/lit/ - Literature

yeah a lot of people get suckered into extremism by fallacies. very common.

>>20760771
You're in for a long and miserable journey. It seems so exciting at first, but the thrill wears off within the year. You'll be at war with yourself and everything you used to love for a long time.

>>20760789
>>20760774
You really are a slave to capitalist pigs, aren't you? I don't understand why Christians are against communism. If the Bible literally says the love of money is the root of all evil

>>20760771
>>20760774
>>20760789
>>20760802
a christian must be against capitalism, but that does not necessitate that they be a communist. do look into liberation theology, however. lots of interesting ideas there.

>>20760771
I have no problem with Marx, but Terry Eagleton and his ilk reduced Marxism to just another form of literary analysis, aided its emasculation and dedangment.

>>20760789
“Used to love” my freedom as a kid (mom kept us out of schools) but that love left as soon as I had to go to work. It isn’t honest but it’s long hours and low pay. Finding socialism (not even a Marxist) I have found a reasonable meaning. In life. I don’t think you speak from experience. You sound like a common ignorant “chud”

>>20760802
They’re as dutiful as the secularist kids. We need to approach them from the utopian angle I believe. Or if they’re “patriots” the idealistic origins of the nation. This experiment has failed, we all admit. It’s time we reimagine how to get the results.

>>20760837
defangment*

>>20760771
isn't marx left?

>>20760802
I'll take your critique seriously when you actually convert to Christianity and understand it instead of using it for bad faith arguments

>>20760820
Yes it does. The Soviets of course were not communists.
Do look into utopian socialism. Make peace with the unbelievers

>>20760802
Christians were the originators of socialism. It was the Marxists who specifically rejected them.

Imagine being a capitalist OR a communist. Peak dum dum poopybrain. Barterchads rise up

>>20760771
>people owning things is le bad
How juvenile.

>>20760859
>utopian socialism
The oceans will turn into lemonade any day now, I'm sure

>>20760848
kek

>>20760868
Communitarianism isnt socialism

Capitalism work if you work.
Simple as.

Capitalism works for doctors and engineers. All skilled workers. Small business owners born to poor or working class parents are the majority of millionaires all over developed world. Nothing is preventing your from starting your own company. You can be self employed welder, electrician, mechanic.. in fact many people are and they make more money than average university professor, and this doesnt even require highschool.
Average construction worker in most big cities during construction boom (cyclical, happens every few years in at least 1/3 of big cities of any country) gets paid an income classified as top 15% of all salaries across developed world.

Capitalism only doesnt work when you dont work. Capitalism doesnt work if you are constantly on welfare. If you confused hobbies for a job. If you are so lazy, unskilled and uninspired you only apply for service sector and office minwage retard jobs. If you are so sheltered and delusional, you are still waiting for special snowflake humanities/entertainment/arts/sports/soundcloud rapper/acting career to happen to you.

This is why you will never find competent people against capitalism. Its just bitter retards who complain about capitalism 20 hours a day on twitter, and have delusions of grandeur that they are entitled to all the yachts because of their deviant art/soundcloud uploads, and pseuds in academia who couldnt figure out how to change a light bulb let alone contribute anything to society.

>>20760820
>liberation theology
liberation theology is why the catholic church is hemorrhaging followers in latin america. the masses don't like or want communism. by 2050, latin america, once a stronghold of catholicism, will be majority protestant.

>>20760888
According to?

>>20760907
Me, someone with a brain.

>>20760880
It’s a suitably spiritual approach. You don’t have to be a materialist to want to nurture community and environmental responsibility.

And I do stress the decentralized branches of Protestantism

>>20760877
People owning things is THE POINT. What capitalism turns to is *person* owning everything and renting bits of it out to the people.
Where have you left your brain, sir?

Nothing in capitalism prevents you from being self employed. Or simply collectively quit your job as a union and start the exact same business model just without middle management and the hated stock/share owners.
Can some Marxist explain to me how is this not a plothole of Marxism?

Utopianism is inherently anti Christian. It is kabbalah.

>>20760912
Communism is when the government owns everything.

>>20760918
You’re branch of christcuckoldry must preach that life on earth isn’t worth the effort. Just expose yourself to the mountains and leave us be.

>>20760945
>>>>>/Pol/

>>20760926
No, that’s totalitarianism, empire, absolute monarchy, and state-socialism.

Communism is any given commune, owned and looked after by the locals. It is actual community doing for themselves, as best they can manage. Having to incorporate themselves to other communities doesn’t require a centralized city of soldiers or lawyers and bankers. No one needs them at all.

>>20760960
So why dont communists learn a skilled trade and be self employed? What is stopping you in capitalism from.. becoming a dentist and opening a private practice?

>>20760945
This post makes no sense. My branch of christianity is entirely unique and objectively the correct view of it. I want to inscribe every atom in the universe with the logos. But utopia is Gods.

>>20760839
>mom kept us out of schools
>uneducated guy gets dazzled by marxist rhetoric and spends his life as seething extremist
bummer

>>20760899
>liberation theology is why the catholic church is hemorrhaging followers in latin america.
Liberation theology is just filling the void the post-Vatican 2 church left. It's not the root cause of the church's decline in latam.

>>20760960
Communitarianism is not communism.

>>20760960
>Communism is any given commune
So why don't these self-proclaimed communists pool their money together and buy some land in Vermont or wherever and do Communism instead of whining all the time.

>>20760970
the church has a lot of problems, but cozying up with failed socialist movements certainly didn't help.

>>20760975
I don’t know how you want to define your word, but I have given you a loose description of what communists want.

>>20760964
You wonder why state-capitalism has been able to turn back the various schools of thought fueling people’s movements? There books worth of explaining to do.

Communism in practice seems like a high-trust endeavor, that old commie bugbear human nature is bound to bring with it all its evils: greed, jealousy, power trips, etc. What about doing eugenics first, by creating the most agreeable, highest IQ people and removing the low IQ and the disagreeable, then moving onto the ol' communism.

>>20760964
>opening a private practice
holy shit why didnt marx think of that

>>20760992
>greed, jealousy, power trips
Remove the artifice of the capitalist system you eliminate most greed.
Remove unjustifiable hierarchies and you eliminate most jealousy
Establish direct democracy and you breed out the power hungry.
Anarcho-communism cures what ails you.

>>20760992
what idealism does to a mf

>>20760991
Capitalism offers you the ability to be self employed. Become a dentist, open a private practice. One man operation. Own 100% of fruits of your labor. 0% exploitation. Zero gulags or political prisoners or secret terroristic police armies required.

>>20761007
This but unironically. Marx tried to sell his ideas to some Swiss style clock makers in person if I remember correctly, they told him to fuck off as they already own their own factory and dont require any broader movement.

It seems that you do not need a global political movement and tens of millions of corpses to simply own your own labor.

>>20760991
Ive met many communists and none of them wanted that. You should say its what you want. Actually no, it doesnt matter, no communists want that because that's not communism

>>20760917
>Nothing in capitalism prevents you from being self employed.
centralization of capital does. only a limited segment of the entire social division of labour is able to function in genuine self-employment. the only way there can be self-employed supermarket cashiers or bus drivers is when wage labour is concealed formally as self-employment for tax optimization purposes.
even in sectors with a lot of self-employment such as farming, the centralization of capital leads to the number of the self-employed decreasing, with the surplus population shifting to wage labour.
>Or simply collectively quit your job as a union and start the exact same business model just without middle management and the hated stock/share owners.
shifting the ownership of capital from one entity to another entity doesn't change the general laws according to which capital functions
>>20760964
there's 100x more workers than there are opportunities for self-employment. you aren't going to make a dent in the state of class struggle by reducing the size of the proletariat by 1%.

>>20761024
>sell his ideas
wtf are you on my man

>you do not need
I dont. The workers of the world do

>>20761024
>Capitalism offers you the ability to be self employed
In theory, but only for a certain class in certain times of prosperity. But monopoly stage of capitalism it becomes increasingly difficult for lower classes to do so.
>gulags
The US is has the largest prison population in world history right now. Tell me how they’re a communist country.

>>20761010
This. Greed didn't exist prior to capitalism. Jealousy wouldn't exist without hierarchies. And many other dumb things I say with conviction.

>>20761034
You’ve met many Marxists? Trotskyists? Yea, we’re not talking about authoritarian state-socialist right now, thanks bye.

>>20761056
Can you not read? I said “most”. No, greed didn’t exist as a way of life like it does now.
Like the wars of nationstates would cease, but fist fights, heated arguments leading to death can still happen. Have a little perspective.

>>20761024
>One man operation.
you somehow have never been in a private practice ever in your lifetime.

gotta love how the opening of a dentist practice is some form of robinsonade for some

butters, in the time you've been whining about capitalism on 4chan, you could have finished an associates and moved on to a better job. everyone goes through a radical phase when they're young, but you've been stuck in this state of arrested development for so long, it's getting a little sad.

>>20761050
>The US is has the largest prison population in world history right now
There is a huge difference between the Russian gulags where many people were imprisoned for verbally offending a politician/the party and the United States prison system where most of the inmates have committed violent drug crimes.

>>20761010

> Remove the artifice of the capitalist system you eliminate most greed.

Greed is a result of scarcity, try as you might it will never be eliminated. One can, and should, control it but it will never be truly gone

> Remove unjustifiable hierarchies and you eliminate most jealousy

People will be jealous of those above them even if the hierarchy is just, it goes back to the innate greed everyone has.

> Establish direct democracy and you breed out the power hungry.

Not really, it’s just going to end up in political parties being created so one group can get their way. Or everyone is going to end up at the mercy of the food commune because they won’t give you food if you don’t vote their way.

Now I remember why I hate /lit/. No one here reads. The marxists don’t read Marx and everyone else doesn’t read at all.

He was right about the jews, but that was it. His predictions failed to come true, and capitalism has become far more than means of production, too.

>>20761099
please explain on how going to jail for a drug offense/being unable to pay for necessities/being homeless is not a political reason. Its called political economics for a reason.

Also around 23% of prisoners in Gulags were there for political reasons in the first place. You would also be sent to the gulag for "regular crimes"

>>20761146
>His predictions failed to come true
name one
>and capitalism has become far more than means of production, too
quote Marx saying "capitalism is means of production"

good luck

>>20761099
>>20761149
A drug offense caused by a predatory pharmaceutical industry hoping you up on opioids!

>>20761149
Homeless people have places they can go to, so long as they follow certain rules. But that's just the rest of society. If we don't follow certain rules, we will be punished by the state. These rules can be changed democratically, if there was sufficient support. On the other hand, in authoritarian regimes, you can't express displeasure with government policies without risking punishment. That seems to be a big difference.

>>20761117
So this more equitable and just society of closer knit communities in times of scarcity would revert to these boon times of high capitalism would they? Oh well than, forget I said anything.

Little boys are always so terribly jealous of their fathers.

Direct democracy doesn’t result in political parties. It has affinity groups, and there’s zero danger of them overpowering any of the others. Power will be mere prestige at most, a necessary burden for many

>>20761177
Try telling that to someone arrested for terroristic threat or non physical assault. But I forget people like you think this is the best of all worlds.

>>20761177
They literally do not have anyplace to go. They are homeless.
And after the hardships of trying to survive there you expect them to follow so e strict rules?
You put them in homes. You provide healthcare and other basics.

>>20761149
>You would also be sent to the gulag for "regular crimes"
Oh I thought those were caused by capitalism and that getting rid of capitalism would eliminate the basis for them?

>>20761149
Nobody is in jail because they can't pay for necessities or being homeless. Neither of those things are crimes

>>20761177
and who makes those rules? exactly.

the US is about as far from a democracy as one can be. only because a government is democratically legitimized does not mean it is a democracy.

there are countless topics you can easily find majorities for yet they are never enforced

>>20761202
>But I forget people like you think this is the best of all worlds.

Nobody thinks that. What they actually think is that a world with your poorly thought out system would be far worse. They're correct.

>>20761248
what policy is there in the us that has majority support but can't get passed? And not something that is only supported by red/blue states

Sounds good, now read about the people who actually did something about it:
https://counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

After Lenin's failures, Marxism is nothing but a hobby for bourgeois academics living comfortably within capitalist societies, and rich kids who like crossdressing for some reason. It's fine to listen to their negative critiques of capitalism, but don't waste your life like they do, strengthening capitalism by rigidifying anti-capitalism as an antiquarian hobby and thus as something lifeless and inaccessible.

>>20761246
no? why did get people thrown out of houses in 2008/2009? housing is a necessity so why throw them out of it for not paying? why is the police called when i steal food?
why is the us trying to establish laws to make it illegal to sleep under bridges or in your car on a parking lot?

>>20761264
They always say "medicare for all" and then ignore the fact that once you get down to specific implementations there's widespread disagreement.

>>20761271
You aren't entitled to a house or another persons labour. There are plenty of places you can be homeless and starve and won't get thrown in jail for it.

>>20761264
there is a majority on banning concealed carry without a license yet it is still allowed in some states, with even in those majorities existing?

>>20761271
the people who got "thrown out" of their houses in 2008 were middle class people who stopped paying the mortgage because their investment property was now worth less than the mortgage. will leftists every stop being dishonest and arguing against cartoons? reevaluate your life dude.

>>20761282
actually you are. maybe read up on the constitution of human right again huh?

>another persons labour
damn didnt know i was talking to a communist

>>20761283
the united states is a republic not a democracy so that people in california and new york megacities don't dictate community standards for rural idaho. the system is working as intended. deal with it.

