(untitled)

The communist thread was deleted from /hum/, so here it is. It is becoming increasingly clear that capitalism is an unsustainable system. Those in power believe that surveillance, media control as well as violence will be enough to preserve our system. This will be done at the expense of the vast majority of the planet, that will be kept subjugated through imperialism and interventionism. The head of the IMF has said we're going into another depression. This is because capitalism is constantly in crisis, stuck in a cycle of booms and busts. Marx predicted this 150 years ago. Liberal states, through media and education, have ensured that Marx's voice gets drowned out. But!, you cannot argue against science. You cannot defeat reality. If you are not familiar with Marx or Marxism, I suggest his work "Wage Labour and Capital", and "Estranged Labour" (from Economic Manuscripts 1844)

to be honest we don't really need another depression, gig economy/ low wages already created a pseudo serf class that cannot afford wages, where they bare the economic risk and cost while getting little of the profit. With things going the way they are, don't be surprised when it gets worse. After the next depression, in order to save costs vast majority of corporations will look at this and try to shift to it. Today is dog walking and food delivery, tomorrow will be entirely controlled via an app that give long low paid contract work, as to get away without paying what little benefits they already half too.

So how does communism work? That is. Once it is done. What does the basic structure and economy look like? How does the government function and come into being? Where do people live and what do they do?

>>15287 The details on how society will be organised will depend on the material conditions people find themselves in. Socialism in coastal cities will look different than socialism in the mountains. One of the key features is democracy in the workplace, meaning you and your fellow workers decide how the work is done, when you work and what you do with the surplus. More on this if you genuinely wish to learn: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

>>15288 I don't feel like reading that honestly. I just want a simple basic outline. Would i be correct in the statement: every town runs itself and interacts with other towns that run themselves as they see fit? So there would be no state government and no elections? Commerce would just be on a case by case basis?

>>15289 That's the full communist / anarchist ideal. However, planning that far ahead is utopian. Marx and Engels were against utopian socialists, instead chose to focus on the process and how society can evolve.

One flavor of ideological fanaticism pans out about the same as any other flavor in practice. They all become totalitarian, rigid, paranoid hellscapes. This goes for fanatical capitalism, fanatical communism, fanatical theocracy, fanatical militarism, you name it. The most succesful countries in the world today in terms of overall prosperity, stability, strong middle class, personal freedoms, living standards for the average person, are moderate blends of socialistic, capitalistic, and democratic systems, exemplified by the Scandinavian countries. Once the balance is broken and ideological fanatics swing a country too far toward one extreme, that's when things begin to fail. You see this happening today with the libertarian trend in the USA. Alternatively, ou saw China increase in power and prosperity only after relaxing some of their communistic ideas and incorporating limited capitalism. The real "best" political system is one that stays rational, moderate, pragmatic, and adaptive, and avoids extremism in general.

There is definitely a better organization for human society than capitalism and communism in the right circumstances certainly has the potential to be better, however it fails to be better enough to be worth transitioning to. Human society's future will not be communism. It will require a system that is much further ahead than capitalism to overcome the immense inertia our existing nations and societies have. It will likely emerge from a set of major technological breakthroughs, think about how taxi and food delivery systems have been reorganized by tech in a fairly short timespan and consider what effect similar techniques might have when applied beyond financial incentive.

>>15296 thanks for your wisdom, enlightened centrist

This is more of a question than a statement (I'm dumb and don't know political theory) but isn't communism outdated? How can you ethically have a system based on labour when so many jobs don't need to exist (either they can be done by robots or the product is just worthless bullshit)?

>>15306 >How can you ethically have a system based on labour when so many jobs don't need to exist (either they can be done by robots or the product is just worthless bullshit)? This is going to be a two parts. 1. Simply put, capitalism has plenty of jobs that are both, useless and products that are useless. 2. When automation hits jobs can be more easily switch under a socialist system, in which vast resources do not get horded by the few that are produced with automation.

Murray Bookchin was right about everything.

>>15308 Murray Bookchin was a dead end. Read Lenin. >>15306 This is a great question. Communism isn’t a system based on labour any more than capitalism is a system based on labour - under capitalism, labour creates value, and it’s fair to say the same would be the case under communism. Labour is not an end in itself in communism though, its purpose is to produce use values according to need (either individual or collective) - only work which is necessary is done under communism. If you work for 3 hours one day to fulfil a requirement that 500 pairs of shoes be made today (a task made possible by incredible technological advances by workers which are now owned by workers), there is no incentive to make any surplus, and you can switch the machine off and go home. Not so under capitalism. So the short answer to you question is: you can’t, and communism isn’t such a system,

>>15285 Do you actually and unironically believe in communism? Even after countless variations ("not real communism!") killed well over 100 million (100.000.000 !!!) people? Or are you looking for an alternative to capitalism and it seems like the best option?

>>15315 Do you actually and unironically believe in capitalism? Even after countless variations ('that's "crony" capitalism') killed well over 100 gorrillion (100,🐵🐵🐵,🐵🐵🐵 !!!) people? Or are you looking for an alternative to communism and it seems like the best option?

The most appealing part of communism to me is the communal part. I'm suspect of the economics. Our modern city structure bothers me. People may be happier if community number never reached more than say, 100-250 people. Not seeing only strangers all day. Not needing government in your life because your community benefits each other and helps those who need help. Attending social events regularly that strengthens bonds. That's what i feel is most lacking. >>15330 Very clever. Source please.

>>15331 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule Here's about 50,000,000 in India alone. > That would have happened anyway, you can't blame capitalism >That wasn't real capitalism >Those figures are disputed All equally valid for any death-count for communism. A few million more we don't talk about because they make capitalism look bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366

>>15332 Well, collonialism is differant than capitalism, isn't it?

>>15309 >Murray Bookchin was a dead end. Read Lenin. Rojava is doing pretty well considering the situation they are in.

>>15333 No, colonialism was capitalism's basic policy to extract more resources to create and meet demand.

>>15332 It's not like people died of all that long before capitalism was even a thing...

>>15339 That isn't the point. The point is that is easy preventable, especially now with modern technology and wealth that can end world poverty several times over. source:https://money.com/billionaires-made-so-much-money-last-year-they-could-end-extreme-poverty-seven-times/

>>15339 >>15340 Also, India faced famines before the British arrived, but never with that kind of death toll. The usual coping strategies were overridden and food was being exported from india while tens of millions died, to feed the capitalist empire's insatiable appetite for resources. >>15333 > Well, collonialism is differant than capitalism, isn't it? Not in any meanigful sense. The British Empire began as a corporate endeavour, and only recieved the 'legitimacy' of state/imperial backing later. Read about the East India Company, Cecil Rhodes etc. The same continues today, but without the flags. Minerals companies like Rio Tinto, Anglo American and Glencore essentially buying entire African nations (either though bribery or supporting coups) to ensure that they don't pay any taxes on the minerals they extract, that they can expropriate the natives' land whenever a discovery is made and to suppress labor rights so that their workers are forced into slave-like conditions.

How come Marx projected communism evolve in a post-bourgeois industrial societies, but literally every place where communist revolutions succeeded were agrarian post-feudal countries with non-existing industrialization, i.e. not developed enough for true proletarian consciousness? If we take Russian Empire as prime example, the most industrially developed provinces where workers socialist parties had most popular vote and parliament seats, where worker's parties had success during revolutionary battles, namely Finland and Livonia, first seceded, then immediately took the opposite capitalist bourgeois republic forms and still remain in this opposed relation towards communism and Russia in general. How come they were subverted so quickly, and why in reality socialism only starts in early industrial societies only?

>>15349 i think in the case of the russian empire, there were too many chaotic variables for marx's projected ideas to play out. tsarist imperial activities in the west were ongoing at the time of the workers uprisings (all the well-trained loyalist soldiers were away at war in 1905, remember) and i think by the time they had concluded, finland was deeply resentful of anything related to russian subjugation whether they were proletarian or not. i think its just a bunch of chaotic historical variables that makes post-revolution periods implode and marx's modeling doesn't account for the influence of territorial conflicts.

>>15349 I think Marx didn't take into account that liberal republics and would be so effective at quelling socialist revolution. If you look at successful revolutions in general(not just socialist ones) they usually happen only when conditions aren't just bad but intolerable, as in most people are hard-pressed to find food and shelter. Liberal republics are effective at keeping their homeland populations pacified by giving the proles just enough to live by, which gives the state enough stability to enforce their control over colonial holdings.

>>15349 >>15354 Also, I think it's worth noting that Marx's predictions came *very* close to being true. The Russian Revolution could have easily swept across Europe if some particular variables had been just slightly different.

Communism, as everybody preaches, is nonsense. 1) Centrally planned economies don't work. There are no signals to define supply and demand. 2) "Labor vouchers" are analogous to money, and thus subject to the same effects of accumulation. Inequality exists where one can accumulate. 3) Two-tiered systems naturally flow from Leninism (Leninism is Marxism in practice). Tier 1: The proletariat, the poor working class. Tier 2: The governing class (indistinguishable from the bourgeois). 4) Communism requires violence and oppression. It's no mystery that communist states like the USSR, China, and the DPRK all use violence to enact their goals. In order to maintain "communism", they continue using violence and oppression. Contrary to what modern communists want you to believe, communism has not been and is not amenable to homosexuality, transgender, other cultures, other races, etc. 5) Contrary to capitalism, which has problems of causing suffering incidentally to its operation, communism has caused and continues to cause suffering intentionally (the holodomor is just the tip of the iceberg). Intentional murders (in the many millions) is vastly worse than accidental deaths. This is the result of merging politics and economics, one becomes the responsibility of the other. No, Capitalism didn't "kill millions more", that's politics, learn the difference. No, colonialism isn't capitalism, it's politics. When one culture believes it is superior to another and has the capacity + will to conquer, you get colonialism. Capitalism merely benefits from this political evil. 6) Communism creates a monoculture. Communism is, by its nature, collectivist. This means individuality is put on the back burner to group concerns. As a direct result, art, technology, literature, architecture, etc. all gravitate to the lowest-common-denominator ("Socialist Realism" was what the USSR called their monoculture). 7) There's no room for innovation. With capitalism, you can invent something people don't know they need. With communism, you have to hope you can convince your local soviet that it is worth investing your time. 8) "From each according to their ability to each according to their need" is utopian nonsense. Who decides what one is "able" to do? Who decides what one "needs"? Without markets to assign a price to what one is able to do, and assign a price on various needs, there is no mechanism to evaluate this problem. 9) Most communists openly espouse violence in a non-violent society. There's no talk of reworking the system from within, it's always a violent overthrow. Most rational people know we live in a non-violent society, and barring violent governments and occasional idiots, we generally do not tolerate violence. Times have changed, violence is no longer the primary means of making change in civil society. 10) Communism is equally incapable of dealing with climate change and/or pollution as capitalism. Look at China. This is a political problem, not an economic one. 11) Equating politics with economics is a good way to collapse both. The USSR fell apart, piece by piece in both the political and economic realm, affecting is converse. 12) Marx claimed that he was basing his predictions on material conditions, even though those conditions did not exist. This is called fantasy, and Marx himself rallied against such thinking. The fact is the "material conditions" he predicted have come and gone and none of his predictions have come true. Incidentally, everywhere where communist revolutions have happened didn't meet Marx's criteria. 13) Communism isn't "scientific". When your experiment fails repeatedly, time and again, you don't say "let's try again", you try something different. This goes in the face of communists who are always spouting how communism is "scientific". 14) Communism is inflexible and cannot adapt to material conditions. The USSR didn't fail for no reason, the fact is it couldn't adapt. Capitalism, interestingly, continuously adapts. With the advent of technology, capitalism reallocates labor appropriately to maintain efficiency. 15) Communism is inefficient and generally unsafe. Capitalism has produced vastly superior nuclear reactors to anything the USSR ever produced. It's no wonder that the worst nuclear accident to ever occur was in the USSR during a safety test. Communism is incapable of efficiently allocating resources, primarily due to its lack of means of pricing resources, processes, labor, etc. 16) While you may cheer for the oppression of people you see as your enemy today, you'll be quite afraid when others come to see you as the enemy tomorrow. Violence is endemic in communism at all levels. There is no such thing as forgiveness in communism. 17) All communist states have a despot structure. While some attempts have started out with honorable strives, power is - as a global rule - consolidated into the hands of a very few, or one. 18) Communism depends on unsound economic ideas. Without sound economic principles - such as a pricing mechanism - communism is doomed to eventual collapse. 19) Pre-state communist politics forbids dissent, suffers tyranny of the majority, and is often cult-like. Read "Bounded Choice" on the Democratic Worker's Party for a single example of many, with excellent analysis. 20) Communists accept communist propaganda uncritically (and unironically) while shunning investigative reporting by "capitalists" (ie. real reporters). 21) Communism, in China in particular, eschews human rights in the name of promoting and protecting their elite. Organ harvesting, concentration camps (or gulags), etc. are all par for the course. 22) Communism pretends work will be eventually obsolete. The fact is work will always be relevant and necessary. Automating some jobs only leads to the creation of others. 23) Communism creates unrealistic expectations about a global revolution. The fact is different people have different cultures which espouse different values which lead to different priorities which mean they'll have different politics and different needs. Communism, to work, would have to unite ALL of humanity, which is a pipe dream at best. 24) Communism claims surplus is a goal of capitalism. This is false, a surplus of product is an inefficiency and drives the price down. Supply and demand, basic economics. 25) Communism claims workers are alienated from their labor and communism uniquely liberates them from this. The fact is, unless you are a direct consumer of what you produce, you're always going to be alienated from your labor. Furthermore, if you look merely at the value you produce versus what you obtain, you completely ignore (or misrepresent) the risk and financial burden of the capitalist in creating the job in the first place. Without risk, there is no reward, and reward should thusly be based upon risk; workers take nearly zero risk, capitalists take substantial risks. Communism would alienate those who want to launch new ventures substantially, leading to stagnation. 26) Communists don't value emergent trends in art, philosophy, literature, etc. Video games represent an emergent new form of immersive story telling (particularly in the indie space), but communists - as a near universal rule - reject their potential and indicate they would disallow them. Similarly, in China and the USSR (and likely the DPRK, etc.) philosophical ideas that didn't align with everything Marx said were outright rejected and verboten. This curtailment of rational inquisition hampered the development of these countries' intellectual traditions. 27) Communism is incapable of innovation. The USSR stole nuclear secrets, China constantly steals industrial secrets. There is no incentive to innovate nor invent. 28) Communism as a system is just as imperialist as other countries (again, this is political, but given communism blends politics and economics, there's no difference in communism). The USSR conquered surrounding countries by force. China is slowly conquering Africa. 29) Communism consistently misrepresents itself. The "Democratic" Republic of Korea (literally zero democracy or anything remotely like it), The "People's" Republic of China (governed by a dense bureaucracy, led by a dictator. Who's this possessive "People"?), The United Socialist "Soviet Republic" (A soviet is a council of workers; A republic is a system where the citizens are responsible for the governance of the country. The USSR was neither once Stalin consolidated power, and it stayed that way). 30) Communism is indistinguishable from totalitarianism and dictatorship. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck, reproduces like a duck, migrates like a duck, and all the other things ducks do ---- It's a fuarrrking duck.

>>15362 1) There's no supply/demand in a planned economy, because there is no market. Supply and demand are market forces, not immutable economic forces. 2) Labour vouchers are not "analogous" to money, because money requires circulation, which LVs don't do. Besides, labour vouchers are only one of the proposed solutions. 3) What does this even mean? 4) Ah yes, and in the USA cops give you milk and cookies and are never violent. ALL states require violence and oppression. Choose tomorrow you don't wish to participate in capitalism, stop paying taxes, stop paying for things, see how long you last before you're violently put back into place in order to "maintain" capitalism. 5) "incidentally" lol 6) Compare the different cultures within USSR, Yugoslavia, to the different cultures within the US. >As a direct result, art, technology, literature, architecture, etc. all gravitate to the lowest-common-denominator You have just described entertainment in capitalism. Is this a joke? I hope this is satire. No one can be this dumb, can they? I'm done reading this garbage. If this is how you really think, you're one of the dumbest people I have come across.

>>15363 >See how long until you are violently put back in to your place to "maintain" capitalism. This only applies to tax evaders. Homeless and hippies are not punished for choosing not to be part of the system. Many people used to not pay taxes in the u.s. either. Getting less and less i think.

>>15362 >>15364 >you won't respond to my long list of unfounded accusations that I copy/pasted from somewhere? Lol how intellectually dishonest of you >>15365 >Homeless and hippies are not punished for choosing not to be part of the system. that is just not true. >Many people used to not pay taxes in the u.s. either. Getting less and less i think. mostly rich people. Surprise surprise.

>>15363 >You have just described entertainment in capitalism. Except I didn't, and you're arguing in bad faith, throughout your entire post. In our capitalist society, there are more genres of content than I could enumerate in a single post of every type. More music, literature, art, film, television, etc. And guess what? It's all different. Some of it is even socialist in orientation. You would never get away with that in communism. >>15366 >you won't respond to my long list of unfounded accusations that I copy/pasted from somewhere? Lol how intellectually dishonest of you Well-founded, read a book. I've compiled these together for your ease of access rather than demand you read a bunch of books. Responding in bad faith, how intellectually dishonest of you. >that is just not true. "no it isn't no it isn't bla bla bla I don't believe you". That's what you sound like. >mostly rich people. Surprise surprise. Politics. See my original post.

>>15367 >Well-founded, read a book. I've read plenty. Maybe you should tell me what book. >I've compiled these together for your ease of access rather than demand you read a bunch of books. you literally demanded that I read a book in the previous sentence. >"no it isn't no it isn't bla bla bla I don't believe you". That's what you sound like. yeah, it's called a refutation. I see homeless people being harassed by police every day. They are literally living on the edge only because it's more economically viable to leave "luxury" apartments empty than it is to house poor people.

