[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives

File: 1622844213997.jpeg (41.93 KB, 742x560, 8e6.jpeg)

 No.296564[Last 50 Posts]

QTDDTOT - Questions that don't need their own thread. The last one died, so here post your questions here.

I'll start, why is a centralized authority important to achieving communism and why is this seen a positive aspect.


youre being intellectually dishonest and acting like its only liberals who use that term


Why did England fail in the Suez? Empires come to an end.


>Is there some kind of brain rot in the CIA?
Seems that way. Still the same scumbags but the new generation doesn't have the heart or the smarts for it. Who knows. I bet it's a bunch of buttfuckery in there. Like when they had to do that FOIA JFK dump and they said "we can only release the redacted pages, because we don't have the unredacted copies in our records anymore," I bet they weren't bullshitting. I bet that's the level of no honor in the den of thieves thing they have going on over there. Nobody knows what they're supposed to be doing because it's all classified.


How did the Red Army get BTFO so hard in the Baltics and Poland?


Mostly because the Red Army was fighting a full scale civil war against the White Army and could not send their full force to the west to fight against Poland lest they weaken their defenses in Russia.


How would a Bordigist or a Blanquist government function? What would it look like? Say a Bordigist or Blanquist faction came to power in a socialist democracy. Would they dismantle the existing institutions?


We've already had Blanquist governments, Marmaduke Grove, Thomas Sankara, Qaddaffi, Abdul Nasser


The Red Army repelled a full scale invasion by Poland. That's not "getting BTFO". The Baltics were occupied by Germany and other foreign troops (British, Polish, Finnish), and it was their support that played a key role in defeating the reds.


What do you think about soviet union policy with lgbt people? They puted them in mental asylums and prisons for such sexual behavior.


So, how do Chinese keyboards work? They have like hundreds or thousands of characters. How did they reduce that to the number of buttons that a keyboard has and they can write everything?


File: 1649424626925-0.png (35.48 KB, 864x214, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1649424626925-1.gif (18.23 KB, 300x300, 928304.gif)

File: 1649424626925-2.png (12.23 KB, 201x142, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1649424626925-3.png (13.97 KB, 244x141, ClipboardImage.png)

most of them type in pinyin using US style keyboards. I have it installed, you can download an input too

Look, I am a communist is 我是共产
or Wǒ shì gòngchǎn (wo, dip tone, shi, falling tone, gongchang, fall into rising)
you dont type the tones, but choose them from the suggestions by pressing the key number


Theres other input methods, such as stroke-based, so something like 我 would be left-down, right-up, down, right up, down right, down left, down right. Something like that, with each key being bound to a specific key. Inputting it this way narrows down the possible options quickly. Its not at all common and i think its mostly used by older people? In the real china they use pinyin like i showed.

If you want to install it you just have to add chinese as an input language (which doesnt change system lang), then add a pinyin input method (or rather, "choose a keyboard mapping") and youre done.


And if youre wondering about typing, as far as i know they also use pinyin with a regular phone keyboard layout.
But because you might have realised what a pain in the ass it can be, opposed to how compact the spoken language is, voice messages are extremely common. Thats why you always see chinese people making them and listening to them (especially in the mainland).


*this is for phones


(note that even though the screenshot shows apostrophes, those are autoinserted and dont need to be typed. They indicate the seperation of characters/syllables (same thing in chinese)


File: 1649564549309.jpg (126.62 KB, 1024x1024, Audrey Drake 1.jpg)

I know an economy teacher who says that if the bourgeoisie only cared about making money we (Americans) would be in a free market.


does a thread discussing climate change exist? apparently shit's going to hit the fan in 3-ish years?


your economy teacher proves the truth bomb Richard wolff said about economy teaching in the schools.


What did Richard Wolff say?


Pretty sure there's an eternal one. It's a big topic.
>>901871 "Climate change"


File: 1649612615591.jpg (47.34 KB, 657x574, 1614573937465.jpg)

Under full communism, if there is no state, whose to stop internet crimes such as distribution of cp or something other


Marxists define the state as an instrument of class oppression so if theres no classes, the state isnt a state.

With state we really mean the oppresive nature of the state, the armies, against the working class. Being need to be kept in place and not having power.


File: 1649622848277-1.png (273.91 KB, 325x460, chinese_magic.png)

File: 1649622848277-2.jpg (166.46 KB, 900x442, chinesetype.jpg)


Keyboard has been answered. But what you really want are pix of old chinese typewriters, correct? A set of blocks for each character would kept in a drawer, and switched out for each line of text. There was no "typing", just rolling the paper over the ink-covered keys.

This really makes Mao's work so impressive–even simplified Chinese has over 6000 characters. Traditional Chinese has tens of thousands of characters, some of which are not intuitive at all. In China, you learn one new character every day in school until you graduate at 18, and even then, you will not know every character.
They weren't very efficient–a good "wpm" would be twenty (20) characters per minute.


The working class itself is going to need an army and a state to enforce its will.


Not if the working class IS the army and IS the state


Okay, so i guess i'll never know what Richard Wolff said, and you have no answer, so the bourgeoisie don't ONLY care about profit.


How do i debunk this, yes the sources in the second image lead to a 404.


Jesus Christ when are these dummies going to adopt Hangul already?


>Wright's Fixation index as measure of variation

>The population geneticist Sewall Wright developed the fixation index (often abbreviated to FST) as a way of measuring genetic differences between populations. This statistic is often used in taxonomy to compare differences between any two given populations by measuring the genetic differences among and between populations for individual genes, or for many genes simultaneously.[57] It is often stated that the fixation index for humans is about 0.15. This translates to an estimated 85% of the variation measured in the overall human population is found within individuals of the same population, and about 15% of the variation occurs between populations. These estimates imply that any two individuals from different populations are almost as likely to be more similar to each other than either is to a member of their own group.[58][59] "The shared evolutionary history of living humans has resulted in a high relatedness among all living people, as indicated for example by the very low fixation index (FST) among living human populations." Richard Lewontin, who affirmed these ratios, thus concluded neither "race" nor "subspecies" were appropriate or useful ways to describe human populations.[43]

>Wright himself believed that values >0.25 represent very great genetic variation and that an FST of 0.15–0.25 represented great variation. However, about 5% of human variation occurs between populations within continents, therefore FST values between continental groups of humans (or races) of as low as 0.1 (or possibly lower) have been found in some studies, suggesting more moderate levels of genetic variation.[57] Graves (1996) has countered that FST should not be used as a marker of subspecies status, as the statistic is used to measure the degree of differentiation between populations,[57] although see also Wright (1978).

>Jeffrey Long and Rick Kittles give a long critique of the application of FST to human populations in their 2003 paper "Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races". They find that the figure of 85% is misleading because it implies that all human populations contain on average 85% of all genetic diversity. They argue the underlying statistical model incorrectly assumes equal and independent histories of variation for each large human population. A more realistic approach is to understand that some human groups are parental to other groups and that these groups represent paraphyletic groups to their descent groups. For example, under the recent African origin theory the human population in Africa is paraphyletic to all other human groups because it represents the ancestral group from which all non-African populations derive, but more than that, non-African groups only derive from a small non-representative sample of this African population. This means that all non-African groups are more closely related to each other and to some African groups (probably east Africans) than they are to others, and further that the migration out of Africa represented a genetic bottleneck, with much of the diversity that existed in Africa not being carried out of Africa by the emigrating groups. Under this scenario, human populations do not have equal amounts of local variability, but rather diminished amounts of diversity the further from Africa any population lives. Long and Kittles find that rather than 85% of human genetic diversity existing in all human populations, about 100% of human diversity exists in a single African population, whereas only about 70% of human genetic diversity exists in a population derived from New Guinea. Long and Kittles argued that this still produces a global human population that is genetically homogeneous compared to other mammalian populations.


Also most of the difference between Africans and others comes from the fact that they're not entirely human.

