/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19103312]

So what? Is capitalism that THAT bad?

[Anonymous No.19103490]

>>19103312
Yes

[Anonymous No.19103514]

>>19103312
Nah

[Anonymous No.19103522]

>>19103312
Maybe

[Anonymous No.19103547]

Yes

[Anonymous No.19103600]

>>19103312
The first time I heard of this book it struck me as a massive case of projection. Communists have forever tried to circumscribe the perception of reality, the topics and flow of any discussion or thought, and the available political options so that everything is subjected to their analytical/hermeneutic framework, and all roads lead either toward some sort of revolutionary renewal - or else compromise with the extreme evil of capitalism (which of course must be exaggerated to be the worst thing ever, so that their moral highground is higher, their struggle more romantic and fulfilling, their dads more upset, etc). So in a way it is ironic to see such moping... that capitalism has stolen the prize and it is no longer possible to imagine a different state of affairs except capitalism. No censorship required, just lots of burger.

Of course, this will only work as long as it remains sustainable and divvies up the goodies enough to keep people satisfied- but the 20th century should have already shown us that capitalism does this better than the alternative. So the unironic communists might end up being right but for the wrong reasons. When capitalism fails, it won't be because we have progressed (in some dramatic collective historical movement) to an even higher state, it will be because the cost of sustaining capitalism will become impossible to pay... and low growth or degrowth will create a zero-sum or negative-sum environment, in which taking wealth from others (war, oppression, and slavery) will substitute for the wealth creation strategies possible with abundant energy and resources... Then a few ambitious psychos will happily dress their pillaging of wealthy adversaries in Marxist ideas. Those will be the days.

[Anonymous No.19103601]

>>19103312
no it really isn't, but unregulated it can be.

[Anonymous No.19103711]

>>19103600
Fisher wasn't a communist. I know you think you came off as very intelligent in this post, but I want you to know you're a deeply stupid person

[Anonymous No.19103714]

read another book

[Anonymous No.19103797]

>>19103312
Capitalism is still the best and most effective system we have
You can't have both prosperity and equality

[Anonymous No.19104184]

>>19103711
There's a series of lectures of his on yt in which he refers to a colleague as 'comrade' and even gives the whole 'real communism has never been tried' meme a go too. Sounds like a cringe commie to me desu.

[Anonymous No.19104280]

>>19103797
This is what capitalism wants you to believe

[Anonymous No.19104286]

>>19104280
>if we put all the power into the hands of a central committee to dictate divisions of distribution, then everyone will prosper
no thanks. why do millennials insist on such hyper conformityabout everything? you guys start sobbing the moment someone says "I disagree", all your plans like CHAZ turn into memes, etc. I see so many smug millenials iwth covid, happy to enforce all the new rules, reporting people left and right, stalking people who don't comply, etc. Why do you think this is so desirable?

[Anonymous No.19104289]

>>19104286
who said anything about handing power to a central committee. there's more than just communism and capitalism

[Anonymous No.19104292]

>He thinks it’s still capitalism

[Anonymous No.19104313]

>>19104289
the overwhelming majority of millennials want communism

[Anonymous No.19104327]

Yes and the book offers no solution it's just the whining of an anxious and unhappy man who would go on to kill himself
It's probably my top 5 favourite books I've ever read

[Anonymous No.19104331]

>>19104292
yeah this. there is no capitalism anywhere in the world currently except maybe and i mean MAYBE farmers markets

[Anonymous No.19104332]

>>19103797
obviously, since we only have capitalism

>>19104184
people who use comrade like that are typically larping leftists, not communists

[Anonymous No.19104764]

Hey guys,
Important professor here, epically at your service.
Hey has any of you all seen Sci-fi movie?
Heh well bet you didn't think it was about why capitalism is bad, but check this out
(Burial track fades in)
It's like about
How capitalism is making this one dude sad
Because it's not giving him the stuff he needs
Not I'm not talking about like stuff stuff
I mean like stuff inside your head
It your heart
Stuff you can't touch
(dramatic pause)(pained sigh)
and y'all have the same problem you know
well, we all do
can't even imagine nothing different can you?
That's realism
CAPITALIST realism
thank you, let's all go home and smoke some weed, see you next week

[Anonymous No.19104812]

Just my thoughts: I think that for human beings, culture is a survival strategy. The ancient Greeks praised courage because, when you're constantly at war, you want to see courageous behavior happen more often. The continuation of capitalism is predicated on endless consumption. So in the 1980's, following multiple recessions and years of painful stagflation, you saw the shareholder value revolution and a major cultural shift toward consumerism.

Capitalism presupposes that people will care about something other than Mammon. Prior to the shareholder value revolution, the publicly-traded corporation was widely seen as a force for good in the world. But capitalism puts immense pressure on our culture to value Mammon above everything else, because its continuity is contingent on consumption.

It's harder to withstand this pressure in a country as socially atomized as ours. I don't think the Marxists are correct that everything being subverted to the market is an inexorable consequence of capitalism, or that it should be destroyed. People are social animals, and I think we're more likely to respond to the sanction or approval of our friends, loved ones, and neighbors than to economic incentives. People are miserable and lonely today. If capitalism is going to work, people need to be able to find the things in life that are better than money.

[Anonymous No.19104886]

>>19104764
Adam Curtis?

[Anonymous No.19105055]

>>19104812
no system is perfect, and the people that design them, consciously and consciously, given that most economic systems evolve rather than are created, unlike the two modern capitalism alternatives. A social system is a machine, a machine is only as good as its part, and the parts of every single one of these machines happen to be all human, and well, humans are themselves, imperfect and dysfunctional.
And yes, social systems are survival strategies, everyone single one is different because circumstances are different. Though there always are some similarities

[Anonymous No.19105066]

im constantly awed by capitalisms ability to enslave all of humanity for its own propagation. as time progresses we fall further under its spell, its culmination will be our complete transformation into something else entirely.
you can already see it occurring gradually, i dont think anything you see now is very "human", vehicles, livestreamed funerals, antidepressants, big cock goblin porn, our dependency on technology has turned us into a new type of human, the collective human, made of flesh & wire & em waves
convenience becomes necessity
i dont think its a bad thing at all

[Anonymous No.19105072]

>>19103797
*1000 years earlier*
Feudalism is still the best and most effective system we have
You can't have both prosperity and equality

[Anonymous No.19105380]

>>19105072
Except Communism has already been tried, and it doesn't need to equality. Radical egalitarianism is a meme.

[Anonymous No.19105394]

>>19105380
read marx or stalin or lenin or any soviet political economist

[Anonymous No.19105404]

>>19105394
No. History is enough.

[Anonymous No.19105406]

>>19105072
Even though capitalism and feudalism have radically different foundations and ends, I unironically believe this. Give me back my serf status.

[Anonymous No.19105412]

>>19105072
With feudalism you have neither.

[Anonymous No.19105417]

This book is written by a cuck liberal arts professor who can't understand that maybe there is a good reason why his students are uninterested in his Marxist bloviations. Ooh the capitalist boogeyman is so evil, wah wah cry me a river Mark Fisher

[Anonymous No.19105419]

Yes. Yes, it is.

[Anonymous No.19105426]

>>19103600
>capitalism does this better than the alternative
Imagine being so historically illiterate that you think the only options are capitalism or the USSR.

[Anonymous No.19105434]

>>19105426
>Muh anarchy
Lol lmao

[Anonymous No.19105443]

>>19105434
Three alternatives now! Wow! Keep it up retard.