>Those in power believe that surveillance, media control as well as violence will be enough to preserve our system. This will be done at the expense of the vast majority of the planet, that will be kept subjugated through imperialism and interventionism. What makes you think that a communist system wouldn't do the same thing? I'd imagine it would be even worse.

>>15371 A communist system definitely would be worse. After all, as I've noted above, communism relies on violence to perpetuate itself at the expense of the proletariat.

>>15371 depends what you mean by "communist system". If you're more of a libertarian bet you should look in to anarcho-communism, the essential assumption is that people can cooperate to accomplish without any state at all. What "without a state" means is not a settled question among anarchists or communists, and there are many variations on libertarian communism.

>>15376 *bent *can cooperate to accomplish society

>>15366 >that is just not true No it's not >mostly rich people There are tons of blue collar people and country types in the U.S. Who never did or want to pay taxes. It's not just those evil rich ppl.

>>15380 >no it's not *yes it is

>>15380 >There are tons of blue collar people and country types in the U.S. Who never did or want to pay taxes. in terms of amount of unpaid taxes, rich people have them beat. There are many forms of social control besides just arresting people for not paying taxes. Homelessness itself is a form of oppression.

>>15382 >People with more money who don't pay taxes probably owe more than people with less money that don't pay taxes. I agree. >Homelessness is a form of oppression. I don't agree. I might even go so far as to say it's a form of freedom.

>>15362 >10) Communism is equally incapable of dealing with climate change and/or pollution as capitalism. Look at China. China, the world leader in development, construction and implementation of renewable energy technology?

>>15382 >Homelessness itself is a form of oppression. This one depends on how you see it; >homelessness at the hands of society If the people drive out a person from his home, take away his possessions, and force him to be homeless and live off the scraps of society, then it can be a form of social oppression >homelessness by choice If a person maintains his value (either his abilities or assets) and chooses to live without a property or a conventional "house" or "home," he has more freedom to go about his days without worry. He has no formal property to be damaged or seized, and he does not have a financial obligation to pay for a mortgage or management costs. Another way to look at it is people who opt out of cars or cellular phones.

>>15387 in my country homelessness is a crime and police take you in for it. well not actually homelessness, but "lifestyle-like public place staying" is a crime. of course everything is considered a public place, squares and underways just like forests and fields. so homeless people have obligation to go to the homeless shelter, which is everything but "free as in freedom"

I do not really understand how the "decolonization of turtle island" idea that many communists like works in their thought process. Communists reject fascist ideas like certain people having esoteric spiritual ties to their land and often accept multiculturalism as a way to unite the working classes of the world, but at the same time think that white and Asian people should be removed from the Americas in order to liberate the indigenous and slave descendants who had "their rightful lands" stolen so that they can run things uncontested?

>>15362 As they said "You cannot convince that who has already been convinced". The problem becomes bigger because fanatics are never willing to talk (i.e. they are convinced they have uncontested moral and intellectual superiority), therefore they will always resort to rude or violent behaviors which is something I often notice in people that identify with leftist ideology (notice I wrote "identify", meaning that that they often don't and won't practice what they preach). No system is perfect for everyone because humans always tend to form hierarchies and these hierarchies always seek to benefit themselves before others for the same reason anyone would want to benefit their loved ones first. Sure there is Oligarchy for capitalism, but for communism we had Nomenklatura in Soviet Union. In south America, socialist leaders like the Castro's, the Chavez (et al) hoarded obscene amounts of money and wealth while they keep spitting their socialist rethoric (and naturally their people were left destitute). Other example would be the Chinese communist party owning big part of their country's capital while mercilessly exploiting and repressing their people, and a much more examples abound. What have this all to do with hierarchies? Simply, because is human nature to feed on the weak (for example, see Standford prison experiment). If you have a group of people that "won" the revolution, highly trained, armed, and overall dangerous people, they will impose their will on the unarmed and weak and feed off them. Equal misery for everyone. Is no coincidence that many attempt to escape such places. Communism as an Utopia could only work if you override human nature and make everyone into absolute peace loving retard. And such people would be unable to survive for long against the ruthlessness of mother nature. The best choice therefore is to start looking for new forms of sustainable government (and by sustainable I don't mean only environmentally, but also politically and economically). Adhering with fanatism to old outdated ideas will only bring more ruin (being capitalistic or comunistic ideas)

I would like to say this thread is remarkably civilised for a thread about communism. >>15285 >you cannot argue against science. You cannot defeat reality. I really dislike MLs framing of communism as a science. I guess you can argue that if we take a very strange perspective of Marx, along the lines of >historical analysis = repeatable experimental data >the stages of society (progression from primitive communism to feudalism to capitalism) able to make predictions about the future (communism) then it all falls apart because that's not really something one can easily prove experimentally. An entire economic system is such a huge thing that our dataset must be tiny and unreliable. The USSR fell, does that mean communism is disproven? Well not really, because a) that's only one datapoint, and b) there are so many variables in a system that is as large as AN ENTRE SOCIETY that it is impossible to control for everything and account for any unforseen outside factors of capitalism trying to squash the revolution or climate factors or counter revolutionaries or beurocracy or propaganda or unforseen economic events or wars etc etc etc there are simply too many uncontrolable variables to even hope to draw any conclusions from a scientific standpoint. And, even if we ignore all of this we're still opperating on the root assumption that human interactions on a large scale can be boiled down to a science. This is completely reducionist. We can say certain things for sure about dialectical relations between the bourgoise and proles, but that is ONE INTERACTION in an incredibly complex system. Already the human brain is the most complex object we know about in the universe, and we can't even make accurate predictions about how one of them will behave in an isolated environment, and yet somehow marxists think they're able to organize millions of them optimally with a few changes to how property works? I'm sorry, that's not science. That doesn't mean it's wrong or bad, it's just not scientific. Personally I am critical of the idea that there is one optimal arangement of society. >>15389 decolonisation is generally seen as important since many indigenous peoples formally had societies which were much closer to communism. Plus colonisation and imperialism are tools of capitalists to maintain and grow their power so resisting that is another way to resist capitalism. >ideas like certain people having esoteric spiritual ties to their land and often accept multiculturalism as a way to unite the working classes of the world while they may not call them spiritual, communists have been historically hyper-nationalist, especially statist communists. You just have to look at any propaganda pumped out by the ussr or dprk or china etc. >>15390 >humans always tend to form hierarchies picrelated something i'm surprised hasn't been mentioned yet is the superimposition of hegalian modernist thought onto our current post-modern world. Marxists, MLs in particular, will do anything they can to stick their fingers in their ears and shout lalalalala in order to avoid having to think that the world may have chaged in the last 100 years. Not all marxists do this though. I would be interested in you guy's thoughts on both the situationists, and mark fisher.

>>15389 I'm not a communist per se, but I believe it's less to do with physical removal of the person from the premisis, and more to do with empowering the aboriginal people to control their own lands. The US/Canadian governments are "colonial incarnate" and prevent them from having autonomy, thus it is necessary to dismantle these institutions to achieve the goal. >>15388 That's fascinating, could you elaborate on the exact place and/or laws they use to accomplish this? >>15390 Decidedly, people tend to discount evidence that contradicts their internal narrative. Communists have a nasty tendency of ignoring capitalist rhetoric (muh CIA propaganda), and embracing communist rhetoric (CCP is good, everything about them that supports them is good). Conversely, capitalists tend to do the opposite (muh tax breaks (that don't really benefit ME), CCP boogymen). The truth is often much more nuanced. >>15382 Homelessness may be a form of oppression if one did not become that way by choice. Generally, however, it isn't doom and gloom like some of the other lains have suggested. >>15376 Anything with a libertarian (not big-L liber) bent is worth investigating since that implies individuality isn't quashed by oppression nor drowned out by capital. --- I think what is missing largely from this thread is nuance: neither communism nor capitalism have yielded long-term productive fruit in the manner their adherants claim they do. With both, we typically have an authoritarian streak that tends to hamper the "pure" model; it seems likely to me that authoritarian socio-political is the source of many if not most problems. Also, one should not conflate the theory (Marxism for instance) with the practice. So where do we look for "purity"? Bitcoin, Anarcho-* communes, etc. Bitcoin is somewhat troubling because it hints that luck is an overwhelming factor in success (early investors, extreme volatility). Communes tend to be quashed by outside forces, but overall their internal living situation, though modest, has been quite egalitarian.

>>15391 >dislike MLs framing of communism as a science This. The problem is the "experiment" keeps failing, and rather then assume the theory is wrong (Leninism moreso than Marxism if I may bias the claim), they double down. Arguments against the validity of the result range from "No true scotsman" to "External influences". If a system is to be resiliant, it must survive all external influences.

>>15393 Everyone does similar things. How many times have I heard an anarchist say something along the lines of "catalonia was doing great for ages until the fascists came along and exectuted everyone!" like yeah no soykaf what else do you think fascists are going to do? It's very hard to understand your own confirmation bias when it comes to analysing history.

>>15394 >slaughtered by fascists versus >systematic failure and collapse Um... that's a false equivilency.

>>15395 fair point.

>>15389 Most communists do not consider the USA to be a valid state for the same reason they do not consider Israel to be a valid state, they are seen as violent oppressors who need to be taken down so that the colonized indigenous peoples and perpetually enslaved African Americans may be liberated and own their means of production. Many native societies were closer to the communist ideal than the contemporary USA, which makes many communists especially irritated given that the USA is the ultimate embodiment of everything they hate. I think any white or Asian American/Canadian/Australian/etc. person who wants globe spanning hyper-nationalist communism is suicidal for this reason: the new world will completely reject them as relics of colonization that are no longer welcome on the reclaimed land they had tarnished, the old world will reject them as the descendants of traitors whose ancestors propped up the evils of capitalism. They would have nowhere to go besides Antarctica and some isolated islands that were never settled.

>>15337 They’re on the verge of collapse because they depended on US intervention to exist. It is full of good people and it will be sad when it finally dies, but a theory which required buying into the American protection racket to be practically implemented was never going to live for a long time.

>>15398 It's the geopolitics, not the theory which pushed them to depend on a US presence. The theory is self-sufficiency, but without leaning on US support they would have all been dead 2 years earlier.

>>15285 Also, I would recommend just sitting down and fuarrrking burning through Das Kapital. Yeah, it's a massive snooze fest, but, it is filled to the brim with invaluable information that you, as a prole, should be informed about. [bold]READ DAS KAPITAL[/bold]

>>15564 Das Kapital is more than a bore, it's completely unsubstantiated. Marx claimed to analyze from historical materialism, but the material conditions for his claims didn't exist when he wrote the book AND they've come and gone without his utopian (again, not historical materialism) vision coming to fruition.

>>15285 > Those in power believe that surveillance, media control as well as violence will be enough to preserve our system. You're talking about China, right? The great firewall of China? Tianamen Square? >This will be done at the expense of the vast majority of the planet Right. China is the world's leading greenhouse gas emmitter. >But!, you cannot argue against science. You cannot defeat reality. Agreed. And neither of those things has much to do with ideological fanaticism, eg communism, libertarianism, religionism, etc. >If you are not familiar with Marx or Marxism, I suggest his work I read the Communist Manifesto as a young adult, expecting something logical, evidence-based, and scientific. It was very disappointing.

>>15664 >China is the world's leading greenhouse gas emitter per capita the US has China beat by a mile. Don't be a whataboutist. >I read the Communist Manifesto as a young adult, expecting something logical, evidence-based, and scientific. It was very disappointing. you read a manifesto expecting it to be a non-emotional appeal? Boy, Kapital is where all the logical evidence-based and scientific work is. Surprise, it's hundreds of pages of dense philosophy and economics.

>>15664 >You're talking about China, right? No, you are. Even though your "what about China" argument against Marxism is ridiculous, I'll play along. >Tianamen Square? What happened there? >China is the world's leading greenhouse gas emmitter. Actually, the US emits more greenhouse gasses per capita than China. Also, China is leading in green energy research and roll out. Nice try though. >expecting something logical, evidence-based, and scientific. It was very disappointing. It's agitprop pamphlet. How is it Marx's fault you expected it to be something that it's not. If you want logical, evidence-based and scientific, read Capital. That's his actual academic work where he lays out his critique of capitalism, not the manifesto.

>>15285 Communism doesn't work because it assumes that all people would want to be part of such a system. There will always be those who want more power than an egalitarian society can offer them and this results in the soykafty dictatorships communism always devolves into. Humanity is not perfect and therefore by definition cannot realize such a utopia. Regulated capitalism ftw.

>>15665 Mm, and Qatar is the richest country in the world... "per capita". Followed by Macau, Luxembourg, Singapore, Brunei, and Ireland. You should be ashamed of using that level of misleading wordplay.

>>15668 >country with 4x the population pollutes twice as much Thanks for proving my point.

>>15666 > What happened there? This is typical communist propaganda. Students were massacred in the thousands for demanding democratic rights. Surprise! >>15669 Per-capita is very misleading, as is "4x the population pollutes 2x". In a country where much more people are impoverished, and cannot generate pollution, the remainder generate the greenhouse gases. Furthermore, individuals make up for less of the pollution overall; the majority of China's greenhouse gases come from their irresponsible industry and coal fired power plants. So ya, "China leads the way" in greenhouse gas emitions, full stop. >>15667 It ignores the essential supply/demand nature of economics for starters. It also reduces the possibility of innovation by making sure all square pegs get hammered into round holes. >>15665 > logical evidence-based and scientific work That's humerous. I've actually read das kapital and it is pure speculation and wishful thinking.

>>15673 >Students were massacred in the thousands Can I see some pictures or videos of these thousands of massacred students? Also, were the students armed? >In a country where much more people are impoverished Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in China. >It ignores the essential supply/demand nature of economics for starters Can you please explain "the essential supply/demand nature of economics"? >I've actually read das kapital and it is pure speculation and wishful thinking. Confirmed for never having read Capital.

>>15674 What there are no records of and what you don't remember never happened, and if anything DID happen it's just pure speculation, isn't that right? >Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty That may be true, but there is an irony to it, that only happened after China became capitalist and started trading with the outside world, it isn't too different from the Republic or even the Qing empire, only far more authoritarian, it can claim to be marxist, but if it looks, acts, and talks like a capitalist country, then what's the difference?

>>15674 You're not arguing, just posting in bad faith. Search for Tienanmen square, I'll wait. Supply must meet demand, which is a decentralized value based on people's immediate needs and producers production. When supply is controlled centrally, there is no ability to react to changing demands. Furthermore, the "value" of a given item is dictated by its availability and how in-demand it is. When you centrally control what the supply is, you fail to be able to adjust to changing demands over time. I'm amazed you can read my mind; but unfortunately I have read kapital. It's literally him wishfully thinking "this will show those rich bastards". The "material conditions" communists like to go on about didn't exist when he came up with these ridiculous notions. He's literally doing what he bitches about other philosophers doing: ignoring reality and talking out of his ass. But ya, just keep arguing in bad faith.

>>15674 >out of poverty Ya, after they adopted a capitalist-mixed-economy. Nice try though.

>>15675 > no records and cannot remember This is typical communist thinking. "It's all a CIA mindfuck". The fact is evidence doesn't matter to these people.

>>15678 That's the point, to China, this never happened, there never was a history before the communists when the people weren't oppressed under the tyranny of capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism. According to China the people are free and are under a just democracy, to suggest otherwise would be the actions of a capitalist insurgent or worse, a foreign spy, after all, who can prove that China is bad when the government constantly cites statistics about how good things currently are and how the country is constantly growing and improving and it's opponents have nothing to back their side?

>>15680 inb4 "The Great Leap Forward". Everything's good comrade.

>>15675 >it happened, but I have no evidence of it happening I'm not here to defend China. I just like to point out how when China does bad things it's communist, but when it does something good then it's capitalist. >>15676 >Search for Tienanmen square, I'll wait. History has vindicated China. Look at how liberalisation and privatisation of the market affected the Soviet Union. The 90s in Russia were a hellscape. >Supply must meet demand, which is a decentralized value based on people's immediate needs and producers production Producers production is supply. >Supply must meet demand, which is based on supply You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? >just keep arguing in bad faith. The only one arguing in bad faith is you. You keep claiming you have read Capital and keep giving nuclear takes on it. >It's literally him wishfully thinking "this will show those rich bastards" See what I mean? >>15678 >>15680 >>15681 >communists bad

>>15683 >I'm not here to defend china except you keep doing it. China's government is definitely communist, and they're using a mixed-capitalist-economy. >Vindicated China Except it hasn't. >USSR Whataboutism. >Misquotes >>15676 You really are arguing in bad faith, intentionally misquoting the lain. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it false. >Only one arguing in bad faith Is you. The lain posted in direct response to everything you've said, and you've yet to offer a substantial rebuttal of any sort. No, contradiction isn't an argument. No "you give nuclear takes" isn't an argument. If you believe lain to be wrong, SHOW US what is right. Stop arguing in bad faith.

>>15684 >Stop arguing in bad faith. I'm not the one lying about having read Capital. He's here acting triumphant talking about supply and demand while saying Capital is just without substance. Capital vol. III, Chapter 10 is about supply and demand: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch10.htm If anything, I'm not required to respond in good faith to his bad faith trolling. >It's literally him wishfully thinking "this will show those rich bastards".

>>15362 >7) There's no room for innovation. With capitalism, you can invent something people don't know they need. With communism, you have to hope you can convince your local soviet that it is worth investing your time. The subsidies provided to the military industrial complex are strong evidence that competition and consumerism is less supportive of innovation than patronage.

