/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2175807
>our dogmatism is appaling, and why marxism belongs in the dustbin of history. at the end of reason, you just revert to your mantras and prayers. if capitalism didnt fall in marx's time, when will it? give me a date. the rate of profit is somehow always falling yet business is always booming. you follow a dead religion. scientology is more popular than marxism.
Haven't you looked around? Current european countries are gutting the welfare state so they can spend more on defense lol. Social Democracy is dead. When crisis occurs you will choose the side of fascism. Which you already did.

The implication that social democracy has "succeeded" is ridiculous because it didn't solve any of the capitalist crisis that are inherent to the system. Keynesian economics didn't resolve crisis. What you're really talking about is that you just want more welfare, but everything else can stay the same which is accelerating towards collapse either from climate disaster or financial depression. You're a conservative. Let's hear more about Marxism from the man who hasn't read a single word of Marxist theory.

>>2175934
This. Every time you hear these people speak, they're just little ᴉuᴉlossnW or Hitler.

>>2175750
>ussr worth keeping
you do realise 1991 was the biggest catastrophe in human history, right? worse than the 2 world wars even

>>2175844
give me a date of when profits reach zero or youre just rambling
>>2175847
give me a date
>>2175854
just like christians predicting the apocalypse, eh?
>>2175882
not an argument
>>2175890
are you implying that being a winner of history is bad?
>>2175891
what would you do differently "next time"?
>>2175921
is this another "marxism is science" post?
>>2175941
>youre either a fascist or a communist
very mature worldview
>>2175962
>more marxist apocalypticism
give me a date for when capitalism ends
>>2175996
lol

>>2176930
Between 2050 and 2075.

>>2175708
>which doesnt simultaneously erode civil liberties
erode civil liberties for who? "Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby." if taking away the civil liberties of capitalists to have a monopoly on speech gives the vast majority of the public an actual voice but censors nazis i would consider that objectively progress. if the society isn't developed enough to support everyone, then a couple rich guys having their living standards reduced to give homes to millions then that is objectively progressive.

> whats wrong with reformism and social democracy?
it doesn't work. history was the experiment and it was proven wrong. capital only makes concessions when threatened by communist revolution and when the threat is gone they roll back the concessions, and that is without getting into the fact that these concessions can only be paid for through imperialism. hypothetically if they didn't already roll them back sustaining the falling rate of profit necessitates increased imperialist expansion and when it runs out of places to expand to the concessions are guaranteed to be next.

>>2175734
>indefinite
its just kicking the can down the road while priming everyone for fascism by proving that "the left" cant fix what is fundamentally wrong, by refusing to address the fundamental issue.

>>2175750
>i would rather live in a western country than north korea
>>2175734
> if the idea is that we throw all this away for some gloomy planned society, then that is not progressive to me.
>>2175807
>socialism on the other hand claims to be utopian, but is dystopian.
sounds like chauvinism tbh. go ahead and take that route and then dont be surprised when your country gets 9/11'd. if you are so indifferent to the suffering your lifestyle needs to exist people will be indifferent to your suffering and you will deserve it.

If your goal is to get rid of all the misery that is caused by the present state of things; then you must accept the fact that this misery is not a mere byproduct of the system, it is not a problem to be solved in any way. What it is is a necessity of the system itself. Therefore the only way to "solve" the "problem" would be to abolish what causes it in the first place (Wage-Labour, Capital, etc…).

