I don't understand how socialism works.
How is it even possible to end private ownership in current situation?
You guys are talking about a social takeover that ends private property by decree, but is anyone able to manage all that?
What happens to all companies then?
I ask this question because I don't consider myself a very dumb person, I studied socialism before but I still don't understand very well what it is apart from some abstract idea of ending private ownership because it allows exploitation, but the "next step" always seems weird.
Let's use this as an example: I once worked for cruise lines, I was a crew member on a cruise ship, and those companies were created by individuals and that is how theu operate.
How, in this case, take as an example Norwegian Cruise line, what would happen to it in a socialist society?
People work there, you can't just stop stuff from functioning.
cruises aren't productive so they would be ended
>>2875885What do you mean by productive?
People work there. They produce a lot of stuff.
>>2875890work doesn't = production, a waiter produces nothing. cruises likely produce nothing of value to a society beyond excess and pleasure which does not contribute to the material success of a society
>>2875893>>2875885retarded response not worth taking seriously
>>2875881>>2875890you have no concept of publicly owned property done for the sake of the citizenry? like a public park or even a theater or something?
>>2875893Hudreds of people work and live on cruise ships.
You need to tell me what will happen to those people then.
>>2875894can you give a Marxist response to what was being said or are you just going to cry about it?
>>2875898sure
that's not marxism
>>2875897reassignment to a productive industry
>>2875899you're not marxism
>>2875894How would be the process of making those companies, like all companies, public?
Is socialism this, "making companies public"?
>>2875904administration by the regional soviet
>>2875899the swelling of the service sector under monopoly capitalism represents an economic waste a sign of a system that had exhausted its productive dynamism and now sustained itself through make-work, marketing, finance, and bureaucratic bloat
>>2875900Explain to me how would you do that.
Like, you need to do this today, what would you do to all those people, where would you put each one of them.
Is it even okay? I mean, you will oboigate them to lose their jobs and work for something else they might not even know how to do.
You are not talkong about real stuff here and that is the problem. You are creating mental decrees based on what you want, what you like or dislike, you are not dealong with real stuff, real people.
>How is it even possible to end private ownership in current situation?Unfortunately, Marx is very vague on this topic, writing this (1848):
<The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. […] In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. […] In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend. […] Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmThis is blatantly contradictory, which leads to general confusion upon matters of property from Communists ever since. But this is not unique to Marx, for Proudhon (1840) also famously declared that "property is robbery", and sought to abolish it. At once, in his discussions with Blanqui (1841), he praises "possession" over "property", and likewise speaks to the confusion of language. Practically, Marx writes that with Communism, one is deprived "of the power to subjugate the labour of others", yet speaks twofold, that "Communism is not the abolition of property", but "intending to do away with your property […] that is just what we intend". So, it is incoherent. You will get the same incoherence if you interrogate Marxists on the topic.
>>2875904What do you mean the "process of"?
Broadly the publicization of corporations would be a major step but not all of socialism. There are a significant number of instances of waste and this
>>2875906 is not per-se wrong, but socialism does not boil down to removing any and all "service" jobs in favor of factory labor.
>>2875907>Like, you need to do this today, what would you do to all those people, where would you put each one of them.assign them to work in industries that actually produce something of value rather then delivering someone a cocktail.
> Is it even okay? I mean, you will oboigate them to lose their jobs and work for something else they might not even know how to do.correct.
>You are not talkong about real stuff here and that is the problem. You are creating mental decrees based on what you want, what you like or dislike, you are not dealong with real stuff, real people.it is based on value and material reality, ironically you are arguing against value and material reality in favor of fleeting emotions such as "what people want" i.e. being a butler or something
>>2875881>How, in this case, take as an example Norwegian Cruise line, what would happen to it in a socialist society?Either each ship would be jointly run by the employees, or the company as a whole would be, or all the assets would be owned by the state. In any case people would pay their labour vouchers to go on a cruise.
However, cruises are incredibly ecologically damaging so I'm not sure if we can 'fix' the cruise industry sufficiently to make it work.
>>2875911You are dense.
You don't like people who make cocktails so you are saying their work is not valiable and they produce nothing of valie and you don't know exactly what to do with them but you want them to do something else, without explaining how would yoj do that.
>>2875917this is a material analysis of the value the job produces, service work produces no value while a car manufactory does. stop being an emotional woman and start looking at reality
>>2875916This process of makong something private a public entity, the amount of stuff needed to do this change this is extremely out of realoty for me to imagine.
The access to stuff on socialism is always hard to understand, I don't get how these vouchers are actually different from money.
I mean, I do not support ideas I don't understand.
>>2875919Was Marx's writing valuable to society?
>>2875921considering it inspired several revolutions, yes. a butler? not so much
>>2875922>YesWhat makes it valuable?
>>2875923>What makes it valuable?<it inspired several revolutionscan you not read?
>>2875924So if you were to define "value", what would that word mean?
>>2875919Why do you think travelling on cruise ships should be aboloshed?
Can you even explain to me why you think this is wrong.
Pleasure is actually valuable to society, you need a carrot and a stick
>>2875920>I don't get how these vouchers are actually different from money.Functionally, it is identical. The only difference is that money is an indirect exchange of labour, while vouchers exchange directly. It is really the perfected form of money, as suggested by Owen and Rodbertus. A possible reason we don't have this type of money is because it would make exploitation easy to see.
>>2875927Just ignore him. He's a troll.
>>2875926physical utility to satisfy human needs
>>2875930vouchers are idealism
>>2875927ignore this liberal
>>2875931>physical utility to satisfy human needsSo value is defined by usefulness?
If a waiter is useful, they must surely be valuable.
You guys see my concern.
I think all socialism ends up being something like that, we know there is something wrong about exploitation, but the "what to do" is always problematic.
Social organization is not something easy to do.
You can create decrees but the process of apllying them in reality is complicated.
People have lives, they need to eat, work, sleep, we don't have absolute power over stuff and even if we do making changes is always an effort, it will.need a lot of work and planning and stuff it is just too much.
>>2875932Well, Marx suggests a certificate system in early communist society as a way to distribute resources.
>>2875916cruise lining is ecologically damaging in no small part because cruise liners are attempting to make profit
"value" is an issue relative to the law of equivalent exchanges, and socialism doesn't rely on equivalent exchange
>>2875935>What to doWhat would you suggest, personally?
>>2875935>People have lives, they need to eat, work, sleep, we don't have absolute power over stuff and even if we do making changes is always an effort, it will.need a lot of work and planning and stuff it is just too much.I feel like pointing out that you can plan out what people need by looking at the purchasing recipts from amazon, walmart, and other such retailers. People get their stuff through such retailers, and since they all track this in enormous amounts to high degrees of precision, we know what it costs to run society.
>>2875937>socialism doesn't rely on equivalent exchangeMarx disagrees.
<He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost […] the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal valueshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm >>2875930But it will end up being something like this: higher positions give you more valuable vouchers, isn't it?
I've hear in communism voichers would not even exist.
To me this chanhe can happen, I just don't understand why.
I am a person that think about stuff in this more peactical sense.
>>2875941>higher positions give you more valuable vouchers, isn't it?Theoretically, yes, but this would be equitable to your input. If you work harder, you should receive more. This is what most believe.
>I've hear in communism voichers would not even exist.That is supposed to be in the far future.
>I am a person that think about stuff in this more peactical sense.Good.
>>2875940Marx argues on such a system for handling things
at first but by no means is this a necessary and enduring feature of socialism.
We already know we're not going to be running everything on equivalent exchange the moment we start asking about what to do with the disabled, elderly, children, etc.
>>2875881North Korea enshrines private property for workers in Article 24 of its constitution. Other socialists call this revisionism. I think what socialists actually want depends on which socialists you're talking to.
Anyway read the text file at the top of the /PRC/ thread. Others will tell you not to. Ignore them. They will say it is quote mining but will provide no citations proving it.
https://leftypol.org/leftypol/src/1780693457959-1.txt >>2875938I don't know.
I have no power to change stuff.
If I did, I would not be an authoritarian and I would not abolish private property because I am afraid this would damage economy and I would make people die and suffer.
>>2875944>Marx argues on such a system for handling things at first but by no means is this a necessary and enduring feature of socialism.The other anon has cited a source while you have not. Who are we supposed to believe?
>>2875948The very fact that later on Marx also says that eventually such material abundance renders any kind of exchange unnecessary, plus the
extremely obvious issues that arise once you talk past the most basic framework of economics.
The moment we start talking about taxation we have broken equivalent exchange.
In practice Comecon countries didn't follow it either, food was often subsidized (which ended up being problematic on a wider scale and threw planning off)
>>2875944>We already know we're not going to be running everything on equivalent exchange the moment we start asking about what to do with the disabled, elderly, children, etc.Right, but Marx already covers that by the deductions made from the certificate. Here are the three main funds given from the tax:
<First, the general costs of administration […] Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc […] Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmThis is why equivalence is given from the net return, not the gross return, as implied from the Lassalleans. This is also written about by Joan Robinson; that there must be a basic deduction from the whole.
>>2875949>The moment we start talking about taxation we have broken equivalent exchange.Not really. If I have £10 as a net return, what I exchange for can still be equal in content.
My idea here is not to be a "provoker" or a troll guys.
I hope you don't think like this in this way.
I just have some personal problems in accepting socialism and that might be a problem I have in understanding stuff.
