What's their fucking problem? Their membership ranges from genuine MLs all the way to reactionary rejects. Do they think the way to build communism is to adopt all the worst and most aggravating positions held by the now defunct black hammer?
>>2454402moved goalposts from
>don't listen to anyone attacking these reactionaries, because muh youtube badto
>actually it's infantile to criticize a communist party for welcoming landlords and petty bourgeoisie into its ranks It's the logical conclusion of first world labor aristocratic socialism. They tail the petty bourgeoisie and middle class against the "financial elites" because that's the only way to reconcile western populism with the reality that the working class is a minority in the west. To justify that, they must redefine what "working class", "proletarian", "productive" means, hence the barista discourse.
Everything else is retroactively justified from that position. It's also why they like Hudson so much. Hudson is just reheated Proudhon pretty much: based productive capitalists vs evil unproductive finance. And Proudhon took the petty bourgeois stance on what is "productive" under capitalism, for which Marx owned him in his famous critique.
Truckers and farmers and middle class homeowners are productive because they make "socially important" stuff. But they're also "proletarians" because they supposedly don't actually "own" their MOP and land and property, because they take out loans to buy them, so they're """technically""" owned by the banks and the "financiers".! Baristas? Not proletarian despite making commodities for a wage, because coffee is not "socially important".
Marx, meanwhile asserted that the only meaningful definition of "productivity" under capitalism is that which produces surplus value for the capitalist. Under socialism this becomes irrelevant, but Marx didn't deal with that. So their definition of "productive labor" is non-Marxist.
They subsequently deal with that by claiming that capitalism actually died in WWI and that we're now living under "bourgeois socialism", a planned economy beholden to "financiers". In a twisted way all of this is sorta self-consistent if you forget the fact that all of this is only true if you limit your analysis to the bubble of the western imperial core, and pretend that third world labor and unequal exchange and colonialism don't exist.
>>2454298Red brown alliance aka the fash. Also: a glowie operation.
Yes, unironically
We have this thread around twice a month. I’m not mad though, it’s fun to be reminded of these spergs.
The ACP is, functionally, a cult of personality around Haz Al-Din, an internet debate bro with a small but highly dedicated following (33k followers on his largest account IIRC) and enough connections to get himself into positions that a man with his level of notability would otherwise not be. His ideology can best be described as Andrew Tate chauvinism mixed with a distorted understanding of Stalin based in American anti-Soviet propaganda, and he conducts himself like Chris-Chan (he even kind of sounds like him).
The ACP, insofar as it actually is a political party, is what you get when someone notices that American “communist” parties focus on liberal idpol instead of the class struggle, and then concludes that the solution is to focus on conservative idpol instead. Their primary goals are to attract conservatives people away from Trump and to them, and to be a successful enterprise. The actual beliefs of their conservative recruits once they’ve gotten them on their team, or the implications of the methods they use to bring in cash, are not serious considerations of the party. So long as the number of conservatives brought in and dollars made increases, they see themselves as a success. The end result is a party with a decidedly petite-bourgeois sensibility.
People have compared it to the LaRouche movement, and while I think it’s an apt comparison, it’s also something much, much stupider than that. It’s what you get when sheltered, middle-class Americans learn of Marxism-Leninism, learn of Communist parties, learn of AES states, but are unable to truly grasp what any of it actually means or what it’s in service of because they’ve never been in a situation that would get them out of their petite-bourgeois bubbles. It’s a bunch of people “doing” the old-school CPUSA, “doing” the Soviet Union; a Las Vegas simulacrum of socialism that is fun aesthetically but carries no actual substance.
>>2454418Fuckin' BASED
That's my boys.
>>2454513>Andrew Tate chauvinism mixed with a distorted understanding of Stalin based in American anti-Soviet propaganda, and he conducts himself like Chris-ChanMy sides have reached low earth orbit.
Also,
>It’s what you get when sheltered, middle-class Americans learn of Marxism-Leninism, learn of Communist parties, learn of AES states, but are unable to truly grasp what any of it actually means or what it’s in service of because they’ve never been in a situation that would get them out of their petite-bourgeois bubbles.my high school comp sci teacher had a term for these kinds of larps. He called it
<Airsoft/Reenactment PoliticiansWe had a lot of military family kids that liked to reenact ww2 with airsoft guns and each posse that had their favorite country also mirrored the politics of that country but it was corny as shit. There was no substance, only aesthetics.
>German kids would call the teacher Mein Fuhrer>American kids would quote Liberty Prime every other day>Soviet kids would call each other comrade But it will just end there. So he called them airsoft politicians.
imperial japan kids would constantly get in trouble for bringing sapporo beer and were unable to pronounce "honorable" without sounding like a bunch of asian tourists >>2454513I always thought the larouche stuff had to do something with Haz literally speaking at a LaRouchePAC event iirc
>>2454593the airsoft cliques sound like the precursor of the whole political compass-hoi4-polandball milieu
>>2454332trvthnvke
amerikkkans are retarded
only a retarded political movement can appeal to other retards
acp understands and is closer to becoming a mass movement than any other socialist org because they understand this simple fact
>>2454396S4A is a backstabbing asshole and a theorylet, and also a dogmatist (therefore a revisionist as he is guilty of dogmato-revisionism).
>what he does is upload free audiobooks of leninYou mean which are all free in multiple languages in the internet as the first or third Google search result?! WOW! What a feat this dude has undertaken.
>grifterTry to attack them based on their substance and theory, and not make things up. There is no evidence that Haz or Hinkle are grifting - which also be illegal, enriching themselves on membership dues. Considering the amount of passionate haters they are getting, you'd assume someone would already have taken legal action.
Hinkle already has enough money. Haz gets donations on his personal Infrared stream which is not the ACP.
>who also have youtube channelsSo? What is wrong with a party having a YouTube channel, are you forreal? Do you know almost all Bolsheviks were "professional revolutionaries", meaning, they didn't work "real jobs" as well?
>>2454954>Try to attack them based on their substance and theoryThey get attacked on this constantly and for good reason. They regularly display a gross misunderstanding of concepts like productive labour, what constitutes the proletariat, what socialism and capitalism even are, etc.
>There is no evidence that Haz or Hinkle are grifting - which also be illegalGrifting isn't necessarily illegal, it just means you're ripping people off. It's not illegal for Andrew Tate to charge people to attend Hustler's University, but it is a grift because you're paying good money to listen to his low effort nonsense.
>>2454962>They get attacked on this constantly and for good reason.95% of the attacks are of personal nature, most of the times they are accused of bigotry or being fascist, which is no elaborated on. Their detractors did spread a fair amount of lies as well.
>They regularly display a gross misunderstanding of concepts like productive labour, what constitutes the proletariat, what socialism and capitalism even are, etc. Such as?
>Grifting isn't necessarily illegal, it just means you're ripping people off.It's most definitely illegal, it's embezzlement and fraud. Your Andrew Tate example doesn't work because people know what they are paying for. When Jehova's Witnesses knock on your door and ask for a donation, and you give it them, and it turns out that they are just two junkies using the money to buy drugs, that's also fraud and you'd be able to press charges.
The fact that nobody as ever tried that when they are supposedly laundering money should tell you something.
>>2454993>95% of the attacks are of personal natureProbably because Haz is so personally repulsive and an obvious clown.
>Such as?Such as saying that service workers aren't proletarians and don't do productive labour even though Marx explicitly says that they are and do, claiming that we already live under a form of socialism, etc.
>It's most definitely illegal, it's embezzlement and fraudThen you're using the term differently than other people are. Nobody here is accusing them of doing anything illegal, they're accusing them of ripping people off by taking their hard earned money and giving them nothing meaningful or worthwhile in return.