>>15668 I never made any claim on the contrary, just noting that there are multiple measures and knowing more of them *always* gives you more information. my more important point is about this whataboutism. instead of responding to criticism, you say "Well what about CHINA!? Isn't China worse?" Yes, we all agree that China is worse than the US in a variety of ways. They're both evil empires, any communist worth their salt knows this and supports neither. Maoists are deluded. This does not weaken our criticism of capitalism, in fact many communists(myself included) don't consider China to be even remotely communist. >>15673 >In a country where much more people are impoverished, and cannot generate pollution, the remainder generate the greenhouse gases. Furthermore, individuals make up for less of the pollution overall; the majority of China's greenhouse gases come from their irresponsible industry and coal fired power plants. Is this supposed to mean that it's actually good to have more per-capita pollution? Not very convincing to me. >It ignores the essential supply/demand nature of economics for starters. This isn't true. Marx never repudiated simple supply/demand analysis, in fact I think he assumed it to be true when looking at commodity pricing. Why would Marx focus on the balance of supply and demand when it was already an established part of economic theory? Marxist economists take "the supply/demand nature of economics" for granted because it's obvious, it's literally the most simplistic economic analysis you could make. >It also reduces the possibility of innovation by making sure all square pegs get hammered into round holes. Utterly unfounded assertion. Soviet-era Russian, Czech, and Hungarian filmmakers and novelists pushed boundaries that profit-motivated American firms would not dare to. The concept of montage was invented by a Soviet filmmaker who was a devoted communist. Soviet scientists discovered quite a lot of the things in modern science textbooks. The only trinary computers ever were made in the USSR. Cuban healthcare is still some of the best of the world, at a fraction of the price it is in market-oriented societies. >That's humerous. I've actually read das kapital and it is pure speculation and wishful thinking. Based on the rest of your post, I don't believe you. It really is disheartening to see this thread derailed by stupid trolls who think they're "owning the libs", but of course it has to go this way. It's like moths being attracted to a flame, can't blame them.

>>15667 You could level that criticism at any system. The response is that this is what gulags are for.

>>15687 >TrInArY cOmPuTeR Ya, real innovation >>15688 And out come the true colors.

>>15687 >more per-capita pollution I see what you did there, but the lain was ultimately saying "they would be polluting more if they could," which is obvious, and you intentionally misread it. >This isn't true Wow, you must be the single one and only who doesn't. How many communists have I encountered that say "supply/demand is a myth". It doesn't seem terribly obvious to them. >Unfounded assertion I agree with you on this, they were ahead of their time on weapons of war... >Read Kapital I cannot read minds, and I don't believe you can wither. >Derailed Seems like people are posting real concerns, and "actual communists" are simply attacking them or denying documented truths. >>15688 Yikes... hello Stalin-kun.

>>15687 Lainon, I don't think it's necessarily true that the soviets were behind the innovations you are mentioning, or some so vague that it could be anything. >Soviet-era Russian, Czech, and Hungarian filmmakers and novelists pushed boundaries that profit-motivated American films would not dare to. Okay? Do you have any proof for that? >The concept of montage was made by a soviet filmmaker who was a devoted communist Is that true? The earliest pioneers for montages that I could find was Don Siegel and Slavko Vorkapitch, neither of which were russians or communists. >Soviet scientists discovered quite a lot of things in modern science textbooks Okay? You are being very vague with that statement, what things did they discover? What relevance did they have? I don't doubt that they discovered something with the space race ongoing and all of that, but you really need to elaborate on what you're talking about. >The only trinary computers were only ever made in the USSR Aside from that being completely false (https://jglobal.jst.go.jp/en/detail?JGLOBAL_ID=200902082979377680 if you need a source for a western trinary computer), trinary computers have absolutely no use today, and have contributed little to our world, I don't even get why you mentioned it. >Cuban healthcare is still some of the best in the world, at the fraction of the price it is in market-oriented societies. Oh, irony, because Cuba is now a democratic capitalist nation that has a prime minister (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Cuban_constitutional_referendum) how communist, and regardless, how can it somehow cost less than in western countries where it's paid for by the government.

>>15688 >>15704 garbage posts. Shut up. >>15706 >but the lain was ultimately saying "they would be polluting more if they could," which is obvious, and you intentionally misread it. then maybe they should have said that. >Wow, you must be the single one and only who doesn't. Have you ever actually listened to a thing a Marxist economist said? >they were ahead of their time on weapons of war... actually that's one place where the Soviets consistently lagged behind the US. >Seems like people are posting real concerns, and "actual communists" are simply attacking them or denying documented truths. >>15708 >Okay? Do you have any proof for that? What can I say, it's a subjective claim. You can go watch some Russian films or read some Russian novels if you like. Man with a Movie Camera and Stalker are some good ones. >Is that true? The earliest pioneers for montages that I could find was Don Siegel and Slavko Vorkapitch, neither of which were russians or communists. Yes. Sergei Eisenstein. >what things did they discover? Here's what I can think of off the top of my head: -general linear programming -foundational work in complexity theory, dynamics, topology, etc... look up Kolmogorov and Vassiliev, the mathematicians, for specifics >trinary computers have absolutely no use today, and have contributed little to our world, I don't even get why you mentioned it. as an example of innovation. You don't get any great new technologies without many failed ones. I didn't know there was a western trinary computer design; that's very interesting. Unfortunately it doesn't look like one was ever built? >Oh, irony, because Cuba is now a democratic capitalist nation that has a prime minister its health system was built in the 70s and 80s. I would like to note that there was virtually no health infrastructure outside of Havana before the communists built it. >and regardless, how can it somehow cost less than in western countries where it's paid for by the government. because it's paid for by the government and the way they implement it isn't boneheaded

>>15709 >marxist economist Marxist economist, there's an oxymoron for you. "Marxist economists" spout off about centrally managed economics, which has been shown to lead to all sorts of ills like famine. >actually ya, not buying it. They kept up just fine, and meanwhile their citizens "enjoyed" a lower quality of life, political imprisonment and other joys. Innovations in bread line management barely counts. >not attacking wow, you must be one of the good ones. Sadly, you wouldn't be the one who gained power. There's lots of evidence for this too: Stalin, Mao, Kim Jung Un, and so on. They're all ruthless dictators who usurped power from any "good communists" who were around them, often sentencing dissenters to death. >subjective claim And hence it has no place in this discussion. If you cannot definitively show that they did indeed "push the boundaries that no American could", it is your responsibility to prove it. The fact is you cannot, the west has many many multitudes of "risky", "boundary pushing" art that got along just fine under capitalism and was widely recognized. Film, literature, art, music, etc. Soviet/Maoist/etc. art was subject to the will of the state, and would thus have been severely curtailed. In capitalism, you don't need permission to be original. >mathematics mathematics is a poor example given even in slave societies like ancient greece, people were making lots of discoveries. Math isn't hard science, and you've yet to show any hard sciences out of the USSR that wasn't blatantly stolen from other countries (like atomic power, etc.) >failed technologies are innovations nobody benefited from it, it was a literal waste of time and money. that isn't innovation, that's foolishness. we don't call people who make "innovative" ass-pickers innovative because they're not actually innovative. your trinary computer is ipso facto not innovation, but regression. >paid for by the government and therefore free because it's paid for by the government. circular logic. >isn't boneheaded compared to the USA, that's not a tall accomplishment.

>>15710 >cannot definitively prove ... your responsibility should be <if you claim> ... <you must prove>

>>15710 I will respond to the points that aren't drivel. >In capitalism, you don't need permission to be original. Yes you do. You need to convince someone to pay you for your work. That means (significantly) constraining creativity to what can be profitable. >the west has many many multitudes of "risky", "boundary pushing" art that got along just fine under capitalism and was widely recognized. sure... in the 60s and 70s, when the US liberalized and socialized significantly, and had already absorbed Soviet artistic techniques. Soviet art flourished in the 20s and 30s, at a time when the West was still in its laissez-faire phase. The difference between contemporary art from that time period is night and day. >mathematics is a poor example It's what I know. >given even in slave societies like ancient greece, people were making lots of discoveries yes, and in dictatorships like the USSR people were also making lots of discoveries. The fact that Soviet mathematicians made significant contributions to mathematics wasn't meant to show that they had a utopian society, just that they made significant scientific advancements. >Math isn't hard science hah, finally you say something interesting. I'm happy to talk about why math is the most important, and "hard"est, science there is. But that's not really the topic of this thread, is it? >we don't call people who make "innovative" ass-pickers innovative because they're not actually innovative. you're right, we reserve that most sacred word for con men like Elon Musk and Steve Jobs, who manage to sell their ass-pickers. My bad. >because it's paid for by the government. circular logic. Yes, but the government has to allocate some resources to it. The amount of resources they have is almost nothing compared to say, Britain, and they still have excellent healthcare. That's what I mean by it being cheap.

>>15709 >Yes. Sergei Einstein Hmm, fair if you're talking about him pioneering it in the Soviet union, however I wouldn't say that he pioneered it in the west due to the isolation of the soviet union and different people being responsible for the pioneering of it in the west. >General linear programming >Foundational work in complexity theory, dynamics, topology The thing about that is.... the soviets only had a significant part in general linear programming, and even then the west was also developing it at almost the exact same time with T.C. Koopmans, they even shared the nobel prize. But with complexity theory, dynamics, and topology, the foundational work of those was done hundreds of years before by the Austrian School of Economics, Isaac Newton, and Leonhard Euler who lived in the 1700s.... If you have any citations to argue with that I'd like to see them. >as an example of innovation. You don't get any great new technologies without many failed ones But that's the point I'm trying to make, the soviets really didn't do all that better than the west and if anything actually preformed worse, what can you point to today that you can confidently say was developed by the soviets or was descended from them? >its health system was built in the 70s and 80s. I would like to note that there was virtually no health infrastructure outside of Havana before the communists built it. Fair, they do deserve credit for that, but what tells you that a capitalist system wouldn't have done that eventually? I imagine the prospect of giving healthcare to many who don't have it while making profit off of it would have been tantalizing to many businesses had the take over not happened. >because its paid for by the government and the way they implement it isn't boneheaded ...But that can be done by any capitalist country, many already do it, I don't see why a radical communist solution is needed to implement it.

>>15714 >>15714 >isn't drivel. fancy that, another communist who posts in bad faith. also, it should be well-noted some of the particular criticisms you've failed to respond to: >lower quality of life >commnunism's penchant for dictatorships >in the 60s and 70s You sure got the blinders on, look around today. also, you're literally talking at the peak of the red scare when people were even more against communism/socialism than they are today. Your claim is utterly false. >it's what I know fair enough, but that doesn't make it suitable for your argument. >math is "hard"est science pure math is far outside the realm of "hard" science. Hard science is directly applicable to the real-world. This means Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. Math may cross over into these domains, but you're making a category-error in claiming that it is those domains. >Sacred word not sacred, but it has a definition that you're conveniently ignoring >who sell their ass-pickers they've fulfilled a need in the market. Soviet style management would not allow this to happen. The thing that makes them innovative is they found a niche in their respective markets that were unfulfilled and determined what those niches were - before anybody knew that niche existed. For instance, the Apple 1 fulfilled the market desire (unspoken by most except the most hardcore) for a usable, simple personal computer. Elon Musk, for all his admittedly many many many faults, figured out how to deliver green vehicles to the masses. In his case, I'm not sure I'd call him "innovative" beyond combining technology effectively to meet an explicit need. His other ventures are largely masturbation as best I can tell. So no, not ass-pickers, they solved real problems. >asking permission Steve Jobs & Woz didn't ask permission, they built a product and proceeded to sell it. Mark Zuckerburg (fuarrrk him for what its worth) didn't ask permission. Sergay Brin and Larry Page didn't ask permission (fuarrrk em too). Jack Dorsey didn't ask permission. The owner of this chan didn't ask permission. The fact is permission is not really required for most endeavors, and for the rest its sales like it would be at the end of the day. >compare and contrast In a communist society, you would have to beg for resources in order to even make the attempt to innovate. "Can I have some 6502 processors so I can try making a personal computer?" > "No comrade, nobody needs computer". "Can I have some cpu/mem to run a social network?" > "No comrade, people have telephone". The fact is communism is not an innovation-friendly system. >Health care I'm fully willing to concede their health care is cheaper per-capita, but I'm very doubtful that it is of any better quality.

>>15717 >lower quality of life Actually... >This study compared capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL), taking into account the level of economic development. The World Bank was the principal source of statistical data, which pertained to 123 countries and approximately 97 percent of the world's population. PQL variables included indicators of health, health services, demographic conditions, and nutrition (infant mortality rate, child death rate, life expectancy, crude death rate, crude birth rate, population per physician, population per nursing person, and daily per capita calorie supply); measures of education (adult literacy rate, enrollment in secondary education, and enrollment in higher education); and a composite PQL index. All PQL measures improved as economic development increased. In 30 of 36 comparisons between countries at similar levels of economic development, socialist countries showed more favorable PQL outcomes (p less than .05 by two-tailed t-test). This work with the World Bank's raw data included cross-tabulations, analysis of variance, and regression techniques, which all confirmed the same conclusions. The data indicated that the socialist countries generally have achieved better PQL outcomes than the capitalist countries at equivalent levels of economic development. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2430906

>>15718 >"socialist countries" you mean the ones with a capitalist free market and nearly-zero "socialism" (outside healthcare, education, and the like). You're claim is false.

>>15674 >hundreds of millions lifted out of poverty ah yes, I recall, AFTER they implemented a limited free-market-capitalist-mixed-economy. Capitalism has lifted literally billions out of poverty.

>>15718 >>15719 Who the NIH & World Bank calls "socialist" is basically capitalist but with a very few social programs.

>>15721 It is socialist though..... as in democratic socialist.

>>15722 I hope you stretch before you reach that far. Pic related.

>>15720 It depends how poverty is described. For example, extreme poverty is defined by the world bank as 1.90$ a day. Not only is this still piratically nothing, what this figure (and GDP as a whole) fails to take into account is that money made does not always correlate with a good life. A subsistence farmer that owns the land they work and has a generally happy life but doesn't technically make money is considered extreme poverty. Meanwhile, a poor mother working 14 hours a day in a sweatshop and goes home to a run down slum but makes 2.50$ a day isn't considered extreme poverty. The "reduction" in poverty that is described often follows this line. Also, most of these "millions lifted out of poverty" stats are made by the IMF/world bank which would be like coke giving out diabetes stats.

>>15724 >IMF/World Bank Considering there is a consensus that is significantly broader than just these two players, I'm willing to accept their stats. Furthermore, by this logic, we cannot trust any communist self-reporting (all of it) about their poverty stats. Fact is capitalism is doing much better at raising quality of life across the board. >Subsistence farmers If they have no need to purchase their food, that is effectively disposable income. The mother working in the shop has objectively more cash, but she needs to spend part of that on food (and possibly shelter); these are things the farmer has. As such, their disposable income will most likely be on-par. Combine this with the fact cost-of-living in such regions is massively lower, and their per-capita buying power approaches what we'd consider "poor" citizens in the first world. Is it a survivable amount in the first world, no; however, for their given region and capital needs, it is sufficient.

>>14715 >But with complexity theory, dynamics, and topology, the foundational work of those was done hundreds of years before by the Austrian School of Economics, Isaac Newton, and Leonhard Euler who lived in the 1700s.... If you have any citations to argue with that I'd like to see them. i don't mean that they *invented* the fields, I just mean that they did a lot of very important work that has wide-reaching implications to those fields today. Vassiliev in particular is one of the giants of knot theory and low-dimensional topology, you can't seriously study modern knot theory without learning about Vassiliev invariants. >what can you point to today that you can confidently say was developed by the soviets or was descended from them? again, the concept of montage springs to mind. >Fair, they do deserve credit for that, but what tells you that a capitalist system wouldn't have done that eventually? I imagine the prospect of giving healthcare to many who don't have it while making profit off of it would have been tantalizing to many businesses had the take over not happened. I mean, it *hasn't* happened. We've seen increased privatization of the medical industry in the US for decades now, and healthcare for poor people gets worse and worse. >>15717 >you're literally talking at the peak of the red scare when people were even more against communism/socialism than they are today. Your claim is utterly false. could you provide specific examples of why this is the case? There was definitely a free exchange of ideas between the two spheres from the late 20s to the mid 40s. >pure math is far outside the realm of "hard" science. Hard science is directly applicable to the real-world. I strongly disagree with your definition, and one of the two things I listed(linear programming) *is* directly applicable to the real world. >they've fulfilled a need in the market. plenty of things are marketed that nobody needs. Nobody *needs* a Tesla. Nobody *needs* a macbook. Nobody *needs* that bullshit you see on infomercials. But people buy them, and you would say that is what qualifies it as an innovation, but experimenting with things that didn't end up working isn't? Very counter-intuitive use of that word. >Steve Jobs & Woz didn't ask permission, they built a product and proceeded to sell it. Mark Zuckerburg (fuarrrk him for what its worth) didn't ask permission. Sergay Brin and Larry Page didn't ask permission (fuarrrk em too). Jack Dorsey didn't ask permission. But if they didn't turn a profit you wouldn't know their names. You don't ask permission from a person, you ask permission from the market. >The owner of this chan didn't ask permission. You are aware that people did things in the USSR without explicit permission from the government, right? One interesting example is the thriving homemade porn scene in eastern Germany. >In a communist society, you would have to beg for resources in order to even make the attempt to innovate. How is this different from pitching your business case to a venture capital firm? >but I'm very doubtful that it is of any better quality. it's certainly better than the nonexistant healthcare that most people had before. >>15274 is it true that they *only* look at currency? I always thought the dollar amount was only a virtual representative of the amount of resources they can acquire.

>>15723 Uh okay. Link screencaps of tweets as sources and invent totally unheard of and vague terms like "compassionate capitalism." That's fine, call it whatever terminology you want. But how are Bernie's policy ideas so different from what's practiced in Nordic countries? Any material analysis on this, or just like disputes over words?