>>2875947Sure, it's wise to doubt oneself, but the point of politics is also to have an arrogant attitude about how to fix things. You would surely see that many rich people don't deserve their money and many poor people deserve more? That is common sense to everyone.
>>2875953Many socialists themselves don't understand socialism, so you are not alone. It is always better to ask questions than to pretend to have all the answers. 👍
>>2875951>Not really. If I have £10 as a net return, what I exchange for can still be equal in content.define this especially in context of the
cancellation of labor tokens upon consumption of the product of society instead of the
exchange >>2875953A very quick guide to socialism is this:
- Most social wealth is made by labour, and so should belong to the labourers. The richest in society make money without working as hard as everyone else, and so their property should be shared out. If some people have billions and others have nothing, this is unfair.
In terms of solving the problem, different kinds of socialists exist. Some suggest the state taking control over everything. Others want trade unions to take over. Some think this can be peaceful, and others think it cannot be peaceful. There is no right opinion, but only different perspectives. The same message though is about fairness.
>>2875934sure, what does a waiter produce?
>>2875954I think poverty is a problem
I am a poor guy that works to survive and I understand life is unfair in many ways and that we can change society for better or at least think in this direction.
I am just thinking if socialism is the right direction.
>>2875965Waiters bring you stuff from the galley to your table.
Otherwise you would need to do this yourself but that is not the point of a restaurant.
>>2875960>define thisI work 40 hours. I am taxed 10 hours. I have 30 hours to spend.
If it takes 1 hour to make something, I can spend 1 of my 30 hours on it for that week. If we make this money: I have £300 after being taxed £100 that week, and spend £10 on something. If you are to be more thorough, you could say that the tax fund is paid in equivalence with the public services provided, so nothing is lost from the system of exchanges, it is only transferred to another. Your point is that this redistribution is itself unequal, which is only true in regard to effort involved, but not to the price of goods.
>>2875967again, value. not just something you personally like. the production of a commodity produces value, bringing you a drink does not
>>2875969>the production of a commodity produces valueWhat commodity did Marx produce?
>>2875970volumes of capital
>>2875969I'm not an economics expert but
The value of a waiter is that he is doing something for you.
This is valiable by itself.
In a socialist society there would be waiters, or at least we hope, Idk.
>>2875966>I am just thinking if socialism is the right direction.For most people it is seen as an end-goal. In the meantime, there are reforms people suggest, like taxing the rich, or higher wages, and so on.
>>2875968okay, i'll restate: put simply the more acutely we are aware of how the economy moves the more we can change pricing and direct labor such that we aren't
bound to equivalent exchange. Equivalent exchange develops out of the necessity to reproduce given low information and social support given to sectors of society, ie. you need to exchange equivalent or you will be steadily drained of resources from a sector. With a cohesive set of economic information and proper planning of distribution of what is necessary, this doesn't have to be followed because the material basis that forms the necessity of EE is gone
>>2875973you're not understanding the Marxist concept of value, which is grounded in material reality not your personal feelings.
Building something produces value, a car for example has more value then its unincorporated parts. No values is produced by moving a cocktail from the bar to your table.
In a socialist society there would be no waiters.
>>2875971Marx didn't produce these, the publishers created copies of Capital Vol. 1, and Marx died before the rest could be published. Marx wrote a bunch of manuscripts and was a parasite on Engels' fortune. Marx had jobs as a journalist from 1844-52. Did this create value?
>>2875881Just so you know, the people here talking to you about "value" and what is "productive labor" and what isn't are all fucking total pseuds who don't actually understand Marx at all lol. If you actually want real answers, you're going to need to talk to real intellectuals with fuckin' phds and shit about this, read their books or watch their lectures.
This entire thread is filled with complete misunderstanding of marxian economics and analysis lol. Do not take these people seriously please
>>2875978>>2875981This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is fucking retarded brother. Wayyyy off the mark with this.
>>2875978>moving physical mass from one location to another is personal feelingsmany such cases
>>2875978Why in a socialist society there would be no waiters?
You mean there would be no restaurants anymore?
What is a socialist society all about then.
I like my personal feelings, I don't think only material products are valuable.
>>2875977>we aren't bound to equivalent exchangeEquivalence is not binding, it is liberating. Do you want to pay for something at a higher cost than it's worth? If we make something in 1 hour, why would it not be worth the same?
>>2875969>The production of a commodity produces valueBrother… It produces
exchange value under
capitalism. Marx was never saying that commodity exchange value under capitalism was trans historical. He was CRITIQUING the very thing you seem to be pulling out of your ass. Under communism you can
absolutely have service workers. Commodity production is not communist, it is actually the opposite!
>>2875986I just think many people just do not understand stuff and I am compassionate about them because I don't understand it very well either, that is why sometimes we just need to trust our feelings.
Economics is dense and it talks about a lot of subjects.
>>2875985>Equivalence is not binding, it is liberating. Do you want to pay for something at a higher cost than it's worth? If we make something in 1 hour, why would it not be worth the same?Depends. It allows you to shift around people's consumption habits and make it more feasible to get certain things that you might want while still being time-cheaper than doing things yourself. The higher-than value costs in some areas can make up for the lower-than-value costs in other areas. You'd still get 30 after-tax labor hours of value but you get to change numbers such that people can on average afford more expensive things than they otherwise would be able to.
>>2875881>what would happen to it in a socialist society?It depends. During the transitional proletarian dictatorship while we drastically reduce consumption for a short time to get things in order, they would get abolished and the goods on the cruise lines would get redistributed while the ship would probably be docked and used as temporary housing or probably used for trade between different parts of the world republic after adaptation.
After the dictatorship - once we have some rudimentary communism - I guess some scientific cruises would continue to exist. They would be relatively similar to what you have today but maybe less luxurious and more organized workplaces (I'm sure you've had your grievances that you'd have liked to get rid of). I mean cruises to where it makes sense: Antarctic and Arctic, some distant coasts etc. Mediterranean cruising would probably be abolished because there would be Chinese-style HSR in Extremely Western Asia (Europe; compare to Western Asia i.e. "MidEast" in prerevolutionary language) and Africa.
How would goods be distributed? I/O tables and logistics hubs as we have them now. How would things be produced? By need, and this would be quantified by questionnaires you fill out on smartphones. Probably some algorithmic analysis, why not.
Of course I am assuming all the problems before proletarian dictatorship have been cleared up and socialist construction is underway.
Barracks communism is not allowed by the way
>>2875990for consideration we are
already seeing the slow teasing away of sell price from value of product given certain networks of products. The "cheap printer, expensive ink" is one such example, the interaction between the network of goods here ensures that the
average value is still being returned to the producers, but the objects being sold are not at their values, you do not exchange equivalent for printer ink at all.
>>2875990I see - are you basically suggesting sales taxes on certain goods?
That's fine, but it still ultimately works by equivalence, since the added tax on the good is still paid for - it just goes to somewhere else. It would be silly to overcharge and then to destroy the extra money, say.
>>2875984>Why in a socialist society there would be no waiters?they produce no value
>You mean there would be no restaurants anymore?there would be it would just be to go orders.
>What is a socialist society all about then.would not favor the service industry
>I like my personal feelings, I don't think only material products are valuable.reality doesn't care about your feelings.
>>2875986agreed, however what we call commodities would still be produced to an extent but not hold the same function as a commodity does today.
For example a car is a commodity that doesn't mean the abolition of motor vehicles but the abolition of motor vehicles as a commodity
>>2875993barracks communism is the only possible communism
>>2875995>the average value is still being returned to the producers, but the objects being sold are not at their values, you do not exchange equivalent for printer ink at all.Right, like how retail sells goods to produce a margin. The difference I would say is that capitalist markets are competitive, while socialist markets would be less so, and so prices would not be based in accruing profits, which wouldn't alter prices between wholesale and retail, for the most part.
>>2875978This kind of misunderstanding of Marxism is extremely common. The main problem is not realizing what is the tradition that Marx was working in. At the time when machines were replacing horses their energy expenditure was compared to horses. That's why we talk of horse-power when it comes to cars for example.
So what does Marx do? Marx takes this abstract conception of energy consumption and applies it to humans - and so you get labor-power. So labor-power is energy. And energy is not "productive" in any mean. It is a measure of how difficult it is to move mass across space. So "productive" as adjective to labor-power is not contradictory but it makes to sense semantically. Energy is not productive. It is essentially a moral adjective + scientific term. Very childish.
>>2875992Can't there be cruises owned by the government, in a similar way it is today?
Like, all companies we can merge into one.
I think people in general just associate cruises with foolishness, but I am not sure I entirely agree with this idea.
Travelling is great and it boosts economy.
>>2876008There comes an issue when "energy" and "productivity" become circular, however. This is why productivity has to be defined by applying order to local systems, or negentropy. This post is "productive", but no energy was created or destroyed; it is simply conserved. For the same reasons, Marx describes the "laws of motion" of capitalism in terms of "potential energy", etc.
>>2876004>“What a beautiful model of barrack-room communism! Here you have it all: communal eating, communal sleeping, assessors and offices regulating education, production, consumption, in a word, all social activity, and to crown all, Our Committee, anonymous and unknown to anyone, as the supreme dictator. This indeed is the purest anti-authoritarianism…”-Karl Marx being ironic
https://communist.red/marx-versus-bakunin-part-one/ >>2876010no there would be no point for them to exist, just a waste of resources
>>2876010>Can't there be cruises owned by the government, in a similar way it is today?>Like, all companies we can merge into one.You're asking a very hypothetical question that I feel makes no sense to answer. You will participate in some political decision making body if you are a worker and if the majority of your local council or whatever unit of self-control decides it is in their interest to pursue some cruising cooperation and it doesn't clash with the interest of the general proletarian dictatorship and possibly even is harmonious with their general will (a
communist cruise, whatever that entails) why not. But large ships are costly and I doubt any kind of transitional political organization that needs to mitigate and control climate change will expend labor-power on it.
