Previous thread: >>2177902
Dump all the seemingly pointless, dubious, and frivolous questions that don't deserve their own shitty threads.
Got a question that's probably been asked a million times before? You're in the right landfill, buddy. Post it here.
Threads that otherwise might go in here will eventually find themselves become merged to this thread.
>>2384879History of the Three Internationals by William Z. Foster
The Internationale by R. Palme Dutt
The Death of Social Democracy by Ashley Lavelle
>>2395241YOU ARE WRONG. YOUR ERROR: Suggesting nobles and communists were exiled for the same reason.
>Why did the Czarist police even bother with arresting and exiling Lenin and other communist to Siberian prisonsSelective exile maintained the illusion of bourgeois law, preventing unified revolt. Dissenting nobles were often exiled while thousands of masses would be murdered. Nobles were exiled to preserve aristocratic unity.
> it would have been far easier and less hurtful to them to just execute all dissidents on the spot?WRONG. It would have been worse to kill every dissenting noble because they would be made martyrs for masses. Exile served to develop domestic periphery.
>>2395534you have to think about thinking
"reason" (λόγος) is "logos", which becomes "logic"
logic is the structure of the mind therefore
applied logic becomes mathematics and mathematics broaches into natural science. so its all related.
as a test of thinking, we may use hypothetical propositions which test the limits of our thought. once we come into conflict with λόγος we may call this a "contradiction", or a unity of opposition. the "illogical" is therefore the unreasonable, and so is the untrue. as a perfect example, from a sum's own terms, 1+1=2. can we therefore imagine 1+1=3? they say the mind is endless, yet we cannot imagine the impossible. the mind's movement from imagination to reason thus entails considering the structure of thinking itself. the mind thus, is always thinking in its own terms. the art of thinking thus entails a search for truth.
>>2404887We have the opposite problem. People use the term "socialism" for anything that is not some pure hypothetical version of capitalism, so putting the label "non-Marxist" in front of it still is far too unspecific. You should rather choose another term. And don't use "market" or "democratic" either here, you really have to get more specific than that: Try to come up with a sentence that describes the gist of it and that you can abbreviate to a word that you can pronounce.
>>2407106We have ample empirical evidence that capitalism everywhere comes with mass unemployment, but we don't have a tight logical proof that capitalism is incompatible with full employment. The argument for unemployment being necessary in capitalism is that the threat of unemployment disciplines labor. But the threat of a more shitty alternative form of employment with enough social stigma would also do the trick. So I do believe that a capitalist state could run a full employment scheme with the state directly employing anyone asking. Such a state could do without requiring a minimum wage in the private sector and it could drastically cut benefits to anyone who isn't very old or disabled without public outcry.
>>2407192>But the threat of a more shitty alternative form of employment with enough social stigma would also do the trick.It's interesting that even among mainstream economists (e.g. excluding MMT, and some post-Keynsian economists) NAIRU (non-accelerated inflation rate of unemployment) seems widely accepted. I'm now skeptical of the notion of non-counter-cyclical attempts to reduce unemployment, that is to reduce unemployment below NAIRU.
Doesn't workfare just reduce the number of discouraged workers (technically not unemployed because they're not seeking work), and specifically low-skill discouraged workers. It isn't an unemployment policy. But then again looking at the labor participation rates we see no positive change following the welfare reform of '96.
How is this possible? >>2408113>>2408140>NAIRUHysterical term. If you wanted to argue for inflation existing at some level of low unemployment, the accurate term would be NIRU; and if you wanted to argue for the existence of an inflation-increasing effect, the accurate term would be NIIRU. The existence of an
acceleration rate of the inflation rate would mean something like the inflation rate itself doubling every X days. Of course, you can argue it's technically correct to say NAIRU because your mental model is probably NIIRU and NIIRU implies NAIRU (if the inflation rate does not increase, it can't accelerate either). You can argue like that if you are pure slime.
The US does not follow a policy seeking full-employment, so all your pooping about how they
"fail
" to reach full employment is besides the point. What the US gov actually does is that it chokes the economy with higher interest rates whenever unemployment gets too low (
as seen from the POV of a certain class of people), with the blahblah about reining in inflation the officially stated reason. "Ah, but you see you stupid proles, since it takes a while for the inflation effects to happen we can't actually look at these effects to recalibrate our theory, we'll have to take the unemployment rate as a proxy of the inflation that would come later, sorry bout that, uwu."
>>2408317Splice, or trim?
If you have a computer then `yt-dlp` to download in full quality, then use handbrake (a convenient wrapper around the legendary ffmpeg software) to trim the clip that you want.