>>2455082>anglo boxit still the anti-anglo meme from old /leftypol/ and some times /leftypol/-side twitter around 2017-2019
he just said the meme but "unironically" and threw that away after when he got more popular to around when "MAGA communism” started
>>2455197>They're local groups that do things like give food to the homeless>"food not bombs" for older anarchistsgood for them
>>2454995>Nobody here is accusing them of doing anything illegal, they're accusing them of ripping people off by taking their hard earned money and giving them nothing meaningful or worthwhile in return.So every party or organization is ripping you off. When you pay dues or make a donation nobody guarantees you that the party is gonna invest it into something you agree with. That's why you should donate to parties and orgs you agree with.
Still, if Haz or Hinkle were to privately appropriate the money, it'd be illegal.
>Such as saying that service workersThat's still debated. Have you seen Cockshott's take on this?
>claiming that we already live under a form of socialism, etc.They're claiming we are living under a reactionary bourgeois form of socialism, as outlined in the Communist Manifesto.
>>2454451I stopped reading when you put "financial elites" in Orwellian quotations marks, as if that doesn't come from Lenin directly. Finance capital is the merger of industrial capital and bank capital, it's when capitalism becomes fully imperialist.
An anti-monopolist strategy is endorsed by many old and respected Communist Parties around the world.
Michael Hudson is okay, he did a lot of good work.
A popular front strategy by allying with the progressive, anti-monopolist elements of the petty bourgeoisie is as old as Dimitrov.
The barista discourse is dumb but so is your "critique".
>>2454322I'm honestly kind of shocked that people here have actually seen ACP activity IRL, or at least know people who have. Last I checked their numbers were pretty small.
>>2455498>>2455514Let's zoom things out a bit, ignoring the technicalities and just looking at what's in front of us, analyzing it logically rather than appealing to authority.
The ACP is a party that encourages its members to make the party money by becoming petit bourgeois; by becoming small business owners and landlords. Note that they are not just allowing petite bourgeois into the party, but actively encouraging its members to become petite bourgeois, making it a core part of the way the party operates and stays afloat financially. This is, naturally, going to create a petite bourgeois class-consciousness, not just within the party leadership, but within the party rank and file, which is arguably more important, since it's the group that actually carries out real-world action. See, once people are in a position of power like that, once they're making easy money by renting land out to others, rather than doing actual meaningful work, it's generally not in their self-interest to give it up. The only people who serve to benefit materially from such an arrangement are the people at the top of the party, since they would be exchanging economic power for political power. The only benefit the grunts have is winning an ideological war, and, as history shows, material self-interest generally trumps ideology.
>>2455514Hudson and ACP hold that the "financiers" are a separate class in themselves, and that they have usurped the industrial capitalists. This is opposed to Lenin's analysis.
The rest of your post is just excuses for opportunism. Dmitrov was a retard who cucked out to the western soccdems.
>>2455498>That's still debated.No it isn't.
>Have you seen Cockshott's take on this?I've seen Marx's take on it.
>They're claiming we are living under a reactionary bourgeois form of socialism, as outlined in the Communist Manifesto.Yeah well that's retarded. Monopoly capitalism was already described in detail by Lenin. "Bourgeois socialism" is only given a couple pages in the communist manifesto and is generally just described as "socialists" that want to alleviate the conditions of the workers without overthrowing the capitalist social order. Today we just call these left liberals or social democrats. It's a political tendency not a socioeconomic system or mode of production.
>>2454451hudson is a guy that is more in the ben norton sphere of things than the ACP sphere of things. ben norton and michael hudson don't do "le gays are degenerates and the baristas aren't real workers" type shit.
>based productive capitalists vs evil unproductive financenot exactly how they frame things. yes they talk about the superiority of chines state capitalism, but specifically in the terms that it is reigned in by a communist party and forced to produce according to a national plan rather than spam strategies that yield high quarterly returns. They basically sound like Dengists which is a completely different thing than this ACP LaRouche type shit.
>>2455769It would be pointless because the average ACP hater is total wrecker like this
>>2455762>>2455771Everything youre saying is actually imperlalist revisionism.
>To justify that, they must redefine what "working class", "proletarian", "productive" means, hence the barista discourse.You've never read Marxist-Leninist proletarian political economic textbook
https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch15.htm . The industrial and agricultural workers produces all value. Services create no value. You say Marx said any labor that produces profit for capital is productive but this is plain misreading and vulgar bourgeois economic in grossest form.
>>2455786You're combining a bunch of people together and treating them as one.
>The industrial and agricultural workers produces all value. Services create no value.My question is, what exactly does Marx mean by services here? This is an actual question by the way. I've always thought that he was talking about what we now call the PMC; people whose job is telling other people what to do. Because I find it hard to believe that he would insist that, for example, the work done by a janitor, is not economically productive because they aren't technically introducing a new product. I might be wrong though, I'm open to discussion.
>but this is plain misreading and vulgar bourgeois economic in grossest form.Why is your English so bad?
>>2455812No, I mean
why does he speak in a stilted way? Is he illiterate? ESL? both?
>>2455082>Remember when retards here heard 'anglo box' the one good thing to come out of acp
>and thought Haz was the next Lenin?lmao no
>>2455807Service is defined in Marxist-Leninist textbook i linked you. any labor that does not augment social aggregate product is what bourgeois economists call "services." Imperialist economic theory postulates that services are productive because imperialist economy is unproductive and service dominant
>>2455816My english is excellent. You are 10th grade level. Shut your illiterate ass up.
>>2455821 you are low quality wrecker who projects
>>2455829You are self-admitted genocidal liberal so your condemnation means the ACP is on the right track.
>>2455846None of what you highlighted was an issue with the Soviet economic system. They had enough retail stores, distribution warehouses, and logistics. Computerisation wasn’t lagging significantly behind capitalist countries.
The core problem was lack of re-investment into means of production after the beginning of liberalisation in the ‘50s and ‘60s.
>>2455833>Service is defined in Marxist-Leninist textbook i linked you.I know. I read it. I'm questioning your interpretation. I want to start a conversation.
The world can do without the PMC, that much is certain. But what about janitors? They're not technically creating something new, but the work they do is obviously important; buildings need to stay clean after all.
>My english is excellentGet real.
>>2455846>the Soviet economy was not particularly efficient.https://jacobin.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/
>First he reviewed eighteen studies of technical efficiency: the degree to which a firm produces at its own maximum technological level. Matching studies of centrally planned firms with studies that examined capitalist firms using the same methodologies, he compared the results. One paper, for example, found a 90% level of technical efficiency in capitalist firms; another using the same method found a 93% level in Soviet firms. The results continued in the same way: 84% versus 86%, 87% versus 95%, and so on.
>Then Murrell examined studies of allocative efficiency: the degree to which inputs are allocated among firms in a way that maximizes total output. One paper found that a fully optimal reallocation of inputs would increase total Soviet output by only 3%-4%. Another found that raising Soviet efficiency to US standards would increase its GNP by all of 2%. A third produced a range of estimates as low as 1.5%. The highest number found in any of the Soviet studies was 10%. As Murrell notes, these were hardly amounts “likely to encourage the overthrow of a whole socio-economic system.” (Murell wasn’t the only economist to notice this anomaly: an article titled “Why Is the Soviet Economy Allocatively Efficient?” appeared in Soviet Studies around the same time.)
>Two German microeconomists tested the “widely accepted” hypothesis that “prices in a planned economy are arbitrarily set exchange ratios without any relation to relative scarcities or economic valuations [whereas] capitalist market prices are close to equilibrium levels.” They employed a technique that analyzes the distribution of an economy’s inputs among industries to measure how far the pattern diverges from that which would be expected to prevail under perfectly optimal neoclassical prices. Examining East German and West German data from 1987, they arrived at an “astonishing result”: the divergence was 16.1% in the West and 16.5% in the East, a trivial difference. The gap in the West’s favor, they wrote, was greatest in the manufacturing sectors, where something like competitive conditions may have existed. But in the bulk of the West German economy — which was then being hailed globally as Modell Deutschland — monopolies, taxes, subsidies, and so on actually left its price structure further from the “efficient” optimum than in the moribund Communist system behind the Berlin Wall. >>2455853Then why did people wait in line for virtually everything?
