[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives


File: 1718042730777.jpg (20.07 KB, 564x514, kwitty.jpg)

 [Last 50 Posts]

But… have we actually tried reversing the accumulation of capital so that it isn't concentrated into the hands of a few? This seems to be the best argument against capitalism that I've seen, yet I don't really see any argument for why we can't simply legislatively undo accumulation through tax, seizures, etc other than 'noo they wont let us'. Granted that's a problem but it doesn't strike me as a necessarily true statement? Why *can't* we just have social democracy that progresses into socialism possibly later. Why do we necessarily have the dichotomy of 'socialism or barbarism'?

i dunt get it

 

If you can simply do that, why hasn't anyone done it? Could there be something sinister in liberal democracy?

 

You can do anything you want, in theory
In reality, you get a bullet through the head

 

>>1881862
Sure, the accumulation of capital means it's easier to accumulate power so that's why generally we see richer people's class interests governing us. But it doesn't mean there can't theoretically be instances where wealth is 'redistributed' back to a more organic place right? Under which case capitalism could just last forever?

 

>>1881864
i dont see bernie sanders or jeremy corbyn getting a bullet to da head tho. sure they got character assassinated to heck but they got kinda close w the entryism thing

 

>>1881866
I mean yeah, but they're just going to move all their money to Switzerland until regime change.
>>1881867
Got close to what? Endless obstruction and constitutional crises? Maybe a cheeky coup?

 

Communist China has done this

 

>>1881860
>Why *can't* we just have social democracy that progresses into socialism
socialism doesn't work that way social democracy is just capitalism with a false sense of security

 

Class antagonism is still at play so it's an unstable situation. In France during the 80s the socialist Mitterand was elected on a reform program but the bourgeoisie threatened capital flight until he was forced to implement a neoliberal program. You can't dictate terms to a class that can crash the economy or overthrow the government whenever they feel like it unless the other class is capable of the same.

 

>>1881868
>I mean yeah, but they're just going to move all their money to Switzerland until regime change.

They always say this but they never do. Here in the UK when they instituted the minimum wage this was the argument but then that never happened.

>Got close to what? Endless obstruction and constitutional crises? Maybe a cheeky coup?

I guess I think you either believe in an informed electorate or you don't and you're just subject to the whims of passing tyrants and that eventually people will wise up *shrug*

>>1881870
I'm also saying we could just have stable capitalism maybe?

>>1881871
Why does class antagonism necessarily imply instability? These are just tensions… they don't necessarily have to resolve in disequilibrium right?

 

>>1881872
>I'm also saying we could just have stable capitalism maybe?
instability is inherent in capitalism

 

>>1881874
yes the point of this thread is im asking why!!!!!!

 

>>1881875
I get the economy moves in cycles and whatever but to me that doesn't imply 'unstable' it just implies 'cyclical' and something can be cyclical and stable

 

>>1881872
>Why does class antagonism necessarily imply instability?
Capitalists can't pay workers the full value of their labor or else capitalists wouldn't make any money. It's in the capitalist's interests to keep wages down to keep the rate of exploitation (that is, how much value the workers produce that capitalists take for themselves) high, and it's in the worker's interests to eliminate their own exploitation. Given the enormous working class power needed to push the reforms you're suggesting, it's worth asking whether it would be desirable for a working class capable of implementing these measures to not just take power for itself rather than taking a half measure that leaves its enemy in a position to recuperate and undo its gains.

 

>>1881872
>They always say this but they never do.
They absolutely will if you're straight up coming for the money out of their accounts. Everything else is just whining though, obviously they will stay in a profitable market.
>I guess I think you either believe in an informed electorate or you don't and you're just subject to the whims of passing tyrants and that eventually people will wise up *shrug*
People wise up when their situation becomes unbearable, otherwise they will find a way to be stupid which just so happens to align with their self interest and self preservation.

 

>>1881879
Yeah so these two groups have a conflict of interest (at least in immediate terms), I'm with you on this. But I don't see why that implies instability. We've seen that modern capitalism since Keynes has shown an immense ability to reconstitute itself and adapt, bringing the workers movement into its own anatomy and expecting them and responding to them as if it were just a normal part of its functions. So I don't buy the logical step here being that it's necessarily unstable. You can have two opposite forces that find some kind of stability even if it's not a simple equilibrium.

>>1881880
I don't buy this one either. Either of those points.

 

> we actually tried reversing the accumulation of capital so that it isn't concentrated into the hands of a few?
What, like China?
The better question is what leads you to believe it’s possible without massive upheaval first? South America is a case study of what you can expect.

 

>>1881888
China isn't a great example given there's a lot of billionaires… and a lot of western multinationals still active in there… but I guess it'd be a step up if not for shit like 996 and ghost cities. I ain't that educated on the topic though.

In my opinion I think it's not all that important whether it's possible without massive upheaval. I'm moreso just sceptical of the promise of communism since that doesn't seem to happen even after violent upheaval.

 

>>1881860
Socdems already tried that with progressive taxes on wages and capital. Didnt work.

 

>>1881895
it seems to work out pretty ok it's breathed life into capitalism despite the fact that it probably should have died in the great depression

 

>>1881898
I mean it's maybe prolonged capitalism but certainly not actually reversed inequality

 

>>1881860
>have we tried distributism yet
Many times

 

>>1881860
>But… have we actually tried reversing the accumulation of capital so that it isn't concentrated into the hands of a few? This seems to be the best argument against capitalism that I've seen, yet I don't really see any argument for why we can't simply legislatively undo accumulation through tax, seizures, etc other than 'noo they wont let us'.
The entire system of capitalism, how it work to regulate itself, is rewarding the people who "do well" aka "provide services best" with more money, more concentration of wealth, and punishing those who dont perform as well. This also rewards them with political power.
You cannot have a system that self-regulates by giving more wealth as rewards that then re-inforce the upper hand of those who won, and then undo the foundational logic of that system by taking all the wealth away. Just like you cannot have a 100% tax on high wages and profits. Capitalism does not function without rewarding the winners and increasing the concentration of capital. Even if the powerfull won't oppose it somehow (which they will), the system itself would collapse. Any incentive in the market to do good or prevent the bad would fall away since you level the outcomes.

There is only one way to do what you want. Make the entire economy property of the state, owned and managed by the state, and make all profits fictitious and only used as indicators which industries perform good or bad. Though this has its own problems of keeping market logic.

 

>>1881860
>But what about Utopianism
Engels debunked your shit

 

File: 1718047584801-0.jpg (698.75 KB, 2560x1902, 400921_ra541.jpg)

File: 1718047584801-3.jpg (110.34 KB, 800x450, q1p2Xck2.jpg)

>>1881912
Oh yeah, i forgot, there is one way to do it, which has been done successfully two times, to destroy the concentration of capital. Led to boom and seeming growth and enough for everyone a few decades following it too.
Maybe we should try it again. I hear ukraine is very nice this time of year.

 

>>1881916
Fortunately nuclear weapons removed that option

 

>>1881918
>Fortunately nuclear weapons removed that option
Hmm did it now? I must have imagined the attacks launched into Russia, or the war in syria, lybia, irak, etc etc. The troop and weapons buildup in europe must also be imaginary because there are nukes after all.
Because imperialist powers are known for their restraint. And everyone has nukes. And governments never fall or have outside induced civil conflicts.

 

>>1881883
Keynesianism and social democracy work until capitalists place the right bribes to get neoliberalism pushed through. That's what I mean by "unstable", not that it will immediately fall apart but that it can't last. Eventually capitalists are going to demand higher returns on investment and that's going to mean the crushing of working class bargaining power. There are powerful economic forces pulling apart any solution that relies on class collaboration, and usually it was capitalists terrorizing the working class to impose the arrangement (in the form of corporatism or fascism).

 

>>1881921
I mean yes obviously wars still happen but not world wars. If one did happen the entire world would be destroyed practically.

 

File: 1718048137916.png (1.25 MB, 1280x1066, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1881924
>I mean yes obviously wars still happen but not world wars.

 

>>1881902
It definitely did reverse some inequality even though it has crept back up on us. If it hadn't been successful in this it wouldn't have placated the 20th century workers' movements and relegated radical leftism to more-or-less irrelevance which I think isn't a controversial statement.

>>1881912
Why not?

>>1881914
????

>>1881923
Yeah I accept that there will always be a tug of war between these two classes but I don't think that means capitalism is unstable or that there's some way out of it.

