/lit/ - Literature

>>5966127
Syndicalism?

Catholic corporatism?

Marxism and capitalism is the wrong dichotomy. You mean capitalist nor socialist. Fascists claim to be non capitalist but it is demonstrably false. There is no sliding scale of socialism vs capitalism, it is either one or the other. Sweden is not socialist. Also the above guy mentioned syndicalism which is a form of non-marxist libertarian socialism. Check it out its pretty dank.

Peace and Love.

>>5966181
People can't live off of peace and love.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics

general field of esoteric economics

>>5966176
>Fascists claim to be non capitalist but it is demonstrably false.

Hmm, I think fascism corporatism may operate very similar to capitalism but to call it actually capitalist is inaccurate, as there are indeed differences in the ideological fundamentals, resulting in a substantially distinct system. It's the same as calling fascism 'nationalist.'

pure anarchism I guess

>>5966600
Oh, you said "viable".

Though I don't think its impossible, maybe in some kind of futuristic utopia eventually it could work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

>>5966576
capitalism doesn't have many ideological fundamentals, unless by capitalism you actually mean fantasy capitalism from some libertarian fanfic book that doesn't resemble reality at all

>>5966685
Capitalism as in the private ownership of capital.

>>5966604
>futuristic utopia

That's communism, bub.

>>5966698
No, the future is fully automated fascism.

>>5966705
If you actually believe the future based on progress will be anything right wing you r autist

>>5966127
Yeah, mix it, give people leeway but keep a safety net under (people are clumsy).

(If you are living as a hunter-gatherer communism is the default setting. Not sharing may result in you being ostracized.)

>>5968812
There can be left wing fascism, just look at Nazi Germany.

>>5970971

Nazi Germany is the definition of centrist fascism.

I don't think you actually know what capitalism is, or that you have read a book by Marx.

A capitalist economy is not the same as a free-market economy. A centrally-planned economy is not the same as a communist economy.

Is it possible for an economy to be based on a common ownership of capital, as Marxists suggest, and free-markets? Hard, but yeah. A centrally-planned economy to be capitalist? Ya, also.

>>5966649
>distributism

mah nigga! look it up; unfortunately I don't have time to discourse tonight :(

>>5966127
Fascism.

>>5966127
>state controlled economy
>ever being as efficient as capitalism
go to bed, 1st worlder college liberal fucking shits

>>5971102
Leftism is the deprivation of individuality for an ideal; call that ideal 'state' and 'nation', you've got fascism; call that ideal 'the people' and 'common good', you've got socialism, communism, and all that stuff; call it 'God' and 'the King', you've got European monarchies; etc, etc.

Leftism is not that much of an affirmation of Christian values in a secular context as much as a refusal through personal and general weakness to accept individuality.

>>5974809
So libertarians are the only strong people? Rigggghhhhhhhtttttt

there is nothing inbetween capitalism and socialism, it's really just this or that. Marxist do not propose any economical policies within the reference frame of capitalism, thus there is no "marxist economy" that strives to better the conditions under which value is valorized. Marxist economics only describe the way capital works and why it's an absurd process and will push itself towards its own borders of abilites(hint: automation leading to less labour and thus less fresh value).
There are however different theories on the capitalist side of this dichotomy, such as corporatism, libertarianism and social democracy etc.

Fuedalism. Everything is owned by the King and only leased to you.

>>5974924
Libertarianism is a form of socialism, though.

>>5975830
So, like communism except with a king instead of a state.

>>5975838
Nah.

Communism = workers own the factories and all have an equal share, deciding things by vote.
Capitalism = whoever owns the most shares in the factory owns the factory and the workers work for him. People can buy shares in the factory and more shares = more votes in how the factory is run
Fuedalism = king owns the factory and always owns the factory and always will own the factory because he is the king. He grants a lease on the factory to a noble, to run it in his stead. Noble pays him rent, workers work for the king but the king told them to do what the noble tells them. The noble can't sell the factory or violate the lease or whatever.