>>2455856That doesn't address my point. Soviet industry could be about as efficient as Western economies but the distribution system failed to deliver because they failed to invest in "unproductive" sectors of the economy.
>>2455833>My english is excellent. You are 10th grade level. Shut your illiterate ass up. >>2455821 you are low quality wrecker who projectsBro… how do you not know what an article is? That should've been one of your absolute first lessons. I don't know what beginner sentences they could've given you where you wouldn't have been taught about them. How did you not notice that everyone else uses them and you don't by now?
>Service is defined in THE Marxist-Leninist textbook i linked you.>Imperialist economic theory postulates that services are productive because imperialist economy is unproductive and service dominantEither:
<because THE imperialist economy is unproductive and service dominantOR
<because imperialist economyies is are unproductive and service dominant>You are A self-admitted genocidal liberal so your condemnation means the ACP is on the right track. >>2455899>you're just peddling proudhoni think you are just misunderstanding what marx is saying. he doesn't call capitalism good because its productive, he says its progressive because it develops productive forces. marx defines progressive as an increase in productive forces because it brings humanity closer to material abundance, not as increasing surplus value. your conflating productive with progress. he doesn't use the word regressive but its a synonym for reactionary, conservative, etc. meaning that it maintains the capitalism mode of production past its expiry date. monopoly marks the point where the progressive aspects of capitalism reach their completion in the concentration of social labor leaving the only possibility for advancement to communism in the socialization of privately owned productive forces. whether or not one or the other is "productive" in generating surplus-value is besides the point
lenin makes this even more clear.
>>2455966another anon already addressed this:
>>2455864>Soviet industry could be about as efficient as Western economies but the distribution system failed to deliver because they failed to invest in "unproductive" sectors of the economy.even in capitalist economies though we see a "failure" of distribution, but it is a deliberate failure. When there is an oversupply, the capitalists destroy the oversupply to bring down the price.
>>2456026>>read time 56 minutesdamn you must read slow
>Are you sure?yup
i think you probably meant to say something different. like the soviet union failing. or possibly soviet economic planning failing, which the article says, not industry. but that also didn't happen.
I think the ACP is completely irrelevant (even more so then most already irrelevant communist parties in the states), but what is even the appeal? I seriously want to know what any ACP defender sees in them, on either a practical or theoretical front, that is worth any modicum of merit and isn't dwarfed by some already existent orginazation or movement. On a practical standpoint, his attempt to appeal to conservatives is entirely dead in the water; not a single one is going to jump ship to his particular brand of "communism" in any way given the dozens of other political alternatives that don't require them to be the one thing they, at the very core, are vehemently against. Liberals aren't going to be convinced either for obvious reasons as well. The various "factions" of the far right aren't going to be signing up and paying dues anytime soon either, they have their own groups, individuals, and programs to rally around that don't require them to literally join up with the thing their ideology (9/10 times) emerged to oppose. That leaves open only a portion of the disaffected that is "left leaning" in one way or another, in that they are willing to hear out some discussion on Marxism or whatnot without immediately brushing it off. Of those, 99.99% of those individuals aren't going to want to follow, in real life, some person who's claim to politics is being an inept terminally online streamer who doesn't even understand what he's saying half the time. And no, throwing out buzzwords like "subject" and "manifest" like some liberal college dropout who heard "Lacan" one time isn't going to convince people when they try and actually get to the meat of your program. Of the few that stick it out, you lose at least half to statements like "communism is patriarchal and that patriarchy gives more freedom to woman" or that "service workers aren't proles". Of the half that remain, you then lose those that are only radical in terms of economic program (if you didn't already lose them from the before mentioned comments), because your program is effectively mild social democracy with a mix of American exceptionalism/nostalgia, then those who care zero for "American patriotism" because they see the US as an inherently imperial colonialist project and find your incessant need to appeal to it as reactionary. Older leftists are also out, because they aren't going to get practically any of what you are saying or how you present it, as are the MLs who adhere to the anti-theist internal party policy of nearly every ML party in existence. So all you are left with are a small percent of terminally online, contrarian, pro-US (in the context of "return"), pro-religion, anti-social, largely unemployed, middle class, disaffected young men. Which can be loud, but in the end, cannot contstruct a party that operates in the places they need to, or have either the theory and/or the praxis needed to prevent being superceded by literally anything else. Even a failure of a party like the CPUSA has broader appeal in certain neighborhoods, and aren't going to scare away minority workers when they learn how chummy their leader is with retards like Fuentes after a single google search.
>>2455864>Then why did people wait in line for virtually everything?Firstly, they didn’t for staples. Lining up occurred for seasonal or scarce goods exactly as happens in modern capitalist economies. Secondly, the overwhelming cause of scarcity was failure to invest enough in means of production, ie produce more goods with less labour. And this was primarily a fault of the LIBERALISATION, ie pushing investment decisions down to factories instead of at central planning bureau level.
The Soviets didn’t have factories full of goods that they couldn’t distribute due to failure to invest in distribution.
Your flag is 99% of the time an indicator that what follows is brain dead anti-Sovietism from the 1980s.
>>2456037>if you mean didn't increase GDP according to capitalist standards or didn't have blue jeans and coca cola thats one thing, and those are subjective measures. Dude, what I said is very clear that it had nothing to do with "blue jeans" and "coca cola", or even GDP. The very fact that it moved towards an economy that weighed itself on the basis of GDP is an exposure of a critical failure. The bureaucratization of the state and the rise of a kind of "managerial class", one which eventually took pioneered and took advantage of the later liberalization of the USSR to take control of certain industries for themselves, is a direct consequence of the both representative democratic system of the USSR and its refusal to plan production by cybernetic means and rather maintaining the kind of money from that would eventually be one directly linked to the global economy. I have zero care for how much "profit" the USSR made, that's a useless metric for an economy in transition to socialism.
>but if you mean that it caused the collapse of the state thats not really true.It did cause the collapse, it's just not the immediate cause. It rather led to a chain of cause and effect that eventually resulted in the fall of the USSR.
Though you could also argue this all really began with the failure of the European proletariat to successfully revolt, which led to multiple concessions and a need to develop a center of revolution that was stuck utilizing a representative democratic state. >>2456039Incorrect.
>>2456030I see brilliance in the Communist Party. ACP is anti-imperialist Communist Party. ACP is bright shining sun for proletarians. You say ACP or "he" says or does something but you just type words. You never show official ACP document or media and dismiss all ACP work because you KNOW ACP is good and you LIE to slander ACP and bring nothing but despair to proletarian
>>2456052By the time it was technically feasible to implement OGAS the party was already rotten from Khrushchevite revisionism. There is no world where the central committee decides to push the OGAS button in 1970 and the liberal elements disappear and don’t attempt to overthrow socialism.
You also need to read more on cybernetics if you don’t think it doesn’t have its own problem with generating a managerial-technical caste responsibility for designing and running the system.
>>2456057Good thing I'm not a liberal then.
>>2456063It didn't flip-flop, which is to say it liberalized without trying to then also maintain/appease older mechanisms of central planning, which in the USSRs case caused both to come crashing explosively into each other.
>>2456067>not at all, just that the entire premise that central planning doesn't work so the communist experiment was doomed from the beginning is stupid and wrongI'm in support of central planning, likely more so then even you are.
>the mistakes described are a contributing factor but they didn't cause the collapse of the state by themselves, and thats an entirely different claim then saying "industry failed"I'm saying it eventually did and set the stage for it.
>>2456068>By the time it was technically feasible to implement OGAS the party was already rotten from Khrushchevite revisionism. I can agree with this to some extent, but not entirely. There were multiple times this could have been pushed through, particularly after Khrushev, though I admit the possibility was not a great one.
>There is no world where the central committee decides to push the OGAS button in 1970 and the liberal elements disappear and don’t attempt to overthrow socialism.I'll agree, I think there would be internal struggle.