>>15727 This is a news article, and no, it isn't ok to "call it whatever terminology you want". The Nordic countries categorically deny they are socialist. >>15726 >complexity theory, etc. not really relevant, as previously stated. >montage not a hard science, etc. it's pretty bad you can only seem to cite a single thing. I thought they were massive leaders? >the 20s to mid 40s moving the goal posts I see. Your ignorance of the Red Scare says volumes. Why don't you elucidate us with your original claim given you're the one making it? You know, instead of demanding the rest of us do YOUR due diligence. >pure math just because you disagree doesn't make it so. again, you're making a category error claiming math IS science - it is not. math might be USED in science, but that does not a science make. >permission of the market you're really reaching again. of course you need to cater to the market, otherwise you're literally making ass-pickers. if you don't create something that people want/need, then no - you're not going to be successful. that's called Choice, and people get to have it in capitalism. you can choose an Apple, a Tandy, an Altair, etc. The ones that catered to needs best won - rightfully. They didn't bribe their local soviet to say "hey, make everybody use my computer". It was a decentralized game of risk and reward - and they won. No, nobody needs a "macbook" per se, but you'd be a liar to claim nobody needs a computer. Fortunately, they have a choice as to the computer that best suits their needs. >People did things w/o permission in USSR >People made porn in their own homes wow, porn. Major accomplishment - such innovation. Pretty bad that's all you can dredge up. The fact that's all you can think of says volumes. All this demonstrates is people had "some level" of autonomy in their homes - nothing more. >Venture capitalist generally unnecessary. You need to pay attention to what I actually say. Even if we say "yes necessary sometimes", it boils down to if you have found a market match or not. Furthermore, venture capitalist money is some of the easiest to get; they're very keen on spreading it around. >better than nothing ya, the bottom of the barrel socialist medicine might be better than nothing. unless their doctors were so poorly trained as to be effectively worse than doctors. do they still practice blood-letting in Cuba? You still haven't responded to the awfully common tendency for communism to have despots, or the lower quality of life. I'm paying attention.

>>15729 >You still haven't responded to the awfully common tendency for communism to have despots, or the lower quality of life. I'm paying attention. >here are some claims >prove them wrong That is not how the burden of proof works. First you must show that there is a "tendency for communism to have despots" (while also defining what a "despot" is). Also, you were shown evidence that quality of life is higher in socialist countries here >>15718, but your answer was "not real socialism!" (how ironic) It is clear you're arguing in bad faith because you haven't set a standard for evidence you'd accept, you will just reject any and all evidence to the contrary of your claims, while refusing to provide any evidence in support of your claims. The very definition of "arguing in bad faith".

>>15730 >Despots Stalin, Mao, the Kim dynasty. You're just trying to shift the burden by claiming "I don't understand what you mean". Laziness, and bad faith. >Not real socialism It's unfortunate you want to fit a square peg into a round hole, but that isn't my problem. >Standards of evidence I've objected to each "point of evidence" on its specific merits in explicit terms. You're pointing fingers, and claiming "bad faith", but really you're just backed into a corner and cannot argue the facts. >Bad faith Yes, you really ARE arguing in bad faith, given you've yet to offer a single shred of evidence to the contrary of my arguments. Your arguments are weak, and rather than defend your position in a sound, rational manner, you're attacking. That is the de facto definition of Bad Faith.

>>15731 >Stalin, Mao, the Kim dynasty Is your argument that three socialist country ended up with "despots" therefore all socialist countries have despots? That's a silly claim to make. One could point to Pinichet's Chile, Batista's Cuba and Putin's Russia and capitalism ends in despotic rule, too. Before you accuse me of whataboutism, I am merely pointing out that you naming three people does not constitute proof that "communism always ends in despotic rule". >It's unfortunate you want to fit a square peg into a round hole, but that isn't my problem. We have a peer-reviewed, published scientific article claiming these countries to be socialist and then we have you saying "those countries are not socialist". You have not provided an argument why they are not socialist, denying a claim is not an argument. >I've objected to each "point of evidence" on its specific merits in explicit terms. No, you really did not. >given you've yet to offer a single shred of evidence to the contrary of my arguments You haven't made any arguments, only baseless claims.

>>15732 >lists communist countries, 100% leading to despots. >lists a handful of capitalist countries that led to despotism, a tiny percentage. >whataboutism moving those goal posts again. 100% of communist countries are dictatorships, and you're pretending it's much less significant. And yes, you ARE using whataboutism. >no evidence except, I did. those countries themselves said "we're not socialist". >no you didn't >no you didn't no you didn't no you didn't you're intentionally ignoring what I've actually written. It's almost like, you're arguing in bad faith... >you haven't made arguments Except I have, and you're intentionally ignoring them.... it's almost like.... and bear with me here... YOU'RE ARGUING IN BAD FAITH.

>>15733 >lists communist countries, 100% leading to despots. Where is the list? You've named THREE. >100% of communist countries are dictatorships Evidence for this claim? >except, I did. If you did, then it won't be hard for you to point out this evidence. >Except I have, and you're intentionally ignoring them List two arguments you've made. I'm beginning to think you don't know what an argument is. You're obviously a troll, stop derailing/ruining the thread.

>>15734 >you've named three >acts like there's hundreds of communist countries right. >evidence I've enumerated the explicitly communist countries, although I could add more less-communist (mostly "socialist"): Cuba, Venezuela, Communist Vietnam, etc. >list two arguments you've made this chan has a threading option for your convenience. I'm beginning to think you're incapable of arguing in good faith. >you're a troll again, attacking. more bad faith.

I'm a communist and I don't believe that the concept of a state is legitimate or compatible with communism. >>15279 >hard sciences only there's more to life than physics, buddy. >you're making a category error claiming math IS science - it is not again, I disagree, I think *you* are the one making a category error. But this is not the place for this discussion, there's a thread in /hum/ where it would be more on topic. >moving the goal posts I see. moving them from where to where? I said that western artists had already absorbed soviet techniques by the 60s and 70s. This is consistent with the fact that there were periods of time when communism was more or less popular in the west, and thus the USSR was less feared by americans. In the 30s the american communist party was at the peak of its popularity. >Your ignorance of the Red Scare says volumes I am aware of the red scare(all of them, in fact), and you haven't said why it's relevant. >if you don't create something that people want/need, then no - you're not going to be successful. ahh, but here's the rub: being able to sell something is *not* the same thing as making something that people want/need. People and businesses buy ass pickers every day, and even more of them get made which nobody ever buys. I'm sure as a person with lots of life experience, you're aware of how inefficient markets really are in that regard. >that's called Choice, and people get to have it in capitalism "choice" to do only profitable things? Sounds an awful lot like the "choice" to do things the state demands. >The ones that catered to needs best won - rightfully. generally, the ones who were the most underhanded and monopolistic won. Hence why the garbage pile known as Windows is standard. >They didn't bribe their local soviet to say "hey, make everybody use my computer". this literally happens. Microsoft and Intel literally do this. >>here's an interesting piece of information >Pretty bad that's all you can dredge up. The fact that's all you can think of says volumes bruh I'm trying to say interesting things, because just responding to your boring ass points is not my idea of fun. I'm only doing it so that hopefully someone will read this conversation and go "hmmm, I guess capitalism is pretty much the same as state communism" >a, the bottom of the barrel socialist medicine might be better than nothing. unless their doctors were so poorly trained as to be effectively worse than doctors. maybe you should get some actual information. Cuba has very good healthcare, the medical schools in Havana are the best in the world. People actually travel to Cuba to get treatments that they can't get elsewhere. This is not controversial, it actually shows a lot that you don't know this. >>15735 100% of democratic countries have turned into despotic mob rule. There's only a few, like France. They violated the divine right of kings, and now look at them.

>>15736 > I'm a communist and I don't believe that the concept of a state is legitimate or compatible with communism. Then you're better off calling it something else, or else spend your whole life arguing with retards. It's a waste of time repeating over and over "not that kind of communism".

>>15736 >>hard sciences >more than physics YOU'RE the one who claimed that communist countries had made massive advancements and now when you're challenged to back the claim up, you fall back to "nah, there's more than physics". If you're not going to uphold your claim, then you've lost. >category error math is not a science based on multiple factors. the most prescient is science uses "the scientific method". Math doesn't; it's a series of propositions and proofs which follow directly from logical rules. there is no "hypothesis" which you find evidence to support or deny; you apply transformations to generate hard truths. science generally doesn't have deductively valid proofs, math does. >westerns absorbed soviet techniques you didn't say that at all. this is exactly what "moving the goalposts" means, you're redefining your own words. >you haven't said why it's relevant except I did. more bad faith. To restate: people were against communism and rejected everything from the communist states. >things nobody buys those products fail. markets are highly efficient in weeding out bullshit. >what the state demands you're free to do anything you want. this means you are free to take a risk, or not. your attempts to frame it as a non-choice are transparent and false. >somebody played the game and won sometimes natural monopolies arise. however, you still have choice: MacOS, Linux, BSD, etc. Again, your attempt to frame it as a non-choice is transparent and false. >>bribe their local soviet >this literally happens again, you're making blatantly false claims. they achieved market dominance by careful planning and execution. Nobody held a gun to anybody's head and said "use our software", but many did make mutually beneficial deals to use their software. Again, not remotely the same as bribing your local soviet. >interesting things not either interesting, nor informative. and bluntly, it doesn't help your case in the slightest. somebody is going to come along and see that communists can't back up their utopian claims. >the medical schools in Havana are the best in the world that's amusingly false. Non-exhaustively the best are: Harvard, Oxford, John Hopkins, etc. >equates democracy with despotic and/or mob rule wew, where did you learn civics? The system (in the USA) is specifically designed to avoid mob rule (the electoral college). The system in Canada/UK/Australia/New Zealand is similarly free of mob rule. Also, these systems have significant checks and balances that prevent one branch of government from usurping power. Compared to communist states where power of all branches was consolidated under a single ruler. Your argument is again, false.

>>15736 >>15737 isn't this just anarcho-communism? Like the Paris commune or when Catalonia was anarchist?

I am unable to believe in communism/marxism because I am unable to take the labour theory of value seriously. It's untestable pseudoscience as long as Marxists continue to argue the distinction between "value" and "price". Any time empirical evidence is presented against LTV -- Marxists slink away and say "ah yes well exchange value (price) is not the same as use value!" But people like Cockshott are happy to conflate value and price when empirical evidence favours LTV. That seems really fundamentally dishonest to me. Marginalism is really much more useful of a tool in economics for analysis.

>>15738 >YOU'RE the one who claimed that communist countries had made massive advancements and now when you're challenged to back the claim up, you fall back to "nah, there's more than physics". I didn't say they made massive advancements in physics. You can go back and actually read the things I've posted in this discussion, when asked for examples I have provided them, there was no restriction made that they have to do with physics. I don't know much about the history of physics and it's really not worth my time to cater to your demands. I've made my case, your criticism is not decisive, there is nothing more to discuss. >If you're not going to uphold your claim, then you've lost. lost what, exactly? Your respect? It means nothing to me. This argument? This "argument" is mostly you making inflammatory and accusatory comments, me responding to them to educate people on why they're false, and you proclaiming your triumph in ignorance, and responding to *any* criticism with "you're just arguing in bad faith". >you didn't say that at all. this is exactly what "moving the goalposts" means, you're redefining your own words. I literally said that. Here's where I said it: >>15714 If you want to talk about moving the goalposts: you have consistently upped your standards for evidence in this entire thread any time somebody refutes anything you say. You have responded to refutations of your accusations with more accusations. >>you haven't said why it's relevant >except I did. When and where? To be specific, why is the occurance of red scares relevant to artistic exchange between the USSR and USA during the time period 1925-1945, when no red scare was happening? One example of this happening, which I keep having to go back to for some reason, is the concept of montage. >those products fail. just like the Setun? Does the existence of failed products mean that capitalism is bad at innovation too, or is it that some things just fail? >you're free to do anything you want. Sure, I have the "freedom" to go and steal things from a store. That's a trivial definition of freedom though, and if we use it then people were free to do whatever they want in the USSR too, they just wouldn't actually be able to do it. >your attempts to frame it as a non-choice are transparent and false. Why? All you've done is assert the opposite. >again, you're making blatantly false claims. they achieved market dominance by careful planning and execution. including making deals with governments and school districts to make their products "the standard" in exchange for giving them free software or hardware. Including making campaign donations and lobbying. You don't even have to speculate about criminal activity(which it is naive to think they haven't participated in) to make a direct comparison to "bribing the local soviet". >Nobody held a gun to anybody's head and said "use our software" That's not what we're talking about though, we're talking about "bribing the local soviet to say 'hey, make everybody use my computer'", unless you think that the Soviets would literally arrest somebody for using a non-standard computer, which is laughable. >but many did make mutually beneficial deals to use their software. Again, not remotely the same as bribing your local soviet. a "mutually beneficial deal" otherwise known as a bribe. Also, fun fact, a soviet is not a single person. Soviet translates to "council" and can refer to any governing body. I think it's just important that you know what the words you're using mean. >not either interesting, nor informative. to you, maybe, but you're not my audience. >somebody is going to come along and see that communists can't back up their utopian claims. Depends if their standard for evidence is "it has to agree with me or it's false", like yours. >Non-exhaustively the best are: Harvard, Oxford, John Hopkins, etc. sure, I should have said "among the best in the world". Ranking top universities is kind of pointless anyway. >Your argument is again, false. What argument? I was mocking you. >>15740 I approach communism from more of an ethical direction than a Marxist economical one.

>>15742 >advancements I didn't say physics specifically, I said physical sciences. You said they made massive advancements and have yet to show us anything. >why they're false you've only made contradictions, zero refutation. >1925-1945 You originally said the 60s, this is an example of you moving the goal posts when you're shown to be spouting nonsense. >>those products fail >does it mean capitalism is bad at innovation... No, but it allows for it in ways communism doesn't >do some things fail? Bingo. Some things fail, and that's ok. >Freedom == Stealing Moving those goalposts again. Don't you get tired of all the heavy lifting? Freedom, Liberty in a democratic capitalist society means being able to (1) live the simple life off the grid or (2) being a wage/salary worker (3) running a business, and so on. You have the choice in how you lead your life. But ya sure, you could be a thief, but in capitalism people actually value property and you won't get very far. >>non-choice >why? We have rights and freedoms (liberties if you will) which are inalienable and give us the basis of choosing what we make of our lives. In communism, you have everything dictated to you. For instance in N. Korea, you are told what your career will be and have zero choice in the matter. Zero self-determinism, zero agency. >Selling to the government is now a crime Savvy businesses sell to as many customers as possible. The government is just as much a customer as anybody else. The government using software or hardware doesn't magically make it "standard" (Linux, as you've said (by sayigng Windows IS standard) isn't standard. However, it is widely used within governments throughout the world). Again, your argument is false. >Redefines a "bribe" to mean anything that's mutually beneficial You're pretty bad at English. You don't get to redefine words you find inconvenient. Mutually beneficial is most definitely not a bribe. Mutually beneficial is (1) I pay for a product, and get the benefit of the product (2) You get my money and contracts for support. That is nowhere near a bribe. But do continue making things up as you go. >not your audience You're in an argument, you have made many claims and provided zero substantive evidence. The only people who would buy into your "arguments" are children who've never held a job. >Standards of evidence I've given you many opportunities to prove me wrong, and would concede my position if you did. However, you haven't. You attack, malign, post in bad faith, redefine words arbitrarily, etc. The list of your fallacious activities is exhaustively long. >sure I'll accept the concession. >I was mocking you And more bad faith. Surprise surprise.

>>15743 >No, but it allows for it in ways communism doesn't how, specifically? >You originally said the 60s, this is an example of you moving the goal posts when you're shown to be spouting nonsense. I said that artistic techniques had already filtered through by the 60s. Reading comprehension is important. >Bingo. Some things fail, and that's ok. so it was okay that the Setun failed. This is a far cry from "nobody benefited from it, it was a literal waste of time and money. that isn't innovation, that's foolishness." >Moving those goalposts again. I was pointing out how *you* moved the goalposts, from having individual freedom to do literally whatever you want to having the "freedom" to do what the market demands. I will state again: I don't see how "freedom" to do what the market demands is different from "freedom" to do what the state demands. Especially considering that the state was just an intermediary for market forces in most cases anyway. >Freedom, Liberty in a democratic capitalist society means being able to (1) live the simple life off the grid or (2) being a wage/salary worker (3) running a business wow, that's a pretty restricted set of freedoms, and is different from having "the freedom to do whatever you want". >In communism, you have everything dictated to you. "everything" is a stretch in most specific cases, and _once again_ I find that most things in my life are dictated to me now... I must get a job so I can afford to buy food and have a warm safe place to sleep, I must have money to buy land if I want to farm it, so on and so on. This freedom seems no less restricted than the freedom I would have in the USSR, during its more liberal periods. >For instance in N. Korea, you are told what your career will be and have zero choice in the matter. Zero self-determinism, zero agency. Yes, that's generally how fascist dictatorships work. >>Selling to the government is now a crime I never said anything like that, I just said that *specifically* what Microsoft et al did to get monopolies is either comparable to, if not actually, bribing the government. >The government using software or hardware doesn't magically make it "standard" If you have to interact with the government with excel spreadsheets, powerpoint presentations, and word documents, yes it does. It's a major factor in the formation of monopolies. >Mutually beneficial is most definitely not a bribe. Mutually beneficial is (1) I pay for a product, and get the benefit of the product (2) You get my money and contracts for support. That is nowhere near a bribe. Would you agree that a bribe is a mutually beneficial deal? >The only people who would buy into your "arguments" are children who've never held a job. so now we've get into pure poo-flinging territory? A mere accusation does not prove a point, and all I've seen you do is accuse accuse. This "argument" is becoming more of an argument about the argument, which is a good sign that it's no longer worth my time to engage with you further. >>15744 aye, someone obsessed with "proving communism wrong" will of course never admit to any crack in their ediface. We've witnessed that firsthand in this thread.