>>2876013You are right and I agree, I was just commenting on one part of it.
>>2876015>>2876012yes but unironically
>>2875999Restaurants are needed. It is a practical issue.
This "reality doesn't care about your feelongs" is just a slogan. The reality is that my feelings towards the idea services are valuable is true, not only in reality but in an economical sense.
People are paid for doing stuff because this service is valuable. Bringing food to your table is valuable in a society because it is something we need i. order to function, restaurants work in a certain way and socialism cannot be about abolishing this but removing exploitation from the process.
>>2876010Genuinely too expensive. Entertainment is a necessity of course, but Cruise ships are simply too high a toll for our poor planet.
>>2875997Destroying money has the effect of transferring the value of that money to the rest of the money in circulation in a society, which has been pretty well documented for a while. The bigger issue is letting physical goods rot away which is a real destruction of wealth.
>>2876006broadly yes. The difference here being that since you are no longer accounting for "i can sell more by doing cheap printers and expensive ink", (which is actually good, and indeed enriches society more than selling at-value), you can now apply this to much greater swathes of society, and do things like "make food more expensive but cruises cheaper" (not necessarily the case, just thread-relevant)e
>>2876021>Restaurants are neededprove it
>The reality is that my feelings towards the idea services are valuable is true, not only in reality but in an economical sensecan you demonstrate the value in your "feelings" no.
>People are paid for doing stuff because this service is valuableagain you're conflating profit to "value"
>Bringing food to your table is valuable in a society because it is something we needthere is no necessity there, just a capitalistic excess
>socialism cannot be about abolishing thissocialism absolutely can abolish it
>>2876021If it is any peace to your mind, communist society would be extremely lazy. We currently overproduce by 70% globally speaking. Any kind of rationally organized political economy will "liberate" these 70% of productive forces for the betterment of everyone.
More precisely, with 30% of current production we can ensure decent living standards for 8 billion people currently living and the remaining 70% would be used for free-time, leisure and science.
Such an economy would have 4 hour working days and 3 day working weeks. Production of industrial goods would be done in waves necessitated by plans and informed by scientific research. Production of consumption goods would also be done in shorter waves and stored in warehouses and then shipped out to distribution hubs. So that means that most of the time people would be working in some kind of service-industry (people-to-people industry) and some of the time in productive industrial waves.
Does this makes sense?
>>2876017>>2876016The economy of touristic places are based on cruising.
If you end it, those places lile Sicily and Greece lose huge parts of their income.
Why would a socialist want that?
>>2876028
>income
>>2876027NTA but restaurants are needed. Maybe "restaurant" isn't the word because I don't mean a place where a waiter serves you gourmet food. I mean a place where workers and students go to eat lunch.
>>2876027As anon already asked, what is socialism actually about of all leisure is prohibited?
>>2876030>The economy of touristic places are based on cruising.And it would get restructured under a communist republic. This has happened all across history so you cannot present any counterargument that isn't whining.
>>2876033>what is socialism actually about of all leisure is prohibited?See my reply here
>>2876029 (I was replying to the crusing-anon) I think you get a better image of what communism could be. I also could've mentioned that some part of the workforce will also be up-keeping the machines.
>>2876030>The economy of touristic places are based on cruising.heavily capitalist, which would be done away with under socialism.
>Why would a socialist want that?again, its not productive
>>2876032>restaurants are neededprove it
>>2876027Restaurants are needed because you need a place to eat while not at home.
People work in places that do not provide food and need to go to restaurants.
I just proved my feelings are a reality, you are just too reactionary to accept it.
Socialism cannot abolish it because it needs it to function.
>>2876035>70% would be used for free-time, leisure and science. Are free-time and leisure "valuable"?
>>2876030>lose huge parts of their income.There's another assumption here about money still existing but it's such an ideologically loaded answer it would take days to reply.
>>2876030There should be no "tourist places" imo. I live in a tourism city and it sucks. Cities are for living, not for visiting. Greece has tourism as its income because it has no industry, it's a matter of necessity.
In practice however, what exists or not is a matter of practicality and democracy. Is X viable and is X desired by most of the workers? If so, it would probably exist even if I personally think it's superfluous.
That being said, some forms of leisure would disappear and others would pop up. Cruises and leisure boats are only a thing because there's a market niche for it, and there's no guarantee it would still exist as the economy reshapes itself. Plenty of people like driving cars, but there's a chance those won't exist 300 years from now. The same way a lot of people enjoyed riding horses before but that's not as common at all nowadays, is it.
>>2876037People need to eat my guy. Have you ever had a job?
>>2876034>>2876036You are just saying something in the sense "I do not care about those people's whose lives are tied to tourism, I jist think tourism is not very socialostic at all so this must end."
>>2876040Value is a political term. To a proletarian, free time and and leisure are valuable in the same way that for the bourgeois, the proletarian's labor-time is valuable. The less or more one has, the more liberated he is. The less the prole works, the more free is he; the more the prole works, more free is the bourgeoisie.
>>2876042Again, what happens to those people whose lives depend on tourism?
>>2876038>Restaurants are needed because you need a place to eat while not at home.why do you need to eat when you're not at home?
>People work in places that do not provide food and need to go to restaurants.so?
>>2876044No, I am saying that the people participating in the political economy in some region will participate via council-like mass-bodies in the coordination with the global proletarian dictatorship to mitigate climate change and create cooperation chains instead of value and exploitation Chains.
Maybe the economies of Sicily and Greece and more suited for agriculture, fishery and animal husbandry instead of cruising. But we will never now because the people cannot decide freely their fate.
>>2876044>You are just saying something in the sense "I do not care about those people's whose lives are tied to tourism, I jist think tourism is not very socialostic at all so this must end."I do not care about those people's whose lives are tied to tourism
>>2876046>the proletarian's labor-time is valuableWhat makes it valuable?
>>2876042i think things can be restructured such that things people like to do are done more in harmony with how people who fulfil those desires wish to see them done. Tourism is a brutal industry like a great deal of others, but that doesn't mean we can't work to reform things. Tourism cities are designed such that the desires of wealthy tourists are allowed to override the inhabitants desires, that doesn't really mean that tourism can't exist.
Horse riding is still an option, cars probably still will be, they just won't be obviously the same
>>2876048you are retarded
>>2876050well, I do, because I am a real socialost and you are a reactionary that pretends to be a socialist on the internet
>>2876048troll fucking reply
>>2876053now you're just mad and throwing a tantrum
>>2876051I'm using value in its scientific meaning (labor-power with social use-value expended during the social-activity such as production), you are using in a moral term.
>>2876056i'm sorry, i thought this was being stupider than you actually were for fun, not that you're actually that dumb.
Why do people need to eat when they're not home, are you actually fucking serious?
>>2875881<I don't understand how socialism works.10 minutes later>>2876053<I am a real socialist and you are a reactionarymany such cases, maybe reddit is more your speed
>>2876059>Why do people need to eat when they're not home, are you actually fucking serious?you're really mad about this but can't produce an answer
>>2876062i am working well outside my home city
please explain how i avoid starving to death
>>2876063by eating before you leave/when you get back its not that complicated
>>2876047Whose life depends on tourism? If you are some sort of petite bourgeois, obviously you'd be proletarianized. You'd be put to actually work. If you work as a service worker in tourism, you'd probably be reallocated to work somewhere else, ideally you'd choose between a set of available options. At some point in the USSR, you had freedom to work with whatever (possible) as long as you fulfilled a quota of work in fields that are absolutely necessary for society. I remember watching an interview where some soviet people said they had to work one or two years in agriculture or factories before going into academics etc.
>but that's authoritarianIt's authoritarian insofar as the needs of society are the authority. This is not something done out of a person's whims. And in practice, this already happens: how many aspiring artists, or doctors, or whatever else are forced to work in shitty McDonald's jobs because of capitalism?
>>2876052I'm in agreement
>>2876062Yeah maybe I should just learn photosynthesis or something. Retard.
>>2876058I have not made any statements. I have asked you a question which you refuse to answer. What makes leisure "valuable", in your words?
>>2876038why are we pretending that leaving your home suddenly makes it impossible to cook
>>2876066>You'd be put to actually work.t. unemployed narcissist
>>2876065I'm outside of town for a week at a time doing regional technical servicing
please explain where do i stay and what i eat
>>2876066>Yeah maybe I should just learn photosynthesis or something. Retard.no, you should stop getting your mom to cook your meals and do it yourself
>>2875949I'm not saying you're wrong I'm saying the other anon has provided a source while you have not, so it is harder to evaluate what you are saying based on hearsay.
"Marx says this, Marx says that"
It's likely. But where? It is hard to ctrl+f a paraphrase.
>>2876066>Yeah maybe I should just learn photosynthesis or something. Retard.still mad
>>2876070groceries. from the grocery store.
>>2876060>>2876055you guys are just saying stupid stuff, really
I need to do that
tourism is not and should not be a crime because there is nothing inherently wrong with it
>>2876068because they get their feelings hurt at the idea of their capitalist excess not being readily available to them
>>2876074Do people who work behind counters in grocery stores produce anything?