>There is a hypothesis that anatomically modern humans interbred with Neanderthals during the Middle Paleolithic. In May 2010, the Neanderthal Genome Project presented genetic evidence that interbreeding did likely take place and that a small but significant portion, around 2-4%, of Neanderthal admixture is present in the DNA of modern Eurasians and Oceanians, and nearly absent in sub-Saharan African populations.[62][63]

>Between 4% and 6% of the genome of Melanesians (represented by the Papua New Guinean and Bougainville Islander) are thought to derive from Denisova hominins – a previously unknown species which shares a common origin with Neanderthals. It was possibly introduced during the early migration of the ancestors of Melanesians into Southeast Asia. This history of interaction suggests that Denisovans once ranged widely over eastern Asia.[64]


File: 1649642714294.png (537.97 KB, 879x630, ClipboardImage.png)

>You may not like it. But this is what peak White looks like.

I thought of a good idea for a troll on White supremacists. Create a movement of Neanderthal nationalists and your worth is decided by how much Neanderthal admixture you have.


File: 1649643212965.png (573.14 KB, 440x1468, ClipboardImage.png)

Just as a joke… don't get offended.


dude you just invented Varg Vikernes


What are good objective ways of determining imperialist relationships? Net resource transfer? Balance of trade between two states? Surely you can't say that taking advantage of cheap labor in Bangladesh by itself is imperialism.


Is wanting to get a job to earn money reactionary?


Check out Michael Roberts's blog. He has a post on whether Russia is imperialist. That's a good start.


How do I know who is telling the truth?


There was a Marx Quote about how effectively and coldly Capitalism "ripped apart idyllic mythisism and tradition, religion, spirituality" or something like that.
Anybody got that on hand?


By checking if what is said is true.


>Ağca was released from prison on 18 January 2010. He described himself as a mercenary with no political orientation, although he is known to have been a member of the fascist, Islamic Turkish ultra-nationalist Grey Wolves organization and the state-sponsored Counter-Guerrilla.
>Counter-Guerrilla (Turkish: Kontrgerilla) is the Turkish branch of Operation Gladio, a clandestine stay-behind anti-communist initiative backed by the United States as an expression of the Truman Doctrine. The founding goal of the operation was to erect a stay-behind guerrilla force to undermine a possible Soviet occupation. The goal was soon expanded to subverting communism in Turkey.

>The August 2, 1980 bombing of the Bologna train station which killed 85 people, is widely recognized as a Gladio operation. While it was initially blamed on the communist “Red Brigades,” eventually, right-wing and fascists elements were discoverd to be the culprits.

>Gladio operatives mass-murdered innocents to create mass fear, to smear Communism to help stop its spread and to motivate the citizens to support increased police state powers and larger defense budgets.
>Several theories exist concerning Ağca's assassination attempt. One, which was initially propagated in the American media and strongly advocated since the early 1980s by Michael Ledeen and Claire Sterling among others, was that the assassination attempt had originated from Moscow and that the KGB had instructed the Bulgarian and East German secret services to carry out the mission. The Bulgarian Secret Service was allegedly instructed by the KGB to assassinate the Pope because of his support of Poland's Solidarity movement, seeing it as one of the most significant threats to Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe. Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman instead term this as the spread of "disinformation as news" in their book Manufacturing Consent (1988), as they say there was no evidence to support this claim, while Wolfgang Achtner of The Independent dubbed it "one of the most successful cases - certainly the most publicized - of disinformation."
Was it GLADIO? What was the endgame with trying to assassinate the Pope? Rally Catholics against communism for the strategy of tension? Was he seen as too soft on the Soviets?


Has anyone tried making estimates on how much money is spent on propaganda / ideological apparatus?

Between universities, mainstream media, think tanks, NED grants, VoA etc, it feels like it is close to a half a trillion a year, but maybe not.

Has anyone tried to estimate this shit?


what about the soviet system was it that lead to it being controlled by the people dismantling it?


IMO, the continuous top-down centralisation and departure from democratic centralism towards top down centralism.

Retarded shit like "the body above can veto the appointment of elected officials below" that is still present in many ML and MLM parties is an example.

Copium idiots can cry about "the need to defend the revolution", but when we look at reality, it was the people who democratically voted to keep the soviet union, while the "vanguard" comprised of bought out traitors. A centralised top down structure is easier to control by adversarial forces.


What's the best beginner's level text on dialectical materialism?


<All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
There are probably many sections that fit your description, but this must be the most well-known of them.



>it was the people who democratically voted to keep the soviet union
That only applies to the couple of republics that remained after a couple (democratically) left and which today don't want a return to that system. Saying people in republics that haven't seceded yet wanted to preserve the Soviet Union is a lie - they wanted to preserve a union but of republics that have more autonomy and more markets along with less state direction.


according to most answers most people wanted a socialist system with vague desire for "reforms" that all the opportunists at the top were ranting about


>most people wanted a socialist system
What sources say this? At most I've just seen that many today think that the economy was better back in Soviet times.


There was this pie statistic of a survey held in Moscow about which economic system they supported, but I don't have that picture anymore. Maybe some other anon has it?


Text wall incoming; here's a section of Blackshirts & Reds that talks about the ideas of "reform" around that period, and how much of it was based on skewed information and propaganda. It's really sad.

Romanticizing Capitalism

In 1990, in Washington, D.C., the Hungarian ambassador held a press conference to announce that his country was discarding its socialist system because it did not work. When I asked why it did not work, he said, "I dont know." Here was someone who confessed that he had no understanding of the deficiencies of his country's socioeconomic process, even though he was one of those in charge of that process. Leaders who talk only to each other are soon out of touch with reality.

The policymakers of these communist states showed a surprisingly un-Marxist understanding of the problems they faced. There were denunciations and admonitions aplenty, but little systemic analysis of why and how things had come to such an impasse. Instead, there was much admiration for what was taken to be Western capitalist know-how and remarkably little understanding of the uglier side of capitalism and how it impacted upon the world. In the USSR, glasnost (the use of critical debate to invite innovation and reform) opened Soviet media to Western penetration, and accelerated the very disaffection it was intended to rectify. Leaders in Poland and Hungary, and eventually the Soviet Union and the other European communist nations, decided to open their economies to Western investment during the late 1980s. It was anticipated that state ownership would exist on equal terms with cooperatives, foreign investors, and domestic private entrepreneurs ( Washington Post, 4/17/89). In fact, the whole state economy was put at risk and eventually undermined. Communist leaders had even less understanding of the capitalist system than of their own.

Most people living under socialism had little understanding of capitalism in practice. Workers interviewed in Poland believed that if their factory were to be closed down in the transition to the free market, "the state will find us some other work" {New Yorker, 11/13/89). They thought they would have it both ways. In the Soviet Union, many who argued for privatization also expected the government to continue providing them with collective benefits and subsidies. One skeptical farmer got it right: "Some people want to be capitalists for themselves, but expect socialism to keep serving them" (Guardian, 10/23/91). Reality sometimes hit home. In 1990, during the glasnost period, when the Soviet government announced that the price of newsprint would be raised 300 percent to make it commensurate with its actual cost, the new procapitalist publications complained bitterly. They were angry that state socialism would no longer subsidize their denunciations of state socialism. They were being subjected to the same free-market realities they so enthusiastically advocated for everyone else, and they did not like it. Not everyone romanticized capitalism. Many of the Soviet and Eastern European émigrés who had migrated to the United States during the 1970s and 1980s complained about this country's poor social services, crime, harsh work conditions, lack of communitarian spirit, vulgar electoral campaigns, inferior educational standards, and the astonishing ignorance that Americans had about history. [my footnote - Stalin's daughter Svetlana defected to the US but returned after a few years out of disappointment with the American system - even someone so high-up and aware of the indisputable missteps and atrocities that occured in the USSR (Beria etc) felt that way]

They discovered they could no longer leave their jobs during the day to go shopping, that their employers provided no company doctor when they fell ill on the job, that they were subject to severe reprimands when tardy, that they could not walk the streets and parks late at night without fear, that they might not be able to afford medical services for their family or college tuition for their children, and that they had no guarantee of a job and might experience unemployment at any time. Among those who never emigrated were some who did not harbor illusions about capitalism. In fact, numerous workers, peasants, and elderly were fearful of the changes ahead and not entirely sold on the free-market mythology. A 1989 survey in Czechoslovakia found that 47 percent wanted their economy to remain state controlled, while 43 percent wanted a mixed economy, and only 3 percent said they favored capitalism (New York Times, 12/1/89). In May 1991, a survey of Russians by a U.S. polling organization found that 54 percent chose some form of socialism and only 20 percent wanted a free-market economy such as in the United States or Germany. Another 27 percent elected for "a modified form of capitalism as found in Sweden" (Monthly Review, 12/94). Still, substantial numbers, especially among intellectuals and youths—the two groups who know everything—opted for the free-market paradise, without the faintest notion of its social costs. Against the inflated imagination, reality is a poor thing. Against the glittering image of the West's cornucopia, the routinized, scarcity-ridden, and often exasperating experiences of communist society did not have a chance. It seems communism created a dialectical dynamic that undermined itself. It took semi-feudal, devastated, underdeveloped countries and successfully industrialized them, bringing a better life for most. But this very process of modernization and uplift also created expectations that could not be fulfilled. Many expected to keep all the securities of socialism, overlaid with capitalist consumerism. As we shall see in subsequent chapters, they were in for some painful surprises.