 

File: 1718048394844.png (464.18 KB, 787x1000, 1711573416739-0.png)

>why won't the capitalists abolish themselves
>why didn't the slave-owning class in the States abolish itself
I wonder if their material interests might play a role? As Marx observed, the capitalist IS capital personified. The capitalist has no other functional purpose in society besides to fulfill their role in the circulation and accumulation of capital.

 

>>1881934
I didn't ask either of those questions

 

>>1881929
>Why not?
I just explained. If you build your entire economic system to function around rewarding winners with more capital and taking it from the losers, then you cant simultaniously do the exact opposite by redistributing everything again, destroying the core logic of your economic system.
What you want, limiting the amount of wealth, preventing too much concentration of capital, is called the Rhenish model, which seeks to limit the size of monopolies by splitting them up. In practice, this just does not work, because of both the above and the fact that splitting up corporations does not actually function due to corporations increasingly being financialised and owning parts of each other or falling under the same clique of financiers such as investment funds, hedgefunds or big banks.

 

>>1881929
Arguably the only reason why social democracy was successful for a little bit was because the bourgeois were scared of the USSR.

 

>>1881938
There seems to be a lot of assumptions baked into your argument here. Specifically

>simultaneously

Why not wait till the moment the distribution gets annoying and then redistribute.

I'm also not talking about restricting monopolies… I think it's obvious monopolies can be very effective and natural. I'm just suggesting total free market vs communism isn't a 0-1 issue where you just have one or the other as the last 100 years shows IMO.

>>1881939
I feel like it's got very little to do w fear of the USSR. Probably what caused the USSR to exist was the same thing upholding social democracy is more likely?

 

>>1881943
But my main issue here is that it still doesn't solve the core issue which is why should I think this song and dance and tug of war between the classes can't just sustain itself forever

 

File: 1718049352846.jpeg (68.45 KB, 800x398, shotgun.jpeg)

>>1881860
>have we actually tried reversing the accumulation of capital so that it isn't concentrated into the hands of a few?
thats not reversing it. Thats distributing it more. The mass of capital is still increasing. In order to actually reverse the accumulation of capital you would need a massive recession or war which physically destroys capital, equipment, buildings, etc.

 

>>1881949
What is 'the mass of capital' and why do you associate that specifically with the level of accumulation

 

>>1881924
World wars are battles over whose values, relations, etc. will be imposed on human ambition and labor. Imperial students aren't taught to distinguish between all that exists and the valorization thereof, so they tend to misunderstand the concept through an imperial, Götterdammerung lens.

>>1881938
>I just explained. If you build your entire economic system to function around rewarding winners with more capital and taking it from the losers, then you cant simultaniously do the exact opposite by redistributing everything again, destroying the core logic of your economic system.
You didn't build an entire economic system, though. You have assumed that people will participate in this mode of production in which most of them will be ruined, that it is viable without a reproductive apparatus. Obviously, you need institutions of some sort to prevent the least-resistant, final, fatal outcome of eating all the seed corn.
Capitalists are necessarily interested in reproducing the order in which they can be capitalists, in which their proprietary interests can bind others to produce surplus for them. They are smart enough not to self-destruct, especially with all the warnings Marx gave them!
<Ordoliberalism is the German variant of economic liberalism that emphasizes the need for government to ensure that the free market produces results close to its theoretical potential but does not advocate for a welfare state (and did not advocate against one either).

>>1881949
Under the rules of capitalism, yes, but rules are for bourgeois cucks.

 

>>1881955
Yeah I feel like a lot of analyses of 'class interest' here assume a sort of short-term mentality where people can't be smart enough to forgo short-term interests for long-term success. If capitalists want to sustain the system it only makes sense they'd give in to certain demands sometimes when necessary, that is what has happened over the last 100 years. Capitalism is rly smart and I feel like it's just not going to die in the foreseeable future as a result..

 

>>1881943
>Why not wait till the moment the distribution gets annoying and then redistribute.
If it is known that every, say, 10 years, you redistribute all wealth, then whats the point in building a company, why take the risk, invest your money, why not just go on a big holiday? Buy nice champagne? Why invest your money, or that of the bank, if there is a bank to begin with, in a company and put a lot of work in trying to get it succesfull which takes some years to begin with.

Hell, why not burn it down, like why shouldnt a farmer burn all his stored grain? Or, why not use those ten years to sponsor political parties that oppose the redistribution?

How would you redistribute the wealth, by the way?
Would you dismantle wallmart? Sever all the supply chains? Destroy all the benefits of centralised economies of scale? Destroy the supply chains that make modern life possible?
Or would you give everyone shares?

Thinking about this, it shows you the true contradiction of capitalism that marxists seek to address. Not that one person has more stuff than another, not that capital is concentrated in one place by one person. But that we actually want concentrated production, production is already concentrated, and the more it concentrated, the more wealth we could produce per hour worked. The contradiction is that we want the concentration of capital, that there is less and less individual production and more and more socialised production, we all produce working together in giant supply chains globally, but at the same time ownership of the products of that production are privatised.
The problem is the idea of ownership altogether, the seperation of who works and who owns. Breaking ownership up in tiny little pieces to either give to small bourgoies owners or via shares to everyone wont solve the fundamental mechanism that seperates ownership and labour.
And if you're already going to the effort of giving everyone shares, why not just collectivise everything outright? Why let private ownership of capital exist at all if its going to be shit in a while anyway? Why go through the eternal cycle of trying to re-collectivise everything again and run the risk of losing at some point in the future. In your scenario, the people have to be lucky to do it every time, but those who come out on top, the will of capital as a force in itself, only has to be lucky once to stay in power for good.

It is as black and white and having or not having capitalism, because it is not about wealth inequality, it is about the fundamental mechanisms of markets and capital that make capital a force on its own outside the control of the population, because you push people into a system that has very clear incentives with harsh punishment and high rewards, which will promote those that act on those incentives to positions of power regardless of the good intentions of the rest of the populations.

 

>>1881953
nta but the "mass of capital" is the surplus held in reserve (i.e. the unspent billions of the super-rich).

 

>>1881960
1. because you can have 10 years of fun
2. It'd probably still be better to be a millionaire than not rich at all and I'm not saying we should legislate millionaires out, just billionaires. I'm basically saying 'temper capitalisms worst proclivities'


3.

>How would you redistribute the wealth, by the way?

Been studying a lot of economics to understand this and I think a lot of it starts with preventing monetary and fiscal fiddling and understanding the proper role of the socially democratic state. It's a complicated issue that I don't really wanna waste the time getting into but I definitely think there's a way to do this rn.

>It is as black and white and having or not having capitalism, because it is not about wealth inequality, it is about the fundamental mechanisms of markets and capital that make capital a force on its own outside the control of the population, because you push people into a system that has very clear incentives with harsh punishment and high rewards, which will promote those that act on those incentives to positions of power regardless of the good intentions of the rest of the populations.


I am not convinced because I think it makes a tangible difference to the survival of the system if the capitalist class can properly ingest interests other than its own class and align itself to them in some ways in order to ensure its long term success

 

>>1881962
so why can't you distribute that better

 

>>1881966
I never said you cant

 

>>1881978
so why isnt that reversing accumulation

 

>>1881955
>Capitalists are necessarily interested in reproducing the order in which they can be capitalists, in which their proprietary interests can bind others to produce surplus for them. They are smart enough not to self-destruct, especially with all the warnings Marx gave them!
This is the dumbest shit i've read a self proclaimed marxist say.
Climate change.
Overproduction.
Inter imperialist conflicts.
Capitalism is precisely self destructive because it is an unstable system that can not exist in stasis. Capitalists are destroying themselves.
Korea and Japan are dying out because the capitalist system creates such a hellscape that nobody is able or willing to raise the next generation of workers. Europe as well, a sinking ship plugged up with mass migration leading directly to major civil unrest. They are destroying the climate needed to support themselves. Investment firms regularly buy corporations to strip them off their assets, bleed them dry in 2 years and leave them in ruins for quick short term gain.

The so called tragedy of the commons is a fun tale told in economic class, but in reality describes capitalism. All externalities under capitalism are destroyed, and even the land used to support their own operations is regularly pushed over its limits, destroying it in the long run.