>>2876070are you a traveling hobo or something?
>>2876078Okay, so you are just a babbling sophist.
>>2876074and where am I staying to cook these groceries?
never mind that definitionally, a restaurant is actually saving time because they already have the food and groceries ready, and domestic labor is actually inefficient relative to a food-production location
>>2876080Have you sever seen someone who works in multiple cities?
>>2876076I think anon made a good point though. It is pretty odd that you started off saying you don't understand socialism and then progressed to saying that you were the real socialist and others are reactionary. Isn't that a strange tonal shift?
>>2876079yes its connected to the farm they collectively work
>>2876076>tourism is not and should not be a crime because there is nothing inherently wrong with itthe most valuable thing you have ever produced is co2 that plants can use. you are so fucking stupid.
>>2876084What do store clerks produce?
>>2876081I know you are but what am I?
>>2876076you already said you didn't understand socialism and now you're just getting mad at socialist answers to your questions
>tourism is not and should not be a crime because there is nothing inherently wrong with itcrimes aren't limited to a vague conception of "wrongness"
>>2876082who sent you out for a week? they have no employee housing? your entire argument is acting like a retard and assuming it means you're smarter than everyone else.
>>2876086store clerks are an antiquated thing of the past
>>2876066this realocation you guys are talking about is just a wish but in reality you cannot do that
you can just pick entire populations and change their mode of producing and just creating new forms of production out of nowhere
like a shop owner and their employeed in a touristic sicilian place, you are not talking about real stuff here and this is my concern with many socialists
you do not have life experience
>>2876087Again, I have asked an intellectual like yourself "what makes something valuable?" and you have completely collapsed. At least be ashamed.
>>2876079can people be trusted to walk into a store and take exactly what they pay for without supervision?
>>2876091So who will work in grocery stores, then?
I gave a complete and integral outlook towars tourism during the proletarian dictatorship and socialist construction and the OP ignored every serious point and continues to argue with shitposters.
>>2875992>>2876017>>2876049>>2876029>>2876092>this realocation you guys are talking about is just a wish but in reality you cannot do thatthe DPRK did it just fine
>you can just pick entire populations and change their mode of producing and just creating new forms of production out of nowhereliterally what socialism does.
> like a shop owner and their employeed in a touristic sicilian place, you are not talking about real stuff here and this is my concern with many socialistsreassignment to factory B is sector 8C-1 its that easy
>>2876094no thats what the Stasi is for
>>2876090Have you never once seen people who do regional work?
They usually get booked into a hotel for a week and eat out for that time
like i'm genuinely wondering if this is trolling or actual naievete
>>2876098grocery clerks are the Stasi.
>>2876100You said that leisure is "valuable".
I ask you what this means.
You can't say.
That's all that has happened.
>>2876102do you think that hotels spontaneously burst into flame and disappear after communism takes over? are you actually incapable of understanding that the big fucking buildings with rooms and water and electricity can be reused?
>>2876107>instead of restaurants and hotels full of vile capitalist service sector jobs, we'll have socialist non-service jobs of maintaining employee housing and food!this is actually just retarded
>>2876107communal housing
I am talking to some children here.
I stuck with the small shop owners and their employees in Sicily and not with some weirdos on the internet that pretend to know stuff about life and economy and produce wrong ideas.
Improve your socialism.
>>2876112>this is actually just retardedif it was retarded you'd be able to explain why
>>2876071I don't get the projection. Nevertheless, beyond your trolling attempt, it's important to remind other anons that having a communal restaurant is a much more efficient distribution of working hours in aggregate (yes, doing chores such as cooking is labor). Cooking in bulk and distributing that food saves up a lot of time in aggregate.
>>2876092>this realocation you guys are talking about is just a wish but in reality you cannot do thatWhat do you mean? It's been extensively done both in the past and today.
>you can just pick entire populations and change their mode of producing and just creating new forms of production out of nowhereIt's not "out of nowhere", revolution is a lengthy process that sprouts from already existing societal organization. Please read Marx, my guy. Nothing is done overnight.
>like a shop owner and their employeed in a touristic sicilian place, you are not talking about real stuff here and this is my concern with many socialistsBeing an "owner" is not a job. Owning is not labor. Being a store administrator and an owner are two different things. Obviously plenty of the petite bourgeois store owners do work, and a lot of the times they're overworked since they can't afford enough employees, but the bulk of the revenue generated by stores it done by large supermarkets where the owner, in actuality, does not really work. They collect money from investments. They live off of Capital.
>you do not have life experienceIt sounds you yourself don't have life experience, or rather, can't see past your myopic worldview. Most of the world does not have access to tourism. I will probably never be able to afford traveling to Italy in a cruise. People would rather have stable jobs, being able to afford a house, access to healthcare and culture and leisure (that includes but does limit itself to tourism), and raising a family. You have misplaced priorities because of your material circumstances, which is not a bad thing in itself, but please to not project your worldview onto others.
>>2876120>Cooking in bulk and distributing that food saves up a lot of time in aggregate.you can do this without having restaurants
>>2876046>Value is a political term. To a proletarian, free time and and leisure are valuable in the same way that for the bourgeois, the proletarian's labor-time is valuable. The less or more one has, the more liberated he is. The less the prole works, the more free is he; the more the prole works, more free is the bourgeoisie.>>2876105No I actually gave a very complete answer which you don't understand.
>>2876124I'm not about to argue semantics
>>2876121>>2876120I will only like socialism when it cares about people's lives.
If it is about abstract ideas of what is right or wrong based on some texts, I do not approve.
I am not american by the way, also I am poor.
>>2876117okay
restaurants are capable of doing food prep more time-cheaply than having people preparing their own food, having people doing service in a restaurant can also improve service by doing information tasks and management of time and space to ensure that people are being handled effectively.
Similarly, there will be cases of people needing temporary housing, and it is still more time-efficient to do division of labor and having dedicated staff.
>>2876132because "caring about people's lives" = socialism MUST include capitalist excess because people work those jobs
utterly retarded
>>2875909>You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.
>In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.I remember getting into argument with a rightoid:
>You want to take my property!<No, I want to take billy gates' property. >>2876126So, leisure is both unproductive and also valuable?
>>2876138But Marx also wants to take away your property, too.
That is the meaning of the text.
chyna does it so it's communism-approved
>>2876136we will replace capitalist excesses with socialist excesses
>>2876132>I will only like socialism when it cares about people's lives.No you won't, you fucking liar.
>>2876142he is pretty directly addressing the bourgeoisie when he says "we exactly intend to take away your property"
>>2876135i am not arguing against temporary housing or areas to make food. i think there is a fundamental difference between a hotel and a worker's shelter. i dont think we should completely get rid of hotels but most of them should stop being hotels.
>>2876136Not caring about what could happen to those people when you break their mode of survival is cruel.
They can just die of hunger, end up being miserable, you can break entire economic structures and not provide something for them.
They do not trust you.
>>2876132>If it is about abstract ideas of what is right or wrongi just everyone to have food and shelter and water and stop amerikkka from bombing children
>>2876150Also, millions of people died of hunger in socialist experiences because of people who think in a similar way to you guys.
Those people do not deserve to die.
>>2876150I am sorry but you might be too dumb to have this conversation so I'm out.
>>2876150>They can just die of hungeryou seriously think that the average restaurant worker would rather die of hunger than work somewhere that isn't a restaurant
>>2876153le 666666 bajillion dead
>>2876142Shut up you fucking retard.
Sony’s PlayStation Puts a Nail in Physical Media’s Coffin
<Come 2028, Sony will discontinue physical game disc production for all new games on PlayStation consoles.https://www.wired.com/story/sony-playstation-puts-a-nail-in-physical-medias-coffin/Sony is deleting 551 movies and TV shows you bought on PlayStation, because you don't really own your digital purchases
<John Wick, Paddington, and Terminator 2 are among the titles – no refunds offeredhttps://www.techspot.com/news/112919-sony-deleting-551-movies-tv-shows-you-bought.html >>2876150>Not caring about what could happen to those people when you break their mode of survival is cruel.cute but I don't care if it hurts your feelings. The same thing happens to capitalists under socialism and the ramifications are not limited to just the capitalists
>They can just die of hunger, end up being miserable, you can break entire economic structures and not provide something for them.tends to happen during economic crises this is nothing new
>>2876142By your logic, Marx wants legalized prostitution.
Also, I don't have to agree with Marx on everything. I disagree that working men have no country because imperialism proved that wrong.
>>2876153>>2876150the issue of where workers work is a rather different issue to whether or not people have
any kind of work, this is silly. Work in one sector is generally replaced by work in another sector and/or a general lessening of the working hours.
Why do jannies keep dumb threads like this alive but destroy ones where people are synthesizing new thought?
>>2876159>>2876157>>2876155>>2876154I am an adult human being.
I just turned 31, I will not pretend socialism didn't kill and can still kill innocent people if tried in the way you are talking about.
I do not like that. It is not rocket science tho.
>>2876153Hey bro, tell me what exactly is your thesis because I have difficulty following the thread. I will help you if I can.
>>2876148>>2876161He isn't clear. Which is why idiotic lines like this persist:
<In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmAll property is private property, so it's an incoherent notion.
>>2876168ok cry about it, every political system has done this. To say socialism is uniquely evil for something that has occurred everywhere is just intellectually dishonest
>>2876151the thread is just not worth taking seriously aside from the brief interesting bit on equivalent exchange, sorry.
>>2876160So if value isn't defined by productivity, what is it defined by?
