The Proles

[Anonymous No.13580716]

Just bought this and Das Kapital and waiting for them to be delivered, just wondering if Marx took into account (or foresaw shit like the internet and tv) the proletariat's appetite for distraction and inaction? Is it touched upon in the books?

I mean, how are the proles to supposed to have a revolution if they're busy watching Love Island or to disillusioned with the system to get up and vote (or protest)?

[Anonymous No.13580797]

Bump

[Anonymous No.13580943]

Marx touches on this in his theory of religion.

[Anonymous No.13580996]

>bought
very capitalist of you

[Anonymous No.13581022]

>>13580716
>to disillusioned with the system to get up and vote (or protest)?

I think you'll find that Marx's solution of "seizing the means of production" aren't really about voting or protesting (unless you count striking for certain elements).

[Anonymous No.13581330]

>>13580996
lmao

[Anonymous No.13581353]

>>13580716
Yes.
>>13581022
Also this.

[Anonymous No.13582188]

>>13580943
What does he say?

[Anonymous No.13583222]

>>13580996
They closed down the library and are in the process of replacing it with a starbucks/costa and some hipster pizza shop.

[Anonymous No.13583330]

>>13583222
Admittedly the Penguin Classics translations are superior but nonetheless this exists:
https://www.marxists.org/

[Anonymous No.13583815]

Where's this revolution Marx promised us?

[Anonymous No.13583851]

>>13582188
I think he's referencing the whole opiate of the masses thing.

But to answer OP's question, Marx lived in a time where the working class worked 12 hour shifts and lived in circumstances of mere subsistence. And the technologies of entertainment and distraction weren't nearly on the level they are today. Religion was more important, but it was the primary means to pacify the working class.

[Anonymous No.13583853]

>>13583851
10-16 hour shifts to be more accurate.

[Anonymous No.13583856]

>From the failed 1848 revolutions untill the 1860's Marx thought an industrial crisis would cause a revolution in France
The revolution and the crisis never occurred and Marx was subjected to ridicule by his peers.
>Marx thought the recession in 1857 would lead to a revolution
It never did.
>Engels thought a crisis would lead a revolution in England by 1886
A revolution never happened and the economy in Britian recovered by 1888.
>Marx thought Capitalism had the long run tendency to keep real wages at a subsistence level
In reality, real wages have gone up in the long run.
>Marx thought workers' plight would lead to Communism
In reality, modern day plight of workers has not led to a renewed interest in Communism.
>Marx thought Capitalism had the long-run tendency to decrease the rate of profit
In reality, the rate of profit has not decreased.

[Anonymous No.13583903]

>>13580716
Why are the proles the "good guys"?

[Anonymous No.13583918]

>https://twitter.com/Osama_BongLaden/status/1157866307578212352?s=19
https://twitter.com/Osama_BongLaden/status/1157866307578212352?s=19
>https://twitter.com/Osama_BongLaden/status/1157866307578212352?s=19
https://twitter.com/Osama_BongLaden/status/1157866307578212352?s=19

[Anonymous No.13583932]

>>13583918
>if only you knew how bad it really is

[Anonymous No.13584049]

>>13583856
>>Marx thought Capitalism had the long run tendency to keep real wages at a subsistence level
>In reality, real wages have gone up in the long run.
Marx (in his mature writings) didn't end up predicting wages wouldn't go up - only that they would stabilize in relation to overall economic growth.
>>Marx thought Capitalism had the long-run tendency to decrease the rate of profit
>In reality, the rate of profit has not decreased.
according to what data?

[Anonymous No.13584090]

>>13583851
So we're fucked is what you're saying?

[Anonymous No.13584194]

>>13580716
Marx could not have predicted or even understood what could come after the industrial revolution, or he would have tried. He was caught in his own thought bubble. If he were correct in his assumptions on human history, and indeed human nature, then his ideas when prosecuted would have lead to entirely different outcomes then what they did. In his time, with the knowledge he had of the world, his thinking and logic where sound (in the confines to what he believed he was observing), but his perception was based on his faulty assumptions, and that skewed everything. His lens was obscured, and neither he or Engels thought to test their ideas beyond their ideological boundaries.
There would be no need to expand markets of products or ideas in the utopia Marx envisioned, therefor there would have been no technological revolution, no collective need for it.