>>20761266
>a hobby for bourgeois academics living comfortably within capitalist societies

Marxism is retarded, it's just trendy among suburban white kids and trannies because of video game streamers like Vaush, Hasan Ali and "bread tube"

Communism collapsed 30 years ago and the only surviving communist states liberalized out of necessity.

>>20760771
>And of course Karl Marx put the final touches on the edifice by providing the theoretical justification for what was as yet only emotion, impulse, need. Marx is truly a bourgeois thinker when he explains all of history by work, when he formulates man's whole relation to the world in terms of work, when he evaluates all thought in terms of its relation to work, and when he gives work as the creative source of value. Although he did not believe in values, he implies that work is a virtue when he condemns the classes that do not work. He was one of the most articulate interpreters of the bourgeois myth of work, and because he was a socialist and a defender of the working class, he was one of the most active agents in spreading the myth to this class. Besides, it was through work that this class would one day win power and freedom. For the post-Marxian working class, therefore, work meant both the explanation of its condition and the certainty of seeing it end. Once the motive of doctrine had been added to the motive of necessity, how could the workers fail to be imbued with this ideology? It was the bourgeois who invented the dogma of the eminent dignity of the worker, but it was Karl Marx who led the proletariat to this thenceforth ineradicable conviction. From then on, the myth of work became a myth of the left, and the bourgeois and the worker were united in the same commonplace: work is the be-all and end-all of life. The only difference is that for the bourgeois, work tends more and more to be the work of other people, while for the worker only he himself can bear the noble title of worker. Anyone who does not belong to the proletariat, being a nonworker, is a parasite.

>>20761276

>>20761292
>middle class people who stopped paying the mortgage
you mean those people that rented those homes (because you can only live in so many houses you own) that never stopped paying their rent and still got thrown out right?

>was now worth less than the mortgage
whose fault was that again? did those people responsible lose their homes?

>>20761296
>the shit system is doing shit things.
youre very smart

Can someone tell me who in society has problem with capitalism?

You have those masturbating camgirls buying houses in capitalism.
Doctors and engineers are notoriously well paid in capitalism.
Skilled labor of all sorts gets paid.
Every self proclaimed lone genius can start businesses, get loans, buy stocks, etc.
Every special snowflake can join trillion dollars sports, entertainment, acting, singing, painting, writing, etc industries.
Every honest worker can find one of those jobs that dont even require a highschool but pay more than university professorship, construction work, welding, etc.
Hell, you can become an offended millionaire these days. Just being offended can get you million dollars court settlements and speaking events.

I dont get who the fuck is suffering in capitalism. I am not even trying and I am doing well. My parents are broke alcoholics so I wasnt born entitled. I failed uni. Worked construction and quit after 2 years because it was hard and I saved enough rent money for at least a few years. Watched welding vids on youtube purely out of curiosity and asked my local welding shop if I could work there part time and without pay, I just wanted to learn how to fuck around with iron. Got certified as a welder in less than 3 months working there. They were also repairing washing machines, dryers, vacuum cleaners etc etc. You guessed it. I can service all your household appliances and also half of the shit at your work. This includes industrial heavy machinery for printing. I also touched forklifts, tractors, bulldozers and so on but I cant honestly say I could get any of these done for you, I could be one hell of an assistant. I am not even 30 years old.
I also speak 3 UN official languages and 1 unofficial because an online website told me learning languages in person is a good way to meet chicks and it looks impressive on CV at the same time.
I also know c/c++/c# and object oriented c because I wanted to know how computers work since I was 10 years old. I can also put these paid programming courses I completed in my CV.

Capitalism let me do all this shit. Next thing for me is helicopter licence. Again, out of pure hobby. I live single in 3 room apartment and basically have no expenses. I work when I feel like it and when there is a massive demand, since I know so many things and have so much experience. Some companies even offer me one of those 'university degree + 5 years of experience' overseeing jobs at construction sites where I tell the crew what to do, I am not even fucking 30 years old and I am telling people almost twice my age what to do.

Were socialists and communists always just pathetic low life grifters? The current crop are so pathetic that I'm starting to question the tiny amount of respect I have for the pioneers.

>>20761340
Baristas and sandwich artists are suffering in capitalism because they can't raise a family of 4 and pay a mortgage on a single income of unskilled labor.

Rent should be free fuck landlords (except for my parents they're okay)

>>20761316
>you mean those people that rented those homes (because you can only live in so many houses you own) that never stopped paying their rent and still got thrown out right?
i too saw the big short which was a dramatized account of the events of 2008. that poor guy getting evicted from the mcmansion he was renting in the burbs, how terrible.

>reading a book with that font on the cover
just lmao, commies are brainless as well as tasteless

>>20761307
Hahaha this article is a fucking rollercoaster
>“Either the Biden Administration and congressional Dems begin to deliver material benefits to the American people, to the working-class majority, or the right, which seems pretty uniformly bent on imposing authoritarian rule, will succeed in expunging nominal democracy.”

>To illustrate how far the left is from power, he said something I’d heard him say before: “The most significant left force in the Biden Administration on domestic policy is the asset managers of BlackRock, and on foreign policy it’s John Mearsheimer and the foreign-affairs crowd.” Reed did not mention that these developments—that his ideological enemies in the Administration were pushing large amounts of social spending in the domestic sphere and retreat from forever wars overseas—might count, from another perspective, as a left-wing victory.

How do these people exist? Isn't it their job to study this shit? I read labor history for fun when I'm taking a shit sometimes and even I know more about praxis than these people. Why are they completely incapable of understanding anything outside the 1990s liberal bubble, even the ones who reached adulthood decades before the 90s? A hundred years ago, even the most ardent Fabians and reformists at least understood the STAKES of the "revolution vs. reform" debate. These people can't even think an inch outside of their "please fuck me up the ass, neoliberalism"-reformist bubble.

Honestly, it's just everybody who grew up in the '50s-'90s, isn't it? The coat of "progress" paint was just deep enough to lull multiple generations of boomillennials into sleep permanently. Nothing else explains how there are so many thousands of boomer professors with intimate firsthand knowledge of '68, the New Left days, etc., who have WATCHED neoliberalism metastasize, and somehow STILL think everything is basically fine

>>20761342
I think so. Marx was born rich but gambled all his wealth away or spent it on trinkets and luxuries and went broke. Then he refused to work. Then he married aristocrat woman, spent all her cash too, made her kids that starved to death in childhood, and Marx still refused to go to work. He was pretending to be a journalist (soundcloud rapper in his time), never even attempted to work a real job, and finally died in poverty. He wrote letters begging one rich industrialist for money, that was his main source of income for most of his life, begging and inheritance.

>>20761340
>You have those masturbating camgirls buying houses in capitalism.
who built that cam and why is it so cheap?

>Doctors and engineers are notoriously well paid in capitalism.
Doctors in georgia earn less than the average wage

>Skilled labor of all sorts gets paid.
yay im not a slave?

>start businesses, get loans, buy stocks
you mean with the thousands of dollars minimum capital requirement, credit rating, with what money do i buy those stocks and money will sustain me while i do the reasearch needed to even have a chance to be successfull with trading?

It is not like someone wants to revert capitalism. There are many things to learn from it. The question is: How could it be even better?

>>20761357
im still waiting for your explanation on how someone like him was at fault for losing his home and job

>>20761361
it is indeed terrible. in fact economics in general seem to have a problem with good covers.

>>20761389
He could no longer pay the rent and the associated fees for living in his McMansion so it was his fault he got thrown out. It's really quite simple. Why should the owner of the property be forced to accommodate this scumbag leech?

>>20761389
>something bad happened to somebody
well shit let's just completely turn society into a despotic command economy. that will clearly be better even though every previous attempt was undeniably worse. maybe stop letting your mind be tyrannized by emotional anecdotes. are you a chick?

>>20761406
there was no owner anymore you retard. the owner was the first to be unable to pay.

>>20761417
That was bullshit made up by the movie.

>>20761408
>turn society into a despotic command economy
thats status quo so no worries about that

Communist revolution is impossible in 21st century because only 80 iq people suffer in capitalism. Only sandwitch baristas, floor moppers and humanities graduates dont have good jobs. Working classes all vote right or conservative. Society is great. Markets are great. Mechanics and electricians make more than humanities professors.

The only oppressed people in society are those oppressed by low IQ. Fast food wagies to whom you cant give anything else to do like surgeries or building airplanes. And bitter pseuds in leftist/humanities academia who live off of inheritance anyway and who are envious of people who started businesses.

>>20761420
no thats literally what happened. do you understand how refinancing works? its always those defending capitalism that understand nothing about economics

>>20761405
idk some have a dope vaporwave swag to them. like you just want to put on some luxury elite as you browse kane and bodie, know what i mean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyXg-lp2N_g

>>20761367
Reed is a Democrat that hides behind Marx (many such cases). He predicted that if Trump wins in 2016, fascism will come. He said the same thing in 2020 and in 2021 for the midterms.
I like that old fag but he made my stomach turn when he said that only Biden-Cheney-Blackrock can prevent the Reichstag fire for_the_workers.
Spengler was right, some Marxists are just the footsoldiers of capital.

>>20761430
>its always those defending capitalism that understand nothing about economics

Go back to watching Hasan Piker you retarded brainlet.

>>20761430
so what, if you rent sometimes you have to move. that's why people rent, they're paying for increased optionality. if you don't want to move ever, consider buying property instead. also, that guy claimed he wasn't the owner and was just living there, but there was massive dishonesty and fraud in the mortgage applications during that time, so i'm not sure i even believe those sob stories. if anyone with a job can get a loan for a mcmansion, why was that guy renting instead of getting his own house? really makes you wonder.

>>20761453
hasan is a leftlib i dont watch that shit. but thanks

>>20761059
Communists. As you stated anon. You dont even know your own theory if you conflate communitarianism and communism

>>20761457
there is a difference between wanting to move and having to move.

people rent because they prefer having a home to being homeless for 5 years in order to afford buying property.

the fraud was in those applications being accepted not in being made. if you build a road, people are gonna use it

>why was that guy renting instead of getting his own house?
yes, why didnt he get homeless and in debt instead of just homeless. crazy world.

>>20761464
Do leftists find it annoying that Hasan is now the face of their movement? The guy is obviously dumb as a rock and it's every bit as bad as that idiotic anti-work guy that went on Fox news.

Sorry trannies, it's over. Capitalism has won.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHW5TIxxkMc

>>20761315
My friend volunteers at a crisis call center. So like, if youre being abused, or feeling suicidal people call in to have someone to talk to, vent, hopefully get some guidance to get out of their situation or to defeat their negative thought patterns. Anyways, she tells me how she had one old white guy call in, angry about his lot in life, being a white guy in modern canada, uncared for and spit upon. But during his little breakdown on the phone he said some "bigoted" things. After the call my friend talks to her supervisor and the supe brings up the bigoted caller.

"I wouldve just hung up on him, we dont like to help those kinds of people. At the very least you need to challenge his bigotry and then try to end the call."

So ya. These people arent good. They arent caring or charitable. Empathy is entirely lost on them. The sam hyde meme of 'these people want you dead and your children brainwashed" is entirely 100% true and anyone who falls into that category of person le enlightened cosmopolitan citizen, they are all identical.

Another example, my father represents children in divorce cases and other cases where a child is in need of representation. A mother (white, has had problems but has clearly beaten her demons) who is now a vocal conservative has govt agents lying about her habits, making up stories that she is high when she comes to see her child and all other things so that the govt will take her child from her and give it to one of them so they can groom it into being a good globohomo citizen

>>20761505
i hope they are. id rather live in a world with hayek or friedman instead of people like him.

>>20761497
Democrats and leftists were the ones that forced banks and property owners to lend to and accept people that they otherwise wouldn't have.

>>20761505
I don't think there are any leftists left aside from isolated transvestites who are mostly "being leftists" in the same way a bunch of NEETs "are Counterstrike players," they just talk about it online and silo themselves into Discord channels and have their little set of approved youtubers or streamers or whatever it is they all watch.

When it comes to the much larger mass of "leftists," people who watch breadtube and shit, and the teeming hordes of rich latte sipping college kids who just use progressivism as yet another fashion of the day, there isn't anything distinct enough to comment on. I'm sure the Discord losers complain about being associated with whoever this Hasan idiot is in the same way Counterstrike kids complain about gamer girls not representing esports etc.

It's too diffuse and too much of a hazy blob to have inner dialogue like what you're implying.

>>20761497
wow so a bunch of people committed mortgage fraud. what do you want the government to make it illegal twice? it's like people who bitch about guns when a gang member with a gun that's already illegal shoots up a place. also, again, try to think critically. if that guy is so poor, why is he renting out a palatial mansion? leftists have this weird cynicism combined with astonishing credulity. not great thinkers.

>>20761518
Tale as old as the modern world
>enlightened leftist types demand we make poor decisions to help the poor oppressed people of the world
>the decision backfires spectacularly
>leftists use that to demonize the right and the system even though it was their own short sighted demands that brought this about

>>20761508
Took me a long time to realize this myself. They are downright scary because they have simultaneously degraded and brutalized themselves into a selfish mob, and monopolized ethics/morality in modern society. In their own minds as well. At least a lowlife knows he's a lowlife on some level, and at least a zealot puts effort into doing the right thing in his own mind. These are dangerous people, the confidence of a zealot and the slimy invertebrate selfishness of a lowlife.

