[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / bbg / choroy / dempart / doomer / flutter / vfur / vietnam / vril ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

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.

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

File: 9beee6ce56e71c1⋯.jpg (123.13 KB, 1300x866, 650:433, gherp.jpg)


>All of Marx's empirical predictions turned out to be false. Diminishing profits, LTV, world revolution in industrialized countries, labor intensive industries would have higher profits than capital intensive ones, etc.

Why are you still a Marxist in the current year?


how the fuck are you supposed to do socialism if not through marxism



Incrementalism. And finally when the material conditions allow it. You and I will not be alive if socialism ever happens.




Honestly, I agree. I find myself growing out of my "ML" phase and getting closer to the revisionist/incrementist view.

Specially given the fact that my country is not even industrialized.


the succdems were right all along?


File: 15595dd5e28a57f⋯.png (22.88 KB, 339x244, 339:244, IMF.png)

File: 9a4f2c2e19f4051⋯.gif (2.76 MB, 480x203, 480:203, giphy (4).gif)


>Diminishing profits

Look at this guy who didn't read the IMF's GFSR Report from this month showing a long-term decline in profitability in the core capitalist economies.

To be sure, corporate profits are high thanks to a historic influx of fictitious capital, but they're falling when measured against what they've already invested: their capital stock. There is now so much money floating around but it's not being spent on real investment, mainly speculation, and capital goods orders are falling fast and capital goods imports into the U.S. are now negative. The profits are being made in mergers and acquisitons, buybacks, and dividend payouts – which of course causes income inequality to spike, devouring the consumer base which is eaten up by the rise in asset prices.

There's a slight uptick in profitability (EBITDA to asset %) in the U.S. because of Trump's suger-high tax cuts (which corporations have used to splurge on more stock buybacks, further inflating their asset values) but it's going to come crashing down sooner or later. Tick tock bitch


>A huge number of Marx's predictions, big and small, have come true. To mention just a few that pop immediately to mind: that the tendency towards monopolies would continue, and intensify; that the boom-bust cycle of capitalism would continue, and that the capitalists would never be able to eliminate it (for reasons Marx explained in depth); that peasant-type (semi-feudal) agriculture would slowly give way to capitalist agriculture; that capitalism would more and more become an international system; that the class struggle would continue and grow; that the Union would prevail in the U.S. Civil War (because of the much more advanced capitalism of the Northern states); that the workers would not be able to hold on to power in the Paris Commune (the the very first working class revolution, in 1871); that the working class could only hold onto power, after seizing it, by establishing its own proletarian dictatorship over the defeated bourgeoisie (a lesson Marx summed up after the Paris Commune, and proven correct by subsequent history); and, late in his life, that the first successful proletarian revolution might well take place in Russia.




This entire post is bait, and was already refuted in the first six posts.


Marx is right in a lot of his analysis, but there's a lot of it that doesn't really apply. For one, class consciousness" is absolutely non existent in most countries. I believe capitalism will come to its end eventually due to its contradictions. But it still is really young (200 years tops?) and we're going to deal with it for a long time, hopefully with reforms that make it decent for the working class.

I don't believe in a magic quick change. History shows us that major changes take centuries and centuries. This shit is slow. Small increments won't "hide" capitalism flaws, if it does it would mean Marx was wrong, but we know that's not the case.



Yeah. And even today capitalism's profitability crisis won't necessarily result in its end. If anything we're kind of repeating the late 19th century's "long depression" that lasted several decades where capitalism shambled its way from crisis to crisis. That's "normal" capitalism and we're living in it.

I'm also a long-view guy. And Marx was right about the fundamentals.




If this is true, is this an argument against accelerationism? Since the basic premise is that we need to make things worse to make them better, it also just means we're making things harder on ourselves for a collapse to come slightly sooner, but if we can't have socialism in our lifetime then we're making it harder on ourselves and we won't reap any benefits, just more suffering.