>>1881964
>1. because you can have 10 years of fun
How is spending years of your life building a small bussiness for jack shit fun if its taken away again at the end.
>2. It'd probably still be better to be a millionaire than not rich at all and I'm not saying we should legislate millionaires out, just billionaires. I'm basically saying 'temper capitalisms worst proclivities'
So that is what was tried. And it does not work. Because millionaires have the power to lobby the government or outright buy it to allow them to become billionaires. You are living in a fantasy world there you think you can return to FDRs era without understanding what allowed him to get into power (powerfull labour movements, a need for unity during war time and a need for massive public works to feed the war machine) and why he was removed rather quickly (he was too social democratic and didnt do what the financial capitalists wanted).

>Been studying a lot of economics to understand thi

Study harder and study history too. Modern economics is a lot of castles in the sky ideas or outright unprovable nonsense. If you truly have these ideas, ask yourself why you, a random person on a random image board, are the first one enlightened enough to do it. And then realise youre not the first, its been done, its been dismantled, not because of "good arguments", because no social democrat believed in trickle down bullshit, but by force and bribery, political maneuvering. Understanding why the previous attempts at implementing your ideas failed shows you the way forward or shows you how what you want is not sustainable.

>I am not convinced because I think it makes a tangible difference to the survival of the system if the capitalist class can properly ingest interests other than its own class and align itself to them in some ways in order to ensure its long term success

They can only do so, so long as there are way for them to remain in a state of growth. As soon as they run out, they have to look for new places to grow into, or be outcompeted by people who will do so. Then there will be less and less room for the interests of the working class. Previously free healthcare and education become investment opportunities to establish a medical industry or paid for universities with exorbitant loans. Public housing gets privatized to rent out. Small companies get pushed out of business with underhanded tricks and bribery of the right politicians to make this possible, such as Uber and Airbnb did. Either that, or they have to invade some other country to destroy whichever capital exists there so they can take it over. A capitalist can not exist in stasis, because the capitalist class is a large group of people in competition with each other. It only takes one capitalist to break the prisoners dilemma of "stable capitalism" for the peace to fall apart, only one person has to backstab the others subtlety and gain capital at the expense of others, or at the expense of the workers, and they will grow in influence.

Capitalists have shown they cannot live in peace with themselves. They constantly fight, fuck each other over, to try and gain a better position, make more money. The capitalist class has only at specific moments been forced by external preassure to give in to interests other than its own. During world war 2 in the usa because of communist and labour massive strikes and the threat of the world war, and after world war 2 in europe because of relatively unclaimed markets in which to grow as well as the threat of communism.
Once the market share ran out, and communism collapsed, so did social democracy.

 

>>1881992
>So that is what was tried. And it does not work. Because millionaires have the power to lobby the government or outright buy it to allow them to become billionaires. You are living in a fantasy world there you think you can return to FDRs era without understanding what allowed him to get into power (powerfull labour movements, a need for unity during war time and a need for massive public works to feed the war machine) and why he was removed rather quickly (he was too social democratic and didnt do what the financial capitalists wanted).

You either believe in an informed electorate or you don't and we're all just subject to the whims of billionaires anyway *shrug* what's your alternative? FDR got into power and I'm not saying the same thing will happen again but I think a time will come when there's conditions necessary for a proper social democratic movement to happen.

>ask yourself why you, a random person on a random image board, are the first one enlightened enough to do it

im not lots of economists talk about this

>its been dismantled

Ok and so what the USSR was dismantled that doesn't mean YOU stopped trying socialism you just said 'ok time for a different approach'. I'm doing the same. This is not a good argument at all IMO.

>Capitalists have shown they cannot live in peace with themselves. They constantly fight, fuck each other over, to try and gain a better position, make more money. The capitalist class has only at specific moments been forced by external preassure to give in to interests other than its own. During world war 2 in the usa because of communist and labour massive strikes and the threat of the world war, and after world war 2 in europe because of relatively unclaimed markets in which to grow as well as the threat of communism.


Again cyclicality is not instability. Capitalism has stood for hundreds of years, there's no reason to think it's going away anytime soon. So I think we either make the best of it and try to figure out a way to force capitalism to ingest more worker movements into its anatomy or just lay down and die.

I don't find any of these arguments you're making particularly compelling though as to why socialism is any more realistic, the exact same arguments can be applied (the bourgeoisie will simply bribe the ppl who run the soviets) nor does this make me think capitalism is going to fail for any reason.

 

>>1881992
Oh look, it's another rightoid thinking he dispenses admission to Marxism or not.

<I would further ask you to study the theory from its original sources and not from secondhand works; it is really much easier. One can say that Marx has written nothing in which some part of the theory is not found. An excellent example of its application in a specific way is the “Eighteenth Brumaire of L. Bonaparte.” Also in “Capital” (III) are many illustrations. And also permit me to recommend to you my writings, Herr E. Duehring’s “Umwalzung der Wissenchaft,” and “Feuerbach und der Ausgang der Klassischen deutschen Philosophie,” in which I have given the most ample illustrations of Historical Materialism which to my knowledge exists. That the young people give to the economic factor more importance than belongs to it is in part the fault of Marx and myself. Facing our adversaries we had to lay especial stress on the essential principle denied by them, and, besides, we had not always the time, place, or occasion to assign to the other factors which participate in producing the reciprocal effect, the part which belongs to them. But scarcely has one come to the representation of a particular historical period, that is, to a practical application of the theory, when things changed their aspect, and such an error was no longer permissible. It happens too often that one believes he has perfectly understood a new theory, and is able to manage it without any aid, when he has scarcely learned the first principles, and not even those correctly. This reproof I cannot spare to some of our new Marxists; and in truth it has been written by the wearer of the marvellous robe himself. [That is, by Marx. – Editor.]

 

Doesn't solve anything, just creates a petit bourgeoisie.

 

>>1882002
>You either believe in an informed electorate
Elections in my country correspond almost one to one to the amount of money spend on advertisement by the parties, unless a specific political blunder happened, so yes.

>but I think a time will come when there's conditions necessary for a proper social democratic movement to happen.

An anti-capitalist revolutionary movement that threatens the capitalist system is that condition. And I am not going to put all that effort in just so I can grow old and see my kids fall into the same shit as me again once they once again sabotage the unions to death.

>im not lots of economists talk about this

And they have for over a century. Why isnt it stable? Why did social democracy only last a 3-4 decades at the very most everywhere it was?

>Ok and so what the USSR was dismantled that doesn't mean YOU stopped trying socialism you just said 'ok time for a different approach'. I'm doing the same. This is not a good argument at all IMO.

I dont see a different approach. I see you doing the exact same approach. I am actually doing a different approach, im not going to replicate the soviet union, i dont aim to do so, i do not wish to do so, because it had very deep rooted fundamental flaws in both its governing structure and economic structure. But what you plead for has been done that exact way already, and it failed.

>Again cyclicality is not instability.

Its not a cycle. A cycle implies a return to the old position. The balance between rabbits and wolves is a cycle, because its in equalibrium. Capitalism has never been in equalibrium and cannot be in equalibrium. The "cycle" of capitalism is a crisis of overproduction, then austerity, canibalisation of whatever workers power there was, destruction of part of the economy to the benefit of the largest capitalist, for it to start over but now with larger monopolies and less welfare.
Either that or an all out destructive world war. And excuse me if I am not willing to accept the death and genocide of millions of people every half a century give or take in the name of the economy.

> the exact same arguments can be applied (the bourgeoisie will simply bribe the ppl who run the soviets)

I am not going to re-do the soviet union
>nor does this make me think capitalism is going to fail for any reason.
Oh, if there is no resistance it wont fail. Millions will die and continue to die, the climate will continue to collapse, but capitalism will live, because it will keep destroying itself so it can rebuild itself, kind of like feudal lords.

>>1882011
That excerpt says nothing to support your position

 

>>1882013
what are you trying to solve exactly

 

>>1882019
we haven';t really gotten into my approach at all you simply dismiss out of hand the possibility of there being another approach.

 

>>1882021
What are you trying to solve?
You talk about wanting to keep millionaires, ban billionaires, having fun, etc.
Do you just seek out ways to justify your (i suspect) position as a well to do person at the top of the pyramid while maintaining the system in the face of social unrest and degradtion?
Because if that it you, then congratulations, you are in a long line of social democrats who did the exact thing, clearly see the system is untenable, but unwilling to get rid of it, so they have to find ways to keep it alive without abolishing the broken thinh.

 

>>1882022
Ok so let's break it down. Wealth gives you much more political power than the average person. We all know elections are decided by media access, advertising, and so on before the ballot papers are ever printed. So how do you expect that you could keep the power of the rich at bay while allowing them to continue to exist and influence the system?