Either these people will be mobilized to commit some kind of hideous stalinist tyranny or genocide in the next 30 years, or they will be genocided by some other group that finally vents all its hatred on them and their hypocrisy.

>>20761518
>Democrats and leftists
those are two completely heterogeneous groups

>>20761541
No true scotsman'ing is what got you absorbed by liberals in the first place, you really want to keep doing it for another century? Nobody cares that there are five or six "true leftists" left somewhere, when 99.9999999999% of self-proclaimed leftists are liberals or effective liberals. And 4 of the 5 or 6 "true leftists" in your little group "vote blue no matter who" anyway.

>>20761541
Liberalism is leftism and im tired of pretending its not

>>20761526
>wow so a bunch of people committed mortgage fraud
the whole world plunges into an economic crisis
>leftists have this weird cynicism combined with astonishing credulity

speak for yourself.

>>20761506
undeniable.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQTk4eK2fP4

>>20761541
Capitalist Democrats are just slightly more intelligent than "real" leftists.

>>20761549
thats not no true scotsman as it can be profoundly argued and analyzed. the nazis called themselves socialists and used leftist slogans yet it is clear that they are no communists.
and trust me, none of them vote at all.

>>20761555
>the whole world plunges into an economic crisis
well maybe if the obama administration had responded with even half the urgency of the response to the wuhan coof, that could have been avoided.

>>20761550
social liberalism? sure.
economic liberalism? not really.

yet what is called liberalist or libertarian today is mainly the latter.

>>20761541
In this very thread, there is a pic of a Marxist professor encouraging people to vote blue for worker rights.

>>20761569
Leftism =/= communism
Marxists dont have a monopoly on socialism

>>20761572
...agreed?

>>20761575
i mean yes there is a lesser evil but the point of the choice between plague and cholera is not to choose at all but thats up to him

>>20761576
fair point, still ever so sad

>>20761558
me rn

>>20760802
The fact that you all change your language is enough to know that you're all easily lead larping faggots.

>>20761307
It’s simple really — we’re gonna bring back leftism, but it won’t actually do anything. Think about it. The corporations and the world’s institutions are performing maintenance on liberal hegemony. It needs to evolve. We’ll just convince the leftists to work alongside them. After all, the masses love progress, don’t they? Everyone wants to believe that we already have all the tools for utopia and that we just need to use the right framework for the future. Leftists love progress, liberalism loves progress. It’s a perfect match. The machine will function as usual and leftists will be used to facilitate it. We’ll preach about diversity and the evils of white people right as immigration increases and fertility rates collapse, half of young people will identify as LGBT conveniently after we destroy the institutions of family and marriage, and we’ll even get them to support prostitution right as we astroturf OnlyFans when young people can’t afford anything anymore. As for the more “radical” ones, we’ll let them post guillotine memes and viral twitter threads on irrelevant Maoist literature and then get them to vote for the establishment anyways after 4 years as long as we promise that Democrats will prevent trans genocide. We can’t lose with this.

>>20760802
Anon please look into Dugins fourth political theory, for a critique of liberalism (capitalism) from the right that isn’t fascism; communism isn’t the answer but that doesn’t mean that liberalism is either.

National socialism is the only logical political stance. Anything else is retarded and cucking your nation to some other force.

>>20760771
Okay, that's okay. Now let's get serious. Das Kapital, volume 1, volume 2, volume 3. >>20760894
>Capitalism work if you work.
>What is the TRPF?

>>20761818
Imagine thinking national socialism wasn't industrial Capitalism. Reminder for the tards that Hitler was financed by Rockefeller through I.G Farben, subsidiary of Standard oil. 45% of his 1933 campain. It's been known here and there since at least 15 years. Maybe you need an update.

>>20761866
Nothing wrong with utilizing all means available to best provide for your nation. Youre subhuman IQ, cucked to global needs, and a dumb nigger retard to boot

>>20761866
>One of the most controversial aspects of NEP was the policy of giving concessions to foreign >capitalists, allowing them to exploit Russia's natural resources in return for payment of taxes and a >portion of the profits. The concessions policy was always questionable. The opponents of foreign >concessions asked why, after the expropriation of capitalists of the domestic Russian variety, >capitalists of the British, German or American type should be invited to come into Russia to manage its >natural wealth.

standard oil, founded by rockefeller, was all up in the russian oil fields in the 20s, and none other than fred koch, father of the koch brothers, was brought in to develop the equipment to exploit the fields. so by your reasoning, lenin was also an industrial capitalist, since this all happened on his watch. if lenin isn't "real communism" then what, pray tell, is?

>>20761892
Imagine thinking for a second that your little national socialism is in fact nothing else than wage labor industrial Capitalism with a swatiska on the front of the factory.
RIP Ernst Rohm.
RIP Gregor Strasser
Also nice bank you created in 1936, the Schroder, Rockefeller Co., Inc.
You fucking jew. You do not go to the synagogue, but you are have jewish values nonetheless: huckstering and money.

>>20761944
Yeah... You are clearly retarded. Continue pushing for your nation to be beholden to other nations and not its own people

>>20761866
>One of the most controversial aspects of NEP was the policy of giving
>concessions to foreign capitalists, allowing them to exploit Russia's natural
>resources in return for payment of taxes and a portion of the profits. The
>concessions policy was always questionable. The opponents of foreign
>concessions asked why, after the expropriation of capitalists of the domestic
>Russian variety, capitalists of the British, German or American type should be
>invited to come into Russia to manage its natural wealth.

standard oil, founded by rockefeller, was all up in the russian oil fields in the 20s, and none other than fred koch, father of the koch brothers, was brought in to develop the equipment to exploit the fields. so by your reasoning, lenin was also an industrial capitalist, since this all happened on his watch. if lenin isn't "real communism" then what, pray tell, is?

>>20761941
>standard oil, founded by rockefeller, was all up in the russian oil fields in the 20s, and none other than fred koch, father of the koch brothers, was brought in to develop the equipment to exploit the fields. so by your reasoning, lenin was also an industrial capitalist
YES.
Lenin: "our State Capitalism" about the NEP. How many time do i have to repost this?
https://libcom.org/discussion/lenin-acknowledging-intentional-implementation-state-capitalism-ussr
>if lenin isn't "real communism" then what, pray tell, is?
Revolutionary Catalonia. Although it still wasn't yet real communism, since money wasn't completely abolished, but close to.

>>20761947
>your nation to be beholden to other nations and not its own people
Retard my "nation" is in the hand of the owners of the means of production. Major shareholders, in clear word. Black rock, to be even more perfectly clear.
I do not give a shit if the owners of the means of production are jewish, or goyim. If they are jewish, they are jew acting like jews. If they are goyim, they are goyim acting like jews, doing practical judaism: huckstering and money.

>>20761978
Good for you

>>20761964
>since money wasn't completely abolished, but close to.
but capitalism predates money as the first deployments of capital with interest to compensate the risk and opportunity cost of the lender are in ancient babylon

I will start believing communism when I find a highly capable, high iq, highly skilled, highly educated person or people advocate for it.
So far you only have literal 80 iq minwage subhumans advocating for it, people you CANT give any surgeries or bridge building or any serious work to do, and academia bourgie pseuds who basically contributed to society as much as the previously mentioned latte artists.

>>20761989
Usury was already done in ancient greece, ancient Rom. Even the templar in the 13th century were USURERS. No need to put the blame exclusively on the jews, and continue to practice usury. In any case, no need to be IQ 200 to understand that as long as there is money, there will be usury, even in it's disguised form, like the disguised usury of the middle age, or the current islamic finance, pure hypocritical, disguised usury.

>>20761964
so lenin took the oil fields from russian capitalists and gave them to american capitalists. and marxists can't seem figure out why no workers are interested in this shit.

>>20761576
Communism=/=Marxism

>>20761995
Incel you do not need ADVOCATES (your own word) to take your hand on youtube or twitter. You already have the work of Karl Marx. As for your advocates, they obviously are fueled by the psy-op to ternish class struggle and Capital abolition. But what can i do instead of wait. When retards believe in psy-ops, they believe.

>>20761467
I know what I’m talking about. Read Bakunin or something

>>20762008
Classical marxists do not give a shit about Lenin. We were the first to criticize him, way before you far right Capitalist. Read Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Jacque Ellul, Maximilien Rubel, Claude Michea, Charles Robin, Francis Cousin etc...

>>20762012
Yeah it does actually.

>>20762012
>Marxism
Marx himself unironically said that he was not a marxist.

>>20762003
i didn't say anything about jews, and whining about usury is from aristotle who had a very weak understanding of finance and was a pagan. read the parable of the talents, scumbag.

>>20761506
Trannies owe their heightened status to liberalism. I don’t know any sincere trans into materialist marxism. It runs counter to their faith in “transitioning”

What tepid trash music

>>20762036
Read acts of the apostles, chapter 4: "to each according to his needs".

>>20762027
No, it’s one fucking method. His idea for getting to communism is NOT the only way. I would actually argue his is a false way. I don’t see China turning communist any time in the next two hundred years

>>20762035
Meaning what? Lenin probably got a lot of steam from that line. If Marx where communist, he’d have sided with Bakunin and the others and their more comprehensive holistic approach.

>>20760771
Capitalism may have a lot of issues, but it literally can't be replaced. The cope about real socialism as never been tried is that, a cope. The USSR did try to get rid of capital, and it was such a gigantic failure that they had to go back to it, but with fixed prices as a compromise. But even then, without a proper feedback loop from a free market, they had no way of knowing how much each thing should cost, so they would just copy the prices from West Germany every few months. It goes beyond saying why this was an incredibly stupid system.

>>20762016
Marx wasnt very impressive and all of his predictions were wrong. He was born a bourgie, married into aristocracy, and still managed to waste all his money. Marx doesnt have one (1) day on the job. He lived as a beggar, his main source of income was begging Engels for cash.
Marx was unironically a hobo, who looked like a hobo, smelled like a hobo, and lived like a hobo despite being born to rich family and married into aristocracy. And all of his theories and predictions failed.

Seriously why cant I find ONE (1) well put together communist/marxist? Why are they all defective people? Why should I give my all to these types who cant figure out minwage jobs, let alone whole fucking society?

>>20762071
>to each according to his needs
well then i guess it's a good thing america has a safety net that provides healthcare (medicaid), food (SNAP/WIC) and housing (section 8) for those whose needs would otherwise be unmet. it truly is a shining city upon a hill.

>>20762088
marx is the ultimate failson

>>20762073
>If Marx where communist, he’d have sided with Bakunin
Bakunin is actually neo-proudhonist. Reforming wage labor, reforming money, reforming commodity.
Marx was the first to understand that to abolish Capital, once and for all, you have to ABOLISH all these things. Not reform them like a little cuck.

>>20762073
So.... It is.

>>20760802
> I don't understand why Christians are against communism.
Look up the Hill of Crosses in Lithuania.

Christianity would see worldly kings toppled, if it were possible. There are great arguments for it too, half of which come from Rome and Russia.

When I look at how Japanese people treat each other, and how they act, I'm deeply saddened by how we act in comparison.

>>20762079
>Capitalism may have a lot of issues, but it literally can't be replaced.

What about before capitalism? Humanity existed for the majority of it's history without capitalism. It obviously isn't the only way.

Also you can have a free market with socialism. It's called market-socialism. The workers control the means of production but worker controlled co-ops trade in a free market. You just remove the ownership class. Socialism does not require central planning.

>>20760802
I don't understand why Christians are against communism.

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

>>20762166
Well since neo-Proudhonist isn’t a thing he went with Anarcho-communist. There’s others of course.
But as you describe it, anarchists today are the real Marxists and the M-Lists are progressive liberals/soc-dems

>>20761948
the difference is that Lenin wasn't pretending it wasn't capitalist, and he was clear that it must be destroyed:
>profiteering, in its politico-economic sense, cannot be distinguished from “proper” trade. Freedom of trade is capitalism; capitalism is profiteering.
whereas the pseudo-socialist fascists will pretend that if they nationalize a few firms and replace jews taking 20% profit with blond hair people taking 15% profit, then this overcomes capitalism. and their plan ends there because they have 0 understanding of capitalism and of what constitutes overcoming it, because they don't need it, their only role being restoring control over the country to the bourgeois state by pacifying the workers, and then getting cucked by liberals and handing the state back to them
>>20762079
>The USSR did try to get rid of capital, and it was such a gigantic failure that they had to go back to it, but with fixed prices as a compromise.
that's complete nonsense. the USSR being able to get rid of capital was predicated on the revolution in the West, which didn't happen. rather than getting rid of capital, the USSR was trying to develop towards state capitalism and keep political power in the hands of the proletariat until the revolution succeeded in the West. but the proletariat lost its political power within a decade. Lenin:
>At present petty-bourgeois capitalism prevails in Russia, and it is one and the same road that leads from it to both large-scale state capitalism and to socialism
>>20762088
>Marx wasnt very impressive and all of his predictions were wrong.
name one
>Seriously why cant I find ONE (1) well put together communist/marxist?
Friedrich Engels
>>20762187
>Also you can have a free market with socialism. It's called market-socialism. The workers control the means of production but worker controlled co-ops trade in a free market.
that's just capitalism. what workers do with the means of production is still determined by the laws of capital there, not by the workers themselves.

>>20762187
like literally half the compensation in tech jobs is stock grants that vest over the period of your employment. everyone has 401k matches that are invested in broad index funds that track the growth of the economy. we workers already have this which is why we don't want your revolution.