[Anonymous No.19105448]

>>19105443
Out with it then Dr Economist.

[Anonymous No.19105524]

>>19105394
You look at the actual Communist regimes and see there is nothing even remotely close to egalitarianism, as political systems they are even less democratic than the parliamentary systems in the West and don't even have basic political rights. The proletarian is not allowed to have any influence on politics. "Dictatorship of the proletarian", more like Dictatorship of the 0.000001%.

[Anonymous No.19105545]

>>19105426
"Historically illiterate" would be to think that any political system whatsoever can be made a viable option by the mere fact that some people like it
The only realistic options for the near future are Capitalism or China. Choooose

[Anonymous No.19105547]

>>19105394
>Read these two Jews and this child rapist, that will clear up all your misconceptions about communism

[Anonymous No.19105551]

>>19105547
Kek

[Anonymous No.19105555]

>>19103312
>Is capitalism that THAT bad?
yes

[Anonymous No.19105572]

>>19105555
Checked

[Anonymous No.19105573]

>>19105380
the USSR was capitalist

[Anonymous No.19105584]

>>19105573
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahwhwhwhwhw

[Anonymous No.19105591]

>>19105573
USSR wasn't capitalist by intention; it was capitalism because the attempt at socialism failed, and created something even worse. If anything, it shows why socialism would be a futile effort it would devolve back into capitalism every time.

[Anonymous No.19105595]

>>19105591
>If it's not a communist utopia, it's capitalism

[Anonymous No.19105604]

>>19103797
>Capitalism is still the best and most effective system we have
If that is true then we have failed as a species.

[Anonymous No.19105612]

>>19105604
Our greatest rival in the animal world is beehive collectivism, so I wouldn't say that we exactly failed.

[Anonymous No.19105619]

>>19105595
Communism is a utopia because its not achievable by pre-determined biological limits such as scarcity and human nature. Aristotle already refuted communism before Marx even wrote the Manifesto when he critiqued Plato's defense of common property. You need to read more, kid.

[Anonymous No.19105620]

>>19105072
>Feudalism is still the best and most effective system we have
True, which is why we are going back to it.

[Anonymous No.19105630]

>>19105604
>We've failed as a species
This is pure projection. You've failed as a human being, and you want others to feel sorry for you because you lack the intelligence, or even the willpower, to strive as many others have.

[Anonymous No.19105645]

>>19105630
>You've failed as a human being
Maybe, but I'm not alone. 70% of humans currently alive are experiencing the same failure as me: ergo, we've failed as a species.

[Anonymous No.19105660]

>>19105645
>I'm a low life, and there's many more like me, therefore, you should be one like me.
Not enough for it matter. You'll always be on the fringes. No one has to feel sorry for you. If life is so hard for you, just cease existing. Its a lot easier than what you're dreaming of.

[Anonymous No.19105668]

>>19105591
>USSR wasn't capitalist by intention
nothing is capitalist by intention
>it was capitalism because the attempt at socialism failed
socialism is a continuous process, because capitalism never ceases to produce the proletariat. there are no "attempts" at it
>and created something even worse
yes, capitalism
>If anything, it shows why socialism would be a futile effort it would devolve back into capitalism every time.
XIV-century Italian communes have later regressed from capitalist production, which showed why capitalism was a futile effort and would devolve back into earlier forms every time

>>19105595
there's no such thing as "communist utopia". but you've almost got it right: if it isn't communist, then it isn't communist.

[Anonymous No.19105672]

>>19105660
>You'll always be on the fringes.
Wrong. Have you taken a look outside lately?

[Anonymous No.19105677]

>>19105619
>Communism is a utopia because its not achievable by pre-determined biological limits such as scarcity and human nature.
scarcity is not a problem for communism and it is also congruent with human nature

[Anonymous No.19105713]

>>19105668
>socialism is a continuous process, because capitalism never ceases to produce the proletariat. there are no "attempts" at it
This just sophistry to conceal your intentions. You desperate want a state that eliminates individual selfishness to satisfy your utopian social goal of people having to work to take care of your worthless ass. Just kill yourself, m8.
>>19105672
Yeah? Its just trees. You're basically a solipsist who lives in your own world. It comes from your addiction to social media, and your impressionable, yet emotional nature. You're just a weak person, m8.
>>19105677
Scarcity is a problem for communism seeing how all communist regimes have had either famines or food shortages.
>congruent with human nature
Its really not. You expect people to just get along, and to help each other without an egotistic interest. You think that coercion alone would be enough to dupe people to go alone with giving the state sole authority of one's life. Its just stupid. Like kid, just go back to leftypol.

[Anonymous No.19105725]

>>19103600
>When capitalism fails, it won't be because we have progressed (in some dramatic collective historical movement) to an even higher state, it will be because the cost of sustaining capitalism will become impossible to pay... and low growth or degrowth will create a zero-sum or negative-sum environment, in which taking wealth from others (war, oppression, and slavery) will substitute for the wealth creation strategies possible with abundant energy and resources
I mean isn't this just straight out of Lenin? I'm not sure those communists from back then ever said the transition from capitalism to socialism would be peaceful. Well, gee, that'd be nice but... what would lead anyone to believe that?

I think this also helps explains why the U.S. is so committed on a path of antagonism towards China nowadays because they have an educated, literate population with tons of industrial infrastructure under control of a Communist Party that has pushed wages up during a time when the Western capitalist economies are stagnating and suffering under a declining rate of profit.

See, if you believe that the CPC is "communist" or "Marxist," then it starts to make sense why they adopted -- from Deng's tenure -- a plan to subvert globalization by putting China into the core of capitalist development, making the country indispensable to its function, and allowing them to sequester international capital and acquire trading advantages (such as technology) to accelerate socialism once a certain critical mass was reached. There's a lot to criticize there, but this critical mass appears to have been achieved during Xi's presidency, which has been utilizing it towards the major historical goals of the party (such as the "moderate prosperity in all respects" line). Misery elimination and poverty reduction has been independently verified by Western sources in deliberate effort and unseen scale, which is something that wouldn't happen if this government had been simply pro-capital.

This was no accident or windfall, either, it was a lot of fucking hard work and discipline, and it's not (and never was) perfect, and it was helped along because western capitalists invested there. But capitalist governments -- bourgeois dictatorships after all -- have never been in control of *capital* which will flow to wherever it can to make money -- and that happened to be China. But now things have changed and that's also why it has now become necessary for the U.S. to prepare for war. If they can destroy the CPC, overthrow it, and have libs take over, they can privatize those state-owned companies (which are being reemphasized), drive down the cost of labor, or barring that, unleash and devastating war which will set those industrial cities on fire and kill millions of people, and that'll be very profitable to rebuild:

https://youtu.be/w3NtIiBjPsE?t=739

[Anonymous No.19105731]

>>19105668
>XIV-century Italian communes have later regressed from capitalist production, which showed why capitalism was a futile effort and would devolve back into earlier forms every time
Calling Italian comuni capitalist is not really correct and is especialy disingenous. Banking was much more primitive, with no stock exchange system, currencies were mineral based, with the most important being the fiorini and the ducati (made of gold), production was not industrial, but rather it was made up by a net of small indipendent producers organized in corporations, which often stifled competition and basically banned marketing. Production was quality-based, not quantity based (overproduction was hardly a thing) and as a result the prices of goods (and labor) was especially hugh. This means that once Italian trade hegemony started decaying lower cost English and Dutch goods flooded the market and crushed consumption of local products, pushing the old producers into investing on land and refeudalizing.

