Yes, China has in may ways betrayed many of the principles of Marxism. China is deeply flawed, and I have no pretenses to convince you otherwise.
Yet, despite all of these flaws does China not offer a strong foundation for building Communism. China, unlike other countries has both a strong base of material wealth to build off of as well as a populous that both believes in and is willing to act on the principles of Marxism.
It seems to me at least that it is comparatively our best hope for building communism. Is it not? I would like to hear others input on this subject as I'm still somewhat on the fence regarding all of this.
>>2457103I think arguments over whether or not China is communist are dumb, because "communism" itself is a floating signifier, not just for its enemies but also its allies. I'm not saying that words need to have formally specified prescriptive definitions that cover every edge case, but I do think that, in order to be useful, people should generally think of the same thing when they hear the same word in the same context. In order to "build communism" we need to first know what "communism" looks like, and that's something that, for whatever reason, most "communists" are very firmly opposed to doing. I know this is a take that will probably upset people, but it's an opinion I stand by.
>>2457115testingChina is capitalist.
>>2457103>betrayed many of the principles of Marxismwhy did you have to say "is a bourgeois nation state larping as communist" in the most retarded possible way
>>2457115>the principles of marxismno such thing midwit
>>2457341what do they get out of the larp?
actually, same questions apply to all the historical not-real-socialisms. capitalist countries all over the world do capitalism completely openly, you don't need to fool anyone to "secretly do capitalism".
is it all a ploy to trick westoids (for what purpose?), so le epic smart chungus like you can point and "reveal the truth"?
>>2457375Yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-yip, bmm
Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na, ahh-do
Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na, ahh-do
Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na, ahh-do
Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na
Ahh, yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-yip
Mum-mum-mum-mum-mum-mum, get a job
Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na
Well every morning about this time (Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na)
She gets me out of bed, a-crying get a job (Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na)
After breakfast everyday she throws the want ads right my way
And never fails to say - get a job
Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na, ahh-do
Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na, ahh-do
Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na, ahh-do
Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na
Ahh, yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-yip
Mum-mum-mum-mum-mum-mum, get a job
Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na
Lord, and when I get the paper I read it through and through
I, my girl never fail to see if there is any work for me…
I got to go back to the house, hear that woman's mouth
Preachin' and a cryin', tell me that I'm lyin' about a job
That I never could find
Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na, ahh-do
Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na, ahh-do
Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na, ahh-do
Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na
Ahh, yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-yip
Mum-mum-mum-mum-mum-mum, get a job
Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na
Lord, and when I get the paper I read it through and throu-ough
I, my girl never fail to see if there is any work for me…
I better go back to the house, hear that woman's mouth
Preachin' and a cryin', tell me that I'm lyin' about a job
That I never could find
Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na, ahh-do
Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na, ahh-do
Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na, ahh-do
Sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na-na, ahh-do
Sha-na-na-na…
>>2457103>It seems to me at least that it is comparatively our best hope for building communism. Is it not? I would like to hear others input on this subject as I'm still somewhat on the fence regarding all of this.The best I can tell, Chinese just have a different philosophy about this. It's very common for Western communists to treat Marxism as like a religion where they quote Marx/Lenin/Mao as like scripture and they try to hunt heretics for being "revisionists." There, Marxism is not so much about doctrinal purity but more like a meta framework to solve problems, or a kind of instrumental rationality with a materialist core. This can come across as kind of "autistic." To use an analogy, imagine telling a woman you're attracted to her because evolution wired your nervous system to release a signal that gets your dick hard, rather than acting a bit more romantic with her. The majority of women won't appreciate your "honesty" even if you're being more truthful about how sexual attraction works.
So the Chinese approach to "communism" basically means increasing social productivity. Boost productivity to keep society moving forward. That's the first thing. There's not much else this ideology called Marxism can talk about right now given the current stage. But it also remains useful as a scientific method to understand what societies are made of and how they evolve. It's not about making everything go according to plan like the Catholic Church, but doing analysis and making decisions based on each case like a detective or scientist would. Study the conditions, identify the "main contradiction," and decide how to move forward. Analyze contradictions. Adapt methods to conditions.