>>20760774
Fpbp

>>20762207
>that's just capitalism. what workers do with the means of production is still determined by the laws of capital there, not by the workers themselves.

Your treating this as an epistemological problem. Relying on byzantine definitions of "capital" to avoid the real discussion. A system in which the means of production are controlled directly by the workers and the ownership/capitalist callas has been completely abolished are sufficiently socialist. It may not be a perfect platonic form of socialism, but it as close to socialism as modern systems of capitalist are to the form of capitalism.

>>20762231
Surely even at your most Jewish you can't possibly believe this?

A small number of rich people having stock options is not socialism. Your clothes are made by literal slaves and your food is made by people who are massively underpaid. All workers must control the means of production, not just a tiny percentage of rich workers in rich countries.

>>20762243
>fascist guy has now taken over defending communism from the original stalinist op
yeah i'm out

>>20761818
This. It isn't even an "ideology," it's just the normal state of any nation that isn't parasitized, poisoned, and dying.

>>20761944
I'll break bread with Nazbols.

>>20762259
>https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching
Eagleton isn't a Stalinist. He's nuanced and fairly moderate.

>>20760894
What a superficial assessment of the state of the world's economy. You truly believe Capitalism is a well functioning machine at this point? You don't see the problem inherent with exponential growth?

>>20762238
>Your treating this as an epistemological problem.
could you even explain what "epistemological" means? and, dare I ask, how that relates to what I said? using random smart sounding words as a smoke screen only makes you look retarded. did you learn that from vaush?
>Relying on byzantine definitions of "capital" to avoid the real discussion.
no, I'm relying on the correct understanding of what capital is, which you clearly lack
>A system in which the means of production are controlled directly by the workers and the ownership/capitalist callas has been completely abolished are sufficiently socialist.
but they aren't controlled by the workers. in your scenario they're controlled by capital, through the workers.
because the given band of workers will either employ capital in a way that maximizes its valorization, or they will get outcompeted on the market by another band of workers, who will be willing to employ it like that for future gain. as a results, the laws inherent to capital will be enforced, just like they're enforced when the owner is a single capitalist or when it's a joint-stock company. the mode of production will remain capitalist.
>It may not be a perfect platonic form of socialism
that's not the problem with it. the problem is that it's plainly capitalist, since the laws of capital are still in charge, rather than the associated workers. in that scenario the workers aren't even associated in the first place: they're divided into small bands that are in universal mutual competition with one another. to think that this is even close to any kind of socialism is laughable. but also sad.

>>20762305
>you don't see a problem with constant innovation and improvement?
no as a matter fact i do not.

>>20762238
>talking to the greentext spam guy
you know he does this constantly right
>>/lit/thread/S20714990#p20723777

nobody has ever had a fruitful conversation with him, also he's trans

Fact is
>Metacapitalists use Socialism/Communism because that's the meta.
>Socialists/Communists will say "it wasn't REAL Socialism/Communism" each and every time it fails, even if they kill all metacapitalists.

>>20762305
What even is this 'exponential growth' buzzword meme? Do you think that normal, skilled, functioning people with job security (aka most of the people, and all of the tax payers) are suddenly going to switch from telling you to get off their lawn to demanding change if you namedrop a random buzzword?

World economy is perfectly fine. No one with a real job is afraid of communist tier famine. Some people will have to switch from premium gucci latte to a generic or offbrand latte but I dont even drink coffee so I dont care.
Black single moms who remained unskilled in their 40s and have ebola and aids will struggle harder on their welfare/burger flip income but I am not one of those either so, again, I dont really care.

>>20762407
i honestly believe the true redpill is that technology is the defining factor in how modernity accelerated and liberalism/communism/fascism are just ideologies applied to technology. none of their premises ever actually come true because ideology is a fiction, marxism included. with religion there’s at least a transcendental element that is able to keep people believing despite the challenges of modernity, but since ideologies are based on material conditions they completely lose ground once technology becomes satisfactory. so really there wasn’t much of a difference between the US or Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany in their administration, it was ideology that caused conflict. all 3 are genocidal technocratic empires. socialists and liberals alike will be saying “that wasn’t true liberalism” or “that wasn’t true socialism” until the end of time because ideology doesn’t actually materialize in real life, the material conditions come first and then some dumbass marketers, writers, theorists and politicians invent an ideology to orient a population onto certain values using that technology

why is the cover designed like a shitty youtube video essay thumbnail

>>20760771
Please, lock yourself in North Korea and report back if you're enjoying communism.

>>20762433
>so really there wasn’t much of a difference between the US or Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany in their administration
true, they were all capitalist
>it was ideology that caused conflict
no, it was competing material interests. they were fighting for economic domination over the planet. ultimately this is just like competition of capitalist firms for the markets and the profits of the other firms. the internal many capitals of a successful nation can temporarily limit competition among themselves, as long as they have free reign abroad

>>20762457
North Korea is practicing juche

>>20762498
Juche is the ideology it projects externally for propagandistic purposes. The bedrock ideology is based on racialism that's even prevalent in South Korea. Koreans are pretty much the most racist people on the planet if you ever talk to one of them.

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

>>20762207
>the USSR being able to get rid of capital was predicated on the revolution in the West
What? How? Why? Even if the whole world were communist, you would still have the same problem of not having a proper feedback loop to know how much of each thing you should produce. I'm not even a libertarian, but Mises explains in very simple terms why abolishing capital and the free market simply can't work. Read his book on socialism.

>>20762577
>explains in very simple terms why abolishing capital and the free market simply can't work. Read his book on socialism.

>>20762016
>You already have the work of Karl Marx
Marx was a useless NEET. The most modern educated socialist/communist I've seen is Richard Wolff and everytime he talks to someone that isn't already in complete agreement with him he gets blown out. He's considered a complete retard among actual respected economists and one of the primary reasons that the University of Massachusetts Amherst is no longer respected.

>>20762593
the thing was he said in a talk that when he got tenure he made them put in his contract that he would be a marxist economist so they could never force him to liberal shit but that ironically made it so that after the soviet union collapsed and marxism looked like nothing but the failed state religion it was he had to keep going with it despite being an obvious dead end, talk about hoisted on your own petard.

>>20762577
I'm never going to read an *conomist. They are not even social scientists and much less literature. If you quoted one of them in a sociology class the professor would laugh at you.

>>20762577
>What? How? Why?
because Russia itself was made up of millions of tiny plots of land. this situation could be transcended either by the use of developed means of production available in the West or by decades of savage exploitation of the Russian proletariat
>Even if the whole world were communist, you would still have the same problem of not having a proper feedback loop to know how much of each thing you should produce.
why not?
>but Mises explains in very simple terms why abolishing capital and the free market simply can't work
why can't it work?
>Read his book on socialism.
I might if I see a person who has read it and has good arguments
>>20762593
Wolff advocates for capitalism and calls it socialism. do you think Bernie is a socialist too? how does one end up so naive?

>>20762191
>socialism
Not communism

>>20762712
>why can't it work?
Because in a free market there's a decentralized feedback loop in which demand has a direct correlation with offer. The more people buy something, the more money the seller has to invest and increase the offer to satisfy the demand. As I told you, the USSR actually tried to abolish capital so they could live the true communist dream, but it was a massive failure, because, just like Mises predicted in 1922, they couldn't find a way of deciding how much of each good should be produced. The fact that leftist retards genuinely believe that the reason communism has failed every time it has been tried is because humanity has been unlucky that all of those governments were not real communism is hilarious. They actually tried to be real communism and it failed in the very first step, and if people like you tried nowadays, you would fail in the exact same way.

>>20762337
>using random smart sounding words
you are wrong because i am unable to understand your argument

>the correct understanding
again this is what he told you before. at least try and look up what epistemology, the philosophy of science and metascience are

>>20760771
Communism is so retarded and unrealistic. Marx has some fine criticisms of capitalism but communism makes no sense. Just bring up the nature argument and watch commies seethe and start doing mental gymnastics.

>Marx's critiques of capitalism have some merit, but the supposed treatments for it are worse than the disease.
Anyone that can't agree with this basic point isn't worth your time.

>>20762779
>Because in a free market there's a decentralized feedback loop in which demand has a direct correlation with offer.
so what? how does that make abolishing it impossible?
>As I told you, the USSR actually tried to abolish capital so they could live the true communist dream
and I already told you that this is not true. the USSR tried to develop capital and succeeded, except the proletariat has lost political power in the meantime.
>just like Mises predicted in 1922, they couldn't find a way of deciding how much of each good should be produced
that's just not true. they had prices and profits, just like any other capitalist economy.
they weren't looking for anything else, since at the time of the dictatorship of the proletariat there was no question of having a socialist economy (the productive forces were too backwards); and after the dictatorship fell, Russia was no longer aiming at a socialist economy, so there was zero real impetus for looking to replace market determination with something else, except to keep up the socialist appearances (for which you didn't actually need to find anything else, just keep appearing as if you were looking for it).
have you actually read anything on the economic history of the USSR or did you just read Mises's "predictions" and assumed that it must've been what actually happened?
>The fact that leftist retards genuinely believe that the reason communism has failed every time it has been tried is because humanity has been unlucky that all of those governments were not real communism is hilarious.
it's not a matter of luck but of the relation of class forces, and of political decisions that can impact that relation
>>20762802
>you are wrong because i am unable to understand your argument
you are wrong because you can't present a single counter-argument
>again this is what he told you before. at least try and look up what epistemology, the philosophy of science and metascience are
someone who has an argument just states it. someone who doesn't hides behind telling people to google random words

>>20762921
agreed. Some people are so ideologically opposed that they just turn their brains off.

>>20760771
Creationism tier. It's just sad at this point.

>>20762921
I think "his" supposed treatments for it are worse than the disease.
Like, Teddy Roosevelt is one of the most important conservative presidents we've had, and even he was able to see the innate problems with this bullshit. Square new deal, trust busting, etc.

>>20762998
It's okay to be capitalist/exploitative. You just have to find a point where you stop squeezing before you break the goddamn workhorse.

>>20762952
just because you are unable to see the argument doesnt mean its not there. there is a reason people use those words because they contain everything that is meant so you dont always have to write out 5000 words. you wouldnt get confused if someone used the words communism or capitalistic right? because you know what they mean because you probably once read on them and taught yourself the concepts behind them. so stop being a little bitch about having to educate yourself in order to have normal discussions about those things you dont know about. maybe go read the pol sticky. it says right there for those who can and want to read.

>>20762415
>"most people think things are fine therefore things are fine"
this is the level of reasoning i should've expected from /lit/

>>20762952
>how does that make abolishing it impossible?
You're so fucking stupid. Have you ever picked an economy book? Please, enlighten us about how you would abolish capital and find a way to locate resources in a way that satisfy the needs of the people in real time?
>that's just not true. they had prices and profits, just like any other capitalist economy.
The soviet union didn't have a free market in any meaningful way, starting from the fact that they didn't have market prices. The Gosplan fixed the prices however it wanted, mostly by copying the prices of west germany, and money was more akin to coupons than to actual money. Since the point of the Gosplan was to avoid an economy for profit, the only way they had to gauge efficiency was as a ratio between predicted input and output, predictions that, in typical soviet fashion, were always wrong. Actual money only came back to the soviet union in the mid 50s when Khrushchev reintroduced material incentives. Before that, wages were based on the value of the labor instead of any kind of market, and therefor it didn't have any real relationship to the actual economy, just like prices. It was a whole system of just making up numbers and hoping they would fit by the end of the year.

If you're trolling to make communists look retarded, then you're succeeding, but what's the need? We all know they are retarded by now. But if you're serious, then you should just kill yourself. You're a waste of space.

>>20763181
>You're so fucking stupid. Have you ever picked an economy book? Please, enlighten us about how you would abolish capital and find a way to locate resources in a way that satisfy the needs of the people in real time?
weren't you supposed to tell me why that's impossible? are you going to do that or did you suddenly realize you actually can't and now you're derailing?
>The soviet union didn't have a free market in any meaningful way, starting from the fact that they didn't have market prices.
they did, you're factually incorrect
>The Gosplan fixed the prices however it wanted
no, the prices were determined by the law of value, just like in any other capitalist state
>Since the point of the Gosplan was to avoid an economy for profit
it wasn't. the point was to accumulate as much profit as possible and invest it into developing Russian industry to be able to compete with the first world
>Actual money only came back to the soviet union in the mid 50s when Khrushchev reintroduced material incentives
this is factually wrong. there was money all along
>Before that, wages were based on the value of the labor instead of any kind of market, and therefor it didn't have any real relationship to the actual economy, just like prices
lol what? the value of labour is based on the value of the means of subsistence of the worker, which has all the relationship to the actual economy.
>It was a whole system of just making up numbers and hoping they would fit by the end of the year.
the numbers were dictated by the market

>>20763052
can you explain how anything I said was incorrect or are you just going to keep spazzing?

>>20764404
>you supposed to tell me why that's impossible?
He pointed out that control economies lack the feedback loops naturally embedded within market economies. They're theoretically more efficient but due to the complexities of any market they become inefficient overtime and aren't scalable.
>they did
They had a "second economy" that they tried to suppress because it interferred with the control economy overseen by the governmental apparatus. It arrose due to necessity and the organic nature of free markets.
>law of value
Prices aren't determined this way; try reading something that has 150 years more data/insight than Marx had available.
>money
I think he's referring to capital investment which was state controled.
>the value of labour is based on the value of the means of subsistence of the worker
No. It's based on scarcity and that's one of the reasons the second economy arrose and the consumer sector in the Soviet Union was tiny.
>the numbers were dictated by the market
The market being distorted via a control economy necessarily entails "the numbers" aren't being dictated by that market.