I'll also add the section on post-collapse regret amongst the people who had previously held those romantic beliefs.

"We Didn't Realize What We Had"

While many Eastern European intellectuals remain fervent champions of the free-market paradise, most workers and peasants no longer romanticize capitalism, having felt its unforgiving lash. "We didn't realize what we had" has become a common refrain. "The latest public opinion surveys show that many Russians consider Brezhnev's era and even Stalin's era to have been better than the present-day period, at least as far as economic conditions and personal safety are concerned" (New York Times, 10/15/95). A joke circulating in Russia in 1992 went like this: Q. What did capitalism accomplish in one year that communism could not do in seventy years? A. Make communism look good. Throughout Eastern Europe and the former USSR, many people grudgingly admitted that conditions were better under communism (New York Times, 3/30/95). Pro-capitalist Angela Stent, of Georgetown University, allows that "most people are worse off than they were under Communism…The quality of life has deteriorated with the spread of crime and the disappearance of the social safety net" (New York Times, 12/20/93). An East German steelworker is quoted as saying "I do not know if there is a future for me, and I'm not too hopeful. The fact is, I lived better under Communism" (New York Times, 3/3/91). An elderly Polish woman, reduced to one Red Cross meal a day: " I'm not Red but I have to say life for poor people was better before…Now things are good for businessmen but not for us poor" (New York Times, 3/17/91). One East German woman commented that the West German womens' movement was only beginning to fight for "what we already had here…We took it for granted because of the socialist system. Now we realize what we [lost]" (Los Angeles Times, 8/6/91).

Anticommunist dissidents who labored hard to overthrow the GDR were soon voicing their disappointments about German reunification. One noted Lutheran clergyman commented: "We fell into the tyranny of money. The way wealth is distributed in this society [capitalist Germany] is something I find very hard to take." Another Lutheran pastor said: "We East Germans had no real picture of what life was like in the West. We had no idea how competitive it would be … Unabashed greed and economic power are the levers that move this society. The spiritual values that are essential to human
happiness are being lost or made to seem trivial. Everything is buy, earn, sell" (New York Times, 5/26/96). Maureen Orth asked the first woman she met in a market if her life had changed in the last two years and the woman burst into tears. She was 58 years old, had worked forty years in a potato factory and now could not afford most of the foods in the market: "It's not life, it's just existence," she said ( Vanity Fair; 9/94). Orth interviewed the chief of a hospital department in Moscow who said: "Life was different two years ago — I was a human being." Now he had to chauffeur people around for extra income. What about the new freedoms? "Freedom for what?" he responded. "Freedom to buy a pornographic magazine?" In a similar vein, former GDR defense minister Heinz Kessler commented: "Sure, I hear about the new freedom that people are enjoying in Eastern Europe. But how do you define freedom? Millions of people in Eastern Europe are now free from employment, free from safe streets, free from health care, free from social security" (New York Times., 7/20/96).

Do people in the East want the free market? Opinion polls taken in late 1993 in Russia showed only 27 percent of all respondents supported a market economy. By large majorities, people believed that state control over prices and over private business is "useful," and that "the state should provide everyone with a job and never tolerate unemployment." In Poland, 92 percent wanted to keep the state welfare system, and lopsided majorities wanted to retain subsidized housing and foods and return to full employment (Monthly Review, 12/94). "Most people here," reports a New York Times Moscow correspondent (6/23/96), "are suspicious of private property, wonder what was so bad about a system that supplied health care at low cost from birth to death, and hope that prices are once again reined in by the government "One report from Russia describes "a bitter electorate, which has found life under a democrat [meaning Yeltsin!] worse than under the now-departed Communists" (New York Times, 12/18/91). A report from Warsaw refers to the "free-market economic transformation that most Poles no longer support" (Washington Post, 12/15/91). People's biggest fears are inflation, unemployment, crime, and pollution. State socialism, "the system that did not work," provided everyone with some measure of security. Free-market capitalism, "the system that works," brought a free-falling economy, financial plunder, deteriorating social conditions, and mass suffering. In reaction, Eastern European voters have been returning Communists to office—to preside over the ruin and wreckage of broken nations. By 1996, former Communists and their allies had won significant victories in Russia, Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, and Estonia, sometimes emerging as the strongest blocs in their respective parliaments. This was achieved in the face of the same intimidations, police harassments, monetary disadvantages, restrictive ballot access, media shutout, and fraudulent vote counts that confront leftist parties in most "democratic capitalist" countries.

When the first anticommunist upheavals began in Eastern Europe in 1989, there were those on the Left who said that if the people in those countries discovered that they didn't like the free-market system they could always return to some variant of socialism. As I argued at the time, this was hardly a realistic view. Capitalism is not just an economic system but an entire social order. Once it takes hold, it is not voted out of existence by electing socialists or communists. They may occupy office but the wealth of the nation, the basic property relations, organic law, financial system, and debt structure, along with the national media, police power, and state institutions, have all been fundamentally restructured. The resources needed for social programs and full employment have been pilfered or completely obliterated, as have monetary reserves, markets, and natural resources. A few years of untrammeled free-market marauding has left these nations at the point of no foreseeable return. The belief propagated by the free-market "reformers" is that the transition from socialism to capitalism can only be made through a vast private accumulation of capital. The hardship inflicted by such privatization supposedly is only temporary. The truth is, nations get stuck in that "temporary" stage for centuries. One need only look at Latin America. Like other Third World nations, the former communist countries are likely to remain in poverty indefinitely, so that a privileged few may continue to enjoy greater and greater opulence at the expense of the many. To secure that arrangement, the corporate class will resort to every known manipulation and repression against democratic resurgence. In these endeavors they will have the expert assistance of international capital, the CIA, and other agencies of state capitalist domination.

The peoples of Eastern Europe believed they were going to keep all the social gains they had enjoyed under communism while adding on all the consumerism of the West. Many of their grievances about existing socialism were justified but their romanticized image of the capitalist West was not. They had to learn the hard way. Expecting to advance from Second World to First World status, they have been rammed down into the Third World, ending up like capitalist Indonesia, Mexico, Zaire, and Turkey. They wanted it all and have been left with almost nothing.

I disagree with Parenti on a lot, but I'd highly recommend question asker read that book; there are free pdfs floating around.


>>926686 (me)

This also answers >>926669



Yes, that's it.


Here's the PDF.



What does "elites" refer to, is it defined? Party officials, the wealthiest 1%?


>I'm pretty sure Guenon also said something similar to that.


Probably the politburo and Gorbachev's cabinet


Are fascist people? I'll never be a powerful person capable of bagging, tagging, and gulagging anyone. But if i or anyone here was, should one feel bad about treating hard right violent extremists cruelly or as less than human?


Not always. For example, Zionism.


Why didn’t the capitalist powers do more to aid the all things considered pretty weak fascist states against the USSR?


I’ve always rationalized it as, other than the hatred of brown people, loving israel is a cover for being racist


Is a united Kurdistan an at least remote possibility or are the Iraqi/Syrian ones too disunited, or even against each other? Do Turkish Kurds not want independence any more?


Is there any good text/lecture on why Keynesianism is fundamentally passé?

I mean "fundamentally passé" in the sense that it was a product of certain historical economic conditions, the inevitable economic crises changed the conditions, the result of which was neoliberal turn, and it's futile trying to revive Keynes now…

I've heard this mentioned many times in passing and it makes sense to me, but I'd like to better understand why that is because some "socialist" politicians over here have abandoned Marx in favor of Keynes.