[Anonymous No.19105746]

>>19103600
>Then a few ambitious psychos will happily dress their pillaging of wealthy adversaries in Marxist ideas
Literally me
Once I realized the sheer stupidity of the average American communist, it became apparent that these guys would make me into a king if I waved a red hammer-and-sickle flag every now and then. The plan is to
1. Wait for the economy to collapse
2. Start a communist party
3. People flock to it
4. Win elections
5. Start a personality cult around myself
6. Get the stooges to seize everything and give it to me
7. Live like a god as the General Secretary of the USA
8. Pull a Kim and pass on the country to my kid, die and have a giant statue of me in NYC.
The hard part will be steps 3 and 6. Everything else will be easy.

[Anonymous No.19105755]

>>19103312
Capitalism is private property + markets.
“Capitalism” is a misnomer like “free trade”. What communists mean by “capitalism” is oligarchy. What oligarchs mean by “free trade” is “trade agreements with 10,0000 restrictions and protections for special interests”. Most of the terms we use in discussing politics and economics are purposefully misused and obscured in order to make constructive dialogue and critical thinking too difficult for most people.
It’s like the whole game with the “Racism = power + privilege”. They tell the proles racism is bad. The proles go Ok, racism is bad so blacks shouldn’t get preferential treatment since that’s racism. Then they proles get called racist for not using the “correct” definition of racism.

[Anonymous No.19105758]

>>19105731
The reason why they bring up the Italian communes is because they believe the Russian mir were the same thing. Many of the "communes" communists defend allowed private property, and ones that did not, were often just free riders of societies that owned private property.

[Anonymous No.19105797]

yes. u are too sheltered to know what capitalism is

[Anonymous No.19105798]

>>19105758
Italy, and especially rural Italy, did have mir-like systems, but were primarily religion based and caused by the extreme povery of the region. Those in my region often formed around and with the consent of the local church/abbey/monastery, farming their lands. They were basically a Catholic theocracy.

[Anonymous No.19105806]

>>19105755
that's a lot of words to say that the end result of capitalism is oligarchy every single time

[Anonymous No.19105811]

>>19105072
This but unironicly

[Anonymous No.19105838]

>>19103312
>Is capitalism that THAT bad?
Every bone in my body tells me it really is that bad. Every academic paper, every piece of fiction, warns of the adverse effects capitalism has on the environment, the social fabric, our political system, on basically everything.
How am I supposed to believe the whigish neoliberals when they tell me Capitalism has lifted millions out of poverty when all the evidence they can produce are graphs and statistics, their argument boiling down to “line go up world gooder”?
If capitalism really does create wealth and prosperity for everyone why does the evidence on the ground indicate the opposite? Why are we Depression rates going up? Why are there so many deaths of despair in the hinterlands? Why have birthrates sunk like a rock?
No, this cannot be called the best system by any measure, to imply otherwise would be an affront to the very concepts of justice, fairness and human dignity.
But if not Capitalism, then what else?
History has shown us the other systems aren’t much better.
I don’t want to be a serf toiling under a feudal overlord, nor do I want to be under the thumb of fascists.
Am I supposed to believe that I’ll always dance to someone else’s tune in the palm of their hand, that I’m supposed to be grateful for living under the “lesser evil” of all the available systems?

No.
I know man is capable of something greater. He was capable of producing the great works of art of the past, of displaying empathy, altruism and courage even in the most adverse of circumstances, even in the face of death.
Somehow, we need to to find a way to have faith, in the end, human decency will triumph over barbarism and mere self-interest.
I suspect Mark Fisher took his life because he lost hope, leaving behind a wife and child.
We have to believe we the cyberpunk dystopias of fiction are relegated to the realm of nightmares, bad dreams that are as concrete as smoke.
We need to have hope we are capable of something more noble, because hope is all we have.

[Anonymous No.19105872]

>>19105573
Sure, if you want to use the term "Communism" to mean something like a classless society go for it, but then the term has no application in political philosophy since there are no Communist societies (in this sense).
Now when I talk about Communism I am obviously talking about the Leninist/Maoist regimes and in regards to these my point about lack of egalitarianism stands.

[Anonymous No.19105881]

>>19105838
>Why are we Depression rates going up? Why are there so many deaths of despair in the hinterlands? Why have birthrates sunk like a rock?
This is a result of technological society, not capitalism. China is a communist country with birthrates which remain low even after the restrictions have been lifted. There are depressed people who “lay flat” in China too. So communist countries aren’t able to avoid the problems of advanced technological societies.

[Anonymous No.19105899]

>>19105798
You might be interested in reading David Leopold's socialist turnips i.g. Engels' early interactions with communism. He goes to show those types of communism had a unique influence on Marxism, and how many socialists simply ignored the complexities of property and the small scale attempts at socialism. The "catholic theocracy" is actually more on point about communism than you may even realize since many of these communities only held together through coercive social bullying and pressure through ideology rather than reality. Even people who leave these types of communities recognize this too.

[Anonymous No.19105906]

>>19105713
>This just sophistry to conceal your intentions. You desperate want
what I want doesn't matter
>to satisfy your utopian social goal of people having to work to take care of your worthless ass
in communist society everyone will work with their hands, except those physically unable. and I'm not physically unable, so...
also there are no utopian goals here. there's just what the level of acquired productive forces actually dictates.
>>19105713
>Scarcity is a problem for communism seeing how all communist regimes have had either famines or food shortages.
they were capitalist though. famines and food shortages are indeed pretty common in capitalism, especially in the time a given country begins to industrialize and tries to reform agriculture.
>You expect people to just get along, and to help each other without an egotistic interest.
no, I expect people to get along out of their egoistic interest
>You think that coercion alone would be enough to dupe people to go alone with giving the state sole authority of one's life.
well, if you're talking about the state coercion then you're talking about the proletarian dictatorship. in that case, the coerced ones will be a bourgeois minority, so yes, coercion will be enough.
it won't involve "duping" anyone, however. the proletarian dictatorship will be very transparent about coercing them. it certainly won't use the bourgeois tricks of disguising coercion as democracy and voluntary contracts.
>just go back to leftypol.
leftypol is a total shithole for cretins. it sound more like your kind of place
>>19105731
yes, they had a primitive form of capitalism. having "more primitive" banking, no stock exchange, no industry, monopolies, and all the other irrelevant shit you brought up doesn't mean they didn't have capitalist production.
>>19105755
>What communists mean by “capitalism” is oligarchy.
no, it can just as well be a fully democratic capitalism of a million worker co-ops.
>>19105758
>The reason why they bring up the Italian communes is because they believe the Russian mir were the same thing.
haha, you're genuinely historically illiterate. protip: the word "communes" in "Italian communes" doesn't indicate what you assume.
>>19105872
since when is political philosophy unable to talk about hypotheticals? and, more to the point, why the fuck would I care about political philosophy?
>Now when I talk about Communism I am obviously talking about the Leninist/Maoist regimes
you can talk however you want about whatever you want. I'm just pointing out that calling anti-proletarian regimes and capitalist societies using a word that can refer to either the proletarian movement for the abolition of capitalism or the kind of society that will come after capitalism, is completely retarded, or maybe I should say malicious and obfuscatory

[Anonymous No.19105931]

>>19105906
>what I want doesn't matter
You're correct. But I'm not critiquing your capabilities. I'm also pointing out your feelings don't matter either. Nor does your life.
>in communist society
There's no need to discuss something that will never come to exist.

