Marxism/Lainism/Socialism

Any lainons on here into Marxism/Lainism/Socialism? I'm looking to learn a bit more about Marxism because I really like it as a concept. Does anyone have any recommended literature/videos I can watch to further educate myself on it? Thanks in advance my comrades.

What's Lainism?

>>16373 I feel like an idiot, I probably have alzheimers and 6 months to live (EDGY JOKE HAHAHHA) I meant leninism. Oh well.

It's been tried, and repeatedly failed. You should invest your efforts into looking at anarchism which doesn't promote atrocities, and has had reasonable successes worth pursuing.

>>16375 This but specifically anarcho-capitalism. It's the only system that has actually subverted everybody and is flourishing.

There's already a Marx thread.

If you're interested check out some of the discussion regarding communism >>15285

>>16375 Yes and no, read some (more) Trotsky and Hoxha. Tldr; Stalin and Mao were pieces of soykaf and sociopaths copied them. >>16376 I wouldn't say that Somalia was flourishing... Sage because this isn't the right (or should I say left) imageboard for this topic, no offense.

>>16370 >the immortal science of marxism/lainism also go the other marx thread.

Technocracy was quite an idea, but as society is very complicated dynamic system, you can't create reliable model of it, i'm sorry.

>>16375 >It's been tried, and repeatedly failed. how has "marxism" been tried? how has it failed? >You should invest your efforts into looking at anarchism in anarchism, if you find out the commune next door is practicing slavery are you allowed to stop them? if yes then you are a state, if no then your system is like kicking dead whales down the beach >>16376 >anarcho-capitalism. It's the only system that has actually subverted everybody and is flourishing. "what was the gilded age?"

>>16453 >if yes then you are a state This is the most galaxy brain take I've ever seen. Individuals working together to prevent evil does not a state make. Read an actual book or something before you go spouting off like a little retard.

>>16460 what gives your commune the right to force people in another commune to change the way they live? without a sovereign whose definition of "evil" gets forced on everyone? just based on what you said it sounds like your anarchism will devolve into might makes right as everyone scrambles to "work together to prevent evil"

>>16462 Just fyi that isn't disqualifying for some people. Might has made right for the past 200,000 years. The good times are simply when the mighty are just. Some say that ѕһіt ain't right, but I say those rights you hold so dear ain't ѕһіt. Any emergency is all it takes for them to suddenly evaporate away. If they don't exist when it gets tough, then were they ever anything more than a calming illusion? Might has always, always, always made right. Philosophers decry it but there has never been a way to realistically enforce any other way. The checks and balances meant to keep the mighty from exerting their power over us are vague nebulosities; mere cobwebs and safety blankets. The real thing that preserves rights for most people is the might of those same people in large numbers. And the fact that we still support the reproduction of society and culture. The ruling classes would simply eradicate us if they both did not need us and also had the power to do so. This is the part I really like about these political ideas; they realistically assess politics as the struggle for material resources and the execution of power. No dreamy ideas about self-evident truths or rights given by god. All that is the first to go when the ѕһіt hits the fan. And for the lower classes, the ѕһіt is always spraying directly into the fan like a hose. This is about practicing your power and the ability to organize and struggle to magnify that power.

>>16387 In what manner is this not the correct imageboard? I wasn't aware of any official political leaning for lain. Or are you just talking about your personal preferences? Would appreciate it if this wasn't just a hugbox for people on the right. I'm not even particularly a leftist.

>>16462 >what gives your commune the right to force people in another commune to change the way they live? When all other communes are working against you, the evidence is clear. >just based on what you said it sounds like your anarchism will devolve into might makes right as everyone scrambles to "work together to prevent evil" >devolve into might makes right You've clearly never read a single anarchist article, let alone talked to an anarchist. Sad, worthless opinions on the internet. >everyone scrambles to "work together to prevent evil" The masses of individuals are capable of creating good. Do you think the abolitionist movement was created by politicians? Poor, sad individual you are.

>>16468 >When all other communes are working against you, the evidence is clear. what's that some combination of democratic centralism and might makes right? so much for anarchism >You've clearly never read a single anarchist article, let alone talked to an anarchist. Sad, worthless opinions on the internet. when i was an anarchist i read the conquest of bread and wrote a summary of it lol >The masses of individuals are capable of creating good. i agree >Do you think the abolitionist movement was created by politicians? Poor, sad individual you are. the abolitionist movement was created by individuals working to influence state power, it was the confederacy that wanted the state to be decentralized so it couldn't enforce a ban on slavery

>>16375 >It's been tried, and repeatedly failed. Sure, if your metric for failure is "not exactly the same as predicted". Of course no theory of economy, society and human nature will fully describe and predict which of the endless possible paths of development will be followed by civilization. This is a mistake that admittedly most self-proclaimed "leftists" make and it's idealism: an attitude widely criticized by the Marxist tradition. I used to be a militant leftist, but quit precisely because of the prevalence of this attitude (and due to my own personal problems). Even though I no longer identify as a "Marxist" I think any sane person would admit that it's a theory that is not perfect, and yet makes some sound predictions such as a falling rate of profit (pic related) which may eventually result in the downfall of capitalism as we know it — in a few decades if this trend continues, in fact. In this sense it is a lot like any other scientific theory: not perfect yet it serves its purpose of prediction and analysis.

>>16522 >Sure, if your metric for failure is "not exactly the same as predicted". The metric is "consistently devolves into totalitarianism".

Karl Marx literally invented state capitalism tho.

>>16522 >that it's a theory that is not perfect, and yet makes some sound predictions such as a falling rate of profit (pic related) which may eventually result in the downfall of capitalism as we know it Sneaky use of a misleading chart. >profit (simple means) Profits are up overall across the board, and continues to increase. Marxists are idiots for constantly saying "you cannot grow forever" one second and "oh, it's all deflating" the next. It's really disingenuous that you people need to resort to such deceptive tactics. >in a few decades if this trend continues, in fact. In this sense it is a lot like any other scientific theory The use of "scientific theory" is a red hot, poker up the ass take. Marx envisioned some golden utopia with zero material basis for his views: idealism. It's funny because he railed against idealism so fuarrrking hard, yet invented a bullshit theory from the whole cloth of imagination. The irony is that the theory is false because every single implementation has either failed or devolved into a dictatorship or both. Anybody who follows marx's thought is doing themselves a disservice.

Oh boy, these threads always turn out great. Certainly worth wasting ones time here... >>16370 Marxism is one of the greatest misnomers I know of. Just the name implies a kind of religious adherence to whatever Marx said, instead of a framework of analysis. And sure, there are many who adhere to Marx as a God, but in my experience they don't have the richest or most interesting ideas -- sadly they are the loudest. >>16375 >It's been tried, and repeatedly failed. If by "tried" you mean the failed Russian revolution replicated itself internationally, then I guess you're right. It's quite annoying to see people treat every single instance of a "communist state" as a scientific experiment, carried through independently of it's historical context. As if all of eastern Europe suddenly turned communist, and independently decided to follow the same path. Or maybe the Soviet Union, a quite dominant force at the time was interested in growing it's sphere of influence, I don't know. >>16522 >that image Just as a reminder: Nobody seriously holds the "Not True Socialism" position, and Marxists who rally against it are just afraid of Liberals accusing them of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It's always "the USSR weren't socialist". Adding the "true" makes it sound like they were a kind of "fake" or "light" socialism, when that's no the point anyone is making. >>16546 >Sneaky use of a misleading chart. I'm genuinely curious, could you elaborate on this point. Do you have any statistics to prove your point? >The use of "scientific theory" is a red hot, poker up the ass take. Marx envisioned some golden utopia with zero material basis for his views: idealism. Outside of the Gothakritik (that is quite vauge) Marx never envisions anything. Some people see this as a weakness, but I see it as a strength. You cannot know how a revolution will come into being, let alone it's results. Marx' analysis is as such purely negative, he only talks about what attributes he can know socialism/communism must have, as a overcoming of capitalism. >It's funny because he railed against idealism so fuarrrking hard, yet invented a bullshit theory from the whole cloth of imagination Again, could you give an example? A positive description of a utopia? >The irony is that the theory is false because every single implementation has either failed or devolved into a dictatorship or both. What is the implementation of a critique? And again, the same points apply as to >>16375 And I apologize for asking if you are not, but why are you so emotional about this? It seems quite common to see people obsessed with hatred of communism whenever the topic comes up, more so than for other historical movements? Even those who by their own description are factually just as harmful.

>I'm looking to learn a bit more about Marxism because I really like it as a concept. Looks like a data-mining bait thread but I will bite. I consider myself some kind of Marxist but I'm not a Leninist. John McCarthy had a point when he sarcastically said: >We modern Marxists regard socialism as a historically brief transitional stage between feudalism and capitalism, necessary only in backward countries. Leninism was literally this, and Leninists even defend it as such — and they aren't necessarily wrong to do so. The biggest red/blackpill of my life was reading Guy Debord. He was what Mao would call an adventurist, used to be an edgy avant-garde prankster in the vein of the surrealists, before he somehow started to read Marx and write political philosophy. He made me realize cities are absolutely soulless nowadays because of capitalism. They are designed around the circulation of commodities, and urbanism is mostly concerned about this. Capitalist ideology commoditizes everything that it can, events like playing music in public or travelling are put into a box and you can only have access to these things through a packaged pseudo-experience in exchange for a bit of money, i.e. a life of dull wage-slavery. Everything is made "safe" (in practice, it's not, remember the Ariana Grande bombing?) because it's profitable to do so. That's the spectacle in a nutshell. He also made me realize you don't have to excuse the crimes of the Eastern Bloc to agree with Marx — even though it can be a fun past-time. The Soviet Union might have had very cheap basic commodities and rents, but I wouldn't wish to live under Stalin. Yes, he was a war hero and so on, but I just want to be free to take a little bit of drugs and make "subversive music" in basements with my friends sometimes, while having to wage-slave the least possible. I have to recognize that Stalin was aware of the need to reduce work hours though, see "Economic Problems of the USSR": https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch13.htm If you Ctrl+F "hours" and read the paragraph, you might be surprised by Stalin's proposal to reduce the workday to 5 hours, but it makes sense if you have read The Critique of the Gotha Program before. When it comes to Marx himself, I think he is the best post-Kantian philosopher just because he discovered that capitalism was a historical and not an immutable form of production and exchange of goods, meaning wage-slavery is not "human nature", and also because of his base vs. superstructure dichotomy, his absolute materialism. I've studied cognitive science in college, and for me, Marx is as materialist as this discipline. His view of economics is rooted in a very basic understanding that the only thing humans do beyond consuming and reproducing is to transform the fruits of Mother Nature. He was actually closer to Adam Smith on this front than present-day capitalists are: https://www.cadtm.org/Adam-Smith-is-closer-to-Karl-Marx The best introduction to Marx & Engels' project is to read the first chapter of the German Ideology: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm I think the best currently existing Marxist is Jehu: https://therealmovement.wordpress.com He thinks governments use fiat money to cover a breakdown of production based on exchange-value that occured in 1971, when the Bretton Woods system ended and the West stopped tying the value of their money to gold. This breakdown admittedly happened because of the never-ending sophistication of machines, as Marx predicted in the Grundrisse. Take a look at https://therealmovement.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/how-fiat-currency-killed-marxism/ if you are interested. This guy was chatting quite a bit with Nick Land on Twitter a half-decade ago, and Nick Land himself is a pretty interesting post-Marxist, as was Mark Fisher on more cultural grounds — see his Vampire Castle essay, GG should have come to this conclusion by themselves if they weren't dumb gamerz spooked by mainstream American propagandists. Anyway, Marxism is a rabbit-hole, and maybe John McCarthy was right when he said being too knowledgeable about Marxism is a sign of a "misspent youth", but he didn't live to see neoliberalism crumbling in front of our very eyes.