>You also need to read more on cybernetics if you don’t think it doesn’t have its own problem with generating a managerial-technical caste responsibility for designing and running the system.Does it have considerations that if unaddressed could hypothetically lead to future problems? Sure, but far less then the system which would have preceded it. What's the risk? Bureaucrats again? Capitalist revision? Out of all the choices that contain the possibility of progressing the system, it's by far the best one and is only one that has a path that leads to the abolishment of the money form.
>>2456070>for the claim "industry failed" to be true and for it to "cause collapse" then the collapse would have been economic, but it wasn't, it was political. industry failure and economic collapse happened after the political counterrevolution with the full elimination of planning and full introduction of capitalism causing it, and directlyThe political and the economic are not separate. On a largely Marxist site, I should not have to elaborate, but you should know that one is an expression of the other, of which one then goes on to shape the other. A failure to further centralize made an economy in which a certain a failed democratic political structure solidified, which then went on to liberalize the economy further.
>>2456120>APL is defunctSo what's
https://www.americanpartyoflabor.com/ then?
>and they are dwarfed in IG followers by the Party 16 times younger.The ACP Instagram has 4558 followers. It's already an odd measure of success, but your beloved LARP club fails even at that.
>This is ironic because ACP is the only growing Communist Party.Source?
>>2456120
>APL is defunct. They have no media presence and they are dwarfed in IG followers by the Party 16 times younger.
I shouldn't have to tell anyone this, but IG followers are not acting members. And the APL being stagnant just makes your claim even sadder, given how despite being so small they still are active on street and have a larger reach.
>ACP gives proles the outreach they need. You admit you have no case and and produce more slander. The Party helps workers, so you lie to hurt workers.
Where did I admit I have no case? And how does the party help workers? In the same ineffectual way so many other opportunists do?
>This is ironic because ACP is the only growing Communist Party.
This doesn't sound right, but I wouldn't doubt it. Every opportunist party grows at the beginning, I can name 5 opportunist trotskyist parties that have "grown" in the last 10 years. A growth of 0% to 1%, with a starting number of 1000, in a country of 340,000,000, is growth after all lol. If they keep this up, they can have almost 1105 in ten years!
>>2456019The fucker is a lolbert and this is bullshit:
>Allocative efficiency: Concerns the ability of an economy to efficiently allocate inputs. An economy is allocatively efficient if given a level of technology, no gains can be made if productive factors are shifted around (Or, that the marginal rates of technical substitution (MRTS) for the inputs are equal in every possible use). An economy can be allocatively efficient and yet be inside the PPF, due to technical inefficiency.You cannot know "allocative efficiency" without trying all possible combinations. All this bullshit just is trying to say, oh socialist countries did not like the rat race therefore badddd. Fuck the rat race and fuck the west. The soviets should have just nuked the west. You nuke the entropy worshippers.
>>2456355Not really. Fascism is just what westerners experience the receiving end of capitalisms perpetual violent expansion as.
It's not structurally different from capitalism, it's just capital cannibalizing the heartland. Liberal ideologues have tricked you by yet again centering the state rather than economic relations.
>>2456051Also these retards tend to ignore the Number 1 reason for lineups is THE DELI SECTION
Even in Capitalist stores, the deli section always has giant lineups.
>>2456246dishonest bourgeois retard. ACP has half as many subs and has existed for 1/16th the time, yet you call them dead party. You keep doubling down because you know you are wrong. IRL, those parties actually don't do shit. They don't visit Houthis. They are fascist imperialist parties. You know all of this, of course, so you LIE about the Communist Party to hurt proletarians.
>>2456336You are the one who is dishonest or with brain damage. Those other parties are longstanding apparati of bourgeois dictatorship, yet they have no actual following because all of their old viewers and subscribers are dead of old age or feds
>>2456475 (me)
PS
if these other parties are so much bigger than ACP, then how come they dont do shit? Why hasnt CPUSA PSL or ALP sent anyone to Yemen or Iraq like ACP? Why dont they recieve audience with Hamas like ACP?
>>2456475>ACP has half as many subs and has existed for 1/16th the timeSo? 7.44k is still a smaller number than 14.7k. And it's not like they pulled these 7.44k followers out of nowhere; I'm willing to bet money that the majority of these people are from Haz and Hinkle's existing audiences. And even if they weren't, how do you know that this growth is going to continue? As someone whose read his fair share of graphs, the tendency for this kind of thing is to taper off in growth until it hits a straight line, not continue growing rapidly.
Beyond that, no matter how you split it,
none of these numbers are particularly impressive. If we're using social media follow-counts as our measure of success, there's individual gay furry porn artists that are more significant to the cause of leftism than the ACP.
>yet they have no actual following because all of their old viewers and subscribers are dead of old ageChat, is this true?
>>2456475they visited the houthis. that's cool. they also do shit like this
>>2454418 so it makes me doubt them. it's a real mixed bag. very disappointing.
>>2456502So you think having 2 subscribers after 16 years is better than having 1 subscriber after 1 year? You keep doubling down on this idiocy because you KNOW the ACP is everything you say it isnt. The growth will continue because they do amazing things for proletarians and third-world like sending delegations to all active anti-imperialist fronts.
>>2456537Prashad is imperialist dumbass who slandered Socialist Syria how you slander all Communists
>>2456574>So you think having 2 subscribers after 16 years is better than having 1 subscriber after 1 year?No, where did you get that from? I'm saying that 1 subscriber after 1 year isn't impressive period.
Also, if we're comparing apples to apples, as
>>2456249 shows, BreakThrough news, which is functionally an extension of the PSL, managed to get over a million subs, and it has existed a mere four years more than the ACP's channel has.
>The growth will continue becauseI don't have any numbers on hand (guess it's time to check up on the Wayback Machine), but IIRC, their sub count saw a big initial burst at the beginning, but has mostly stabilized at this point. So as far as I can tell, their growth already hasn't continued. Feel free to correct me on this one though.
>>2456633Hey, you're the one who brought up the PSL in
>>2456194, I'm just responding to you!
By the way, if the ACP youtube channel were to continue its current growth rate, it would take roughly 13 years for it to hit 100k subscribers.
>>2456247>>2456881I just noticed, the statement
>Way too racist for this channelImplies the existence of a channel where racism is in fact acceptable. What the hell's wrong with these people?
>>2456881literally just seething and sour grapes over roy singhams bankroll. psl has problems too but they and tricontinental are pretty based all things considered
real fucking disappointing to see carlos turn into a clout chaser i actually liked his writing
>>2456881>Who the fuck is leaking this shit?Probably their ex-lawyer (Molera was the name I think) and Danny Shaw who were on the leadership board until Haz offended them with his antics.
>I think it's simple. the chinese did an analysis of communist popularity in america and realized the only white people that would support communism (doing so even out of spite) are those exact "freaks of nature" that haz is angry over.There was a funny moment when Hinkle met Zhang Weiwei and was like "so how about those crazy baizous eh professor Zhang? Eh?" and Zhang was like "yes but there is also the baiyou." And Hinkle was like uhh I don't know what that is.
Haz is a freak. Russia might not care about that or may even like that, but for the Chinese… I suspect that's too unpredictable. What they care about is business, trade and investment which is part of their development strategy. Like just watch CGTN. The intended audience are not the freaks. Why would they entertain freaks who might only embarass them or entertain crazy schemes about sending guns to Haiti. China also doesn't like U.S. hegemony and the U.S-dominated global system, and you look at Trump and he doesn't like it either (because it's too expensive and has hollowed out American manufacturing etc.) but Trump wants to go back to 19th-century mercantilism. For China, that's not good. It leads to trade wars and great-power rivalries and that's bad. There are some pro-China leftists who seem to adopt the same mental model for the world as the U.S. but want China to engage in that. Like they see "Cold War" and take the Chinese side, but that's not their agenda. Remember that the U.S. is China's largest trading partner.
>>2456355>Historically, there is very little difference between socialist and fascist economics. This was also downplayed by socialist states because they too saw that fascists used socialist methods to stabilize capitalism. That's not true at all? Utilizing the state to stabilize capitalism isn't unique to fascism, that's entirely a feature of every capitalist economy. "Socialist methods" aren't "when the state does something", and historically most fascist economies were rather hands off in terms of private industry and cowtowed to industry leaders.