>>15737 >Then you're better off calling it something else, or else spend your whole life arguing with retards. It's a waste of time repeating over and over "not that kind of communism". Towards the start of the "Anti-Chomsky Reader", the authors make fun of the term "anarchist socialism", because *clearly* anarchism and socialism are incompatible. When you refuse to understand an argument in terms of the definitions that came with it, you're arguing in bad faith. You're misrepresenting your opponent. Note that letting someone define their own terms is different than letting them mix definitions for the same term. >>15739 >isn't this just anarcho-communism? Like the Paris commune or when Catalonia was anarchist? Yes. >>15744 >You can't reason with someone obsessed with a form of ideological fanaticism. I see we're assuming good faith.

>>15747 >the authors make fun of the term "anarchist socialism", because *clearly* anarchism and socialism are incompatible. I mean... that's not very clear? Depends what they mean by socialism, and what they mean by anarchism. They're not simple words, their meaning shifts over time, place, and situation.

>>15736 >Cuba has very good healthcare, the medical schools in Havana are the best in the world. People actually travel to Cuba to get treatments that they can't get elsewhere. This is not controversial, it actually shows a lot that you don't know this. Cuba has more medical personnel working in the developing and underdeveloped world than all countries of the G‐8 combined. This is a tradition that dates back to 1960, just a year after the Batista dictatorship was overthrown – and at a time when approximately half of Cuba's 6,000 doctors were in the process of leaving the island."[0] [0] Bulletin of Latin American Research. Mar2012 Supplement, Vol. 31, p77-90. 14p.

>>15748 Yes, that's my point. That's why it was written in response to, "Then you're better off calling it something else", and below it I say, "When you refuse to understand an argument in terms of the definitions that came with it, you're arguing in bad faith."

>>15743 lmao... How many people from the lower class do you know who have managed to "live the simple life off the grid" or start and successfully run their own business in a way that allows them to successfully escape wage slavery? These are libertarian fantasies, the results of an ideology that was never even attempted to be thought all the way through. Never will a significant portion of society be able to choose these things. Freedom is constantly fetishized with meaningless non-options like these under capitalism, especially by people who are really upper-middle or upper class yet who for whatever reason imagine themselves working class. There is no meaningful choice for the vast majority of the citizenry. But at least it's an esoteric, opaque, and constantly manipulated market dictating your conditions, not a government that you might at least have some representation in. This is important for vague reasons I guess.

I wonder who this guy thinks he's fooling. Anyway... lains, why are leftist movements in the US so fuarrrked? Feels like everyone's either a berniecrat or an ideological purist

>>15760 Lack of guiding principles on one hand, and cult of personality on the other.

>>15760 Outright communist and radical socialist beliefs are seen as un-american by the people and the government will shut them down at any point they see that they might become a threat, and the actual communist and radical socialist parties are either used as pawns or are so incompetent and useless that they can't make any difference whatsoever. We can actually see this in action as people like Bernie get snubbed, shut down, and betrayed all the time.

>>15760 Puritan thinking is not uncommon in the US. I'm not sure why, but I suspect it's an extreme dependence on Leninism and statism in general. Check out the Democratic Workers Party.

>>15760 >The Left has not failed. And that is one of the greatest disasters ever to befall the working class. (https://redtexts.org/html/subversion_1995_revolutionary_alternative.html) We do not live in revolutionary times. Capitalism is still capable of self-reproduction, and neither new, woke workerism nor climate change changes that. As long as this is the case, everything ends up as larping. One can only try to mimic past movements, copy their language, their style or worse still, their "theory". At best one only really inherits their limitations and mistakes.

>>15764 > As long as this is the case, everything ends up as larping. I don't buy it. Times need to be revolutionary before revolutionaries can do anything? That has never been the case, revolutions happen when a combination of factors converge: -a dedicated base of revolutionaries -most people facing serious strife(difficulty getting food) -a weak central government I think all of these are near becoming reality.

>>15766 >a dedicated base of revolutionaries wishful thinking. berniecrats and ideological purists being the majority, there's little dedication. >most people facing serious strife(difficulty getting food) this is still a tiny minority. >a weak central government you're mistaking dysfunctional for weak. the government is far from weak. i think what would make a difference is if the ideological purists adapted to the material conditions and stopped hoping for some perfect theoretical flash point that will never really happen.

I have genuine questions about communism that come from curiosity. How would housing be distributed? Not all houses and apartments are equal in size and location. What about furnitune: what would be uneened luxury, and what would be quality of life? How would a citizen supply their home? For example, in capitalism, we go to grocery markets and buy food and other stuff. There's no private property, but surely there are things you can have the right to not to share because of privacy, hygiene etc, right? If there's no State, how would a tribunal system work? If decided by the law of the majority, what would prevent lynching and witch hunting? How would enterteinment be supplied? I had a few more questions but I can't think of them from the top of my head right now since I'm sleep deprived. I'm not looking for a perfect system, I don't believe in such things, so it's OK if a few things aren't ideal. Any alternative to this soykaf reality would be fine.

>>15766 No, "revolutionaries" don't do anything. You can always talk about revolutions, the thing is that at first it will be absurd, until it's obvious -- and revolutionaries aren't necessary for either of these two situations.

>>15764 I mean basically true. But climate collapse and all the resulting complications will definitely change that in the future, and I guess our current dilemma is figuring out how to stop capitalism from being able reproduce its institutions before that gets bad enough to force its hand. Because stopping it sooner is still gonna be utterly horrible, but definitely preferable to just letting it go until it defaults. >>15763 Ha! Puritanical thinking is not common in the US because of Lenin or Stalin. That's the silliest, most historically tone-deaf thing I've heard in a while. Maybe it was the, like, original puritans? Just perhaps?

>>15768 There are many ways to solve all the problems you mention. Marx famously never made any predictions or designs of the society because he wasn't an utopian socialist. He said that those things will be organised according to the material conditions of people who find themselves in that situation. That doesn't mean people haven't come up with answers, however. Since this is lainchan you might be interested in cybernetic socialism. http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/

>>15340 Poverty is not something that can be so easily ended anon, it is naive to assume that just throwing money at the issue can fix it. You are expected to build efficient systems of infrastructure, government, employment, and the complete rebuilding of famine-struck countries economies from the ground up and a complete change of ways in their lives, which can't just be done by throwing money at it. In reality, it would likely take untold trillions of dollars to fix famine in the world and a very, very, long time. I would like to hear how Marxist socialism would somehow be better at this issue than any other system.

>>15770 >Ha! Puritanical thinking is not common in the US because of Lenin or Stalin. That's the silliest, most historically tone-deaf thing I've heard in a while. I'm not so sure, considering the sheer number of people who identify as ML over another tendency. It might be puritans that led to that type of thinking, but the content of that thought seems more related to ML thought.

>>15773 one of the main reasons is that communism has as a basic axiom that such things are necessary and good, whereas capitalism does not. Historically, Cuba has given more medical aid to Latin America and the poorest parts of the world than any other country.

>>15781 >Historically, Cuba has given more medical aid to Latin America and the poorest parts of the world than any other country. I'm going to need a citation on that.

>>15781 That's not true anon, capitalism REQUIRES functional governments, working infrastructure, and a workforce that's actually capable of working as well as the various other requirements for a functional free market economy. It's absurd that any capitalist system might see such things as bad or even un-necessary. We even see it now, countries in Africa are slowly but surely improving as capitalism leads the drive for education, governmental reform, modernization, and development of things like infrastructure and amenities. This would simply not be possibly without the system we have now.

>>15783 >requires functional governments I think the rise of bitcoin makes this claim dubious.

>>15784 Ah yes, bitcoin, a currency so stable that it can lose thousands dollars in value over night! What a great alternative.

>>15785 as opposed to glorious, universally-stable fiat

>>15773 >Poverty is not something that can be so easily ended anon, it is naive to assume that just throwing money at the issue can fix it. You are expected to build efficient systems of infrastructure, government, employment, and the complete rebuilding of famine-struck countries economies from the ground up and a complete change of ways in their lives, which can't just be done by throwing money at it. In reality, it would likely take untold trillions of dollars to fix famine in the world and a very, very, long time. I would like to hear how Marxist socialism would somehow be better at this issue than any other system. Labour and MoP that is wasted on >>15783 >We even see it now, countries in Africa are slowly but surely improving as capitalism leads the drive for education, governmental reform, modernization, and development of things like infrastructure and amenities. And where was capitalism in the 1900-1960s when these countries in Africa were under pretty much direct rule of capitalist states? Where was capitalism between the 60s and 90s? How come "capitalism" is only lifting these countries out of poverty now? Where's capitalism in the United States to lift the 40 million that have been living in poverty for the last 30 years?

>>15788 >Labour and MoP that is wasted on That's meant to say Labour and MoP that is wasted on things we don't need, like 1000x types/brands of makeup could be shifted to provide the necessities of life for people. That is why Marx takes workers as the revolutionary class, because they and they alone are necessary to produce what is required for the reproduction of life.

>>15788 >>15789 >>Labour and MoP that is wasted on That's meant to say Labour and MoP that is wasted on things we don't need, like 1000x types/brands of makeup could be shifted to provide the necessities of life for people. That is why Marx takes workers as the revolutionary class, because they and they alone are necessary to produce what is required for the reproduction of life. The thing about that lainanon is that production of those things can actually be beneficial, now that may sound absurd at first, but the growth of infrastructure, amenities, government efficiency, and living standards is required for an economy to grow as well, capitalism spurs this as local businesses start to sprout up and exchange occurs between foreign businesses and local ones. >And where was capitalism in the 1900-1960s when these countries in Africa were under pretty much direct rule of capitalist states? Where was capitalism between the 60s and 90s? How come "capitalism" is only lifting these countries out of poverty now? Where's capitalism in the United States to lift the 40 million that have been living in poverty for the last 30 years? Well two world wars, the collapse of multiple colonial empires, and war breaking out between the fledgling and bickering states left from their collapse isn't exactly good for the growth of those nations. Capitalism is helping them now because the times have become a little more peaceful for their nations and businesses now are seeing opportunity to invest in the african nations since it is a relatively safe thing to do now. The issue isn't mainly with capitalism in africa, it's to do with their governments, many are authoritarian, corrupt, and generally incompetent and thus ruin the potential for their economies and the potential for any help making the difference, the change most come to their governments first. Capitalism in the US has helped in lifting millions of people out of poverty and into a more comfortable life, without it there never would have been a middle class and there never would be the prosperity that we have today, we need both capitalism AND the government if we wish to help the people in need, as much as the ancaps might want to disagree, intervention and assistance from the government is required from time to time to help people in need.

>>15782 >>15749 >>15783 and yet, many do. Capitalists aren't perfectly rational any more than proles are. They work against their own class interests too. >countries in Africa are slowly but surely improving as capitalism leads the drive for education, governmental reform, modernization, and development of things like infrastructure and amenities. This would simply not be possibly without the system we have now. why do you attribute those things to capitalism? Could it not be philanthropic activities, improved technology, and more stable governments?

>>15792 many local Africans find that the foreign investment is more like resource extraction. When Halliburton builds an oil refinery in Niger, very few of the people working there are Africans, and almost none of the profits get re-invested into the local community.

>>15788 >why only now? political problems such as imperialism. capitalism was working, but the political act of imperialism meant that the wealth was extracted from the country by illegitimate 3rd parties. >>15793 >why capitalism? with the removal of the political interference, capitalism is allowed to flourish and leads to an increase in wealth (it isn't being extracted by an imperialist power). they had the potential the whole time, but the evil of imperialism negated their potential.

>>15795 >with the removal of the political interference, capitalism is allowed to flourish and leads to an increase in wealth (it isn't being extracted by an imperialist power). I disagree that Africa is now free from imperialist rule, and that wealth is no longer being extracted by imperialist powers. FWIW I consider extraction by a transnational corporation to be no different from extraction by a government. Also, you have explained hypothetically why capitalism would be good for Africa, but you have not shown why capitalism is the cause of recent real-world advancements, as compared to the other things I listed which could equally well explain events, in a high-level sense.

>>15795 >political problems such as imperialism Imperialism is capitalism. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm

>>15797 >imperialism is capitalism >cites an anti-capitalist theory document that isn't self-serving at all. also, pure theoretical nonsense. no, imperialism is not capitalism. imperialism is purely political. >>15796 >not free of imperialism I'll definitely grant that, but overall the tide of imperialism is much lower. countries are taking charge of their own resources much more now. >transnational corporations no different than a government this is a bit slippery. you're basically saying that a transnational corporation has the powers of a nation, and that simply isn't the case. they cannot wage war upon a nation that refuses to cooperate (like imperialist countries used to to get their way), nor levy sanctions. they're relatively powerless to the whims of the local government. >why capitalism is the cause of recent real-world advancements these countries are now much more free to engage in the global market economy on their own merits and with their own products. they're relatively unfettered by political exploitation, so they themselves can reap the rewards. the constant has been capitalism, and with the (near complete, but not entirely as previously stated) removal of imperialism, their markets are no longer (as) distorted. with good fortune and a positively-shifting geopolitical situation, they'll soon be able to be fully the masters of their own destiny.

>>15798 >they cannot wage war upon a nation that refuses to cooperate (like imperialist countries used to to get their way) they absolutely can and do hire mercenaries. >nor levy sanctions they can refuse to do business with a particular country, or bribe a bigger country to levy sanctions. The imperialism enforced by transnational corporations is certainly more focused and less encompassing than the imperialism enforced by an empire, but it is imperialism nonetheless and has the same effects. >these countries are now much more free to engage in the global market economy on their own merits and with their own products. they're relatively unfettered by political exploitation, so they themselves can reap the rewards. the constant has been capitalism again, you're not really showing why capitalism *has* to be the reason. There are many possible explanations and increase of international trade is only one of them.

>>15798 >cites an anti-capitalist theory document >that isn't self-serving at all Genetic fallacy. If you didn't read it, don't comment, it makes you look ignorant. That's just a pro-tip for life.

>>15799 >companies can and do engage in imperialism you're going to have to cite that.

>>15800 >Vladimir Ilyich Lenin ya, right. it's not like he doesn't have a beef with capitalism or anything.

>>15798 >you're basically saying that a transnational corporation has the powers of a nation, and that simply isn't the case. they cannot wage war upon a nation that refuses to cooperate >>15801 https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/24/marketingandpr.colombia >>15802 He doesn't have a "beef" with capitalism. He is a Marxist and he understands the role capitalism has played in developing productive forces.

>>15794 >many local Africans find that the foreign investment is more like resource extraction. When Halliburton builds an oil refinery in Niger, very few of the people working there are Africans, and almost none of the profits get re-invested into the local community. I disagree, many african countries are becoming much more prosperous as businesses continue to grow and their economies expand along with government reform. We can see the results of this where many african countries are becoming much more prosperous.

>>15803 >citation I've heard of this, but I'm not entirely convinced it represents a rule given (1) the vast majority the world over of companies would never consider this (2) this is a single bad-actor in a world of good actors (3) they were punished through boycotting, as I would hope any bad-acting company would be. However, your point does stand that it CAN happen, and that I will not deny. But does that make the whole capitalist enterprise bad? Not really, we can look at what horrors communists have caused: The Great Leap Forward, and the Holodomor. Do I think these bad actors invalidate marxist thought? Not quite, they theory and the practice are necessarily different things. >he's a Marxist this is literally as braindamaged as if I cited Milton Friedman for a pro-capitalist stance. both of these individuals are going to make their pet theories look good without considering ANY other perspective (and considering I'm here talking to you, I think it's clear that I'm considering your position). marxist dogmatists are always going to promote marxism and make their opponents look bad, capitalist dogmatists are always going to promote capitalism and make their opponents look bad. Let's not devolve into that nonsense.

>>15803 But lainanon, that was just an accusation, that was never proven to be true.

>>15806 I think it was shown to be true.

>>15807 No.... that was never mentioned anywhere in the citation, unless you have other proof I really doubt the claims validity.

>>15808 Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinaltrainal_v._Coca-Cola_Co. It appears that, if true, a manager hired someone(s) to kill upto three people. Blaming coca-cola is shaky in this regard because it assumes this was a top-down order. that claim in and of itself seems highly suspect.

>>15809 >neurosuggesting it wasn't a top down order How naïve can you be?

>>15870 But lainanon, something like this is really something that I need proof to believe in, you can't just say that it happened and believe it to be true without any evidence.

>>15872 Evidence like Coca Cola's history of union busting around the world? https://www.nationofchange.org/2019/11/08/coca-cola-workers-fighting-for-their-rights-in-haiti-indonesia-ireland-and-the-usa-still-need-your-support/ Besides, military intervention in foreign countries on behalf of US companies is nothing new. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars What makes you think Coca Cola is a good, dindu nuffin company?

>>15870 >neurosuggesting one is naive for requiring evidence wait... what? >>15873 >US Intervention on behalf of companies extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

>>15875 ....did.... There was a Guatemalan genocide that was a direct result of the US military manipulating the price of bananas. Many tens of thousands of innocent people were killed. Did you not learn about this in school?

>>15875 >US Intervention on behalf of companies >extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence Are you trolling? >The United Fruit Company (UFC), whose highly profitable business had been affected by the end to exploitative labor practices in Guatemala, engaged in an influential lobbying campaign to persuade the U.S. to overthrow the Guatemalan government. U.S. President Harry Truman authorized Operation PBFORTUNE to topple Árbenz in 1952; although the operation was quickly aborted, it was a precursor to PBSUCCESS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

>>15878 >it was a precursor to PBSUCCESS. PBSUCCESS was the operation that overthrew the government and was supported by the the next president Eisenhower. This continued tell 1996 https://www.americanhistoryusa.com/topic/1954-guatemalan-coup-detat/

>>15873 But I was talking about how coca-cola supposedly ordered an execution, not anything relating to unions.

>>15881 I wouldn't put it past them and neither would anyone else.

>>15881 >I was talking about how coca-cola supposedly ordered an execution An execution of union leaders. And Coca-Cola has a history of union busting. If your standard of evidence is a letter from the CEO of Coca-Cola stating "Kill those men" and then a video of people wearing Coca-Cola t-shirts committing the murder, you're never going to get it. Did you know that there aren't many documents that prove Hitler ordered the extermination of Jews, yet we are certain he ordered the extermination of Jews?