>>16548 >WhY aRe YoU So EmoTiOnAL you're posting in bad faith if you need to resort to putting thoughts into somebody's head. >Do all of my research for me TSX logarithmic scale showing constantly increasing wealth, for starters. All other measures of wealth creation reflect this trend. >Marx analysis is as such purely negative Making an assessment based on negative or positive features does not make a difference, it's pure speculation that has failed Literally the rest of your post is impossible to even discuss since you've either hopelessly moved the goalposts or hopelessly missed the point. Or you're intentionally deflecting and pretending "oh I didn't understand". That's the problem with communist soykafs like you, you cannot discuss things on equal terms when it comes to critiques of your precious pie-in-the-sky utopian dreams. Dreams that, it bears repeating, have always come crashing down into tyranny.

>>16581 > you're posting in bad faith if you need to resort to putting thoughts into somebody's head. It's by no means necessary, it's just a thing that makes me curious. I hope I make the impression of writing in a neutral and balanced tone (as discussions like these don't need the additional burden of personal accusations), but if for whatever reason you don't want to talk about it I'm absolutely fine with it, and do not blame you for that. >>Do all of my research for me Just to clarify, I was hoping you could point me towards research that disproved the "tendency of the rate of profit to fall", not that you explain it to the thread. >TSX logarithmic scale showing constantly increasing wealth, for starters. All other measures of wealth creation reflect this trend. Ok, but these are two different things, aren't they? Even with a falling rate of profit, the economy can grow, especially since the profit rate doesn't directly determine "wealth creation". Or did I misunderstand you? To clarify: My understanding is that the average ratio between invested and generated capital has been decreasing over time (as implied in >>16522's second image), for the reasons Marx lays out in Capital. >Making an assessment based on negative or positive features does not make a difference, it's pure speculation that has failed I think that it is a very crucial difference, it's the admission of one's position in history and the limits of political thinking. If someone says the revolution happens when WW3 breaks out, their statement might turn out to be true, but it itself it meaningless, since there are so many more factors that must play into it -- it would be speculative as you say. A negative analysis limits itself to what it's theory and science (as in anthropology, history, economy, etc.) can eliminate. > Literally the rest of your post is impossible to even discuss since you've either hopelessly moved the goalposts or hopelessly missed the point. And it is not possible to discuss, unless some acceptance and understanding of both sides terminology can be granted. If I say "socialism" and someone else understands both Denmark and Mao's china, then the space to properly discuss anything shrinks. It is like two people talking about two different pictures over the phone, not knowing that they don't have the same picture in front of one another. That being said, it is possible, it is just necessary for both sides to understand the difference in terminology, so that nobody has an unfair advantage in terms of what they can or cannot express. For this reason, I for example grant everyone to define "socialism" however they want, since the word is as meaningless as it gets anyway. >Dreams that, it bears repeating, have always come crashing down into tyranny. ...or fail!

>>16580 Thank you for taking the time to write this. The resources you linked to are very interesting. >Nick Land If you have any more specific thoughts on him, would you mind elaborating?

bump, wanna see >>16581 and >>16546 reply.

>>16587 >If you have any more specific thoughts on him, would you mind elaborating? What I find interesting about him is his global thought experiment about capitalism going on forever, capital getting humans out of its way to reproduce itself eternally, capital giving birth to self-replicating machines with capacities beyond human imagination and able to surpass the deadline of the end of humanity fixed by the second law of thermodynamics. His theory is a nightmare tailor-made for Marxists. Try to read Machinic Desire or Meltdown if you are interested.

>>16546 >Profits are up overall across the board Observe the term "rate of profit" you're talking about absolutes, while the original term refers to returns on investment on a generalized global level. It is not a hard phenomena to understand. As businesses compete with one another, they can attempt to raise their income by two means, by raising prices or lowering (unit) costs. As raising prices usually is a bad move competitively --creating demand through advertising and molding brands, and artificial scarcity plus invisible cartels notwithstanding-- the common way forward is to cut expenses. While material costs can be limited and the opportunity cost of logistics-lag can be shortened, physical reality places certain restrictions on how much improvement can be made on these fronts. As such, cutting on labor is either directly or indirectly a central focus. Ignoring microeconomic direct brute-force methods to force wages down, traditionally, by improving the efficiency of the enterprise through new tools and machinery, the business can achieve the same level of output with a smaller number of people, or a higher one with the same number of people. Nevertheless, the unit-cost has gone down, and said business has a competitive advantage. Due to this advantage, other major businesses must follow suit to keep up. The problem appears of course when this same choreography repeats itself on the macroeconomic scale, on which these theories are focused on. When everyone everywhere either boosts their production to make up for their investment or cuts out people from the process, there's a real risk of overproduction while the consumer-base is eroded. The overall improvement in efficiency, and the initial boost in profits, has yielded a shrunken pot of spendable consumer income. As such, original prices cannot be maintained overall, but must be lowered, lowering the rate-of-profitability of the investments, since there's more physical capital involved. More money must be put into the business first to successfully compete. But what choice does the individual entrepreneur have? Everyone must have these investments because everyone has these investments. Example: A workshop which hand-crafts cars cannot compete with Toyota, even if the two were of equal size. Outside the age-old traditional sphere, globalization has permitted outsourcing as a viable alternative. The lower wages there were so lucrative, that perfectly good factories upon perfectly good factories were abandoned in the developed world, while immense investments were put on rebuilding more or less the same productive capacity on the other side of the planet. Plus all the infrastructure to haul things around the globe and back. However, it has the same result but exaggerated: wages paid out in China or Bangladesh do not go into the wallets of American consumers, who are expected to buy the produce. Instead of having less money put out into circulation of a local market, now nothing flows back from the enterprise to the marketplace of their choosing. Plus all the costs of ridiculously hauling raw materials and products on and back across oceans, of course. With such an inefficiency present, who could reasonably believe the money involved is being used as prudently as it was before? But that's the dominant way of doing things today, inefficiency in search of efficiency. And if you wanna catch up to the big boys, you better dance the same dance.

>>16370 All of Marx's books are for free online. Are you literate? Of course you are. So go read Marx. You could start with some pamphlets, but eventually you need to read Capital to know what he's about.

>>16641 Not this lain, but in specific, I would suggest this order. *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm *Wage Labor and Capital & Value Price and Profit https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ *Critique of the Gotha Program https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ and if you want *The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm Then I would give Capital a go. I think reading these will make it a lot more bearable since you already have a taste of some of the things you will see put under a microscope in Capital, and how Marx structures his analysis. It might also be worth watching Reading Capital with David Harvey as you do it as well. Another good series of videos is The Theory of Value, by Brendan McCooney https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0A7FFF28B99C1303 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7

>>16676 Communism had zero upward mobility for the majority of people. However, people in the party could secure positions which came with perks such as nicer living conditions. Communist societies tend to break down into a class-like structure (although never say that to a communist) where there's sharp divisions between groups who are granted various favors for their allegiance to the system and support of it (ratting others out, for instance). Inner core party members live like what we call billionaires. From there it sharply declines to poverty.

>>16674 >Applied communism At best you could make the argument that those were socialist countries, although some socialists, like the anarchists, would not like to call them that (although I feel that smacks of intellectual dishonesty, the failures in any economic stage of development should be analyzed). Noam Chomsky call them really existing socialism. Communism is another economic stage that would have to come out of the conditions of a highly developed socialist stage of development. Ultimately I don't understand trying to deny that any problems happen under capitalism, it's simply the height of foolishness. In any point in history without the complete means to satisfy all wants, with democratic control over them. >>16676 It's not anger, it's frustration at obvious stupidity, and I'm not >>16674. I don't get what's so counter evidential about it, I never denied any of the failings of socialistic countries, all countries without the perfect means to supply themselves of their needs or wants are going to have to make decisions about how to apportion the resources, this includes capitalism, which was denied, capitalism is very very far from utopian. Bread lines under capitalism are pervasive too, although not as pervasive as just plain starvation and for the most part, in the first world, the negative effects of capital are hidden (although not even that well, considering a large population that is food insecure, or homeless etc.) the parts that had, earlier on in history, struggle to achieve the rights for workers that they have, as well as the means to colonize the world for resources like one of the most important ones, cheap labor, which allow the imperial centers and more specifically, the capitalists in these imperial centers to enrich themselves. The terrible state of entire continents like Africa, South America, etc, and of the poor in any place, and the lack of power they feel, is a result of the system of distributing resources that we find ourselves with today, i.e. capitalism.

>>16680 This is simply baldfaced lying dressed up as a "reasonable" position. Socialist countries UNIVERSALLY devolve into breadlines and failure of innovation, among other massive failures. Capitalist societies continuously right themselves in the face of any adversary.