>>20760894
>>Capitalism works for doctors and engineers. All skilled workers.
yes so the bourgeois, you know the ones who created capitalism keep saying capitalism is working and we should keep the bourgeois as the ruling.. I wonder why they keep saying that

>>20764427
>was incorrect
again. that you are still using words like correct or incorrect shows that you didnt understand the point in the first place. go read some books or go back to pol

>>20760771
LOL NEEDING A BOOK

did you never wake the fuck up and go outside?

>>20760894
bro you are fucked from ignorance

god bless

lets fucking help each othert

>>20762283
>This. It isn't even an "ideology," it's just the normal state of any nation that isn't parasitized, poisoned, and dying.
Idiot national socialist germany was financed by Wall street. You really are dumb to not know this. Knowledgeable people from every horizons know this.
>>20762192
I think you do not know the real Marx, because you haven't read him. The real Marx is way closer to anarcho-communism than to bolshevism. Proof: read his book civil war in france (1871), an apology about the Paris commune (1871), which was very anarcho-communist in it's principle.

>>20761798
See you at the Verso Loft, comrade

>>20761585
>i mean yes there is a lesser evil
You already lost, if the DNC has trapped you with this bullshit.

>>20764482
>they become inefficient overtime and aren't scalable
what's the measure of efficiency? beyond what point don't they scale? do you have any evidence of this?
>They had a "second economy"
yes, that proves my point too, but I wasn't talking about the black market. I was talking about the legal markets as well as the international trade.
>Prices aren't determined this way
they are, and this is only further proved when the USSR or some other capitalist state attempts price controls
>try reading something that has 150 years more data/insight than Marx had available
what data/insight was Marx missing and how did that make him wrong? how about you tell me that instead of hiding behind "read a book" like the other coward?
>I think he's referring to capital investment which was state controled.
it was controlled by profitability and to some extent by strategic concerns of the state. just like in a regular capitalist state.
>No. It's based on scarcity
no, scarcity of labour is based on the wage, not the wage on scarcity. the wage in the USSR was based on the value of was necessary for the worker and his family to subsist.
>The market being distorted via a control economy necessarily entails "the numbers" aren't being dictated by that market.
they are being dictated by the market, because the world market is stronger than a bunch of dudes trying to fix prices and it overcomes their will with ease. as a result, the are compelled to set prices according to the law of value. unless you think they could just set the price of potatoes to 0.0000001 roubles and solve hunger that way.
>>20764517
>loses an argument
>immediately stops believing in objective truth to cope
lmao
>>20764532
>The real Marx is way closer to anarcho-communism than to bolshevism. Proof: read his book civil war in france
you mean the book where Marx denounces the same opposition to the vanguard party that was later raised by various leftards against the bolsheviks?
>While the European governments thus testify, before Paris, to the international character of class rule, they cry down the International Working Men’s Association – the international counter-organization of labor against the cosmopolitan conspiracy of capital – as the head fountain of all these disasters. Thiers denounced it as the despot of labor, pretending to be its liberator....
>The police-tinged bourgeois mind naturally figures to itself the International Working Men’s Association as acting in the manner of a secret conspiracy, its central body ordering, from time to time, explosions in different countries. Our Association is, in fact, nothing but the international bond between the most advanced working men in the various countries of the civilized world. Wherever, in whatever shape, and under whatever conditions the class struggle obtains any consistency, it is but natural that members of our Association, should stand in the foreground.

>>20764532
>>20764669
also, if you're recommending a 1871 work, then why don't we continue chronologically? Marx in 1872:
>The nationalisation of land will work a complete change in the relations between labour and capital, and finally, do away with the capitalist form of production, whether industrial or rural. Then class distinctions and privileges will disappear together with the economical basis upon which they rest. To live on other people's labour will become a thing of the past. There will be no longer any government or state power, distinct from society itself! Agriculture, mining, manufacture, in one word, all branches of production, will gradually be organised in the most adequate manner. National centralisation of the means of production will become the national basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers, carrying on the social business on a common and rational plan.
very "anarcho-communist in its principle" indeed!

>>20760839
>(mom kept us out of schools)
kek

>>20764669
>objective truth
maybe go read some philosophy of science instead of talking shit

also im not the guy you were talking with. just wondering how someone that doesnt even know what epistemology is thinks he is even remotely able to have a discussion about marxism.

>>20764692
If the State is managed in a direct democracy mode, then yes, it is anarcho communist. Marx was, as written in civil war in france (1871), in favor of direct democracy, done by the workers to manage production and society as a whole.
When Marx talk about the State, he didn't have the soviet State in mind. More like a State controlled directly (with direct democracy), by the workers themselves. That is also the position of Rosa Luxemburg, when she criticize early bolshevism: absence of democracy, absence of freedom of speech, violent persecution of all opponents to the single soviet party.
Again i think you are mistaken if you conflate Marx with a proto-bolshevik.

>>20760839
>We need to approach them from the utopian angle I believe
we need to approach them from the flank

>>20764692
Here is a copy paste about Marx view on direct democracy and self management by the workers, which is, in my opinion, close to the essence of anarcho-communism:

In his first outline for The Civil War in France, Marx underscored its democratic character as follows: “The Commune—the reabsorption of the state power by society as its own living forces instead of as forces controlling and subduing it, by the popular masses themselves, forming their own forces instead of the organised force of their suppression—the political form of their social emancipation, instead of the artificial force appropriated by their oppressors (their own force opposed to and organised against them) of society wielded for their oppression by their enemies. This form was simple like all great things.”

The Commune abolished the “whole sham of state mysteries and state pretensions” and made public functions the activities of working people instead of “the hidden attributes of a trained caste.” Its tendency of development, Marx emphasised, was “a government of the people by the people.”
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/04/corr-a04.html#:~:text=In%20his%20first%20outline%20for%20The%20Civil%20War,society%20wielded%20for%20their%20oppression%20by%20their%20enemies.

It's pretty clear that Marx wasn't a proto-bolshevik in favor of a single party vanguard.

>>20761312
I don't see how this is making any coherent arguement to the contrary, or challenging any of Marx's ideas

Like the fundamental notion that would have to be disproved here is that the work performed by the Proletariat is their fundamental leverage that they can use for a chance at advancing their collective interest-that witholding labour in the form of strikes is a powerful and essential tool that will be essential for any huge political changes in their favour.

The alternative vision here is that Marx helped the bourgeosie by making the proletariat put ideological stock in work. But this makes no real sense, because the proletariat doesn't NEED ideological reasons to work. They work because the alternative is materially worse for them. They work for pay.

How is what this guy's saying just a better written and more elaborate version of what the r/antiwork mods think, that liberation is actually a matter of us all being collectively lazy enough.

>>20765160
are you implying there's no objective truth but being too much of a coward to say it openly?
and what is it I'm mistaken about due to my supposed ignorance of what epistemology is?
>>20765315
>If the State is managed in a direct democracy mode, then yes, it is anarcho communist.
national centralisation of the means of production is anarcho-communist? forceful suppression of members of possessing classes is "direct democracy mode"? you can pretend this is so, but we both know that you will go around advocating for the opposite things.
>Marx was, as written in civil war in france (1871), in favor of direct democracy
on which page does he say that?
>When Marx talk about the State, he didn't have the soviet State in mind. More like a State controlled directly (with direct democracy), by the workers themselves.
says who? do you think individual workers automatically support their class interest? do you think a worker who supports the petty bourgeoisie should have the same say as a worker who supports his own class, just because?
>That is also the position of Rosa Luxemburg
who care
>absence of democracy, absence of freedom of speech, violent persecution of all opponents to the single soviet party
are you arguing for freedom of speech and political freedom for the representatives of the possessing classes?
>Again i think you are mistaken if you conflate Marx with a proto-bolshevik.
then show me why that's mistaken. but by referring to Marx directly, not to your wishful thinking
>>20765346
did you even read the article you linked? the author cites Lenin to show that he was in line with what Marx wrote in The Civil War in France. lmao
>It's pretty clear that Marx wasn't a proto-bolshevik in favor of a single party vanguard.
he was in favour of it though. I already quoted from The Civil War in France:
>Our Association is, in fact, nothing but the international bond between the most advanced working men in the various countries of the civilized world. Wherever, in whatever shape, and under whatever conditions the class struggle obtains any consistency, it is but natural that members of our Association, should stand in the foreground.
it's natural that the members of the class party will stand in the foreground.
and why would the proletariat form separate, competing parties? the bourgeoisie splits into competing parties to reflect and play out the struggle of competing interests between different sections of capital and different possessing classes. the proletariat, however, has a single interest in the abolition of bourgeois society through its class dictatorship and the national centralization of the means of production.
Marx never talks about forming separate, competing working-class parties
>The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
there's zero material basis for this to form, because the interests are identical

>>20764692
All that matters is that the central problem with communism is that in theory it claims to dissolve states and government oppression but in practice is totally defined by state ownership and government worship. This contradiction will never be resolved and leftists will never even admit it exists, and so the majority of people will continue to not care about communism.

Whether Marx is right or not means little to me. If he is, then the entire goal of our lives should be to break the laws of history rather than defer to them, even if it is impossible.

>>20765506
it doesn't worship the state and government. it merely recognizes that state power must necessarily be wielded if the proletariat is to emancipate itself. I don't know what's the difficulty in comprehending this.
and the interest in communism is not determined by some illusory contradiction you thought up but by how developed the proletarian movement is at a given time.

>>20765498
>supposed ignorance
i dont have to suppose what you yourself have shown to be true. i doubt a discussion about the question of the existence of objective truth will be very fruitful with someone who has never even heard about one of the oldest concepts of philosophy. have a nice day

>>20765533
No Marxist has ever elaborated on how the state will abolish itself after years of maintaining totalitarian power. It’s a fucking stupid concept, a total fiction that only retards like you believe because it conveniently allows Marxist to perpetually insist that their ideology hasn’t been realized yet. If anything goes wrong or if communist states collapse then you get to say “oh well the proletariat just wasn’t developed enough” or “it wasn’t actually communism” forever.

>>20765567
>No Marxist has ever elaborated on how the state will abolish itself after years of maintaining totalitarian power.
(not him)
It always surprise me, again and again, that when we are in 2022 in totalitarian power (quarantines, health pass, forced vaccination campain, project of a "great reset"), you come back with your soviet bogeyman. And i'm opposed to bolsheviks. As seen in my previous posts. But i'm tired of hearing this argument again and again.

>>20765645
Where did I mention anything related to soviet bogeymen? My belief is that Marxism is simply an ideology and virtually every technocratic state in the world operates with the same tools of exploitation and domination. It’s a waste of time for communists to cling to their utopian fantasies just as it’s a waste of time for liberals to do the same

>>20765557
does all this pretence really help you cope with the fact that you can't refute a single thing I said? because I really doubt that. it's healthier to admit that maybe don't know some things and use that as motivation to learn about them, so that next time you can back your statements instead of having to retreat from them with that comedy routine
>>20765567
he has elaborated on it though. the state is only sustained by the existence of competing class interests within society. but by expropriating the owners and destroying the mercantile economy, the proletarian state dissolves those competing class interests, and also the proletariat as a class. with this the basis for the existence of the state is also removed, so the state itself dissolves too.
>If anything goes wrong or if communist states collapse then you get to say “oh well the proletariat just wasn’t developed enough” or “it wasn’t actually communism” forever.
no, the main lessons that communist draw from the 1917-1927 revolution are the errors committed by communists. after all, they need a guide to action, so that they don't repeat any proven mistakes when they find themselves with another opportunity. why would they give a shit about empty platitudes?
unless you expect them to take responsibility for what the representatives of other classes did, just to align with your personal misunderstanding of history. but this is not a very reasonable demand.

>>20760839
>This experiment has failed, we all admit. It’s time we reimagine how to get the results.
working great for me

>>20761508
How is this unfair? People who are ‘bigots’ seek the murder, destruction, etc. of minority groups - groups which are accepted as having rights and being human by the majority of the population. Are you really complaining that people who dehumanize and hate others are being hated?

>>20765689
Why should I care about how much fan fiction cope you write? Nothing you just mentioned has ever happened in reality. That’s the point. This supposed dialectical process of self-abolition is not real and you can’t prove it is.

>>20761508
>Empathy is entirely lost on them
Empathy is a buzzword that means nothing more than feeling with an agenda. Leftists like to invoke the term as a way of asserting that their political beliefs are just a natural extension of mental well-being, but any attempt to scrutinize this sense they have will show that just how limited, constructed, and politically motivated it is.
When someone invokes the concept of empathy, you can immediately dismiss them, for they have nothing of worth to say.

>>20760899
Is that why the half dozen largest economies in South America all have leftist leaders? dummy

>>20765847
>Why should I care about how much fan fiction cope you write?
it's the Marx's elaboration that you asked for yourself. you're free to not care, but be consistent about it
>Nothing you just mentioned has ever happened in reality. That’s the point.
the point is that the communist revolution lies in the future and not in the past? well then I consider myself owned
>This supposed dialectical process of self-abolition is not real and you can’t prove it is.
I already laid it out for you. which part do you reject?