 

>>1882022
You proposed policies that have already been tried. You say stuff like
>FDR got into power and I'm not saying the same thing will happen again but I think a time will come when there's conditions necessary for a proper social democratic movement to happen.
And other stuff that indicates you have no other tactic in mind than electoralism and hoping people vote for you.

Politics isnt about having the right ideas. It about having the ability to wield economic power like a sledgehammer and control the narrative through media and censorship.

 

>>1882029
And, as such, it is an institution that is best destroyed along with everyone who upholds it. CMV

 

>>1882019
It says to put down your economics Tinkertoys and read some of Marx's sociology

 

>>1882040
Maybe you should start reading some marx and lenin and mao instead, or start posting some actual arguments and proofs instead of calling everyone a reactionary when they dont agree with the delusional idea that "They are smart enough not to self-destruct, especially with all the warnings Marx gave them!"
The entire economic study of marx, lenin and all those after him is of capitalism and it shows how there are fundamental contradictions within capitalism itself which lead to crisis, which lead to this self destruction. It is a core aspect of marxism, no matter how much you can whine and shout and post irrelevant Engels quotes from random letters.
The entirety of marxist strategy and tactics is to study capitalism, build strenght in the working class, and use the mistakes and internal contradictions of the capitalists against them. The soviet union was build during an inter imperialist conflict. Communist china was build when the KMT and japanese were weakened by ww2. All anti colonial struggles were possible because of a weakened imperialist core due to their own internal conflict.

If you believe the ruling class is not self destructive because of magical class conciousness juice, then you have not understood marx, not understood lenin or any of the other theorists, and you will never achieve a single victory as a communist.

 

>>1882052
Hazbot reported

 

>>1882067
Im the opposite of a hazoid, you retarded dipshit.
Do you even do any actual organisation work or do you just post nonsense online?

 

>>1882070
>I build the Church
All worldbuilders are bourgeois and should kts, especially you.

 

>>1882074
>>I build the Church
>All worldbuilders are bourgeois and should kts, especially you.
What the fuck does this even mean?
Do you even do any work irl? Part of a party? Active in some chapter of something? Any communist that doesnt do anything irl is not actually a communist, but just a bourgoies intellectual with a weird hobby

 

*sigh* you guys are just not sending your best today

 

>>1882207
Maybe you should engage honestly with the things being said instead of going
"Nuh uh, i am special, this time social democracy is going to be different even though i dont do anything different".

 

Reaganomics ahh post

 

>>1882207
never bothered answering my post

Ok so let's break it down. Wealth gives you much more political power than the average person. We all know elections are decided by media access, advertising, and so on before the ballot papers are ever printed. So how do you expect that you could keep the power of the rich at bay while allowing them to continue to exist and influence the system?

 

File: 1718111231087.png (1.09 MB, 780x786, anfem.png)


 

>>1881860
>nooooo they won't let us

OP, we literally know from the history of the left that this is what happens every time. You don't need to get into a fucking advanced theoretical debate on this when you can just infer it from basic-ass pattern recognition.

example: the failure of the meidner plan

 

>>1882880
the failure of the meidner plan wasn't just porkoid resistance. part of the problem was that they didn't have any theory on planning, or even any real desire to do planning, so the problem would unavoidably arise what to do with the nationalized workplaces once they start competing against eachother

 

>>1882880
>>1882942 (me)
also if really want to get into the weeds look up Planhushållningsdebatten (the planning debate) of the 1940's

 

>>1882880
this is applicable to leftism also

 

>>1882669
aww look who cant say FAGGOT

 

>>1882670
reaganomics has nothing to do w it.

No one has yet to actually engage w the point many other anons made which is the rich are capable of inferring that they should probably give up some short-term interest for long-term survival and benefit. For example capitalism has successfully ingested the workers movement into its machinations rendering y'all useless and just contributing to the functioning of capitalism. This proves that two classes in seeming tension on a core level can actually be collaborating. There is a plurality here it's not a 0-1 capitalism vs. workers IMO.

We've known since the writings and calculations of Keynes and Kalecki that you can meme the rich into giving up some of their power and money. For example, the job guarantee would benefit rich people because it would increase production, but it also requires an investment and benefits workers. Communists seem to fall for the basic 'the economy is a zero sum game' shit.

 

>>1882991
yeah! the classes should just collaborate and everyone will be happy! :)

 

>>1881860
you could tax the richest and send that money to everyone as helicopter money. this isn't impossible.

 

>>1882991
> No one has yet to actually engage w the point many other anons made which is the rich are capable of inferring that they should probably give up some short-term interest for long-term survival and benefit.
But that’s because you kind of hand-waved away a lot and people don’t want to bother. You’re going to need to at least flesh-out what to do about capitalist encirclement and if you are going to allow the capitalist to still exist, how do you ensure proletarian supremacy? How do you handle capital flight? If there is no threat of “survival” how can you expect them to give up their interest? China puts the bourgeois to death if they fall out of line, for instance.

 

study history

 

study history

 

>>1883147
>>1883149
>study history

<htudy sistory

 

>>1881981
because someone still has it and it hasn't been destroyed?

 

>socdems cant into contradictions and power struggles
just read history and/or theory, and you will know why its naive
capital accumulation directly translate into economical and political power, western style bourgeois democracy is no democracy at all, it is thinly veiled oligarchy.
Also, I dont want simple redistribution while still leaving humanity the slave of a blind machine called capital anyway, I want humanity to be in control of its fate, democratically deciding what to use its collective wealth and labor for.
I want communism

 

File: 1718137617701.jpg (493.46 KB, 3000x1255, Blade-Runner-Cityscape.jpg)

If you read marx and marxists they actually support economic centralisation (whether public or private) because this liberates the social mode of production.
Ive noticed a creeping petit-bourgeois consciousness on the (new) left that prioritises an inter-class war of small-business owners vs mega corporations.
In a free market, competition is destroyed by the winners of the market. Marx makes this dialectical point. The market must destroy itself and this part of capital's internal contradictions.
Every political theorist today is always trying to figure out how to save the system instead of letting it die.
Amazon is more revolutionary than your local co-op. Time to face facts. It provides better services, it hires more people and it isnt going away either.

 

>>1883174
>If you read marx and marxists they actually support economic centralisation (whether public or private) because this liberates the social mode of production

>Ive noticed a creeping petit-bourgeois consciousness on the (new) left that prioritises an inter-class war of small-business owners vs mega corporations


>free market worship


kys neolib

 

>>1883146

I'm actually trying to steelman your positions bc I came here looking for reasons to justify supporting socialism or why it's the only solution for this conundrum or why this is even actually an necessarily existential conundrum in the first place, but you aren't really throwing me a bone here.

All of your critiques of social democracy and reformist methods seem to me to be equally applicable to your methods and you just throw me lines like "people will wise up poltiically when their life sucks" which all the empirical evidence shows is untrue.

There's no reason in my mind why we can't just have this back-and-forth between the workers movement and capitalists forever. If you have a reason I'd love to hear it but yeah you guys really aren't sending your best rn

 

>>1883067
>government spending works like a household, u have to tax first then spend
okay so i know to disregard your opinions immediately cuz u dont understand the basic of how money works.

 

>>1883164
You defined accumulation as surplus held in reserve (of the bourgeoisie). If you redistribute surplus to the proletariat it definitionally isn't surplus held in reserve of the bourgeoisie.

Also when you said 'destroy it' you started talking about destroying already spent surplus (AKA fixed capital) which makes no sense if this is your view. And I actually agree w ur view here, I think we should simply take a lot of the rich's reserve money and 'destroy it' as well as take away their control over some productive assets

 

>>1883174
A coop is centralized… Coops can form a corporation - Mondragon.

 

>>1883218
> seem to me to be equally applicable to your methods
Alright, demonstrate it with a practical example then. How did the flaws that led to the downfall of Allende’s democratic socialist Chile parallel with the methods of China?

 

Anarcho-Idpoloid does not understand the oppressive nature of the powers that be, shocker :|

 

>>1883273
why not enlighten them? or at least guide them to the path of your sources?

 

>>1883274
dont you have murder fantasies to tend to

 


 

>>1883215
Undialectical moron
>>1883229
Isnt mondragon sponsored by the state because it is unprofitable?

 

I hate being right

 

>>1883296
Same, i just cant stop winning tbh, fr. It is quite anoying and boring to like, be right ALL the time, but that is life. Just humblebragging a littlle

 


 

>>1883296
you've been given numerous explanations and historical examples showing why your proposed system won't work long-term, but you reject all of them without explaining what makes your system immune to destabilization or why it would be desirable to keep exploitation in place at all. what are you expecting to hear?