Read Gegenstandpunkt

>>2175762
>what is socialism to you?
Workers and the people at large owning the means of production and control over the resources at the very least by majority if not all of it, contrast to private individuals dictating it unelected for their self profit incentive whether or not it goes with interest of the people.
> and socialist projects bring their own problems to substitute the problems of capitalism
This is a fallacy expecting utmost perfection then just giving up as result. You're just cucked by capitalism.
> why assume im not aware of this? but whats your point? that the state should appropriate wal-mart? why, when the state can just appropriate its profits?
You're misunderstanding the motive of the planning. Money in it's current form holds no practical value in reality it is just an inefficient middle point of exchange to accumulate wealth and resources among a select few.
> better than starving, i suppose
Most famines happened under capitalism and feudalism such as the Irish Potato famine, The Great Depression, and the Bengal famine. Meanwhile under "communist" states it happened not because of any socialist ideals but because of rapid industrial development, drought and foreign interference blocking off food supplies.
> we have this. its called the market.
markets are not decentralized planning or centralized planning because they are not region based and act in terms of competition not cooperation and are based on creating demand not meeting demand as well as being focused on profit for the company first and foremost. Socialist ideals are to focus on the people at large not an elite few given special privileges for no good reason.

>>2176930
>not an argument
This isn't a debate club, kid. I don't have to persuade you to shit. Go read a book if you actually care, otherwise I'll keep shitting on your head.

>>2176934
okay, so why worry if it inevitably falls within the next 50 years?
>>2176956
so again you are just claiming that capital is this omnipotent deity that "decides" to restrict itself in times of crisis. this is retarded, since it no longer allows man to be an agent, therefore communism to you is just a highly elaborate capitalist concession in the end.
>reform doesnt work
neither does socialism. now what?
>youre either a fascist or a communist
another adult, i presume
>the west deserves 9/11s
lol you are a pathetic larper
>>2177856
the problem is that all communist experiments have failed. now what?
>>2177870
>socialism is the workers owning the means of production
by what medium? the state? in that case, whats the difference between controlling and regulating production?
>saying socialism failed is a fallacy
no, it is a falsified experiment. or are you just going to blame da joos, uh, sorry, "the capitalists" for communism's internal contradictions?
>Money in it's current form holds no practical value
my money has purchasing power and is therefore valuable, idiot.
>socialist famines only happen because of outside forces
take responsibility for your failures. you do realise that lolberts just blame the government for failures like you blame the capitalists?
>markets are not decentralised nodes of planning because, uh… profit or something
stupid.

>>2175708
because they all thought dictatorship and centralized economy would be the way. However, it only creates a new ruling upper class and planned economy is simply doomed to fail. It can only function without a state owned planned economy and without dictatorship, if not without government.

>>2175715
Socialist billionaires with communist money

>>2177987
how would that work?

>>2177987
social democracy on the other hand allows the bourgeoise to return to full oligarchy in the long run.

>>2177992
Mutual aid and organization in councils, together with federalism. Centralization is a step backwards.

>>2177997
is there a praxis for this or is it just a theoretical model?

>>2175807
>or in other words, it was too weak to compete.
(it) being the USSR or socialism? the USSR was too weak because it didn't have enough resources. when you have less resources your production is limited and that makes you weaker. its not an inherent feature of socialism.

>>2178004
There was an anarchist revolution in Ukraine during the Russian civil war, but it didnt control a lot of territory, was conquered by the red army after a short time, I still didnt get to read anything about it because its too far down on my reading list
As far as I know thats the only time it was tried, its a theoretical model otherwise. But if I understood „mutual aid - a factor in evolution“ correctly, it is what all of humanity was at some point and sometimes still is.

>>2178010
so "next time" it will work?
and to me, its clearly not just about resources, but ideological and state control. when pizza hut destroys your nation, something is wrong.
>>2178017
so would you say that markets can produce mutual aid even if they are still nominally capitalist? like how online charities raise millions from voluntary payments?

>>2178069
The cold war was attritional and the USSR had access to less resources starting out and even less over time. There was also very different ideologies between Lenin/Stalin, Khrushchev, and later with Gorbachev, so I would agree that after Stalin the ideology was a problem, but the main one was still resources. The USSR had to spend more on defense then they could afford to not get overthrown but if they maintained Lenin/Stalin they could have made it until the dot com bubble or great recession and would have come out on top.