[Anonymous No.13584218]

>>13584049
hope this helps

[Anonymous No.13584241]

>>13584218
a) probably not useful to post a three year sample size. b) pretty sure these are nominal profits, not rate of profit.

[Anonymous No.13584264]

>>13580716
>just wondering if Marx took into account (or foresaw shit like the internet and tv) the proletariat's appetite for distraction and inaction? Is it touched upon in the books?

Marx didn't but the critical theory that arose from the Frankfurt school did. Replacing the church with mass media is basically their whole deal.

Ironically it seems increasingly apparent that the church was the only true entity that countered the immorality propagated by capitalism and once removed everything started getting much worse.

The eternal revolution can be basically summed as pic related

[Anonymous No.13584403]

>>13584264
You think religion will come back to strength? I see a lot of muslim girls with super-tight attire below their hijabs.

[Anonymous No.13584519]

>>13580716
Essentially no. He's claiming socialism becomes structurally necessitated at some point, a "revolution" is already logically inherent in capitalist development regardless of any reference to individual psychology. Capitalism as a social system simply isn't capable of perpetually reproducing itself as feudalism also wasn't.
He claims the peasantry and the middle class would disappear as proletarianization unfolds and you're left with stark divisions between just two classes. Obviously this is still going on in most of the world even today. Any peasantry has largly been eliminated in the first world but a middle class continues to exist. Of course you could argue today that "lumpenproletarianization" is more of a global phenomenon than proletarianization since Fordism was the last production method which required getting a bunch of low skilled workers who could aggressively bargain under one factory roof.
Try reading an American fin de siecle socialist like Thorstein Veblen. Marx never lived to fully analyze the process of corporate consolidation unfolding in the late 19th century and industries like advertising (let alone public relations) really emerge into themselves.

>>13584194
The manner in which most things unfolded wouldn't be super surprising to Marx I don't think until August 15, 1971 when Nixon got off the gold standard and American hegemony was consolidated instead of being extinguished. All global socio-political developments since would be progressively very confusing and force a rethink.

[Anonymous No.13584537]

>>13580716
Commodity fetishism and zizek's conception of ideology. Lacan's critique of desire. Nietzche's Last Man and Freud are all relevant as fuck.

[Anonymous No.13584559]

>>13580716
The Communist Manifesto is a propaganda text written by Marx in a few hours. It has no theoretical value, people refer to it only because it is possibly the easiest text in his ouvre.
In his actual theoretical works Marx gives no practical account on how and when to pursue revolution. He only gives an extensive critique of political economy (entirely contained in the Gründrisse and Das Kapital), nothing more.

[Anonymous No.13584690]

>>13584403
Traditional systems will only come back if there is a collapse. As it is right now technology has mitigated a lot of the material detriments of immoral behavior, but make it impossible for people to get contraceptives and abundant food and you'll suddenly see a bunch of people realize the need for chastity and acetism in general.

As much as we may counter the material concequences, there is something more that is corroded when removing religion from society. We are witnessing people with wealth and commodity beyond what a king would've had before being depressed and killing themselves at unprecedented rates, I doubt any kind of some can be made to counter this.

[Anonymous No.13584951]

>>13584690
Like REALLY tight man.

[Anonymous No.13585488]

>>13584519
Good point

[Anonymous No.13585695]

>>13580716
Yellow vest movement very recently did something very real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement

[Anonymous No.13585714]

>>13583856
Rate of profit did decreased you copy/past retard. A lot.

[Anonymous No.13585755]

revolution of the proles my ass.
the only way to achieve communism is to A C C E L E R A T E the fall of capitalism

[Anonymous No.13585758]

>>13585695
Theyre mostly reactionaries, absolutely not 'international communists'

[Anonymous No.13585768]

>>13580716
Garbage entertainment and "disillusionment" won't prevent the revolution from happening. People are not revolting because the conditions are not there yet. Coming up with some other sophisticated explanations for this is the domain of academic hacks--a total waste of time.