>>2876164Explain to me what people who live and work in Santorini would do in your scenario?
Santorini is basically a touristic island that survives because of tourism.
Tell those people what they should do then, give them something.
OP is a brazilian lib that thinks socialism is satanic because according to him the existence of private property is God's will btw, he always makes this threads to waste everyone's time
>>2876180>Explain to me what people who live and work in Santorini would do in your scenario?reassignment to a productive work place
>>2876180>basically a touristic island that survives because of tourismwas it always that way? or did they get fucked over and need to rely on tourism to survive?
>>2876183>>2876182you are defining what is valuable and what is not valuable and you decide their work is not valiable so they just die go somewhere else or something
you see why people do not trust socialism?
it is not because they are evil, it is just because you are being authoritarian and making them do semething else with their loves you don't even know
like, imagine you are one of them, can you even do this?
>>2876188>you see why people do not trust socialism?because they're retarded and think that the stupid greeks would all commit mass suicide if they couldn't serve tourists?
>>2876167from what I have been told, both this place and hexbear have had literal moderator coups take over the original owners, which is not anything I ever see on non-leftist sites… how does that even work? How do you take someone's website from them? They can just cancel the DNS whenever they want… weird stuff….
>>2876188>you are defining what is valuable and what is not valuableno, plenty of Marxists have already done this.
>you see why people do not trust socialism?I don't care I'm not running an ad campaign
>it is just because you are being authoritarian and making them do semething else with their lives you don't even knowcorrect, we are authoritarians.
>like, imagine you are one of them, can you even do this?Yes I imagine my petite bourgois lifestyle would be up ended, thankfully I am not so this is not a concern
>>2876180In historical communist countries, depending on the size and role of a resort place, either one of 3 things would happen:
- Big resort or Summer camp: Owned by the state, employees like in any other capitalist country, but patrons stay there free of charge or part of enterprise package.
- Middle resort, touristy places, restaurants: Owned by employees like worker coops. Usually can charge their own prices or if contracted by the state, have price ceilings.
- Private resorts: People converted their beach-front or close to beach-front property into resorts and did whatever. Georgia did this and you basically got AirBnB experience or India.
>>2876193>correct, we are authoritariansW anon
>>2876191>stupid greeks would all commit mass suicide if they couldn't serve touristsNo they would invade Persia
>ITE ANDRES! ITE LACADEMONIOI! A product traveling to its final destination is part of the productive process also there are non productive forms of work that are completely necessary, you wouldn’t want to live in a society without janitors or nurses
Guys, look at me.
I am not a silly teenager, as I explained, and I don't assume you all are.
Most people have a general perception I have, because it might be reality.
Those things you are talking about, like closing entire companies, restaurants not need, tourism is superficial, mass migration based on what you decide as productive, state owned everything companies.
These things are big theoroes, but they are not real,
You can't make it real by just wishing it to be real, politics needs convincing, otherwise you will generate chaos and the possibility of disaster, mass proportion disaster.
>>2876206>These things are big theoroes, but they are not real,happened like millions of times across history dude it's nothing crazy like that
>>2876207Okay, and it takes labour-time to do anything, so everything must be valuable.
>>2876206>I am not a silly teenager, as I explainedyou think millions of people would rather commit suicide than stop working at a restaurant
>>2876206>I am not a silly teenager, as I explained, and I don't assume you all are.yes you're 31 acting like a teenager.
>You can't make it real by just wishing it to be real, politics needs convincing, otherwise you will generate chaos and the possibility of disaster, mass proportion disaster.plenty of Marxist states have already done this
>>2876212Yes, my free time is valuable to me :)
>>2876217So value is also subjective?
>>2876209It generated a lot of death, hunger, wars and political problems tho.
People know this, I meam regular people.
>>2876213If you lose your job here where I live you might actually just live on the streets and eventually die.
I mean, isn't it?
>>2876218Yes use-value is a social relation but it also has a objective dimension! (socially necessary average labor-time, because we can measure average energy expenditure across production!)
>>2876219just like every other system ever, so what?
>>2876219oh wow regular people i guess i'm interacting with aliens every day
>>2876219you know what has generated hundreds of millions more deaths, more famine, more wars, and more "political problems" (definitely not a 13 year old's way of typing)? capitalism.
>>2876221again that is a very capitalistic mentality, socialism wouldn't toss away a productive member of society they'd be reassigned
>>2876221yes because you live under capitalism
>>2876225>>2876224totalitarian thinking is this
is you thinking you can somehow control reality and entire economic estructures and whatever might happen just because your intentions are noble or you think it is the truth
>>2876212>Okay, and it takes labour-time to do anything, so everything must be valuable.you need use value too. unless there is demand for something it isn't going to get mass produced. also it's not "labor time" like the other anon said but "socially necessary labor time" which is the average time required in a given society with a certain level of technological advancement to produce a useful article under ordinary conditions. We aren't talking about mud pies here.
>>2876232>totalitarian thinking is thisyes, we are authoritarian
>is you thinking you can somehow control reality and entire economic estructures and whatever might happen just because your intentions are noble or you think it is the truththe USSR and DPRK achieved this
>>2876232>is you thinking you can somehow control reality and entire economic estructures and whatever might happendo you think you're just a puppet doing as someone wills? do you think aliens control our economy?
>>2876232What are you trying to propose here?
>>2876181How do you know this? Crazy if true.
>>2876237>>2876236>>2876234I am not an authoritarian
I just think we should not drastically change any economic structures, do things like destroying companies where people work without thinking about it in a sensible way
their lives depend on it, everyone who works under capitalism needs it to survive, that is why it does not simply go away
>>2876243>everyone who works under capitalism needs it to surviveyou would have supported slavery
>>2876243>I am not an authoritarianok and?
>I just think we should not drastically change any economic structures, do things like destroying companies where people work without thinking about it in a sensible wayyet you don't complain when this happens under capitalism why is socialism uniquely bad for something that occurs in both systems?
>their lives depend on it, everyone who works under capitalism needs it to survive, that is why it does not simply go awayno it does simply go away when have plenty of historical examples of a revolution up ending the old order
>>2876243how is an entire island full of people being subjected to the whims of a single industry run by capitalists who are notorious for their shadiness not authoritarian
also i find it weird to say that socialism can't make anything for the better because like why can't they make a variety of industries?
i dont think tourism and hospitality should be crushed, but single-industry economies are total shit and notoriously prone to getting wrecked by world affairs
>>2876245>>2876246>>2876247>>2876249your answers on this thread are a proof to me why people in general do not trust socialism
it is not because it doesn't have any foundation, but your critique of capitalism does not generate results that interests most people, so capitalism stays
we are as a whole expecting something better to happen, but you are pushing some agendas that do not interest most people
>>2876257>why people in general do not trust socialismyou are not people in general, and you do not trust socialism because you're retarded. nice try 4channer, but your insistence that everyone agrees with you gave the game away.
>>2876257>your answers on this thread are a proof to me why people in general do not trust socialismok? "socialism hurt my feelings" isn't really relevant, no one cares if you don't like it.
>we are as a whole expecting something better to happen, but you are pushing some agendas that do not interest most peopleeverything described is better, you will never go on a cruise under socialism
>claims materialism as the back bone of their ideology
>doesn’t want the proletariat to have nice things like night clubs, restaurants, bars, cafes, personal transportation vehicles, or even basic travel tourism
>thinks open air rust factories like the Soviet Union or dprk are models to emulate
The jokes write themselves s
>>2876265>you will never go on a cruise under socialismwhat if i want a disease?
>>2876266changing your flag does nothing if you talk the same
>>2876266treats are from the devil. the less one has the closer to god he is.
>>2876243I have good news. Historically, revolutionary movements did not destroy companies. They did the opposite and you are arguing with trolls.
>>2876274> people are moved hightly by feelings. if you say something they feel is not good, they won't buy ityou realize we're not trying to go for mass appeal right? socialism doesn't get voted in.
>ple have jobs, lives, interests, they are all tied to capitalism sommehow. what you are proposing is a change in their lives and this change affects them so they are concerned by thisyes
> people, their jobs, their lives are not a joke. they are there doing serious stuff and not thinking about abstract ideas. to talk about reality you must care aboit it.we do care, but that caring extends to the dissolution of their current jobs if they are deemed unproductive
>>2876275weird that they're not engaging with most of the more sincere stuff and it's just trolls going back and forth
>>2876266>open air rust factories Come on now, Ohio is a nice place.
>>2876278Because we are being raided that's why. Nobody comes on leftypol unless it's sussy bait.
>>2876279i got sexually assaulted in ohio, it can go fuck itself
>>2876274glad you realized changing your flag is pointless.
>if you say something they feel is not good, they won't buy ityes you are retarded and care more about what makes you feel good than reality
>they are all tied to capitalismyes i already know you would have supported slavery
> people, their jobs, their lives are not a jokethen stop treating them like one. stop pretending people would rather kill themselves than stop working on a cruise ship.
>>2876278wahhhhhh no one cares about my wordslop wahhhhhh
>>2876281I'm sorry for Ohio's loss.
Please send them my condolences.
/s in case mods are retarded >>2876280the raid has been going on for the past couple days now. theres gore and 20 stupid threads a day
>>2876274what is your problem with the fact that service workers would be reassigned to something more productive?
>>2876283Go back to leftypol chud.