>Park Chung He, The Shah, Singapore, used fascist methods that also looked similar to soviet central planning.What do you see as looking similar? The methods, reasons, and goals behind them seem very different.
>The only difference materially between fascist and ML economics is the role of the capitalist as a middle-man.What's your source for this? Like, capitalists weren't even "middle-men" in many fascist economies, they were the direct leaders and runners of the economy. Take for example Nazi Germany as but one example, most decisions the state made had to be first approved by the capitalist industry of which the request was made to, and those industries held overwhelming power to simply reject the request with little consequence.
>This is also why both wignats and bordigafags claim that china is fascist.Having been around leftcom (bordiga) circles, the accusation isn't exactly that china is "fascist", rather that China is capitalist, and that fascists are also just capitalists who would be indistinguishable from many other modern capitalist states outside of social policy and aesthetic, and that the failure in the analysis of other communists comes from trying to treat fascism as something "unique" and "exceptional" despite being yet another inevitable form of bourgeoisie rule that emerges naturally from the mechanisms of capital. It's where the "ᴉuᴉlossnW Socdem" meme come from.
>>2455481I don't really care, "food not bombs" does better job people compared to here or that anything haz does.
Besides in theory how the organization itself could make change or how it feels like to be their, it still seems that anything with haz-related isn't going to end well.
>>2456952>baiyouPlease elaborate what that is. I'm also retarded.
>>2456966>This is valuable insight. China values stability, not antics.It appears the chinese strategy of "Doing Nothing, Win" is rooting in non-aggressive expansion and boiling the frog alive. They realized the soviet strategy of constant antagonism gave rise to american strategic discipline and impetus to fight the USSR. China does not want to give ammo to its enemies and therefore wants to appear as passive as possible. Most leftists have a spartan mentality on these things because of 1945 Attero Dominatus. Sad to say, in this day and age most people learned that head-on attacks make you end up like hitler in the bunker so they do the sneaky approach.
>tldr History proves chinas poison shrimp strategy to be dominant and a lynchpin of this strategy is to avoid flamboyancy and blatant challenges + aggression. >>2457123>haz-relatedThe biggest issue with haz is he has no consistency. His whole shtick is to constantly shit-test his followers as a litmus of how loyal they are. Trump likes to do the same. I give you the ultimate example:
Some of you from the OG 2021 haz remember the Blulak episode.
In that episode, Haz goes on a schizo (ultra schizo) deep dive noticing of how the blue man group, navi from avatar, smurfs, etc. are all a ploy of the NWO to promote green agenda anarcho primitivism and a return to Mother Gaia. Haz further implies kulaks were greenpeace activists and lables blue haired liberals as Blulaks.
>The next dayHaz meets a blue haired girl who seems into him and he shows her on stream while walking (outdoor type of stream). When he shows her, the chat starts going:
<BLULAK BLULAK BLULAKHaz be like:
Alright chill guys, forget about the blulak thing it was just a joke.
That is haz in a nutshell for you.
>>2457139>Mother GaiaMan I almost forgot how big that used to be among Maupin orbiters back then.
Abiogenic oil theory was another one of those shit tests.
>>2454298>Their membership ranges from genuine MLs all the way to reactionary rejectsWhat's that line about nazis at a table again? When the organizational line is constantly sprouting openly reactionary social fascists, it doesn't matter if one or two people appear to be "genuine MLs". Those "genuine MLs" are subjecting themselves and following a reactionary fascist line, and are no different from the "reactionary rejects".
>black hammerACP represents a far more reactionary and dangerous tendency than Black Hammer's petty-bourgeois Black nationalist politics. Black Hammer's a dime a dozen. Every city has a Black Hammer-like trend and it at least stems from genuine national oppression. The ACP represents the organizational unification and concentration of "national socialist" politics in the US from the dominant nation in the empire. While they're presently something of a joke, as genuine revolutionary politics advance they will ride the equal and opposite reaction to that.
idk how i forgot about the larouche shit. acp is like an online version of it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Caucus_of_Labor_Committees#Operation_Mop_Up
>conflicts with other leftist groups, culminating in "Operation Mop-Up," which consisted of a series of physical attacks on members of rival left wing groups
>During "Operation Mop-Up," LaRouche's New Solidarity reported NCLC confrontations with members of the Communist Party and Socialist Workers Party. One incident took place April 23, 1973 at a debate
<The clown show is over. The Labor Committee warns the Socialist Workers Party and its comrades-in-hysteria: when you did all the fighting for the Communist Party at the mayoral forum, we held back – we gave you a mild warning, though several of your members were bloodied and broken. But should you repeat as goons for the CP, we will put all of you in the hospital; we will deal with you as we are dealing with the Communist Party.sounds exactly like haz lmao
>By the mid-1970s, the NCLC had abandoned Marxism altogether, in favor of what its members described as an American System approach.sucks for them cause china actually still talks to the schiller institute
>>2457841>Communism is impossible in america due to individualist culture. individualism and collectivism are a false dilemma, i.e. not mutually exclusive. and individualism under capitalism is not true individualism any more than freedom under capitalism is true freedom. True freedom isn't just freedom of the individual TO do whatever he wants with no consequences, true freedom is freedom FROM exploitation, hunger, homelessness, negelect, abuse, etc.. True individualism is integrated with a social collective so you can play a role and be your best self within that role.
Under capitalism the Jacobin values of individualism and freedom are perverted, incomplete, and subordinated to capitalist profit.
But people aren't ready for that conversation.
>>2458035I've always liked Philippe Van Parijs' concept of Real Freedom: that freedom ought to be measured not solely by the absence of restrictions, but instead by ones ability to actually do the things that they want to do.
It allows us to understand individual freedom from a collectivist lens. People can't just be given liberties in the abstract, they also need to have a high enough standard of living that they can do the things they want with these liberties, and that standard of living requires a society to provide for its constituents.
>>2458579The average American probably wouldn't understand the question.
Most people, not just in America but worldwide, are driven by their immediate wants and needs, not by ideology. An ideology is something they hitch onto because they think it will help them fulfil these goals. This isn't just me talking out of my ass, it's the whole basis of historical materialism.
>>2458659Doing photo ops and overstating their importance to other organizations who don't know any better (hilariously presenting themselves as CPUSA when it suits them) in order to gain an outsized platform is not some sign of anti-imperialism. It in fact solidifies their nature as reactionaries riding the coattails of proletarian struggle worldwide. Meanwhile, they continuously denounce actual communist revolution and frame fascists as potential allies.
>moralistYou people keep saying this, I don't think any of you actually know what it means. You just insist that people you don't like are making moral arguments and insist that means you're correct.
>>2458707anarakiddie try not to wreck or retroactively discard all forms of actually existing socialism challenge
difficulty level: retarded impossibility
>>2459231Omg, Haz sucks so much. Anyone have that clip of him whining his baby ass off about his doordash driver or whatever? I remember him streaming on the street in Hollywood and acting like an annoying teenager to all the people out there actually working a job.
Has he ever had a job in his life?
>>2459231>All Haz's point ever was, was that it isn't productive work in the Marxist sense, i.e. exactly what you yourself have admitted here.No, I said that live-in support workers who make a coffee for their clients aren't "productive in the Marxist sense" UNLIKE BARISTAS WHO ARE, FOR THE REASONS I GAVE IN MY POST ,AND WHICH COCKSHOTT GIVES IN HIS VIDEO.
The irony is, its not just haz, a lot of youtubers run discord channels and chats which you have to pay to get into. When union meetings often have problems getting members to turn up to meetings. Without a labour movement, overtime political groups dont really have any link to the working class. The S4A guy linked to above by this anon
>>2454325says it in one of his videos. (Don't just have Marxis-Leninist videos, has IWW organising manuals among his videos(
>>2459333Don't get what the point youre trying to make with this
unless it's
<dont bother studying<dont watch boring Cockshott <watch H*z >>2459342whether it creates surplus value for the capitalist
read marx
>>2459348hamas is an israeli asset
so yes, technically.