 

>>1881872
>>1883218
>>1882991
>I'm also saying we could just have stable capitalism maybe?
>There's no reason in my mind why we can't just have this back-and-forth between the workers movement and capitalists forever. If you have a reason I'd love to hear it but yeah you guys really aren't sending your best rn
>the rich are capable of inferring that they should probably give up some short-term interest for long-term survival and benefit.

You are pretty much right on all of these counts, the strategic watering down of Capitalism, and the voracious class sentiments of the Capitalist class is a phenomena that has been present for well over 100 years, and is an existential threat to the development of Socialism. As the class sentiments of the Capitalist class degrades, so too does the proletariat. Through this method we can reach something that could be called a form of stable capitalism, and the death of proletarian revolutionary energy as we know it.

"Before the working class also could accept this 'dictatorship of incapacity,' it must itself become as stupid as the middle class, and must lose all revolutionary energy, at the same time that its masters will have lost all capitalistic energy."

Georges Sorel realized all this 116 years ago, and laid it out in his book 'Reflections on Violence', however he additionally offered a solution. He said that this period of decadence could be rejuvenated through so-called 'proletarian violence', which will reinvigorate the capitalist class, breaking it from its philanthropic, charitable, and liberal ways.

"the role of violence in history appears singularly great… as to awaken them [i.e. the middle class] to a sense of their own class sentiment."

With both classes now awakened to their own respective energies they can now battle until the glorious triumph of labor over capital.

 

>>1883307
I’ve responded with counter-critiques which were not engaged with seriously.

 

Capital has always been concentrated into a few hands. Do you see any equality when capitalism started? No it was all in the hands of merchant companies.

 

>>1883310
I think I lean more into the ‘we simply havent innovated enough systems that might possibly lay the ground for a future socialism’ and that we just aren’t in the right pedagogical position. There are some interesting monetary experiments going on with LETS and new ways of people forming and organising that could create different material conditions in the future that might allow socialism to take root.

Probably I agree with Zizek’s idea that this is a time for solemn contemplation and creativity. There isn’t really any momentum for entryism right now either.

 

>>1883333
>Probably I agree with Zizek’s idea that this is a time for solemn contemplation and creativity.
Anarchists and other Proudhonists have contemplated for far too long, for the past 100 years we have contemplated while the Marxists flounder about, now is the time for action. A LOT of different kinds of Socialism, and different methods to achieve Socialism have been tried, tested and tried again, enough for the left to recognize what has worked and hasn't worked.

I take the position that what worked and will work is Syndicalism, Actionism, and Platformism. (Platformism, btw, being the most prominent advent out of our long century of contemplation)

 

>>1883350
No, if you win by that recipe, you're retarded in the first place and no credit to life.

 

>>1883350
agreed, pretty based to be honest, very happy to see this post

 

File: 1718156116026.jpg (108.88 KB, 1022x1024, 1602698791222.jpg)

>>1883350
>Anarchists and other Proudhonists have contemplated for far too long
>contemplated
lol
>for the past 100 years we have contemplated
Here's to another 100 years of anarchist failures contemplation.
>while the Marxists flounder about
The USSR and China literally proved that socialist development can rapidly develop semi-feudal countries and lift millions from poverty within years, something capitalism takes decades to only develop while keeping/increasing the poverty. Anarchist projects could never do such things due to the core ideological contradiction on the rejection of seizing state power and thereby safeguarding the revolution and having the facilities to literally start socialist development on a large nationwide scale.

There was no "contemplation" period, anarchists have shown many times their failure, way back to when Marx was alive. Their history of failed projects (that isn't to say Marxist projects are incapable of failure, but the difference being that since Marxism is a living science, Marxists can look back and understand why said projects failed (revisionism, disorganization within the party, an incorrect understandings of conditions, etc), something anarchists are literally incapable of doing besides blaming everyone else for the shortcomings of their own projects, especially Marxists) has shown the hypocrisy of the ideology and how it is literally unable to safeguard its idealist notions without reintroducing the simulacra of a state apparatus which then is quickly bogged down due to inefficiency and overtaken by the bourgeois counter-revolution.

 

>>1883431
well, anarchists will keep on trying until the heat death of the universe, so or you ignore them or you can cope and seethe forever. No need to write a second grade analysis on anarchism.

 

>>1883439
There's a certain kind of former anarchist who always does this, presumably because they themselves got peer pressured into changing their mind and believe it will work on other people too.

 

If there is 2 things history shows, is that anarchism works, and there will always be people trying to waste others people time.

 

File: 1718158580619.jpg (112.42 KB, 1200x800, contemplate.jpg)

>>1883431
>The USSR and China literally proved that socialist development can rapidly develop semi-feudal countries and lift millions from poverty within years
The only thing that the economic development of the Eastern Bloc proved was that they could do what Capitalist economies did (grow the gdp of the nation while workers suffered with low wages) only less efficiently, as evidenced by the Germanys

>China

As if Maoism is Marxism, Mao was as Marxist as Bookchin lol. Mao was a former Kropotkian Anarchist turned secret Sorelian, who only adopted the Leninist party system out of convenience. Unfortunately the Marxist elements in the GPCR actually held influence and stopped the peoples revolution before the people could fully take control.

>rejection of seizing state power

Institutions to enact social change do not have to reduce themselves to the parliamentarian bureaucracy to develop the territories they control.
>simulacra of a state apparatus
Turns out if you abstract the concept of a state far enough then you can call any institution a state.

>incapable of doing besides blaming everyone else for the shortcomings of their own projects

The problem with modern Anarchism that they do not blame others ENOUGH, Makhno could have gone away from the Russian Civil War thinking "Those damn bolshies betrayed me", which would have been a correct enough assessment of things, but he didn't, he sat down and formulated a scathing criticism of what the Anarchists did wrong, founding Platformism.

 

>>1883465
the thing is, anarchist calling other types of socialism "social-fascism", and other socialists repeating their same mantra quotes "muh anarchism never worked", both of them are just completely useless. Nothing is gained in those discussion, absolutely nothing, is just pure sectarism bullshit of one football team shitting on the other football team.
Peoples wasting their time larping on the internet, shit-talking specific socialist groups is not useful for anyone. Is just boring, boring text made by people with no new ideas or facts to share.
If you are a real syndicalist, congratulations man, that is very cool. Other types of socialist, like marxism leninism and maoism, are also cool, but i prefer the first.

 

File: 1718159715384.jpg (13.14 KB, 200x200, George.jpg)

>>1883439
>anarchists will keep on trying until the heat death of the universe
My brother in christ if it takes that long for you guys to have a successful revolution, rethink your priorities.
>>1883453
>peer pressured
Nah, I just began reading Marx.
>>1883465
>they could do what Capitalist economies did only less efficiently
Rapidly industrializing, casting off the chains of monarchy and imperialism, improving living conditions by leaps and bounds, improving working conditions, building socialism via a planned economy, challenging global capitalism, withstanding the invasions of fascists and capitalist powers, and destroying the Nazi threat is "less efficient than capitalism"? You sound like pro-capitalist stooge.
>(grow the gdp of the nation while workers suffered with low wages)
???
>As if Maoism is Marxism
It is.
>Mao was a former Kropotkian Anarchist turned secret Sorelian, who only adopted the Leninist party system out of convenience.
You are retarded.

 

>>1883471
>My brother in christ if it takes that long for you guys to have a successful revolution, rethink your priorities.

Nah, but you do you

 

>>1883470
>the thing is, anarchist calling other types of socialism "social-fascism", and other socialists repeating their same mantra quotes "muh anarchism never worked", both of them are just completely useless. Nothing is gained in those discussion, absolutely nothing, is just pure sectarism bullshit of one football team shitting on the other football team.
100%
The real concerns are in the actual praxis, and that will always change according to the material conditions faced by the movement in whatever time and place. Arguments online over historical movements are just a way to waste time. There are real discussions to have about this, but they are based on a study of history, not this poopoo peepee nonsense treating history like sports.

 

>>1883465
> (grow the gdp of the nation while workers suffered with low wages)
Delusional and detached from reality
>As if Maoism is Marxism, Mao was as Marxist as Bookchin lol. Mao was a former Kropotkian Anarchist turned secret Sorelian, who only adopted the Leninist party system out of convenience. Unfortunately the Marxist elements in the GPCR actually held influence and stopped the peoples revolution before the people could fully take control.
more delusions
Maybe you should read mao and see what he pleads to do. Unless by "out of convenience" you mean "he adopted leninism because it works", to which i reply, then he is a leninist.