>>16680 >At best you could make the argument that those were socialist countries, although some socialists, like the anarchists, would not like to call them that Marxist, don't lie. >Communism is another economic stage that would have to come out of the conditions of a highly developed socialist stage of development. Moving the goalposts I see, very fitting of a communist. >Ultimately I don't understand trying to deny that any problems happen under capitalism, it's simply the height of foolishness Nobody claimed that. Capitalism certainly isn't perfect, but it tends toward perfection over time. >It's not anger, it's frustration at obvious stupidity, Lies, given everything so far has been reasonable. >I don't get what's so counter evidential about it, I never denied any of the failings of socialistic countries, all countries without the perfect means to supply themselves of their needs or wants are going to have to make decisions about how to apportion the resources, Marxism (all the same thing as all of the other nouns you're using, despite your lies) doesn't give choice to the people who it affects. The choice is made by faceless bureaucracy or "the party". Capitalism offers the possibility that ANYBODY can participate, not just the anointed. >in the first world, the negative effects of capital are hidden It's all very visible if you're not retarded and know how to look. Capitalism is very transparent, unlike marxism. >The terrible state of entire continents like Africa, South America, etc, and of the poor in any place, and the lack of power they feel, is a result of the system of distributing resources that we find ourselves with today, i.e. capitalism. Wrong again. This is the result of political interference. This has nothing to do with economics. Once the politicians get their hands out of the pie, they can fully and appreciably participate in the global economy. It's pretty pathetic that you post this drivel, get a life and a real job you lowlife.

>>16682 >Capitalist societies continuously right themselves in the face of any adversary. Not him, but that's just a delusion. Capitalism and consumerism are not sustainable - we're destroying the environment and driving many species, including ours to extinction just for the sake of economic growth. Capitalism works only when there are people you can take away something from - whether it's slavery or underpaying people in Chinese factories or oil in Middle East. The current situation shows how ridiculous capitalism is - centralization of means of production makes countries needing medical equipment fail to produce it, because you can't exploit people working over 16h per day anymore. You can't fool nature's economy - climate change and collapsing ecosystem will show well, how successful and sustainable capitalism is. I'm waiting. Maybe the poverty socialism brings is the only way of living this planet can provide for over 7 billion people.

>>16684 Capitalism isn't zero sum, nor dependent on natural resources exclusively. Everything else in your post stems from these two errors in reasoning and won't be addressed here.

>>16682 Except the ones the ones in South America, Africa, or for the poor. The only winners for capitalism are the capitalists themselves. I will say that you are right to a very small degree, although not about just capitalism, all societies, as they encounter some for of adversity, usually do to it's own contradictions, will change and adjust to try to right them until they encounter a failure so large that it cannot do that any more. No society is a static, sedentary thing. I would also warn you, that the those in the empires of old thought that they were ever lasting as well. The entire life of capitalism isn't even the length of the Roman Empire's decline period yet. >>16683 >Nobody claimed that. Capitalism certainly isn't perfect, but it tends toward perfection over time. They obviously did, which isn't reasonable. It is interesting that you say that capitalism tends towards perfection, because that is a semi-marxist sort of view, societies tend toward ways to satisfy the antagonisms that are inherent in their systems, until they can't anymore, and become different kind of societies, like the change, from feudalism to capitalism that happened in fits and starts. >Marxism (all the same thing as all of the other nouns you're using, despite your lies) doesn't give choice to the people who it affects. The choice is made by faceless bureaucracy or "the party". Capitalism offers the possibility that ANYBODY can participate, not just the anointed. You need to have start up capital to become a capitalist, which because of the action of capitalism end up increasingly more and more in the hands of an ever smaller and more powerful group of capitalists, the anointed if you will. The rest of what you are saying is silly coldwar nonsense, the socialist governments are governments like any other, except that they had a higher degree of control of the means of production, moving up in the government, like any other government in our times is hard socially climb, but they had elections, they had local governments (these were the soviets in the soviet union). I would look up Paul Cockshott about his view that any new socialist movement needs direct democracy, and can do it because of the tech that we have today. >Wrong again. This is the result of political interference. This has nothing to do with economics. Once the politicians get their hands out of the pie, they can fully and appreciably participate in the global economy. Politics and Economics are joined at the hip, you dunce, most of politics is controlling resources and how they are distributed, how about you read a fuarrrking book.

>>16690 Considering you initially called somebody a turd proves you're just trolling at this point. It isn't a lie that people make it with nothing. They earn their way. Perhaps you should take from their lead? They certainly don't decide how resources are distributed. The market does this. Communism is just the realization of marxism. All of marxism is mental retardation incarnate. I would point at your rëëëëëëëëëëëë, but filters. You also, unsurprisingly avoided addressing all of the other anons points. Noted.

>>16692 >It isn't a lie that people make it with nothing. That is factually wrong, you need money to make money off of your money (by making people work for longer than is socially necessary), that's exactly how it works, if you have no money, you need somebody with a lot of money (the anointed if you will) to give you capital, and of course not from nothing. The money that starts your capital must come from somewhere, and the money that grows off of your money must come from somewhere. >The market decides this The market is an abstraction, the invisible hand isn't a real thing, the control of these resources are left in the control of people or groups of people the government lets have control of these things, and to what level of control they have, is also up to the regulatory bodies of the state. This isn't some abstract thing, that is how it works now. >Communism is just the realization of marxism Nailed it >You didn't address everything >>16694 >Bruh, you only answered the ones where I was only pretending to be retarded So? most of it is U LIE, it should be easy to tell me what I'm lying about if I am but okay >Dissolved by Stalin When? What was, the government? Elections? The Soviets, ultimately I don't really care because I don't want USSR 2 to be honest, but here is the Stalin Constitution, the thing the Soviet Government was based on under Stalin's rule, you can show me the part where it says that a blood tax was levied http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html >Liar, liar liar, liar People have been spamming le epic doubt meme and talked about how capitalism hasn't done any starvations, or totalitarian governments etc, you can look in the thread like at >>16667 >Marxism is about destroying the lower class in favor of the upper class It isn't, you can read the books, but until you do, you'll just have to take my word for it, that's not what they're about.

>>16686 You are pretty cringy. Taking into consideration, that the poorest have the most in the most liberal economies (https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2019-annual-report), it's pretty obvious why Africa is still there. Except for banana-despotism there, the further innovation is deterred by rich countries' money, since for the sake of charity and good face, they try to help literally everyone in Africa, but the countries are so corrupt, it just goes into the pockets of the local dictators. There are exceptions, though, for example Rwanda. Why I say cringe is that you are so pathetic, you believe some old drunkard could predict future through a bunch of deliberately fallacious premises (for example, old as hell value theory). Anyway, the wealth is undoubtedly created, because the amount of absolute poverty (less than $2) is declining. That can only mean one thing — we all have more together, as a result of different opportunity costs and trade. Now, when communism is a barbarious, ideology, that unironically proposes robbing people of fruits of their labour, like robbing farmers of bread they themselves made. It's just an ideological escapism, ideology you take to blame all your problems on abstract nonexistent things like "capitalism"o or " society". Society is not an actor, individuals are. Classes are a bogus, they have no emergence, i.e. something they have together, people don't have individually. If, for example, all workers were always organised and made something more, than a number of individuals, then there'd be emergence and a worker class. But you know, that the only reason Marx uses classes is to apply dialectics. He also wrotw his book 20 years or so after creating local communist party. P.S. Read "Human Action" and also "Marx and Close of his system" from Böhm-Bawerk.

>>16772 Well said, and insightful.

>>16772 So why would Africans develop and do anything, if there are countries ready to pay them? And if there's someone smart enough, they just leave their homeland. And it's ths most valuable capital under capitalism — innovation, ideas, human fantasies. You can't just give someone money on regular basis and expect them to improve their own business. Guaranteed money disincentivises development and work whatsoever. But now if the countries won't pay them their lunch money, left dudes will whine about imperialism and "exploitation". The same they cry about offshoring, when it is offshoring that made China an economic colossus. Moreover, offshoring actually proposes wages higher than local ones, but thosr people compare the wages there to their own first-word economy unironically and then believe that the workers there are treated " unfair". Companies want cheap workforce, but if: 1) there are no other companies — win win — workers have a job, company — employees, which then will either buy something or produce something, commencing market competition on the labour market again, which will in turn raise wages 2) there are companies — win win, since the companies will compete for employees by wages Anything else — win win, because workers go and get money for something they are willing to do (otherwise they just wouldn't work there) Now anything non-capitalistic (fascism, socialism) is basically a zero-sum game, when voluntary agreements and exchange (free market capitalism) is a win-win game. Checkmate.

>>16453 > if you find out the commune next door is practicing slavery are you allowed to stop them? Well, there's no one to say that's not allowed. But, do the slaves want your help? The point is to maximize human well-being, and that comes hand in hand with consensual relationships. Usually, a master-slave relationship is not consensual, and, if your commune has a consensual agreement with the slaves, then liberating them maximizes human well-being (enslaved humans usually don't have a great time, humans without slaves can get by pretty well). Of course, the point of anarchism is not the abolition of the state, is the abolition of all unjustified hierarchies. A master-slave relationship is a terribly unjustified hierarchy, so that commune wouldn't even be anarchist. Sorry if my argument is all around the place, I'm just a bit drunk.