>“We need to tell the truth,” Israeli major general Gershon Hacohen, an associate of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said in a 2019 TV interview. “Netanyahu’s strategy is to prevent the option of two states, so he is turning Hamas into his closest partner. Openly Hamas is an enemy. Covertly, it’s an ally.”>After Hamas’s recent attack on Israel, Netanyahu vowed that every member of the group is a “dead man.” Yet Netanyahu has also strategically facilitated millions in funding to Hamas by allowing Qatar to give cash subsidies to Gaza — cash he knew would flow, undetectable, to Hamas leadership. Since 2009, Netanyahu’s political strategy has revolved around keeping Hamas alive and kicking — even if it hurts his own people. While Israel and Netanyahu give lip service on the international stage to seeking a two-state solution, Hamas provides a convenient excuse to avoid pursuing one.https://www.analystnews.org/posts/how-israel-helped-prop-up-hamas-for-decadeswho is on the side of the nazis, again? fucking retard. keep larping as a terrorist like all the school shooter chuds do.
>>2459356
>what makes labour either productive or unproductive?>>2459342>whether it creates surplus value for the capitalistread marx
Or the anon doesjt want to read Marx ,or watch the Cockshott video which explains it, they could watch this video instead, .about 15 minutes in
>>2459363if a company hires a gardener to maintain their property, it does not generate surplus value for the company
if a gardening company hires worker to perform gardening as a service, that labor generates surplus value for the gardening company
the first company experiences the gardener as a cost
the second company experiences the gardener as variable capital
for the purposes of being productive to the capitalist, it does not matter what the nature of the labor is. it's a social relation.
that's the only marxist definition of a "productive worker", because the job was to explain how capitalism works
what is "productive" in the wide sense, as in what labor we as a society wound want performed if we had a say (say under socialism), is a completely open question with no answers, it's the same as asking "what's socially necessary?". society decides. on the eve of war, it might be making tanks, in times of peace we might decide that art is more desirable than guns
but this question is invalid under capitalism because you don't get to decide anway.
ACP's proudhonist trick is that they pretend to be asking the first question (marxist productive labor), but then give an answer to the second question: "actually, whatever jobs the white male middle class does is Productive(tm), because society would stop working if they withheld their products. therefore we should organize those workers"
you know who else made society nearly collapse by withholding their products? the kulaks. ACP is the american kulak party, writing kulak theory pretending to be marxist
>>2459396Not him, but the difference is the presence of a middle-man. For example, the vast majority of TV shows are not owned by the people who actually made the show; the writers, the actors, the directors, the set designers, the cameramen, etc. Instead, they're owned by the corporation that's funding the project ("taking up risk"). The higher up you go in the corporate ladder, the less involvement you see in the actual production of the show. And yet it's the people higher up on the ladder that make the bulk of the money. I personally know someone who had an important role in well-known, long-running TV show who is currently selling everything he owns and trying to find a new career that doesn't require a college education, because he sees no residuals from his work on the show and nobody wants to hire him.
>>2459877How does one escape this trap? Seems like getting all outraged about them just fuels the flames no?
>>2459878Could you elaborate on the threat the acp poses to the working class movement? Are they that much worse than the many other dud parties in the US?
>>2459853Outside of Leftypol and adjacent niche internet leftist spaces, it really isn't. I took a break from the site, and in that time I hadn't heard even a single mention of them.
Within Leftypol, it's mostly because they're lolcows, especially Haz, and we want to keep up with their drama. It might sound strange to say, but there's a non-negligible number of people who use the site like a leftist Kiwi Farms thanks to ISG.
Haz also has bad blood with the site, and his supporters frequently come here to pick fights/shill, so when they get brought up there's a good chance someone will try and make an argument out of it.
>>2460041the image here
>>2454432 mentioned it
so did this post
>>2455829and this post
>>2454393and this one
>>2454500 >>2460120Was Nazi Germany socialist because it was a one party state?
>>2460122The problem with comparing them to any group that had any level of success is that it ignores the fact that they're retards with no actual ideology or discipline.
>Class collab>We must protect smol businesses and a future for socialist landlords>There's too much "sexual degeneracy" these days>Marxism is Islamic>Women shouldn't be allowed to voteMore like the American Fascist Party
>>2456120>Ur slandering us11!<Even though the evidence is ITTSaid like a true cultist.
>>2460135No, I'm making fun of their ridiculous "productivist" stance which implicitly leads to things like the "People's Funkopop Factory" because they don't understand what the fuck they're doing. I don't want to live in the world where I work the same miserable job but "socialist" which has left me with lifelong health problems and mostly shouldn't exist. It's all aesthetics chasing and grifting.
>>2454771>Nick LandDrug addled boomer. Had novel ideas during the 90s/early 2000s, but way past his prime nowadays.
>DuginReactionary anti-communist ideologue whose only close call was when Ukrainian glowies tried to kill him. Even soviets thought he was a gnat and left him alone.
>LaRoucheLol. He was put in prison for fraud.
No mention of anyone from the civil right movement, no mention of Angela Davis of Assata Shakur, no Jimmy Hoffa or Bill Haywood. You know, people exiled and killed because they were socialists or union organizers.
>>2460181>No mention of anyone from the civil right movement, no mention of Angela Davis of Assata Shakur, no Jimmy Hoffa or Bill Haywood. You know, people exiled and killed because they were socialists or union organizers.ACP crackers will say those were all liberals and you are revisionist
>>2460174you aren't taking over shit bootlicker
>>2460185angela davis was a traitor and deserves no praise.
You are a bootlicker of the demoncrat party.
>>2460213>Jimmy Hoffa was a mafia gangster. No praise for himACP_TXanon has a broken clock right twice a day moment
The Ghost of Jimmy Hoffa Won’t Go Away
https://share.google/rJY43zuV2TcSzKxlv >>2460181You know, I do wonder why Haz went for the communist angle, considering his intellectual interests obviously lie elsewhere. A man who likes Dugin, Heidegger, and Land should by all means be a hardcore esoteric rightoid. Maybe he was just looking for a niche?
>>2460211I genuinely cannot tell if you're being ironic or not. I hope you're not only being genuine, but are a full fledged member of the ACP, preferably in a higher office, because it would be really fucking funny.
>>2460217Lol
>>2460264Haz's innovation is that he recognized and embraced the reactionary core of western "marxism" and leftism and is triangulating a "people's front" as it were. Striking at nazism for being "gay" reveals the game. Shedding the "vibes" and salvaging the (petty bourgeois, middle class) material interests.
They're doing scientiific fascism (don't laugh)
>>2460351>he recognized and embraced the reactionary core of western "marxism" and leftismno he didn't
the whole point of western "leftists" is that they want socdem redistribution of wealth, LGBTQIA+ rights and feminism stuff like that but don't pay any attention to imperialism or foreign policy or get confused by it or outright support imperialism because they see the imperialist countries as more "progressive"
haz is doing literally the opposite of western "leftism" : he is saying, yes, join my "communist" party even if you're a landlord, don't worry, we aren't abolishing private property, but at least we have all the based takes on anti-imperialism and the foreign policy knowledge.
He's trying to bring together burger landlords and houthis
western leftists are just doing gay lassalleanism
both these forms of politics are deeply retarded for different reasons.
>>2460530News from the Amerikkkan civil war on drugs:
The whole of the invading American Communist Party detachment was hit by a cabbie almost immediately upon entering the city of New York and incapacitated. The victorious driver is reported by bystanders to have stopped, rolled his window down and to have shouted: "Ey, Stronzo, watch where you are walkin'", taunting the unconscious invader, before speeding off.
No civilians were harmed, making it one of the most bloodless encounters of the war to date.
saw this on twitter
https://x.com/ACP_Illinois/status/1937008194599190865/video/1>people in psl shirts marching next to acp flag must have been awkward for all involved
>>2460733just write "cancel" after "x"
xcancel.com/ACP_Illinois/status/1937008194599190865
of course there are lot more people from psl
>>2460181>Angela Davis of Assata Shakur, no Jimmy Hoffa or Bill Haywood.