You could call it "Marxism," "Maoism," "Dengism" or whatever it is, but it's not a metaphysical debate. The so-called communists are not "communists" but people who predict that communism will be the next stage after capitalism reaches its limit, and that transition time is called socialism. Economic liberalization was because "the relations of production must suit the current level of productivity / productive forces" basically. It's also useful as a critique of a lot of logical fallacies (religion, metaphysics, the "end of history," and various schools of Western philosophy before Marxism).
If you spend a few minutes reading any Chinese bureaucrat's writing, they like to write things like "how to systematically view something" or "from a developing perspective" or "let's divide the complicated matter into twos to see their pros and cons" and "solve the main contradiction." These habits can be repeated in a cliche sort of way, but those habits comes out of the Marxist tradition.
>>2457398>instrumental rationality with a materialist core. This can come across as kind of "autistic." I'm not like those other Silicon Valley neoliberals: I talk about Buddhist philosophy on my podcast for PMC redditors
>even if you're being more truthful about how sexual attraction worksCognitive science is so commonly represented among Jeffrey Epstein's MIT friends because it is bourgeois false consciousness
>it's not a metaphysical debatelol riiiight, good luck with that Mr Genes Make My Dick Hard
> habits comes out of the Marxist traditioncargo cult bros…its over
Let me do an Israeli type preemptive strike here.
https://blackagendareport.com/western-marxism-loves-purity-and-martyrdom-not-real-revolutionRight (exterminist), left (exterminist but pretending), it's all the same. This is what is meant by there is no real west left. Too much braindamage accrued over centuries (special savior of humanity, protagonist, or straight up, again, fascist genocidal fantasy). These two "distinct groups" will meld into one, we can see it easy. There is no real discussion to be had here either.
Hurry up and become an irrelevance, collectively.
Best thing you can do for world communism. And you are already doing it. So if we are judging by that "outcome" you are indeed doing "much" by losing, in a word. See, this is the argument "China needs to do this, that and save my pathetic western ass in general" turned "on its head".
Point is, I can match your retardation. Don't try me. A smart person (comparatively, everything is graded on a curve, I am not doing an essential judgement here) can pretend to be retarded but not the other way around.
Now, let's play.
The PRC has right now the best chances to build full socialism in the foreseeable future and later progress from there towards communism, if they decide to do so. AFAIK the CPC actually wants to go that path otherwise they wouldn't upkeep contact even with really small foreign ML parties such as the DKP. I don't care how long it might take them, but they're on track to achieve it. There's wide support in the Chinese population for the CPC, China is the second biggest country in the world, highly industrialized, a technologically advanced pillar of world trade, on par with or surpassed Europe in terms of average living standard, the CPC itself seems very stable, it doesn't shy away from going against corruption and party members who fuck around, the CPCs keeps both domestic and foreign investor porkies on a short leash without harassing them too much so e.g. German companies operating factories in the PRC don't have much to complain. The CPC commands a huge military and always stood firm against libshit "reformers" even during the 1990s when communism and socialism went almost extinct etc. I don't get it, what's not to like about the PRC and the CPC, that is if you're an actual communist, socialist or even just lukewarm socdem?
>>2457538I dunno, let me have a crack at the (rhetorical) question at the end.
The problem is they, in their addled mind, were promised something else. So when they became the "last real (in reality: unreal) socialist", they figured all problems would evaporate into thin air if you just have the "right idea". Any contact with reality in such a delusional state of mind must be painful.
>>2457338>I think arguments over whether or not China is communist are dumbwell thanks for sharing your opinion on that point however that is not what is being discussed. and for your information the PRC is not communist as it has not abolished class. one
might say it's in some degree socialist, and some argue that it is earnestly moving towards communism. but no one, not even the CPC themselves, say that the PRC is communist.