[Anonymous No.19105949]

>>19105931
>There's no need to discuss something that will never come to exist.
I mean, I am not a communist but China is pretty close. All they need to do is start nationalizing most of the big private companies in their country. And rein in the wealthy I guess. Xi seems to be trying to do this. We’ll see how it goes.

>The state was supposed to wither away
Bro come on, everyone knows that was never going to happen.

[Anonymous No.19105951]

>>19105931
>You're correct. But I'm not critiquing your capabilities. I'm also pointing out your feelings don't matter either. Nor does your life.
what is your point then?
>There's no need to discuss something that will never come to exist.
okay, you're free to stop discussing it at any moment

[Anonymous No.19105984]

>>19105949
>I mean, I am not a communist but China is pretty close.
close to what? China has the proletariat completely subjugated and exploits it like there was no tomorrow, for the benefit of capital from all around the world. it's the apogee of capitalism.
>All they need to do is start nationalizing most of the big private companies in their country. And rein in the wealthy I guess.
so just more capitalism then
>At a further stage of evolution this form also becomes insufficient: the official representatives of capitalist society — the state — will ultimately have to undertake the direction of production....
>If the crises demonstrate the incapacity of the bourgeoisie for managing any longer modern productive forces, the transformation of the great establishments for production and distribution into joint-stock companies and state property shows how unnecessary the bourgeoisie are for that purpose. All the social functions of the capitalist are now performed by salaried employees....
>But the transformation, either into joint-stock companies, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies this is obvious. And the modern state, again, is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians.

[Anonymous No.19105998]

>>19105906
>yes, they had a primitive form of capitalism. having "more primitive" banking, no stock exchange, no industry, monopolies, and all the other irrelevant shit you brought up doesn't mean they didn't have capitalist production.
Define capitalism.

[Anonymous No.19106026]

>>19105984
>China has the proletariat completely subjugated and exploits it like there was no tomorrow
Isn’t communists’ explanation for this “trust the plan, in 2050 China will be a true communist country”? It might be a harsh plan but they do have a plan to get to a communist society, and if the words of Xi and the like are honest, they are following it.

>inb4 Xi is lying
The dude got buck-broken by Maoism back in the Cultural Revolution, he’s not going to abandon communism.

[Anonymous No.19106049]

>>19105906
>you can talk however you want about whatever you want. I'm just pointing out that calling anti-proletarian regimes and capitalist societies using a word that can refer to either the proletarian movement for the abolition of capitalism or the kind of society that will come after capitalism, is completely retarded, or maybe I should say malicious and obfuscatory
If we are primarily interested in real world influential movements (I am, but you may not be), the Leninist/Maoist etc. regimes are the only far left movements that were actually politically successful, so it makes sense to use the word Communism for them. We could designate "Communism" to only stand for a hypothetical society, but then we lose a useful term and we will have to invent a new word to talk about China or the Soviet Union or North Korea, which is impractical (Unless you are some kind of Communist yourself and the reform serves your aim - but this argument does not work for non-Communists).
I could more plausibly accuse you of "obfuscation" in your description of the Soviet Union as Capitalist, since by Capitalism we normally mean private ownership of industry and you are clearly using a not commonly accepted definition. You could justify it as serving your particular aims but again I don't have the same aims as you do.

[Anonymous No.19106179]

>>19105984
Communism isn't exclusively (or even very good) when it's hard-left communism like the Cultural Revolution was. Ultra-leftism is kind of a disaster, and lacks the ability to organize productive forces or adjust to material reality. It's MCU-tier "communism" that leads to shit like demanding people follow "the two whatevers," string up dogs and boil babies, or establish killing fields. But the more I learn about what happened beyond the (often somewhat romanticized) overview of what happened and peeked into the sausage factory, the more I see how not-forgone anything that happened is, and how messy the process can be to arrive at the conclusions, paths, and methods they have. This makes it all the more impressive. Democratic centralism as a way to organize politics, dialectical and historical materialism as a way to discuss them, and the Chinese people and CPC for absolutely going the distance with these things and developing into a moderately prosperous society with these tools is pretty incredible overall.

Like, it's not "Xi Jinping" that fixed some of their problems that everyone obeyed like a robot. The people that drastically reduced corruption are the CPC members and even general citizenry in some areas. That involves investigations, oversight, cooperation and a culture that actually believes in the peoples' interest over individual gain. Poverty alleviation was hard work and -- in some cases -- even blood of literal millions of CPC members who pledged under a legally binding oath to go to some of the poorest and most difficult places in all of China and not come back until the entire region under their purview was poverty free. People lost their lives in dangerous conditions in these areas and people missed being around for the formative years of their children to ensure none of their compatriots' children went hungry or uneducated. And if you live in the west, most of this is being kept from you.

https://youtu.be/eIDrR3fZI0I

[Anonymous No.19106237]

>>19105998
production based on agglomerations of wage labourers
>>19106026
>Isn’t communists’ explanation for this “trust the plan, in 2050 China will be a true communist country”?
no, the communists' explanation for this is that China is transparently a capitalist state and an open enemy of the proletariat, and further that one must be clinically retarded to not see that clearly (unless they live in the Chinese party's propaganda bubble)
>It might be a harsh plan but they do have a plan to get to a communist society
communist society is arrived at through the revolution of the proletariat which begins with it smashing the state that has oppressed it
>he’s not going to abandon communism.
he was never a communist in the first place

>>19106049
>If we are primarily interested in real world influential movements (I am, but you may not be), the Leninist/Maoist etc. regimes are the only far left movements that were actually politically successful, so it makes sense to use the word Communism for them.
what? NSDAP was politically successful too. that doesn't mean Nazi Germany was communist. hell, Nancy Pelosi is pretty successful!
>We could designate "Communism" to only stand for a hypothetical society
no, we shouldn't, because it primarily refers to the proletarian movement
>but then we lose a useful term and we will have to invent a new word to talk about China or the Soviet Union or North Korea
but it's the absolute opposite of being useful, because it distorts reality, turns it upside-down even.
and you can call those states pseudo-socialist if you want. there
>since by Capitalism we normally mean private ownership of industry and you are clearly using a not commonly accepted definition
I don't care what you normally mean. I care about what's true. this is the furthest away from obfuscation one could possibly be.
>You could justify it as serving your particular aims but again I don't have the same aims as you do.
no, I justify it as being correct lol
>>19106179
>Communism isn't exclusively (or even very good) when it's hard-left communism like the Cultural Revolution was
the cultural revolution had nothing communist about it
>Ultra-leftism is kind of a disaster
true
>and lacks the ability to organize productive forces or adjust to material reality
ok, whatever that means

...then you're completely incomprehensible for a few sentences...
...then you randomly throw "dialectical materialism" in there while still saying nothing concrete...
...and the rest of the post is also irrelevant babbling, possibly a copypasta?

god, what a waste of bandwidth. do better, you underage frogposting faggot

[Anonymous No.19106278]

>>19106237
>I don't care what you normally mean. I care about what's true. this is the furthest away from obfuscation one could possibly be.
The word Communist is used to mean different things by different people, correctness of usage is relative. Most people use it to mean Soviet Union/ Maoist China etc and this is the usage I defend based on its usefulness. Marxist professors are free to use it however they want.