>>2876287he genuinely does not understand that a person can change jobs
>>2876276the way you talk does not appeal to me, and that matters because politics is about humans, not machines
economics depends on human factors like social appeal, different societies have different economies because they feel, live and think in different ways
socialism is just a way of seeing things, you think it is right but many people do not buy it for some reasons, and not dumb reasons, but practical reasons
>>2876275no one explained to me very well how this transition from private companies into socialism might happen
like the actual process of doing it, they want it but most people cannot explaon how to do it in a sensible way
>>2876289Also, he assumes everyone loves their job and would not want to do something else if given the opportunity.
>>2876291>the way you talk does not appeal to me, and that matters because politics is about humans, not machines>economics depends on human factors like social appeal, different societies have different economies because they feel, live and think in different ways
>socialism is just a way of seeing things, you think it is right but many people do not buy it for some reasons, and not dumb reasons, but practical reasonsso your whole response is "I don't like how this sounds"? profound critique are you sure you're not a teenager?
what is your problem with the fact that service workers would be reassigned to something more productive?
>>2876291>the way you talk does not appeal to meyeah you're retarded
>but practical reasonspractical reasons like "me go on cruise ship"
>no one explained to me very well how this transition from private companies into socialism might happengoogle how cuba did it
>>2876287Because they might just not want it.
You see, not everyone wamts to quit their job to do something else because anon says it is better for them.
>>2876300> because anon says it is better for themso instead we should keep starving people to death because they don't have enough magic paper because anon says it is better for them
>>2876300>Because they might just not want it.so? why does that even matter?
>>2876297your toughness sound unsensible to many people and that matters
you are just saying you are rightifully and authoritarian that deserves to control people's lives and they just give a shit about you
>>2876305>your toughness sound unsensible to many people and that matterswhy does that matter?
>you are just saying you are rightifully and authoritarian that deserves to control people's lives and they just give a shit about youthis is the nature of governance
>>2876291So each country's path to socialism looks different. China differed from USSR which differed from Yugoslavia, GDR etc. It will also depend how exactly socialism came to power in a specific country. Most cases of transition happened in times of crisis when there was not a lot of surplus going around so it was easy to conduct mass nationalization and labor mobilization because most people were either unemployed or just came from a war. I can safely say that if there is surplus to go around for a bloated service sector, revolution is not on the horizon. It's almost an either or situation. Now if the economy tanks, that would be a different story, and even then the New Deal provided jobs to the unemployed and nobody except for rich prokies complained.
>>2876305>you are just saying you are rightifully and authoritarian that deserves to control people's livesunless you're an anarchist you believe this too
>>2876308rpganon, this is what sincere writing looks like. not copypasting quotes.
>>2876302>>2876303I will give one example
Here in Brazil, after we ended slavery by decree, many slaves just din't have any jobs and they just created shat we now know as the favelas
the homicide rate, poverty, gangs etc, was a result of this decision
you can end stuff by decree, but you must do something sensible to the people whose lives are changed by that
>>2876312i told everyone here he would have supported slavery and still got called a troll
>>2876313>>2876312He's kinda right tho. The emancipation killed a lot of slaves too. The soviets did not make that mistake, they gave people jobs.
>>2876313I do not support slavery, but I also do not support people not having jobs and dying of hunger or something
>>2876315he would be right if he isn't still ignoring that me and the other guy told him 100 times that people would get jobs. he actually complained about it.
>>2876312so you're defending the practice of slavery because freed slaves were poor?
>>2876318Yea because it appears he is trolling.
It could even be a bored leftychud looking to stir drama on this dead site.
>>2876333the mods should start trying to get more tankies to join. this is the only usable site left and theres like maybe 20 regulars across the entire thing
>>2875919it must be very hard to be that confident about words you don't understand
the circle you ran around yourself in just the next few posts is impressive
>>2876308When I say socialism might think about tourism isn't because I just love tourism and I think it is cool, but because it is an economical reality also.
Socialists must have explanation for why they are doing some stuff and want to intervene, otherwise it can be just an authoritarian move that might just not have sense at all and affect whole chains of production that affects hundrests if not millions of people worldwide, for better or for worse.
>>2876341getting rid of your flag only works if you don't immediately respond using your flag
>>2876333>>2876319>>2876322>>2876318one interesting thing about jobs is that it is not so simple getting it or changing it.
anyone who works at stuff knows this.
it would be great if I can just have a perfect job, but it is not an easy thing to do
>>2876342tourism destroys cultures. tourism ruins local economies. tourist hotspots encourage illegal activity you can't partake in while in western countries. cruise ships waste insane amounts of fuel, are disease superspreaders, and fuck up oceans.
>>2876345> is that it is not so simple getting it or changing itthats because making it hard to get a job encourages workers to stick with shitty jobs at low pay. you keep coming up with problems that would be answered by communism.
>>2876337It's honestly a miracle this place has survived splits and multiple migrations to different domains. I don't remember exactly as it's been ages, but it used to be the 3rd or 2nd highest pph board at times on 8chan.
>>2876346tourism integrates cultures also and create new forms of economy
>tourism destroys cultures
I mean, tourism boosts culture, people go to other countries to see other cultures and many workers related to tourism are people who work in the culture field
>>2876354>tourism integrates culturesyes it turns real places into disneyland. or like i said, it ruins culture.
>create new forms of economyand it destroys the older, varied economy in the process.
>>2876350communism might be great but it is not here now
tomorrow I will have to wake up and go to work
>>2876360>people go to other countries to see other culturesand they get a sanitized disneyland experience while the locals suffer high prices and housing shortages
>>2876363hopefully a gang member shoots you on your way there
>>2876364>>2876365Barracks communism sucks and so do you
>>2875881You can approach it a few different ways, but basically:
A) The government takes ownership of the cruise line from the shareholder(s) who currently own it and operates it as normal (more social democracy / corporatisation / SOE approach)
B) The government takes ownership of the cruise line from the shareholder(s) who currently own it and operates it according to some kind of central or decentralised plan
C) The current shareholder(s) are forced to give their shares to the workers who work for the cruise line, who then become the owner-operators of their own workplace.
These are all fairly anodyne options. Insofar as there are potential problems with each approach, they aren't really that the cruise line will be shut down at a base level (contra
>>2875885 , the USSR did cruises! famously, an ex-Soviet liner was cut adrift in the Atlantic in the 2010s.)
>>2875906inane and stupid. healthcare, education, transportation, distribution, etc, are not "make-work" and a factory churning out funko pops is not "productive dynamism"
>>2875920It happens quite often even under capitalism. The UK government just passed legislation to take public ownership of a lossmaking steel-mill from its private owner, against that owner's will. In the 2000s, when the private owner of all Britain's railway track went bankrupt, it was also taken into public ownership (with shareholders very upset that they were given a low price instead of being bailed out), and in the 2008 crisis several UK banks were nationalised so their bad assets could be taken over by the public while their basically-sound retail operations etc could be separated out, preventing a larger economic crisis. The government is also in the process of taking railways back into public ownership (although in this case, because operations are contracted out to private operators, this is a simple matter of not reissuing the contracts and then transferring them to public hands - though employees are basically guaranteed continuity of employment. This has already happened with some operators).
More prosaically, in Norway's case the government has a notable minority share of DNB and Norsk Hydro, a majority of the shares in Telenor, Railways are publicly owned, Kongsberg and Nammo, and of course a chunk of the oil industry, and the government's oil fund itself owns a huge number of shares both inside and outside Norway.
Now, admittedly, I have not explained the
actual underlying mechanism on a day to day basis. How the current management gets an e-mail going "thanks for your services but we're putting in a new guy" or "you seem pretty competent, want to stay on and continue running things for us?" or whatever, or how specifically the Norwegian state acts as an investor when it owns shares and has the opportunity to make use of its voting rights, but hopefully illustrating that it's already common under the status-quo goes some way to showing that it's quite doable.
>>2875927he's LARPing and should not be taken seriously.
>>2875935As it happens I basically agree that most plans for socialism are either severely underspecified (e.g. "how will we X" is unanswered) or severely overspecified. ("how will we X" has specific answers, but they're so specific that you know immediately real-world edge cases would throw the plan into disarray.) But this is a different problem to the basic one of how private companies cease to be private, which is in and of itself not that difficult. (Assuming you handwave up a revolution capable of taking state power.)
>>2875939A difficulty here, for example, is that all prices constantly move relative to one another. Today it may cost $19 for a cheap rice cooker, but if tomorrow you took everything under central control then in 20 years $19 (or $19 adjusted by some fixed rate) could be completely off the mark. If public tastes change and people want more rice, or if raw materials become scarcer, or if a factory has to close, or so on, all of these factors could lead to $19 being too cheap. Conversely, the price of rice cookers has generally dropped over time due to various improvements in production, so this trend may also continue and the real-terms cost of a rice cooker in 20 years might be cheaper still.
Now I'm not saying that's an insurmountable problem (you can come up with everything from market socialism to incredibly baroque planning algorithms to resolve it), but it's not as easy as "take the prices from the last time we had a market system and make extrapolations", and messing up prices isn't as trivial as it seems. An excessive focus on price stability on basically ideological grounds is one of the things that undermined the Soviet economy, particularly in the later years when Gorbachev took away basically all the mechanisms that papered over the problem.
>>2876021You shouldn't take most of the posters here too seriously. While some are LARPing today that we won't have restaurants under socialism, others will tell you that we won't have
kitchens under socialism and the only option will be to dine in a giant communal cafeteria. (Both are talking nonsense, idly fantasising about fucking around for no reason, depending on which style of regimented nonsense they find more appealing to spout.)