>Turns out if you abstract the concept of a state far enough then you can call any institution a state.

All anarchists projects had states by both the anarchist and marxist definitions. Centralised regimes with a monopoly on violence used to enact class domination, that had prisons and killed people. But yes, you are on the right track, there is no hard border between classic states and other forms of class rule and violence. A corporation with private security forces and company towns had just as much the function as a state as the us government of republican spain.

>The problem with modern Anarchism that they do not blame others ENOUGH, Makhno could have gone away from the Russian Civil War thinking

As i've said a million times to anarchists, if your ideology is unable to defend itself, it is stillborn and impotent, there is no reason for anyone to be an anarchist if it is shown that as soon as some outside force attacks it it falls apart.
Marxist states worked as a step towards liberation because they could defend the revolution succesfully, even stopping the nazis, helping build dozens of other socialist states, aiding decolonisation struggles worldwide.

 

>>1883477
>The real concerns are in the actual praxis, and that will always change according to the material conditions faced by the movement in whatever time and place. Arguments online over historical movements are just a way to waste time. There are real discussions to have about this, but they are based on a study of history, not this poopoo peepee nonsense treating history like sports.
Its mostly anarchists who do this though. They always come in with "I LOST BECAUSE YOUR EVIL TEAM WAS BETTER, I WOULD HAVE WON IF YOUR TEAM DIDNT PLAY".
And any attempts to get them to reflect on their tactics and why they don't work so as to improve their understanding of how to proceed forward is handwaves away with toddler tantrums about how their ideal society would work if only nobody attacked them. We don't live in a world where nobody attacks you. If your politics is about "what ought to be" rather than how to get there through defeating your enemies, then its idealist weed smoking larping and no serious people will join you. People want to win, to improve their lives or those of their kids, not win theoretical arguments about which hypothetical star trek universe is more ethical.

 

>>1883670
>Its mostly anarchists who do this though. They always come in with "I LOST BECAUSE YOUR EVIL TEAM WAS BETTER, I WOULD HAVE WON IF YOUR TEAM DIDNT PLAY".
Debasing the coinage is good strategy, however. Only morons value and respect the outcome of games; the real Players fuck up the meta so that the game isn't worth playing. And anarchists have been doing that to some modest, temporary success, whilst eurocoms and their fellow travelers have been crying about it in partnership with the Christian petit-bourgeoisie whom they never really left.

>he still believes in the myth of membership

How about destroying competitive politics and team sports entirely, and with it, the conditions of aristocracy and other heroic retardations? Does a non-enchurched society scare you because you won't be able to mooch off of others as the middle classes do?

 

>>1883768
What the fuck does anything in this post even mean.

 

If you left private property as a law in place then the holders of property could have a tax strike (refuse to pay taxes) they could win favor of their workers by raising wages out of the unpaid taxes. The state would have to use force of arms to collect its taxes, and probably face civil conflict. Even if the state did win that conflict, the specter of conflict would constantly remain, which is why this is a bad solution

 

>>1883227
if you actually had the ability to take/destroy rich peoples money why not just implement full socialism anyway? its like morons who want to terraform mars instead of just not having climate change on earth

 

>>1883793
It means you're a fucking idiot for treating the outcomes of games as material conditions, that's all. The new meta is to destroy the factors and conditions that make the proletariat submissive and subordinate.

 

>>1883804
>best analogy you could think of was terraforming
You spend too much time on YouTube

 

>>1883811
Not an argument.

 

File: 1718213499494.png (573.17 KB, 1140x997, ConsultTheDiagram.png)

>>1883471
picrel
>>1883477
>>1883470
These are such enlightened centrist takes lmao, but yes, i agree, praxis is more important than arguing on the internet which is exactly why Marxism should be campaigned against, since they hate praxis, they hate ACTION. Marxists haven't done anything except larp in the west for the past 100 years.

>>1883668
>All anarchists projects had states by both the anarchist and marxist definitions.
wouldn't an anarchist definition of the state inherently not include anarchism? Your logic doesn't make very much sense
>if your ideology is unable to defend itself, it is stillborn and impotent
And has been uttered countless times, the Makhnovists successfully defended against the Denikin, the Whites, the UPR, and the Bolsheviks in their first war. The Makhnovists managed to survive until 1921 while being attacked at practically all times, it was only after the Bolsheviks broke their truce that they gained the upper hand and defeated them, the obvious conclusion that can be drawn from this is clear, the Anarchists successfully defended themselves and their revolution until they were betrayed and deceived by the bolshies.

>>1883670
>And any attempts to get them to reflect on their tactics and why they don't work so as to improve their understanding of how to proceed forward is handwaves away
Never mention to Marxists where Platformism or Synthesism came from lol
>People want to win
That explains why the IWW has more members than the CPUSA

 

File: 1718214650776.jpg (51.61 KB, 500x595, sendtogulag.jpg)

>>1883909
>Thought peasants were not a revolutionary class
<The peasantry wants land and freedom. There can be no two opinions on this score. All class-conscious workers support the revolutionary peasantry with all their might. All class-conscious workers want and are fighting for the peasantry to receive all the land and full freedom.
<Thus the red banner of the class-conscious workers means, first, that we support with all our might. the peasants’ struggle for full freedom and all the land; secondly, it means that we do not stop at this, but go on further. We are waging, besides the struggle for freedom and land, a fight for socialism.
<These peasants are truly revolutionary democrats with whom we must and shall carry on the fight for the complete victory of the present revolution.
<The Proletariat and the Peasantry, 1905
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/nov/12.htm
How about you stop posting shitty memes and actually read.

 

>>1883920
'[The peasants] are therefore incapable of asserting their class interest in their own name, whether through a parliament or a convention. They cannot represent themselves, they must be represented. Their representative must at the same time appear as their master, as an authority over them, an unlimited governmental power which protects them from the other classes and sends them rain and sunshine from above. The political influence of the small-holding peasants, therefore, finds its final expression in the executive power which subordinates society to itself.'

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch07.htm

 

>>1883940
Nta but who, exactly?
< The small-holding peasants form an enormous mass whose members live in similar conditions but without entering into manifold relations with each other. Their mode of production isolates them from one another instead of bringing them into mutual intercourse. The isolation is furthered by France’s poor means of communication and the poverty of the peasants. Their field of production, the small holding, permits no division of labor in its cultivation, no application of science, and therefore no multifariousness of development, no diversity of talent, no wealth of social relationships. Each individual peasant family is almost self-sufficient, directly produces most of its consumer needs, and thus acquires its means of life more through an exchange with nature than in intercourse with society. A small holding, the peasant and his family; beside it another small holding, another peasant and another family. A few score of these constitute a village, and a few score villages constitute a department. Thus the great mass of the French nation is formed by the simple addition of homologous magnitudes, much as potatoes in a sack form a sack of potatoes. Insofar as millions of families live under conditions of existence that separate their mode of life, their interests, and their culture from those of the other classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class. Insofar as there is merely a local interconnection among these small-holding peasants, and the identity of their interests forms no community, no national bond, and no political organization among them, they do not constitute a class.

There are conditions on which "therefore" rests which you have simply refused to analyze, and yet you expect to have your quote mining taken seriously.

But further on…

<But let us not misunderstand. The Bonaparte dynasty represents not the revolutionary, but the conservative peasant; not the peasant who strikes out beyond the condition of his social existence, the small holding, but rather one who wants to consolidate his holding; not the countryfolk who in alliance with the towns want to overthrow the old order through their own energies, but on the contrary those who, in solid seclusion within this old order, want to see themselves and their small holdings saved and favored by the ghost of the Empire. It represents not the enlightenment but the superstition of the peasant; not his judgment but his prejudice; not his future but his past; not his modern Cevennes [A peasant uprising in the Cevennes mountains in 1702-1705] but his modern Vendée.[119] [A peasant-backed uprising against the French Revolution in the French province of Vendée, in 1793]


So, Marx says revolutionary peasants can and did exist; you should kill yourself for saying otherwise.