>Angela DavisLiberal traitor who destroyed the CPUSA and stabbed Gus Hall in the back
>Assata ShakurRespect for this Black Revolutionary, still a political exile in Cuba, NJ pigs had it coming.
>Jimmy HoffaTrained by Trotskyites, a criminal degenerate. When the Reds were kicked out of the Unions, the mob scum came in.
>Bill HaywoodAn American hero who is buried in Red Square.
Two of these are not like the others.
>>2460791Agreed. Only reason Angela Davis was popular is she met with Honecker and there was a dumbass PR campaign for her in the Pact countries.
>>2460736BIG ASS FILE
I can't man. I just can't.
Also, looks ultra fake and probably very ghey.
>>2460837<In present-day society, the instruments of labour are the monopoly of the landowners (the monopoly of property in land is even the basis of the property of capital) *and* the capitalists…In England, the capitalist is usually not even the owner of the land on which his factory stands. <Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1891)Doesn't make that much difference if it's rented out industrial units, or housing, does it? Obviously, state run housing, whether it was in the former Soviet Union, or in a (now unravelling) welfare state such as Britain, is different from private landlordism. The latter is just done for profit.
>You retarded liberals again prove yourselves wrongHaz acolytes are great at insults. How is this, is it just a matter of practise? Like judoka say,
<it's just time on the mat >>2460835>the only Communist Party in americaYou managed to pack two false statements into six words. Well done!
>>2460837>Engels said so in On Housing QuestionDid he?
“As the wage worker in relation to the capitalist, so is the tenant in relation to the house owner.” [Mülberger in Der Volkstaat February 10 1872]
This is totally untrue.
In the housing question we have two parties confronting each other: the tenant and the landlord or house owner. The former wishes to purchase from the latter the temporary use of a dwelling; he has money or credit, even if he has to buy this credit from the house owner himself at a usurious price as an addition to the rent. It is simple commodity sale; it is not an operation between proletarian and bourgeois, between worker and capitalist. The tenant – even if he is a worker – appears as a man with money; he must already have sold his own particular commodity, his labour power, in order to appear with the proceeds as the buyer of the use of a dwelling, or he must be in a position to give a guarantee of the impending sale of this labour power. The peculiar results which attend the sale of labour power to the capitalist are completely absent here. The capitalist causes the purchased labour power firstly to produce its own value and secondly to produce a surplus value which remains in his hands for the time being, subject to its distribution among the capitalist class. In this case therefore an extra value is produced, the total sum of the existing value is increased. In the rent transaction the situation is quite different. No matter how much the landlord may overreach the tenant it is still only a transfer of already existing, previously produced value, and the total sum of values possessed by the landlord and the tenant together remains the same after as it was before. The worker is always cheated of a part of the product of his labour, whether that labour is paid for by the capitalist below, above, or at its value.
>>2460856>>2460862Someone who goes to college and mows lawns for money with own mower is middle class. By your liberal dogma, going to college is capitalist and mowing lawns for money is capitalist evil. This is infantile liberalism of course.
Engels explicity says people who rent out a room are not capitalist. You force my hand again and again to embarrass you further. Please reflect upon your anti-science liberal dogma and refrain from denying Engels and attacking the Communist Party.
>>2460856Not them, but i can think of a few reasons:
Attention span required for reading shot to pieces by watching hours of Haz twitch streams.
Loosing the argument so now throwing out clouds of vitual ink like a squid.
More generally, Haz's winner-looser cage match approach to debate:
Loser Politics - by Daniel Tutt - Daniel's Journal
https://share.google/QN1vSTIxKvWTb8FXzTutt explains it. But the approach actually goes further back . In ancient Greece Georgias the sophist said that truth wasn't determined by the gods, or anything transcendent (like Plato said. ) It was purely whatever was hammered out by antagonists in the forum, and the motivation for behaviour wasn't the good in itself (as per Plato, again) ,it purely avoiding social shame.
The only way to top this thread is if the comrades from WSWS come on to say that Engels said the road to liberation is running a multi-million dollar commercial printing firm.
Northites Inc.: Toeing the Bottom Line - Being Determines Consciousness
https://share.google/lxRIfUMRJ85bZbAvZ>>2460897>>2460897“As the wage worker in relation to the capitalist, so is the tenant in relation to the house owner.” [Mülberger in Der Volkstaat February 10 1872]
This is totally untrue.
>>2460918Nonsense. Engels explains that renting is neither inherently exploitative nor capitalist. The tenant, on the other hand, is cheated only when he is compelled to pay for the dwelling above its value. It is, therefore, a complete misrepresentation of the relation between landlord and tenant to attempt to make it equivalent to the relation between worker and capitalist. On the contrary, we are dealing here with a quite ordinary commodity transaction between two citizens, and this transaction proceeds according to the economic laws which govern the sale of commodities in general and in particular the sale of the commodity, land property.
The Communist Party is on the scientific socialist path.
>>2461105The worker has to be making or doing something the capitalist can sell to a third party.
A barista makes coffee the capitalist sells to a customer.
A janitor employed in house makes nothing that is sold, just provides it.
A janitor from a cleaning service provides cleaning that is sold to a customer.
A barista for the employees of a service doesn't sell the coffee, just provides it.
The element of a customer is crucial but also doesn't necessarily mean what they produce is useful to greater society.
>>2461101>so if subsistence costs lower, then wages exist above subsistence and are therefore over-valued?no, because even if you have a bit extra to go on holiday and sup some cocktails, its still really part of your subsistence. Its just relaxing to only have to get back to work again. Its not really overvalued, because there is still some surplus value going to the capitalist. Its just a bit less. Sometimes investment magazines warn investors that minimum wage laws are coming in somewhere, so that labour intensive industries there will become less profitable. But, unless they go bust , they will still be making a profit.
>>2461105>so the only thing which creates surplus value is paying someone a wage?Its paying them a wage and them producing more value in terms of commodities produced than they get paid back in the form of wages for that day (obviously, not all of what the commodity is sold for is profit, there are costs of machinery and raw materials ,as well as the wages bill.)
>>2461151>no, because even if you have a bit extra to go on holiday and sup some cocktails, its still really part of your subsistenceso what wouldnt count as subsistence?
>Its not really overvalued, because there is still some surplus value going to the capitalistyes, the value over the price of labour-power… are you implying that labour-power has no determined value?
>Its paying them a wage and them producing more value in terms of commodities produceddo all workers produce commodities?
>>2461161>so what wouldnt count as subsistence?Above average of productivity per capita is necessarily exploitation
>do all workers produce commodities?No
>>2461201good landlords exist you retard
mine hasn't raised rent in 2 years
>>2461161>so what wouldnt count as subsistence?I don't really like the term subsistence , i think reproduction of labour power is better. I might be wrong, but id say in a capitalist economy, anything below what your labour power makes in terms of value put into commodities is reproduction of labour power. Obviously, in non capitalist economies, there would be a surplus as well, in a communist society something would go to communal projects like infrastructure, to benefit everyone. But you'd have a say in these democratically, the surplus wouldn't just go to capitalists.
>are you implying that labour-power has no determined value?Not exactly. Its value is determined by the value of the commodities which go into its own reproduction! So your rent , eats, Netflix sub, etc. Its the amount of these which depend on how much you can claw back from the capitalist through pressure of action etc
>do all workers produce commodities?No. Some dont but they are still necessary for the capitalist system to keep running. For example office staff in a factory.
>>2461222>o dont like the term subsistenceof course not, because youd be forced to disagree with marx
>the value of labour-power is a democratic decisionmarx disagrees
>>2461236>>2461236>of course not, because youd be forced to disagree with marxbecause sometimes its below subsistence. people who are in jobs but who are homeless
>the value of labour-power is a democratic decisionmarx disagrees
Under capitalism no
Under communism yes
Goodnight im out
>>2461081 Surplus-value is neither produced nor realized in this non-capitalist, simple commodity exchange between two citizens. Rent itself is a deduction from aggregate surplus value; therefore, your liberal dogma is an attempt to hurt the Communist Party and aid capitalist production of surplus-value.
