/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19264017]

rate my latest haul /lit/

[Anonymous No.19264021]

meme crap
go back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.19264044]

>>19264017
delusional npc/10

[Anonymous No.19264048]

cringe. you are wasting your time. Cockshott is out of touch and still percieves the economy fordistically.

[Anonymous No.19264051]

>>19264017
>spending brainpower and time on obsolete heterodox economics
unironically, what motivates people to do this?

[Anonymous No.19264056]

>>19264017
0/10

[Anonymous No.19264075]

>>19264017
Everything outside of non-autistic Austrian and non-autistic Post-keynesian is useless
Praise the neoclassics

[Anonymous No.19264110]

Brainlets ITT
Red Plenty is fucking awesome and is not directed towards tankies or socialists in general. Currently reading it.

[Anonymous No.19264138]

>>19264110
>tankies or socialists in general.
X

[Anonymous No.19264216]

>>19264048
economics of scale is how you economize on labour, dummy. a socialist mode of production cannot be built on mediocre productivity or pauperism

>>19264051
neoliberalism being unable to deal with the ongoing climate disaster

>>19264075
>non-autistic Austrian
no such thing

[Anonymous No.19264288]

lol

you have been refuted already, fuck off cockroach

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

[Anonymous No.19264509]

>>19264288
>muh ECP

[Anonymous No.19264591]

>>19264216
>neoliberalism being unable to deal with the ongoing climate disaster
They could if they wanted to, also doesn't it make sense more to read Linkola and other ecofascist lit then?

[Anonymous No.19264650]

>>19264591
>They could if they wanted to
then they wouldn't be libs
>ecofascism
I've read some of what Linkola has written. it's malthusian garbage. it fits well into liberal ideology, but that's not unusual for fascist "theory"

[Anonymous No.19264760]

>>19264591
>>19264650 (me)
and to be even more clear with my opinion on libs, dealing with the climate situation requires changing the mode of production. many liberals still think there is a win-win situation, that we can tech our way out of this. but the technology for large-scale carbon sequestration, like BECCS, has existed for around 150 years. this is why I hate primitivists, be they fascist or anarchist (what's the difference?? heyoooo!)

we need to put the resources that exist to better uses than what private capital wants. but above all liberals want to preserve private property, even if it means letting hundreds of millions die. it is for this reason that liberals are likely to go down the ecofascist route, the exteminationist scenario in Frase's Four Futures. already people like david attenborough and other high-profile libs are worried about muh overpopulation

[Anonymous No.19264808]

>>19264650
>it fits well into liberal ideology, but that's not unusual for fascist "theory"
Fascism doesn't recognize private property the way liberals do. Property in fascism serves a social function up to and past the socialization of profits. You cannot achieve socialism without significant social progress, it's not an overnight process. Italy was closer to socialism than the USSR ever was.

[Anonymous No.19264834]

>>19264760
>but above all liberals want to preserve private property, even if it means letting hundreds of millions die.

Good for them. Perpetual population growth is an ethos of the consumerist.

[Anonymous No.19264845]

>>19264808 (me)
>>19264760
Wake up and smell the coffee. Millions of people will die either way. Places like africa have an exponential population boom without any brakes. All because of food imports from developmed countries. As soon as you stop those food imports you're going to end up with a famine in your hands. People will die, there is no taking the moral highground here.

Not only that, 90% of people are liberals. In the west you have what is essentially a labor aristocracy. No westerner wants to give up their cheap sweated goods and iphones. Try starting a commie movement where you admit to western workers you will lower their standard of living by stopping the import of third world commodities.

The workers will shoot you.

[Anonymous No.19264856]

>>19264845 (and me)
>>19264760
And again, private property (whatever that means) isn't a mode of production. You can have private property without capitalism. Capitalism is a system with a specific set of features, private property is one but not *all* of it. It's like those retarded soviets who replace the bourgeoisie with beauracrats and go "see! No bourgeoisie, therefore socialism!—NOT!

[Anonymous No.19264907]

>>19264808
>Property in fascism serves a social function up to and past the socialization of profits
this is ahistorical nonsense

>>19264834
but anon population growth declines or even reverses as standards of living improve. even fascists tend to understand this, which is why they're so upset about muh white genocide

>>19264845
>population boom
see what I wrote above
>third worldism
I don't care about defeatism. even the so-called first world will suffer from climate change. much of southern Europe will have to be evacuated

>>19264856
private property, the private ownership of the means of production, is *the* defining characteristic of capitalism anon
>You can have private property without capitalism
name one example. and don't retard out on me with examples of personal property

[Anonymous No.19264919]

>>19264017
Nice collection OP! What will you read first?

[Anonymous No.19264938]

You will eat ze bugs and live in ze pod but uhhhh socialist.

[Anonymous No.19264945]

>>19264907
>this is ahistorical nonsense
No it isn't. Read up on the economy policy of italy in the 30s.
>third worldism
Obviously I am not advocating for that but you're going to have to stop the exploitation of third world countries to fix both the climate and capitalism problem.

That standard of living increasing coincides with population drop isn't a universalist concept. It's really only been observed in European and asian countries. Not in africa.
>private ownership of the means of production, is *the* defining characteristic of capitalism anon
No, alienated labor is. Or more accurately, bourgeoisie sitting on their arse and doing nothing, with their only responsibility being delivering profit to shareholders. Again, socialization of profits still works in the framework of private property—but the bourgeoisie essentially becomes a manager of the means of production rather than simply a rentier. They have an obligation to production, yet they are still in charge of the allocation and distribution of capital. The only argument you can give me against this is whether it solves the contradiction of capitalism or not.

[Anonymous No.19264946]

>>19264919
walmart or red plenty. waiting for someone I know who's reading either of them to get online on XMPP so I can ask them which one it was
I have Sartre's Nausea to read in the meantime

[Anonymous No.19264980]

>>19264945
>No, alienated labor is
sure, whatever
>the bourgeoisie essentially becomes a manager of the means of production rather than simply a rentier
this sounds like the same kind of garbage that market "socialists" think. that the petty bourgeoisie still has to work changes very little
>The only argument you can give me against this is whether it solves the contradiction of capitalism or not
it does not. see Yakovenko's paper on the impossibility of market socialism. we cannot return to a pre-finance-capital world. capital accumulates.

[Anonymous No.19265192]

>>19264945
>socialization of profits still works in the framework of private property
NTA but it literally doesn't - at this point it's no longer private property.