>>20765753
You reap what you sow, tranny.

>>20765847
>Nothing you just mentioned has ever happened in reality.
(not him)
What is revolutionary Catalonia?

>>20766067
Not a tranny, not gay, just not white. Don’t really understand ‘people who want others dead’ persecution complexes

>>20760771
You and Marx forgot to account for human nature in your hypothetical economic utopia, next.

>>20760802
Having money and loving money are not synonymous. When Solomon asked God for wisdom instead of wealth, God gave him wealth too. Job was faithful to God during the harshest trials, and was blessed with both a great big family and--you guessed it--tremendous wealth.

Come back when you're not so Biblically-illiterate, retard.

>>20766192
Maybe if you were Jewish this would scan but the New Testament is much more explicit that it is next to impossible if not outright impossible for someone rich to go to heaven.

>>20764669
>what's the measure of efficiency?
If you can't answer that question you shouldn't be talking about economics.
>beyond what point don't they scale?
The way you phrased that question betrays your economic illiteracy and you need to look up "scalability" and understand how it relates to the operationalization of market constructs and general complexity.
>do you have any evidence of this?
It's common sense and a key point of differentiation between macro and micro economics. Basically, fewer (reactive) nodes of input and output equate to an (organically) complex/chaotic system failing to reach spontaneous emergence.
>yes, that proves my point too
It really doesn't. A black market arrising demonstrates that the command economy is failing to meet public need.
>legal markets as well as the international trade
You're conflating the organic nature of market forces with the idea that the Soviet Union had a free market system. This begs the question and allows you to cherry pick examples while ignoring the general character of the economy.
>they are
No, retard. Scarcity drives prices. Value isn't determined by a worker being able to meet his needs. This is why slavery has been an institution in almost every culture throughout all of human history (even today if you count the labor that produced the materials and put together the device you're using to post). Another example, I can find a hunk of gold laying on the ground and it's just as valuable as one that was mined. That piece of gold can be turned into a piece of jewelry worth price that depends on want for conspicuous consumption or distributed between various electronic goods--the key point is labor doesn't determine the decision and the way you present the idea of it's value can't be measured in terms of individual products (i.e. there isn't a hegemonic determiner of specified value that covers all bases)
>what data/insight was Marx missing
So no intellectual growth has happened in the last 140 years? To name just a few: statistical analysis, complexity theory, and over a century of economic constructs that have been developed over the course of the last century.
>how did that make him wrong?
It makes him ill informed when it comes to how markets function. He's in the same boat as Freud: a pioneer of concepts that are still philosophically and socially relevant today but with a glearing poverty of rigor due to the fact he's a ghost of history. Their general contributions are Herculean but certain specifics are antiquated.
>controlled by profitability
No. It was controlled by necessity during the initial industrialization process (which was radically successful but came at great human cost which was avoidable in certain cases). As far as your use of "profitability" see the response to "legal markets and international trade."

1/2

>>20764669
(re: >>20766512)
>scarcity of labour is based on the wage, not the wage on scarcity
This is just a flat denial of reality that begs at metaphyisical principle. If you can operationalize that mathematically you'll win a Nobel Prize--go for it.
>because the world market is stronger
Stop right there. You're moving between the idea of domestic economic forces and combined foreign economic forces without specifying the inputs that differentiate the two. It goes back to the point in the previous post about begging the question. I'll add now that you're (rather poorly) bootstrapping Marxism into an (armchair) read of modern global economies and doing so is exactly the reason Eagleton had to defend Marxism from the idea of economic determinism.

P.S. I'll add that you should look up "path dependancy" and meditate on how it relates to command economies. It might help alleviate your confusion regarding efficiency/scale.

>>20762207
>Friedrich Engels
He married the sister of his girlfriend after her death. Maybe it's my bourgeois morality, but I find it weird.

>>20766795
>bourgeois morality
That's a bourgeois move though. Look at Hunter Biden.

>>20766512
>If you can't answer that question you shouldn't be talking about economics.
>The way you phrased that question betrays your economic illiteracy and you need to look up "scalability"
do you understand how dodging straightforward questions like this reveals that you're full of shit?
>fewer (reactive) nodes of input and output equate to an (organically) complex/chaotic system failing to reach spontaneous emergence.
fewer than how many?
>A black market arrising demonstrates that the command economy is failing to meet public need.
a black market existing demonstrates that there is a market. also, a black market is present in every capitalist state
>You're conflating the organic nature of market forces with the idea that the Soviet Union had a free market system.
no, I never said it had "a free market system". I was saying it had markets and market prices, which had been denied by some anon unfamiliar with the basic historical facts.
>This begs the question and allows you to cherry pick examples while ignoring the general character of the economy.
I'm not ignoring it. the general character of the economy is what's in question, and I'm saying it was capitalist
>This is why slavery has been an institution in almost every culture throughout all of human history
what does slavery have to do with it?
>I can find a hunk of gold laying on the ground and it's just as valuable as one that was mined
true, and?
>labor doesn't determine the decision and the way you present the idea of it's value can't be measured in terms of individual products
so what? how is this supposed to relate what I said about the value of labor power?
>So no intellectual growth has happened in the last 140 years?
there was certainly progress in physics or biology. not so much in economics.
>It makes him ill informed when it comes to how markets function
what doesn't he know about how markets function?
>It was controlled by necessity during the initial industrialization process
necessity of accumulating capital in industry, aka profitability
>This is just a flat denial of reality that begs at metaphyisical principle.
nope. if you pay a higher wage, you'll have more candidates.
>You're moving between the idea of domestic economic forces and combined foreign economic forces without specifying the inputs that differentiate the two.
yeah, so what?
>begging the question
which question am I begging by stating the obvious fact that the USSR was part of the world market and produced for that market?
>I'll add now that you're (rather poorly) bootstrapping Marxism into an (armchair) read of modern global economies
that's great, but are you able to tell me what I said that was incorrect instead of just posturing to seem like you know the answer without providing any
>I'll add that you should look up "path dependancy" and meditate on how it relates to command economies.
you should look at your posts, see how you dodged practically every question and meditate on how that makes you look

>>20760802
>Christians are against communism
In case anyone actually cares, the reason is obvious. Viewing existence through a material dialectic necessarily precludes metaphysics.

>>20767056
Greentext more parts of his post and say "umm, ok?" to them, I think you've almost convinced him you just need to say "so what?" a few more times

>>20767069
You can be a communist without being a Marxist.

>>20767098
And you can call yourself a Christian while being anti-trinitarian. The better catch-all is "larper," though.

>>20767071
only if you tell him to keep responding with more unrelated claims and then refuse to elaborate how they're supposed to be relevant to what I said. then sure, I'll do exactly what you ask.
also I don't expect to convince him. he's clearly a very invested poseur with a large arsenal of vague buzzwords to throw at anyone asking for anything to back his claims, or even to state them concretely
or maybe you want to tell me what about two hunks of gold being of equal values contradicts what I said, what's wrong with talking about different parts of the market within the same post, or what important thing Marx didn't know about how markets function, etc. if you do, then feel free

>>20766192
This suddenly makes international financial pedo rings ok.

>>20760894
Sir, globalization and international capitalism is sliding into an oligarchical, totalitarian super state.

>>20767125
Just because Marx and Engels disastrously gambled the entire socialist movement on their autistic predictions about "revolution any day now!" being right, doesn't mean everybody else has to go down with that ship. Even the Bolshevists threw their bloated corpses overboard as soon as the actual conditions of revolution were in conflict with them. They were only carted back in through the back door and mummified by Stalin later.

Marxism as it currently exists has three forms:
>"Marxian" academics (bourgeois socdems who want to "organize" for another ten thousand years because they dislike capitalism but cannot conceive of even mild anti-bourgeois violence, i.e. of actual revolution of any kind)
>internet trannies who think Marx is a Hegelian
>internet trannies who want to autistically split hairs about the rate of profit, basically dissident armchair economists without jobs and respect

If you want to pin your workers' revolution to either or all of these, go ahead. They're all useless and in practice they actually prefer to work against praxis. See their negative, mocking reactions to the recent trucker actions for example, because truckers aren't "woke" enough, unlike lumpenprole CHAZ (which they all loved) and homeless druggie encampments (which they'll spend 100 hours writing apologetics for).

>>20767173
You can bemoan the need for pragmatism all you want, that's not my contention. When you claim something but reject a fundamental part of that object youre not talking about the same thing. That is why there's a difference between being a Hegelian and being influenced by Hegel, same can apply to Communism. Attempting to retain the label without the substance is pure sophistry.

>>20767189
But Marx didn't invent the term communism, is my point. He appropriated it from other movements. This was fine when he was trying to give those movements structure and thus tactical strength, but by the 1890s when it becomes rigid orthodoxy and fantasy LARP, and especially now that it's pure LARP for people who aren't even workers, it's a liability and not a strength.

Marx wanted to purge voluntarism and "utopianism" when they were liabilities, but now his "o-only have a revolution if we do it exactly correctly according to my theories which require ten thousand bourgeois professors to have church councils to deliberate over!!" is the liability. It would be better to go back to voluntarism and utopianism for inspiration, to remember when workers actually had balls and actually won victories without it being this all-or-nothing-so-might-as-well-do-nothing shit.

>>20767125
All I'm saying is that you don't need to be a materialist to support an economic system based around cooperation.

>>20767056
Anon, have you ever been diagnosed with any mental illness? Because I think your stupidity goes beyond just having low IQ.

>>20767206
please show how smart you are by naming one thing I'm wrong about. hard mode: don't dodge with "google it" when I then ask you to state in what way I'm wrong about it

>>20766173
Okay this is a bot post.

>>20767173
>>internet trannies who want to autistically split hairs about the rate of profit, basically dissident armchair economists without jobs and respect
Imagine being an economist on Goldman sachs payroll but somehow unprejudiced.

>>20760894
>Small business owners born to poor or working class parents are the majority of millionaires all over developed world.

What a profound, brazen lie.

>>20767056
You're really out of your depth. See below.
>>20767071
Kek:
>asking for a specific number of nodes it takes for spontaneous emergence to occur (what a retard)
>ignoring what the rise of the second economy in the Soviet Union says about the efficiency of the command economy while making it obvious he's totally ignorant of just how big it became (BLACK MARKETS IMMERGE IN THE WEST TOO!! kek); he probably doesn't even know "second economy" is a historical term
>conflating aspects of economic systems that naturally emerge (i.e. market forces) as if they're specifically due to (as well as a characteristic of) a specific system (which he conveniently labels "capitalism")
>add to that last one he thinks making an argument that markets existed in the Soviet Union proves some point (kek, markets exist in how you divide housework between roommates--wow, they existed in a superpower too?!)
>being filtered by the slavery and found fortune examples and how they relate to the nature of value
>being filtered by what the example of varying goods that use the same materials says about command efficiency (nevermind he didn't catch the difference between a luxury good and a utility good)
>claiming there hasn't been growth in understanding in the field of economics for the last 140 years (that one is truely headscratching; I even pointed out statistical analysis and complexity theory earlier)
>add to this begging the question that Marx therefore is in a position to know just as much about modern economics as someone now (I must have missed his papers on econometrics)
>misunderstanding the drive to industrialization in the early Soviet Union as being driven by profitability and not a radical shift fairly characterized as a return to previous social order (i.e. serfdom) in order to modernize
>not understanding the interplay between wage setting and available labor and assuming an unidirectional relationship (I guess sticky wages aren't a problem in the universe he lives in)
>not getting you can't pick and choose elements of macroeconomics as they relate to foreign trade and conflate them with domestic microeconomics as if one and not the other hollistically characterizes the flavor of decision making
>not understanding what "begging the question" means (he's done this generally but also within several specific elements including growth of intellectual knowledge not existing)
>asks me to tell him where he's incorrect when I met his response point for point and provided him with specific refutations, references to history, analogies, and terminology of which he is obviously unaware
>he ends by underscoring how filtered he is by saying I avoided his questions (I responded to him and he ignored or denied when necessary); the reality is he's too dumb to formulate meaningful questions (e.g. exact number for emergence) or relate what I've said to his worldview in terms of contradiction
In summation: he's retarded.

>>20767280
Ah the small business owner myth. On average,in the west, business with less than 10 salaries amount to less than 10% of the GDP. The small business owner being the foundation of the economy is a myth. Big companies amount to two-third of the total GDP. And small to medium the last third.