>>2457398yeah that just sounds like they are actually doing marxism. rare decent gaynazi post. though i wonder if you think the dengist scroll is
>like a religion where they quote Marx/Lenin/Mao as like scripturecause it basically describes all this detective work to increase productive forces through science experiments stuff
>>2457451i agree that its not a "different philosophy" but you are an unhinged retard. you dont need doctrinal purity when you doctrine is an adaptive
framework for getting things done
>>2457497another one
>>2457338>I think arguments over whether or not China is communist are dumb, its very tiring. i would just say people will figure it out in a few decades but i just know the ones screeching now will screech even louder then because it wont fit their idealism
>>2457615You praise a liberal. You are unhinged, dumbass
>i agree that its not a "different philosophy" but you are an unhinged retard. you dont need doctrinal purity when you doctrine is an adaptive framework for getting things done read mao dumbass. you are another liberal joke who mocks Communism.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_30.htm>All philosophical theories have been created by men belonging to a definite social class. The ideas of these men have moreover been historically determined by a definite social existence. All philosophical doctrines express the needs of a definite social class and reflect the level of development of the productive forces of society and the historical stage in men's comprehension of nature. The social origins of idealism and materialism lie in a social structure marked by class contradictions. The earliest appearance of idealism was the product of the ignorance and superstition of savage and primitive man. Then, with the development of the productive forces, and the ensuing development of scientific knowledge, it stands to reason that idealism should decline and be replaced by materialism. And yet, from ancient times to the present, idealism not only has not declined, but, on the contrary has developed and carried on a struggle for supremacy with materialism from which neither has emerged the victor. The reason lies in the division of society into classes. On the one hand, in its own interest, the oppressing class must develop and reinforce its idealist doctrines. On the other hand, the oppressed classes, likewise in their own interest, must develop and reinforce their materialist doctrines. Both idealism and materialism are weapons in the class struggle, and the struggle between idealism and materialism cannot disappear so long as classes continue to exist. Idealism, in the process of its historical development, represents the ideology of the exploiting classes and serves reactionary purposes. Materialism, on the other hand, is the world view of the revolutionary class; in a class society, it grows and develops in the midst of an incessant struggle against the reactionary philosophy of idealism. Consequently, the history of the struggle between idealism and materialism in philosophy reflects the struggle of interests between the reactionary class and the revolutionary class…. A given philosophical tendency is in the last analysis a manifestation in a particular guise of the policy of the social class to which the philosophers belong. What we have just discussed is the theory of the movement of the world, or the principle of the development of the world in accordance with dialectical materialism. This doctrine is the essence of Marxist philosophy. Mao says any deviation from pure proletarian philosophical doctrine is not Communist. Any anti-Leninist deviation is bourgeois idealism. Comprehension of this fact was integral to Communist China's success and your lack of comprehension is inseparable from westoid failure to grasp Communism.
>>2457615>its very tiring. i would just say people will figure it out in a few decades but i just know the ones screeching now will screech even louder then because it wont fit their idealismNonetheless, whether the western trash decides on the hard way or tries to get some "alternative" ending going is ultimately not too important. Would be nice for them to pull their weight.
One way or another, we merely have to wait a few decades and the problem solves itself.
>>2458788This sort of thinking has never sat right with me.
Revolutions don't happen because people will them into existence, and they don't succeed because they had the singular objectively correct ideology. They happen because the material conditions allow for it, and succeed because people take advantage of it. It's not fair to talk down American leftists for not having already achieved a DotP, when we really haven't had a good chance to since the 1930s.
>>2458822>>2458841Everything you say is an extraordinarily annoying appeal to authority.
I don't care that such and such figure thinks that such and such thing means that such and such group is on the path to communism. I want to know
why they think this, what logical, dialectical reasoning they've used to come to this conclusion. And no, you can't just point and say "well look, $group was able to do it, why don't you trust them?", because they haven't. We don't live in a classless, stateless society. It is necessary to actually analyze the world around us, not just absorb dogma, and if you're not interested in that, I'm not interested in you.
>>2458858>We don't live in a classless, stateless society.communism refers both to the end point and the entire post revolutionary process of getting
>I don't care that such and such figure thinks that such and such thing means that such and such group is on the path to communism.marx engels lenin stalin mao and deng all agree that communism is dtop building the material foundation(productive forces) to enable a stateless classless moneyless society with the principle of from each according to each. this is really basic stuff, it is the core of the logical/dialectical reasoning that started with marx and distinguishes communism from utopian socialism.
capitalism is essentially socialism from a marxist point of view, as it develops productive forces, which is historically progressive, with the distinguishing difference being the class character of the state. from a proletarian standpoint, with respect to what brings us materially closer to a stateless classless moneyless society, the difference between developmental capitalism and socialism in an emerging, dependent, colonial nation, is essentially one of efficiency and speed. only in developed capitalism(monopoly, imperialism) does the dialectical nature of capitalisms limits towards progress emerge, as the rate of profit falls and competing capitalists consolidate, turning from building productive forces to increase market share, into extracting rent from existing productive forces. at this point the question of proletarian democracy and revolution no longer is a question of speed and efficiency but of social necessity, as monopoly begins to retard the development of humanity to free itself from drudgery through technological means. it is of course always better at all stages to scientifically and rationally plan this development as china does, rather than leaving it to the whims of the market and capitalist desire.