[Anonymous No.19106349]

>>19106278
useful for what? it certainly isn't useful for capturing reality properly, because it presents states whose main task was to supervise capital accumulation and the expansion of production based on capital accumulation on the backs of the oppressed working class as supposedly representing a different mode of production, one that is the ultimate goal of the movement of the working class for its own emancipation.
having said that, I do agree that the conception might be very useful indeed if your intention is to deceive about the subject and therefore work to undermine the communist movement, which is why it's so widespread in bourgeois society in the first place.
>Marxist professors are free to use it however they want.
there aren't Marxist professors. how would a communist be able to work as an ideology monger in a bourgeois ideology-mongering institution?

[Anonymous No.19106503]

>>19106349
>useful for what? it certainly isn't useful for capturing reality properly, because it presents states whose main task was to supervise capital accumulation and the expansion of production based on capital accumulation on the backs of the oppressed working class as supposedly representing a different mode of production, one that is the ultimate goal of the movement of the working class for its own emancipation.
As I said when most people use the word "Communist" what they refer to it is regimes like the Soviet Union, China etc. The word is useful because we need a term for all these countries with authoritarian government, centralized state planning, and Marxist rhetoric. You may not like it, but that's how people use it in ordinary language, and I subscribe to this use for ease of communication. If we are having a more academic discussion we can use these terms differently, as long as we can agree on what it means.

[Anonymous No.19106510]

>>19106237
>production based on agglomerations of wage labourers
While those did exist, most of the production came from artisans and their families, so NOT wage labourers. Did they exist? Of course, the Ciompi, whom the commies like very much, were wage labourers. Were they the primary producers/majority of workers? No. Ergo, communal Italy was not capitalist, but still feudalist.

[Anonymous No.19106609]

>>19103711
Nothing more communist than saying you’re not a communist. These people do nothing but lie.

[Anonymous No.19106615]

>>19104280
Do you have to have your mommy check under your bed for capitalism before you can go to sleep at night?

[Anonymous No.19106620]

>>19104327
He killed himself? How can anyone take this shit seriously then?

[Anonymous No.19106625]

Leftism does not work.

Captalism works.

[Anonymous No.19106680]

>>19106179
>unironically spouting CCP propaganda
Dude China is still insanely corrupt by western standards and they were only lifted out of poverty by American capitalists who saw a bunch of idle hands and decided offshoring labor was a good way to make a quick buck.
Without American investment they’re still eating each other.

[Anonymous No.19106688]

>>19105806
No. There is another path.

[Anonymous No.19106703]

>>19106503
>The word is useful because we need a term for all these countries with authoritarian government, centralized state planning, and Marxist rhetoric.
any word can play that role, and most of the other ones would have that advantage over "communism" that they wouldn't falsify the capitalist reality of those states, only adding to the confusion around the subject.
>You may not like it, but that's how people use it in ordinary language
sure, I simply accept it as fact that "people" are wrong about many things and I take care to not confuse them further by using misleading terms
>and I subscribe to this use for ease of communication
it's only useful for that if the purpose of your communication is to reinforce falsehoods about communism and capitalism. if the purpose is to communicate truth or somehow tend towards truth, then that use is self-defeating.
>>19106510
they had reached a certain amount of capitalist production that they subsequently lost. which of course was undeniable proof that capitalism will fail to establish itself properly every time it's tried!
also, an artisan can already be a half wage labourer when he becomes dependent on usurer's or merchant's capital. and lastly, the dominant mode of production isn't a matter of a simple statistical majority of workers, but that's mostly beside the point.
>>19106625
>Leftism does not work.
true, ultimately it doesn't
>Captalism works.
but leftism is just the defense force of capitalism. once it falls for good, capitalism will fall with it.

[Anonymous No.19106727]

>>19105072
>You can't have both prosperity and equality
Wanting less inequality =/= wanting total equality

[Anonymous No.19106831]

>>19106703
>they had reached a certain amount of capitalist production that they subsequently lost. which of course was undeniable proof that capitalism will fail to establish itself properly every time it's tried!
Not my argument, I was just saying that the
Italian comuni are a bad example if you want to talk about regression.
>also, an artisan can already be a half wage labourer when he becomes dependent on usurer's or merchant's capital.
A particular case shouldn't be applied as a generality. Did this happen? Probably. Often? Probably not, corporations also acted as mutual aid and political bodies.
>he dominant mode of production isn't a matter of a simple statistical majority of workers, but that's mostly beside the point
True, I was talking about volume of production and relative importance of the produced goods to society.

[Anonymous No.19106865]

>>19106703
>any word can play that role, and most of the other ones would have that advantage over "communism" that they wouldn't falsify the capitalist reality of those states, only adding to the confusion around the subject.
It can, but the common usage of a word is not decided by me or you. My point is that although any word can play that role, as a matter of fact it is the word Communist that plays that role.
>sure, I simply accept it as fact that "people" are wrong about many things and I take care to not confuse them further by using misleading terms
Using a word differently than the majority is a major source of confusion. And I am not arguing that your use of the term Communism is unjustifiable full stop - there are academic discussions where people use it that way. What I am defending is the common usage of the term, which I regard as appropriate in certain (especially non scholarly) discussions where it minimizes confusion.

[Anonymous No.19106953]

>>19106831
>I was just saying that the Italian comuni are a bad example if you want to talk about regression.
no, they're a perfectly adequate example. the communes had reached a certain level of capitalist production that they subsequently regressed from.
>A particular case shouldn't be applied as a generality.
not my argument, I wasn't saying that artisans are always half wage workers. I just wanted to dispel the implied notion that artisan labour and wage labour are necessarily completely exclusive.
>>19106865
>It can, but the common usage of a word is not decided by me or you.
what words you choose to use is decided by you though
>My point is that although any word can play that role, as a matter of fact it is the word Communist that plays that role
no, your point was that this particular use is useful because we need a term for the thing it refers to. if your point had been simply that some people use this word in that way, then I wouldn't have objected to it. I already acknowledged that this is the case
>Using a word differently than the majority is a major source of confusion
no, if the majority uses a word in a way that reinforces their confusion about something, then using it in a way that counteracts this confusion is not a source of confusion, but rather of un-confusion
>What I am defending is the common usage of the term, which I regard as appropriate in certain (especially non scholarly) discussions where it minimizes confusion.
except it doesn't minimize confusion anywhere. it either introduces confusion or, in the best case, reinforces existing conclusion

[Anonymous No.19107046]

>>19106953
>no, they're a perfectly adequate example. the communes had reached a certain level of capitalist production that they subsequently regressed from.
They didn't regress to anything, capital just got invested somewhere else and agriculture started flourishing rather than the unprofitable manifacturing, which still survived throughout the 3 centuries of decline Italy went through. It was the bankers that invested somewhere, not the independent manufacturers themselves. It's not regression, at most its stasis and so decline due to foreign growth.
>I just wanted to dispel the implied notion that artisan labour and wage labour are necessarily completely exclusive
Of course they aren't, but artisans are not factories, they're skilled individuals in limited numbers with skills handed down through generations. They're not factory workers, the lowest of the low, failed farmers and dime a dozen.

[Anonymous No.19107056]

>>19106953
>what words you choose to use is decided by you though
And I decide to not deviate from the common usage as that would cause confusion in many occasions, and I defend the people who do the same (while recognizing that the common usage may cause confusion when talking with people who use a different definition.)
>no, your point was that this particular use is useful because we need a term for the thing it refers to. if your point had been simply that some people use this word in that way, then I wouldn't have objected to it. I already acknowledged that this is the case
And it is useful for that purpose. A word can have many uses. This is one of them (and the most widespread one, which is why I use it often).
>no, if the majority uses a word in a way that reinforces their confusion about something, then using it in a way that counteracts this confusion is not a source of confusion, but rather of un-confusion
I don't see what the confusion is supposed to be.