Of course. Accelerationism is the most retarded shit ever, and a great way of making the working class fucking hate you. Nothing says "fuck you" better than literally advocating for libertarianism for the very slight possibility of having a revolution.



How the fuck do you guys reconcile accelerationism when there's also people the right thinking the same thing? that they will vote for left candidates to accelerate the downfall of society?



Tf, where are you from?


File: 59a369740df5188⋯.jpg (82.68 KB, 971x631, 971:631, goldman22.jpg)

File: 72362a5cef7983d⋯.png (57.38 KB, 397x300, 397:300, Capture.PNG)

File: c523c049112baa5⋯.png (60.59 KB, 776x407, 776:407, labour-intensive.PNG)

File: 9846c9964893e34⋯.jpg (185.62 KB, 768x505, 768:505, 669c988629e972022ef3613d9b….jpg)


Revolutions happened in industrialized countries, it's just that they became reasonably skilled at crushing revolutionaries.

Seriously fucking read a book


File: a7106c5dfd9b19d⋯.jpg (92.98 KB, 800x520, 20:13, The_Russian_Revolution,_19….jpg)


Hmm. I dunno. I'm not a fan of the Nick Land accelerationism if that's what you mean although I'm aware there's a "left" version – I don't know much about it. This might contradict Marx but I've heard one theory (via Michael Roberts) that periods of revolutionary upheavals are possible when two factors are present: (1) after the working class has recovered from a depression to feel confident in its strength and conscious of its position and (2) when the ruling class has its back against the wall and is unable to grant concessions due to a falling rate in profitability.

Periods include: 1890s-1900s, post-1918 and the 1970s. But not right now, at least in the core capitalist countries.

The Tsarist regime in Russia was basically shitting itself constantly until the 1890s when Sergei Witte (the closest thing Russia had to a Bismarck) reformed the economy in a program of heavy state investment in industry and railroads which generated the urban proletariat – and the resulting social tensions – that would try to overthrow the government in 1905.

In that sense you might make a case for left-accelerationism, but that involved rapid industrial growth. Right now the problem seems to be that the working class has not recovered from 2008. We just shamble on for another 20 years, maybe. Pretty depressing.



Argentina. We have some industry but not much, and the industry we have is not national, it's foreign.




Also another point, the number one problem for Socialism is that the public believes it's claims have been discredited because "important figures" have said so. Distributing the evidence of Marx's correct predictions should be of utmost importance to Western leftists



lmao I got 800 upvotes to the top of /r/economics the other day on an article from a Marxist economist describing the looming recession from a Marxian framework, a few hundred comments of people arguing. No mention of Marx or socialism in the post but one guy figured it out. "This guy seems like a communist…"

Most conventional economic theories don't make any sense to explain what's going on with capitalism right now (or maybe, ever, but that's another story). Nobody serious is really talking about the "excessive power of labor" contributing to falling profitability like they were in the 1970s. Labor is cheap. And I think automation is overhyped for the same reason.



Marx has committed but a single mistake.

Anticipation for globalisation, AKA proletarian internationalism, AKA world revolution.

Everything else is correct, and developed along the lines that, of all theories, only Marxism has anticipated.

In everything else, he was incredibly predictive and correct.


File: b85e29a90d60693⋯.png (425.85 KB, 6109x3995, 6109:3995, meanwhile.png)

File: 1fbf065a0fb3e4d⋯.png (172.38 KB, 933x719, 933:719, LTV.png)


<All of Marx's empirical predictions turned out to be false.

>Diminishing profits

>[fails to look at the long run:]


>Labour theory of value and its correlation with wages and prices:

>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM3sQLm-y88

>world revolution in industrialized countries

>>>>> Russia was the third most industrialized country when it was hit by a proletariat revolution, followed by Hungary, mind you, meaning that the revolutionary "spirit" traveled from East to West.

>labor intensive industries would have higher profits than capital intensive ones

>>>>> Meanwhile at Foxconn, who produces iPhones, iMacs, and so on!