I've been looking at the "List of terrorist incidents" and "Terrorism in Europe" articles on Wikipedia and I noticed something:

Was there no terrorism in the Soviet Union? The only one I could find was the "1977 Moscow bombings".


It's almost like socialism doesn't make people mentally fucking deranged like late capitalism does


name a single terrorist attack commited in Americain the last 100 years that wasn't orchestrated by an american intelligence agency


They executed their reactionaries instead of letting some of them flee abroad.
Look at the plane hijackings the Ustashe did, for example.


I doubt every single one was orchestrated, but many sure


okay name one that wasn't


I dunno, OKC? I doubt the feds would blow themselves up voluntarily



100 percent inside job, Timothy McVeigh was a spook in specops that wrote a letter to his gf claiming he was told they might be asked to help the cia run drugs out of fort bragg, which might sound fantastical but special operations at fort bragg is spook central
>I doubt the feds would blow themselves up voluntarily
They would blow up other feds like on 9/11 the junior staff in tower 7 and the corruption task force sent to the wing of the penatagon that was hit.


File: 1651076758636.png (116.52 KB, 1774x410, bn5uibm3vo43.png)

Can somebody explain this passage/What are the writers saying exactly? I got it from the Internet Spectacle General and while I feel as if i'm close to understanding their full point and how it relates to what they have been talking about, I am still somewhat confused.


anyone got that picture explaining the context of what marx said about jews?


Kurds get really mad when you suggest their is any similarities or relationship between persian, iraqi, and syrian kurds fyi.





did lenin really call the american postal service socialist?


File: 1651165298199.png (557.71 KB, 600x632, ClipboardImage.png)

>the capital
Try the pinned reading thread for introductory writings


File: 1651165566701.jpg (1.2 MB, 3000x1289, Amkera_.jpg)

>she didn't read it
Read it, faggot!


>introductory writings
I tought they were like: "if you are a lazy retard, read this". So you are more like catholics than lutherans… Inderasanding


here's a quick guide to radical left theory:
*Our Revolution by B. Sanders
*Dreams from My Father by B. Obama
*In Defense of Open Society by G. Soros
*The Collected Tweets of Trayvon Martin
And most importantly:
*Settlers: The Myth of the White Proletariat by J. Sakai


What is the role of the individual in the theory of history of Marx?


have gay sex with men to steal their testosterone


File: 1651177508678.gif (1.14 MB, 250x250, SensibleChuckle.gif)


The absence of actual answers makes me wonder if the list posted in the reading general is not just what the mods read during their lives, with no understanding as to how to differentiate the useful from the optional(clear sign of desire to assimilate, rather than desire to discover the content), and then dumped it into one, big post which is used to scare off newcomers while at the same time is used by the ignorant poser as a way to boast his intellectual prowess by redirecting to their affiliation rather than true erudition.


What's so bad about big lists? Just pick a book and start reading, and ask questions you have here. You can also go on leftybooru and look up reading guides on there if you don't like the one in the sticky.


is melenchon really socialist or is he like bernie?


In order to understand where my doubts lied, you should read my previous post >>943610. I do not intend to read this literature, I want to know what is meant when commies say:"(I) read the theory". I want the specific books.
In order to explain what I am talking about, i will present to you an example: when you ask a jewish person what they believes in they will tell you that they believe in the Torah(cfr. w/Das Kapital). If you ask them about interpretation, they will tell you to read the Talmud (cfr. w/"the theory").
When you ask them about specific interpretations, they will tell you to read Zecharias Frankel (cfr. w/Mao etc.)etc.
If you ask them about who regards the Torah as useful, but went absolutely bonkers, they will tell you to read about the Kabalah (cfr. w/Anarchism).
So, what is "the theory"? Because I see people saying "I've read the Theory" (cfr. https://leftypol.org/leftypol/res/942696.html and https://leftypol.org/leftypol/res/941738.html#q941968), but noone that specifically points out what they are refering to. And I don't think they are refering to sectorial theory, because in that case, they would be more specific (I think).


He's taken a swing towards identity politics this election, so unfortunately more like Bernie. Here's a good article on French politics this election:


Marxism is not a dogma you refer to quite like in Judaism or other religions. We have certain works pretty much every one agrees on (the analyses in Das Kapital, or the ones in Critique of the Gotha Programme), but even the works of central figures like Marx and Engels are expanded upon and given more developed context with recent developments, which was done even by early 20th century figures. This contrasts with the eternal word of God as found in the Tanakh or Bible, which remains to be one thing you refer to for all time.

We have disagreements because of various tendencies, as is between Trotskyists and Maoists, which should make it clear that there is no one "theory" to memorize, but that you should rather read the main texts first, then think about them for yourself and discuss them. The closest thing "the theory" may refer to is the most well-known and accepted body of works by Marxist authors.


One of the easiest-to-read is Wage Labor and Capital, which goes over many central topics: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/
leftypedia.org also has articles that explain things like the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, capitalism, as well as pages on individual countries like America or North Korea, besides many other topics. I'm pretty sure that's our official wiki btw


Leftist theory spans from history, to economics, to global politics, to psychology, to science, to philosophy of science, to epistemology, to ontology, to metaphysics and critique of religion, to theology, to education, to cybernetics, to math, to history of philosophy, to media studies, and this is on the top of my head.
As the other anon said, there's a base theory you should be aware of. If you manage to understand it properly, the application to the fields above should be obvious. The texts being investigations into these fields.


what is primary contradiction? and what is secondary? is primary most important one? and secondary is the stuff that arises out of the primary? or is secondary less important?


What's the incentive for a state to work for international communism if they become fairly stable in socialism?



What's the term for a person (or a few people) in Congress who is/are selected by their party to make a vote fail while making everyone else look good for support it? Let's say the Dems have 60 seats which is enough to make a progressive bill pass, but their corporate backers don't want them to really pass it but the Dems don't want to look bad for opposing it so they pick one person to go against it and make the bill fail. Pretty sure I heard a term for this before.


What is the difference between a self sufficient off grid lifestyle & kulakism ?


Kulaks produce more food than they themselves consume and hire workers to do the work for them.


>What's the incentive for a state to work for international communism if they become fairly stable in socialism?
What does this even mean?
Unless you're an actual revisionist who thinks socialism is "when the government does stuff, but the government is nominally by the people this time", socialism is a lower stage of communism, and getting to a higher stage is to the benefit of the ruling class (being everyone). If you are such a revisionist, then socialism is just capitalism and capitalism is fundamentally unstable and irrational and against the interest of the working class. If the state and the working class interests do not allign, its not socialism in any sense of the word.


what is primary contradiction? and what is secondary? is primary most important one?
>and secondary is the stuff that arises out of the primary?
>or is secondary less important?

To use mao's own example, during ww2, the primary contradition was china vs colonisers (japan), while the secondary was between the communists and nationalists. So they worked together (for then).

Similarly, in a communist party, several factions or lines may be in contradiction to each other, but the contradiction of them all against capitalism is larger.


Well then are there any socialist states today working towards communism? I don't know of any. Why? Is the threat from imperialism that great?


>Well then are there any socialist states today working towards communism?
China, maybe, if all the propaganda they put out is true
>Why? Is the threat from imperialism that great?
Please think back to a certain gigantic country being dismantled by capitalists some 30 years ago and others being under constant attack


>Please think back
Wasn't that mostly because of internal reasons? The country itself wasn't really under attack, at most some propaganda that inflamed an already degrading situation.


what exactly does the lefty and the righty pol disagree about?


only the stuff about destroying the present state of things and disappearing the capitalism


File: 1651858792373.mp4 (39.95 MB, 854x480, FDJ.mp4)

we are communists around these parts boy


Someone please redpill me on the gang of four


Basically Mao's inner circle after Lin Biao sperged out and got himself killed. Hua Guofeng then BTFO them by saying "Actually Mao said I should be in charge when he died, btw I was the only person who was there when he said this" and arrested them all for killing sixty gorillion people in the cultural revolution.


Are the amish communist? Do they live outside of capitalism?
Also, why MLs dislike trotsky?


Is it true maos wife had a bunch of ppl tortured and killed or is it class propaganda?