[Anonymous No.19107163]

>>19103797
>Capitalism is still the best and most effective system we have

[Anonymous No.19107170]

>>19107046
>They didn't regress to anything
they went from more capitalist production to less capitalist production, which is a regression from the point of view of capitalist production eventually dominating the area.
>They're not factory workers
of course they aren't. they're artisans.
>>19107056
>And I decide to not deviate from the common usage as that would cause confusion in many occasions
no, it's the only way to clear up the confusion
>And it is useful for that purpose
it's only useful for that purpose if the goal of your communication about this subject is to reinforce falsehoods about it. if the purpose is to communicate truth or somehow tend towards truth, then that use is self-defeating, and not useful.
>I don't see what the confusion is supposed to be
the confusion of taking anti-proletarian regimes and capitalist societies as either proletarian regimes or societies of the kind that would come after capitalism

[Anonymous No.19107188]

>>19107163
>disparaging indigenous folkways
yikes

[Anonymous No.19108125]

>>19106237
>he was never a communist in the first place
>China is not communist
>Meanwhile in China

[Anonymous No.19108133]

>>19108125
marx did not live from 1818 tom 2018

[Anonymous No.19108143]

>>19106680
He's a very dedicated CCP shill. You can identify him very easily:
>Longwinded post which fawns over the CCP and communism
>CCP propaganda/meme image
>YouTube link to pro-CCP video
Still, he's a nice guy (although he probably wants me dead lol). If you're reading this, CCP-fren, please link the video titled "Lessons from the Cultural Revolution". I can't find it.

[Anonymous No.19108180]

i mean its better than generic leftist takes because it actually is a system that can operate in real life, but the commodification of culture and erasure of cultural and ethnic identities is pure evil, as well as the sociopath greed spawned by pure profit motive. also the usual forms of currency are evil, currency should be tied with labour so that currency supply can only be expanded according to the governments ability mobilise its manpower and material resources for the production and maintenance of essential infrastructures and services that benefit the masses as a whole.

[Anonymous No.19108194]

based leguin:
>We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.

[Anonymous No.19108209]

I don't believe you can't have any kind of ethical form of capitalism in a multi-cultural state. The bond of near-kin is one of the only means to stop a society praying on each other.

In a homogeneous society their are typically much better outcomes in everything, from equality to equity. We keep getting mad at the symptoms of what is the core issue, multi-ethnic/cultural societies, everything else we hate stems from that.

[Anonymous No.19108210]

>>19108194
>think capitalism as bad as the divine right of kings
>think capitalism is bad

[Anonymous No.19108218]

Good for those who are good at it, bad for those bad at it

[Anonymous No.19108221]

>>19108209
The only problem really is there are a bunch mentally ill people who all these delusions about how bad capitalism is when the empirical evidence shows people are doing better than any time in human history. People are just looking to scapegoat something because they're failures at life.

[Anonymous No.19108231]

It's 2021. Leftism has been a failure every single time it has been tried, no matter where on earth, no matter what race, no matter under what circumstances.

Grow up. Leftism does not work.

[Anonymous No.19108232]

>>19108221
We've just lived through the largest wealth increase from middle/working class to the upper class in history.

The evidence is clear that it has its pitfalls that need fixed, we are in one pitfall now. How do you propose we get out of it?

[Anonymous No.19108239]

>>19108232
Re-establish free market capitalism. Get rid of government, get rid of the manager class, get rid of politicians, get rid of central banking, return to sound money.

[Anonymous No.19108242]

>>19103312
No. Everyone posting on this board who grew up under international neoliberal capitalism has had a better life than 98% of all people who have ever lived.

[Anonymous No.19108249]

>>19108232
>We've just lived through the largest wealth increase from middle/working class to the upper class in history.
Not even remotely true. You people just make shit up, and expect people to believe it.You're just looking for someone to blame because you're too stupid learn how to be successful in life. All your personal problems stem from your inability to accept the fact you are the cause of them all. You have no personal responsibility.

[Anonymous No.19108253]

>>19105746
Hasan?

[Anonymous No.19108269]

>>19108210
what part of the quote says that capitalism or divine right is bad? merely that it's human power that seems unescapable (but isn't)
stay brainlet brainlet

[Anonymous No.19108278]

>>19108269
Every single time where humans are left to act freely, capitalism dominates.

[Anonymous No.19108290]

>>19108269
>quote some stupid socialist who thinks capitalism is le bad socialism is le good
>DOOOD WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT CAPITALISM BAD DOOD ITS JUST HUMAN POWER
Don't play dumb, you faggot. We know exactly what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.19108299]

All I want is a more communitarian form of existence. I don't like the western culture of competitive individualism. Am I incorrect for feeling this way?

[Anonymous No.19108307]

>>19108299
>All I want is a more communitarian form of existence
What is stopping you from this?

Yes you are incorrect for feeling that way, humans are driven by the want of things they don't have, they always strive for more.

[Anonymous No.19108340]

>>19108307
>Yes you are incorrect for feeling that way, humans are driven by the want of things they don't have, they always strive for more.
this takes its highest form under western individualism? In my case I want to be part of an organic whole, not a god unto myself

[Anonymous No.19108341]

>>19108299
>I don't like competitive individualism
What a little, whiny bitch. See, your entire problem stems from just being a weakling. You don't have any courage, or the will, to survive.

[Anonymous No.19108371]

>>19108299
No. Human evolution favors cooperation more than competition. When early humans did compete, it was competition between clans rather than competition between individuals.

[Anonymous No.19108386]

>>19108371
This is just not remotely true. Humans have always favored competition, and cooperation can be done to enhance competition between groups. You commies really not understand human nature. Humans are naturally competitive, and selfish, they were never meant to be co-operative or altruistic. If they are co-operative, even "alutristic" its purely for narrow, egotistic reasons.

[Anonymous No.19108388]

>>19108341
is there truly no validity to feelings of spiritual distaste for our industrial society?

[Anonymous No.19108408]

>>19108388
There is no validity to even your right to exist. Its all shit you've made up. You are not owed anything in this world. You either survive or you don't. The world could not careless about your idealism - that is just a weakness on your part, and that is largely why you will be naturally out of the gene pool al though who are stronger willed, and not as sensitive as you, will survive.

[Anonymous No.19108411]

>>19103312
I only read half of it cuz I kept seeing Zoomers talk about it

Of course I sympathize with the overall sentiment but the book seemed really shallow and stupid. Don’t get why it’s viral

[Anonymous No.19108415]

>>19105072
This but unironically. I wish we could go back to monarchy.

[Anonymous No.19108433]

>>19108408
>dont criticize anything otherwise you're a WEAKLING YOU FUCKING IDIOT >*lifts weights and takes out a high-interest loan to start a dubious small business in your direction*
we're all so impressed

[Anonymous No.19108452]

>>19108408
I agree that competition between groups is beneficial, but is there some balance to be struck between this competition occurring between internally cooperative groups versus purely individuals? Perhaps there are advantages to this no? Take the Jews for instance. I was not fortunate enough to be born into such a thing so I feel I'm missing out.