If you want to splice a montage together, download kdenlive for easy video editing.
>>2408519I don't know why I thought about this
Probably the same as mine, hypothetically. But politics aside, angry white guy? Well, that's no good.
I wonder if he'd tell people to kill themselves. He could be quite polemic, which would be amplified by the medium (standup instead of "respectable" politics).
>>2408140>>2408287It seems that inflation is a leading indicator of unemployment rather than the other way around.
And the naming of the article doesn't seem to be too interesting at the moment.
Amusingly the means to reduce NAIRU all seem terrible, because they target increasing the discipline of labor.
Not only that, but they also seem to be based on relatively weak empirical evidence.
The only exceptions seemed to be active labor market policies which improve work-employee fit.
If the idea of "creating jobs" in a noncountercyclic nonstructural way just left we would probably be better off.
Then again maybe we're already doing this.
>>2412465honestly haven't in many years
When I was young and naive I used to frequent for a short period.
They are STEM fags that are dabbling in things they cannot quite grasp.
You need historical consciousness to really grasp the development of the world (which ofc produces the world of thinking/logic and all the rest).
Politically, they are a whole lot of nothing, leftliberal (the standard enlightened w*stoid, we are for good things and against bad things). Things are not ideal, oh they could be a bit better. There is so much to optimize. With the endpoint (just speculating) being: get the engineers and other STEMautists in power.
>>2414876wait until he finds out about wage slavery
will the british empire end this, too?
>>2449087Capital, General Intellect or both
Too tired to be precise on this one but that should be the gist of it
>>2487171>The Soviet Union's legal system was subordinate to the Soviet Communist Party. Legislation was debated and approved by party leaders, then passed to the Supreme Soviet for approval. The court system ensured party control over judicial decisions. Judges were selected by party officials and were usually party members. The procuracy, a nationwide organization, ensured law enforcement and reported to the party leadership.>After the revolution, the regime placed itself above the law, granting the Communist Party head powers similar to the tsars. The government replaced elected officials, suppressed opposing speech, and eliminated suspected enemies without trial. The New Economic Policy in 1921 restored the legal basis for the economy, but Stalin later ended it, asserting central control. Soviet law became a tool for implementing party policy and economic planning.https://www.britannica.com/topic/Soviet-lawmore information concerning structue:
>The government was led by a Chairman, commonly referred to as "Premier" by outside observers. The chairman was nominated by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and elected by delegates at the first plenary session of a newly elected Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. High government officials, such as first deputy premiers, deputy premiers, government ministers, or heads of state committees or commissions, were chosen by the premier and confirmed by the Supreme Soviet.>After the promulgation of the 1936 Constitution, under Stalin, the Council of People's Commissars was defined as the Soviet government and the "highest executive and administrative organ of state power". However, at the same time, the Constitution also stripped the Council of People's Commissars of its ability to enact laws, and instead confined it to issuing "decrees and regulations on the basis and in execution of the laws currently in force". Legislative power was shifted to the Supreme Soviet and its Presidium, who alone could alter laws, having replaced the Congress of Soviets and the Central Executive Committee respectively.>Lenin had sought to create a governmental structure that was independent of the party apparatus. Grigory Zinoviev, however, maintained that the Politburo was the principal body of the state, and from Stalin’s tenure until Mikhail Gorbachev’s, there existed an informal system of government by which appointment of People's Commissars came to be made by the Political Bureau (Politburo) of the Communist Party’s Central Committee, and ratified later by the Council of People's Commissars.https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/index.htm >>2381106The difficulty I experience in relating to my parents is rooted not merely in personal incompatibility, but in the structural and ideological conditions that shape our consciousness. My parents, products of a STEM-oriented, capitalist milieu, operate within a worldview that valorizes technical expertise, market logic, and small-liberal pragmatism. Their positions as business owners situate them firmly within the apparatus of the bourgeois order, reproducing its norms, values, and hierarchies in daily life.
In contrast, my trajectory has been shaped by a humanistic and aesthetic sensibility, cultivated through the study of the humanities and photography, alongside a critical consciousness informed by Marxist theory. My intellectual and ethical orientation challenges the premises of capitalist production and the commodification of labor that my parents embody. As a result, our interactions are marked by an irreconcilable tension: their pragmatic, profit-oriented reasoning clashes with my critique of the socio-economic structures they implicitly defend.