>>2178078
i do think that what happened *after* the USSR fell is terrible though; the "shock therapy" imposed on russia. i think if russia stopped being communist but was still a people's state, they would be better off

>>2178084
>i think if russia stopped being communist but was still a people's state, they would be better off
Yeah it's funny how the cold war and US hegemony keeps happening all the time without the US being involved.

>>2178069
We could write an entire book on how the market can produce mutual aid, but Id say it can be summarized in one sentence: Only if it profits the giver in some way. Charities however rely on that people are willing to give with nothing in return.
In my opinion these are two ways of mutual aid coexisting.
>>2178078
The eastern block had all the natural resources they would needed, but didnt use them.

>>2178099
>The eastern block had all the natural resources they would needed
needed for what? to make an independent economy, sure, to compete with the US not even close. They were encircled from the start, even before ww2

>>2177949
>the problem is that all communist experiments have failed. now what?

The eastern bloc falling has in no way discredited any of Marx's theories, nothing has fundamentally changed, if you don't want the misery; kill the system.

On a sidenote maybe this article would interest you:
https://en.gegenstandpunkt.com/article/communism-really-dead

>>2177949
>Using a literal lolbert meme
You aren't even a sucdem lmao. And no, Socialism did not fail, it was very good at the things it was supposed to do. Market reforms starting in 1960 made things many times worse. Not to mention the shock therapy in the former Soviet Union. There is a reason why so many capitalist countries tried to emulate the Soviet Union.

>>2177949
>take responsibility for your failures. you do realise that lolberts just blame the government for failures like you blame the capitalists?
The USSR wasn't a failure. It took a nation under Serfdom and launched in no more than 40 years the first man into space. The US had a headstart of more than a 150 years, more resources and it still almost lost the top spot to the Soviet Union. Now only China is coming close to that what the Soviet Union was at it's peak. And as I said: Pro Market Reforms in 1960 were done with no foresight and were absolutely devastating for the long run. Because the market prefers short term profitability over long term growth. Funny thing is: Russia during it's war reintroduced maybe not even 10% of the planned aspects of the Soviet Union and what happened? Instantly outgrew most of Europe. Planning is just so many times superior to markets, the DPRK can provide living standards way above what it's own resources even would allow, while Cuba, which reintroduced market reforms, is struggling. It's pretty pathetic actually.

>>2178680
>ITT
>"See Social Democracy didn't fail because they became vassals of the capitalist world hegemon and joined with imperialists"
>"Why can't we all be more like socdems!? It works for them*"
[*] For definitions of "them" not necessarily pertaining to most of the population and places in the world

>>2178697
You have no argument.

>>2175708
Socdems want to continue bourgeois democracy (parliament) by any means necessary, including employing right wing death squads to kill communists. It's not hard to understand the issue here

For example, during the 1917 revolution in Russia, socdems in the beginning still had the popularity as revolutionaries, and they were elected in all kinds of people's councils and trade unions. In merely months their position reverted from anti-war, pro-worker, pro-confiscations, pro-nationalisation, pro-socialism, towards supporting the war at any cost necessary, "now that we are revolutionaries you, workers, must support our just fight against german imperialism!", towards "these capitalists are Russian patriots" and towards stripping of councils - Soviets - of powers and giving all those powers to the parliament.

I'm not exaggerating, that's how it went. They turned reactionary the moment they gained power

>>2178695
USSR transitioning back to capitalism killed more people than the wildest anticommunist estimates of Soviet losses in WW2. How can anyone look at China and say that Deng did the same thing as Gorby is beyond me

There is no difference

>>2178466
marx theorised that the collapse of capitalism was immanent.
what other "theories" are you suggesting?
>>2178680
>uh, socialism actually succeeded
how?
and those "market reforms" still arose from socialism's internal contradictions. thats not what youre facing.
>countries tried to emulate the soviet union
all for the worse, i presume.
>>2178695
china is capitalist. north korea is a monarchy. what does any of this have to do with socialism? just sounds like you have an authoritarian fetish. you want it both ways:
>corporations plan their budget
<but markets fail due to not planning
what is it? make up your mind.
>>2178736
so your issue is that socdems are parliamentarians (???) and that in russia they were anti-communist?