>>20767351
>asking for a specific number of nodes it takes for spontaneous emergence to occur
how do you know something doesn't have enough nodes if you don't know roughly how many nodes is enough?
>ignoring what the rise of the second economy in the Soviet Union says about the efficiency of the command economy
I didn't, I already expressed earlier that commanding a capitalist economy is impossible, since the prices are forced towards market prices despite the will of those who want to set them otherwise. and this happens also by means of the black market
>conflating aspects of economic systems that naturally emerge (i.e. market forces) as if they're specifically due to (as well as a characteristic of) a specific system
I haven't, which is evidenced by you failing to provide a single example of me doing that
>he thinks making an argument that markets existed in the Soviet Union proves some point
yes, it proves that that there were market prices, because price controls don't work
>being filtered by the slavery and found fortune examples and how they relate to the nature of value
>being filtered by what the example of varying goods that use the same materials says about command efficiency
I can't be filtered by some delusions that exists only in your head and are so vague that you can't even state them, having to hide behind snark
>nevermind he didn't catch the difference between a luxury good and a utility good
I understand what you mean. I'm just asking how it's supposed to be relevant to what I said
>claiming there hasn't been growth in understanding in the field of economics for the last 140 years
this is true, and your inability to provide a clear answer to a single question is illustrative of its regress
>add to this begging the question that Marx therefore is in a position to know just as much about modern economics as someone now
I haven't said that. he knew nothing about modern economics
>misunderstanding the drive to industrialization in the early Soviet Union as being driven by profitability and not a radical shift fairly characterized as a return to previous social order (i.e. serfdom) in order to modernize
"modernizing" in capitalism means accumulating capital, i.e. profit
>not understanding the interplay between wage setting and available labor and assuming an unidirectional relationship
I don't assume that. did you assume that when you said that the value of labour is based on scarcity?
>I guess sticky wages aren't a problem in the universe he lives in
how are sticky wages relevant? you're just desperately throwing random terms from your textbook at me to seem like you have an argument

>>20767351
>>20767656
>not getting you can't pick and choose elements of macroeconomics as they relate to foreign trade and conflate them with domestic microeconomics
surely you'll be able to tell me what the conflation was and what error it produced! surely!!
>not understanding what "begging the question" means
I do, my point is that you use the term like a harry potter spell. you think it serves as an argument by itself
>asks me to tell him where he's incorrect when I met his response point for point and provided him with specific refutations, references to history, analogies, and terminology of which he is obviously unaware
lmao that's very funny. all you did was dodge simple questions, talk about irrelevant things without indication of how they relate to what had been said earlier, and use fallacy names like harry potter spells. you haven't refuted a single thing
>I responded to him and he ignored or denied when necessary
quote one question I asked and then your response. I'm super curious
>the reality is he's too dumb to formulate meaningful questions (e.g. exact number for emergence)
I wasn't asking for the *exact* number. are you so desperate that you have to lie about things that are openly readable in the thread? who the fuck is teaching you this shit if you don't even understand that saying that something's to low for something to happen, you must also know how much is enough?
>or relate what I've said to his worldview in terms of contradiction
I can't relate to it something that's devoid of any real or relevant content because posted by someone who's all airs and misdirection. at last you've got me on something!

this greentext schizo is gonna ruin every marxist thread isn’t he

>>20767882
yes, I'm going to ruin every circlejerk (that I notice) where pseuds spout Marxism-related falsities that they overheard during recess, because they think nobody will challenge them. and then I'll laugh at all the inventive methods of weaseling out of providing the minimum amount of clarification or evidence.
but now I'm off, so you should be free to unleash your pseudery for about 12 hours at least, provided you manage to make the thread disappear before look at lit again. have fun

Workers of the world unite

>>20760802
evil lictcherally does not exist

>>20760907
>helping the poor and most vulnerable members in society out of the goodness of your heart is the exact same thing as government taking stuff out of your paycheck so assholes don't have to work, immigrants can send their children to prestigious schools, and trannies can get their dick inverted

>>20767159
VGH, the neofuedalist SOVL i've been waiting for

>>20767656
>enough nodes
Command economy. Simple as.
>commanding a capitalist economy
Command economy is a technical definition, retard. They're mutually exclusive constructs that define a generalized behaviour on a macroeconomic level.
>forced towards market price
Again, broadly conflating naturally existing forces as if they define the type of economy instead of their character being related to the nature of the economy being defined. You're out of your depth.
>black market
Second economy. You don't have the knowledge to understand how and why it developed and ended up growing to a massive scale despite efforts to suppress it. This is most easily understood in terms of failures in the Soviet Union's flavor of socialism. There's a lesson here but you're woefully unready to understand it.
>I haven't
You literally did it again above. In general, you lack the knowledge to understand key definitions and technical terms (let alone how to relate them to one another) and it leads to asinine comments that betray your lack of understanding (i.e. filtered).
>it proves that that there were market prices
Again, markets emerge naturally. The existence of "market prices" in the Soviet Union doesn't make it a market (or capitalist, I'm using these terms interchangeably for your sake) economy. Are you trying to argue "not real communism" or something?
>slavery
Universal institution throughout most of human history--value of the labor is obviously unrelated to the ability of the worker to meet his needs. It's a counterexample intentionally chosen because of it's relation to exploitation. You were too dumb to pick up the thread and discuss it in relation to Marxism. Found fortune was another example. The point is the law of value isn't hegemonic (although I'll accept that it's still a useful concept when properly applied with sufficient limitations). The example relating to multiple goods using the same material demonstrated the complex nature of value and was chosen because it juxtaposes nicely with the idea of command economies and their inability to naturally allocate materials for the sake of maximizing real value. It underscores that "value" is a nebulous term; that's why I chose a luxury good versus a utility good (think about the directionality of a command economy in regard to these).
>I can't be filtered
kek.
>there hasn't been growth in understanding in the field of economics for the last 140 years
>this is true
Retard.
>your inability to provide a clear answer
It's not my fault you're a mix of retarded/filtered and can't engage with criticism. I get Marx pseuds are dogmatic but you're just ignorant.
>I haven't said that. he knew nothing about modern economics
You literally just said there's been no growth in economic understanding for the past 140 years, retard.

>>20760918
>having nice things is inherently anti Christian
indeed

>>20760960
>no one needs law enforcement, military, and a finance class
do commies really?

>>20767882
He's self-isolating, just ignore him

>>20760802
>>20760771
>I don't understand why Christians are against communism
Because commies are against Christianity, because Christianity represents a moral authority outside of their own. Communism is totalitarian in nature and requires a total monopoly on political power and expression to survive. It is a system of morality, economics and social organization, and a determinist way of looking at history. It is fucking retarded and it doesn't fucking work. It cannot survive on it's ability to deliver what it promises and legitimize the rule of the one party state that way. So it has to repress and oppress it's population, or communism will die out. It cannot even allow workers to unionize, because then they represent competition to the party's political monopoly. All the Czechoslovak government had to do to get steam rolled by the tanks of their Warzaw Pact allies was ease up on the repression and censorship, because that was all it took to threaten the continued existance of communism in Czechoslovakia. That's why the CCP outlived the USSR, because they reformed their economy, but kept the repression. It's why people were gunned down or beaten to death multiple times I Eastern European countries when they protested against the price hike sausages, because that meant they were criticizing the government. That's not allowed in communist society.

It is exceptionally laughable whenever communists or socialists screech about bootlickers and police brutality, because their own ideology needs the jackboot to survive as much as any despotic dictator.

tl;dr: I'm not exaggerating at all when I say that studying Russian and Eastern European history just completely turned me against communism.

>>20767173
There's always this seething desire for violence among commies that is in itself merely an extension of the eternal peasant's frothing desire to enact bitter misery upon the people he is jealous of, the people he hates pointlessly for no real reason other than contrived justifications, or outright asinine things that do not justify violence. Intelligent people, even the midwits and psueds of Marxist academia, are generally wise enough to have some kind of empathy and are hesitant to use violence against their ideological enemies, both because they can identify the humanity in others and because they know what that kind of rampant, kneejerk violence against dissent and the other does to a person or movement over time. Beyond that, leftism in general seems infested with antisocials, sociopaths, screeching hysterics and weirdos that will proudly call for acts of violence against people for committing some vague sin that boils down to another manifestation of the peasant seething at the lord for not suffering as he does. Once you realise that modern socialists are just slave moralists acting out the passion of Christ the whole movement loses any mystique and is revealed as the predictable affair of envy that it is.

>>20767658
>>20768067
>"modernizing" in capitalism
The transition to industrialization in a command economy wasn't about the accumulation of capital, retard. You're generalizing terms and ignoring historical context.
>surely you'll be able to tell me what the conflation
You just did it again. You conflated industrialization under a command economy with the accumulation of capital while ignoring it's relation to the nature of the Soviet economy during it's historic/context dependant situation. I already pointed out where you did it before (i.e. conflating interactions on a global scale and the development of the second economy as sole determiners of the character of the Soviet economy).
>"begging the question"
Instead of addressing the specific examples of I gave in which you did so, you just dismiss the accusation. Begging the question about begging the question. Fuck you're dumb.
>dodge simple questions
No. You didn't formulate proper questions because you're out of your depth and when it's explained how these things relate you passively ignore them because you're filtered.
>talk about irrelevant things
Filtered.
>and use fallacy names like harry potter spells
I was specific and pointed out examples when your asked me to do so.
>quote one question I asked and then your response
You didn't understand the concept of complex emergence. Instead of understaning how this relates to the character of a command economy you assumed there's a set number of nodes that determine it and thought it was a gotcha to ask me to name a specific number (which clearly demonstrates you didn't understand the example let alone how it can be related to poverties within something like the Soviet economy). Instead of taking the time to understand you assumed I didn't answer your question because you're to ignorant to even know when you're being disingenuous.
>I wasn't asking for the *exact* number
You're ignorant of the concept and instead of engaging with it you ask a question that literally doesn't make sense. You confuse this with me avoiding the question instead of you lacking the knowledge that a command economy having less directive inputs than a market economy is basic common sense and spontaneous emergence conceptually explains why they become inefficient increasingly over time and have problems of scale.
>I can't relate to it something that's devoid of any real or relevant content
I've literally proven you were filtered. Pic-related.
>>20767882
He truly is retarded and an obvious reason Eagleton had to write his book. His presence lowers the level of conversation everyone else is able to have--his existence is an argument against communism.

>>20768203
>Don't resent my powerful aristocratic master morality just because my dad is a financial consultant and we summer in Martha's Vineyard
If it makes you feel any better, I'll applaud whoever rolls you and your tax dodging wine swilling culture destroying vacationer fat faggot of a father into a mass grave even if they read Bakunin or Marx and I read Pareto and Mosca

>>20768233
>replies with unhinged diatribe and a passive aggressive threat of violence he has neither the body nor the wits to enact
Classic. It's just weird but entirely predictable how leftism attracts the most repulsive social rejects, deadends and antisocial nutcases who come up with cartoons in their heads and wish death upon them. Why does wealth, influence, or prosperity upset you? Why do you feel threatened by rich people? Why does a rich person who acts in an "immoral" fashion by your standards merit a violent response?

Why don't we ever use all our manufacturing capacity?

>>20768272
Because I like a challenge and I don't like living in the crass valueless society you and your kind have created, so I'm taking you up on your offer to accept the will to power, and to be an active nihilist rather than a passive, reactive one. The values I choose to negate are those of trust fund faggots like you, and the value I posit is that enervating parasites like you should be removed at all costs, and that it's one of your parasitic tendencies to try to convince people that their healthy instincts to remove parasites are somehow pathological. That's why you're so dangerous, you are not only invasive, you displace healthy people and normalize unhealth.

>>20767973
You're such a faggot.

>>20768310
But your system of hating power, of hating wealth, of hating prosperity, opulence, peace, achievement, etc. is itself the driving force behind the devaluation you despise. You and your ilk of frothing peasants acting out the passion of Christ idolize a system that hates the very idea of value, and seeks to create a world wherein virtue is decided by how indifferent, nihilistic, and detached one is from the world. Your ideology is just petty contrarianism to this instinctual human desire to seek out what we need and grow, to fill our bellies and have some sense of progress, of moving up in the world. But this instinct has its inverse, the bitter desire to see others fail for the sin of their success, and we get dregs like you that worship a system of failure.

How on earth is the rich man the nihilist? He uses his wits, and his cunning, to amass all kinds of nice things for himself and his kin, and his labors will have a lasting, continuous impact on the world around him long after his death. What will the peasant have? His miserable life will sputter out of him in a shot, he will have not truly lived, only stared out at the world from baleful eyes. His works will crumble in a matter of moments and his kin will continue to live in abject austerity of both the material and spiritual kind for a long time thereafter, the only lasting effect of his miserable existence. The rich man will build the very world that the poor man irrationally hates, and will make decisions that will ripple throughout the ages until someday a new generation of peasants can sit at his personal computer and seethe at society for nonsense reasons. How can you come up with this fantasy of being a Nietzschean hero raging against nihilism when your entire moral philosophy is nihilism incarnate?

>>20760774
This. Econically illiterate retards love the Marx.

>>20760771
What right does a man have to the possessions of another? His need of it? Does that justify a starving man cannibalizing another? What occurs when two men have the same need? Who decides whose need is greater, and how? These are the questions communists will always ignore. Communism is built fundamentally upon the sacrifice of exceptional individuals to the state. It is barbarism unfit for the modern world.

>>20768203
>If you kill your enemies they win
I can't stand communists, but you're cucked beyond belief.

>>20768518
You are free to throw a big monkey temper tantrum and go to jail anon, but the reality is that violence while being a potent answer and catalyst for change, is not the only method of discourse. We have developed laws and moral standards that make life overall collectively better generally speaking, and we enforce those rules when some freakshow decides to chimp out for various petty reasons. Most people are not violent extremists and will be disgusted by rampant acts of barbarism carried out by unhinged people in the name of x ideology, and would prefer peaceful solutions. You are a civilized human being, after all, right anon? You can talk it out or solve your problems without having a fit right? If not you're likely low IQ, black or mentally ill.

>>20768402
What does this Ayn Rand shit have to do with what I said? I take back what I said about you and a mass grave, I think you're more likely to choke on your tongue or a crayon before then anyway.

>>20761508
>Another example, my father represents children in divorce cases and oth
Okay, this paragraph is when I knew you're full of shit. Really? Your daddy works at Nintendo and he sees the feds sneak in and then tell rumors about her being high so they can make cps take her kid away? Fuck off glowie.