>the bourgeoisie essentially becomes a manager of the means of production
1. Which means they are no longer in control of the means - the obligation to production is.
2. Reducing their function to management means reducing it to labor. Bourgeoisie is not defined by any labor.

You're literally arguing that bourgeoisie can lose all the qualities of bourgeoisie and become administrative laborers, but they shall still remain bourgeois.

[Anonymous No.19265216]

>>19264980
Market socialism isn't the end point of what I am suggesting. Of course people competing as groups will fall into the same problem of accumulation whether or not competition is at the individual or the group level. You're probably a Leninist who is advocating for central planning, which is one way to transition to a socialist system—whereas I advocate for private initiative as an expedient in the allocation of resources. I am not repeating what happened in the former soviet union. Competition is a great way to make advancement and increase efficiency—the disasterous effects of the business cycle will be alleviated to a greater extent, and you won't have the short comings of planning with a bureaucracy or 'computers' the way cockshott wants.

[Anonymous No.19265246]

>>19265216
Also NTA, but Leninists had zero beef against market competition.

[Anonymous No.19265256]

>>19264017
Broke: Cockshott
Woke: Heinrich

[Anonymous No.19265270]

>>19265192
>NTA but it literally doesn't - at this point it's no longer private property.
How much is going towards the expansion of business and how much are you going to allocate to the common weal? The 'bourgeoisie' is still making the decision in that regards, with the state as a regulator of relations. If you're going to argue that private property is no longer 'private' due to this relationship then by this logic the Nazis abolished private property, which you shouldn't argue with me but argue with the socialists.

Again, I removed the 'bourgeoisie' from the equation, but bourgeoisie =/= private property. Private property is control over the productive forces. Just because the state gives an obligation to who it recognizes as the property owner doesn't mean private property is eliminated, just regulated in it's social functions. If this means the 'elimination' of private property for you then great! To others, especially for orthodox Marxists this is not enough.

>>19265246
This is during the NEPA, the NEP for lenin was 'one step backward to go two steps forward'. Russia was not industrialize and the NEP's purpose was to create a state regulated 'bourgeoisie' to fulfill their historical role. After Lenin died stalin put an end to the NEP. We are not preindustrial russia anymore so there is no need for competition in the form of NEP

[Anonymous No.19265292]

>>19265270
>The 'bourgeoisie' is still making the decision in that regards
If they do - then they have no obligation to production.

>If you're going to argue that private property is no longer 'private' due to this relationship then by this logic the Nazis abolished private property
They didn't, since taking power from bourgeoisie and giving it to NSDAP doesn't actually take any power from the bourgeoisie - as NSDAP is bourgeois in itself. It's some bourgeois fusing with the government in order to fuck over all the other bourgeois for personal gain. Did you even read ItHSoC?

>>19265270
>This is during the NEP
Even beyond that. NEP was about temporarily allowing market accumulation. Leninists had zero beef with market competition.

[Anonymous No.19265367]

>>19265292
>If they do - then they have no obligation to production.
How do they not? Is making decisions about the allocation of resources, what to produce, where to expand, coordination with other factory owners, analyzing the profit margin, not an obligation to production?
>they didn't
>as nsdap is bourgeoisie in itself
arghh, this is an argument I hate happening because I am not a spokesperson for the hitler regime.
First off the goal of the nsdap since the beginning was cannibalization of the civilian economy in preparation for war. Germany was overpopulated with a well developed industry but a completely backwards agriculture sector. The economic perspective of the nazis was that the nation must expand in the interests of the peasant and the proletariat in order to prevent disaster. Nazi deficit spending in the production of steel happened to benefit certain large sectors of german industry. If bourgeoisie production was geared towards something which the nazis did not deem to be progressive, the nazis would have expropriate their possessions, and they have many times. The objective of the nazis was to win the war and gain farmland in eastern europe. Judging them by their domestic economic policy as not 'socialist' because of this is like judging the ussr for their 'war communism'.
>Leninists had zero beef with market competition.
Again, during the NEP. In a Marxist framework market relations would have to be abolished because it presupposes generalozed commodity production. Market relations under lenim were to be a temporary expedient. Market relations don't work under a socialist mode of production but socialism again isn't accomplished overnight.

[Anonymous No.19265386]

>>19265292
>as NSDAP is bourgeois in itself.
They were quite literally lumpenproles. The overwhelming majority of the NSDAP was demobilized war veterans. Their voting base was protestant germans. You can only make the argument they were middle class, white collar workers and the like. But most certainly not a bourgeoisie party. That is absurd.

[Anonymous No.19265422]

>>19265367
>Is making decisions about the allocation of resources, what to produce, where to expand, coordination with other factory owners, analyzing the profit margin, not an obligation to production?
Making those decisions under obligation to production is just administrative labor, and in no way bourgeois - since the actual decision (cui bono?) is already made, you're just performing the labor of realizing that decision, so the means in question are not in the private property. If the bourgeoisie can actually decide cui bono, then they indeed own private property, but it means that they have no actual obligation to production.

>arghh, this is an argument I hate happening because I am not a spokesperson for the hitler regime.
How does your argument contradict any of my points? Does winning wars against foreign capital somehow transcend bourgeois power and interests? WWI never happened?
>Judging them by their domestic economic policy as not 'socialist' because of this is like judging the ussr for their 'war communism'.
Why shouldn't we judge USSR for war communism, btw?

>Again, during the NEP.
Again, even beyond that. NEP was allowing market accumulation. Conclusion of NEP ended the process of market accumulation, but did not prevent market competition.

>Market relations don't work under a socialist mode of production
Correct. But market competition totally does. You're working from a foregone conclusion that USSR's economic failures are the product of stymieing market competition. Which is false - as market competition was present on every level of Soviet economy, through all the various forms it took during it's rather dynamic history. This should teach us that presence of market competition does not magically result in economic efficiency, and there might be additional requirements, but ofc we don't LIKE that conclusion because it's blashpemous.

[Anonymous No.19265435]

>>19265386
>Their voting base was protestant germans
And the voting base of Republicans are redneck proles. That means the Republican party is Socialist, right?

>But most certainly not a bourgeoisie party.
Who actually runs the show and makes decisions, and in whose interests? We can ignore the issues of bourgeois democracy for a moment here, because even before we reach that - your argument rests on the assumption that the Third Reich was democratic in any way, bourgeois or not. Think again, please.