[Anonymous No.19108537]

>>19108231
>USA slips further down the list of economic power, citizen education levels, happiness levels, life expectancy, etc.
>Scandinavian and other European countries with more "leftist" policies continue to lead the way in all measurements of well being
Leftism is desperately needed in America, unfortunately it's been co-opted by weird identitarians as opposed to the true roots of leftism which regards the state's universal obligation to all citizens to a specific minimum level.

[Anonymous No.19108546]

>>19108452
???anyone, what is the ideal balance between communitarianism and individualism???

[Anonymous No.19108559]

>>19108386
Every single human being has an innate awareness of the concept of "fairness". Hell, even monkeys will protest if you award them with lesser food for the same task they see a different monkey perform. Human beings are super social, and our evolutionary history ABSOLUTELY is dominated by group competition, while there is also competition to rise in the ranks of the in-group as well. You are right in one sense though, "altruism" and "co-operation" were rewarded largely because in-groups were previously comprised solely of relatively closely related family members (thus, if you help a tribe member, you are helping genes very close to your own). The striking thing has been that the wider and wider this altruism has gone, the better the results, up to a point which we are rapidly discovering in terms of immigration and foreign aid which will likely be the downfall of our current civilizations. Maybe the next time around humans will halt at the correct application of altruism in society and not barrel past that limit into oblivion.

[Anonymous No.19108570]

>>19108452
What country do you live in?

[Anonymous No.19108573]

>>19108570
US of A

[Anonymous No.19108574]

>>19108386
>working together is communism
Your retarded views have no basis in human prehistory or premodern history. What you consider human weakness are the traits that allowed humans to become a global species and form empires. Extreme competition within groups destabilizes and weakens the whole.

[Anonymous No.19108584]

>>19108537
>weird identitarians
Because America is all about identity. It has always regarded the community, and one's 'freedom' to play a role in it, as the most important thing, above all else. Economy be damned. It's why most people over here are unhappy with the status quo and yet somehow still can do nothing about it.

[Anonymous No.19108597]

>>19108546
>>19108452
Kinda sounds like distributism? They kinda do small cooperative groups competing.

[Anonymous No.19108621]

>>19104812
>I don't think the Marxists are correct that everything being subverted to the market is an inexorable consequence of capitalism, or that it should be destroyed
You've never read any Marx if you think Marxists want to destroy capitalism. Far from it. Capitalist development of productive forces is what makes socialism possible.

[Anonymous No.19108642]

A reminder that the average terminally-online leftist bitching about late-stage capítalism wouldn't last a single day in the chiapas zapatista zone or in any other existing ancom commune in the world. And don't get me started with communist countries.

[Anonymous No.19108728]

bump

[Anonymous No.19108793]

>>19103312
sure

[Anonymous No.19108804]

[Anonymous No.19108818]

america is a bloodless industrial apparatus without any culture to speak of. there is no refuting this

[Anonymous No.19108885]

>>19108537
>leftist" policies
they're still capitalist though, if anything theyre closer to fascism with its fusion of well regulated private capitalist economy and ""leftist"" policies as you call them

[Anonymous No.19108925]

>>19108885
It's called a mixed economy you troglodyte. Private capital with taxes and regulation to provide opportunity to all citizens. It's actually pretty based.

[Anonymous No.19108932]

>>19108573
Ah, unfortunately the USA is a very individualistic country which is still poisoned by the "Red Scare" propaganda of the cold war whereby many people still think ANY social programs or community sentiment is a direct road to total communism. If you lived in any other western country you'd likely have no problem finding what you're looking for.

[Anonymous No.19108976]

>>19105881
Capitalism is result of the industrial revolution (techno society)
China may idealize communism, but they're just state capitalists in the mean time
Though it is correct that the changes in tech themselves are partially responsible for removing incentives to reproduce

[Anonymous No.19109033]

>>19105545
Dishonest faux democracy with capitalism or
dishonest corporate fascism with back breaking capitalism?

[Anonymous No.19109726]

>>19103312
No OP, capitalism is great, you just can exploit Chinese in a basement with minimum salary till you get ritch, that's what I'll do.

[Anonymous No.19109727]

>leftists itt unironically equating the USSR or the PRC to am*rica

Please just stick to imperialism you yanky retards, you're too far gone to see the world for what it really is.

[Anonymous No.19110002]

>>19108433
Talking to people like you has just validated my purchasing of an AR-15. All you're doing is justifying me buying more magazines.

[Anonymous No.19110005]

>>19108125
this photo is just further proof that their Marxism is a bourgeois farce
>>19108231
true, leftism doesn't work and that's why capitalism won't succeed in duping the proletariat forever
>>19108299
>Am I incorrect for feeling this way?
not really. Engels:
>we are communists out of egoism also, and it is out of egoism that we wish to be human beings, not mere individuals

>>19108386
>Humans are naturally competitive
only as long as they are forced to be consumed by competition in order to follow their interest
>and selfish
sure, but selfishness turns into its opposite once the general interest of the individual becomes congruent with that of society and when society thus stops being constituted on universal competition

>>19108546
>what is the ideal balance between communitarianism and individualism
>Mr Proudhon does not directly assert that to him bourgeois life is an eternal truth; he says so indirectly, by deifying the categories which express bourgeois relations in the form of thought. […] Because he operates with bourgeois thoughts and assumes them to be eternally true, he looks for the synthesis of those thoughts, their balance, and fails to see that their present manner of maintaining a balance is the only possible one.

>>19108925
so just regular capitalism. the bourgeoisie has always needed a state, so there were always taxes which are necessary to fund it. and the role of the bourgeois state was always "to support the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists" (Engels), so there was always "regulation" in one form or another.
>>19108976
they're not even state capitalist, they have a shit ton of non-state business. and if having just some state business was the metric for being state capitalist on the whole, then almost every country on earth is state capitalist.

[Anonymous No.19110012]

>>19110005
You're a retard. Seriously, get off the internet. Fuck your Marxist propaganda

[Anonymous No.19110054]

>>19110005
As long as the state taxes the productivity of capital and distributes it universally to a basic minimum standard of living to all citizens, that's good enough for me. It also has the benefit of not being as far fetched as full scale revolution and seizure of the means of production.

[Anonymous No.19110411]

>>19110012
lol I hope I didn't make you cry
>>19110054
>As long as the state taxes the productivity of capital and distributes it universally to a basic minimum standard of living to all citizens, that's good enough for me.
yes, you're satisfied with capitalism, you don't need to repeat yourself. your preferences have no historical relevance, they're the product of the society you live in, they ultimately don't create it.
>It also has the benefit of not being as far fetched as full scale revolution and seizure of the means of production.
maybe read some general history book to acquire some perspective. the status quo has always had the advantage of actually existing, and then some far-fetched thing inevitably happened and changed it.

[Anonymous No.19110423]

>>19108232

[Anonymous No.19110439]

>>19110054
>>19110411
what's actually far-fetched is thinking that the situation of a few European microcountries that's being sustained entirely through low wages for billions of people in Asian manufacturing countries can last indefinitely. and what's even more far-fetched, far-fetched beyond the bounds of retardation, is thinking that it could be generalized beyond those few microcountries.

[Anonymous No.19110456]

>>19103711
The most soi post ever.

[Anonymous No.19111276]

>>19108537
>Scandinavian and other European countries with more "leftist" policies continue to lead the way in all measurements of well being
rofl

[Anonymous No.19111282]

>>19108537
>>19111276
lmao

[Anonymous No.19111329]

>>19105755
>Capitalism is private property + markets.
This is what communists believe. By “abolish capitalism,” they mean “put the means of production under worker control,” which is a long way of saying “abolish private property.”