Socially conservative, economically leaning to the left.
They support M4A, pacifism, etc.
Their land is redistributed in order to be always exploited.
They pay a part of their profit to the community to help retards, oldfags, widows and orphans.
They are usually small bourgies.
They, for example, own bakeries.
I've never heard of an amish owning land/houses and getting money from it.


File: 1652172242668.jpg (52.78 KB, 622x599, bugstare.jpg)

>Do they live outside of capitalism?


Is this a complete list of the pills?
Red pill = Accept the 'truth'
[IDEOLOGY] pill = a variant of the red pill applicable to a specific ideology , many sub variants of this exist.
Blue pill = Accept a lie
Purple pill = Accept a realistic world view
Black pill = Accept a nihilistic world view
White pill = Accept an optimistic world view
Pink pill = Accept a feminist world view


the brown pill


You forgot about the no-pill: solipsism


Also known as the logpill


Cuz Trotsky was a wrecker that didn't really held any position ever.


Any good books on cryptocurrency that aren’t just guys shilling? (I don’t need a real deal Marxist economist, just a guy not huckstering.)


Is diamat just all marxist materialism that is not hismat?


America invaded Iraq full scale, but didn't really commit so much to Syria's war and eventually quit in Afghanistan. Why is this? Whatever happened to the military industrial complex and perpetual wars and stuff? I thought America loved big wars but in recent years it's been scaling back.


What do you mean?


You laugh but I told my conservative uncle that Trump did this and he somehow still supported Trump while saying this

If he isn't an ancap now he will be the second someone tells him about the Mises Institute and at that point I feel nothing but pity for the younger cousin that lives with him


File: 1652678753264.jpg (140.88 KB, 649x588, 1651290414294.jpg)

How do i debunk the narrative that whites have the most accomplishments/ achievements? It sounds like they're boasting about their economic affluence.

The pictures is from Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray.


even if they did, what does it matter


Why is it that the buffalo shooter wasn't gunned down despite having killed a lot of people?


no melanin


>a bar chart comparing the number of fucking """"significant events""""

i feel really fucking stupid even typing any more but seriously, anyone who looks at this and uncritically accepts a chart that purports to measure things as vague, nebulous and subjective as """"SIGNIFICANT EVENTS/FIGURES"""" is going to accidentally disembowel themselves with a butter knife next time they try to prepare food so i wouldnt worry about it


File: 1652885926197.jpg (138.54 KB, 1368x1026, Khrushchevalcohol.jpg)

How do MLs explain the dissolution of the USSR? They go on and on about how Trotsky's idea of a degenerated workers' state isn't marxist and yet will still complain about Khrushchev's revisionism and seem to make the same complaints about Khrushchev that Trots do about Stalin's government, that the government stopped being a DotP and that the leaders no longer shared the same material interests of the proletariat, which seems valid considering that the USSR collapsed and its industries sold for pennies at the expense of the proletariat. However, the whole reason marxists reject the notion of a Degenerated Workers' State is because they deem that each state has to be led by a class, it can't just "become" led by bureaucracy separated by any class. If they were to be consistent with this, Khrushchev would still be a DotP, no? Which means Gorbachev would've had to somehow revert everything to a brutal capitalism despite working within a government of a class with a firm material interest against this.


they can't except through "bad leadership" excuses, yet struggle to explain how Khrushchev was allowed to get in power in the first place


What's the difference between communism and socialism and neoliberalism?


>stalin ruthlessly purged the burecracy
>kruschev demonized stalin for this tho he still engaged in some purging
>brezhnov stopped all forms off purging and allowed the user to decay

I mean anon kruschev pretty much caused the start of the collapse by demonizing stalin and the methods that made the Soviet Union function


Viva la tropico
Glory to arstotzka

1 social credit = -1 liberal out


I think most common explanation is that post-Stalin soviet economists became more and more enthralled by "marginalist revolution" happening everywhere else. The leadership instead of rightfully purging them listened, because those ideas were pretty good for the economy. Hence, restauration of the capitalism isn't something that happend because of MUH burecracy, but because of revisionism of post-stalin govt. Important to note, it wasn't that Gorbachev turned off the communism button, the proces of restauration of capitalism started AT LEAST in the '60 with reforms introducing incentives for individual factories.
To eleborate, yes burecracy was a factor too, but it was a product of USSR embracing law of value fully, not the other way around.


This isn't the
>spoonfeed me
thread either.
Go read wikipedia at least before asking questions.


Seems like a strawman. I don't understand the question. The state was corrupt and it got more corrupt after Stalin's death, until corruption was enough to sell the country and give it away to friends and family.


Do you have any images that debunk the white genocide conspiracy theory.


File: 1653002010647.png (213.64 KB, 850x400, ClipboardImage.png)

Whenever Marx deals with any form of materialism which is not hismat, would that fall on thee category of diamat? I say this because i can't fucking figure what it even means, so i thought i made sense.


That one in particular was Donnie T's doing at the end of his term (when he was spazzing out and shit) to fuck over biden.
And it worked perfectly, i gotta admit.


How would socialism solve comtempary incel problem? Over 30% men are basically incels in 2022.


I don't think it's the President who's really calling the shots. Especially over such a large subject.


What's the most simple definition of The Spectacle?


Anyone have that image of Nazi Germany bending to the will of some random corporation?


I’m looking for a comic or meme where a bunch of coworkers are complaining about their jobs and one of them is an online leftist wojak who’s super fucking autistic and keeps talking about “the dignity of labor”. Like his register just doesn’t match his coworkers’ and it’s obvious he’s too awkward to start a social movement


How do we refute a fascist saying: "You can kill the men, but not the ideology"?


can anyone here prove that Kyle Rittenhouse is not white? I head someone on here saying hes mexican or hispanic.


>However, the whole reason marxists reject the notion of a Degenerated Workers' State is because they deem that each state has to be led by a class, it can't just "become" led by bureaucracy separated by any class.
Bullshit. If the economy is centralised under a single entity, then whoever controls that entity, if they aren't the whole of the workers as a class, form a defacto new class. You don't need private owners to exist for that.
The trick is to realise that there was never a full dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR in the first place. Due to its backwardness and extremely centralisation of power early on it never was allowed to develop democratic sytsems. The systems that did exist were designed to keep the party in power to defend the power of the party and ward of reactionaries, but this also means it could never be the state of a class, since that class didn't call the shots in the end.




Was Francoism fascism or just political Catholicism with fascist buzz words sprinkled atop of it?


how to discuss fuel prices with rightoids?


it was fascism with catholic buzz words sprinkled atop of it


Francoism was the shit he had to pull when nazi germany fell. The uygha wore suits and everything trying to imitate hitler and then he reverted to good old historic spanish militarism.


File: 1653235725244.jpg (106.45 KB, 620x1116, true_maybe_I_dont_know.jpg)

Apparently according to wikipedia, the Netherlands " is the world's second-largest exporter of food and agricultural products by value" which smells like bullshit. The sources don't give much information and wikipedia just cites "inventiveness". The load bearing word looks to be "value". Reminds me of how Switzerland is/was the largest exporter of copper but it's mined from Zambia. This chart in specific says the NLs is the 4th largest exporter of oil which points to it being palm oil from tropical countries. I'm pretty sure I'm right about this but I want to be certain.


File: 1653249216188.jpg (33.45 KB, 500x350, paper.jpg)

During the GPCR many intellectuals went out to learn from the masses by working in the factories. This is because factory workers and peasants had developed the highest level of class consciousness at that point in history. ? In many respects the factory workers would seem to still be the most advanced section of the US working class because they are constantly threatened by unemployment from Imperialist globalization, but it seems like US manufacturing workers could be fully eliminated under the current world order, and their consciousness has not appeared to advance, but has rather slid backwards into nationalism in the wake of de-industrialization.

Where is the highest level of consciousness found in the US today and how can one apply the Marxist theory of knowledge in order to develop oneself as a communist and revolutionary?


According to UN their food production is only 11.633 billion USD in 2020. Figure includes milk and eggs but not meat. This is the value of primary agricultural products like rapeseeds, not the vaue of finished products like rapeseed oil. It must be value added to imports or processed foods. Notice 8.8% of jobs provide 9% of gdp, roughly consistent with what one would expect, so I don't think the numbers in the infogrpahic are inaccurate or misleading. I just suspect that it's a lot of value added jobs.