>>16772 >Except for banana-despotism there, the further innovation is deterred by rich countries' money, since for the sake of charity and good face, they try to help literally everyone in Africa, but the countries are so corrupt, it just goes into the pockets of the local dictators. >There are exceptions, though, for example Rwanda. This is true, it is the main reason why philanthropy is usually misguided. But maybe we should ask why those dictatorships are there in the first place. The development of early capitalism is inseparable from the development of the Atlantic slave trade and the conquest of Africa. The continent was split up into non-historical provinces which were convenient for colonial powers. Real nations that did exist, like Ethiopia, were destroyed. Then when "self-determination" became a thing a lot of them were handed over to local governments, but they quickly became unstable because, again, the national lines in Africa have almost nothing to do with cultural unity or tribal ties, and the nation-state model of governance is not traditional in most of sub-Saharan Africa. But to participate in diplomacy, they have to keep the old national lines. Look into Somaliland, it has been stable since the 90s but nobody recognizes them because they are not "Somalia", an arbitrary blob of land which was made a nation because the Europeans thought it was a pretty shape on the map. It just so happens that this lack of recognition, and the ongoing civil war, is convenient for international shipping and fishers who want to violate their sea holdings. Just one example of how Africa, as a continent, has been royally fuarrrked up by imperialism and capitalism(not to mention wahabbist Islam) >Why I say cringe is that you are so pathetic, you believe some old drunkard could predict future through a bunch of deliberately fallacious premises you just described the entire field of economics. >Anyway, the wealth is undoubtedly created, because the amount of absolute poverty (less than $2) is declining. what if we define poverty in different ways, such as ability to feed one's self, or lack of warfare. If that is the case, then we don't have reliable data on pre-colonial Africa, but we do know that most of the continent has been embroiled in war and strife since it was conquered by Europeans, crop yields are down, and pollution is way up. >Now, when communism is a barbarious, ideology, that unironically proposes robbing people of fruits of their labour, like robbing farmers of bread they themselves made. And the barbarous capitalist ideology decides that it is okay to rob someone of the land that they themselves tend to, to make the bread, because they can't pay the mortgage. >Society is not an actor, individuals are. Society is not an actor but it functions in a particular way, and the way it functions is currently wrong, due to certain individuals who want it that way. >Classes are a bogus, they have no emergence, i.e. something they have together, people don't have individually. Classes are very real. Even if you don't see it, others do. Rich people see poor people as scary and gross and ugly, poor people see rich people as stupid and pampered. Fines are a punishment only for poor people, and only rich people can afford fancy lawyers. Our class system is really not that different from the class system of the middle ages. >>16775 how do you think we got to be "first world" in the first place? People here were exploited just like they are there. Still are, sometimes. And we thought that was horrible, and a lot of people died or were put in prison fighting to get some decent wages and decent safety standards. They have union movements in places like Vietnam and China too. They feel like they are being exploited too. They are brutally suppressed, because paying people a decent wage for their labor is bad for business.

>>16775 It is hard to even debunk your deranged arguments, holy crap. > 1) Sorry, maybe I just missed a key piece of information, but, how in hell is a monopoly a win win for workers? If the company wants to maximize profit (as all companies do), most of the workers won't be paid a living wage. Without worker protection, we will swiftly reverse to slavery. > 2) The companies will not compete for employees, what are you even on about? The fewer the employees, the less money you have to pay to them. > But large companies need to have employees! Until they don't. Automation will wipe almost every job. Then, the only option for the people without a job (in a world where food, healthcare and education are private) is starvation. Honestly, whole books can be written debunking those arguments, so I won't waste too much time here. Please, read a book that doesn't support your beliefs.

>>17148 All of your arguments are unfounded and unsound. Whole books could be written on why you're wrong. Please, read a book that doesn't support your unfounded beliefs.

>>16376 Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron, capitalism necessitate property rights enforced by a state or state-like structure. >>16453 >in anarchism, if you find out the commune next door is practicing slavery are you allowed to stop them? It doesn't make sense to ask that, since in order for actions to be allowed or not allowed, there has to be an authority. But if by "allowed" you mean "consistent with anarchism" then yes, it is consistent to stop slavers from an anarchist point of view.

>>17154 I'll go one stronger: anarchism demands that you stop them. Anarchism is fundamentally about liberty for all, barred none. There are no exceptions. To maintain such a society, it is necessary to prevent it from deteriorating.

>>17172 Kind of unrelated but wouldn't this require a culturally homogeneous society with very ideologically motivated people? How do anarchist suggest they achieve this without vertical force? How would you for example create an anarchist society in the US with the vast amount of conservative evangelicals or the South with its residual white supremacism?

>>17179 These are challenging points you raise, and definitely worthy of careful analysis. First, I need to indicate that society doesn't require a significant percentage of people to engage in revolution or overt-complete reformation (I don't know the actual number off handedly, but it is rather small, like 20%). The result of this is that the remaining people are necessarily guided by this minority. This minority wants a "free society" and strive to fulfill that goal; they will necessarily propagate their theories of liberty to the masses in rather stark terms. This means that, overwhelmingly, there will be enough people overall who buy into the narrative and, by extension, the values it engenders. This is not an instant process, it can take decades (look at gay rights. an interesting corollary is this process seems to be accelerating: see trans rights). With an ideologically solid majority, it would become trivial to prevent anti-liberty behaviors. Vertical force is unnecessary, drawing on the above analysis, as it is ultimately anti-liberty when employed to convert on a broad scale. What needs to be done is changing minds. You cannot, by definition, create liberty by destroying the liberty to choose liberty in the first place. Forcing people to be free simply doesn't work. For example, let's look at the American war of independence: the people, overall, took to arms against anti-liberty forces from Britain. Repression of individuals certainly may have existed in small pockets (expulsion of the loyalists, for example), but overall people acted in concordance with their new ideals of liberty. There are very few "heros" and "leaders" of the revolution, small relative to the overall masses that made up the new US. Force need only be applied to bodies (macro structures in general) that repress the ability to flow from shackles to liberty. Conservative Evangelicals do not represent a group that necessarily needs to be overtly addressed. They're not a majority of the population, overall. Also, many could certainly be enticed to alter their position. "Christian Socialism" is a thing that some believe in, it's only a matter of extending it beyond "mutual care", "mutual aid", "mutual labor", and so on, into a more overtly anarchist mode of thought. This won't be successful for all, however, as there is a common conceptualization of faith that follows hierarchies. Some people will cling to this, and though unfortunate, they will not number high enough to represent an obstacle. To return to your original question in this new context: no, we don't need a culturally homogeneous society. As noted, the society is ideologically and methodologically diverse in such a way that we will never fully reconcile all members. Rather, it is necessary for an ideologically strong core to begin the conversion process.

>>17154 >Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron, This is not an oxymoron >capitalism necessitate property rights enforced by a state or state-like structure. This part however is an oxymoron. There was never more anty property thing than government. Especially marxist/socialist/communist one.

>>16453 >how has "marxism" been tried? how has it failed? Visit me in Eastern and Central Europe. I would take you on a tour. Show stuff.

>>16453 >how has "marxism" been tried? how has it failed?

>>20388 "Holodomor" is a hoax, but nice try.

>Holocaust-level genocide denial Sounds like a typical communist.

>>20387 Btw. I'm from the Eastern Europe. I lived in socialist Czechoslovakia and the life here was great. Definitely much better than now in the capitalist Czech Republic.

>>20387 >Pripyat Chernobyl was a series of big mistakes followed by a government mostly doing what was necessary. If the same thing had happened in TMI, can you imagine the US dealing with that threat effectively? I can't. Also, they built a town to replace Pripyat a few months after the accident. >Katyn Killing all those officers was a strategically sound thing to do. It was only a few months before that that the Polish government was plotting a joint invasion of the USSR with the Nazis. In any event, nothing to do with Marxism. >Holodomor Yeah maybe, but if it was genocide as a lot of Ukranians want to believe then it wasn't a failure of the political or economic system.

god this thread is like kicking dead whales down the beach ass. That's why I usually never go on threads this openly about politics, because everyone in these are ignorant /p*l/tards who just blindly follow their ideology and don't know soykaf about philosophical politics. Yes, anarchism and capitalism is an oxymoron, because anarchism is against any form of authority and free-market/capitalism is inherently authoritarian. No, communism didn't kill 100 trillions people. Yes, marxism ideology or similar ideologies strongly influenced by marxism have indeed been applied in several places, including USSR, with very mitigated results. Now to answer about the thread subject, I believe that Marx –even though his analysis of the economy and the class relations is quite farseeing– ruined the left. He brought this idea that a "dictate of the proletariat" is something we should aim for, and a big big part of leftist ideologies still believe this nowadays.

>>20393 >>20395 You are wasting your time by talking to him. That guy is not coming back. He has no arguments beyond reposting images he found on a p*l board. He will most likely change his opinions later anyway. From my experience people change their views on capitalism pretty quickly when they enter the workforce. It's easy to be a capitalist when you are still in the process of education and your only worry is not to be late for school, but once you become an employee, you quickly find out that capitalism isn't such a great system after all. The only people who remain capitalists into adulthood are self-employed people and of course rich people.

Where my fuarrrkin tankie lainanons at >TROTSKY, KULAKS, KRONSTDADT, ETC DESERVED IT >CHINA IS SOCIALIST, SHUT UP WESTERNER

Instead of tired old Holodomor denial, which concerns a historical contingency and is therefore uninteresting anyway, it may be a better approach for Marxists trying to convert Capitalists (you actually share most of your ideological biases anyway, so that shouldn't be too hard) to give some good reasons to take labor theory of value seriously in the 21st century, or to approach the transformation problem.

>>20390 LOL, yea commies are as delusional as nazis.

>>20396 >You are wasting your time by talking to him. That guy is not coming back. He has no arguments beyond reposting images he found on a p*l board. LOL. These are from all around the internet. Not only /p*l/ is aware that communism is like kicking dead whales down the beach. I'm from Eastern Europe. I'm more than qualified to express my oppinion on communism. >He will most likely change his opinions later anyway. I have no idea what amount of mental retardation would be needed for this to happen. I observe on daily basis effects of over 40 years of communist system that we didn't fully recovered from yet both mentally and financially. >From my experience people change their views on capitalism pretty quickly when they enter the workforce. I enetered workforce years ago. I fuarrrking love it. After fall of communism conditions of living increased dramatically for my family. Now I get even richer than my parents are currently (and even more than they were at my age) thanks to "that monsterous capitalism". >It's easy to be a capitalist when you are still in the process of education and your only worry is not to be late for school, but once you become an employee, you quickly find out that capitalism isn't such a great system after all. The only people who remain capitalists into adulthood are self-employed people and of course rich people. Nice to know your life experience. Sad to hear you failed in adult life. Not that much as you still can afford to pay bills for internet access. Unless you use open hotspot (they exist thanks to that ebil capitalism BTW) in your homeless shelter. But I have a surprise for you - majority of humanity prefers capitalism. Barely anyone ever run away from capitalist country to communist one. I know a truckload of people with family members who emigrated to the USA during communism times and a lot of people leave Poland every year to countries with higher market freedom and stronger capitalism than Poland has. Check mate, "commrade"

>>20391 The only people I know claiming such stuff are former secret police members, former communist party members and groups with special priviledges granted by government. So that has nothing to do with former regime being in any way close to equality and freedom. But people missing commie times don't care about such stuff. They would gladly serve regime as snitches and free sex slaves just to get what takes hard work in civilised society to get.