>>2458881>marx engels lenin stalin mao and deng all agreeYou're appealing to authority again.
Why do they agree?
what is their reasoning?
>>2458888You know, if you think about it, Ancaps and MLs really aren't that different.
>>2458940>Why do they agree? what is their reasoning?I dont know what you want. The explanations are in the quotes. Its pretty clear to me. They all agree that in order to achieve a stateless moneyless classless society that you have to build the material foundation that enables that possibility.
If everyone wants stuff and doesn't want to work a lot you need lots of machines to make that stuff. You cant just take over politically and then declare that everyone gets free stuff, you have to make the stuff first. What part dont you understand?
>>2458940>You know, if you think about it, Ancaps and MLs really aren't that different.sort of but not really. marxists are closer to liberals or libertarians. liberals and libertarians take their name from liberty, but its specifically defined in opposition to feudalism where liberty comes from private property. they believe that private ownership of the means of production logically leads to or enables individual freedom. and in a sense they are correct, from the perspective of a jefforsonian democracy of yeoman farmers, if you ignore settler colonialism.
marx instead centers liberty around the productive capacity of industrial technology, a paradigm shift in the reproduction of society on par with the agricultural revolution. as surplus food enables surplus population this brings the possibility of less work, so too does industrialization. which is why marx of course praises the progressive character of capitalism as compared to feudalism. the difference is that he recognizes that private ownership for profit contains inherent contradictions that limit its libertarian capacity wrt the whole of humanity. this is the specific historic nature of capitalism, and why communism is/was not possible at every point in history and only held back by having the correct ideas or political willpower. emancipation from drudgery requires a level of industrial and technological sophistication of the productive forces that enables post scarcity abundance, such that casual minor inputs according to peoples creative desire, boredom, wanting to contribute to society, and their abilities as individual producers results in a massive material wealth that can be drawn from according to need want or desire.
thats why china looks a lot like a bunch of neoliberals saying that a rising tide lifts all boats. in their case it actually does. the difference is in the class character of the state. china doesn't micromanage every capitalist produced consumer commodity, but it does control the commanding heights of the economy through state owned enterprises. they own and democratically regulate all raw resource and fuel inputs to manage things from a wholistic perspective. if something becomes socially necessary, like telecommunications, and the sector develops into a monopoly, it becomes subject to state control. if its something like labubus or phone cases then they let the market compete to give people what they want.
>>2458966thats because the required productive forces in one country are relative to the specific historic time and place in which they occur and are with respect to relative power of the forces of counter revolution and reaction. if you took modern china today and put it up against 1800 britain they could press the communism button tomorrow. unfortunately we live in the real world. they dont disagree that the required productive forces are such a quantity that it changes the quality of social reproduction.
again this is all very basic. material conditions. material conditions. material conditions. if you dont get it you fundamentally misunderstand marxism/communism compared to utopian socialism/anarchism.
>>2458950Isn't that the role of capitalism? Once we hit monopoly capitalism, once each industry worldwide is controlled by a single company, and these companies have most every government worldwide under their thumb, we would then have the ideal conditions for revolution, since everything has already been centralized, we just need to make it democratic now, which is the role of the DotP.
From my POV, "actually existing socialism" is not just reactionary, but stupid, because it delays the centralization necessary for a stateless society to exist.
>>2458975>Isn't that the role of capitalism? Once we hit monopoly capitalism, once each industry worldwide is controlled by a single company, and these companies have most every government worldwide under their thumb, we would then have the ideal conditions for revolution, since everything has already been centralized, we just need to make it democratic now, which is the role of the DotP.yeah sorta that is one perspective that can be drawn from lenins analysis of imperialism. i kinda consider chinas bri to be essentially that. a "nice productive forces u got there would be a shame if someone…seized it" type of situation.
