and they just have to keep trying over and over again, learning from past mistakes and seeing how they can improve next time – a victim rarely tries and seeks to improve, especially a dead victim. If they live and lose their wallet, they can start filling up another one; if a fleeing robbers has left their high-quality knife in the victim, then they lose an intense amount of value that has more often then not personally cost them.


File: 380f73a56cb12fc⋯.jpg (109.71 KB, 850x633, 850:633, sample_185139daeda97c4a3d2….jpg)


Thieves neither improve the productive forces nor achieve them in any significant capacity, and even this is not in a continuously-established way. Thieves run the risk of being caught on top of never accumulating too much, and if they do they begin to develop into gangster-businessmen types (for instance, the bootleggers during the American Prohibition era). There is significantly less science and motivation involved in the practice of thievery than there is in entrepreneurship, as businesses are as a whole of greater capital foundation than the "enterprises" of robbers, on top of having to abide by the legal system (at least within a large capacity), and involving themselves formally and in a more-established manner than robbers, who seldom have to worry about paperwork, the complexities of capital planning, and so forth. No knife compares to the equipment of heavy industry, or even acres of field, or an office building full of computers and networking equipment. These are wholly different in scale and as such involve vastly different dynamics: you would likely, after all, treat your car or house differently than you would a skittle – to start, you would not buy insurance for a skittle, nor use it as an investment vehicle, nor take all that great a pain to renovate it. Besides, robbers don't produce any value, whereas the world has been built off the work and organization of capitalists.


Where could one live and be the least affected by capitalist alienation? I've thought of "hippie" communes and other intentional communities but I fear that they will be too collectivist, which is one of the main reasons I detest capitalist society because pressure to fit into the group is the source of a lot of anxiety in not just me but I'd presume most people in general more or less, no room for the individual. I wanna live some place where people accept other people for who they are without judgement and where nobody is pressured to act just like everyone else. I want to start a family one day and I can't imagine raising children only to have them screwed over by the implications of capitalist society, I don't want the same kind of shit that happened to me happen to them or anyone else.


File: 5bc939c3d5344c2⋯.pdf (5.95 MB, David Schweickart-After Ca….pdf)


The book After Capitalism by David Schweickart has a whole chapter on that.



>One can't fund their business for all that long by stealing from others.

Is this based on anything else than wishful thinking about a just world? It's literally the same old belief in karma coming back to haunt the bad guys. You may have the meta-belief that your belief is different from that, that it's less naive because you don't believe in strong karma. Bad shit happens, some bad guys get away with bad shit, but roughly, in the big picture… Stop the thought. It's just the ancient superstition, the old chant is not as loud as it used to be in caveman world, but it's still there as whispers in the back of your head. It isn't even one percent more logical. Shouting bullshit or whispering bullshit, it's still bullshit.


File: 0e29f482eaa0620⋯.png (317.85 KB, 599x731, 599:731, 66d0a48a3ad094470fbe6d18bf….png)


That isn't what I was saying, however. It was not that some supernatural force rewards people for acting a certain way, but that the logical consequences provide for someone what they put in, which is most often just about what they thought it was going to be. There is no "wishful thinking" – it is "someone makes an informed investment, they get returns". What's so hard, wrong, or superstitious about this? I don't believe in any kind of karma, but rather that people should achieve the goals they want themselves, and not to leave it to cosmic forces or what have you. Capitalists do not wish for change but go out and physically make it themselves as per their ability, and they certainly receive their end of their input on a basis consistent with their actions, thus leaving "karma" and such other notions out of the picture entirely. If anything, the "wishful thinking" comes from those wishing to take from the successful, the initiated, and the clever; who believe that history itself is on their side, though of course even this is false as in no point in time, on any considerable scale, have those who have merely wished gotten what they have desired. I'm not sure if you're projecting or not, because I don't personally know you, but what I can do is guarantee you that those who have employed ingenuity and artifice in their management of resources will remain to despite the inevitable bumps along the road – which always have been overcome stronger than ever before. The "working class" is already being rapidly phased out, and they show no more drive than before to defend their ways of being. It will be far sooner that a post-scarcity society be achieved through capitalist means than "people power" or whatever, and frankly there's hardly any time left before such a stage in the development of productive forces for such a "revolution" – do you think that the people who before demonstrated no more will than at most an occasional protest will risk their lives in a situation where their bread and circuses have already been provided for? People are too complacent, especially under the national ethos of countries such as the United States, and so long as their means of subsistence aren't being threatened (we have way more food than needed anyway) they will not bother to support any fanciful, ungrounded, and rather wishful dream of revolution which you may be hoping for. The masses haven't defended their interests all this time, as they willingly suffered whatever was thrown at them so long as they got fed – why will it be different at a point in time where food is more plentiful than ever? The wealth gap is growing as is proper, and the capitalists and the state made to serve them are growing more and more powerful, thus rendering the wishes of the uninitiated ever more without backing.