>>13584218
Fictitious capital.

[Anonymous No.13585775]

>>13585768
>People are not revolting because the conditions are not there yet.
I-it's gonna happen any day now! Doesnt matter that it shouldve happened a hundred years ago, it's g-gonna happen soon!

[Anonymous No.13585799]

>>13585775
>it shouldve happened a hundred years ago
It literally did though. It will be the 100th anniversary of the end of the Novemberrevolution next Sunday.

[Anonymous No.13585806]

>>13580716
Can someone explain to me why Marx cared about the proletariat? Why should I care about the proletariat?

[Anonymous No.13585812]

>>13585799
>A coup by disillusioned soldiers instead of workers in a feudal country with barely any proles
>which also degenerated into state capitalism in less than 10 years
great success story senpai, just like Marx predicted. Not.

[Anonymous No.13585817]

>>13585755
ahh just about the time Neoliberalism started rearing its ugly head.

[Anonymous No.13585823]

>>13585775
Anything that can't continue forever will inevitably stop. Current consumption and abundance can't continue forever.

[Anonymous No.13585838]

>>13585823
Sure, but there's no indication that this will end in a worker's uprising or in communism. Workers dont give a shit about communism (and never have, really) and even the left have given up on communism as a real political force. Idpol didn't evaporate as Marx predicted, but is still the dominant force and will likely always remain as such.

[Anonymous No.13585843]

>>13585806
you don't have to care about them to accept his theory of why they'll overthrow capitalism. it doesn't hinge on any ethical claims.

[Anonymous No.13585844]

>>13585823
It surely can, until resources start running out. In that case we would start fighting over the resources like the tribalistic chimps we are.

[Anonymous No.13585858]

>>13585838
>Workers dont give a shit about communism (and never have, really)
If that was the case, there would've been no socialistic revolutions in history.

[Anonymous No.13585869]

>>13585806
Because shitting on religion got old and the proletariat was a noticeable phenomena e.g. see early works:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

Really Engels got the scoop when his father sent him to England to oversee his factory and stop hanging out with the likes of Max Stirner. Engels introduced Marx to economics.

[Anonymous No.13585884]

>>13585806
Because he discovered that they're are the class that is going to emancipate humanity.
>From the relationship of estranged labor to private property it follows further that the emancipation of society from private property, etc., from servitude, is expressed in the political form of the emancipation of the workers; not that their emancipation alone is at stake, but because the emancipation of the workers contains universal human emancipation – and it contains this because the whole of human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and all relations of servitude are but modifications and consequences of this relation.

[Anonymous No.13585911]

>>13585758
The yellow vest are the people. They are not political left, nor political right. They are the working class. When the working class has difficulties to make end meets, the result is a revolt.

[Anonymous No.13585925]

>>13585858
Which is true, since the most successful 'socialist' revolution were just coups that were installed by armies, not proles. Even the Bolsheviks.

But what's perhaps more damning for communists is that the working class has no faith in it any more, and hasn't had any ever since the 60's, which was back when the commies actually believed in what they preached. But now they realized that was just a lie.

[Anonymous No.13585934]

>>13585884
>Because he made up that they're are the class that is going to emancipate humanity.

[Anonymous No.13585944]

>>13585911
Yeah, and it seems the working class wants pseudo-fascist nationalism and protectionism (about 40% voted for FN). If this is what the working class wants, then the future looks bleak for communism.

[Anonymous No.13585946]

>>13585925
The Bolsheviks were the proletarian class party.

[Anonymous No.13585949]

>>13585775
The commune of Paris (1871), the commune of Barcelona (1936), the commune of Budapest (1956), June 1968 in France. The yellow vest recently. I guess you don't care of the life and struggles of the working class. You only care of your little comfort in your little home/flat. You don't show any respect for the proletariat.