UN data: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QV


Note that production of vegetables like tomatoes are very high value added compared to cereal crops, because many vegetables cannot be harvested with a combine harvester and are thus imparted with a much higher labor content than staple crops.


File: 1653260134424.png (67.3 KB, 368x436, ClipboardImage.png)

I am interested in "China’s Great Road - Lessons for Marxist theory and socialist practices" by british economist John Ross. Does anyone have it?


I was going to share a documentary on French imperialism in Africa that I saw some months ago named "People and Power named The Curse of Uranium" which was made by Al Jazeera and hosted on youtube and to my surprise I found out it was now private after what I imagine were Areva and french govt complaints.
I tried to dig it up on internet and torrent sites but I can't find any archive or reuploads. Is there an anon who can help me here or is this a lost cause?

Here's the link to the article
And the two parts on youtube


Genuine question, how do MLs justify the deportation of the Crimean Tatars and Meskhetian Turks? Other ethnic groups were also deported and only allowed to return over a decade later, way after the end of WWII. MLs like to praise the USSR for its strides in racial equality, and I'm sure in general it was a vast improvement, but this really does seem like a glaring hole in that notion. If it was just until 1945 that would be one thing, but this was until Khrushchev or even Gorbachev's time. The Japanese internment camps in the USA were fully dissolved in 1946, why would they need these groups to stay in exile until the 50s or 80s?


Not everything has to be justified, to start. From my limited understanding of the matter, Turkic groups were deported over exaggerated fears they would act as a fifth column in the event of a possible conflict with Turkey. I don't think an official justification was ever given for these deportations, although it may be a conflict with Turkey was kept on the table for a longer period than with other nations. The notion of a fifth column in general was more popular at the time, as it was with the US and its Japanese population, and perhaps decision-makers weren't aware such disloyalty doesn't manifest as much as they would think. But as it was with for example the Volga Germans, such minorities are generally loyal despite being viewed with suspicion. I don't think decision-makers today would be as prone to believe in a fifth column.


Thanks for looking into this. I appreciate it!


they don't
the ethnic deportations are one of the worst things the USSR ever did.
nothing to justify here


lmao. Why are some people here so preoccupied on whether MLs "justify" x thing or not, instead of just studying the topic and making up their own conclusions? Fucking rent free…


This. Pretending [x] did nothing wrong is absolutely stupid and counter-productive.


is the holocaust fading out of living memory to become just another atrocity of bygone days?


Does the value of a given commodity change when people find an easier way to produce it, like when the industrial revolution lowered production times?
Or am I misunderstanding the ltv?


Zionists will never let that happen



File: 1653403244058.png (323.96 KB, 1664x2048, ClipboardImage.png)

It's only been 75 years and Jews still got a lot of cash flow for advertising. I'm going to say no.


they're advertising it because less people care now
the further away you get from a disaster the less strongly living people feel about it.


Socialism's base premise does not hold water, because people are inherently chaotic and irrational. How is this reconciled with a Marxist economy?


State planning to overcome and supplant greed-based incentives. Politically, Marxists generally envision a representative government where people aren't voting on every single issue.


You can't predict every variable of society. How do you determine a sufficient estimate?


Input from consumers, analysis of demand and allowances of resources and time to personal endeavours such as gardening, RC aircraft, DIY electronics etc.


Where's the africa general? There's something I wanted to discuss there


In the USSR was there trade as we would understand it? I know they imported/exported plenty to other countries but I mean more daily life average citizen trade like shops where you exchanged money for commodities or services?


Does any one have those statistics about white men committing more pedophile crimes?


Quit hanging around /pol/acks, they're not worth your time.


I'm too conservative for /leftypol/ and too leftist for /pol/.


Conservative views are bourgoies brainrot


How so? The family has existed before capitalism, it's existed in animals.


Bukharin: Based or Cringe?


Capitalism actually destroyed family by forcing people into cities, abandoning extended family members and the the sense of community. Nuclear family is an abomination of our social nature.




File: 1653754490155.png (33.08 KB, 571x229, QuestionBanner.png)

picrel question


Export revolution


And build full communism


File: 1653755362268.png (784.42 KB, 720x870, ClipboardImage.png)

Revolution is not an end, its a means, and the goal is gommunism
People who see revolution as an end in itself are retarded


This is just a hangout and discussion center.
Our end goal is to organize society for universal benefit, rather than profit.


im here to have a fun time


What truth is there to the idea that people gained more opportunities after the fall of communism in the USSR, and where can I read more about this?


permanent shitpost


>occupy wallstreet


I used to think trans surgery was a mistake because in the future when the surgery is -as close- to perfect as possible, how will the collective consciousness react to the sudden universal doubt
>How does He know She is cis? How can we ever be certain? Can we ever be certain again?
So I figured I am conservatively against the proliferation of transgender surgical corrections and instead I advocated for mental health technology to switch their gender dysphoria internally instead.
But then I realized that if I survive WW3, I still might have my cock blown off, and it would suck to live that way but thanks to the trans activists maybe there will be technology available to replace my cock, success! Thank you LGBT’


Why have I begun seeing more and more references to Bonapartism and Bonapartists online somewhat recently? Did someone kick off a new supermarket of ideology fad?


Wild post. Nice.
Didn't hakim or second thought put out a video on that recently? And I think it has something to do with Russia.


Has there ever been a thorough critique of the Subjective Value theory written?


I've read this book. Great book.
It's actually as close to objective as you can get.. The book is 700 pages and responds to ever every criticism you can think of.


File: 1653986412821.png (32.81 KB, 600x800, ClipboardImage.png)

why is it that i can read 20 history books in a row but the second i pick up das kapital again my brain turns to mush. am i just stupid? State and Revolution was EZ.


Capital is easy once you get over the 1st chapter. The French Althusser wing actually says to skip the first chapter at the start if it really stops you from continuing. But the structure of Capital is such that you have to go chapter by chapter. Just read dude, then you'll read it again when you finish the rest.


Not that anon, but I doubt it is in any way "objective" and even if it were, that doesn't mean anything.
>responds to ever every criticism you can think of.
Does it integrate historical materialism into itself? Otherwise my criticism is that it doesn't.


I never said it was objective it's just as close as can be. He used hundreds of encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries for each category including from each country and different languages and did statistical analysis on that. So if your name isn't in one of the 20 biographical dictionaries or encyclopedias on science you likely aren't a significant figure. If your name comes up in every book including the ones in other countries and other languages you are a significant figure. He also added separate categories for different countries so significant figures in Arabic countries, Asian countries, African countries.


That makes me feel better. I've gotten through most of Volume 1 but I keep lacking confidence in what I've read and putting it down. Maybe my lack of confidence is misplaced, here


After reading Capital vol. I I found it helpful to go read Harvey's companion and Heinrich's book about Capital as well. Both offer their interpretations, but I don't agree with them 100 % (eg. Heinrich says you can't really measure labour or that the tendency of profits to fall is not a real thing)


Athens during the period of democracy was a highly prosperous slave state that extracted wealth in the form of lands, slaves, and tributes from a series of largely successful wars. It was this material prosperity that made their limited democratic experiment possible (as the CTE population didn’t need to tend to their own lands, and the city had the wealth to be able to pay citizens for attending meetings). The democratic period came to an abrupt end with defeat in the Peloponnesian War, as Athens became a second rate power under Spartan dominance.


Somehow the word ‘free’ has been replaced by CTE. Lol


I’m bi. My living conditions hardly improved. “Oh yay! I can legally get married! Even though all I needed to do was to sign a contract with my husband which would virtually be the same thing.”
Meanwhile I don’t have free healthcare.


1) How to see filtered words
2) How to see recently deleted post, mod who deleted post and reason


Is there a measure of the level of industrialization of a country? In particular I want to know how developed the Netherlands was compared to the British at a certain time, like the year 1750.


2. https://leftypol.org/log.php?board=leftypol
you can't see what was deleted though


Anyone have some resources on North Korean art?