>That isn't what I was saying

That is exactly what you believe though.

>It was not that some supernatural force rewards people for acting a certain way, but that the logical consequences provide for someone what they put in

="I believe in Karma magic, but I use another name."


File: 70c355e28ab1170⋯.png (213.25 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, 1280px-Graham's_Hierarchy_….png)


I was hoping at least for something at the "refutation" level. Are you actually willing to engage in dialectic – in its most proper – or not?



What's there to discuss with a delusional person. This reply is for the benefit of lurkers. Upthread you said:

>Thieves may nab something for themselves every once in a while, but their "business" is precarious and unstable as is a more proper and knowledgeable income flow, such as that of a capitalist.

As if a thief must be a distinct person from a capitalist.

>One can't fund their business for all that long by stealing from others.

Soon the immoral gains will vanish like a small pile of sand in the wind, and you base that conviction on what? You base it on it being a comforting thought. Picture this: A thief steals something else than a wallet, he steals a whole man. Several men. Women, too. Now he can bread them. Will this state of affairs just go away by itself, by people having average luck over time and talent shining through in the long term? Will one day two slaves have a baby and the doc will say: Congrats, it's a slave driver, and then the tables get turned? Or does the change require collective effort to change the rules, hmm?

Tell you something: In the beginning of that story, I was oversimplifying, it wasn't a person catching people like Pokemon. It was an organized effort by a group of people that made enslaving possible, and it was broken by an organized effort of a group of people. A slave Einstein can't science his way out of being a slave.



Given that Climate Change is gonna destroy Capitalism (UN said so) shouldn't we support Climate Change deniers?



no, this is qtddtot, not stupid questions thread


File: 63d9d4b67d2369a⋯.jpg (142.3 KB, 500x396, 125:99, 9ec970d84fd0d114443b5d24d7….jpg)


The difference between a thief and a capitalist has been gone over before, but for summary it is that a thief generally does not operate on the scale, stability, legal medium, or will that a capitalist does, and if they do approach their magnitude then they begin to phase and meld into their function as is the case with mafias around the world, for instance, whose structure, with their scale, becomes more organized, thoughtful, and – business-like.

The matter of slavery, as has been in the past, is an issue whose consequences will resolve it by its own admission, particularly within the modern state of productive forces. In the example you gave, granted that the slave driver escapes the law for a time (which still, as it exists, contributes to the problems of this risk-reward dynamic that would compel even selfish among the smart people to discard this venture), they would still be at odds with other retailers who would not want to re-orient their product lines towards a foreign business. That is, as has been the case in America during the time when slavery was legal, the smarter capitalists would want to minimize costs by continuing to sell consumer products and heavy and light industrial outputs than having to accommodate the needs of slaves, which not only would be inconvenient for them but outright threatening to their market share since they would be feeding a different mode of production altogether that is incompatible with their machines and necessary inputs and such. With this, slaves run the risk of overgrazing because of how comparatively inefficient human beings are, unlike a purpose-built machine which is optimized for one task, and which will not revolt in the event of a lack of feed. Slavery ended for a reason, after all, though it was mainly for a practical, material basis – that of capital interest, of course, wherein the ruling class with the more efficient (read: smarter) mode of production of course triumphed because its design was more efficient, which is further cemented with today's level of productive forces, laws, and all such superstructure.

Also people like Einstein eventually do find a way out of their misery, with at very least there being a very strong tendency for them to. Andrew Carnegie was born to a working-class Scottish family but decided, by means of his will, to strategically accumulate and spend capital to end up with a fortune worth hundreds of billions of dollars. You cannot say that there is a thief, crook, robber, etc. with as much demonstrated intent as him, who have maneuvered whatever was needed because they could, and they personally desired it – unlike many other people born to similar conditions who likewise choose to remain in poverty. Einstein would undoubtedly have used his intelligence to escape and afford a means to himself, as would any other person conscious of their surroundings and possessing a will to make the best and most productive of it. You might want to read about the account of one such as Thales of Miletus, who demonstrated out of sheer principle, once again through his conscious, that one person proper in their ability may very reasonably make tremendous gains despite having no advantage to begin with. It stands that there is a tendency for the most knowledgeable, by general means, to be the most successful. Einstein would not be content with his slave life, but rather devise a way out of it, whether it is through escape and reasoning of events therefrom to rise from his situation, or even manipulation of his owner or other proximate resources. It is only the tendency of those who are simply not smart to remain as slaves and be content, to not wish more so much as to actuate what it is in their capacity and will to achieve.