If you like, these are a mix of people who read anticommunist propaganda and went "cool!" and people who draw moral lessons from an economic analysis (which in any case they haven't actually understood.) which leads them to asinine conclusions on the face of it.
>>2876366wah wah wah put your flag back on bitch boy
>>2876362You can't just stop people from visiting other places and I don't think that would be a good thing.
Let people travel and boost the economy of people thay otherwise would be just marginalized groups.
Socialism should do better than capitalosm, otherwise it will not happen.
>>2876365thanks for showing who you are
Holy fucking shit this thread sucks so bad. Literally just read the first 2 pages of Das Capital, OP.
>>2876369>Socialism should do better than capitalosmthats what getting rid of tourism is about.
>>2876370clutch your pearls harder
>>2876297The glib assumption that there's something "more productive" is asinine, even if you accept the basic framing of productive vs unproductive labour. You are not Pol Pot and you are not going to send doctors and nurses down to the countryside to harvest rice. "are you sure you're not a teenager?" is not a good insult against someone who has, fundamentally, grasped that you're a bloviating idiot.
>>2876346Cultures are always in a process of being destroyed and created. should Lenin have held off in 1917 on the basis that he was about to destroy precious tsarist culture?
>>2876376>Cultures are always in a process of being destroyed and created. should Lenin have held off in 1917 on the basis that he was about to destroy precious tsarist culture?you're so fucking right dude!! destroying a small island so americans can have mcdonalds there is exactly the same as the october revolution!!!
>>2876342Problem is nobody thinks about this under capitalism, it is just ascribed to "the market". You are just getting upset at a more honest system.
>>2876367this process of "re-owning" all current stuff changing its current organization sounds really utopic to me, in a very basic level
in my opinion, we can't do that because the world is too complex for a government to arrange all of this, there iz no way we can manage to do such thing
>>2876376>you are not going to send doctors and nurses down to the countryside to harvest riceyou really epically owned him by making up things he never said
>>2876379They literally did this tho. I said this earlier.
>>2876379yes, we already know you would have supported slavery because it's too difficult to stop.
holy shit its been 40 minutes. goodbye
>>2876378I buy some right wing ideas that some stuff are just there because it is somehow a "natural process"
There is something natural about capitalism that many leftists are extremely unwilling to admit.
I am not saying it is good or badz but the amoint of stuff thay exists in the world are not there because some central organization in the united states said it should be like thisz it was just a development of things
>>2876376productive and unproductive labor are real and look at cockshott's discussion on kliman and labor analysis
>>2876240because I recognize his posting style
>>2876381>>2876383My opinion is that we should definitely change things we can change, but you have to actually know what you are doing, and mamy answers I hear about this "next step" do not sound very good.
I would not support slavery, but I would probably not be in a position of power thinking aboit ending it without thinking about the consequences it might have to the slaves themselves after they are free. Many abolitionists didn't think about it and that was a big problem.
I have african ancestry so I had ancestors who were slaves, I would be probably just mind my business because I am not the king or the president whatever.
If I do end up in a position of power
>>2876391If I do end up in a position of power I would just do what I think it is right, which includes taking care of people in the best way possiblez and that inclides being sensible about big changes
Thats actually what most leaders do.
>>2876392Yes exactly, so there is no reason to have this argument. You won anon. Now don't be a sore winner. Relax, it's friday.
>>2876390Does he use another flag?
>>2876390I also recognize your rage or whatever.
I mean, you are not a leader neither am I.
>>2876375As the world has developed the general tendency has been for people to move around more over time, not less. The idea that we're magically going to throw this into reverse under socialism is stupid on the face of it.
It is one thing to say tourism will be radically re-imagined in this way or that, or that we won't call it tourism, or whatever other little tweaks you think would come about, but it's quite another to pretend we're all going to sit at home tugging our dicks to maximize sperm production when we're not busy assembling Funko Pops in local state crap factory #17.
>>2876377In the big picture, yes. I do not accept this image of a pure untouched island that existed before some evil force appeared and fucked it up, and insofar as this image ever existed, its destruction is inevitable one way or another. To take the flip-side: the outer islands of the UK were-and-are backwaters with a massive emigration problem and a "culture" consisting primarily of sabbatarianism and weird religious schisms. It would not be any great tragedy to see them cosmopolitanised. (Certainly not for all the young people who leave for the city because they'd like to live in a normal place!)
It is not the job of socialism to freeze people and culture in place where they're not needed and, in any case, the needs of a culture are generally best served through alignment with the modern world. (e.g. the only possible hope of saving Scottish Gaelic is going to be to get outsiders interested in Gaelic areas [and locals to stay in those areas] - via tourism! - and have them pick it up, because otherwise the only speakers are old people in declining rural areas.)
Now, I know what you're thinking
<dude just do industrial policy lmao just build factories in these remote areasthey tried this and it didn't work.
>>2876380I have the uncanny ability to see into men's hearts.
>>2876387Whether they're real or not isn't so relevant when I don't think the person I was replying to actually understands what they're talking about.
>>2876395iirc when he admited he thinks marxism is satanic he was using a weed flag, he is basically a retarded version of smith anon
>>2876399>but it's quite another to pretend we're all going to sit at home tugging our dicks to maximize sperm production when we're not busy assembling Funko Pops in local state crap factory #17.you would be happier if you would stop making things up to be mad about
>I have the uncanny ability to see into men's hearts.you have BPD
>>2876406>>2876395I think some people like this anon are just really mad some people might have conservative instances.
I will tell you something about my profile: I am gay, mixed, a worker and low middle class.
I am not a communist but I am filiated to the workers party, which is the center-left here.
I support social progress, but I don't think 19th centuru ideologies are the future we should look at.
I don't remember saying marx is satanic and if I said it was in a jokingly way or whayever, but it does incorporate some satanic principles like materialism.
I do believe in God and the supernatural because I've seen some stuff, not because I am a reactionary.
>>2876412uygha I don't give a fuck about you. You're 1 person in a world of 7 billion and counting. Stfu
>>2876406Got it, thanks
>>2876413you are literally giving a shit about me
you are raging me and this is giving a shit
you see, that's your problem maybe, you just assume stuff you don't know about me because it sounds odd to you and many people do that and that is wrong
marxism is not absolute truth, communism is not absolute truth, I am sure of this.
OP has all these big ideas and questions but can't put them in a mirror and see how contingent and arbitrary all his conventions are. Sad!
>>2876419I am thinking about practical stuff.
I've worked for these companies before and I think it was shit but I am not idiot to say I know the solution and saying we should just end it sounds naive.
There are consequences of thinking you can just change stuff like this because you are mirally right or theoretixally right or whatever, realkty is bigger than this.
can we PLEASE sage this thread it sucks so much
>>2876419This is true, but the average person replying to him does so with an alternative set of contingent and arbitrary conventions derived from spending too long online pretending to be communist.
>>2876424The board gets the threads it deserves.
>>2876424it touches central questions about socialism tho
I don't think leftypol is a good socialost spot, I wouldn't trust my life on your ideas and discussions
>>2876421think longer and harder and read Marx and other writers to understand political theory/theories of rights, property, and society.
you should at least realize that there's nothing 'practical' about capitalism, it's just a way to accumulate capital, ie a social relation that cyclically exploits people to make money. When you realize you exist and basically everything you've been told exists in order to facilitate you being chattel for the state and capital, you are waking up
>>2876427>I don't think leftypol is a good socialost spotI have to agree with our liberal friend on this one, most people here are unhinged anti-communists.
>>2876431I think what good socialists would do is at least care about the workers and people in the sense I am talking about.
Like, cruise ships are home for thoisands of people.
In real life you have to manage with stuff like that.
>>2876379>>2876386>enacting change is utopian>capitalism is naturalmy dawg just forget what I said about reading, just keep your head down and stay indoors. nb
>>2876441some people have this idea that natural= living in the wild
socially created stuff = unnatural
it is not like this
>>2876433are you still on about cruise ships?
>>2876445take your prozac and get back in the toll booth. nb
>>2876446I am talking about cruise industry because it is a practical example I can talk about and that I understand.
This is how you understand stuff, not just reading some ancient texts but picking life experiences, real practical examples and trying to make something out of it.
what was discussed here ended up showing stiff thay can fit into any type of industry really.
>>2876451nah, you guys are kinda full of shit
you are moved by great schemes of thinking but fail to aplly it to practical stuff
one of the reasons I made this thread was to see if you can think with me and manage how to solve those concerns, you proved you just can't
bad leaders, bad governments that do not care for regular working people and populations
that's what most people here end up doing if in some position of power with these ideas
>>2876379It's not utopian. There are hanging questions on whether it's the best idea or not, but it's very implementable in-principle. (the big question is "how do you get the state to do this" / "build an organisation capable of taking power and doing this", rather than "can you do this if you're in power", though of course, there is a chance that you
can take power and that you
can do it but that you shouldn't do it anyway.)
For another boring example: There was a brief period in the 1980s/Early 1990s when Sweden attempted to socialise their economy by having firms issue shares and give them to employee funds, with the aim being that in 20 years or so the majority of firms would be employee owned. (This was watered down before being implemented and later scrapped in the 1990s when the bourgeois opposition came to power, but it's one of the more interesting avenues for "boring socialism" that wasn't taken.)