>>20397 Their rhetoric is same as the one of nazis - they just replaced ethic groups with wealthier than they are people. Other than that both groups are full of same logical fallaices.

>>20407 I'd say in that case the Marxists are closer to the truth, but then they bundle it with a lot of soykaf that cripples everything. Either way, both are failed experiments.

>>20408 No, commies were lying all the time. Nazis were much more likely to tell you the truth why they execute you. At least this is how people remembered occupation times.

I'm still looking for someone to explain to me what the fundamental, economical differences are in everyday life, between the eastern block (post-WW2) and social democracy. Sure, you've got the one-party system, the censorship, but that's all a matter of language and conventions. You just have to be intelligent enough to use the vocabulary that was expected. But it's the same dominant "mode of production", just a different mode of managment (more centralized, less efficient). I've asked Marxist-Lenninists (i.e. stalinists) this question, but never got a satisfying answer. Instead they waste their time struggeling to understand Marx in such a way, that he confirms their misconceptions -- not that easy. I also find it funny how people here, claiming they understand the issue better because they lived under "Communism", while at the same time barly anyone in the eastern block understood even the basics of Marx. That isn't suprising either, why would an eastern "Social Dictatorship" be interested in teaching about "Free Association of Producers" and "Questioning everything that Exists"?

>>20395 >Yes, anarchism and capitalism is an oxymoron, because anarchism is against any form of authority and free-market/capitalism is inherently authoritarian. How is the free market authoritarian exactly?

>>20405 >I have no idea what amount of mental retardation would be needed for this to happen. Normally what happens is people assume that communism/socialism means that all the billionaires and millionaires and basically anyone richer than you redistributes their wealth and now you can buy a Ferrari and justice is served. But once you point out that right now they have a job, car, house etc. and there is a bum on the street with nothing. Why don't you give him half you money? >lol no It's easy to be a communist/socialist when it's other people's wealth you want to redistribute. Theft is not a sustainable economic strategy though.

>>20405 also lol @ white middle class westerners telling someone who has actually lived through a communist regime

>>20410 >I'm still looking for someone to explain to me what the fundamental, economical differences are in everyday life, between the eastern block (post-WW2) and social democracy. Which country/countries you have in mind exactly? >Sure, you've got the one-party system, the censorship, but that's all a matter of language and conventions. What do you mean? > You just have to be intelligent enough to use the vocabulary that was expected. Or disappear one day without a trace because you said one word too much. >But it's the same dominant "mode of production", just a different mode of managment (more centralized, less efficient). I've asked Marxist-Lenninists (i.e. stalinists) this question, but never got a satisfying answer. Instead they waste their time struggeling to understand Marx in such a way, that he confirms their misconceptions -- not that easy. I also find it funny how people here, claiming they understand the issue better because they lived under "Communism", while at the same time barly anyone in the eastern block understood even the basics of Marx. That isn't suprising either, why would an eastern "Social Dictatorship" be interested in teaching about "Free Association of Producers" and "Questioning everything that Exists"? https://culture.pl/en/article/10-mind-boggling-oddities-of-communist-poland https://historycollection.com/24-pictures-looking-life-communist-poland/ https://culture.pl/en/article/the-communist-regime-in-poland-in-10-astonishing-pictures https://cracow4you.com/guide/krakow-must-see/crazy-communism-tour-see-how-life-in-communist-poland-looked-like/

>>20410 That's where the "communism hasn't been tried" stuff comes from, no large-scale project so far has come anywhere close to actually implementing Marx. And I'm not making any statement about why that is, whether it would or wouldn't work if it was implemented, or if it would result in a society better or worse than what we have now, just observing a fact. >>20411 They consider private property to be a purely state-enforced phenomenon. No private property, no free market. They look at pre-modern, primitve societies and see that they mostly have some variety of common ownership, ignoring the fact (as all materialists of left and right alike do) that those economic arrangements are based on specific spiritual understandings of the world, and that economy and ownership is always just a surface ripple of the superstructure of society, never the "base".

>>20410 >I also find it funny how people here, claiming they understand the issue better because they lived under "Communism", while at the same time barly anyone in the eastern block understood even the basics of Marx. That isn't suprising either, why would an eastern "Social Dictatorship" be interested in teaching about "Free Association of Producers" and "Questioning everything that Exists"? A guy from eastern former soviet bloc here. I have no idea what the heck do you mean here? Maxism and Leninism was actually taught in high schools and obligatory on universities as separate classes on every department. Also watch some actual propaganda materials and chronicles, you would have mentions of ideology basics. SO what de actual fuarrrk are you talking about?

>>20415 >No private property, no free market. Stopping niggers from stealing your soykaf is authoritarian? You don't seem to realize how twisted your world view is. >Property and ownership worked differently before humans gained the technology to farm and live in large groups Great insight. Are all leftist galaxy brains like you?

>>20416 Plus regular participation in courses of marxism-leninism was a requirement to join communist parties of respublics.

also https://www.jstor.org/stable/3099191?seq=1

>>20417 It doesn't take a galaxy brain to figure out I wasn't describing my own beliefs, dummy. >Stopping niggers from stealing your soykaf is authoritarian? The idea is that it's not "your" soykaf without the state making and defending it so. >Property and ownership worked differently before humans gained the technology to farm and live in large groups A lot of libertarian types think that there is something inherent about private property to human nature, Adam Smith even made up bullshit like the pre-modern "barter economy" to support that notion.

>>20417 >Stopping niggers from stealing your soykaf is authoritarian? claiming something as yours when you don't really need it, and preventing others who do need it from getting it, is in fact authoritarian. Real estate speculation is an example of absolute leech-like behavior that is considered okay because of the capitalist notion of property rights. A real estate speculator profits while contributing nothing at all to society. And yet they are respected. Why?

>>20422 > people who actually lived under communism think communism s*cks Wrong. I lived during "communism" (it was actually "real socialism", but I don't expect simpletosts to know the difference) and it was way better than capitalism. No unemployment, no homelessness, no poverty, no stress, everybody had a place in the society, everybody had equal opportunities, there was no western decadency, everybody was proud of their nation and was willing to defend it. None of those things remain. Capitalism is decadent and has no values beyond money. >>20406 > The only people I know claiming such stuff are former secret police members, former communist party members and groups with special priviledges granted by government. I was none of those things. My family actually owned a farm which was confiscated by the state. Of course my grandpa was very mad about it, but he's a fool and I'm glad that the state took it, because then it has served the whole nation instead of just my family. >>20405 > I enetered workforce years ago. I fuarrrking love it. You must really hate yourself. I feel genuinely sorry for you. Or maybe you have masochistic fetish and you love to lick your bosses boots. > Barely anyone ever run away from capitalist country to communist one. A lot of people did (and still do), but of course the media don't tend to inform about such cases. If you know how to use google, you will be able to find many such cases though.

>>20423 >>Wrong. Correct. I do, My parents do. My grandparents. My neighbors. >You must really hate yourself. No. I like myself. >I feel genuinely sorry for you. Or maybe you have masochistic fetish and you love to lick your bosses boots. No idea what kind of forest herbs you are on to halucinate about me licking boss boots. So what you do for living? Watching BDSM porn on capitalist controled pornsites? >A lot of people did (and still do), but of course the media don't tend to inform about such cases. If you know how to use google, you will be able to find many such cases though. Hundreds of thousands cases media are silent about? That's a conspiracy.

>>20423 >If you know how to use google, you will be able to find many such cases though. Argumentum ad Googleum? I can also find proof that Earth is flat using google. Or proof that Jews are Reptilians and Hitler was right.

>>20424 >>20425 There have been many repost of South Koreans fleeing to North Korea for example. I would provide a link, but I don't have the time right now, since I have to go to work (yep, me not having enough time to argue with you is also fault of the capitalism).

>>20424 >>20425 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_defectors

>>20426 >>20427 https://invidious.tube/watch?v=ktE_3PrJZO0 things are very nuanced there

>>20420 >It doesn't take a galaxy brain to figure out I wasn't describing my own beliefs, dummy. I think your use of "they" was more ambiguous than you realize. >A lot of libertarian types think that there is something inherent about private property to human nature I'd go simpler than that and say animals have territory with no government to enforce it, so there. >>20421 >claiming something as yours when you don't really need it, and preventing others who do need it from getting it, is in fact authoritarian. You're assuming no work happens and everything you want just falls from the sky and belongs to everyone equally. In the real world it takes work to gather resources and convert them into useful things. It's not "authoritarian" to protect the fruits of your labor. You could argue it's immoral for me to let the incompetent suffer and die. But coercing me to help is real authoritarianism. >A real estate speculator profits while contributing nothing at all to society. And yet they are respected. Why? The service they provide is shielding others from risk. And the market values that service accordingly. If you really think it's free easy money then you're welcome to try it. Nobody is stopping you. >>20423 >A lot of people did (and still do), but of course the media don't tend to inform about such cases. What's your theory on why the universally left leaning media are hiding this information? >>20427 >here is a list of 8 people who defected to the North in 70 years >meanwhile on the NK defectors page Since 1953, 100,000–300,000 North Koreans have defected Is that really the point you wanted to make?

>>20429 holy soykaf that pic is one big strawman, it's more like "capitalism explained by libertarians" and "socialism explained by libertarians" respectively, I don't feel I could engage in a conversation if the premise is such, good luck to whoever goes into this madness

>>20427 >barely any mentions of actual south Koreans fleeing north Such grand scale, such WOW, such grand migration

>>20431 thanks comrade nice pic

>>20414 >Which country/countries you have in mind exactly? Take any warshau-pact/warshau-pact-adjecent country. USSR, DDR, Romania. >What do you mean? > Or disappear one day without a trace because you said one word too much. There are without doublt differences, but I'm claiming they are all fundamentally political, not economical. Social Democratic states (or states ruled by social democratic parties) didn't have a Stasi or KGB, in the same role as eastern countried did. To avoid issues, you had to translate your thoughts. Instead of talking about the market, you talk about the party. A lot of idealists got stuck on superficial issues (jeans, rock-and-roll, drugs, etc.) and generated meaningless conflict with the language of the state. This isn't apoligia, I certainly appiciate not having to live under such a system, but these problems are not not its essence. And you'll have to explain what you want to say with those links. >>20415 >That's where the "communism hasn't been tried" stuff comes from, no large-scale project so far has come anywhere close to actually implementing Marx What does "implementing Marx" mean? What blueprint was followed? How does one implement a Marx? It's true that in the 1920's there were revolutions that pointed to Marx, but they failed. The zombie-states and their satalites uses this reference for their own legitimation, but not much more. >>20416 I'm familar with the curiculum of Marxism that was tought in the eastern-bloc, and even in China up until today. But these classses had the function of "Religious Studies" or "Social Studies" you'll find in the west. Theoretical Propaganda if you will. I'm putting forward the uncontroversial claim that this isn't the Marx that died 1883, but Stalin's Marx, a castrated puppet that presented a limited and distorted body of knowledge that was in the interest of the eastern-bloc governments. It should be mentioned that this wasn't an evil plot, but a mix of missing sources (eg. Grudrisse, Paris Manuscripts and The German Ideology weren't published until the 1930's) and political pragmatism.