>The difference between a thief and a capitalist has been gone over before, but for summary it is that a thief generally does not operate on the scale, stability, legal medium, or will that a capitalist does

You don't see thievery that is big-scale & long-term and the meaning of thievery you implicitly use here is the letter of the law. When an organization gets powerful enough it can redefine what is legal. Circular reasoning.


How would you describe Marxism in relation to the enlightenment? Is it fair to say that it is an extension of it? It seems to me that its goes beyond it but still tries to fulfill its ideals that never really came about (because of the reality of the material reality capitalism of course). Should we claim it as our predecessor?


What the deal with the law of value not operating under socialism? From my understanding what is meant by the law of value is the fact that commodities cost are equal to the time laboring on them is, which seems like a rational way to calculate prices. Do they mean law of value as in laws of the markets? Then that criticism applies to Yugo but not so much to SU. I don't understand what's meant by that.



It's willful misinterpretations and dogmatism. Marx suggests that socialism/communism will have:

- no exchange between producers (meaning law of value doesn't dictate which factory gets what, instead the plan decides it)

- labor token system for workers (meaning the law of value does decide how many things you can buy)



Yeah, I thought so too, yet I see so many left-coms sperging about it. It's seems even dumb to say this is a part of capitalism, Marx says this came into being before capitalist production.



It certainly doesn't deny it, it is if anything the completion of the Enlightenment by eliminating its contradictory parts.



You can’t be a marxist without being pro-enlightment.



Summary on that article?




>What the deal with the law of value not operating under socialism?



In Marx's conception, the distribution of social labor in specific proportions is a natural law. But this law takes on different forms in different societies.

The Law of Value - regulates the distribution of labor in a system of indirectly social labor (capitalism)

Planning - regulates the distribution of labor in a system of directly associated labor (socialism)

The law of value is what regulates the distribution of society's labor in a mode of production that is only indirectly social. One company mines metal, another uses the metal to build machines, another uses those machines to extract oil, and the original company uses that oil to power equipment needed to mine metal. All these activities are connected and therefore social in nature, but only indirectly - since they are owned and operated privately. As the need for a specific type of commodity increases, labor and production will shift to that sector and its corresponding value increases. But this is a messy process because society's total production is unplanned and must occur via market exchanges and competition. The regulative law in this system is called the law of value because value is the determining factor. The law of value not only distributes society's labor but also eliminates any form of non-competitive production. Any enterprise that cannot produce equal goods at the same level of efficiency (i.e. labor-values) as the rest will be out-competed and disappear. This relies on the practice that, in general, the market sees equal goods as having equal values regardless of the individual costs of production. Any producers who fail to meet this standard will go out of business.

In socialism there is a switch from indirectly social labor to directly associated labor. That means that society is working as if it were a single workshop operating according to a common plan. Labor, resources, and production are shifted to whatever sector requires them (we will assume need = economic demand). There is no need for market exchanges in this system. Even consumer goods would be rationed via labor certificates. All property is now social, which means there's no longer a market, which means no commodity exchange, which means no money is needed, which means "value" as a relationship between goods no longer exists. The only thing that remains is the underlying distribution of labor and cost of production, which is regulated via planning and feedback from consumption levels.

If value, money, markets, commodity production, wage-labor, M-C-M cycles, etc. exist in a given society - then it isn't socialism in the Marxist sense of the word.


File: 395886efc786512⋯.jpg (53.36 KB, 925x753, 925:753, 1548800320368.jpg)

How do I argue with a friend that opposes the idea of government intervention in the economy on the grounds that he thinks the free market is "an incredible thing" because it gives him the ability to shop for the best prices? I argued that it's inefficient and idealistic, but his only reply was "who are you to tell people what they can't sell?" He also argues that deregulated capitalism would be fine because people just wouldn't buy things if they were made to rip you off.



You can argue with him just on the basis of freshman economics. Even capitalist economists acknowledge the existence of classes of problems that the free market is incapable of addressing without government intervention *even in theory*.



>who are you to tell people what they can't sell?

No one actually believes that government shouldn't interfere in some way in the economy. Is child prostitution alright? Is even basic shit like smoking alright? Should natural resources be used without any protection?