[Anonymous No.19265460]

>>19264017
People's republic of Walmart is the only good argument for the technical possiblity communism I've ever heard.
If the USSR came into being today things would have been interesting

[Anonymous No.19265470]

>>19265460
(cont)
The problem is all the kids worshipping Marx like he is an infallible God and trying to play working-class revolutionaries. These people aren't interested or capable of understanding the beauty of Walmart, Amazon etc

[Anonymous No.19265489]

>>19265422
>Does winning wars against foreign capital somehow transcend bourgeois power and interests? WWI never happened?
No but it was precisely the NSDAP which controlled industrial output and directed it towards 'military goals'. Socialists say that it is capitalism because it was 'war economy' and there were still owners of 'private property' in the sense there is a bourgeoisie class reaping profit even with the party still giving them commands.
If you are saying that a party giving command to industrialists isn't capitalism, then the Nazis were not practicing capitalism.
>Does winning wars against foreign capital somehow transcend bourgeois power and interests?
The working class can never align themselves with the bourgeoisie ever? WW1 didn't have socialists supporting their respective countries in the war effort? Even Kropotkin was rooting for the entente, come on.
>Why shouldn't we judge USSR for war communism, btw?
Because it's wartime economics. A means to an end. It's sole purpose was to win the war and they did. The Hitler regime had the same economic policy.
>did not end market competition
(X) doubt. there was no unemployment in the USSR

I agree with the rest of your post, but competition did not exist in the ussr the way it did in the west. Competition =/= efficiency but the market in the ussr could hardly be called competitive. Socially you were even looked down on if you made too much money.

[Anonymous No.19265508]

>>19265435
No, I said the interests of the NSDAP, and quiet frankly all of Germany was winning the war. We can only speculate what was to come after. If the 25 points of the NSDAP and Hitler's personal conversations are any pointer, socialization was to begin after the war was won. As >>19265367 said, if the bolsheviks lost during the period of wad communism you will have people going around saying that lenin never had any desire to implement socialism. And you unironcially do have idiots like butters going around calling lenin a liberal.

[Anonymous No.19265555]

>>19265489
>Socialists say that it is capitalism because it was 'war economy' and there were still owners of 'private property' in the sense there is a bourgeoisie class reaping profit even with the party still giving them commands.
No, the socialists say it is capitalism because the party and the capitalists were the same entity.

>The working class can never align themselves with the bourgeoisie ever?
Ofc they can. Where did I ever claim the opposite? Point was - it was still bourgeoisie fulfilling it's own goals. Proles sharing those goals - wittingly or not - does not contradict that, and does not make Nazi policy an example of the state policy treading on the bourgeoisie.

>Because it's wartime economics. A means to an end. It's sole purpose was to win the war and they did.
Everything is always means to an end. There is no dialectical process without practice. The question lies in whose means and to what ends.

>(X) doubt. there was no unemployment in the USSR
There was no unemployment because getting fired meant you had powerful bureaucratic mechanisms mechanisms and impetus (resisting the mechanisms if you don't like their options meant losing your housing and social services, and eventually escalated to literally a crime) to assign you a different job, whether you prefer it or not. It was literally just automation of labor market management through bureaucratic processes. It prevent market completion about as much as HR CV sorting algorithms do, USSR just had both very mean and efficient (through their meanness) algorithms, by making them out of people.

>but competition did not exist in the ussr the way it did in the west.
It was quite different in it's implementation, yes.

>Socially you were even looked down on if you made too much money.
Duh. But since when is market competition measured in revenue? I though revenue is a product of succeeding in market competition, and the competition itself happens through customer (in this case the state) giving preference and economic support to the provider of better deals in products or services. Am I wrong? That one was very much present in the USSR.

[Anonymous No.19265556]

While I haven’t read “People’s Republic of Walmart”, I do think that the formation of mega corporations like Amazon, Walmart, etc. are signs that the Western elite are consciously Marxist, and are laying the groundwork for a planned economy and the transition from capitalism to socialism. The “globohomo/neoliberal” elite were our vanguard party all along, they just didn’t tell us.

[Anonymous No.19265564]

>>19265508
>We can only speculate what was to come after.
We don't need to speculate on the war excuse since we're talking about the very leadership that started the war. If war policy was contrary to their interests, they would not have started it.

[Anonymous No.19265580]

Alright boys and girls, youve fed this revisionist mongrel enough replies. Its time to let him shrivel back to his hole between /pol/ and reddit.

[Anonymous No.19265584]

>>19265555
>No, the socialists say it is capitalism because the party and the capitalists were the same entity.
>Proles sharing those goals - wittingly or not - does not contradict that, and does not make Nazi policy an example of the state policy treading on the bourgeoisie.
Where is the evidence for this
>Everything is always means to an end. There is no dialectical process without practice. The question lies in whose means and to what ends.
>It is not Germany that will turn Bolshevist but Bolshevism that will become a sort of National Socialism. Besides, there is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will. ... Our spirit is so strong, and the power of our magnificent movement to transform souls so elemental, that men are remodeled against their will. ... A social revolution would lend me new, unsuspected powers. I do not fear permeation with revolutionary Communist propaganda.
Attributed by Hermann Rauschning in Hitler Speaks (1940)
The authenticity of the quote is disputed.

>Duh. But since when is market competition measured in revenue? I though revenue is a product of succeeding in market competition, and the competition itself happens through customer (in this case the state) giving preference and economic support to the provider of better deals in products or services. Am I wrong? That one was very much present in the USSR.
Yes yes correct, but there were corruption problems and the fact that capitalism became a 'state monopoly'. I only ever advocated for market 'socialism' to replace state 'socialism', in my posts.

[Anonymous No.19265595]

>>19265564
>We don't need to speculate on the war excuse since we're talking about the very leadership that started the war.
Okay but my point is that NSDAP were not bourgeoisie. I called them lumpenproles, because they were! 1/2 of the SA was unemployed. Hitler and pals were not bourgeoisie. It makes no sense to call them that. They colluded with the bourgeoisie yes! But they were not bourgeoisie themselves! Even the socialists say they were petit bourgeoisie protecting their own interests but that still makes no sense as they are a class doomed to disappear.

[Anonymous No.19265613]

>>19264216
>neoliberalism being unable to deal with the ongoing climate disaster
The climate hoax propaganda is funded by big business to cement their crony capitalist oligopolies by forcing out small and independent actors through byzantine government regulations.

It would be better if you Amerimutts stayed away from left.wing politics altogether. You have no grasp of it.