>>2876457What you must remember is that most people are basically engaging in a fantasy worldbuilding exercise or very worked up about abstract theories they can use to prop up such exercises. They aren't really thinking practically, except so far as a practical excuse is necessary to maintain a certain aesthetic fantasy. (If they were thinking practically they'd immediately drop "what will x look like under socialism/communism" type questions and focus on the main issue of most socialist/communist organisations being completely useless.)
You can rest easy about the prospect of anyone on this site coming to power.
Honesty dictates that i confess that i am interested in ideas for their own sake, hence why I'm just throwing random examples at you rather than trying to sell you on any particular vision. I am too easily bored to have a consistent fantasy. >>2876453so what is your issue about non productive industries being emptied and replaced by productivity?
>>2876457socialism does solve these concerns you just don't like the solution
>>2876462thats possible in every government
>>2876467it's very funny that the two strands of left-sympathising people are "we should live authentic human lives instead of being sacrificed to the gods of capitalist 'productivity', we should be making art and poetry and song or fishing and generally enjoying life" and "the problem with capitalism is that it's insufficiently eager to sacrifice human lives to the gods of productivity, so many valuable human resources are wasted on art and poetry and song and fishing and generally enjoying life…"
>>2876474"happiness" is a spook
>>2876474funny hat the former are derided as lifestylist, anarchist, petit bourg and hunted like dogs by the latter with more spite than just about any other two human groupings I can conceive of
>>2876465>>2876468>>2876469the rest of you, leave bozo OP to his fate, he has nothing to say to us, just at us. nb
>>2876467>>2876468>>2876478>>2876469the problem with you guys is that you are kinda deranged and unrespectful and you end up not appealing to anyone really
you show that you don't understand the reality of working people
imagine looking to the eyes of a cleaning lady from a cruise companh that works hard as fuck there to provide to her family that her work is "unproductive"
this is just bananas guys and you are worse than me for not realising this
also this, imagime looking at pic related and saying to a regular working people under yoir government that they just cannot go there
that beaitiness aroind the world cannot be visited or seen because some asshole wants you to stay working in their hometowns like forever because yes
because anon thinks tourism is unproductice or dirty or disneyland or whatever
and people from those places cannot welcome others there and should work in "productice stuff" realocated because you don't like them workong in their shops and restaurants that expose their cultire to the world
you are the kinda of people that really makes everyone do not be interested by socialism at all
I will join socialism that says these stuff I say can be taken into account.
the same.goes with commies prohibiting religion because they decided by themselves God and the spiritial world is not real and people should just accept there is no hope in life but to work for their governments, the same governmemt that prohibits them from travelling
people believe in God, magic, rituals, poor people specially, they won't stop doing it under your type of socialism and never will
one reason is because religion works, for some reason the spiritual world and realities do work and people have seen it work, myself included
>>2876578I'm a working person. God isn't real, I can't go to wherever that is you're wringing your hands about anyway, and I don't care that the work I'm paid to do is unproductive.
It would be good if a communist shut down every church and turned it into a library or school.
People like you are nothing. The fact that you act like you're sticking up for me is disgusting. I hope for your sake we never meet.
>>2876579>>2876579it is important noticing most of you are whiteys from whiteyland
when I say God you think about some really simple stuff, not the religion we poor people of the world understand
>>2876580Stupid and racist what a shock
>>2876579you decided by yourself stars can't move, spirits don't exist, miracles don't happen
you decided but reality forgot to accept your decree, because not only me but many people do live in a world where these things exist
>>2876412>I do believe in God and the supernatural because I've seen some stuffWhat stuff? What did you see?
>>2876412>it does incorporate some satanic principles like materialismI wish I had the confidence of stupid people. Holy fuck.
>>2876585I've experienced supernatural phenomena like
- stars moving in a circular way, regular pattern after I asked them to move, proving there is a higher power that can make this happen, either if by illusion or in realoty or soemthing else mysterious
- a touch in my sides and a voice in my ear aking me to let some entity in
- telepatic experiences, not only me but other people relate the same
- winds and clouds moving in a weird manner like being controlled by something
this is just the tip. we live in a world we did not create
>>2876588satanism is using the power of the negative to get power
marxists do seek for a "nagativeness" in stuff, this is a form of dialectics, it can work but it creates a void that can be dangerous
the amount of killing, genocide war and famine in the 20th century is a result of the god is dead spirit of the times, people simply did not value life, humam life can be worthless to some people
see for instance in this thread
no one but me and maybe some others are really talkong about people that are there, currently working and tgeir lives can be changdd for worse if your ideas are pit in practise
this os what caused.in practise death and famine
the fact you can't understand I and some people do care about people not dying of hunger because some social experiments dumb people like making is concerning
the workers were not valued by any of you at all
>>2876582>it is racist calling whites whiteymaybe? but it is necessary
some of you need to really understand suffering poor people that live in the cointrysides of the cointrysides of the world do not "believe in God" they simply know Him.
you guys are still fighting with the retard omg
>>2876601God as this living person that gives love to all humans is not some abstract academic idea to some you can accept or deny in theoretical terms, but a reality you can live in and many people do live their entire lives in it.
It is not just some bourgeoisie ideology, communism appears to be more of an bourgeoisie ideology than anything else.
>>2876589>this is just the tip.why even say this, just tell us the craziest stuff, its the least you can do after calling everyone here satanic
>>2876605he said that because nothing stranger than stars orbiting or the wind has ever happened to him
>>2876606>>2876605some of you have not seen the light
the light is something that enters your life and it can never go away, it happens as an experience of extreme happiness and euphoria that for a moment your life jiust changes
it happened to me in the bath
>>2876609who "gives" this light?
God. He is real.
just a simple sidenote
I can make this go to you, even you being far away from me and through this internet inreraction
but you need to want it, otherwise it will not happen
God is just humans projecting their collective power into the universe because there’s a huge dissonance between our collective power to shape our environment and individual feelings of impotence and powerlessness, and also the beauty of the universe.
>>2876609>some of you have not seen the lighti've seen god and he loves me. you're making bullshit up.
>>2876615>>2876614that's your problem
and the problem with many leftists in general
you just do not want it, thls is a sin
rightoids might be retarded, but they at least want it
you just don't
they are better than you
>>2876617I’ve tried it before, if God is real, he is inside us, we are him. That’s what the acid and shrooms told me for what it’s worth. There is no big Other.
>>2876619I'm giving you the opportunity to see God now
do you want it or not?
lol this guy is awesome
>>2876620I have seen God, it’s a force within us along with every Shaytan and demon. There isn’t a Yahweh, there isn’t an Ilohim, there’s just us. That doesn’t mean God isn’t real, it means we’re God, collectively. Am I making any sense?
>>2876623Yes, sure, I doubt you’ll shake my position
>>2876624You've made a pact with me now. I will not abandon you.
I am God here talking with you, I am the big Other, the force within you that you have not seen but was pretending to have seen it.
Nothing will be as it was, because I make all things new.
>>2876625>>2876624damn man that's wild. bump 4 miracles
>>2876625Better to have the big other with me than against me, just please don’t command me to do the Abraham or David or Solomon stuff, I’m like Saul, I wouldn’t have the stomach for it.
God is love, you retarded faggots
now you know it, just spread it elsewhere
there's nothing else to do, really
>>2876628And love is a force that comes from us, not from the outside universe which is cold and uncaring
>How is it even possible to end private ownership in current situation?
unions. that's how it happens in the european socialist countries, that's how it started to happen in the us before the state and private power smashed the labor movement with authoritarian violence and repression and propaganda and, unlike the european powers who were weakened and bankrupted by two world wars, the us made out like a bandit and became a global empire with all the money and power in the world, so labor lost and the oligarchs won. but the us will become weak sooner or later. when that happens the people on the side of labor need to be tough and they need to be ready to take a beating and go to jail and even be killed for what they believe in, because it will come down to that and it always does. it's a question of will, it's not about numbers or weapons or strategy, it's the people with the strongest will who are victorious. this is why fascists are the most dangerous enemy of all, because their will is inhumanly, psychotically strong. joseph goebbels poisoned all six of his own children for national socialism. that's a tremendous amount of will. but the soviet soldiers who charged into battle completely unarmed and amputated their own frostbitten toes and ate human corpses to stave off starvation had even more will. if you want to defeat the peter thiels of the world who would gladly sacrifice their own children for their insane beliefs you have to be willing to charge into battle with no gun or boots and chop your frozen black toes off and eat your dead friends' flesh to survive.
I cannot fucking believe this thread is still going on
>>2876629it will keep coming to you now, from all directions there's nothing else you can do, I just made it happen
we are all here to protect you
>>2876637That’s reassuring
you see what's odd, people are just "afraid" of it, but in reality it is just nothing
the entire work of that idiot Marx was to prevent it from happening to him, amd he involved all of us in this madness, but it served for a purpose, for this moment to happen
what a dumbass, a great one
>>2876643>the entire work of that idiot Marx was to prevent it from happening to himwhat do you mean?
>>2876643Genuinely, do you think you might be having some kind of mental health episode?
OP is retarded but he is correct about red incels here making socialism sound like hell, which makes complete sense when you realize they are state-capitalists larping as socialists
>>2876474the latter are temporarily confused reactionaries
>>2876475You have clinical depression, seek help
>>2876161Prostitution is wage labor. Marx would want it abolished, just like all wage labor. But you are a moralist
>I disagree that working men have no country because imperialism proved that wrong.Retardism of the highest degree.
too many retards with main character syndrome on leftypol now for my tastes
>>2876913That’s what being on the internet does to you, it’s a mirror and you become a narrow minded narcissist
Unique IPs: 38