>>20429 >What's your theory on why the universally left leaning media are hiding this information? Man, American political terminology is retarded. Current progressivism is predominantly neoliberal, not socialist.

>>20429 Just a question. Since ancoms are for all for freedom. What happens when someone doesnt have enough capital? Do they work under some other person? If they do, what stops that person from exploiting them? If nothing and they are forces to change owners, how can they be sure next person wont exploit them?

>>20430 >holy soykaf that pic is one big strawman, I don't feel I could engage in a conversation if the premise is such You can always respond to the actual post instead using the troll image next to the post as an excuse to run away from the discussion. >>20436 >Just a question... Don't know. I just responded to the "anarchy is incomparable with capitalism because governments are coercive" thing using basic human intelligence. I like your counter-troll picture btw.

>>20436 > If they do, what stops that person from exploiting them? Is this question even serious?

>>20429 > animals have territory private property=/=personal property

>>16370 The main issue I have is just what awful fuсking frauds the people talking about Marx and socialism and such always end up being. They are the worst people on Earth. I don't really care what they say their ideas are, they always end up calling things totally wrong or else just straight up lying. Often to themselves as well. Would rather we all gang up and defenestrate them than follow any political movement they're involved in. They're doomed. They think it's because of capital, but really it's because of themselves. And also because they are themselves capital lmfaoooo what a bunch of inveterate swindlers the thing we now call the "left" is. If Marx had a time machine and he came here he'd instantly hang himself.

>>20405 > majority of humanity prefers capitalism You don't speak for the entire human kind. Sorry. > I do, My parents do. My grandparents. Your upper class family doesn't represent anybody. Sorry. > No idea what kind of forest herbs you are on to halucinate about me licking boss boots. That was meant figuratively, not literally you genius. >>20429 > What's your theory on why the universally left leaning media are hiding this information? There is no such a thing as "left leaning media". All media are owned by capitalists and they all serve their masters.

>>20442 based

>>20443 >Your upper class family doesn't represent anybody. Sorry. My grandpas were villagers with tiny farm. My parent's lower middle class inteligentsia. Where de fuarrrk you see any upper class here? Stop being delusional.

>>20443 >That was meant figuratively, not literally you genius. It was sarcasm, Ivan.

I am too fuarrrking dumb to argue my points in english so I am just going to suggest that you give Non Compete's videos a watch.

>>20447 >I am too fuarrrking dumb to argue my points in english so I am just going to suggest that you give Non Compete's videos a watch. I see no reason after the titles and thumbnails of their videos.

>>20429 At least you agree that capitalism is inherently immoral. That's a progress.

>At least you agree that capitalism is inherently immoral. Communism for sure is immoral from definition

>>20408 >2nd largest economy in the world >Brought more people out of poverty than any world project >Challenges western hegemony and the US has a tantrum over it (read: trump's retarded trade war) oh but its a failed experiment, nvm go home folks

>>20429 >animals have territory with no government to enforce it You realize that animals have no concept of "territory" right? This is something humans projected onto them to help us understand their behavior. It isn't wrong to do so, in fact it's necessary because we can't think like animals so we have to reason about them with metaphors like this, but "ownership" is not something an animal mind can comprehend. It isn't intrinsic.

>>20465 Please don't tell me you think there's anything Marxist whatsoever about China.

>>20468 >WTF Y-Y-YOU THINK CHINA IS SOCIALIST???? Yes

>>20469 4chan meme let me guess: state that does stuff = gommunism, right?

>>20470 >Large state owned enterprises >5 year plans >Communist party holds ultimate power >Unions officially integrated into the government >Billionaires sentenced to death for fuarrrking up yep definitely just a neo liberal free market capitalist country!!1!

>>20471 >Large state owned enterprises Making my point for me. communism = worker-owned, not state-owned. >5 year plans Governments planning stuff is communism? China gave up on command economy ~50 years ago. >Communist party holds ultimate power It's a good idea to look past the label and actually see what's being practiced. Another example: Democratic People's Republic of Korea >Unions officially integrated into the government I like how you say "integrated into" instead of "controlled by" to make it sound as if the workers are in charge here. You know, as they ought to be if you're calling it communism. >Billionaires sentenced to death for fuarrrking up As they should be in any sensible country. >yep definitely just a neo liberal free market capitalist country!!1! Not neoliberal, not free market, but pretty clearly still capitalism. Call me when the workers collectively own the means of production.

>>20473 anon, based on my experience of leftypol, don't even bother with Dengists, they will soykafpost you to death and then claim victory.

>>20449 >At least you agree that capitalism is inherently immoral. Charity is not incompatible with the free market. It's down to individuals to make their own moral decisions. Which is as it should be, because your implication that a system can be moral is bogus. Being forced to do the "right" thing doesn't make you moral, it just makes you a compliant coward. Morality requires individual liberty and liberty is incompatible with communism. So what >>20450 says is actually correct. >>20467 >You realize that animals have no concept of "territory" right? I don't understand your basis for saying this. All sorts of animals from big cats down to insects mark boundaries with urine or pheromones and attack intruders. Walruses treat females are property and beat the soykaf out of males who try to get near. Ants have colonies. Beavers have dams. The list of examples in nature is endless really. What's your actual argument here except "your wrong everythings a social construct herp derp"?

>>20473 >communism = worker-owned, not state-owned well mr smarty pants, guess who collectively owns the state? >china gave up on command economy absolutely false, they just have parts of a market economy. Even the so called "private sector" can only operate in a way the state allows them to. >look past the label and actually see what's being practiced, DPRK what I see being practiced: a state collectively controlled by the worker's to force the economy to function only in a way that benefits the masses. So, ya know, actual socialism. >to make it sound as if the workers are in charge here Buddy, the workers ARE in charge. >Call me when the workers collectively own the means of production RING RING RING! It's for you! You need to read Marx and Engels. It is undeniable that China is a socialist country.

>>20480 >well mr smarty pants, guess who collectively owns the state? If the workers own the state then how come the president is a dictator for life for arrests people for googling winnie the pooh?

>>20479 > Morality requires individual liberty No, it doesn't. In almost every society on earth morality is based on old religious principles. Historically it comes from religious texts where "the right thing to do" was to follow the word of God. Not only that individual liberty was not required, but in many cultures any attempt to question "what is the right thing to do" itself was considered immoral.

>>20491 Religious principles dont come from the void. They just encode previously established rules and there was always a rift between morality of the masses and religion. People that confuse rules with morals are common but not all that is.

>>20480 >Buddy, the workers ARE in charge. So that's why farmers have their houses bulldozed at the behest of dictator Xi, because they "are in charge"? Cognitive dissonance at its best. Socialism works for those at the top. Capitalism works for those at the top. The difference is under capitalism there is greater social mobility. Under socialism if you're not in the inner circle tough sh1t. Now go back and read that again, because you misunderstood the bit that said "there is greater social mobility". "Greater" does not mean "widespread" "a lot of" or "guaranteed". It means MORE THAN socialism.

>>20492 Morals are form of rules. "You shall not kill" is a rule.

>>20482 >how come the president is dictator for life Term limits reduce democracy. >arrests people for googling winnie the pooh? source??? pic related >>20493 >farmers have their houses bulldozed at the behest of dictator Xi [CITATION NEEDED]

>>20498 >[CITATION NEEDED] https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-40627855 https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/chinese-against-religious-freedom/2016/04/25/id/725681/ It's almost as if you don't know anything about China and you're just projecting your socialist utopia onto a blank slate of ignorance. >>20491 >No, it doesn't. In almost every society on earth morality is based on old religious principles. Historically it comes from religious texts where "the right thing to do" was to follow the word of God. I didn't say morality is making up your own rules. I said morality requires free will. If someone forces you to do the "right" thing, that doesn't make you moral, it just makes you a complaint coward.

Rate my meme

>>20498 >Term limits reduce democracy. You need to elaborate. I googled it and literally no one is making this argument.

>>20508 > If someone forces you to do the "right" thing, that doesn't make you moral, it just makes you a complaint coward You can be both. They are not mutully exclusive. It doesn't matter "why" do you act morally, only that you do.

>>20511 >It doesn't matter "why" do you act morally, only that you do. I think intent matters a lot for morality actually.

>>20512 You are wrong.

>>20509 >Do you hate poor people? Yes => NatSoc What do you think NatSoc is short for? Every leaf is a variation of Marxism except AnCap and the starwman "centrist". 1/10 try harder.

>>20513 wow nice treatise

>>20514 Oh boy, here we go again. NSDAP was socialist only in the begining (especially the Strasser wing of it), before Hitler entered the party and took over it. When Hitler took control over, he has canceled pretty much all the policies that were meant to empower the workers and he promised the bourgeois factory owners that his party will not pass any socialist policies. At that point the party was no longer socialist. They never changed the name though.

>>20514 Also the modern day neo-nazis are even way more capitalism loving than the original nazis were. Probably because most of the modern day neo-nazis are children from Republican families that got radicalized on the internet. At this point they should call themselves National Capitalists. Actually some of them do call themselves like that.

>>20519 >Also the modern day neo-nazis are even way more capitalism loving than the original nazis were. Have you ever been to a politics board and talked to actual neo-nazis? >capitalism is a system of ZOG oppression which must be dismantled >the economy's only purpose is to serve the people >smash the class hierarchy, all members of the white race are equal Just because you hate Nazis and hate Capitalism doesn't make Nazis Capitalists.

>>20521 >Have you ever been to a politics board and talked to actual neo-nazis?