[Anonymous No.19265626]

>>19265613
>leftists say climate alarmism is real
>leftists say climate alarmism is fake
Who the fuck do i believe

[Anonymous No.19265642]

>>19265584
>Where is the evidence for this
In financial success in the Third Reich being linked with NSDAP membership, and NSDAP membership being linked with financial success in the Third Reich. You couldn't be big whale in Nazi Germany without getting involved high up in the Party, and you couldn't be involved high up in the Party withot being rich.

Your denial rests on the ghost of state/business dichotomy, which is honestly laughable in the year our lord 2021.

>The authenticity of the quote is disputed.
Well, yeah there's also the fact that Wehrmacht was under orders to execute captured members of the VKP(b) on sight during the war.

>Yes yes correct, but there were corruption problems
We're in agreement here, then, although there really were hundreds of different factors.

>and the fact that capitalism became a 'state monopoly'.
That's not really the core of the issue, though.

>I only ever advocated for market 'socialism' to replace state 'socialism', in my posts.
And I haven't argued for anything - I just gave my critique of political economy.

[Anonymous No.19265658]

gotta go, I have social obligations to fulfill. will reply to more anons later

>>19265192
>>19264907 (me)
>You're literally arguing that bourgeoisie can lose all the qualities of bourgeoisie and become administrative laborers, but they shall still remain bourgeois.
good point anon. it frustratingly common that liberals (fascists included) don't understand what a class is

>>19265216
>You're probably a Leninist who is advocating for central planning
if the OP didn't clue you in, I'm a cybernetic Marxist. Gosplan-style material balance planning has serious problems that we aim to address. nothing says planning can't run on say a more anarchist political structure
>whereas I advocate for private initiative as an expedient in the allocation of resources
I hope you don't mean "private" in the Marxist sense here, because that would be retarded. everyone needs to be able to interact with the planning system, to submit their own ideas for productive methods and see what the solver thinks of them. the parecon people have interesting ideas that mesh well with this

[Anonymous No.19265665]

>>19264017

See if any of them explain why the completely avoidable 1984 soviet grain shortage happened again in 1985

[Anonymous No.19265683]

>>19265595
> I called them lumpenproles, because they were! 1/2 of the SA was unemployed.
And 99% of SA never made any decisions. They were only ever following orders. Jesus fuck why do you keep building arguments on assuming that the most undemocratic organization in human history was democratic? Is this a burger thing? What's next? Ancien Regime being an example of Dictatorship of Proletarian because most of royal subjects were peasants?

>Hitler and pals were not bourgeoisie
By the time Hitler went big, he definitely was (our good friend Krupp gave him a small loan of a few million marks), and many of his friends were from the get go.

>as they are a class doomed to disappear
Of course! That was the whole point! The end goal of Imperialist bourgeoisie is not, contrary to American belief, to just be left along and make honest profits. It's to transcend their status as a class. They don't want to be the highest subjects of the law. They aim to be above the law, to become the undisputed dictatorial rulers. NSDAP bourgeoisie did not pursue No Step On The Snek - no big capital ever does, since it always aims to become the only remaining boot capable of stepping on anything, and busy stepping on everyone.

[Anonymous No.19265687]

>>19265642
>In financial success in the Third Reich being linked with NSDAP membership, and NSDAP membership being linked with financial success in the Third Reich.
This is precisely what I mean when I say that industry was dependent on the party.
You couldn't be big whale in Nazi Germany without getting involved high up in the Party, and you couldn't be involved high up in the Party withot being rich.
This is a poor argument. The high ups of the VKP(b) had exorbitant amounts of wealth.
>Well, yeah there's also the fact that Wehrmacht was under orders to execute captured members of the VKP(b) on sight during the war.
Which order was this? The Nazis had the same perception of the higher ups of the bolsheviks "marxist opportunits", as socialists have of the NSDAP, "capitalist opportunists".

[Anonymous No.19265699]

>>19265683
>And 99% of SA never made any decisions. They were only ever following orders. Jesus fuck why do you keep building arguments on assuming that the most undemocratic organization in human history was democratic? Is this a burger thing? What's next? Ancien Regime being an example of Dictatorship of Proletarian because most of royal subjects were peasants?
>only democracy can be in the interests of the proletariat
Lel
>By the time Hitler went big, he definitely was (our good friend Krupp gave him a small loan of a few million marks), and many of his friends were from the get go.
>being a millionare makes you a bourgeoisie
Bourgeoisie isn't your income ffs. It's your relationship to the means of production.
>Of course! That was the whole point! The end goal of Imperialist bourgeoisie is not, contrary to American belief, to just be left along and make honest profits. It's to transcend their status as a class. They don't want to be the highest subjects of the law. They aim to be above the law, to become the undisputed dictatorial rulers. NSDAP bourgeoisie did not pursue No Step On The Snek - no big capital ever does, since it always aims to become the only remaining boot capable of stepping on anything, and busy stepping on everyone.
That's just like, your opinion man.

[Anonymous No.19265714]

>>19265687
>This is precisely what I mean when I say that industry was dependent on the party.
As I already pointed you - you have to keep seeing doubles in order to uphold this argument. You need to believe that business and government are two entirely separate, antagonistic entities. Which is false, and somewhat idiotic. Anon, a businessman was your president just recently.

>This is a poor argument. The high ups of the VKP(b) had exorbitant amounts of wealth.
Why do you keep assuming that I'm going to be a hypocrite in order to simp for the USSR?

>Which order was this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissar_Order

[Anonymous No.19265734]

>>19265699
>only democracy can be in the interests of the proletariat
I'm not the one who assumes democracy, anon.

[Anonymous No.19265749]

>>19265714
>As I already pointed you - you have to keep seeing doubles in order to uphold this argument. You need to believe that business and government are two entirely separate, antagonistic entities. Which is false, and somewhat idiotic. Anon, a businessman was your president just recently.
In capitalism, business and government are one. I have never ever denied that. Yes, the bourgeoisie 'made money' under the NSDAP, even though it was never going to last because all of the money the bourgeoisie was making in nazi germany was through deficit spending. Literally phantom wealth. The bourgeoisie was in a better state during the liberal Weimar years than they were during the NSDAP years. Nazi deficit spending and cannibalization of the war economy was precisely a means for waging war against the USSR to steal their grain. That was the plan from the beginning. All of that 'wealth' the bourgeoisie made doesn't account for anything when your economy is oriented towards war production. What is the bourgeoisie going to spend their money on? Tanks?
>Why do you keep assuming that I'm going to be a hypocrite in order to simp for the USSR?
Because I don't know who I am talking to so I have to make assumptions. I apologize.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissar_Order
Aha. The reason for this, at least from the nazi perspective is the ideologues of the USSR are enforcing an aberration of socialism, and thus 'evil opportunists'.