>>15885 >>15887 Well if you cannot prove that it ever happened, then why assume that it did happen? Breaking up unions and murdering union members is quite a radical and big jump. Here's the question I have to ask you. How do you even know that events like the holocaust or armenian genocide actually did occur? There is very little evidence to prove that they actually happened, and people only accept that it happened because they are told it happened, how can you be 100% sure that they really happened when you can't prove that they did happen?

>>15896 Because by utilising induction we can come up with explanations for things for which we may not have evidence. >Coca-Cola engages in union busting >a bottling company owned by Coca-Cola executes union leaders Maybe Coca-Cola didn't order the murder, but were OK with it. And that's pretty much just as bad.

>>15896 How do you know that any piece of history is true? Couldn't it all have been fabricated fifty years ago? How do you even know that the earth is round? Have you ever actually checked for yourself? How do you know that birds are real? Have you checked that all the birds you see are actually birds, and not government spy drones? How do you know that the external world exists, and you're not merely being deceived by an evil demon?

>>15898 >induction You need to take a basic critical thinking course. Even with induction you need much better evidence than this circumstantial bullshit. >They didn't do it, but they didn't care about it Ah yes, guilt by having nothing to do with it. The highest legal bar. >>15900 Argument to absurdity, not an actual argument, and it doesn't strengthen your case. Stalin DID kill [u]MILLIONS[/u] in the Holdomor, directly.

>>15898 >Because by utilising induction That's not how you use induction. Put the sharp tools down before you hurt yourself. First, induction doesn't EVER "prove" anything, it inferences it as possible upto and including likely, nothing more. To do this, you must have compelling evidence, and the hypothesis must be THE BEST explination available. By occam's razor, we can easily see that your explination (a company overall acting maliciously in regards to life and limb) is absurd when we consider a single corrupt individual could have had ulterior motives without the awareness of anybody else. If you can't logic, don't keep posting.

>>15878 >Are you trolling? As the lain said, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. >United Fruit Company one instance. Duly noted. Let's see the systematic acts.

>>15906 Have fun! http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/More_Books_and_Reports/Open_Veins_of_Latin_America.pdf

>>15907 That doesn't actually have anything to do with working for corporations. The US has been doing political interventionist wars for decades with zero of them being at the behest of corporations. >>15906 Speak for yourself lain. This is not evidence they did anything for corporate interests.

>>15909 cite something we can actually read in a reasonable amount of time. we're in an argument, not a reading club.

>>15911 We're not in an argument, you are in a free choice of educating yourself. You asked for something and you received it so follow through your desire to know more.

>>15912 this is an argument, given everybody is arguing. I'll read it later when I have time, but that doesn't solve the here and now.

>>15904 my case doesn't need to be stronger, it's so obviously true that genocides happened that anybody who denies them must be willfully ignorant. If you actually cared about the truth, you could look up the evidence yourself. You could read thousands of eyewitness accounts. The information is readily available. But you obviously don't want to know the truth, so arguing with you or making a "case" is a waste of time. >>15913 only person arguing here is you, buddy. We're here to have constructive conversations about communism, not to cater to your desires. Lains: are states and communism compatible? I used to think not, but as I've gotten older I've realized how important it is to have *some* kind of central structure for resource allocation, which in most ways is no different from a state. I still very much consider myself a libertarian, but I think it's important to also value stability and unity.

>>15914 Your case needs to be significantly stronger. You don't get to make baseless claims and say "do the research". "You're denying genocide" is utter bullshit, nobody denied any such thing, but all you've done is claim "oh it's genocide yep yep". That isn't how it works, you need to PROVE your claim (and given how huge a claim it is, that means A LOT of evidence). I care about truth, which is why I demand you actually back up your claims.

>>15915 >"You're denying genocide" is utter bullshit, nobody denied any such thing >>15896 >That isn't how it works, you need to PROVE your claim (and given how huge a claim it is, that means A LOT of evidence). My claim that the Holocaust happened? Like I said, anybody who doesn't believe the Holocaust happened is willfully ignorant, and it is a waste of time to try and prove things to them.

>>15918 Somebody can't tell rhetoric from a serious argument. Big surprise. They asked you about your standard for evidence which is apparently very low. We have good reasons to believe the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust despite poor individual bits of evidence; and we'll leave it as an exercise for you to determine why.

communism is now derezzed from the communism thread. Any discussion that's not this stupid "argument" is illegal. Case closed, everybody.

>>15926 Communism requires a solid case against capitalism. That case has yet to be made.

>>15926 >Do not create threads in which no discussion is expected to occur, e.g. dumping threads. No, dumping memes is not allowed. You're not forced to respond to every single reply itt. You should just post in a manner that doesn't break any global and board specific rules. You're free to post on why Marx was right or why Marx was wrong. Or how Stalinism isn't communism or how real communism works or doesn't work etc. Just a reminder >4. You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf. If anyone has any further questions/complaints take it to >>>/q/

>>15905 >(a company overall acting maliciously in regards to life and limb) is absurd Hahahahahahahahahahahahah Yes, because companies are generally altruistic and care about the well-being of employees, customers and the public, right? Profit comes second to these companies. I mean, how could a company that makes a delicious sugary, carbonated beverage do anything bad???

>>15908 >zero of them being at the behest of corporations. Uhh, it's not zero, because at least one invasion was done because of United Fruit company. >15878 >The United Fruit Company (UFC), whose highly profitable business had been affected by the end to exploitative labor practices in Guatemala, engaged in an influential lobbying campaign to persuade the U.S. to overthrow the Guatemalan government. U.S. President Harry Truman authorized Operation PBFORTUNE to topple Árbenz in 1952; although the operation was quickly aborted, it was a precursor to PBSUCCESS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

>>15906 >United Fruit Company was not a systemic act But it was. You have been given evidence, that you have denied. Stop pretending that you're complaints are grounded in a lack of evidence on the part of the people you disagree with. Just say, "I disagree, and I'm ignoring the evidence." It's not hard. Just admit you're being dogmatic.

>>15931 I don't speak for that lain, but this is only a single data point - it does not prove systematic behavior you're alleging. Pat yourself on the back for finding one data point though, I was convinced there were zero.

>>15936 https://www.globalresearch.ca/corporate-power-and-expansive-u-s-military-policy/5653310 https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/U-S-intervention-only-advances-corporate-13572498.php https://corpwatch.org/article/halliburton-makes-killing-iraq-war If you're looking for a picture of a memo that says "Hello, Mr. President, please invade this country so that we can set up operations there. Thank you. Best regards, CEO of a corp." you will never find it.

>>15937 Yikes (pic related). I'll give them a look over, but the imagery employed makes them suspect. It looks more like fearmongering than objective analysis... but I'll suspend judgement. Thanks for posting.

>>15938 American interventionism is not controversial. It is a fact that the US has invaded many countries in South America (what that picture shows). Then you can ask, why did they invade? Who profited off it?

>>15939 Who profited? Inference to the best explanation says the US itself. That's political, it doesn't really say anything about capitalism.

>>15940 the US is essentially ran by and for large corporations, so that's basically the same thing.

>>15941 >run by corporations [citation needed]

>>15940 >Inference to the best explanation says the US itself. And what is "the US itself"? The people? The politicians in government? The geographical area? The banks?

>>15943 US political machine. Politicians in particular.

>>15940 >That's political, it doesn't really say anything about capitalism. I'm glad you said that, here's a totally non-political video by Philosophy Tube that addresses problems in video games. If you have 25 minutes to spare I suggest you watch it: https://youtu.be/IYkLVU5UGM8

>>15944 >US political machine. Politicians in particular. What happens when those politicians own the businesses that benefit?

>>15946 Political corruption.

>>15947 At what point do you consider corruption to be systemic?

It's not problem with capitalism, it is with current degenerated form of democracy.

>>15362 One sane man

Name the part of the communist manifesto that says how we're just gonna magically make enough food for everyone appear out of thin air.

>>18112 We currently produce enough food for everyone, we just distribute it poorly. Communism (at least as described by Marx) isn't "gobermint provides all my basic needs while I jack off in the corner". It's just the replacement of business owners by the workers as a group, which would allow, for example, the even distribution of food to farmer, friend and family if they desired it. It's by no means a perfect system where no one ever starves, but it's probably better than rewarding hoarding and selfishness with the ability to hoard even more.

>>18115 I'm kinda sympathetic to communism but at the same time disagree. They take industrial production, which at my point of view is a completely inhumane system, and dream that by giving ownership to the worker it would somehow turn into a humane one. However, at least I recognize it would be a far better system than the one we live in today. At the same time I think it's a misguided theory since you can't support an inhumane system with humane principles. Therefore any socialistic experiment will always result in a inhumane system, since it doesn't try to break away from centralized production and centralized governance.

>>18120 So your main problem with socialism occurring is under the assumption that >centralisation is inhumane ? The point is that if you give the workers control of the means of which production happens in the world, then yes the world would be more 'humane'. The workers would decide how many hours they would like to work based on the need of the business, they would have a vested interest in keeping a safe and comfortable work environment, etc. If a company gets a robot that does the work of 5 people they could let everyone leave an hour early, instead of our current system, in which 5 people get fired (i.e. get forcibly removed from their means of surviving). There is nothing sacred about wage labour, we have invented it, there is no reason to keep 99% of every human on Earth imprisoned by it. How is this not 'humane' in your mind? Let's face it, if in feudalism a bunch of property owners came together and were like "we can own everything, violently force the workers to play by our rules, and to even give them a chance to vote for which one of the ruling class they would like every 3 years!" the feudal lords would have laughed at the concept of centralisation on this scale, yet society is still a lot better than it was before capitalism took hold.

>>18139 It seems like you agree with the person you're trying to attack? >>18120 I don't mean to be the "read thirty dry-ass theory books and you'll see what I mean" leftist, but I'd recommend looking into anarcho-communism and related ideas and seeing if that type of organization appeals to you.

>>18180 He is sympathetic towards socialism, and I am clearing up his misconceptions. There is no attack

>>15285 >Liberal states, through media and education, have ensured that Marx's voice gets drowned out. Meanwhile the entire western academic establishment is over saturated with radical leftists.

>>19099 And there is no contradiction between these two statements.

>>19099 >Meanwhile the entire western academic establishment is over saturated with radical leftists. No, it's over saturated with the mildest of mild social democrats who just want the 0.001% to pay their fuarrrking taxes so that the social contract can be rebuilt, to prevent the working class from rising in open violent revolt. They're typically trying to do what FDR did - be voices of reason in the ears of the wealthy who don't understand the dangers of making the majority of the population so desperate for food and shelter that they'll follow any actually-radical ideology that promises said food and shelter. Radical leftists aren't interested in the 0.001% merely paying their taxes. They're interested in the 0.001% being lined up against walls and shot.

>>19104 In other words, they're just more intellectually serious then your typical, extremely online tankie who is attracted to the aesthetics of violent revolution, but in reality will never occupy any position of institutional power or influence political change in any meaningful, productive way. These people do. As somebody more on the radical right, I feel infinitely more threatened by the progressives and those "mild social democrats" seated in all of the opinion-generating organs of my society than some Maoist midwit who's only so radical when it's cheap, but nevertheless cooperates with the more moderate program of the contemporary left when it comes to more substantive action.

>>19104 It's besides the point, anyhow. I just find the idea that Marxist thought has somehow been snuffed out of higher education to be retarded on the face of it, as finding professors who are Marxist or Marxist adjacent, as well as radically leftist student organizations, is not at all uncommon. They're especially dominant in certain areas.

>>19106 I'm genuinely curious about your definition of "radical right". I'd like to hear more about your own opinions, rather than make assumptions based on that label.

>>19109 That's just a generic label I use to denote anybody who is definitively of the political right, but falls outside of the liberal thought paradigm. Fascists, reactionaries, or third-postitionists would fall under this label, but classical liberals or libertarians wouldn't, for example. I would call myself a third-postionist of some variety, but that can really only describe the general direction my thinking is developing towards at this given time, as I don't yet have a set ideology.

You're posting this in a forum mostly read mostly by people in the most imperialist brainwashed nation on the face of the Earth. You will find that many here will literally believe that academics and universities are "far-left" and that some neon haired BLM feminist is representative of Marx. Continue at your own risk.

>>19112 >some neon haired BLM feminist is representative of Marx. I don't care about those people, I care about who's educating them. I care about who's dicating the values of the fashionable bourgeois. I don't think those people are strictly "Marxist" in this autistically pedantic and outdated understanding of orthodox Marxist theory that Leftypol always insists upon, but to describe our contemporary academic culture as "far-left" is not inaccurate, even if it's just radically progressive.

>>19113 >but to describe our contemporary academic culture as "far-left" is not inaccurate, even if it's just radically progressive. the term is "radlib" short for radical liberal. Basically people who think that being politically correct is more important than actually changing anything, and the grifters who use that misplaced progressivism to get ahead while leaving behind the people stuck in ghettos. Unfortunately these people have infected *all* leftist spaces, both online and offline. The left is neutered and they will let themselves be gunned down.

>You cannot argue against science Yes you can. That's the whole point fuсking point with science. You are fetishizing a made-up version of science that unscientific people use to emotionally support their pre-existing belief structures. You need to actually examine the philosophy of science. Perhaps start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend >You cannot defeat reality You are speaking yourself of defeating reality. Any progressive ideology is a battle against current realities. Also the IMF and other NGOs are causing this depression themselves. Capitalism inherently causes booms and busts, and we were always heading for another big collapse. This has always been true at any point in time since the industrial revolution. But this current one? Not caused by capitalism. This one was manufactured by agents like the IMF itself. Corona is real but it's not significantly different from H1N1 or SARS or any of the other viruses the world completely ignored with no significant consequences in years past. The response to corona has been a vast, unprecedented experiment. Much of it amplified by naive, unsophisticated, bored suburban false Marxists who are highly online. People who have a very foolish analysis of the world we live in and the pathway out. It's pure adventurism. It's aesthetic posing. But for the love of god; this is philosophy, not science. How can you pretend this is an empirical field? You can be correct without doing methodological experiments, and there are parts of reality that can never be supported by data. You don't see this because you view science through a pseudo-spiritual lens. How are you going to design an objective experiment to prove what the most moral path is for mankind to take in the future? That's not a quantifiable or scientific endeavor! And that's fine. But don't use obviously mistaken ideas about science to prop it up. That's just going to immediately out you as a poseur.

>>19116 >Much of it amplified by naive, unsophisticated, bored suburban false Marxists who are highly online. IME most people who demand lockdowns have not been Marxist in any sense, instead they are simple Democrats.

>>19113 Economics is the most important part of being left and most of these people when you drill down are centre-left or just regular left rather than actually far left.

>>19107 Find 10 in all of the United States. University professors, not writers and youtube academics. Find the university website pages of 10 Marxist professors in the United States. Take your time.

>>19119 >Economics is the most important part of being left What do you think "nazi" is short for? Nazi germany and fascist italy were basically socialist economies with racist, nationalist, hawkish overlays. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8310 >19112 >many here will literally believe that some neon haired BLM feminist is representative of Marx. The real question is why do you not believe that? >Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are “trained Marxists” – making clear their movement’s ideological foundation https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/ Even 100 years ago Mussolini figured out that the proletariat were never going to spark a marxist revolution in western countries and pivoted to nationalist/racist provocations instead. BLM is the same thing. Instead of bourgeoisie vs proletariat it's straight white men vs gay black trans women. You can make some autistic argument about how that's not "real" marxism according to the holy texts or whatever but you can't deny where they got their inspiration from.

>>19188 >Nazi germany and fascist italy were basically socialist economies with racist, nationalist, hawkish overlays. that's really not true. The left-wing socialist element of the Nazi party was expelled by Hitler's right-wing element in the early 30s. From then on the NSDAP frequently collaberated with large corporations, including IBM and Puma.

>>19188 > What do you think "nazi" is short for? pic related. The main political opponent of the NSDAP was the SDP (Social Democrats), so of course they needed to co-opt their ideas and language. > Nazi germany and fascist italy were basically socialist economies with racist, nationalist, hawkish overlays. They weren't free market capitalists, because that had just failed and caused the great depression. Calling them "socialist" for rebuilding the economy under strong restrictions both aimed at the workers (eg. dissolving independent unions) and capital is a bit far fetched. You're on to something, by recognizing that Socialism in the form of Social Democracy has similarities to Fascism, as both are political reactions to economic instability. But because you've made up your mind before thinking of arguments, you're getting nowhere. > The real question is why do you not believe that? Because they contradict one another? Because the term "Marxism" has been used by so many, that it has lost any coherent meaning, let alone anything to do with Marx itself. > BLM is the same thing. Instead of bourgeoisie vs proletariat it's straight white men vs gay black trans women Ok, Jordan. > you can't deny where they got their inspiration from. So you admit that the relation between the two is just inspiration, not agreement? Sure, they view themselves broadly as some kind of "left", they might have watched YouTube videos, about people who listened to podcasts, of other people who read summaries of books that wrote about Marx' thought. But what does that imply, ultimately? There are probably hundreds of people who had a more direct influence on whatever their theories are. You sound like someone who got all his information from third-person sources, without having engaged with either Marxists or "neon haired BLM feminist". I've seen people like you use terms such as "The Left", implying it's some kind of a consistent group. As if the entirety of the Communist Movement was some kind of a centrally coordinated, uniform effort to make people say "Latinx". I'd love to see you go up to these activists, and get kicked out for being "Class Reductionist". It's all so tiresome.>>19188

>>19191 >pic related. In reality all those guys at the bottom with tophats were wearing yellow stars while their companies were nationalized by the state. >They weren't free market capitalists, because that had just failed and caused the great depression. Weimar was economically fuarrrked because of Versailles. Nothing to do with capitalism. >Calling them "socialist" for rebuilding the economy under strong restrictions both aimed at the workers (eg. dissolving independent unions) and capital is a bit far fetched. They destroyed the free market and directed all labor and capital to the state who then redistributed it as they saw fit. That's literally the definition of socialism. >Ok, Jordan. What is that supposed to mean? If you don't have a real response then just admit you're wrong. >So you admit that the relation between the two is just inspiration, not agreement? I said it's at least that. If you're going to be autistic and say nothing explicitly stated by Marx counts as "real" Marxism. You still can't run away from the core argument here. >You sound like someone who blah blah ad hominem... I'd appreciate it if you responded to what I actually wrote.