 

File: 1718222910584.jpg (31.93 KB, 474x247, Tambov.jpg)

>>1883988
>not the countryfolk who in alliance with the towns want to overthrow the old order through their own energies
wow so Marx thought that the peasants could either be a leaderless mass of those waiting to be lead or an ally of the urban proletariat, how very positive a depiction. Contrast this to the Kropotkian conception of "town and country alike"

There is no sickle without the hammer, there is no Left-SRs with the Bolshies, there is no Green armies under the watchful eye of the urban proletariat. IIRC it was one of the leaders of the CCP, upon the destruction of Marxist influence in the cities, that declared that if the cities were lost then the chance of revolution was. It was only Mao who saw the full revolutionary potential of the rural peoples, going against the prominent party line, who dissented against the orthodox Leninists.

Speaking of Mao's ideas, it is incredible how quickly I was sidetracked by bloodfag lol

 

>>1884025
What does the "small-holding peasant" actually look like today, then?

 

File: 1718224212202.jpg (237.39 KB, 1600x1086, zapatistas.jpg)


 

>>1882021
The exploitation of the working class under capitalism

 

>>1884076
>I want my name on the exploitation so I can lie to posterity abuot how cool I was

 

>>1883940
Not a single thing wrong here.

>>1884025
>>1884038
>Muh mao was the glorious peasant man
Funny, given how Mao and the CPC was exactly what Marx predicted. The Peasant class can not form an ideology of its own, it cannot represent itself, it must be represented, and it was. The majority of the CPC were proletarians. The CPC followed a proletarian ideology. Peasants due to their isolated nature in production can only form a government which stands above them as a separate entity. Unlike the bourgoiesie and the proletariat, they do not wield implicit economic-political power through their economic activity, their daily life does not push them to further and further organisational integration with more and more of the world, but to more and more isolation into the family unit and small communities.
That is why there is no peasant communism historically, no peasant liberation movement historically, until socialism and communism was invented by proletarians, which then provided the framework, under leadership of proletarians, for the liberation of the peasants from feudal arrangements.

 

>>1884528
>until socialism and communism was invented by proletarians
Pure word salad. Reported.

 

>>1884582
>Pure word salad. Reported.
Literally what happened peabrain. Socialism is the ideological response to the realities of capitalism by proletarians.
Read basic marx.

 

>>1884583
Lenin was a PMC lawyer and Stalin was a Georgian monk. No social bourgeoisie is "proletarian" you televangelist-worshipping teenager. Reported for GPT slop

 

>>1884585
>Lenin and stalin single handedly invested working class ideology
>Lenin and stalin singlehandedly made up the entire party aperatus of all communist, socialist and social revolutionary parties ever globally
>Muh got
Kys retard

 

>>1884594
>unironically establishing parasocial relationships with dead "heroes"
Lenin literally took the three objects of Marx's hostile critique and turned them upside down to recuperate them. He actually constructed a bourgeois state and you're some kind of pietous cuck worshipping him for it? You are an actual retard who has no idea where your beliefs came from. Or you're the very same institution-worshipping capitalist failsons showing off their phalli to the public, who are going to face the wall. Which one is it?

 

>>1884627
>unironically establishing parasocial relationships with dead "heroes"
You're the dumbass saying that just because 2 guys were not feet in the mud workers the entirety of communist parties were bourgoies, youre doing great man theory here
>He actually constructed a bourgeois state and you're some kind of pietous cuck worshipping him for it?
Ok retard. Kill yourself and go seeth on ultrapol or something

 

>>1884714
>because 2 guys were not feet in the mud workers
No, I'm saying that their occupations and the dispositions conditioned by them are essential to reproducing capitalist culture and capitalist class relations. Did you read the PMC theory yet or are you just building up straw men in your head to beat down so that you can feel potent?

 

>>1884759
The labor aristocracy or "PMC" is a small minority where some class traitors opportunistically try to co-opt workers so that they do not organize and have solidarity among themselves, leading to an ideology of class conciliation with the national bourgeoisie that deceives workers to weaken the movement collectively.

The communist movement is not a proletarian identity but a radical movement for the proletarian class to gain supremacy in order to abolish private property and profit, thereby abolishing social classes and the proletariat as a proletariat to be organized by the community on a common plan as workers. The working class is the most revolutionary and needs a movement independent of the bourgeoisie, but this movement has to be from the perspective of the revolutionary class so that the other working classes that do not have a direct connection with the means of production can act with what they have in common with the revolutionary class to socialize and advance the movement and not get into anarchist or reformist confusion of class conciliation.

All other classes can become communists if they do not forget the perspective they are fighting for and they must act with what they have in common with the radical movement of the working class to abolish the present state of things so that there is no confusion, therefore you have intellectuals who will serve the proletarian class to assume power, together with the other working classes who recognize their interest in the supremacy of the proletariat. The capitalist class can become communist if it becomes a class traitor for the destruction of its class and sees an interest in the emancipation of humanity and the end of the exploitation of man by man in the future.

Let's see what Lenin has to say about the labor aristocracy since this is where this term comes from, so often used by recent opportunists who do not want to organize the workers:

<In a letter to Marx, dated October 7, 1858, Engels wrote: “…The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world this is of course to a certain extent justifiable.” In a letter to Sorge, dated September 21, 1872, Engels informs him that Hales kicked up a big row in the Federal Council of the International and secured a vote of censure on Marx for saying that “the English labour leaders had sold themselves”. Marx wrote to Sorge on August 4, 1874: “As to the urban workers here [in England], it is a pity that the whole pack of leaders did not get into Parliament. This would be the surest way of getting rid of the whole lot.” In a letter to Marx, dated August 11, 1881, Engels speaks about “those very worst English trade unions which allow themselves to be led by men sold to, or at least paid by, the bourgeoisie.” In a letter to Kautsky, dated September 12, 1882, Engels wrote: “You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general. There is no workers’ party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England’s monopoly of the world market and the colonies.”


<On December 7, 1889, Engels wrote to Sorge: “The most repulsive thing here [in England] is the bourgeois ‘respectability’, which has grown deep into the bones of the workers…. Even Tom Mann, whom I regard as the best of the lot, is fond of mentioning that he will be lunching with the Lord Mayor. If one compares this with the French, one realises, what a revolution is good for, after all.”[10] In a letter, dated April 19, 1890: “But under the surface the movement [of the working class in England] is going on, is embracing ever wider sections and mostly just among the hitherto stagnant lowest [Engels’s italics] strata. The day is no longer far off when this mass will suddenly find itself, when it will dawn upon it that it itself is this colossal mass in motion.” On March 4, 1891: “The failure of the collapsed Dockers’ Union; the ‘old’ conservative trade unions, rich and therefore cowardly, remain lone on the field….” September 14, 1891: at the Newcastle Trade Union Congress the old unionists, opponents of the eight-hour day, were defeated “and the bourgeois papers recognise the defeat of the bourgeois labour party” (Engels’s italics throughout)….


<That these ideas, which were repeated by Engels over the course of decades, were so expressed by him publicly, in the press, is proved by his preface to the second edition of The Condition of the Working Class in England, 1892. Here he speaks of an “aristocracy among the working class”, of a “privileged minority of the workers”, in contradistinction to the “great mass of working people”. “A small, privileged, protected minority” of the working class alone was “permanently benefited” by the privileged position of England in 1848–68, whereas “the great bulk of them experienced at best but a temporary improvement”…. “With the break-down of that [England’s industrial] monopoly, the English working class will lose that privileged position…” The members of the “new” unions, the unions of the unskilled workers, “had this immense advantage, that their minds were virgin soil, entirely free from the inherited ‘respectable’ bourgeois prejudices which hampered the brains of the better situated ‘old unionists’” …. “The so-called workers’ representatives” in England are people “who are forgiven their being members of the working class because they themselves would like to drown their quality of being workers in the ocean of their liberalism…”


<[…]


<The bourgeoisie of an imperialist “Great” Power can economically bribe the upper strata of “its” workers by spending on this a hundred million or so francs a year, for its superprofits most likely amount to about a thousand million. And how this little sop is divided among the labour ministers, “labour representatives” (remember Engels’s splendid analysis of the term), labour members of War Industries Committees, labour officials, workers belonging to the narrow craft unions, office employees, etc., etc., is a secondary question.