[Anonymous No.19265753]

>>19265734
>I'm not the one who assumes democracy, anon.
No but I think people align themselves in their class interests when it comes to picking a side.

[Anonymous No.19265798]

>>19265749
>Literally phantom wealth.
Like that ever was (or will be) an issue for them.

>The bourgeoisie was in a better state during the liberal Weimar years than they were during the NSDAP years.
They did not have a personal army and millions of literal slaves in Weimar years.

>All of that 'wealth' the bourgeoisie made doesn't account for anything when your economy is oriented towards war production
How so?

>What is the bourgeoisie going to spend their money on?
The same thing it spends all of it's money on ever - gaining more power.

>Because I don't know who I am talking to so I have to make assumptions. I apologize.
Thank you for your honesty.

>The reason for this, at least from the nazi perspective is the ideologues of the USSR are enforcing an aberration of socialism, and thus 'evil opportunists'.
That is your perspective. The Nazi perspective was that Bolshies were Jewish, Racially inferior, and therefore Evil by nature, not that they were doing "wrong socialism". The (originally Bolshie) opportunist argument is by itself a product of the diamat discourse. NSDAT did not recognize neither dialectics, nor materialism, nor dialectical materialism. You're about two statements away from claiming "well actually Nazis LOVED Marx!"

>>19265753
>No but I think people align themselves in their class interests when it comes to picking a side.
Did you just assume universal class consciousness?

[Anonymous No.19265882]

>>19265798
>Like that ever was (or will be) an issue for them.
Heh, it's the same problem today!
>They did not have a personal army and millions of literal slaves in Weimar years.
I understand that it's detestable but these are the desperate conditions of war time.
>How so?
What are they going to spend their money on? Food? Tanks? Planes? That is what the economy was geared towards.
>The same thing it spends all of it's money on ever - gaining more power.
But I thought the bourgeoisie was already in power?
>That is your perspective. The Nazi perspective was that Bolshies were Jewish, Racially inferior, and therefore Evil by nature, not that they were doing "wrong socialism".
But that is what Hitler was literally saying lol.

>In my scheme of the German state, there will be no room for the alien, no use for the wastrel, for the usurer or speculator, or anyone incapable of productive work.
...
>Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.
>NSDAP did not recognize neither dialectics, nor materialism, nor dialectical materialism.
Precisely! Because they were not a party of bourgeoisie intellectuals or economists! They were war veterans trying to achieve their vision through any means necessary! Nazis hated marxism! Yet did they even know what Marxism was?!

>You're about two statements away from claiming "well actually Nazis LOVED Marx!"
>I have learned a great deal from Marxism as I do not hesitate to admit... The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun. The whole of National Socialism is based on it... National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order.
AH from the same book I quoted before.


Argh just read this
justpaste(dot)it(slash)9hu21

[Anonymous No.19265887]

>>19265798
>Did you just assume universal class consciousness?
I assume universal egoism.

[Anonymous No.19265939]

>>19265882
>Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal
>Marxism is not Socialism
Kek, only hitler can say that shit

[Anonymous No.19265961]

>>19265882
>Heh, it's the same problem today!
It's a problem for (you), not for them. They'll be fine through it.

>What are they going to spend their money on?
As i said - more power.
>Food? Tanks? Planes?
Ah. So, you unironically believe that the absence of mass market of luxuries makes luxuries nonexistent. Anon, they don't need the mass market, because they are not the masses. And VKP(b) was

>I understand that it's detestable but these are the desperate conditions of war time.
How amazingly convenient.

>But I thought the bourgeoisie was already in power?
Not over the Lebensraum, and not over the external threats to it's regime, not yet.

>But that is what Hitler was literally saying lol.
Ah, with the paraphrase...
>"Socialism is the science of"
...and quotes from 1923 again.

>Tooze
Oh my gawd anon, I legitimately though you were an intelligent being. Instead you once again prove that burgers would rather commit lobotomy than even consider that they ever dared to sin against the God's Chosen Class.

>>19265887
So does Marx. And per Marx, personal interests can supersede class interests. You can often gain more by betraying your class in favor of the ruling class, than by protecting it's interests.

[Anonymous No.19265970]

>>19265961
>And VKP(b) was living ascetically and had nothing to enjoy from their status, by your own logic.

[Anonymous No.19265982]

>>19264650
most climate change discourse is malthusian as hell

[Anonymous No.19265993]

>>19265887
Universal orgasm is superior.

[Anonymous No.19266013]

>>19264017
check this out

[Anonymous No.19266030]

>>19265961
>Ah. So, you unironically believe that the absence of mass market of luxuries makes luxuries nonexistent.
Yes they plundered war trophies and traded that. I don't deny that.
>How amazingly convenient.
Slave labor doesn't happen in wartime conditions? It's not a matter of convenience but ensuring the war machine is running. The reich was up against 4 times it's industrial might.
>Not over the Lebensraum, and not over the external threats to it's regime, not yet.
Sigh. It's just your speculation vs. mine then.
>1923 paraphrase
It's from an interview, my other quote which is from the late 30s is a paraphrase though and thus disputed. Where hitler says he learned a "great deal from marx".

>Tooze
What is wrong with Tooze?

Essentially I am saying the nazis did some detestable actions against their 'enemies' to achieve their vision of a rich Germany. Hell I am not even denying that that they wouldn't exploit others in the name of 'germany'. I am simply saying that the nazis wanted wealth for germany and germans, by any means necessary.

[Anonymous No.19266062]

>>19266030
>Yes they plundered war trophies and traded that. I don't deny that.
Anon, anon. Does Jeffrey Epstein need a nation-wide legitimate underage pussy market in order to fuck underage pussy?

>Slave labor doesn't happen in wartime conditions?
The convenience is about being forced to do exactly what benefits you. The point is not that X shouldn't have happen - it's that it's only happened as the outcome of their conditions, while without those conditions they would be opposed to X. Well, here's a point: THEY STARTED THE WAR.

>Sigh. It's just your speculation vs. mine then.
THEY STARTED THE WAR.

>What is wrong with Tooze?
Not even once does he make a scientifically robust and good faith analysis of history. He's set out to perform apology and does precisely that.

>Essentially I am saying the nazis did some detestable actions against their 'enemies' to achieve their vision of a rich Germany.
And I entirely agree with that. It's just that "their enemies" included German people as well, and "rich Germany" meant a Germany where they are rich(er than anyone else).