Socialism is by its very nature a cooperative philosophy.
True or False?



perhaps this is more suited to /hobby/ so forgive me if i'm being a dumbass but any of you lot have any film/tv show recommendations about the soviet union, or socialist politics in general, that isn't total reactionary propaganda nonsense?


ken loach can be good


What is the capitalist go to response to explaining why Russia didn't become much better (actually the opposite of that) when transitioning to capitalism?
And taking in account it was a lot of western economics helping russia build the basis of the current system


goodbye to lenin is pretty sweet
it's not pro DDR but not portraying the advent of capitalism as an unquestionably good thing


How the fuck do you pronounce 'Grundrisse'?


Same way you write it.


How to see filtered words?


Except the 'r's are pronounced like if you are gargling water, or like a shakespearean actor exagerating an r.
And the i is like the i in piss, and like in piss, pronounced quickly. The last e, is like the e in meh, but its pronounced more time.

Or in english just say groond rees-seh. With 'ee' making the same vowel sound as in 'beer'.


What does leftypol think of lil tay? are you a fan or a hater?


Closest approximation I'm english
Groo as in grooming
NT because German doesnt have final voiced consonants.
Ree as in reeeeeeee but short
Then se like how you would say it in English if it isn't a stressed vowel (so with a schwa)

Groo nt reeee se


what the fuck is a "culture war"


When you argue over whether women belong in bideo games


Basically everything not based on economics or the foreign policy I think
Video games were a part of it but so is transexuals and gay marriage


An interesting pre-cursors to this form of brain rot is one of Churchills grandsons. Was a staunch Jacobite, convinced himself he was a socialist after reading a newspaper. Died in Spain I think. Terminally online ideology hoppers will always fall for the most aesthetically pleasing, radical and niche ideological bullshit. Pay no attention to them, in a week they'll be "classical libertarians" again.


literally me when im finally a commissar and i put all of the cockshott and z-gang nerds in gulag


I would ask this to Reddit but I think I'll get a better answer here. How does slavery have an effect an 18 year old african-american? Let's say we have a 18 year old Mexican immigrant who comes over the border with not a penny to his name and moved into the same neighborhood as the 18 year old african-american. Both are living in poverty. How does slavery effect the african-american in a way that doesn't effect the Mexican?


What's the difference between socialism and communism?


Slavery doesn't affect black americans today (excluding prison labor). Racism is reproduced daily, and the racism today is a baby of the racism of yesterday. As such, you can think of the current existing racism as being the great great great etc grand child of the racism and slavery that existed many years ago.

Our society is made of many lines of "babies" with long lines of reproduction. For example, the subjugation of women is reproduced daily by treating women like baby machines. The baby of our time is that women are treated better in more situations. This baby is the grand (x24) child of women being property that were bought and sold.

In the US, black people are considered disparagingly, due to the history of black americans. Mexicans don't have this heritage. Mexicans also might not look white, but they definitely don't look black.

More concrete analysis is needed to figure out what are the systems that are in play and how they affect each identity grouo in which context.


You will get 7 different answers depending on who you're talking to and each person will say they're objectively correct


Used to mean the same. Now mean beginning phases of communism, and communism is rhe advanced stage.


Let's say you have a Mexican and an African American similar household both parents in the house good upbringing. Unless I'm missing something there is nothing holding them back from being ideal citizens except for culture. Knowing this why does everyone talk about poverty and not culture? Culture is likely the most important part to fixing the issues in our society


I don't see how this changes who you are as a person which is where I'm trying to get at. Courts having a bias isn't a reason for you to be in court in the first place you know what I mean? How does police having a bias force you to start robbing people? What is the real cause?


Explain how we can't blame minorities when their gun violence rate is like 3 times(last time I checked) that of white citizens.


It affects the solutions proposed. Typical rightoid responses tend to make the problem worse.


Can someone tell me the sources of these pics, i've found them in the booru but i don't know where they are from.



thanks, do you know exactly what book by Getty or Wheatcroft where they get the source of how much the sov government send in grain aid to the affected areas ?


Has feminism as a theoretical framework instead of general improvement for women faded into obscurity?


I believe it is The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931–1933 by Davies and Wheatcroft. Pages 424-426 discuss it. I don’t have a PDF but you can probably find a copy through google.


I want to see what i can find on the nazino tragedy.
Do you have any infograph related to it?
I'll start a thread on edu in a week or so anyway, but i wanted to know if you have some place where to start.


I just wrapped up listening to Revolutions, and the gist of the history of the Russian revolution is basically:
>the October revolution and the USSR is essentially a product of Lenin's personal genius and commitment
>the decision to take direct control of politics with no real input from the working class was necessary and the correct decision from Lenin's viewpoint, and yet effectively removed the proletariat from the levers of political control thus circumventing the nature of the revolution as proletarian. There was no winning option for an organic proletarian state once the hope of a German revolution to rescue Russia was snuffed out, it would have to ride on the commitment of the party alone
>once Lenin lost the ability to command the party itself devolved into petty intraparty politicking that probably damaged the revolution (not sending their best organizer to organize abroad because of a power struggle)
I understand Mike Duncan is not exactly a committed Marxist, but is this all pretty much on point?


>The minimum living wage of 1830 cannot be compared quantitatively with that of 1960, as the theoreticians of the French Communist party have learned to their sorrow.

What is Ernest Mandel referring to here? I dont really know anything about the history of the PCF..


What is the refutation to Neoliberals when they say their sytem is lifting the third world out of poverty and that absolute poverty has decreased by billions, other than that the absolute poverty line isn't being raised as fast as inflation? For example, places like Rwanda are cited as evidence that liberalism works.


>What is the refutation to Neoliberals when they say their sytem is lifting the third world out of poverty and that absolute poverty has decreased by billions
Most of that decrease was gommie chyna's work
Let them chew on it


File: 1655402050117.png (197.69 KB, 330x518, ClipboardImage.png)

Why do people hate ferdinand lassalle? Rosa Luxemburg said of him "Lassalle managed to wrestle from history in two years of flaming agitation what needed many decades to come about."


>effectively removed the proletariat from the levers of political control thus circumventing the nature of the revolution as proletarian.

i feel like russia itself wasn't ready. Russia was mostly peasants, not proles, and so the entire class character of russia was not developed in a proletarian direction. lenin's actions were supposed to be subordinate to what Rosa and the gang were cooking up in Germany, but once Rosa ended up face down in a canal, the German revolution was kaput. Lenin hedged his bets on pan-European proletarian revolution. Instead he ended up alone in Russia as the only existing AES country, and surrounded by imperialists.



>There was no winning option for an organic proletarian state once the hope of a German revolution to rescue Russia was snuffed out, it would have to ride on the commitment of the party alone

i should have kept reading lol


all poverty in the world since the 80's were taken just fron china, coutries like greece and brazil are become poorer under a neoliberal regime.
and if they try to go china wus capitalist n shiet remind them that india is also capitalist and is trash and becoming shittier just like brazil.


File: 1655403919244.png (129.73 KB, 750x738, ClipboardImage.png)




File: 1655433050783.pdf (341.75 KB, 197x255, 1110.1556.pdf)

Thoughts on this? Jews were given coffin problems in the 1975 on the soviet union.

Recs on the soviet education system are also appreciated.


File: 1655469741394.jpg (84.35 KB, 903x903, Le anti-jazz man.jpg)

Did any member of the Frankfurt School support any of the Actuallly Existing Socialist countries?


>jazz bad
Did he hate big band and swing too?


can someone give me the link of this image ? it's pretty nice to have it to throw in the face of libs.


File: 1655504713101.png (32.87 KB, 300x100, ClipboardImage.png)

Who is this and why are they relevant?


That's junko moments before executing a palestinian boy


sorry to necrobump, but I'm wondering if anyone knows the name of that App that directly funds the Myanmar Resistance fighters?


File: 1655505786494.mp4 (166.72 KB, 720x576, pipedown.mp4)


This is how you find that page, with updated stats as a bonus.
Right column, line chart, compare descriptions.


YPJ fighter iirc.


Sounds likely. Thanks.


Can someone here talk about muh HDI and what are it's problems when it comes about verasity ?, some retarded liberal pointed that UAE had a bigger HDI and GDP per capta than china or cuba that means capitalist countries are better.


Being overweight is a form of social parasitism .
They take so much more than they need that it effects their ability to contribute to society.


can someone answer this ?