>>19188 >I have never read any Marxist literature nor plan to but will take the words of a failed drug addict "psychologist" as gospel truth. sudoku awaits

>>19196 > In reality all those guys at the bottom with tophats were wearing yellow stars while their companies were nationalized by the state. Are you actually saying that a majority of the business class of Germany was Jewish, and still allowed the NSDAP to gain power? > Weimar was economically fuarrrked because of Versailles. Nothing to do with capitalism. ... and the Grand Depression was entierly localized in Germany? > They destroyed the free market and directed all labor and capital to the state who then redistributed it as they saw fit. ... and that they ran a command economy? > What is that supposed to mean? The "Ok, Jordan" was a little joke, implying that you're talking points are pretty much the same as a clown known as certain Jordan Peterson. > I said it's at least that. Ok, but is it more than that? "At least" is pretty mild, and nobody cares. Most social democratic parties have roots in the radical workers movements of the 19th century, but that doesn't make half of Europe Marxist. Marx was for better or worse one of the most influential German philosophers of his time (even though he would have rejected the term "Philosopher"), so naturally there are going to be influences, and people who defuse his ideas, reducing them to worthless academic blabber. > I'd appreciate it if you responded to what I actually wrote. You said nothing worthwhile, new or interesting. And just as a side note, an "Ad Hominem" is an informal fallacy where I misuse an insult as an argument. But lamenting that your kind never learns and always repeats the same worn out "arguments" is not an argument, it's an empirical observation. You decrease the quality of any site you visit, annoy everyone and deserve every insult. So please do us a favor, and just go back to Reddit.

>>19203 >Are you actually saying that a majority of the business class of Germany was Jewish, and still allowed the NSDAP to gain power? It was a populist movement, there was nothing the business class could have done about it really. Especially since street violence was an element to Hitler's campaign which the militarily sanctioned Weimar state couldn't contain effectively. >... and the Grand Depression was entierly localized in Germany? I already said Wiemar's economic problems were caused by the fallout of WW1. >The "Ok, Jordan" was a little joke, implying that you're talking points are pretty much the same as a clown known as certain Jordan Peterson. That doesn't mean you can just ignore what I said. If you don't have a real response then just admit you're wrong instead of making childish "jokes". >"At least" is pretty mild, and nobody cares. You're the one playing petty word games to avoid the real issues. Marxism is an abstract class. Communism, Socialism, National Socialism and Fascism are all subclasses of Marxism. So there is more to "left" vs "right" than just economics. >>19119 >go back to Reddit If you disagree then attack my argument instead of attacking me as a person. I shouldn't have to ask you to follow the rules. If you're too emotionally invested in the subject to make rational arguments then just stop responding.

>>19203 Right?! Imagine actually believing the majority of the financial elite is really Jewish. They have a sizeable influence, but it's still mostly WASP, sorry. Maybe the jewpilled people should try some more rigorous analysis next time and not fall for yet another indentitarian diversion meant to confuse and castrate them. You got got, motherfuсkers. AGAIN. Wise up and regroup

>>19188 I disagree with parts of this and emphatically agree with other parts. One: believing the Nazis were socialist is about as credible as believing the DPRK is democratic. I don't like the hysterical extrapolations that both sides seem to make from that; it doesn't illegitimize either philosophy because of one cherry-picked edge case. Both philosophies can go to far or be derailed by pure, libidinal authoritarianism that doesn't actually CARE about theory. They are simply seeking power for its own sake, and use the words as a mere distraction to manipulate their opponents. In these extreme cases, the terminology has been totally drained of meaning and should be discarded (except as a cautionary tale about allowing power-seeking to take over literally any ideology and subvert it. IT WILL HAPPEN if allowed. For anyone—left or right). I don't think the neon-haired black trans sex worker liberal arts college sons of bourgeois vultures represent Marxism, either, but I do cede that true "original" Marxism is mostly an historical anachronism now and has no real relevance anymore in current movements. They've latched on and bastardized it for their own social striving, but they may as well have a legitimate claim since nobody else is practicing the old ways that actually focus on manual laborers and common people, not liberal arts weirdos who will never have enough numbers to do anything except psyop and agitate and betray their own words. Marx is dead. It's been recycled into a purely aesthetic system for the rich to attack each other and mercilessly climb their social ladders in a zero-sum capitalist game. It's only window dressing now, so you're correct. Here's where I wholeheartedly agree with you: it is now preferable to try and salvage the right instead of reign in the left and return it to their original goals of returning power to the people. The right are now closer than the mutation that has become the left. Mussolini was a wacko in some ways, but maybe being an esoteric wacko was a valid route to the ecstatic truth. He's totally right: we will never win dignity for the common man with leftism anymore. We have to move to the right and find a way to build a better future there. And we've got to be very careful to not let the fuсking pathogen follow us. Reform the right, and keep out the identitarian miscarriage of elite overproduction out at all costs.

>>19117 Probably true, but it's hard to discern any difference sometimes. It has all decayed so severely.

>>19203 I missed this. >Most social democratic parties have roots in the radical workers movements of the 19th century, but that doesn't make half of Europe Marxist You're confusing the two topics here. One is the National Socialism and Fascism are socialist in nature because of how they actually ran their economies when they took power. When you say they are "right" wing you don't mean economically, you mean something else. Two is that BLM is based on marxist ideas because the founder literally said so >>19188 and also because it's obvious with the way they replaced marx's class struggle with a race+intersectionality struggle. I welcome any actual arguments to this. If you're just going to say "someone I don't like said that so it's invalid" or "go back to reddit" then don't bother.

>>19187 This is actually a very good exercise. Try it in earnest. Of course, lots of "leftist" professors. What they espouse is just a perversion of Marxism; something the man himself would have immediately dismissed. But in the end, there are no more true Marxists except highly online pretenders. He was a brilliant mind for a previous emanation of industrial society. We are no longer in a manufacturing-dominated industrial society. We need new thinking, but not these powerless hallucinations that people have stapled Marx's dead name to. We need effective strategy to help real, common people. Which in our nation means primarily poor whites. Abandon them and they'll do exactly what history has proven many times over: they will fall to right populism and violent chaos, hurting themselves as well as everyone else (except the unaccountable elites, as always). Sorry, but a people's movement must keep THE PEOPLE in mind. Not fetishized tokens of race and sexuality and who knows what else. But they will be lifted too if a successful movement lifts all ships with the tide... At least the ones who were actually under threat because of POVERTY. Rich trans people or whatever the hell have been perfectly safe since the fuсking 1300s. Check out the history of gender-swapping among nobles and royals. It's class. I know that's now seen as reductionist, but it truly isn't. Care for the greatest number of poor, even if they're rural and white god damn it!

>>19209 BLM's founder proclaiming Marxism is meaningless. Anybody can proclaim anything. But the truth is that if one replaces class (the ultimate FULCRUM of his theory) with race and intersectionality, it's no longer Marxism. Not even comparable. That substitution totally dismantles it from the foundation up. It's a resume-building strategy for a few wealthy, bourgeois black Americans.. who also betray and ruin the majority of poor black communities, which would have truly been served better by class-centric analysis. But it's mostly academic in this century anyway; there is no more vast reservoirs of class-aligned industrial labor solidarity, so Marxism isn't actually a potent or meaningful strategy for winning material progress for the common people anymore. It's a PR technique now. Marx is not some sort of holy man; his name doesn't confer good or evil to anything by its presence alone. The actual strategy does that. But he IS mostly obsolete in this era. I view people who invoke him either positively or negatively with suspicion; we need something else. Everyone is just jiggling his corpse around above their heads while screaming about their own agenda. Marxism, as a term, is never used with any true relevance anymore.

>>19210 >>19211 >>19207 In short, I think we really need to discard of the detritus of the past and the terminology which was designed to serve people totally different from ourselves living two centuries past... and make up new political alignments. Something free of the baggage which only gets in the way of what politics is meant to be: a struggle by common people for the tangible resources in society which they need to survive and want to improve the lives of their progeny. Long ago, the dominant western political factions might have been those in support of the papacy versus Protestants/Lutherans/reformists. Obviously this divide still exists in many places, but imagine if you (for example) tried to analyze US politics through the lens of that dichotomy. Those old, musty factions. Who represents the Vatican? Who is opposed? Does it actually help? What if "left" and "right" is about the same in our day? What if it's just a useless old relic, like a codpiece or a dowsing rod? Insisting to view the current moment through Marx and Keynes or whatever other old bastards will eventually become more of an impediment than a useful tool. Maybe we should start thinking of ourselves, and see if we might be able to form theories more appropriate for our material conditions instead of assuming some old steampunk people knew best. It's important to consider history and be humble towards the wisdom of our ancestors, but at some point one must use their own observations and cleverness and start fresh!

And to clarify: I know this analogy is imperfect, as all analogies must be. I know that even in those old, medieval political divides, there were still fundamental effects of authority versus individual liberty, as well as wealth versus the have-nots. And that these factors will likely always dominate human cultures. But perhaps we shouldn't be using remnants of thinking from the French revolution forever—perhaps we should discard the emotional encumbrances at some point? The old Hatfield and McCoy vengefulness that are based on the terms themselves (and who had used them in the past in entirely different circumstance) instead of how they directly apply to us today?

>>19210 >This is actually a very good exercise. No it's not. It's like visiting shopping websites and trying to find 10 that openly support capitalism. What they post on public web pages has nothing to do with what happens behind closed doors. >>19211 >BLM's founder proclaiming Marxism is meaningless. At the very least it means she thinks she's following Marx. It's true that she might be mistaken but so could you >But the truth is that if one replaces class (the ultimate FULCRUM of his theory) with race and intersectionality, it's no longer Marxism. If you abstract bourgeoisie / proletariat into oppressor / oppressed, and continue in the same vain then you end up with what the intersectionality Left currently believe. It's fine if you want to say that's not "real" Marxism but you can't pretend it's completely unrelated either. The way I describe it is like a subclass. The foundations are inherited up to a point and then the details are overridden. >there is no more vast reservoirs of class-aligned industrial labor solidarity, I think there is actually. Their biggest problem is immigrants though, not industrial tyrants. That's why they vote Trump and Brexit. >>19207 >Here's where I wholeheartedly agree with you: it is now preferable to try and salvage the right instead of reign in the left I don't think anything you agree with I actually said. My point was that socialism is gay. Fascism is just socialist + racism so that's gay too. We haven't even discussed what right wing might mean. It's bad form to assume I must be the opposite of whatever I'm soykafing on.

>>19212 >What if "left" and "right" is about the same in our day? One way to look at it is the Right prioritizes competence hierarchies. Civilization can't function without competence hierarchies because when there's a problem you need an identifiable group of people who can solve it. e.g. you break your leg, you go to a doctor. You need a bridge, you go to an engineer. Additionally you want the "best" doctor/engineer/whatever you can find so you also need a way to rank people into a hierarchy. The problem with that is you end up with a pool of useless people at the bottom of the hierarchy. That's where the Left comes it, they say "hang on that's not fair, we need to help those poor people". The fallacy is that this is some kind of good vs evil war. The reality is you need a balance between the two. >>19214 >authority versus individual liberty This spins out of the above. The Right prioritizes what's best for the group. You're gay and like to smoke drugs? Too bad, that doesn't help the group so knock it off. The Left prioritizes individual freedom. fuarrrk your group, I'll smoke and put my penis in whatever I want thanks. This gets messy though since id politics would technically be part of the Right because it's all about being part of some racial or sexual group and fuarrrk you bigots who want to treat everyone as individuals.

>>19204 >>19196 >>19188 You're not worth the effort, just stop spamming worn out arguments.

I wonder how lainchan feels about the labor aristocracy. you get derezzed for talking about it over on bunkerchan which is evidence that board is actually just a liberal run honeypot. Of course you can't really talk about anything on 4pol anymore except mainstream news. talk of socio-economic class is a big no no on most sites.

>>19221 this isn't really a secret. Its something i remember discussing in school. Of course people want to believe life is better now so they hang on that at least we have more social mobility compared to the peasants back then.

>>19221 >I wonder how lainchan feels about the labor aristocracy. it's a bit fuarrrked if you ask me. >>19222 don't worry timmy, if you try really hard and get really lucky you can exploit others!

Communism, like most other political/philosophical/economic ideologies, is just another religion. People are better of thinking in practical, rational, physical terms than using these kinds of dogmatic security blankets.

>>19218 >What they post on public web pages has nothing to do with what happens behind closed doors This is a very good point and you could be absolutely right, thank you. I'm happy to have engagement like this and I'm refreshed with your responses. Not meaning to blow smoke up your ass; just think it's worth saying at the moment. They could be lying and could be stealth true Marxists, but the most important factor I see is this: none of those people come from true working-class (as in manufacturing or agricultural labor) background. So I somehow doubt it, but I definitely could be wrong. I myself was raised by two generations of impoverished white sharecroppers in Arkansas who had been there since the depression and the dust bowl. They were deeply involved in labor organization, but it was something they sought themselves out of desperation and they didn't know anything about Marx or socialism really. They just talked to their fellow workers and tried to fight for dignity any way they could. The closest my grandfather came to Marxism was when he voted for Eugene Debs for president while Debs was sitting in a prison cell for his political beliefs. Check out his speech during his trial; it's powerful from the perspective of any working rural man. It has nothing to do with Marx, truly. Myself I've worked as a mechanic most my life, fixing cars and motorbikes and tractors. I've recently gotten more into computer science but it's self-taught. I disavow the American "left." I sympathize with the American right, but I think they are still somewhat deceived by the elites and could become a great power for good if they wizened up just a bit and learned to advocate themselves and a bright future whole-heartedly (while simultaneously rejecting certain kinds of neurosis and hatreds which have been bred in them by the elites specifically to scatter and weaken them). >At the very least it means she thinks she's following Marx. It's true that she might be mistaken but so could you Also true, thank you. And in fact yes—I do think these people consciously believe they are following real Marxist teachings. I don't really think many of them knowingly distort it for personal gain (but I'm sure some out there do). But I don't think that intentions matter here. Only outcomes matter. What they espouse is so significantly divorced from nineteenth century Marxist thinking and first industrial revolution theory that it really has no meaning to invoke his name—beyond building up a shibboleth to align themselves behind and (perhaps more importantly) taunt and ignite their enemies, causing them to give up their own material interests in favor of naive opposition for emotional reasons. Realize that the right does have power and wins often, but by simply uniting in opposition instead of under a positive vision for a better future that they formulate themselves as common people, they also betray themselves. Destroying the libs is a victory, but it's a Pyrrhic victory. The winner only builds a greater future if they win with their own conscious, positive will and manifests a brighter future! Merely avoiding a darker future is nice, but it's only a temporary jury-rig that (ideally) buys time to build that future. And not simply swing the pendulum back even harder the next time around! We can't just feud forever and watch the feud intensify. Whoever ultimately wins, they have to be positive and use their higher minds to envision something real and proactive, not just a revenge fantasy. >If you abstract bourgeoisie / proletariat into oppressor / oppressed Sure, and that's what I agree is exactly what has happened in this era. It got abstracted and absorbed into another movement... A very irritating and ultimately impotent movement. Although they have still managed to ruin much of the world anyway in their nonsensical flailing. But I still maintain that's not Marxism, and by attacking it as Marxism you are only descending into their delusion with them. You can still attack it as wrong, but keep your objectivity. It's not Marxism. That's a statement of fact, not of value. I'm not using this to defend Marxism. As I've said before, I personally believe Marx is an antiquated bit of history who should be left behind by both left and right. But don't play their game with them. Stay in reality. >industrial labor solidarity I sure hope there's still enough out there. As I said before, I was raised in that culture back when it was very strong. If there is, I wonder where they are now. I know they've been mostly offshored or replaced by migrant workers domestically. Which was the whole globalist plan. There certainly could be domestic labor again, but to unify and fight with that powerful force again you'd have to round up their descendants and convince them that they could win back an America with local manufacturing and labor power again. Which I think is absolutely true and possible. And as I've said—the right has done a better job at that than the "left." The hijacked elite left of America. It's strange, isn't it? That the right is anti-union in a classical sense, yet they still seem to be a party of powerful organized labor? It can be brought to bear against the bastards and they can win dignity back for the common American family! That's my deepest faith and I'll die defending it. >It's bad form to assume I must be the opposite of whatever I'm soykafing on Fair enough, but please don't think I did this on purpose. I thought I recognized this in you, and if I'm mistaken I take it back. I'm not a big-time "socialist." I'm certainly not about fascism either. I just think we can bring power back to people again, even if we discard these old systems of thought which (in my personal belief) have been polluted through the decades with a bunch of nonsense designed explicitly to weaken the people and make grassroots power less likely. Which is exactly why I'm so willing to discard all the precious ideologies and dogmas from both my left-wing AND right-wing forebears. I think we stand on our own, now and forever. We take what's useful to us and use it—anything else? Toss it in the damn ditch and march on. I want to live to see the broke farmers in Paragould, AK have a dignified life again and pass that down to their children. I remember the transformer-winding plant back when that was the main factory nearby and there was manufacturing, too. Black, white, whatever the hell. I'll make that happen if I can.