File: a7e4fec9a099244⋯.pdf (694.63 KB, document.pdf)

File: 2fec4e0cda24faf⋯.jpg (91.81 KB, 1200x928, 75:58, DVBUzokXcAAcExT.jpg)


<All of Marx's empirical predictions turned out to be false.

pdf related was written by Natixis' economists (a French corporate and investment bank) and the title is "The dynamics of capitalism is now clearly that foreseen by Karl Marx"

Take that as you will.



File: efdc8f063783f6d⋯.jpg (282.94 KB, 967x1024, 967:1024, Screenshot_20190328-164028….jpg)


I never was.



>Since the basic premise is that we need to make things worse to make them better

That's not what it means in any definition of the term. Accelerationism is both a theory describing capital-technology positive feedback loops, and a cluster of ideologies advocating influencing or further accelerating those feedback loops to achieve certain ends (which depends on the ideology of the "accelerationist" in question). I'm guessing the "make shit worse" misunderstanding probably comes from either /pol/ or some retarded journalist.


It has nothing to do with voting.


File: 3cfa5fc6e663fc1⋯.jpeg (61.78 KB, 850x400, 17:8, stupid people.jpeg)


>all of these predictions are false

>OP posts zero evidence

>tons of evidence to the contrary posted ITT

ebry taim



Hey so OP after being BTFO by these posters




Have you reconsidered your positions at all?



I doubt he's coming back.


File: a745903b2b5f5d2⋯.png (626.54 KB, 721x1596, 103:228, pol.png)



Sorry to inform you, but LTV, falling rates of profit et al have all been empirically studied and confirmed



>diminishing profits

Happens in cycles as he predicted


Has actually been empirically proven

>revolution in industrialised countries

Okay so it happened but in less industrialised countries

>more profits from labour intensive industries rather than capital intensive

As a rate of everything you spend you get. more from labour rather than capital intensive industries



>Happens in cycles as he predicted

There's a secular fall in the rate of profit as well, as multiple people have already pointed out. Claiming that it's only cyclical contradicts empirical evidence.



yeh but they go up and down in the short term


File: 83d24589c2bc5f7⋯.jpg (81.69 KB, 350x468, 175:234, mao-and-friends.jpg)


I'm not well read about Russian revolution or the German one so can someone tell me if the success of the Russian revolution could be attributed to Leninism (centralism)? I've read Rosa writing and she obviously was against centralization (which I understand and even support) but I think we can all agree in times of revolution having good organization is crucial.


Socialism is easy when you take the mooch shitskins and thieving kikes out of the equation.



Socialism will only be truly possible when all reactionaries are in camps




Centralization vs decentralization is an imaginary difference that doesn't manifest in practice



How so?



No they're not, they're organizational strategies.



Both rely on technocracy, and hearing out those most qualified, so it really doesn't matter if there's just a bunch of decentralized councils because they're forced to listen to the person with the most clout/experience anyways.


File: cdfbbddaecc4c92⋯.webm (8.97 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, Falling Rate of Profits.webm)


File: cdfbbddaecc4c92⋯.webm (8.97 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, Falling Rate of Profits.webm)



Where did Roberts get this idea? I get the part that the bourgeoisie must be unable or too stupid to make concessions in time, but where has the other part ever been true?


File: f500ab33cafc0ca⋯.jpg (28.15 KB, 640x418, 320:209, US rate of profit.jpg)



LOL look at the US rate of profit and tell me that's not falling.


Someone please explain the rate of profit to a brainlet like me. Is it a problem only to free-market economics? Would state capitalism help alleviate some of its problems.?


Eco fascism is the future



watch the cockshott video on it



OP posted >>2867053 and then skedaddled cause he's a fag



That isn't accelerationism chuckle fuck

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / bbg / choroy / dempart / doomer / flutter / vfur / vietnam / vril ]