>>2461077Engels explains that renting a room is only "exploitation," in the liberal sense, if charged beyond market value, the same as the sale of any commodity. Rent below market value: the tenant is a bourgeois exploiter. The conversion of rent into Communist Party resources is socialist accumulation. The Communist Party is strengthened, and no one is exploited.
>>2461229Incorrect. Charging rent for a room or a house is not primitive but a simple everyday exchange in Communist society. In typical liberal dogmatic fashion, you defy scientific socialism and equate actual landlordism (control of landed means of production) with your mom "exploiting" rent from you.
>>2461219Ironically enough, you are correct. You libs are getting worse. You liberals spit in the face of not only the Communist Party but also Engels, scientific socialism, and Communism as a whole.
>>2461232They are not landlords. They are citizens engaging in everyday simple equivalent commodity exchange. A prole who rents a book is not a booklord.
>>2461279>They are not landlords. They are citizens engaging in everyday simple equivalent commodity exchange. A prole who rents a book is not a booklord.I do not appreciate "argumentation" by semantics. If you refuse to address the substance of the argument and instead attack the phrasing used to present it, you're a coward.
But file, let's have it your way. How would people who make a living off of renting out private property that they own benefit from a revolution that would result in the abolition of said private property ownership?
>>2461290 meant for
>>2461254>>2461299You're still hopped up on the autistic particulars of economics, and missing what is right in fucking front of you: why would professional property owners create a system where their source of income no longer exists?
>>2461307>You're still hopped up on the autistic particulars of economics, and missing what is right in fucking front of youwelcome to leftoidpol, where we pretend the most revolutionary class of propertyless reserveless immiserated wage workers includes neets, homeowners, managers, etc.
you have nothing to lose but your mortgage, 401k, etc etc
>>2461038Landlords are a form of capitalist but it is more similar to owning a small business than anything else. Homeowners are also capitalists in so far as they speculate on the value of the asset they sit on.
However, the contradiction is not between tenant and landlord. The contradiction is between worker and landowner.
>>2461638Your ability to read English is about as bad as your ability to write it.
MAGAcommunism was predicated on the idea that the MAGA movement could be peeled away from Trump and harnessed by leftists to create a mass movement. As it turns out, most MAGA people like Trump, to the point where a significant chunk of them have openly admitted that they would still like him if it turned out he was a literal pedophile. And of the people who were anti-establishment and felt betrayed by him, most of them cut further right and got into guys like Nick Fuentes.
>>2461650It was very obvious too the intended grift was for Trump to lose the election, and then peel away his dissatisfied voters to join the ACPs "MAGAcommunism".
How this was going to work when "MAGA" considered Biden to be a communist hardliner in cahoots with the 'CCP', was never truly explained.
You can also see this in how Haz talked about the dems as their main enemy. But then Trump won anyway, and now neither side wants to have anything to do with the ACP and freaks like Haz. Neither online or offline.
Haz could have done some soul searching in the aftermath, but that implies he's capable of the sort of self-reflection necessary for critiquing his own conduct. Instead he's posing with guns looking like a dork, and leaning more heavily into the mentally unstable freak persona by bringing up how they're gonna conquer America like the Mongol hordes or something, and how America is Asiatic and autocratic, and Marxism is Islamic. You know very normal stuff that's very appealing to both libs, conservatives and ordinary workers.
I know we have ACP lurkers here (>>2461638) sticking out like a sore thumb,, but (you) guys should know you act and appear more like degenerate freaks than fat pink haired screaming college liberals at this point.
If you had any sense left, you'd ditch your gross cringe petite bourgeois failson "chairman" in favor of someone more respectable. I think even Hinkle would be an improvement, and considering he's a homophobic glowie, that's saying something.
>>2459233>Has he ever had a job in his life?He hasn't lol. He lives off daddy's (owner of a construction firm) dime and donations. The ACP's a farce (and a personality cult), and Haz is a joke.
He's not the first to run a grift like this, and sadly he won't be the last.
>>2461808>how they're gonna conquer America like the Mongol hordes or something, and how America is Asiatic and autocratic, and Marxism is Islamic. You know very normal stuff that's very appealing to both libs, conservatives and ordinary workers.With added Heidegger for good measure.
Which Haz even gets wrong.Vid related.
>>2459913>How does one escape this trap? Seems like getting all outraged about them just fuels the flames no?Not them, but on this imageboard by not getting wound up by inflammatory comments by Haz/ACP. but by promoting people who are doing good work, whether thats theoretical or practical.
>>2462010In a political sense he lines up decently with mainstream conservative liberalism.
Eternally stuck in a highschool mindset is on brand for him tho.
>>2462048>Non-racialThese people are obsessed with racialisimg themselves, it's a part of the LARP.
Tell me, what name is it that Adam refers to himself o line, again?
>>2462048>non-racialhaz has professed a belief in an "american race"
>Actual communismsmall businesses and landlords?
>Support for AES countriessuch as?
>Being attacked by legit nazis and groypersnot for being left-wing, but for haz not being right-wing enough
>>2461990>ACP are doing good workWhat good work? What are they doing that other parties are not already doing at a larger scale?
>I think the hate of the ACP and Haz from this board stems from them rejecting the framing of modern leftism.I hate them because they're idpol obsessed spergs. Swaping out radlib grievance politics for conservitard grievance politics doesn't address the underlying issue, which is that they care more about LGBT people than the class struggle.
>>2462048>Actual communismThe actual communism of the petite bourgeois smol business owners and landlords?
>>2461808>It was very obvious too the intended grift was for Trump to lose the election, and then peel away his dissatisfied voters to join the ACPs "MAGAcommunism". There needs to be a term for this, because it's not "fell for it again," but it's like some pseud thing that's very common among self-styled dissidents who get enthralled by ideology. Richard Spencer was like this. They will shill and vote for a politician while thinking they're playing 5D chess or going to "use" him somehow. It's some hyper-intellectualized thing that appears clever, and shh'yeah…. when Trump fails, his supporters will become Nazis and make Richard the Führer because he's so smart and clever and read Heidegger and a NEW EMPIRE WILL ARISE. Then his 19-year-old alt-right fan was like waow based. They might also delude themselves into believing the average MAGA guy has the same relationship to that as an ideology as they do to their meme ideologies, so they can substitute for it.
They think they're so fucking clever. In reality, it's DEEPLY IDIOTIC to do this play-pretend Leninism in relationship to American electoral politics. These institutions are designed from the get-go to fuck you over if you attempt to do this. They really underestimate the system and how deeply conservative it really is. It doesn't reward this. It punishes it. It's probably going to reward Gavin Newsom who is cynical enough to understand that what Democrats will want in 2028 is just winning and not caring about anything else until later. Then you look around at the MAGA coalition, there are people who are like "I thought Trump was gonna release the Epstein files" and huhhh whut (?) and then arrest Zelensky because he sucked Hunter Biden's cock or something. Man, I dunno, but it doesn't matter. What most of them care about is winning and Trump won. There's a guy who lives down the street from me who flies a Trump flag and he's still flying it.
>>2461990>It's kinda how the nice guy can't get the girl after doing everything society tells him to and the bad boy easily gets the girl by being unique and contrarianBut they don't get any chicks. I've seen the pics of their clubs. There's, like, no chicks. Maybe one who's also kind of spergy, becuase they're a gaggle of spergy-looking manlets and lanklets who look like Hearts of Iron gamers who don't know how to dress themselves. Then there's some 70-year-old Chinese guy who's also there for some reason. You know who on the left gets chicks? Hasan. He just blows everyone else out of the water. They come up to him. I guess this means Turks are racially superior chads. Or that he respects women and treats them well and doesn't try to undermine them.
Unique IPs: 120