[Anonymous No.19111383]

>>19103600
low iq

[Anonymous No.19111541]

>>19110005
>non-state business
said businesses all have party members on their boards or some similar connection
>almost every country on earth is state capitalist.
almost true

[Anonymous No.19111591]

>>19104886
>Adam Curtis?
kek

[Anonymous No.19111606]

Critique of Transcendental Miserablism
by Nick Land

>This post at K-Punk (http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/008887.html)) epitomizes a gathering trend among neomarxists to finally bury all aspiration to positive economism (‘freeing the forces of production from capitalist relations of production’) and install a limitless cosmic despair in its place. Who still remembers Khruschev’s threat to the semi-capitalist West – “we’ll bury you.” Or Mao’s promise that the Great Leap Forward would ensure the Chinese economy leapt past that of the UK within 15 years? The Frankfurtian spirit now rules: Admit that capitalism will outperform its competitors under almost any imaginable circumstances, while turning that very admission into a new kind of curse (“we never wanted growth anyway, it just spells alienation, besides, haven’t you heard that the polar bears are drowning …?”).

>From Baudelaire’s Le Voyage, with its mournful discovery that human vice repeated itself universally in even the most exotic locations, to the left-wing reading of Philip K Dick as a Gnostic denunciation of commercialized change, capitalistic variety and innovation has been totalized as difference without essential difference, just more of the same senseless dissimilarity. The grand master of this move is Arthur Schopenhauer, who lent it explicit philosophical rigour as a mode of transcendental apprehension. Since time is the source of our distress –- PKD’s “Black Iron Prison” – how can any kind of evolution be expected to save us? Thus Transcendental Miserablism constitutes itself as an impregnable mode of negation. It goes without saying that no substantial residue of Marxian historicism remains in the “communist” version of this posture. In fact, with economics and history comprehensively abandoned, all that survives of Marx is a psychological bundle of resentments and disgruntlements, reducible to the word ‘capitalism’ in its vague and negative employment: as the name for everything that hurts, taunts and disappoints.

>For the Transcendental Miserablist, ‘Capitalism’ is the suffering of desire turned to ruin, the name for everything that might be wanted in time, an intolerable tantalization whose ultimate nature is unmasked by the Gnostic visionary as loss, decrepitude and death, and in truth, it is not unreasonable that capitalism should become the object of this resentful denigration. Without attachment to anything beyond its own abysmal exuberance, capitalism identifies itself with desire to a degree that cannot imaginably be exceeded, shamelessly soliciting any impulse that might contribute an increment of economizable drive to its continuously multiplying productive initiatives. Whatever you want, capitalism is the most reliable way to get it, and by absorbing every source of social dynamism, capitalism makes growth, change and even time itself into integral components of its endlessly gathering tide.

(1/2)

[Anonymous No.19111613]

>>19111606
>“Go for growth” now means “Go (hard) for capitalism.” It is increasingly hard to remember that this equation would once have seemed controversial. On the left it would once have been dismissed as risible. This is the new world Transcendental Miserablism haunts as a dyspeptic ghost.

>Perhaps there will always be a fashionable anticapitalism, but each will become unfashionable, while capitalism -- becoming ever more tightly identified with its own self-surpassing – will always, inevitably, be the latest thing. ‘Means’ and ‘relations’ of production have simultaneously emulsified into competitive decentralized networks under numerical control, rendering palaeomarxist hopes of extracting a postcapitalist future from the capitalism machine overtly unimaginable. The machines have sophisticated themselves beyond the possibility of socialist utility, incarnating market mechanics within their nano-assembled interstices and evolving themselves by quasi-darwinian alogorithms that build hypercompetition into ‘the infrastructure’. It is no longer just society, but time itself, that has taken the ‘capitalist road’.

>Hence the Transcendental Miserablist syllogism: Time is on the side of capitalism, capitalism is everything that makes me sad, so time must be evil

>Capitalism is still accelerating, even though it has already realized novelties beyond any previous human imagining. After all, what is human imagination? It is a relatively paltry thing, merely a sub-product of the neural activity of a species of terrestrial primate. Capitalism, in contrast, has no external limit, it has consumed life and biological intelligence to create a new life and a new plane of intelligence, vast beyond human anticipation. The Transcendental Miserablist has an inalienable right to be bored, of course. Call this new? It’s still nothing but change.

>What Transcendental Miserablism has no right to is the pretence of a positive thesis. The Marxist dream of dynamism without competition was merely a dream, an old monotheistic dream re-stated, the wolf lying down with the lamb. If such a dream counts as ‘imagination’, then imagination is no more than a defect of the species: the packaging of tawdry contradictions as utopian fantasies, to be turned against reality in the service of sterile negativity. ‘Post-capitalism’ has no real meaning except an end to the engine of change.

>Life continues, and capitalism does life in a way it has never been done before. If that doesn’t count as ‘new’, then the word ‘new’ has been stripped down to a hollow denunciation. It needs to be re-allocated to the sole thing that knows how to use it effectively, to the Shoggoth-summoning regenerative anomalization of fate, to the runaway becoming of such infinite plasticity that nature warps and dissolves before it. To The Thing. To Capitalism. And if that makes Transcendental Miserablists unhappy, the simple truth of the matter is: Anything would

[Anonymous No.19111628]

>>19111329
no, workers can control means of production by being co-owners of private enterprises, and that's not socialism but capitalism

>>19111541
>said businesses all have party members on their boards or some similar connection
so what? no business anywhere is free from state control. whether this is under the form of a token party member in the board or of some external oversight from state agencies doesn't matter.
besides, in many businesses, even if they have then those party members, they don't do much of anything. in fact it's often the entrepreneurs who become party members themselves just to have better connections. but that's not different in content to connections between business and state/politicians in other states. only form is slightly altered.

[Anonymous No.19112451]

>>19103312
Any faults you might want to attribute to capitalism are faults of men. "Capitalism" is simply the lack of restrictions.

[Anonymous No.19112484]

>>19112451
>"Capitalism" is simply the lack of restrictions.
I'd like to see a capitalism without the restriction of private property

[Anonymous No.19112488]

>>19111628
>only form is slightly altered.
hence
>almost every country on earth is state capitalist.
>almost true

[Anonymous No.19112526]

>>19111606
>(“we never wanted growth anyway, it just spells alienation, besides, haven’t you heard that the polar bears are drowning …?”).
This but ironically (zoomer)
>Whatever you want, capitalism is the most reliable way to get it
Just as materialist as the commies themselves
Sure it's cool watching the market twist itself to meet any desire
But at the same time it's terrifying to watch it twist people's desires to meet its own ends

[Anonymous No.19112537]

>>19104292
This. So fucking tired of plebs thinking neomercantilism has anything to do with capitalism. Capitalism is the fundamental believe that an individual can own property and trade. It's the most natural and most rational system that actually gives power and freedom to individuals.

I suppose people now think about neomercantilism or just mercantilism when thinking of capitalism only because it's always put on that spectrum with socialism which is inhenrently state focused, so they assum capitalism is also something that's dictated from the top, but they are fucking wrong.

[Anonymous No.19112628]

>>19112537
capitalism is not a belief but a mode of production where production is done by associated wage labourers and where the main motive of production is multiplication of a starting sum of money. it's a mode of production that didn't exist for most of the time that people owned property and traded