>>20522 Where does the >>Also the modern day neo-nazis are even way more capitalism loving than the original nazis were. read into that picture? As far as I get the nazi in that pic hates capitalism

>>20518 >>20519 >caring about poor people == workers revolution

>>20523 >Where does the ... read into that picture? The picture is disproving the quote, yes. When people say Nazis are "right wing" they mean the racial supremacist stuff, might is right, "inferior" races should just die, etc. Economically they are left leaning though (at least within their own racial group).

>>20525 >Economically they are left leaning though (at least within their own racial group). What an interesting historical analysis, certainly didn't hear that one before. Oh wait, what is this: >>19220

>>20526 >What an interesting historical analysis, certainly didn't hear that one before. >Oh wait, what is this: >>19220 There's no need to get so uppity about people not being aware of an old post in a different thread. You're also conflating three different things here: 1. the theories of modern National Socialists 2. the theories of historic National Socialists 3. what historic National Socialists actually did You wouldn't argue what people in this thread believe, what Marx believed, and what Stalin actually did were all the same thing would you? at least not in good faith Regardless of what Hitler actually did for pragmatic reasons, >>20522 shows you the argument that National Socialists are just dumb fuarrrks who don't understand the meaning of words so very disingenuous. Like it or not, Nazis are much closer to the Marx side of the family tree than the Capitalist side.

>>20526 >The german economy boomed after Hitler reversed some socialist policies. Is that really the point you want to make here lol?

>>20528 to be honest, I did that because the file was already uploaded, and lainchan complains about that. > You're also conflating three different things here: 1. Modern National Socialists are meaningless enough to be disregarded. National Socialism was a specific historical movement, just like Bolshevism, that only interests historians and LARPers. 2. History teaches us how they got into power, and what function they served in power. When claiming or rejecting the claim if "National Socialism" is just "Socialism for Whites" or some simplistic theory like that, being able to prove that this was never their intention is critical. 3. That's basically just 2. > You wouldn't argue what people in this thread believe, what Marx believed, and what Stalin actually did were all the same thing would you? There are know and documented differences between Marx and Stalin, and it's safe to say that Stalin knew what he was doing, so I don't get the analogy here. > Like it or not, Nazis are much closer to the Marx side of the family tree than the Capitalist side. Hitler is closer to the "Social Democracy Tree", I'll give you that. >>20531 Yes, the socialist policies of the SPD, as with most social democracies, tried to migitate the internal contradictions of capitalism, but they eventually failed. The function of the NSDAP (and the italian fascist party) was to solve this same issue, in a different way, which just like with the social democracts worked for a bit, but failed when confronted with capitalism in the long term.

>>16370 As someone who has no firsthand experience with Marxism, I found this to be an enlightening read, https://israelseen.com/2020/08/25/yoram-hazony-the-challenge-of-marxism/ The summary I take away is: According to Marx, 1. People invariably form classes in every society 2. Classes seek to exploit each other 3. Whoever is most successful at this exploitation becomes an oppressor 4. The oppressed must overthrow the oppressors with violent revolution 5. Somehow, step 1 no longer applies. Seems like Marxism really falls apart on the last step. What actually happens is it loops back on itself. Also, the author points out that step 3 isn't really true. Classes can reach an equilibrium of exploiting each other. It's give and take rather than one class achieving complete dominance. The last point he makes is that Marxism is fundamentally incompatible with Democracy. Because the only rightful ruling class is the oppressed, you can only have one party. Overall, Marxism seems like a pretty shallow shower thought. It doesn't work in practice, because it doesn't even work in theory. The large unexplainable holes in the theory are just patched over with wishful thinking.

>>20508 Neither of those links show anything about farmers being bulldozed on behalf of Xi Jinping, so they don't support your claim. The story about a CHURCH being bulldozed doesn't even mention a source so I had to dig into this story. The ONLY actual source that I could find was a Christian non profit called China Aid. This group was literally founded in TEXAS and is supported by the US government via the NED. Not a exactly a reputable source. And in regards to the whole MUH WINNIE THE POOH meme article there was literally no given evidence that showed Winnie the pooh being derezzed in China. Meanwhile I showed you proof of the opposite. Did you even read your sources???

>>20550 I'm not gonna read what this jew says. There are classes under socialism. It is merely the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. Only through vast material abundance can eliminate this class stratification.

>>20550 >1. People invariably form classes in every society Saying that this is Marx' position, discredits their opinion on the subject. Classes don't form invariably, and primitive societies didn't have classes. The dominance of class-base modes of production came with the rise of agriculture, and societies where people didn't have means to subsist themselves, other than working for others. > 2. Classes seek to exploit each other Generally, no? Does a slave seek to exploit his master? He might want to rip him of here and there, but exploitation is simply the fact that part of the productive energy is devoted to a member of another class, enforced by property relations. The european Serf had their land granted to them by a lord, and in return they had to set aside part of their time to work for them. It's a mistake, even one a lot of Marxists make, to interpret this moralistically, as if it's a claim of what is good and bad. > 3. Whoever is most successful at this exploitation becomes an oppressor This presupposes that these classes just come around randomly, with the same chances, and no relations to one-another. That's wrong, the existence of one class always stands in relation to another, usually disadvantaged, that has to seek relations with the other as a matter of simple, material survivial. The proleratian has nothing to sell but his labour, and no means of producing their own subsistence, except by selling their labour to capital. This isn't just a random encounter. The best way I can interpret this is, that it say that these class-relations are contingent, which is true. > 4. The oppressed must overthrow the oppressors with violent revolution What does "must" mean here? An "opressed" (I dislike the term) class might be interested in overthrowing a social relation, but it's not necessary. What might be is that the mode of production dominated by a certain class-configuration is strained and instable, in which case the decision is social collapse (barbarism) or revolution, but if this is necessary depends on how you think about necessity and related concepts. > 5. Somehow, step 1 no longer applies. Not necessarily, just as class-relations have arisen, so the Marxist claim is that class-relations can be overcome. This doesn't mean that every revolution, even a class-revolution should achive this. The bourgouis revolutions certainly didn't. Marx claim is that the proletarian class, as the class without subsistence and without reserves, is in the position to overthrow not only it's relation to capital, but the class-relation itself.

>>20546 >1. Modern National Socialists are meaningless enough to be disregarded. Just because poor, dispossessed white people have been thoroughly exiled from mainstream culture doesn't mean they don't exist or don't matter. >2. History teaches us how they got into power, and what function they served in power. Ok, but you acknowledge that what people want to do is not the same as what they actually do. Saying Hitler privatized some industries therefor National Socialist is inherently capitalist is like saying Stalin murdered 5M Ukrainians therefor Marxism is inherently genocidal. >3. That's basically just 2. No because what modern followers believe is another step removed again. Politics is not religion where you have to follow every letter of the ancient holy texts. Regardless of some of Hitler's historic policies, do you realize how ridiculous it is to claim that xenophobic angry white working class folk who believe conspiracy theories about jewish bankers are capitalists in any way? >>20551 I'm not the same person but >And in regards to the whole MUH WINNIE THE POOH meme article there was literally no given evidence that showed Winnie the pooh being derezzed in China. Meanwhile I showed you proof of the opposite. That screenshot could have been taken before the controversy. It could be that the ban wasn't permanent so it was taken after. It could be a website hosted outside the firewall and aimed at other chinese speaking countries or chinese expats. So it doesn't really prove anything. Even if the screenshot is exactly what you think it is, it's not proving the point you want it to. The bbc article says that people were punished for using winnie the pooh pictures on blogs and forums and stuff. So if capitalist businesses were still allowed to sell merchandise for profit while the proletariat are having their rights stomped by the government then that's not very socialist utopia is it?

>>20564 >Just because poor, dispossessed white people have been thoroughly exiled from mainstream culture doesn't mean they don't exist or don't matter. They aren't "modern national socialist", I'm talking about third-way sects and related LARPers. > Ok, but you acknowledge that what people want to do is not the same as what they actually do. I acknowledge that what people say they want and what they want isn't the same, and since the NSDAP's main political opponent in Germany was the SPD, they adopted and twisted their language and style, creating a faux working class appearance, while cooperating with capital. > Saying Hitler privatized some industries therefor National Socialist is inherently capitalist is like saying Stalin murdered 5M Ukrainians therefor Marxism is inherently genocidal. No, that would be like saying that Stalinism was inherently genocidal, which it was. > Regardless of some of Hitler's historic policies, do you realize how ridiculous it is to claim that xenophobic angry white working class folk who believe conspiracy theories about jewish bankers are capitalists in any way? Just because you're racist, doesn't mean you are a national socialist. It's just as stupid as being a Stalinist today, as both are political movements of a specific historical context (post-WW1 Europe). Even if you would categorize various modern tendencies of racists into some kind of a movement, it would be too incoherent to be labeled with anything like "capitalist" or "anti-capitalist". They are obsessed with a mix of pop-culture-wars and conspiracy theories, that don't come close to any independent political form. At best, they are used by grifters in elections.

>>20566 >Just because you're racist, doesn't mean you are a national socialist. It's just as stupid as being a Stalinist today, as both are political movements of a specific historical context Again, their existence is not conditional on your approval. Or your academic autism. Or logic to be frank. You're sage'ing so presumably you don't think Marxism is a useful, logically consistent ideology either yet you don't deny people still self identify and follow it. >Even if you would categorize various modern tendencies of racists into some kind of a movement, it would be too incoherent to be labeled with anything like "capitalist" or "anti-capitalist". I buried this in the premise. They are poor. Or they envy the rich. Therefor they hate money and those who have it. Therefor they consciously or subconsciously embrace leftist economics. But also they are xenophobic and socially conservative so they can't join the mainstream Left with all the modern liberal culture. And on the flip side, people who do believe in capitalism and the freemarket, the last thing they want is a totalitarian state with any kind of ideological agenda. Especially an agenda as regressive and anti-meritocratic as eugenics with a per-supposed master race. So I stand by my original position: People who self identify as Nazis do exist and contrary to popular myth they are not idiots who don't understand what the name means, they actually hate capitalism and embrace the Socialist name.

>>20569 > they actually hate capitalism and embrace the Socialist name I've read enough of p*l posts to know that this is a complete lie.