[Anonymous No.13585950]

>>13585925
>armies, not proles
*armies of proles

[Anonymous No.13585974]

>>13585946
>W-we're the proletarian vanguard, even though we're feudalist and there really isn't any proles, just peasants.
>Also i-ignore that almost all of the leading bolsheviks were of wealthy or intellectual background
>And also p-please ignore the fact that we relied entirely on Czarist defectors to do the millitary work for us, it was really the proles who did it!
Sure

>>13585950
Czarist defectors weren't proles, nor were people like Lenin or Trotsky who came from wealthy backgrounds. There were barely any proles in Russia at the time anyway.

[Anonymous No.13585976]

>>13585843
It seems that Marx's entire justification is moral though; that the hierarchy is wrong and needs to be abolished and replaced by one he thinks is correct. His grand narrative of material dialectic of class struggle is the central theme here. The issue of class struggle is an ethical one as it intrinsically considers the proletariat to be right, and the bourgeoisie to be in the wrong. If one were to make the opposite claim from the aristocrat or plutocrat's pespective, then would that be void of ethics as well and simply be cold materialist calculation?

Overall it seems to be an ethical claim masquerading as some sort of logical claim in order subversively undermine the status quo power structure by instigating the working class.
To a more contemporary extent, the whole Cold War can be considered an ethical battle of ideologies with both sides shitting on the morality of their respective systems.

[Anonymous No.13585982]

>>13585949
>mfw all these communes/riots lasted 1 year tops before fizzling out
>this is somehow a potent argument for communism, even though we havent had a major riot in 50 fucking years and the Yellow Vests are reactionary as hell.
As i said before, if the Yellow Vests are an indicator of where the working class is going, then we're heading straight to fascism, not communism.

[Anonymous No.13586002]

>>13585944
Most didn't even vote i think. And they are right to do so.

They don't want leadership. They are way more anarchist than fascists.

[Anonymous No.13586014]

>>13585976
whether or not he had an ethical motivation for developing his theory of why capitalism should break down is irrelevant (I'd agree with you he almost definitely did). my point is just that the soundness of the theory itself is determined entirely irrespective of any of Marx's moral positions.

[Anonymous No.13586017]

>>13585974
Based comment. For what i understand, Russia was closer to feudalism than Capitalism in october 1918. The Bolshevik revolution seems to have accelerated Capitalism, not abolish it.

[Anonymous No.13586026]

>>13585976
>that the hierarchy is wrong and needs to be abolished and replaced by one he thinks is correct.
I haven't finished to read all Marx, but i'm pretty sure he didn't want a new hierarchy, but he wanted to abolish class based society instead.

[Anonymous No.13586034]

>>13585974
>Czarist defectors weren't proles, nor were people like Lenin or Trotsky who came from wealthy backgrounds.
Tsarist defectors came later due to snowball effect. Neither were Lenin and Trotski particulary wealthy, they came from wealthy families that could afford their education but they lost that wealth after they went illegal.

>There were barely any proles in Russia at the time anyway.
There was enough of them to storm zimniy dvorets.

[Anonymous No.13586044]

>>13585982
>As i said before, if the Yellow Vests are an indicator of where the working class is going, then we're heading straight to fascism, not communism.

Stop with this bullshit. I'm pretty sure you are wrong. Yellow vest didn't want any leadership. Fascism is hierarchy and leadership in it's very essence. Every time someone wanted to lead the yellow vest movement, the yellow vest themselves rejected him.

[Anonymous No.13586057]

>>13585858
Yeah it's not like most socialist revolutions were bankrolled by enemies of the states they occurred in or anything.

[Anonymous No.13586059]

>>13586002
>36% voted for Front National
>Yeah bro theyre totally anarchists though, trust me.
Christ, are you willfully blinding yourself to the ugly reality that the working class is reactionary as fuck? The online alt-right also has no leader, but does that mean they're not fascist or at least proto-fascist?