> people just wouldn't buy things if they were made to rip you off.

Factually incorrect, this person sounds young/college aged and not well educated in any real economics or political theory, tell him to look at the video game industry with how games are breaking record sales despite the shitty anti-consumer practices like mtx and other forms of commodifications they cram in them.

Also you don't really see these beliefs in any other place than the American far right because the threat of climate change requires at least some form of regulating ressources and fuel, even the capitalists in Europe acknowledge this.



Even though he grew up somewhat poor, he has a sort of mentality that people should work constantly to have anything at all and that the people that have billions deserve it.


Ironically he's anti-abortion and wants a border wall around the southern border of the United States, among other right-wing talking points.


I could try bringing this up. We've both been out of school for a long time now, but it seems like being in the oil field, the military, and now working as a trucker put him around just the right amount of people to melt his brain on far-right talking points.


Are there any charities worth donating to? (it's ok it's not my money)


Why is Poland so reactionary? Is it hate of Russia and associating everything communist/socialist/leftist with them?


Maybe show him some of Cockshott's work about how much better we could distribute resources?


File: b12c85184bbc9ff⋯.jpg (88.24 KB, 800x600, 4:3, Willitblend.jpg)


>He also argues that deregulated capitalism would be fine because people just wouldn't buy things if they were made to rip you off.

Nobody is actually this naive. People have been buying cars that are designed to break down right after the warranty expires for decades. How could that possibly be chalked up to big gubbermint regulations?


>Is child prostitution alright?

No, it's awww-rightttt.



How do you guys respond to the intellectual dork web type people who claim the "west is the best" because of its values. These people seem to think that science, morality, and rationality are a "western" conception of something.



There are several ways, I don't think such debates are fruitful in the first place, anyone who claims this should be told to read history first and foremost.

You can either use ancient history or labor history to discredit them, the ancient history route would probably be to point out where Ancient Persia was back then compared to Europe, Ancient Persia at its height was probably the best place to live at that time and was comparatively progressive compared to the Assyrians, they even introduced the first kind of human rights.

I guess the labor history/marxian way of looking at it is that all the values and moralities are inherently bourgeois, when I visited the French castles near Louvre I began pondering about just how much worker suffering and toil that it took to create and maintain the castle and gardens while the poor suffered and starved. All this shit about values and morality loses any sense of credibility when you look at how the ruling class disregards it when they're treating their own subjects.



How would you respond to the notion that the construction of things like the Louvre was justified because only thousands went to constructing it but dozens of millions enjoy it, continuously after a set amount of work a long time ago? Would you rather these castles and other architectural pieces not be built?



>Even consumer goods would be rationed via labor certificates

That's not rationing though, by that logic wages are rations. The law of value applies in consumer goods in communism.



introduce him to the concept of inflexible demand



Any resources that would be an easy read to send?


File: aa26497853b8792⋯.jpg (81.16 KB, 630x630, 1:1, 1930025_1.jpg)

What exactly was Zizek talking about with religion in the Peterson debate? I've kind of been having some thoughts about what I picked up while I was listening, I'm not sure about the religion he was talking about though.


File: cf15cfa6dad3d41⋯.jpg (116.82 KB, 900x980, 45:49, cc-1917.jpg)


>That's not rationing though, by that logic wages are rations.

One of the functions of wages, and money in general, is to ration economic goods - so yes.

>The law of value applies in consumer goods in communism.

Even in this case, the pricing of consumer goods according to their labor-values is really just a means of preventing overconsumption by consumers. These goods are not being traded against each other on a market according to equivalent values via money - which is how the law of value functions. The lack of money prevents the law of value from coming into effect. And since labor certificates are non-transferable and can't be accumulated to form capital, they don't function like money does.


File: f722d55280e78f8⋯.jpg (23.61 KB, 217x385, 31:55, image.jpg)

Why are people so drawn to fatalism? Why are they so attached to the concept that they weren't meant to be any better at one thing or another?



pwease wespond


File: b443f8f45277573⋯.jpg (482.19 KB, 1366x1025, 1366:1025, borat-flag.jpg)


Stalin looks like Borat there



One of the leftist mutual aid funds would be best.



They risk being beholden to the bank

Has the bank ever faced any real risk of failure?


File: 6a47de70c127f42⋯.jpg (19.1 KB, 460x276, 5:3, based6.jpg)


>All deaths caused by "shots" are within 3 years of each other.




>🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧Natural causes🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / choroy / dempart / g / klpmm / pinoy / projared / vichan / webcams ]