Communism = no leader
Capitalism = whoever owns it
Feudalism = the King + whoever King rents it to

>>5975847
Fine, replace 'the state' with 'the will of the majority', though they are only vaguely different.

>>5975853
Still no. The King doesn't have to represent the will of the majority to be the King. He's the King. It's his right to own the factory and his right to tell the workers how to work, and fuck the majority. He's the King. He makes the rules.

It's nowhere near communism.

>>5975858
When did I claim that you bobo? You should like that I said communism is based on the will of the majority dictating what everyone must do. Like feudalism, communism is about bending to the will of others.

>>5975860
So what's your point? If you're not saying Feudalism is like Communism, what are you saying?

>>5975866
It is like feudalism, just replace the will of the king with the will of the majority.

>>5966127
Tributary with redistribution and Feudal systems seemed to work for a while. Ofcourse nowadays we've tasted capitalism, so I think it'll take some serious nuclear winters to erase the memories.

>>5975876
You're a special kind of fucking moron, aren't you?

>if you ignore the things that make them different, they aren't different!
Yes, that is indeed correct.

Capitalism is like communism. Just replace will of the boss with will of the majority.

>>5975889
Capitalism and communism are similar, they both force the individual to bend to the will of others.

>>5975896
And yet despite this they remain different enough for there to have been a Cold War over whether one was better than the other.

It's almost as if your absurd reductionism is absurd, and not at all reflective of the real-life implications of the supposedly-minute differences between this triumvirate.

>>5975902
The USSR wasn't a workers collective, though, it had a state.

>>5975910
So two even-more-similar-than-communism-and-capitalism regimes STILL had an ideological Cold War?

You're only shooting yourself in the foot even further, anon.

>>5975915
Was the Cold War truly ideological? Was it not just a territorial dispute, fired up by ideologist propaganda? It's rather silly to say that a continent torn apart by 5 years of total war, resulting in the two remaining super powers duking it out for 45 years is a battle of ''ideologies''

>>5975923
>Was the Cold War truly ideological?
Yes.

>>5975915
The cold war was really just a struggle for global power, ideology didn't really play that much of a part. If the USSR had been of any other ideology the US would have been against it in the same way.

>>5975933
If the USSR had been any other ideology it wouldn't have acted in the way it did, and the US wouldn't necessarily have been pitted against it the way it was.

The West wanted to get along with the USSR post-WW2. The USSR is the one who turned the world against it, and it did that because it was a Communist country.

>>5975926
An answer like that always testifies for a poor understanding.

>>5975957
>ask retarded question
>get low-level response

>>5975923
No. It was like the Peloponisian War, democratic parties all over were propped by Athens and staged coups, whereas aristocratic parties and oligarchies were propped up by Sparta and funded. And both sides proclaimed themselves as liberators. But really it wasn't about ideology, it was just about a struggle between two superpowers for hegemony.

>>5966127
hunter and gatherer life style

>>5975939
>If the USSR had been any other ideology it wouldn't have acted in the way it did
So countries founded with a Marxist ideology are expansionist war mongers with an oppressive, ruling upper class?

>>5975997
Sure, but that doesn't mean Marxist economies are identical to Feudal economies, does it?

>>5975999
We're talking about governance, though.

>>5976001
No, I was simply told that Communism and Feudalism are "similar".

Clearly they fucking aren't, not the least because one has a King telling the workers what to do. Apparently "will of the majority" and "will of a single person granted a divine right to rule" are the same thing though, so don't mind me.

>>5976006
They are similar. They are both systems of oppression.

>>5975962
>he genuinely believes a phenomenon as complex as the Cold War was purely ideological

I thought Slavoj was a meme, but ok.

>>5974809
>monarchism
>not for the common good

>>5974809
So the right doesn't exist

>>5976053
>purely ideological
I never said purely. The other anon is simply denying that it was ideological at all.

>>5975896

Capitalism doesn't force you to bend to the will of anyone.

>>5971102
>extreme Nationalist
>extreme focus on conservation of a pure culture
>extreme racial segregation and elmination
>all focused to make an ideal society that preserves a hierarchical state for people already in power.