[Anonymous No.13586065]

>>13585974
>there really isn't any proles
Read a book.
>Also i-ignore that almost all of the leading bolsheviks were of wealthy or intellectual background
Engels was both, Marx was poor but he had a PhD.
>p-please ignore the fact that we relied entirely on Czarist defectors to do the millitary work for us
So what?
>it was really the proles who did it!
It doesn't have to be just the proles who do it. How did you even come up with this retarded requirement? What matters is your outlook and the program you're realizing, not your personal background. Am I responding to an idpol parody post?

>>13585976
>It seems that Marx's entire justification is moral though; that the hierarchy is wrong and needs to be abolished and replaced by one he thinks is correct.
It seems based on what? Can you give some quotes?

[Anonymous No.13586076]

>>13586057
Money itself doesn't fight.

[Anonymous No.13586084]

>>13586065
>Engels was both, Marx was poor but he had a PhD.
M&E weren't bolsheviks.

[Anonymous No.13586088]

>>13585944
>If this is what the working class wants, then the future looks bleak for communism.
Most of the working class are thick. I should know since I still wage-slave. This "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" thing seems to have crossed over to the UK.

What's the point of trying to improve the life of your fellow wage-slaves if they're too thick to understand?

[Anonymous No.13586095]

>>13586059
They didn't voted front national because they believe in fascism, but because they want to say "fuck you" to the system. That's not the same thing. Also, 36% in not the majority. How many abstained from voting? They are not reactionary, they just understand that the current system wants more mass immigration, more outsourcing, and reduce wages. How can they be reactionary if they are literally doing class struggle?

[Anonymous No.13586097]

>>13586076
Yeah I bet all the CIA-backed regime changes are actually the will of the people too.

[Anonymous No.13586099]

>>13586065
>Proles in a feudal country
t. has never read Max
>Engels was both, Marx was poor but he had a PhD.
Yeah, which only further reinforces my point that proles have no place in communism. Also kind of hard to be the "proletarian vanguard" when this vanguard has almost no proles in it.
>So what?
Who needs proles in a proletariat revolution? What does it matter that the single most successful 'revolution' was just a coup driven and paid for by ideologues? Like i said, who needs proles?
>It doesn't have to be just the proles who do it. How did you even come up with this retarded requirement? What matters is your outlook and the program you're realizing, not your personal background. Am I responding to an idpol parody post?
Because it undermines the entire point of Marxism that workers will eventually rise up and emancipate humanity, when thus far the workers have done jack shit and dont give a fuck about all that, only a bunch of ideologues on the fringes of society who are driven by ideology, not material interests. The fact that all proletarian uprisings weren't proletarian at all completely undermines all Marx' predicitons.

[Anonymous No.13586108]

>>13586088
>Ugggh if only those dumb fucking proles could have a smart leader like me to lead them. Dumb working class filth, why aren't they self-emancipating along the lines i want them to?
>HOLY SHIT AND NOW THEY'RE PATRIOTIC AS WELL. AND THEY SOMEHOW HAVE ETHNIC PRIDE, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THEM? WHAT ABOUT YOUR MATERIAL INTERESTS? WHAT ABOUT MY REVOLUTION?

[Anonymous No.13586114]

>>13586088
>what are anti-trust regulations
Grade A dumbass, go peddle your progressive tax policies elsewhere tyvm :3

[Anonymous No.13586116]

>>13586095
On the contrary, how can the left claim to be doing class struggle when they support increased immigration and bourgeoisie libertinism, actively making the lives of the working class worse?

[Anonymous No.13586119]

>>13586097
Sometimes they are, sometimes the coups use assasins and merceneries. Russians and Chinese revolutions were fought by mass of people so large it couldn't have been bought.

[Anonymous No.13586132]

>>13584090
All it takes is a crisis a bit worse than 2008 together with a famine and we will have communists and fascists killing each other in the streets.

[Anonymous No.13586134]

>>13586108
>NOW THEY'RE PATRIOTIC AS WELL. AND THEY SOMEHOW HAVE ETHNIC PRIDE

How is being ok with giant foreign corporations not paying their share of tax the same as being patriotic?