<[…]


<The last third of the nineteenth century saw the transition to the new, imperialist era. Finance capital not of one, but of several, though very few, Great Powers enjoys a monopoly. (In Japan and Russia the monopoly of military power, vast territories, or special facilities for robbing minority nationalities, China, etc., partly supplements, partly takes the place of, the monopoly of modern, up-to-date finance capital.) This difference explains why England’s monopoly position could remain unchallenged for decades. The monopoly of modern finance capital is being frantically challenged; the era of imperialist wars has begun. It was possible in those days to bribe and corrupt the working class of one country for decades. This is now improbable, if not impossible. But on the other hand, every imperialist “Great” Power can and does bribe smaller strata (than in England in 1848–68) of the “labour aristocracy”. Formerly a “bourgeois labour party”, to use Engels’s remarkably profound expression, could arise only in one country, because it alone enjoyed a monopoly, but, on the other hand, it could exist for a long time. Now a “bourgeois labour party” is inevitable and typical in all imperialist countries; but in view of the desperate struggle they are waging for the division of spoils it is improbable that such a party can prevail for long in a number of countries. For the trusts, the financial oligarchy, high prices, etc., while enabling the bribery of a handful in the top layers, are increasingly oppressing, crushing, ruining and torturing the mass of the proletariat and the semi-proletariat.


<[…]


<On the economic basis referred to above, the political institutions of modern capitalism—press, parliament associations, congresses etc.—have created political privileges and sops for the respectful, meek, reformist and patriotic office employees and workers, corresponding to the economic privileges and sops. Lucrative and soft jobs in the government or on the war industries committees, in parliament and on diverse committees, on the editorial staffs of “respectable”, legally published newspapers or on the management councils of no less respectable and “bourgeois law-abiding” trade unions—this is the bait by which the imperialist bourgeoisie attracts and rewards the representatives and supporters of the “bourgeois labour parties”.


<One of the most common sophistries of Kautskyism is its reference to the “masses”. We do not want, they say, to break away from the masses and mass organisations! But just think how Engels put the question. In the nineteenth century the “mass organisations” of the English trade unions were on the side of the bourgeois labour party. Marx and Engels did not reconcile themselves to it on this ground; they exposed it. They did not forget, firstly, that the trade union organisations directly embraced a minority of the proletariat. In England then, as in Germany now, not more than one-fifth of the proletariat was organised. No one can seriously think it possible to organise the majority of the proletariat under capitalism. Secondly—and this is the main point—it is not so much a question of the size of an organisation, as of the real, objective significance of its policy: does its policy represent the masses, does it serve them, i.e., does it aim at their liberation from capitalism, or does it represent the interests of the minority, the minority’s reconciliation with capitalism? The latter was true of England in the nineteenth century, and it is true of Germany, etc., now.


<Engels draws a distinction between the “bourgeois labour party” of the old trade unions—the privileged minority—and the “lowest mass”, the real majority, and appeals to the latter, who are not infected by “bourgeois respectability”. This is the essence of Marxist tactics!


<Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle, it will be definitely decided only by the socialist revolution. But we know for certain that the “defenders of the fatherland” in the imperialist war represent only a minority. And it is therefore our duty, if we wish to remain socialists to go down lower and deeper, to the real masses; this is the whole meaning and the whole purport of the struggle against opportunism. By exposing the fact that the opportunists and social-chauvinists are in reality betraying and selling the interests of the masses, that they are defending the temporary privileges of a minority of the workers, that they are the vehicles of bourgeois ideas and influences, that they are really allies and agents of the bourgeoisie, we teach the masses to appreciate their true political interests, to fight for socialism and for the revolution through all the long and painful vicissitudes of imperialist wars and imperialist armistices.


<The only Marxist line in the world labour movement is to explain to the masses the inevitability and necessity of breaking with opportunism, to educate them for revolution by waging a relentless struggle against opportunism, to utilise the experience of the war to expose, not conceal, the utter vileness of national-liberal labour politics.


<V.I. Lenin, “Imperialism and the Split in Socialism”


Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm

 

>>1883350
> Socialism have been tried, tested and tried again, enough for the left to recognize what has worked and hasn't worked.
Social democracy has worked, everything else hasn't.

>>1883431
>The USSR and China literally proved that socialist development can rapidly develop semi-feudal countries and lift millions from poverty within years
It's called an industrial revolution and has very little to do with socialism

 

>>1882025
'Break shit' as your politics? Might as well just go full Nechayev at this point.

>>1882029
>Politics isnt about having the right ideas. It about having the ability to wield economic power like a sledgehammer and control the narrative through media and censorship.
This is evidently wrong as proven by the fact that the rich regularly vote against and support what is antithetical to what is in the naive marxist view 'their own interests'

 

>>1885473
Like when?

 

>>1885477
Regularly they vote and provide a majority for the parties that aren't 'the most right wing' which is what we'd expect going along with this very short-term idea of class-interest. We wouldn't even have a welfare program if it wasn't for the fact that the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie are capable of looking beyond their own immediate interests. Keynes and everything to happen subsequent to Keynes is a testament to this. In fact I'd say in the majority of cases, the health and benefit of the working class should be of great interest to the petite bourgeoisie, in the same way that the health of a tool is beneficial to its owner.

 

>>1885481
The bourgeoisie class is able to foresee threat of revolution and temper their own interests in order to ensure their long-term survival. That is why capitalism has survived for so long.

 

>>1885483
As a result, we innovated ideas about the importance of the state's involvement in regulating markets, providing jobs, a welfare system etc and all-in-all the bourgeoisie have, despite being dragged kicking and screaming the whole way, at times reluctantly allowed it. There are also cases where the state's ability to invest, redirect the money of the bourgeoisie, to improve infrastructure and the health of the workers now allows greater extraction of surplus value later. Not to mention bourgeois infighting is pretty common.

 

>Why haven't we reinvented social democracy for the 100th time despite the fact that's been an utter failure for the past 200 years.

lol

 

File: 1718371676495.gif (2.34 MB, 275x200, 1606871913280.gif)

>>1885470
>rapidly changing the mode of production via a planned socialist economy to increase the productive forces (ie industrializing) has little to do with socialism

 

>>1885529
>changing the mode of production from feudalist to a few decades of bureaucrat-directed planned economy and surplus extraction from peasants followed by collapse of the regime into regular ass capitalism is socialist

 

>>1885560
>socialism is when the state decides to accelerate industrialisation

 

>>1885560
If u rly think this, then I guess socialism is just a political vehicle by which third world feudal societies propel themselves into capitalism and fades away as soon as the conditions for that are accomplished.

 

File: 1718375763947.png (328.21 KB, 827x845, maktlojl3w871.png)

>>1885561
Problem, femanon? #trump2024

 

File: 1718386794781.jpg (202.77 KB, 1587x1587, 1636438390340.jpg)

>>1885560
>changing the mode of production from feudalist
It wasn't feudalist. It was capitalist with semi-feudal remnants.
>to a few decades of bureaucrat-directed
It was party directed. Bureaucratic elements emerged later due to party line splits.
>surplus extraction from peasants
???, most of the gains from socialist development was from integrating the peasantry into the system and gradually proletarianizing them. Under a capitalist system the peasantry would have been oppressed much much worse than any supposed exploitation done under either the soviets or the maoists.
>collapse of the regime into regular ass capitalism is socialist
This is reductionist reasoning. Socialist projects can fail and collapse and revert back to capitalism. Proto-capitalist projects failed/where destroyed by feudal lords way back when. This doesn't mean that everything these projects achieved are just to be handwaved away because the society changed and eventually collapsed into something else.
>>1885561
>socialism is when the state decides to accelerate industrialisation
Who is in control of this state? That is the key question. Read Marx. There is an intrinsic line between the productive forces and socialization.
>>1885563
>socialism is just a political vehicle by which third world feudal societies propel themselves into capitalism
No. There are no feudal societies today. Remnants, sure. Everything is capitalist. The transition towards socialist development today (after a social revolution ofc) would be greatly expedited because of this fact (this is why fascists attempt to destroy productive forces). We have the means to make socialism happen. Many problems faced by the first socialist projects were due to them not having the benefits of a fully industrialized society (electricity, running water, machines etc), so they had to industrialize as well as safeguard themselves from invasion. This has been twisted by revisionists as an excuse to rehabilitate capitalism, but building productive forces to develop/socialize society is not the same as continuing the capitalist mode of production.
>>1885565
Maupin is an idiot. Accumulated wealth does not equal abundance. A society that produces billionaires shows that the abundance, which is created under capitalism (and which it intentionally holds back and destroys to meet the needs of the market), is not distributed throughout that society to meet the needs of everyone but along class lines into the pockets of capitalists in the form of surplus value extracted from the workers. In a society that creates billionaires there is a maximum on wealth, not for the billionaires, but for the workers themselves. Under socialism, wealth would no longer start to matter and eventually cease being a thing. There would be no maximum or minimum, there would be no more wealth.


Unique IPs: 51

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]