>>20761340
Get down here in brasil and see what is true suffering. People started eating bone soup again because of the crisis. You first worlders are so acomodated, with all the opportunity in the world coming from theft. The only thing you left is that in 200 countries, 20 are rich and the rest is suffering in absolute poverty
>hur just install liberalism dude, get a degree, open a bussiness
Its hard to earn a good living in a country being leeched of by international capitalists. You would know if not privileged. I am not a full pledged comunist but i would like to see a revolution just to see you first worlders getting crucified and killed for everything you made everyone be submited for centuries

>>20768728
>brownskin is violent and jealous
pottery

>>20761428
You guys are so cruel, so insensitive with the pain of others. To justify putting other humans in pain you create dozens of excuses
>he suffers because he is a nigger/low iq/faggot/tranny/lazy. I have my degree and money in my international leech nanny state, everyone poor must have some personal defect that hindles them
You dont need to hide. Just be honesr say you hate people (and especiay people poorer then you)

>>20768728
based

>>20768738
Who colonized? Who genocided? Whites are so good but they are on a human killing/dominating spree for thousands of years. But i guess your killings are justified, it is the white mens burden to colonize others. Be honest: you hate non whites and non privileged, that is liberalism talking, no need to hide it, show to everyone and maybe someday the poor will realize it

>>20760894
People like you need to be shot. Your mindset is literally the closest thing to evil on this planet.
T. Construction worker

>>20768402
His will to power is that sense of destruction. He is decadent. What you said just KOed him nice job dude.
>Nietzsche did despise socialist retards like him (>>20768310) that proclaim "equality for all" and that "materialism = bad".

>>20760771
>I say that this book just completely turn me against capitalism
And into the arms of national socialism I hope.

>>20768936
You need bolsheviks to guide you away from responding to bait, comrade.

>>20768728
Your government lets those capitalists in.
YOU have to do something about it. YOUR body risking the bullets, not others.
Just like how there's a million threads on /pol/ saying they won't do shit because they're fucking terrified now that all they can do is hope we remain passive and afraid of losing our personal lives.
It's working too. There are so few heroes willing to change a government for the better that you could count them with your fingers.
There's no doubt countless "local heroes" and such, but a fireman saving a baby won't cure a country.

>>20768078
In the dreamed of world of communism, a place we can arrive at, no, we won’t.

Custom is strong and more pliably fair than law.
Local communities would have the braves ones for defense.
The native (filmic?) term “brave” is better than “warrior”. The former knows the damage done to the psyche for killing, the latter suffers it.
“Finance” pffff. Wealth is found within us. Stop worshiping money.

>>20765727
You’re not very observant or you have well off people tending to your bubble existence

>>20765316
We need a broad coalition. To appeal to the most.

>>20765039
A good move as it turned out. Look all of you! No critical thinking skills whatsoever

>>20764532
If Marx were closer to anarcho-communist, he would have sided with Bakunin and not split the First International

>>20769149
Nazis are capitalist saviors
Don’t be such a dumb cuck

You know what? Fuck it. I would be a willing part of communism to give it the old try as long as there are no more of (((them))), not even the last infant.

It really feels like all of this arguing is useless when we know every attempt will be sabotaged form the inside and out.
I haven't read a single book about communism but I'll throw in my hat anyway and say that you NEED trust for it to work. That's hard to do when people who hate you move into your country in order to kill you.

>>20768067
>Command economy
command economy what? can you speak in sentences?
>They're mutually exclusive constructs
if they are, then the USSR wasn't a command economy. they were trying to command with prices, but couldn't, because that doesn't work
>broadly conflating naturally existing forces as if they define the type of economy
which forces am I conflating? I was just stating a historical fact (see above). this was even admitted by Stalin himself in private:
>It is not true that we are commanding with the help of prices; we want to command, but cannot. In order to command with the help of prices, there must be huge reserves, an abundance of commodities. Only then can we dictate our prices.
of course he was still deluded that they'll be able to do it later

>You don't have the knowledge to understand how and why it developed and ended up growing to a massive scale despite efforts to suppress it
I do. it's because the government tried to steer a large market economy made up of a many tens of thousands of agricultural enterprises producing commodities to sell

>This is most easily understood in terms of failures in the Soviet Union's flavor of socialism.
there was no socialism. Lenin:
>Exchange is freedom of trade; it is capitalism. [he's talking specifically in the context of 20th century Russia, obviously]
instead, it was a state -- aiming to develop industrial capitalism -- trying to control a large agricultural market for its purposes (extracting agricultural surplus). and they didn't exactly fail, they've industrialized quickly. ultimately they were held back by the backwards nature of their agriculture that they couldn't touch too much because the regime relied primarily on the peasantry

>You literally did it again above.
and yet still no example
>it leads to asinine comments that betray your lack of understanding
if this was true, then it would be easy to point out how I'm wrong, which you're consistently unable to do, somehow. "wow you're so dumb, but I'm unable to tell you why" is not the dunk you think it is
>The existence of "market prices" in the Soviet Union doesn't make it a market
it means it had markets. which it did: proletarians were buying their means of subsistence with money on those markets, money they received as wages
>or capitalist, I'm using these terms interchangeably for your sake
it was developing into capitalism. besides the capitalist sector based on state and private enterprises that hired wage labour and sold their products on markets, there was also a large pre-capitalist individual subsistence agriculture.
>slavery - Universal institution throughout most of human history--value of the labor is obviously unrelated to the ability of the worker to meet his needs.
a slave doesn't sell his labour power like a wage worker. rather, he's sold as an object. it's a different social relation, so I don't see why bring it up
>The point is the law of value isn't hegemonic
and? how would that contradict what I said?

>>20770274
>>20768067
>It underscores that "value" is a nebulous term;
it's not a nebulous term. value is society's labour that must be spent to reproduce something
>Retard.
this is unironically closer to an argument than your usual dodges, harry potter spells or snark. but still not quite
>It's not my fault you're a mix of retarded/filtered and can't engage with criticism.
I have engaged where you provided criticism. and where you're dodging it, I'm doing my best to get you to provide it
>You literally just said there's been no growth in economic understanding for the past 140 years, retard
yes, modern economics doesn't constitute such growth. in fact it's a net regression in economic understandning
>>20768209
>The transition to industrialization in a command economy wasn't about the accumulation of capital
the transition in the USSR was. it was about extracting the maximum surplus value from the proletarians and putting it into "modern" fixed capital, which could then be used to produce machinery for the countryside, replace rural workers with them, turn rural workers into city proles, and extract even more surplus, putting it into more fixed capital. and so on. a cycle of capital accumulation.
>You conflated industrialization under a command economy with the accumulation of capital while ignoring it's relation to the nature of the Soviet economy during it's historic/context dependant situation
yeah but soviet industrialization *was* accumulation of capital. I don't see the supposed error in what I said
>Instead of addressing the specific examples of I gave in which you did so
an example of question begging has to include a statement of what question is being begged and an explanation of why it's being begged. otherwise you're doing it harry potter style, which is just empty posturing
>I was specific and pointed out examples when your asked me to do so
I asked here >>20767056 "which question am I begging by ..."
where is your specific answer with an example?
>You didn't formulate proper questions
lmao, you said that something is inefficient, I asked what's your metric for efficiency and you immediately sperged out and dodged the question. give me a break
every question that pushes you to concretize your vague statements is "improper" because it reveals that you aren't actually saying anything
>you assumed there's a set number of nodes that determine it
yes, if a quantity is too low, then it must be too low with respect to another quantity that's higher
>which clearly demonstrates you didn't understand the example let alone how it can be related to poverties within something like the Soviet economy
if you cared about anyone understanding it, you would've explained it
>you assumed I didn't answer your question
I observed that you didn't
>and spontaneous emergence conceptually explains why they become inefficient increasingly over time and have problems of scale
inefficient according to what metric? what problems of scale?
>>20768318
lmao stay mad

meh, i used to be a commie, maybe even quite a committed commie, the type that read both marx and lenin extensively
but what people call socialism and communism today doesn't really have anything to do with what marx and lenin wrote. anyone that denies that the ussr was communist shouldn't be taken seriously
at the end of the day, though, hegelianism is insanely retarded, so it was bound to be severely flawed even when marx tried to turn it on its head, which is where some of the most profoundly wrong ideas in marx all come from even when it should be obvious from his own conclusions in other pieces that what he's saying could not be true
in the end, dialectical materialism is just stupid, and probably the worst thing that ever happened to the socialist tradition if you want to envision it as a long legacy for people's freedom stretching back to ancient times

>>20769645
Nein. Commie and capitalist superpowers allied to defeat national socialism. It is because national socialism proved to be superior and those other leaders were threatened by the movement. National socialism did things like require businesses to consider the interests of their workers rather than just focus on profits. Communist movements have simply resulted in the wholesale slaughter of their own populations by people who claim to want to help them. National socialism, on the other hand, had massive popular support (because it worked so well for the people). so didn't need to do this.
Sometimes capitalists like to ask people to name a case where socialism has proven successful forgetting that the greatest economic comeback and miracle was produced to by national socialism. A pity people more don't study or get behind such a proven system.

>>20770689
Yeah just hid the fact that they allied because hitler attacked the soviet union. When the communist revolution and civil war started in both china and ussr they had to face imperialist forces to prevail. When the nazi "revolution" started... nobody cared. Fascism is just liberalism accelerated and the burghers in crisis trying to save themselves at any costs

>>20770419
Lenin:
>So long as exchange remains, it is ridiculous to talk of socialism.
>A society in which the class distinction between workers and peasants still exists is neither a communist society nor a socialist society.
>>20770689
>National socialism did things like require businesses to consider the interests of their workers rather than just focus on profits.
wow, so just like capitalist Germany under later governments. such socialism!
in reality, that's just a practice of the capitalist state to prevent independent worker organization:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitbestimmungsgesetz
>Mitbestimmungsgesetz 1976 or the Codetermination Act 1976 is a German law that requires companies of over 2000 employees to have half the supervisory board of directors as representatives of workers, and just under half the votes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Constitution_Act_1972
>All voting rights and work councils for labour were, however, abolished by Hitler in 1933 [??????], and replaced with Nazi controlled management bodies... After World War Two and the defeat of fascism, work councils were revived by collective agreements [wtf, Adenauer was even more of a based national socialist than Hitler?] promoted under Control Council Law No.22 in 1946. This enabled unions to create work councils with binding rights in management, as well as collectively bargain

"considering the interests of the workers" in capitalism is not the opposite of "just focusing on profits". exactly the contrary: needs of the workers are attended to only to the extent that this prevents them from independent class action that would hurt the capitalists' profits.
so it's still concentrating just on profits, and it's not in interests of the workers, but the opposite of it: it secures the conditions for their prolonged exploitation through small concessions rather than being a step towards their liberation from this exploitation.

>Communist movements have simply resulted in the wholesale slaughter of their own populations by people who claim to want to help them.
which slaughter?
>National socialism, on the other hand, had massive popular support (because it worked so well for the people). so didn't need to do this.
except when the Freikorps murdered militant workers to liquidate their independent class movement. in other words, the Nazis didn't have to do it, because an aligned paramilitary along with the German government cleared the field for them before they came to power.
>Sometimes capitalists like to ask people to name a case where socialism has proven successful forgetting that the greatest economic comeback and miracle was produced to by national socialism.
you mean national capitalism. what was socialist about it? I mean other than the name of the party

>>20760771
That book is shit though.
Eagleton is economically illiterate, as even I can tell.

>>20770922
The unions were all commie-fronts who weren't doing jack shit to help the working class so naturally they were banned. Not needed when you have a government that loves its people and implemented economic reforms that worked.
Later German governments, like pretty much all the other western liberal democracies, are all globohomo controlled. They don't give a shit about everyday Germans and have no interest in seeing them have real representation but are always eager to fake that they do.

>>20770922
>posting quotes out of context changes everything that lenin ever wrote
i see you graduated from the richard wolff school of socialism
good luck with that pal

>>20770274
Can't extrapolate command economy v. spontaneous emergence (even though it's been explained in previous posts).
>command economy what?
Repeatedly misuses technical terms instead of acknowledging the point being made
>the USSR wasn't a command economy. they were trying to command with prices
Asks for clarification when it's already been given instead of responding to criticism
>which forces am I conflating?
Claims knowledge despite the above
>I do
Makes broad claims with insufficient evidence
>there was no socialism [uses quote instead of economic data/argument]
Makes logical fallacies and asks for examples when they've already been given.
>and yet still no example
Again, pretends no example was given even after such has been done multiple times.
>if this was true, then it would be easy to point out how I'm wrong, which you're consistently unable to do
Ignores the clarification of terms in order to make the same shallow point repeatedly (doesn't understand the difference between universal tautologies; can't differentiate specific definitions which characterize an economy)
>it means it had markets. which it did...it was developing into capitalism
Ignores illustrative examples that expand on a specific point; acts like they don't apply by ignoring the context and makes an unrelated point instead.
>a slave doesn't sell his labour power like a wage worker...so I don't see why bring it up

I'm not going to bother with your second post (for the reasons above; you just do the same shit over and over). You're honestly one of the dumbest people I've ever encountered on 4chan. If you're being disingenuous on purpose, great work. If you actually think you're making points and winning a debate based on knowledge, the clear formulation of your ideas, and directly dressing down criticism, you're really fucking stupid.