[Anonymous No.13586142]

>>13586116
First, the yellow vest movement is not the left. It is the working class. The proletariat. People who earn 1200 Euros a months, and have difficulties to make end meets.
The current political "left", is not Marx's left. The current "left", represented by political parties, is the "left" of the Capital. I don't know a single political party in western Europa who wants to abolish wage labor and exchange value.

[Anonymous No.13586145]

>>13586134
If you think that's the only form of national pride the working class has, then it's no surprise the modern left has completely lost touch with them.

[Anonymous No.13586153]

>>13584403

[Anonymous No.13586158]

>>13586132
Let's be real, mostly fascists killing communists. The modern commies are a fucking joke. Did you see the DSA meeting?

[Anonymous No.13586160]

>>13586084
M&E were communists and they were of wealthy or intellectual background, therefore there's no reason why wealthy or intellectual background would prevent the leading Bolsheviks from being communists.
Good job baiting me into typing this out.

>>13586099
>Proles in a feudal country
>t. has never read Max
You should put the parts where it's very obvious that you're clueless/retarded at the end of your post, because that's where I stop reading (responding to all the dishonest garbage started taking up too much of my time lately).

>>13586116
>how can the left claim to be doing class struggle when they [are not]
because they're retards. who cares anway

[Anonymous No.13586166]

>>13586145
The left never had any touch with the working class whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.13586169]

>>13586158
>dsa
>commies

[Anonymous No.13586175]

>>13586166
>the left

What does that even mean?

[Anonymous No.13586182]

>>13586169
They're the largest far left organization in the USA. If you have to rely on even more fringe commie groups then you're even more fucked because the far right is massively more armed and has far more numbers.

[Anonymous No.13586186]

>>13586175
Not him, but the left doesn't mean shit. It's the left of the Capital. and the right, like fascism, is the right of the Capital.
Same oppressive system based on wage labor, hierarchy, private property of the means of production, delegation of power, money, exchange value, a State.

[Anonymous No.13586196]

>>13586099
>Also kind of hard to be the "proletarian vanguard" when this vanguard has almost no proles in it.
Stalin? Khruschev? Kalinin? Rudzutaks? Rykov? Andreyev? Petrovsky? Beloborodov? Ordzhonikidze? Kirov? Molotov? Voroshilov? Chubar? Shliapnikov? Manuilsky? 2xKaganovich ? Mikoyan? Kosior?

[Anonymous No.13586212]

>>13586088
Yes, as a factory worker I agree. We are too stupid to see how it is in our interest to constantly import third worlders to keep our wages down and to fight for the people who tells us we straight white men are the epitome of evil.

[Anonymous No.13586214]

>>13586186
>Left and right are both the same, according to my horribly skewed far left interpretation of politics
It's always funny to see Marxists pretend theyre somehow not leftists but rather have a 'scientific' materialist analysis that's totally devoid of ideology.

[Anonymous No.13586215]

>>13586166
>just don't look at the leftist revolutions around the world, goyim. What do you mean there are countries outside of America?

>Yes that's right, vote for us, goy, we hate minorities and women too, tee hee, and we champion your values! Look over there! Gillette is attacking men!
>*quietly cuts taxes and lowers wages while the backs are turned*
>and look over there! War on Christmas!
>*starts a few more wars and bails out Wall Street*
>and, my god, the left has gone crazy, they're calling you a sexist for wanting a traditional family. Look!
>*a few more regime changes, a few more tax cuts, sweatshops, and co2 emissions*
>that's great! Vote for us again next time! We're the party of men, Christianity, whiteness, and traditionalism. Don't bother about the issues.

[Anonymous No.13586222]

>>13586215
>the leftist revolutions around the world
Such as?
Also you should really stop to appropriate /pol/ lingo, it's embarrassing. I know the left wants to be a bit more edgy because they're losing that battle to the right, but this isnt the right angle to take.

[Anonymous No.13586224]

>>13586166
The why the fuck does the working class vote for them?