>>20569 >they actually hate capitalism somewhat, varies a lot and is debatable >and embrace the Socialist name. HAHAHAHAHAHA

>>20596 embrace socialism no, reject capitalism sorta

>>20569 > Again, their existence is not conditional on your approval. I don't say that nobody "identifies" as a national socialist, just that this is an extrem fringe, that for the most part only exists online. >I buried this in the premise. They are poor. Or they envy the rich. So what, "leftist economics" are still capitalist, they just try to ease the conflicts with more state influence, while preserving the same system. National Socialism was historically no different. And just for the record, these millenials like NSDAP-aesthetics are for the most part not "poor". They had the free time to educate themselves on the various topics (biology, history, conspiracies, ...), and probably also to tell others about it too. They are at best upper-middle class, bored with everyday life and looking for something to complain about. > And on the flip side, people who do believe in capitalism and the freemarket, the last thing they want is a totalitarian state with any kind of ideological agenda. There were plenty of austrian economists who didn't oppose the Nazis because they saw them as an effective measure against socialism. And the classical trend from "Libertarian to Fascist" that has been observed over and over again also shows that there is less of a conflict here than one might assume. > People who self identify as Nazis do exist and contrary to popular myth they are not idiots who don't understand what the name means, they actually hate capitalism and embrace the Socialist name. Yes, they might exist, but the fact that this is an "identity" shows how meaningless this is. This is all a game reenacted by some dorks who want to belive that our political situation is basically the same as that of 1930's Germany.

>>20604 >for the most part not "poor". They had the free time to educate themselves on the various topics (biology, history, conspiracies, ...), and probably also to tell others about it too. They are at best upper-middle class, bored with everyday life and looking for something to complain about. Or they have free time because they lost their minimum wage job to immigrants. And maybe you are the upper-middle class toff who can't empathize. >So what, "leftist economics" are still capitalist, they just try to ease the conflicts with more state influence, while preserving the same system. No true scotsman. Just because something doesn't fall into the tiny scope of what you consider "true leftism" doesn't make it capitalism. >There were plenty of austrian economists who didn't oppose the Nazis because they saw them as an effective measure against [communism]. There was plenty of churches who didn't oppose the Nazis for exactly the same reason. Doesn't make the ideology any less atheist though. >And the classical trend from "Libertarian to Fascist" that has been observed over and over again also shows that there is less of a conflict here than one might assume. You might need to elaborate a bit here. How is putting individual liberty above all else not in conflict with putting your racial or national group above all else? >Yes, they might exist, but the fact that this is an "identity" shows how meaningless this is. This is all a game reenacted by some dorks who want to belive that our political situation is basically the same as that of 1930's Germany. Just repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

>>20636 > Doesn't make the ideology any less atheist though Nazis literally had "Gott mit uns" (God with us) written on their belts.

>>20479 I can refute capitalism with a single image

>>20636 >Or they have free time because they lost their minimum wage job to immigrants. I find the idea interesting, that the first thing that unemployed white people do is start learning unorthodox race theory, but you seem to know better. > No true scotsman. Just because something doesn't fall into the tiny scope of what you consider "true leftism" doesn't make it capitalism. Fallacy-fallacy. Just because my understanding of Capitalism isn't the same as your's, doesn't mean you can No-True-Scottsman yourself out of the problem. > You might need to elaborate a bit here. Molyneux might be an example, but pic attached circulated around a few years ago, that also serves as an example. > Just repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. Nor does repeating the opposite ^^. Your claim is more extravagant, so you should have to prove that there is an emerging Nazi/Fascist movement, that could realistically gain power, and isn't just a bunch of internet wierdos.

>>20724 >I find the idea interesting, that the first thing that unemployed white people do is start learning unorthodox race theory, but you seem to know better. They do the same thing as all recently dispossessed people do, they find a group of similar people to latch onto and a group is dissimilar people to blame. For white working class males, the blame is usually directed at The Immigrants, or The Jews who supposedly let the immigrants in. Depending on how far down the rabbit hole they get dragged, many eventually arrive at something that looks like national socialism. >Just because my understanding of Capitalism isn't the same as your's... The problem is that your definition of capitalism is "not socialism". And your definition of socialism is too fluid to pin down (which is where the No True Scotsman comes in). By all means, lay down some concrete definitions instead of dancing around it. >Molyneux might be an example He's a straight up "fuarrrk any and all governments" anarchist. What's supposedly "fascist" about him? >pic related because I don't understand the propaganda well enough to debate it Well I don't understand it either. Am I supposed to know who these dudes are or make sense of these uncontextualized quotes? We both know Molyneux so if you actually have a point then why don't you try to make it with him. >Your claim is more extravagant, so you should have to prove that there is an emerging Nazi/Fascist movement, that could realistically gain power, and isn't just a bunch of internet wierdos. This is called moving the goal posts. I never said any of that extra stuff. My claim has always been that there exist (mostly) men in 2020 who blame their life failures on The Jews and Capitalism and they unironically call themselves National Socialists. National because they want racial homogeneity within their borders. Socialist because they want a strong government to control the economy for the benefit of the people. Incidentally, some dude with a little mustache talked about similar ideas a long time ago and also called it National Socialism. Now tell me if I've got your claim correct. You're saying Hitler actually expelled the "real" socialists from his party and did some pretty non socialist things to the economy. Therefor natsoc is really capitalist and you can safely disassociate "real socialism" from modern nazi's as well. Who don't exist anyway. I don't know. Instead of strawmanning me, try explaining your own point better.

>>20725 In Poland you constantly see so called ultranationalist crowd, sometimes referred as polish neo-Nazis by good portion of society and press, marching with anti capitalist slogans on banners - they openly state they are against capitalism. Well, one can argue that they are possibly more related to Italian socialist ultranationalist movement known as fascism but whatever, both Nazism and fascism descent from socialist movements in their countries of origin (remember Benito was a member of socialist party initially). Like banner from picrel from one of Polish group's demonstration that translates to English as >The only way is nationalism. Smash, smash the capitalism! Also good portion of European ultranationalist movement's that originated around first half of XX century were pro state control on economy (plus other areas of life). They stated that openly in their political programs.

>>20729 picture

>>20729 >both Nazism and fascism descent from socialist movements in their countries of origin they both diverged pretty strongly from socialism when they started getting power.

>>20731 >hey both diverged pretty strongly from socialism when they started getting power. These divergences being?

>>20732 privatizing previously state-run industries, murdering communists, unionists, and socialists, allying with corporations like IBM, and a liberal economic strategy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

>>20733 >murdering communists, unionists, and socialists When was for example 70% of SA members murdered? Never heard of it. >allying with corporations like IBM, and a liberal economic strategy So did USSR, so did China in more recent times.

>>20730 That's BTW symbol of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism

>>20733 >murdering communists, unionists, and socialists The argument is that the ideologies have similar roots. Not that they are best friends. >privatizing previously state-run industries From your wikipedia page >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 >a liberal economic strategy From your wikipedia page >Hitler’s administration decreed an October 1937 policy that “dissolved all corporations with a capital under $40,000 and forbade the establishment of new ones with a capital less than $200,000,” which swiftly effected the collapse of one fifth of all small corporations. >the Nazi regime was able to close most of Germany’s stock exchanges, reducing them “from twenty-one to nine in 1935,” and “limited the distribution of dividends to 6 percent.”[68] By 1936 Germany decreed laws to completely block foreign stock trades by citizens.[69] These moves showed signs of Antisemitism and a move towards a war economy, with the belief that the stock market was being operated by Jews.

>>20741 >These moves showed signs of Antisemitism and a move towards a war economy, with the belief that the stock market was being operated by Jews. Based as fuarrrk. No wonder their economy became so robust without kike parasites to leech them dry. We need to do this in the United States.

>>20742 >Based as fuarrrk. No wonder their economy became so robust without kike parasites to leech them dry. We need to do this in the United States. Keep reading kiddo. >The enormous military buildup was financed to a large extent through deficit spending, including Mefo bills. Between 1933 and 1939 the total revenue of the German government amounted to 62 billion Reichsmarks, whereas government expenditure (up to 60% of which consisted of rearmament costs) exceeded 101 billion, thus causing a huge deficit and rising national debt (reaching 38 billion marks in 1939). Typical fuarrrking Socialists.

>>20743 >Deficit spending. Doesn't mean soykaf when you own your own debt. It's only bad when Germans own it.

>>20741 >The argument is that the ideologies have similar roots. Not that they are best friends. yes, and killing each other is a pretty strong indication that, as I said, they diverged from each other. >>20745 "let me just print myself some money, and it'll work out because we will win the war against Russia"

>>20734 >When was for example 70% of SA members murdered? Never heard of it. look up the Night of the Long Knives.

>>20741 none of those things you quoted are examples of socialist policies.

>>20741 >The argument is that the ideologies have similar roots. By those standards, everything besides absolute monarchy is the same. The argument that one ideology didn't come from Mars and the other from Venus isn't really convincing.

>>20754 >look up the Night of the Long Knives. It's you who should look that up and who exactly was murdered. There is no source material supporting your claims about such extermination of 70% of SA stoormtroopers.

>>20753 >yes, and killing each other is a pretty strong indication that, as I said, they diverged from each other. Diverged how much though. Stalin killing Trotsky doesn't suddenly make Stalin a Capitalist does it? So it's a pretty soykaf meta-argument.

>>20777 By the time Hitler assumed power in January 1933, SA membership had increased to approximately 2,000,000. So we would certainly hear if well over million of SA members were killed.

>>20780 Are there any proofs that Hitler ordered killings on basis other than they didn't follow him blindly, so let them bite dust? A lot of people who cameto SA, NSDAP etc from communist and socialist organizations/parties were not murdered if they were "cultists" of Hitler as a leader. As was a case of huge majority of SA stoormtroopers. The only I know about that died were demanding changes Hitler didn't want or were risky for Hitler to be kept alive. >>20780 >>Stalin killing Trotsky doesn't suddenly make Stalin a Capitalist does it? So it's a pretty soykaf meta-argument. Neither it makes Trotsky a capitalist. I find it funny that this lainon tries to create false dychtomy "not killed by Hitler's order equals not a socialist/communist ". That's a logical fallacy at it's finest.

>>20553 I appreciate the reply to my paraphrasing, but I found the arguments unconvincing because you misinterpret my loose summary. Perhaps read the israelseen article and dismantle that if you would like to convince me. It was very well written. Marxism seems embarrassingly incomplete. It's hard to believe there are people who would follow the ideology.