[Anonymous No.19266075]

>>19266062
>Anon, anon. Does Jeffrey Epstein need a nation-wide legitimate underage pussy market in order to fuck underage pussy?
there are massive co-operative sex trafficking networks that rich people like Epstein use

[Anonymous No.19266105]

>>19266075
It's almost like there are lots of things that rich people can use, regardless of what the national industry is geared to. A nation does not need to be rich in vineyards in order for a billionaire to get a good vintage - he can import, or fund a minor scale ultrahigh-class production for a clientele of himself and a number of his pals.

[Anonymous No.19266120]

>>19266062
>Anon, anon. Does Jeffrey Epstein need a nation-wide legitimate underage pussy market in order to fuck underage pussy?
No, but german bourgeoisie spending money on the goodies taken as war trophies does not expand their power.

>THEY STARTED THE WAR
Yes and it explains "why" in that pastebin! The war was seen as a solution towards (1) Germany's overpopulation and economic problem (2) the 'bolshevik menace' (3) german domination in europe

>Not even once does he make a scientifically robust and good faith analysis of history. He's set out to perform apology and does precisely that.

A western academic writing nazi apologia?! Dude the wages of destruction is economic analysis of the war. Where does he do moralizing in it? The only reason I even posted it as an example is because of how impartial I thought it was. He even uses the economic problems to prove the holocaust, come on!

[Anonymous No.19266150]

>>19266105
>It's almost like there are lots of things that rich people can use, regardless of what the national industry is geared to
ok? what exactly is your point?

[Anonymous No.19266164]

>>19266120
>No, but german bourgeoisie spending money on the goodies taken as war trophies does not expand their power.
That's not "money" for them.

>A western academic writing nazi apologia?
Literally, yes. He made an apologia of the Nazi regime and it's nature by shifting the blame from (now conveniently useful) German billionaires towards those pesky warmongering vets and Krazy Hitler. Next thing you'll say us that that western academics never wrote an apologia of the Nazi regime by shifting the blame for war crimes from (now conveniently useful) surviving German Wehrmacht officers towards the SS and Krazy Hitler.

>how impartial I thought it was
Tooze is about as impartial as Chinese historiography from the 70s.

[Anonymous No.19266175]

>>19266150
That "rich won't have anything to spend their money on" is not a counterargument.

[Anonymous No.19266193]

>>19266164
>That's not "money" for them
Hm?
>Literally, yes. He made an apologia of the Nazi regime and it's nature by shifting the blame from (now conveniently useful) German billionaires towards those pesky warmongering vets and Krazy Hitler.
What? No he didn't. Dude did you even read the book or the pastebin? He literally just says that the motivations of the war were economic and that the nazis while being racist assholes weren't crazy.

Western apologia was never towards the regime, but it tried to shift blame from the general populace, who were otherwise complacent.

>Tooze is about as impartial as Chinese historiography from the 70s
How tho. It's friggin economics

[Anonymous No.19266644]

>>19265556
>I do think that the formation of mega corporations like Amazon, Walmart, etc. are signs that the Western elite are consciously Marxist
do you have any idea what bourgeois political economy is like? it's dominated by subjectivism

>>19265613
>c-crony capitalism! not real capitalism!

>>19265665
>See if any of them explain why the completely avoidable 1984 soviet grain shortage happened again in 1985
because of the move away from socialism to liberalism. this is most obvious after 1989. also
>gorby is still alive

>>19265882
man, hitler is some grade A schizo material

[Anonymous No.19266747]

>>19264017
Pick up Spenglers Hour of Decision so you can get over this socialist garbage. All socialist movements are a weaponization of the spiteful underclasses by opportunistic labour leaders. Their aim is the overthrow of the social order for the benefit of the few - the replacing of one ruling stratum by another. No socialist movement has, nor will ever, realize any form of workers paradise because that is only a pretext, not the goal.

[Anonymous No.19266783]

>>19266747
Spengler has no criticism of socialism. He never even denied being a socialist himself, only that Marxist socialism is 'English' and that German socialism is 'prussian'.

The triumph of blood over money will be the triumph of labor over capital

[Anonymous No.19266801]

>>19266747
>All socialist movements are a weaponization of the spiteful underclasses by opportunistic labour leaders
this sounds like projection on your part anon. but let's take a look what grand narrative Spengler supports in place of class struggle
>Spengler viewed the Nazis as too narrowly German, and not occidental enough to lead the fight against other peoples
oh wow what a shocker. the same kind of class collaborationist national chauvinism that the Nazis practiced
the bloodlust of the eternal Prussian knows no bounds

[Anonymous No.19266803]

>>19266801
>the bloodlust of the eternal Prussian knows no bounds
You can be socialist and imperialist

[Anonymous No.19266812]

>>19266803
you literally cannot you absolute brainlet. read Lenin

[Anonymous No.19266834]

>>19266812
>lenin
Lmao the bolsheviks invaded a couple of socialist nations because they weren't bolshevik™

And yes, you can. It's very easy. Watch.
>be nationstate
>have economy in the socialist mode of production
>invade another country
>take their resources
It's that fucking simple

[Anonymous No.19266852]

>>19264216
So doomsday cult, got it.

[Anonymous No.19266861]

>>19266834
that's not imperialism, retard

[Anonymous No.19266864]

>>19266861
>that's not imperialism, retard
What's not?

[Anonymous No.19266891]

>>19266864
imperialism is a specific stage of capitalism

[Anonymous No.19266893]

>>19264591
>Linkola
Angsty mental midget who couldn't conceive of an entire world existing beyond some lake in Finland.
>Even my own genius did suffer a light bump in the same year; it seems that even the wisest make mistakes once in twenty five years. In autumn 1962 I deduced that a baby girl six months old will surely endure the measly ten hours with me that a fishing trip requires, when it adjusts to it every day since summer. But at late October, the child began to die in my arms and I was forced to go ashore. In January 1987 I concluded that a face that has born and grinned for all it's life in Northern climate can't get frostbitten in the very same climate. But when thermometer indicated minus 37 degrees Celsius in shadow, quite a head-wind blew from the north at the nose of the sleign when returning from the lake and gelding sped up without encouragement, the accursed face did freeze so that only a little strip old skin was left on the other cheek near nose.

[Anonymous No.19266904]

>>19266891
>my definition of imperialism is imperialism, not yours :p


Lame

[Anonymous No.19266909]

>>19264017
7/12 grades completed

[Anonymous No.19266918]

jewish fairy tales: but for atheists this time

[Anonymous No.19266920]

>>19266891
Social imperialism is a real thing. Mao would agree that the Soviets were such imperialists.