[Anonymous No.13586243]

>>13586212
>We are too stupid to see how it is in our interest to constantly import third worlders to keep our wages down and to fight for the people who tells us we straight white men are the epitome of evil.
Don't confuse me for neoliberal faggots. I'm FOR Brexit. (Corbyn also doesn't like the EU which would explain his half-arsed remain campaign.)

[Anonymous No.13586253]

>>13586224
They don't.
Upper middle class votes left.
Working class votes social democrats if they vote left.

[Anonymous No.13586268]

>>13586182
Numbers don't magically make non-communists communist. The Italian "Communist" Party got 12.6 million votes (34.4%) in 1976, and they didn't do shit. They would've done as much even if they had gotten 100% of the votes, because they were not communists. Same with the DSA.
>It is certain that as long as the contradictions and internal conflicts of capitalist society, from which the revolutionary tendencies originate, are only in their first stage in development, as long as the revolution appears to be far away, then we must expect this situation: the class party, the communist party, will necessarily be composed of small vanguard groups who have a special capacity to understand the historical perspective, and that section of the masses who will understand and follow it cannot be very large. However, when the revolutionary crisis becomes imminent, when the bourgeois relations of production become more and more intolerable, the party will see an increase in its ranks and in the extent of its following within the proletariat.

[Anonymous No.13586269]

>>13586253
>They don't.
Substantiate your claims.
>Working class votes social democrats
Wow, you mean the representatives of socialism in western world?

[Anonymous No.13586270]

>>13586224
In many areas, they dont. Though i disagree with the other anon that many actually did once connect with the working class, but that this connection has been lost and now most just vote for them out of habit or stopped voting for them. Labour became a neoliberal party, so they voted for the socialists. The socialists lost their purpose after communism collapsed or didnt address ethnic concern, so they voted for the far right instead.

[Anonymous No.13586273]

>>13586268
In that case the american far left is completely and totally fucked if it ever has to face Weimar-esque paramillitary fighting.

[Anonymous No.13586284]

>>13586269
>social democrats are representatives of socialism in the west

[Anonymous No.13586297]

>>13586273
No, it would be fucked if it had to face it now. But it will only have to face it when the class struggle gets to a certain point. And that certain point happens to also be a point at which the real class movement is already strong and all the leftist retards like the DSA have long been allied with liberals in some "anti-fascist" front or whatever.

[Anonymous No.13586298]

>>13586214
The ideology you are talking about is the ideology of the Capital. Politcal economy is about managing the wage labor based mode of production. Anarcho-communism is not about managing this shit mode of production. This mode of production is based on wage slavery. It is a class based society.
You political economists alt right can fight with the political economists liberals for the control of the Capitalistic mode of production.

In a SS uniform, or in an LGBT rainbow outfit, you are still wage workers. You still have to wake up at 6:30 AM to go to work for Henri Ford or Shekelstein.

We, anarcho-communist, are not interested in this. We don't want to manage this shit mode of production. We want to abolish it.

[Anonymous No.13586302]

>>13586269
>Wow, you mean the representatives of socialism in western world?
What are you talking about? Are you confused by the word social? Do you believe so national socialism is close to communism?

Social democrats are for a market economy, usually the main difference from America capitalism is free or state sponsored education and health care.

[Anonymous No.13586315]

>>13586302
>Social democrats are for a market economy
They are IN market economy and they want a turn to the left. Socdem is part of the labour movement, how do you think was called the mother-party of bolsheviks and mensheviks?

[Anonymous No.13586318]

>>13586315
"social democracy" means a very different thing now than it did in the early 19th century

[Anonymous No.13586321]

>>13586088

>one guy owns everything so everyone else is poor

Who still unironically believes in zero sum economies

I mean really

Theres plenty to criticize about capitalism, and yes the fact that an increasingly huge percentage of wealth gets concentrated in closed circles of financial institutions and high net worth individuals is one of those things, but to act like this happens at the net expense of the 99% just shows what an economically illiterate person wrote that comic.