>From my POV, "actually existing socialism" is not just reactionary, but stupid, because it delays the centralization necessary for a stateless society to exist.the problem is that assumes the possibility of kautsky's ultraimperialism. in reality there is no imperialist peace, competing imperialists will always be driven by the profit motive, and the falling RoP under monopoly conditions, and will attempt to capture or destroy competing productive forces to maintain their monopolistic lack of competition so they can maximize rents.
"It is clear why imperialism is moribund capitalism, capitalism in transition to socialism: monopoly, which grows out of capitalism, is already dying capitalism, the beginning of its transition to socialism. The tremendous socialisation of labour by imperialism (what its apologists-the bourgeois economists-call “interlocking”) produces the same result. " and all that
if they actually did achieve a one world monopoly we would be in a thousand year riech, or barbarism, where they could do something like genetically modify their children and poison the working population through food, and complete privitization of technology into one entity would start to divide workers and owners into different species precluding the possibility of revolution in the face of overwhelming force. thats why socialism isn't inevitable, requires class consciousness, education, agitation, organization.
>>2458866He said that socialism is the first stage towards communism which is pretty much what Marx also would say ITT and which is the path the CPC officially chose towards achieving communism in the future. In response you screeched about "muh authority" like any random bourgeois liberal would do when faced with the reality of a proper communist party practicing a DoTP, however that's not an argument against the CPC. The CPC doesn't claim it already reached communism (in fact no ML state including the USSR and DDR has claimed that) nor full socialism nor a full DoTP, however it ultimately controls the means of production in the PRC since Mao's times and since then has not allowed a bourgeois counter-revolution to occur, which is why the western bourgeois MSM remains mad about the PRC supposedly being "authoritarian", "totalitarian" and "lacking freedom" and whatnot. Again, the PRC is not a full socialist DoTP as of yet as capitalist ownership of factories still exists next to people's owned property and people's owned means of production and foreign capitalists even get help and support from the CPC to run their factories in China in the best way possible. However, in the PRC capitalists are ultimately at the mercy of the CPC (which is the Chinese Communist worker's and peasant's party) and when they fuck around they find out rather quickly.
>workers do not own their workplacesYou can theoretically be an "owner" of the means of production under capitalism when you buy stocks of the company that buys your labour and takes the surplus, but that's not a step towards socialism and communism, it just makes you partly to your own capitalist, you get to exploit a fraction of your own labour.
Yesterday Xi wore a nice Mao style suit while attending the military parade along Kim and Cucktin, bourgeois liberal SPIEGEL noted ominously lol
>>2459087>The CPC doesn't claim it already reached communism (in fact no ML state including the USSR and DDR has claimed that) nor full socialism nor a full DoTPNo but
>>2458864 does.
>>2458810That may be a (you) but it's not a real reply.
Merkste selber, ne?
Where's my reply? I said repeatedly (elsewhere) that I give you a chance to reply and convince me, or the imaginary other, that the west is anything but useless. I have seen nothing that even suggests the beginning of such work. Of course, naturally, cause you are fundamentally useless pos. But again, not really my fault.
And this is (china is not real, it can't hurt the imperialists etc.) just cope. All you do is that, while styling yourself as progressive or whatever the fuck.
>>2459111> >>2459087>bourgeois liberal SPIEGEL noted ominously itsafraid.jpg
See this is the news outta the west I wanna hear
Until such a time as you (ultra/liberals etc.) can present something better. An "alternative".
>>2459143Ok and it is not my concern whether you think they are pure and innocent (this is not a response to you, I started typing before finishing reading). No one is innocent in this world, reality.
Big picture shit:
Reality is invading the garden. Westoids, by and large, are not taking it well, to say the least. Politics has moved, consequently, from a funny, theoretical exercise to a real thing that will be responsible for life and death, war and peace. In a word, history is back.
That is the context from which I "feel the need" to "defend" China.
And I am not asking people to look upon China as their savior or gratitude. that is also no concern of mine. Just try to curb the war mongering and/or your playing into the war monger's hands. Or we will see terror beyond our comprehension. You know, no pressure. I for one have fundamentally given up on saving people in the west from themselves. It's just gonna be the old fascist song and dance again, updated for the new millennium.