[Anonymous No.19266924]

>>19266920
>Mao
What do I care about what some crypto-fascist thinks

[Anonymous No.19266934]

>>19266924
>Mao
>crypto-fascist
Huh? He was about as socialist as humanly possible. What do you think of Stalin then?

[Anonymous No.19266938]

>>19266920
the CPSU should have incorporated the CCP into itself rather than permit there being a second communist party running around willy nilly

[Anonymous No.19266942]

>>19265435
>nsdap is a bourgeoisie party
>that's why they declare war against the bourgeoisie

[Anonymous No.19266951]

>>19266934
>As late as 1947, Mao insisted that his program corresponded to that of Sun. Until December of that year, Mao insisted that his ‘new democracy’ would protect the ‘bourgeoisie’ and ‘their industry and commerce.’ Because of China’s backwardness, he would continue to support capitalist development and ensure that both public and private, capital and labor, interests would benefit from the revolution.

>stalin
Another one, lol. Mao was inspired by stalin after all. All that was left from their regime was barracks-communism.

[Anonymous No.19266963]

>>19266942
>what is competing monopoly capital

[Anonymous No.19266971]

>>19266783
Yes he does. A very significant part of Hour of Decision is about socialism in the vein of Marx, the kind of socialism discussed in OPs book collection.
>>19266801
>this sounds like projection on your part anon. but let's take a look what grand narrative Spengler supports in place of class struggle

Projecting what? It is a historical fact that socialist movements are led by intellectuals and the political force they have are derived from violence committed by lumpenproles. I'm not sure what the point of your irrelevant wiki quote is supposed to be. If you want to criticize Spengler, then you should read his books.

[Anonymous No.19266973]

>>19266951
Capitalism is a necessary step in the stages of development of one wants to move to the socialist stage. I don’t see why a person who controlled a country emerging from feudalism WOULDN’T be encouraging capitalism if the end goal was socialism and later communism.

[Anonymous No.19266978]

>>19266963
Capital by it's very nature is international. The German bourgeoisie had no reason to ruin relations with French or English bourgeoisie.

[Anonymous No.19266984]

>>19266973
>Capitalism is a necessary step in the stages of development of one wants to move to the socialist stage. I don’t see why a person who controlled a country emerging from feudalism WOULDN’T be encouraging capitalism if the end goal was socialism and later communism.
So pic related was a socialist then?
Because that's literally exactly what he did.

[Anonymous No.19266995]

>>19266984
For a good chunk of his life Mussolini was a socialist. And his fascism is rooted in Marxist thought. Have you read his “On Fascism”? His gripe with socialism isn’t that it’s materially misguided, but that it fails to take into account non-material aspects of a nation.

[Anonymous No.19267005]

>>19266984
He was a socialist, Lenin himself called the Italian socialists cucks for losing such a great man due to their faggotry.

[Anonymous No.19267009]

>>19266995
>Have you read his “On Fascism”?
Where can I find this?

[Anonymous No.19267010]

>>19266995
>but that it fails to take into account non-material aspects of a nation.
I mean, it sort of does. So thats not really misguided criticism

[Anonymous No.19267013]

>>19267005
>He was a socialist, Lenin himself called the Italian socialists cucks for losing such a great man due to their faggotry.
Okay but lenin later praised the arditi for fighting against fascism. That Lenin praise was in 1915.

[Anonymous No.19267018]

>>19266995
>And his fascism is rooted in Marxist thought. Have you read his “On Fascism”? His gripe with socialism isn’t that it’s materially misguided, but that it fails to take into account non-material aspects of a nation.
I called mao a crypto fascist didn't I?

[Anonymous No.19267022]

>>19267009
Here’s an excerpt:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mussolini/works/fascism.htm
Relevant quote:
> Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect

[Anonymous No.19267027]

>>19264017
People's Republic of Walmart is meme-tier shit that completely misses the point
>Walmart has internal planning!!!
Yes, and it competes on a market using price signals as information, dipshit.
Ellman's Socialist Planning is an excellent reference.
Red Plenty is a fantastic novel and a really good fictionalisation of the Soviet economy and the planning debate as a whole.
Cockshott is a dead-ender ideologue, more or less a fossil from the 1930s. It's especially amusing listening to him explain to Youtube teens that no actually, workers in the West are MORE exploited than workers in the third world because they create more surplus value!! Marx says so!!!
I don't know the Econophysics book but looking at the names it's obviously bunk.

You should have bought:
The Market System by Charles Lindblom (how markets work, and when they sometimes don't)
The Economics of Feasible Socialism by Alec Nove (the best presentation of market socialism, the only reasonable socialist economy)
The Socialist System by Janos Kornai (detailed look at the centrally-planned Eastern bloc economies and their experiments with market socialism)

[Anonymous No.19267041]

>>19267022
Doesn't sound marxist at all to me. He literally said it is the complete opposite of marxism.

[Anonymous No.19267058]

>>19265961
There is no such thing as a "class interest", you retard, because workers are not a monolith.

[Anonymous No.19267067]

>>19266747
>All socialist movements are a weaponization of the spiteful underclasses by opportunistic labour leaders.
This is the view Nietzche and Stirner

[Anonymous No.19267069]

>>19267041
The point is that he isn’t against Marxism within the framework of materialism, but that he disagrees with the materialist framework itself. When judging his actions within Italy from a strictly materialist position, he does seem socialist, which is correct but flawed because he didn’t agree with that worldview.

TLDR: Mussolini isn’t a socialist but if you interpret his actions as being socialist, you aren’t really wrong within a Marxist worldview.

[Anonymous No.19267164]

>>19267027
>Yes, and it competes on a market using price signals as information, dipshit.
yeah because the goal of walmart is to maximize profit. this is not the goal of socialists
>workers in the West are MORE exploited than workers in the third world because they create more surplus value
I mean this is literally the case, in terms of the mass of surplus value extracted. but not, nota bene, in terms of the rate of exploitation
a worker using more productive tools will create more value than a worker that doesn't, because they both compete on the same market. the latter is just a wasteful use of labour power
it is also the case that western workers embody more value, because it takes more labour time to reproduce them than the average worker globally, because of imperialism. on the other hand it is almost certainly the case that the rate of exploitation is much higher for third world workers, again due to this difference in the value of labour power.
socialism is not pauperism. it is not mediocre production

>>19267058
classes and class interests exist whether you like it or not anon

[Anonymous No.19267178]

>>19267164
>classes and class interests exist whether you like it or not anon
Ok but there's a multiplicity of classes, not (2)

[Anonymous No.19267201]

>>19267178
not in the first world there isn't, possibly with the exception of the US due to its prison slave population. other parts of the world still has a peasantry. the first world doesn't. I read somewhere that there's vestigial serfdom on one of the minor British isles

[Anonymous No.19267207]

>>19267164
>classes and class interests exist whether you like it or not anon
>I'm non-sensical beliefs exist whether you like it or not
No, and that's why you people don't and won't ever hold any political power. Socialism is envyous movement of the paupers. None of your economic theories are true; its just sophistry to defend your patheticness.