>>19229 Agreed here. There's too much scripture to read, god damn it. Let's have some tools that common people can use without spending their whole lives in books. Let's focus back on the real world and winning prizes of substance for ourselves and our neighbors. That's what politics means to me. I couldn't give a single fuсk if those tools happen to be in books titled "communist" or "fascist" or even "monarchist" for all I care. If I had to look up how to do a bottom-end re-seal on a diesel motor, I'll take any manual regardless of the title or author. This is the essence of using history as a tool, not a damn mythology. In my humble experience, anyway.

>>19221 >you get b& on bunker Really? Lmao I always knew that place was a hive of juvenile petit-bourgeois. Jesus. Do they have a rationale for it? I fuсking love how even hardcore tankies now seem to shy away from "class reductionism." They've been assfuсked by elite psyops all around. For a hundred years. Which is why they must be cut loose and left behind. Not like they have any real power or networks anymore, anyway. There's no reason to keep those psychotic suburban fools around another moment. I can't abide another fuсking second of Soviet nostalgia. If you want to live among the skeletons, leave the living be and be and be as silent as the past. There are real, working American people over here trying to survive and win a future. We can see through history, but we won't fuсking fetishize it. Let them run to Bernie and wither away with him

>>19229 I agree that this is a problem. Most popular formulations of Marxism depend on some kind of dogmatism, to defend conclusions that don't actually follow from the analysis ("Communism is Inevitable", would be one example). That's why a lot of people are interested in the Marx who says > I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be. (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm), and letting go of Second International/Soviet dogmas that restrict the use of Marx' analysis, rather than helping to see more clearly. The interesting thing is the questions he asks, and the way he attempts to answer them.

>>19223 This but unironically. You can't compete with the established propaganda system to convince the plebs to act different. So the best option is to join the exploiters.

>>19221 I feel like "Labour Aristocracy" is definitely a fair term to describe a certain false consciousness and group identity that exists among some members of the Labourer class but not as a class in its own. >Image I really wish that people would stop comparing Feudalism to Capitalism considering the two have profound differences.

>>15362 >Communism isn't "scientific". When your experiment fails repeatedly, time and again, you don't say "let's try again", you try something different. This goes in the face of communists who are always spouting how communism is "scientific". I rarely comment on political topics online due to the often hostile nature but this is misleading. Marx wrote virtually nothing about communism and how it would actually function. His analyses, which were certainly scientific in nature, were of capitalism. He has proven correct time and time again. Yet by this very statement, you have revealed your ignorance on the matter. You have revealed you know little to nothing about Marxian thought and you are a typical drone regurgitating nonsense hammered into your brain from people who see you as little more than a slave. No, communism isn't only "good on paper" - it was never really discussed by Marx. Marx merely described human economic history, capitalism, how it works and its contradictions and its future (which is certainly unfolding now just as he wrote it would). Those "attempts" you are speaking about were attempts at creating a new society after capitalism without any truly tested roadmap in doing so. Do you honestly think capitalism just appeared overnight? Do you think capitalism just overtook the planet from feudalism by magic? No, of course it didn't. There were many bourgeois attempts at creating a new capitalist society within a feudal world which failed and arose elsewhere. There were certainly people just like you who said "this is a load of soykaf, it will never work. Out feudal system has functioned for over one thousand years." Yet, here we are today in a capitalist world.

>>19233 They claim that its idpol instead of class politics.

>>19259 lmao they claim that is idpol with so much other clear idpol all over their site? Hmm

communism's answer to poor people is making everyone poor. no fuarrrking thanks. i'm not giving up my basic human rights and privacy because your lazy ass thinks you own the place. if your grandma tells you to mow the lawn and provides the lawnmower, you don't own her house. and you sure as hell don't own the lawnmower. communism is not a human-centric ideology, because all humans are inherently greedy. this is why people try to escape north korea because it is a craphole and only an idiot would want to live there. the people have no rights. and the word of the government is holy scripture. if government wants you gone then that is what happens

>>19722 Some common ownership =implies> common rights over what is owned =implies> democracy. I think you may be confusing an economic system with authoritarianism and a lack of democracy, which appears to be common with brain-washed state-capitalist Americans, you people are no better than the state-capitalist Russians or the state-capitalist Chinese in this regard.

>>19725 there is no such thing as common ownership in a human society. you don't own my computer, because i bought it. democracy is a home to mob rule. if 6/4 of the people say you should die, then you will be killed and you deserve it for being stupid enough to accept democracy

>>19241 >I really wish that people would stop comparing Feudalism to Capitalism considering the two have profound differences. Except current popular notions of ideal capitalism more closely resemble feudalism than actual capitalism. Actual capitalism as designed more closely resembles what the American collective conscious holds to be socialism. I don't believe this was by accident.

>>19731 >there is no such thing as common ownership in a human society. then what are "commons"? Your computer is not representative of the vast majority of things which are owned. A common saying is that communists aren't coming for your toothbrush, they're coming for your factory.

>>19246 >Marx wrote virtually nothing about communism and how it would actually function. Could you educate me here. I know he wrote some extremely accurate descriptions of "late stage capitalism". These writings should not be in dispute and people who would normally be triggered by a mention of Marx readily accept the same points when they come from say, Charles Dickens I was under the impression that he said workers should seize the means of production and he predicted the creation of a utopian post-government post-communist society. I'd say those are prescriptions about the way things aught to be if he did indeed make them. To somewhat digress I agree with the former, less in the form of violent revolution and more under the model that the workers are the means of production and through a combination of regulation and unionization workers can essentially seize the means of production. The latter I regard to be nice but improbable and unscientific. I think it particularly fails to account for the antisocial population which appears to in rare cases have entirely biological roots and therefore cannot be avoided. It's my belief that in such a society even these rare cases will disrupt such a system given time.

>>19737 >I was under the impression that he said workers should seize the means of production and he predicted the creation of a utopian post-government post-communist society. I'd say those are prescriptions about the way things aught to be if he did indeed make them. He and Engels did write that in the original Communist Manifesto, but it was vague and was meant more as a rousing speech than an in depth description of what communist society would look like.

>>15285 > But!, you cannot argue against science. You cannot defeat reality. How can anyone say this with a straight face and then suggest communism is the answer? All of history is a giant precedent this is not the case.

>>19116 This is an excellent post. But is it really solution oriented? You can say what not to do, and that's worthwhile at times, but what should do do?

>>19746 Something something sherlock holmes.

>>19747 I don't get it.

>>19748 he tells watson remove all improbable options and the remaining one left is your solution. (paraphrased, original sounds cooler)

>>19223 >don't worry timmy, if you try really hard and get really lucky you can exploit others! Why are people so terrified of natural law? Everything lives by 'exploiting' everything else.

>>19752 >Everything lives by 'exploiting' everything else. this is a gross generalization. Symbiotic relationships based on mutual aid are very common in nature. Shit just wants to live and it does what works, nobody but humans cares about some simplistic "natural law" that humans thought up.

>>19754 >nobody but humans cares about some simplistic "natural law" that humans thought up. Please learn the difference between descriptive and normative terms before you reply with your nonsense, thank you.

>>19757 saying that humans should live "according to the law of nature" *is* a prescriptive judgement, especially considering that the "law of nature" referred to was that everyone exploits each other which is not remotely true.

>>19758 No-one ever said the word 'should'. Natural law is natural law precisely because there's no way around it. Whoever you imagine you're epically refuting, they don't exist.

>>19759 >No-one ever said the word 'should' >>19752 >Why are people so terrified of natural law? why would somebody say this unless they thought people should follow "natural law"? >Natural law is natural law precisely because there's no way around it. then maybe if you're making descriptive statements you should at least try to have some kind of accuracy rather than repeating some bullshit "nature: red of tooth and claw" crap from social darwinists.

>>19760 Why do you insist on erecting strawmen to knock down? It's a waste of fuarrrking time. Doubly so since it was clarified for your 'misunderstanding' yet you double down. People are afraid of the way the world is, there's nothing strange about such a statement. What's strange is people persisting in such a fear when it goes against the very order of order, which is to return to the real topic at hand. Why don't you give an example of something that lives without any form of exploitation of something else, that would make a more interesting discussion. Of course, no such thing exists, as that would defy natural law.

>>19761 >What's strange is people persisting in such a fear when it goes against the very order of order, which is to return to the real topic at hand. the reason I continue to argue is because I believe you are implicitly making assumptions about what this "very order of order" is to make a political point. >Why don't you give an example of something that lives without any form of exploitation of something else, that would make a more interesting discussion. A good example might be lichens. They are symbiotic organisms composed of cyanobacteria and fungi, they make all of their food by photosynthesis and do not usually compete in a significant way with higher plants. However "exploitation" is of course a word which applies to human relationships primarily, and without a clear way of how it might be applied to other ecological relationships I am just making a shot in the dark. >Of course, no such thing exists, as that would defy natural law. this is the soykaf that annoys me. If natural law is descriptive, then if such a thing existed it would necessarily not violate natural law.

>>19762 >A good example might be lichens. That's a parasite. They follow the general rules of the natural order like everything else. It's hierarchy, all the way down.

>>19766 please explain how lichens are parasitic. Are you talking about a specific lichen?

>>19762 >A good example might be lichens. They are symbiotic organisms composed of cyanobacteria and fungi, they make all of their food by photosynthesis and do not usually compete in a significant way with higher plants. However "exploitation" is of course a word which applies to human relationships primarily, and without a clear way of how it might be applied to other ecological relationships I am just making a shot in the dark. Just what do you think photosynthesis is? It involves using water and nutrients to produce energy. Neither of which are limitless and subject to competition from other organisms. That easily qualifies as exploitation on some kind of microscopic scale, other organisms outcompeted by the lichen die. What's more the lichen itself is a form of exploitation, the algae do not require the fungus to survive and reproduce more effectively without it in isolation. What is more, the lichen requires a substrate, these are also a limited resource and by necessity their existence involves the displacement of other microbiomes. I have no interest in the rest of your post.

>>19770 >Just what do you think photosynthesis is? It involves using water and nutrients to produce energy. Neither of which are limitless and subject to competition from other organisms. functionally they are limitless, as most sunlight and water are never used by any organism. Lichens do not have roots and do not draw water from the ground, the only thing that lichens are competing over in any meaningful sense is space, and in a lot of situations they are the only photosynthesizing organisms around. >That easily qualifies as exploitation on some kind of microscopic scale, other organisms outcompeted by the lichen die. so exploitation is any time that you do something to make yourself survive without also helping everyone else survive? What an odd, hackneyed way of defining exploitation that does not match its definition in human relationships. >What's more the lichen itself is a form of exploitation, the algae do not require the fungus to survive and reproduce more effectively without it in isolation. The fungus provides the bacteria with protection from the elements and a better immune system. Without it the algae could survive, but probably not as effectively. >What is more, the lichen requires a substrate, these are also a limited resource and by necessity their existence involves the displacement of other microbiomes. Lichens often thrive where other life-forms do not, because they are better adapted to the situation. That is completely different from 'exploitation' or hierarchy, exploitation would imply that the lichen is specifically preying on the weaknesses of other life-forms(it is not) and heirarchy would imply that the lichen has some kind of decision-making capacity over other life-forms(it does not)

>>15296 This sounds reasonable. However, how are you defining "extremism"? What is extreme in the US is not the same as what is extreme in Scandinavian countries; extremes are relative.

>>19188 The nazis (despite calling their party the National Socialist Party) were not socialist in the slightest. The term "privatization" was coined to describe what they were doing with their economy: https://www.google.com/search?q=privatization+etymology.

>>19770 Lichens generally aren't competing with higher order organisms though. The nutrients and air they absorb are the waste products of other organisms and the light they use for energy is the product of the sun and due to their stature will not block higher order organisms from accessing it.

>>15285 >Those in power That would be the vulture capitalist jews, who despise our nations and think nothing of robbing them blind. They were also behind the communist revolution in Russia, just as they are now behind the quasi-communist revolution happening in America. But yeah I'm sure this time things will be different and communism will finally work. Another hundred million dead and we'll have it in the bag. Star Trek future, here we come. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/12/18/vulture-capitalism-is-jewish-capitalism/

>>22488

>>22434 >The term "privatization" was coined to describe what they were doing with their economy Dig deeper. >>>/r/21149 >However, the privatization was "applied within a framework of increasing control of the state over the whole economy through regulation and political interference,"[44] as laid out in the 1933 Act for the Formation of Compulsory Cartels

>>22552 Actually >>>/r/20741

>>19221 >Labor Aristocracy. This while it may have existed for some brief moments of the 20th and early 21st in no way exists in the modern day. Any visage of SocialDemocracy or first world workers somehow being "better off" just by merit of being born in a "first world country" has been utterly obliterated in the last 4-6 years

>>15285 >It is becoming increasingly clear that capitalism is an unsustainable system. LOLWUT? It's the only system that creates real progress so far. Trans, gay, bisexual rights? Capitalist society introduced them. Not making people suffer hunger due to failed central planning like China is facing right now in some regions? Also capitalist countries. Which countries has the highest rising rate of quality of life in XX and XXI century? Capitalist countries with huge market freedom like Taiwan, Estonia. So what the fuarrrk you talking about?

>>22556 >Any visage of SocialDemocracy or first world workers somehow being "better off" just by merit of being born in a "first world country" has been utterly obliterated in the last 4-6 years How exactly? Even if you're at the very bottom and have nothing at all to contribute except cleaning toilets, you are still rewarded with a permanent shelter over your head, more calories than you can burn and more entertainment than you can watch. Human existence has never been easier than living in a modern capitalist country.

>>15391 >humans always tend to form hierarchies >Do you have a citation for that!!111 Maybe all of human history?

>>22559 >How exactly? Relatively speaking. Imagine a world where you have a bicycle and someone else has a ferrari. Now imagine a world where no vehicles exist and you both are forced to walk. A socialist/communist will say the second world is better because there is no "wealth gap" and everyone is equal. A rational person will say the first world is better, since everyone is better off in absolute terms and the only downside is a bit of jealously.

>But!, you cannot argue against science. You cannot defeat reality. >i­mplying

>>22562 >A socialist/communist will say the second world is better because there is no "wealth gap" and everyone is equal. Except that's usually not true, you strawmanning fuarrrk. How about the potential Ferrari owner isn't allowed to screw fifty people out of being able to afford cars, they'll only be able to get a Porsche and now most people can get a car, but we tax people and improve the infrastructure so most people don't even need cars? Yeah it's not a perfect analogy either but at least the numbers are close to adding up.

>>22565 >Except that's usually not true, you strawmanning fuarrrk. >How about the potential Ferrari owner isn't allowed to screw fifty people out of being able to afford cars, they'll only be able to get a Porsche Except a porsche 918 is faster than any ferrari you dummy. Wealth doesn't exist in a vacuum. The ferrari doesn't just fall out of the sky. You need to trade something to get something. Even if one party benefits more than the other, both parties still benefit in a free trade. That's how capitalism makes everyone better off in absolute terms, even if there is a larger gap between the top and bottom. >but we tax people and improve the infrastructure so most people don't even need cars? Taking wealth away from people who worked for it and giving it to people who didn't is not a sustainable system. Well, it is sustainable as long as you employ violence to force the first group to keep working. Did you never wonder why socialist countries always turn into totalitarian police states.

>>22574 >Did you never wonder why socialist countries always turn into totalitarian police states. No, because since WW2 the answer has been "the CIA launches right-wing coups whenever a socialist state starts to look successful".

>>22577 >the CIA invented gulags What a cope. If you don't reward people for their work then the only way to keep them working is through violence. [spoiler]Take your time swallowing that pill[./spoiler]

>>22577 >the CIA invented gulags What a cope. If you don't reward people for their work then the only way to keep them working is through violence. Take your time swallowing that pill

>>22579 not a socialist, but this is definitely not true. People fight and work for a soykaf ton more than "rewards". The main problem with socialism is probably just the difficulty of central planning.

>>22574 I don't see why your 'socialist/communist' example has no vehicles. I don't know any socialist nation that didn't have vehicles because of socialism. Sounds absurd. >That's how capitalism makes everyone better off in absolute terms, even if there is a larger gap between the top and bottom. Can you clarify for me: does "everyone better off in absolute terms" mean each and every person individually is better off, or just that the combined total is better? >Well, it is sustainable as long as you employ violence to force the first group to keep working I don't know, most people are fine with taxes. They wouldn't stop working over normal taxes. Sounds absurd.

>>22579 >If you don't reward people for their work then the only way to keep them working is through violence And so the pinkertons have a job.

>>22587 >I don't see why your 'socialist/communist' example has no vehicles. Read it again. >imagine two worlds >the socialist prefers the second There was no implication that this was the result of socialism/communism. >Can you clarify for me: does "everyone better off in absolute terms" mean each and every person individually is better off, or just that the combined total is better? Every person individually. At least in the long term. Obviously if you kill the golden goose then everyone is king for a day, but not for long. >I don't know, most people are fine with taxes. They wouldn't stop working over normal taxes. Sounds absurd. When you twist my argument around to try make it look stupid, that doesn't make me stupid it makes you stupid.

>>15285 > It is becoming increasingly clear that capitalism is an unsustainable system. HahahahahahahahahHAAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Bro, imagine actually deluding yourself into thinking that communism is the solution. Imagine being so far into being a victim that you think that companies today aren’t backed by government in order not fail. Imagine being so ignorant that you don’t understand that the world school system is based off a flawed notion that rote memorization, getting college debt, and getting a job are the only two things that matter. THEN, AFTER ALL THAT, HAVING THE AUDACITY TO THINK THAT COMMUNISM IS THE ANSWER. GIVING MORE POWER TO THE SUPPOSED SYSTEM THAT HAS FAILED. GIVEING MORE POWER TO fuarrrkING GOVERNMENT OF ALL fuarrrkING PEOPLE. LOW IQ RETARDS. GET OFF MY fuarrrkING IMAGEBOARDS AND GET BACK TO fuarrrkING TWITTER. SUCKLE OFF THE DEBT SLAVERY TRAIN. YOU DESERVE COMPOUND INTEREST DEBT SLAVERY.(Always argue in good faith.)