And like, on a psychological level, and here's where it gets speculative, the first step would be for the western left to stop taking itself so seriously and all-important. You are merely one aspect of the whole. A, in reality, quite vestigial aspect. A mythos, something that may have had an (independent) existence but is now in a coma or dead. And the rest, this ex-left, is subsumed into the imperialist war-machine.
>>2459087>In response you screeched about "muh authority" like any random bourgeois liberal would do when faced with the reality of a proper communist party practicing a DoTP, however that's not an argument against the CPC.>which is why the western bourgeois MSM remains mad about the PRC supposedly being "authoritarian"With all due respect, you obviously don't know what an appeal to authority is. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy where one points to a respected figure and says "Look, he agrees with me! Who are you to question?". It doesn't actually address the point at hand logically or dialectically, it assumes that the respected figure is automatically right about everything because they're respected. It's the same kind of thinking that allows religions to propagate, and we don't want that anywhere near a scientific socialism.
>>2459115>>2459156Meds.
>>2459490Russia had McDolan, as does Ukraine. Are you being facetious, ironic, sarcastic?
Or simply americunt?
>>2459483Ah now here's another reply of no worth. Now anyone else would s move on immediately. But not me, no.
I'll simply take this opportunity and go on as usual.
Tell me what you are having trouble with, and it shall be illuminated.
And don't take it personally. I don't mean you, in your trot splitter party who may turn up to anti-war activity.
But to the west generally: Start swimming, or you will have to dive.
>>2459553>In response you screeched about "muh authority" like any random bourgeois liberal would do when faced with the reality of a proper communist party practicing a DoTP>which is why the western bourgeois MSM remains mad about the PRC supposedly being "authoritarian", "totalitarian" and "lacking freedom" and whatnot.I don't know how else to interpret this other than you interpreting
>>2458866 as me attacking China for being "authoritarian", which I didn't. And I'm not attacking anything besides the poor argumentation skills of the people in this thread.
>>2458975No because imperialism is stagnant. The capitalists do not want to lower the rate of profit and the capitalists do not want to give up power.
Class struggle is required to force the capitalists into competition and lowering the rate of profit. For example, labor unions force the capitalists to outsource all the factories into the periphery.
Destroying the productive forces just does the work of fascists and imperialists for them in delaying socialism. You cannot accelerate capitalism by acquiescence, capitalism is accelerated through resistance.
>>2459967In China, private property refers to the lawful property owned by citizens, including but not limited to the following examples:
Residential Property: Homes, apartments, or other residential real estate owned by individuals.
Personal Vehicles: Cars, motorcycles, bicycles, or other means of transportation owned by individuals.
Savings and Investments: Bank deposits, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other financial assets.
Business Ownership: Private enterprises, sole proprietorships, or shares in private companies.
Personal Belongings: Household items, electronics, jewelry, art, and other personal possessions.
Intellectual Property: Patents, trademarks, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property created by individuals.
Agricultural Land: Land contracted by farmers under the household registration system for agricultural production.
The Chinese government protects the lawful private property of citizens in accordance with the law, ensuring that their rights and interests are respected and safeguarded. This is an important aspect of China's socialist legal system and contributes to social stability and economic development.
-t. Deepseek
>>2461211And you think that is a reply? Nevermind that the man in the video freely "confesses" to there being "private property" (capitalists, which cannot exists without the concept).
I don't think it's pedagogically the right move to reply.
I'll say this only, it's akin to everyone talking about how to get from A to B, and you coming in to say "A is not B". Wow, yeah, you're a bit slow, aren't you?
Sorry if there's some joke or irony I am not getting here but we have generally left behind the "libertarian", pure "socialism" so far, I think (self-)parody is mostly going to miss the mark. It's kinda hard to fathom. We are fundamentally talking about different things. You have missed the bus. History is back. Goes back to what I said about politics as a "theoretical exercise" and a real thing with real consequence, above.
Point is, you're behind, you're behind me. You think you are walking in front ("to the left" of reality, as it were), this is an illusion, a chimera.
>>2461701Thanks
I suppose
I am modest here, I will chalk up any understanding from the westoid corner, no matter how little and/or begrudgingly it may be, as a victory.
>>2461704You missed the point
again
Lemme try in a most basic way:
It's about the journey, not the destination.
>>2462121Man, I don't know. What specifically is it that is troubling you?
>>2462322This is a fine enough answer in an abstract, broad way.
Unique IPs: 40