Sounds pretty god damn right wing to me.

>>5976994

No, it just disguises coercion as choice. And not Capitalism per se but Capitalism plus human nature in 2015.

>>5977018
>Nationalism
>not left-wing
also, nazi economics were completely leftist

>>5977018
>implying you just didnt describe communist russia / china/ north korea

>>5977061
Why do you think extreme nationalism is left wing when nationalism serves existing power structures.

What do you mean by "Nazi economics"? Do you mean their fiscal policies?

Socialism is so obviously the right economic system. You can still get rich through self-motivation and ambition, you just have to do it without fucking over everyone around you. Everyone has the same aptitude from birth regarding access to education and employment, so it's even more nurturing towards innovation and advancement.

>>5977067
>Assuming communism is Stalinism and that stalinism is closer to communism than fascism is to stalinism.

>>5977067
Ever heard of oligarchic collectivism? You're aware that it isn't communism, right?

>>5977080

>>5977800
This, Communistfags are just mad that their idea only sounds good in theory but as the example here shows it doesn't work 100% of the time.

Grow the fuck up, you had your chance and you proved it just plain and simple does not work.

>>5966692
They're a fairly loose definition of capitalism. The term was coined by Marx to describe something arising out of mercantilism where owning the means of production as opposed to land ownership became the economic sweet spot. Before capitalism, cobblers, tailors, etc. owned their own shit, and means of production ownership separate from laborer was mostly confined to land.

>>5977800
Ahh yes, the "I'll just disregard what you said and most to actual branches of communism while linking Khmer Rouge in for good measure"-argument. It's a very relevant and a point-on objection to communistic forms of ownership.

Who /Revleft/ here?

>>5977825
>are video games bourgeois
>what do you think about party xy
>was russia socialist?
>stalin vs trotsky
>ebin anarchists being edgy
>muh feels threads
it's quite a fun place tbh

>>5974924
That is not what I said.

>people on /lit/ being unaware of what communism is
>there are still /pol/lacks on this board
fuck you moot it worked so well most of the time

>>5977825
You're a joke.

>>5977996
>people go on an Online Thai Ladyboy Emporium to 'debate'-- like bickering women might I add-- economics

>>5977996
Communism is a disease of the mind

>>5977018
If you think Nationalism and racial segregation are concepts which fall under the left-right dichotomy you're sorely mistaken.

>>5978050
>>5978050
>>5978070
nice try stormturd but you forgot that the USSR (a Marxist utopia) had :
>full LFGBTQPQUALMNOP rights
>full civil rights
>supported civil rights struggles all over the world (including the US)
>free education
>best educational facilities at the time
>cheap, plentiful food
>free entertainment for the working class
>free holidays for the working class
>free world class healthcare for the working class

>>5978110
When they relate to conservation and strengthening of of existing power structures they do.

>>5978159
So South-African apartheid was left-wing since it was aimed at overthrowing the power structures of the natives and institute political supremacy for the newcomers?

>>5978219
Please. That's the worst straw man I've ever heard. Apartheid was used by the establiment in South Africa for decades to preserve whites in their position of power. It was military opression by a colonial power that destroyed native customs, not an internal political force. Outside aggression is not the same as internal social structure.

But you know this, of course so I shouldn't really have to say it. At least make honest arguments.

>>5966167
more like fascism :^)

is this becoming a meme?

>>5974809
dead

>>5966127
Only socialism is viable.

>>5978219
>he's serious

>>5978131

Your definition of what constitutes left and right wing is so comically infantile.

>>5978321
"Natives" weren't even there at the time white people were founding the modern state of South Africa. Most black people swarmed into South Africa after it became a European dominated state in Africa.

Justifying Apartheid is objectively not right, but if you are going to bash it, do it out of knowing the historical context and background of it a little.

Now, if you said Rhodesia or Namibia or Togo or whatever, I would've agreed, but South Africa was for the most part empty land when Dutch and later English settlers and colonists arrived.

Gift economy is the way to go

>>5978457
Well, I'm not and african history major and what you said doesn't hurt my point so, good on you m8.