[Anonymous No.13586335]

>>13586298

Oh good i love the idea of living in a pre industrial shithole and dying of measles or polio at 40 because no one is managing a high tech research laboratory and instead we all fucked off to hippie communes and drum circles

[Anonymous No.13586336]

>>13586318
When do you think Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands was founded? In 19th century. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs? 19th century. Sveriges socialdemokratiska arbetareparti? 19th century. Česká strana sociálně demokratická? 19th century.

[Anonymous No.13586356]

>>13586315
You are delusional, either you think words speak louder than action or you are a postmodernist and think repeating ideas effect reality directly.

Social democracies have generally implemented more and more liberal market changes the last 50 years.
In Scandinavia, the holy grail of social democracies, the state has gradually sold their assets and deregulated former state monopolies. Now there is nothing left, except for hospitals, also state liqueur stores in all of them except Denmark.

[Anonymous No.13586371]

>>13586335
No we want to live in caves :s
Keep you vaccines and your Hugo Boss outfit. Not interested.

[Anonymous No.13586373]

>>13586336
>>13586315
If you already know one of the historical names of Lenin's party then maybe you should also learn the man's opinion on people who turn arguments into quibbling over words.

[Anonymous No.13586379]

>>13586356
>Social democracies have generally implemented more and more liberal market changes the last 50 years.
We are talking about political parties, you silly.

[Anonymous No.13586383]

>>13586336

This argument is like saying the Democrat Party of the USA was founded to defend slavery so modern Democrat Ideology is pro slavery

Words labels and ideologies change over time. Social Democracy once resembled what we now call Democratic Socialism and today it resembles Democrat Neoliberalism

History can illustrate but it cant always define

[Anonymous No.13586406]

>>13586383
>Democratic Neoliberalism
Funny, but calling socdems neoliberal is an insult not a real descriptor. They were called so as an insult because they were closing to the middle of the specturm, but they were just coping with the neoliberal consensus they didn't represent the push.

[Anonymous No.13586408]

>>13586379
Yes, I was talking about the policies implemented by social democrats in
Social democracies. For example Sweden, Denmark and Norway.

I am talking about the deregulation the social democrats have implemented in these countries when in power.

I hope you are just playing dumb. Ignoring the other side and playing dumb has not worked well for your kind the last 80 years so maybe it's time to change.

[Anonymous No.13586429]

>The shear amount of commie butthurt in this thread

[Anonymous No.13586469]

>>13586408
Maybe try to look at who did implemented the welfare state in the first place, when did the deregulations actually happened, who was in power, what was the international situation and who actually shilled for the reforms the most. Socials democrats were never the party you vote for, if you want deregulation but they indeed would sometimes sell out and come to the center.

[Anonymous No.13586488]

>>13586321
It's not true within a country, but it's true amongst countries. International trade is zero-sum. I know it's not the point though.
>>13586429
>not bending over for illiterate neoliberals means you're butthurt

[Anonymous No.13587100]

>>13585817
Exactly, more money being skimmed off the top by govt.

[Anonymous No.13587118]

>>13586224
They dont, increasingly so, but the lefties have scared minorities so much with the spectre of muh racism that they are very close to creating a race war, hence the very large number of minorities that have been baited into believing their gibs programs

[Anonymous No.13588206]

Bump

[Anonymous No.13588240]

>>13580716
An often overlooked part of Marx's work, by both his supporters and his critics, is that he proposes more than one 'necessary' outcome from his critique of political economy: the emergence of a new mode of production after social and political revolutions (OR - and here's the part overlooked by both) the 'general ruin' of all classes, aka, the collapse of human civilisation. So, in some sense, he did at least entertain the ruinous outcome to which pacification of the proletariat leads.

[Anonymous No.13588460]

>>13584403
Its all about generations and consumism.

This first generation of immigrants come from totally different cultural and technological background.

Just w8 for the second and third generations. Slowly things change and start to degenerate.

To me a example is like the third spanic generation in USA, in which most have contact with Spanish, but don't know shit about the language.