[Anonymous No.19267214]

>>19267201
>first world workers have the same class interests as third world workers
HAHAHAHAHA westoids will kill you if you try to take away their iphones

[Anonymous No.19267219]

>>19267214
Now you see why this guy is a retard, right? All Marxists are like this. They don't live in reality, and wonder why nobody ever takes them or their ideas seriously. Its always these fringe retards talking about Marx who are unemployed and can't even organize a strike or a union. Its just pathetic people being pathetic because they're a medicore humanities major with no real world experience.

[Anonymous No.19267222]

>>19267207
>its just sophistry to defend your patheticness
stop talking about yourself anon

>>19267214
are you telling me that inter-class conflicts exist? wow anon

[Anonymous No.19267229]

Just ask a Marxist why they live a country where parties who support the world view do not even hold a seat in office. None of them will give you an answer that's logical.

[Anonymous No.19267234]

>>19267222
>are you telling me that inter-class conflicts exist? wow anon
They're not part of the same class. Someone who works in starbucks does not have the same interest as a factory worker. Even two different kinds of factory workers have different interests. Class being your relationship towards the means of production.

Herebis a hint, if your interests are dialectical—you're not part of the same class!
>>19267219
Shhhhhh give him time.

[Anonymous No.19267270]

>>19267234
Define your terms - what are you pointing to when you say "interests" - that's polysemic. If I'm going to argue they do, lets get our terms straight.

[Anonymous No.19267274]

>>19267234
>They're not part of the same class
yes they are. "working class" doesn't just mean factory workers anon. and as automation increases factory workers become fewer and fewer

[Anonymous No.19267323]

>>19267274
So the number of proles decease and the number of bourgeois increase with automation? I agree.

[Anonymous No.19267337]

>>19267164
>yeah because the goal of walmart is to maximize profit. this is not the goal of socialists
>it is also the case that western workers embody more value, because it takes more labour time to reproduce them than the average worker globally, because of imperialism. on the other hand it is almost certainly the case that the rate of exploitation is much higher for third world workers, again due to this difference in the value of labour power.
Yawn. I could reply but why bother? You're a kid who has read one book and thinks they know how the world works.

I gave you some reading suggestions. Take a look at them if you want to think for yourself rather than parrot a philosopher who's been dead for 150 years.

[Anonymous No.19267342]

>19267270
I mean CLASS INTEREST anon. It is in the interest of westoids to rely on the bourgeoisie factory owners to get smartphones as cheaply as possible from factory workers in China who in turn rely on another bourgeoisie exploitation of lithium mines. It is in the interests of chinese factory worker that the african working in tbe lithium mine be exploited so they can have a job.
>>19267274
I know it doesn't 'just' mean that I defined it as a relation to the means of production. From top to bottom: consumer is a worker, a distributer is a worker, a manufacturer is a worker, a miner is a worker—but they have OPPOSING interests because of their relationship with the productive forces.

If communists were serious, they would understand that revolution would have to begin from the bottom up and would volunteer their body and soul to overthrow the bourgeoisie who own those lithium mines in Africa. What do so.ycialists in the west do? Distribute welfare for the worst of consumers, leaving the working man in other shitholes in the dust. How is that for "class solidarity"?

There is no 'working class' in the west. There is labor aristocracy.

[Anonymous No.19267409]

>>19267342
By the way I am a Fascist.

[Anonymous No.19267561]

>>19267323
2/8 bait

>>19267329
>social democrats are socialists
no anon
>they have OPPOSING interests because of their relationship with the productive forces
wrong
how to actually go about wresting control over the MoPs away from porky, for good, is an open question. leninists have had the best luck so far
>>19267409
>By the way I am a Fascist.
that explains why what you write is an incoherent mess

[Anonymous No.19267623]

>>19267561
You said absolutely nothing. You responded to none of my points. I explained to you how their interests oppose one another.
Like I said you already have a war to fight. You have the theory as well. You should be in third world shitholes acting as a labor agitator.

You are no better than succdems. Talking out of your ass.

>that Mussolini pic
You're a disgusting human being. You'll be up against the wall along with Jim Carrey. Spineless buffoon.

[Anonymous No.19267671]

>>19267623
>You're a disgusting human being. You'll be up against the wall along with Jim Carrey. Spineless buffoon.
Literally seething lmao

[Anonymous No.19267684]

>>19267671
>Literally seething lmao
I don't post pictures of Lenin during his strokes. You can afford me the same respect.

[Trox mf No.19269035]

>>19264017
There is a book for kinds like u lmao, it is called "How to be a damn ape" it'll go with ur collection...

[Anonymous No.19269083]

>>19267623
>>19267684
>You're a disgusting human being. You'll be up against the wall along with Jim Carrey. Spineless buffoon.
>muh respect
lol

[Anonymous No.19269089]

>>19269083
>insult someone
>they tell you that you ought to be shot
>try to take the moral high ground
Nice

[Anonymous No.19269106]

>>19269089
cry more?

[Anonymous No.19269116]

>>19264017

[Anonymous No.19269118]

>>19267409
Based

[Anonymous No.19269133]

>>19269106
>cry more?

[Anonymous No.19269142]

>>19264017
>cockshott

[Anonymous No.19269144]

>>19269142
What's wrong with him?

[Anonymous No.19269165]

>>19269144
his name is cock shot. But seriously I can't stand to read that sort of working class wannabe Chomsky leftist literature, would much rather read fiction

[Anonymous No.19269195]

>>19269165
Dickblast
PenisProjectile
DickPic
PudPistol
ChoadCannon
Dickfling
Penispop
Cockfire
Phalluslaunch
Prickbarrage
Schlongbombard
Willybarrage
Prickemit
Phallusexpel
Shaftignite
Prickpropel
Dickproject
Tooltrigger
Woodzap

[Anonymous No.19269220]

>>19269195
All of these