>>2179506
>marx theorised that the collapse of capitalism was immanent.
Perhaps you meant to write "imminent"? In which case; no he never did.
If you actually meant to write "immanent" you wouldn't be so wrong. Although there are no inherent reasons which would bring a system to its death except for the will of a certain class,
earlier Marx would have still claimed there were (by relying on what people nowadays call Historical Materialism). In this case he would've been flat out wrong.

>what other "theories" are you suggesting?
The tendency of the rate of profit to fall, the reserve army of labour, Capital's overproduction crises etc.
All of his theories about the mode of production of Capital itself.

>>2180531
so when do these various crises destroy capitalism? and what does transitioning from these crises look like?
if your answer is "i dont know", then your "scientific socialism" is functionally useless as a tool of analysis, i hope you understand.

>>2181504
it doesn't. its right there in the post
>there are no inherent reasons which would bring a system to its death
crisis happen every 4-7 years and offer an opportunity, if capitalism was going to automatically fail there would be no point in organizing you could just sit and wait

Because the state interventions don't resolve the contradictions inherent to Capitalism. Capitalism cannot solve itself. This is metaphysical brainrot. Social democrats are not socialists, in that they seek to preserve capitalism by any means necessary. They're so loyal to fascism, they rolled over and let Hitler take power, unopposed and were more dogmatic in fighting communists than the fascists. This proves their allegiance. This doesn't mean every social democratic reform should be rejected, but as a vehicle out of capitalism they are counter-revolutionary.

>>2179506
>has never read Marx
>Marx said…
Do you ever think about just shutting up about topics you know nothing about?
>arose from socialism
It's clear you don't even know the basics.

>>2175708
This thread is socdem on socdem violence.

Nah nah forget political economy.
Socdems east of the Dnieper good.
Socdems west of the Dnieper bad.

>>2181790
>i cant say when capitalism ends, but le falling rate of profit, bro!
as i say, profits are always falling yet business is always booming. what makes these conditions possible in a marxist worldview? imperialism? then the western proletariat are just parasites themselves?
>capitalism fails every 4-7 years
yet it has lasted centuries. almost like the market thrives on its self-revolutionising mechanics. creative destruction, etc.
>>2182036
>capitalism cannot save itself
but the idea of socialism is that capitalism becomes socialism through internal movement; you are being contradictory. if capital can "undermine" itself (for example, in the reformist terms that marx describes in capital vol. 1, like the lowering of the working day, and thus the conversion from absolute to relative surplus value), then why is "socialism" in its concrete conditions not perceived as this "real movement" of labour coming into representation? to me, the west has always been more "revolutionary" in this respect than the east. the east prop up asian despotisms and self-hating tankies worship these regimes. but where is history really taking place today?
>you are either a fascist or a communist
another small-minded imbecile
>>2182044
then teach me "the basics" and why marx's scribblings are relevant today. i have already argued against the common arguments. if this esoteric "science" of yours has no predictive power, then what exactly is "scientific" about it? you are part of a religion, not a scientific community.

>>2182560
>as i say, profits are always falling yet business is always booming. what makes these conditions possible in a marxist worldview? imperialism?
that is one of the things. expansion of markets creates new avenues for investment with high rates of profit. massively destructive wars like ww2 and the rebuilding after also can reset the rate for profit. crisis has been reimagined by bourgeois economics as the "business cycle", which shows that business is not always booming
>yet it has lasted centuries.
idk what you are not getting. its in the slogan "socialism or barbarism" and both me and the other anon directly told you that capitalism doesn't end until workers make it end. there is no automatic end of capitalism that you can math out based on profit rates, but there are recurring crisis of overproduction that results in millions of deaths

>>2182583
>investment creates profit
surplus labour creates profit, no?
>crisis has been reimagined by bourgeois economics as the "business cycle", which shows that business is not always booming
and when it doesnt boom, it is "stimulated". thats been how keynesian economics has "saved capitalism", in the words of FDR, and his "new deal".
now, why save capitalism? because the alternative isnt always better - surely we can agree to that.
>capitalism doesn't end until workers make it end
so why dont they end it if its in their power?
>there is no automatic end of capitalism that you can math out based on profit rates
oh, so the falling rates of profit dont actually matter then if the profit rate can just be "reset" by wars? good to know.