The emotional discomfort I experience—the sense of claustrophobia and alienation in their presence—reflects a deeper phenomenon of ideological alienation. Just as the worker is estranged from the products of their labor under capitalism, I find myself estranged from the ideological and cultural “products” of my upbringing. Their worldview, shaped by the imperatives of capital and technical rationality, renders invisible the values, desires, and meanings that animate my own existence. The gulf between us is thus not merely generational or personal, but structural: it is a reflection of the ways in which class, ideology, and the relations of production mediate human relationships, even within the family.
In this sense, my rebellion is not a mere affective response, but a dialectical assertion of an alternative subjectivity—a refusal to subsume my consciousness under the imperatives of capitalist rationality and a commitment to cultivating forms of being and expression that challenge and transcend the ideological contours of my parental milieu.
>>2450880there is no problem with voting for socdems individually, but it shouldnt be the aim of your political action and rhetoric, because they will never bring about socialism (either because they will betray the cause, or the system will prevent them from doing anything radical, or they will get couped), and entering an electoralist logic will cause your party to become a bunch of opportunist who will compromise and betray to get positions or small concessions and loose its connection and popularity with the masses. Can clearly be seen with some of the old euro communists parties (in france for example, where they're not even the most radical left anymore and lost all their supports and principles)
>>2486189most rapes by far are done by relatives and closes ones, and arabs rapists are still a tiny minority of arabs, so focusing on immigration to stop rape is just anti immigrant policy rather than anti rape policy. Also notice how the people pushing this usually dont care about rape committed by locals and dont support actual anti rape policy (like dedicated training for police, sexual education and such)
>>2487198why the fuck would you quote britannica on the soviet union
>>2491028nope, there is actually two kind of supporter of multipolarity
there are the nationalist and national porkies of the periphery, who have understood that the west empire will try to keep them down to keep their advantages and exploit the rest of the world, and support multipolarity because breaking the hegemony is in their interest, and they are anti imperialist out of pure immediate self interest
then there are the actual communist, they are actually understanding that building communism is a world historical process, and that nobody build a revolution in a vacuum, but in a real national and global context, and in the west, the context of being part of the hegemonic anticommunist US led empire still exploiting the world is crucial to understanding the situation and is the primary obstacle to revolution and socialism
ofc, a lot of morons pretend to be leftist but actually suck up to the west empire and spend their energy spreading its propaganda and attacking its enemies and concepts challenging the status quo, and even here come shit up threads and troll in a pathetic attempt to defend imperialism "from the left". I suspect you're one of them
in terms of reading marx (beginner):
- on the jewish question (1844)
- german ideology chapter 1 (1844)
- communist manifesto (1848)
- eighteenth brumaire (1852)
- grundrisse, introduction (1857)
- grundrisse, fragment on machines (1858)
- zur kritik preface (1859)
- theories of surplus value chapter 4 (1863)
- value, price and profit (1865)
- capital vol. 1, prefaces, chapters 1-11, 19, 26-33 (1867)
- marx-engels letter, 11 december (1869)
- marx-meyer letter, 9 april (1870)
- civil war in france (1871)
- critique of the gotha programme (1875)
- marx-zasulich correspondence (1881)
- capital vol. 2 preface (1885)
- capital vol. 3 preface, chapters 1-3, 8-10, 13-14, 25, 36, 48, 52, supplement by engels (1894)
>>2497155its not logical, but here are some thoughts based on my experience.
society says wealth = success. being on welfare or unemployed (not in the wealthy sense of living off passive income) means you are a failure. not to mention other reactionary spooks floating around around like man = provider for the family.
the welfare centre is usually designed to break you down.
seeing immigrants at the welfare centre. its easier to think these other people are scum and don't deserve it like i do. than thinking hey lets build solidarity.
like i once saw someone come to pick up his welfare in a cab. everyone was like wtf this mf thinks he can roll up in a taxi while everyone takes the bus. but a more logical explanation might be that he was running late, and the penalty for being late to the interview (missing months of potential payments )was worse than taking the hit from getting an expensive taxi. but everyone assumes that guy was cheating or doing something wrong.
being at home a lot, staying online, (algorithms are more likely to promote reactionary content than leftist ones) while drinking heavily leads to reactionism. i heard quite a few people started moderating their beliefs when they slowed the drinking.
>>2497121Probably one of the relentless /pol/ spamming schizos. I remember 3 of them:
- The guy who spams the Alunya nudes. He's been ban evading and going at it for several years by now, without explanation.
- Some poster who was called virginia anon or something like that. It was a nazi who always typed in a broken format and used the same poorly edited pics as justification for his ideology, and always argued in bad faith. He spent years coming here but eventually disappeared.
- The thing noticer: The guy whose posts were 99% random twitter nonsense you'd never heard of. He disappeared too.
>>2502559sublation media
why theory
Unique IPs: 92