>>2182590
>oh, so the falling rates of profit dont actually matter then if the profit rate can just be "reset" by wars?
That peak is always still below the previous peaks induced by wars.
Even marx wasn't confident on the falling rate of profit, but empirically as a long term trend it is looking very solid at this point.

>>2182560
>if this esoteric "science" of yours has no predictive power, then what exactly is "scientific" about it?


a tendency for the value rate of profit to decline during long wave periods of expansion [a "novel fact" according to Lakatosian criteria in that the phenomenon was not explained by previous theories; also, this tendency is not predicted by neoclassical economics]

the relative immiseration of the proletariat, i.e., an increase in the rate of surplus-value, as a secular trend [not predicted by neoclassical theory]

an inherent tendency toward technological change, as a secular trend [a "novel fact" according to Lakatosian criteria in that the phenomenon was not explained by previous theories; also not predicted by neoclassical theory]

an increase in the physical ratio of machinery (and raw materials) to current labor, as a secular trend [not predicted by neoclassical theory – indeed, neoclassical theory cannot even provide an ex-post explanation of the causes of the observed increase in this ratio, because it cannot discriminate empirically between supply causes and demand causes]

a secular tendency for technological change to substitute machinery for labor even in capitalist economies which are "labor-abundant" or "capital scarce" [neoclassical theory, by contrast, seems to predict that labor abundant economies should be characterized by the widespread replacement of machinery with labor, both by "substitution" and perhaps by an induced "labor-saving" bias in technological change; however, the history of developing countries supports Marx's prediction and contradicts neoclassical theory]

an inherent conflict between workers and capitalists over the length of the working day [a "novel fact" according to Lakatosian criteria in that the phenomenon was not explained by previous theories; also not predicted by neoclassical theory – indeed, the empirical evidence also contradicts the neoclassical theory of labor supply, according to which the working day is determined by the preferences of workers, because competition among firms forces them to accommodate workers' preferences (according to this theory, there should be no conflict between firms and workers over the length of the working day, but competition has the opposite effect, forcing firms to resist attempts by workers to reduce the working day because such a reduction will reduce profit in the short run)]

class conflict over the pace and intensity of labor effort [a "novel fact" according to Lakatosian criteria in that the phenomenon was not explained by previous theories; also not predicted by neoclassical theory]

periodically recurrent recessions and unemployment [a novel fact]

a secular tendency for capital to concentrate [a novel fact not predicted by the neoclassical theory of the firm]

a secular tendency for capital to centralize

a secular decline in the percentage of self-employed producers and an increase in the percentage of the labor force who are employees [a prediction concerning the evolution of the class structure in capitalist societies is not derivable from any other economic theory]

>>2182590
>>investment creates profit
investment in established industries with high technology has a low return on investment compared to investment in new industries that havent implemented technology, like underdeveloped or war torn countries.
>so why dont they end it if its in their power?
>>2181790
>organizing
are you just completely unaware of marxism yet confidently sure about it?

OP, you are trying to talk about Marxism without ever engaging with its content. You speak of state intervention "working" while preserving "civil liberties", without asking to what end it is working and what exactly these civil liberties mean for the life of the proletariat.

To answer the question "what exactly is wrong with social democracy?": everything that is wrong with capitalism. If you want an understanding of that, engage with a critique of political economy.

>>2182053
>>2182055
trvth nvke

>>2175711
True, in capitalist US man exploits man, in socialist China, it's the other way around.