While technically correct, there's innumerable things that contribute more to overconsumption than obese people.


If they're purely interested in comparing the UAE to Cuba and China you can talk about how the UAE only really got its wealth from oil and how it has a relatively small population. You can talk about how China is a country of a billion+, and China, whilst poorer, has experienced massive economic growth rates. You can talk about how Cuba is partially cut off from the rest of the world politically and economically which affects its economic growth due, for example, sanctions.

If they are interested in talking about how there are lost of wealthier capitalist countries that socialist ones just point out their capitalist mindset of cherry picking successful capitalist countries. "Why must we always compare X socialist society to Norway or the UAE, why not compare it to a poor capitalist African nation". Capitalists generally look at capitalist countries that are successful in isolation without looking at the global capitalist system as a whole which is unsuccessful.


>>1021293 (me)
also now that I answered this, someone tell me where do I see the filter words list.


>>1021293 (me)
Just another intresting side note, I remember a Conservative (bear with me) pointing out that countries with more "economic freedom" that also happen to be rich almost exclusively have very small populations.


File: 1655557349539.jpg (26.42 KB, 360x360, 65765.jpg)

pretty much this, they never compare countries that are similar or had the same starting positions & resources, the superiority of Socialism is clear when you take this into account.

The Soviet Union vs Brazil
The Peoples Republic of China vs India
Vietnam vs Cambodia
Cuba vs Haiti
Laos vs Bhutan
DPRK vs ROK (pre 1970s)


Another thing they like is muh economical freedoms.


Did bordiga really say:"uno sforzarsi"? Or some of you anons translated "one struggle" in italian on google translate?


i mean think about it, if we let human traffic, don't the economical liberty goes up ?, not only that but by definition welfare states that don't have private property in the areas that they act (say health) would have lower economical freedoms.
also i would like to point out that China has a lower economical freedoms than norway, but they like to say that china is a ancapistan,that's why they got rich.


Countries that try Keynesian and Marxist economics often suffer from shortages due to:

a) A reluctance of local entrepreneurs to invest into constructing infrastructure in the country
b) Inflation and shortages due to increased consumer spending and demand
c) further damage from blockades of larger powers(like the burgers usually do).

As Marxists, what plans do you have to counter-act this(assuming you don't live in a big power like the USA or EU yourselves)?


Why were the mensheviks so popular specifically in Georgia?


File: 1655816046440.png (95.57 KB, 639x607, 1611200427593.png)

I haven't read What is to Be Done yet, so this this is probably already answered there or some other text, but why is it so necessary to maintain such strict and hierarchical democratic centralism even after establishing the state and gaining mass support?
As an example why can't the General Secretary at least be elected by the broader party? People complain about Khrushchev all day, but perhaps if more than 4 people were able to effectively go against him and if they could do so without getting purged, the people would be more equipped to hold the correct line. If there was an election among the whole party after Stalin's death instead of just among the top few guys, Malenkov, Bulganin,etc would be able to criticize Khrushchev on key points while the people would be able to decide on who has the correct line after hearing this criticism. Would this not give people more tools to prevent deviation, and allow an opportunity for people to criticize each other, and make the apparatus as a whole more democratic?
Such strict democratic centralism seems like it would, at such a point, hinder democracy.


The Emirates have one of the highest % SOE economies in the world


Because we don't give a fuck about your liberal notions of what democracy is. Such a broad election among the masses is just going to result in pretty divisions about idpol and similar bullshit because that's much simpler to explain to a wide population than real economic or political theory. That's why the vanguard, the most well-studied and class-conscious of the working class, pushes the direction of the party.


And then they do Dengism and clamp down against anyone to the left of corporate oligarchy and Jiang clique cronyism


Is it reasonable to assume that using internet slang like based/pog/cringe or whatever is soul corrosion?


Why is the embargo on Cuba so devastating? Surely trade with other nations should make up for the deficit of US money enough to prevent shortages, right?


Are Britain and France today empires in their own right or merely client states of the US Empire


File: 1656250510730.jpg (1.33 MB, 1064x1529, 1654658616818.jpg)

i had a thought after reading lenin
isn't the us's unipolarity and hegemony that lasted from the 90s-20s basically kautsky's ultraimperialism and the ultimate deboonk of this retarded theory considering how much suffering and death the usa caused around the world?


anon this is the polar opposite of democracy. at least if you suggested sortition as an alternative you'd have a leg to stand on. Leninist parties are aristocratic by their very nature. don't pretend they're anything but
here how we could rectify this:
1. establish objective conditions for eligibility to office. for example a written test
2. offer education in these matters to anyone that is interested
3. do sortition among all candidates that meet the requirements
bonus round: send out letters of invitation randomly, offering/gently coaxing them to receive this education


Sortition is dumb and arbitrary, we should have direct democracy





you mean vooting? that leads to popularity contests and idpol like >>1026570 rightfully points out



I said /direct/ democracy


How will administrative positions be filled in your direct democracy?


Giving education/making people do tests is a terrible idea - look at how school is. Kids just learn something because they have to then get on with their own interests, then forget it. This won't prevent opportunists from getting into the party.


Bit complicated to explain but through proportional representation, ie. there would be a lower level congress that decided on minor/administrative issues, you can pick a candidate to represent you at any time, and they will vote on your behalf on say sewage line repairs, if candidate A has 33% of people pick them, they have 33% voting weight, likewise candidate Z might have 0.7% picking them and 0.7% voting weight. Candidates should ideally represent all major ideologies, if you feel unrepresented you can join the congress yourself (obviously there would have to be some kind of limitation to stop there being 10,000 candidates, maybe if someone didn't get 0.1% of votes they are dropped off the list after a few months)


So literally the opposite of democracy even thought you called it democracy. Nice job dummy.


I said for minor issues, big decisions should be made by referendum. Maybe like one a week or two a month or something like that.


Sortition is democracy.


yeah but it prevents them from dominating the executive unless the majority of the party is opportunist in which case you're fucked either way
anon this just sounds like how many communist parties work. for practical purposes these candidates are going to need to have voting% thresholds. having voting weight be based on % is certainly an interesting modification, but I don't think it fixes some of the underlying problems, namely voting for candidates being a popularity contest and it being vulnerable to opportunism
>Candidates should ideally represent all major ideologies
you get this automagically with sortition


Is there actually a source for Mao or the PRC declaring psychology "bourgeois pseudoscience" or is it just something that was made up?


No it's not. It could easily lead to a completely unrepresentative system. More importantly, people like to feel as if they have a say. Not just that hypothetically, if they got picked, they could have a say.


>a completely unrepresentative system
how? it's literally the most statistically likely to represent the people


>people like to feel as if they have a say
Rather than simulating participation, isn't it better to make it actually participatory?




Feels are extremely important in maintaining high government support.


How could sortition possibly be more statistically representative than just direct democracy?

Hence the direct democracy?


because you are random sampling the population which is the easiest way to ensure it is representative. you have said that what you mean by direct democracy is having representatives whose voting power corresponds to the number of votes these representatives receive. we can view this as delegating voting power. but this does not guarantee that these delegates actually represent the population because they are incentivized to run campaigns and shit, skewing shit


on the most basic level, random sampling automatically means men and women are equally represented, assuming there hasn't been a war or something to skew the numbers. whereas with a voting system I can almost guarantee you there will be more men than women being chosen as representatives. you can of course put in a rule that there should be equal numbers of men and women but then what do you do with enbies or intersex people? should you have quotas for them also? how about gay people?
this is why sortition is handy, because it automatically makes the thing representative with decent probability


File: 1656466641029.png (462.7 KB, 995x2173, KP__7724_2.png)

Any good biographies on Felix Dzerzhinsky? Also are there any good books on the Mongolian People's Republic that isn't anti-communist?


Felix Dzerzhinsky: A Biography
> This is a biography of Felix Dzerzhinsky, an outstanding figure in the Communist Party and the Soviet state, Lenin's closest friend and staunch supporter, a fiery revolutionary and a true internationalist who was totally committed to the cause of socialism and communism in the Soviet Union. His entire life exemplified selfless service to the Party and the people.

BY-PASSING CAPITALISM: in the Mongolian Peoples Republic
> The road travelled by Mongolia from feudalism lo socialism, despite the number of specific features of its development, confirms again and again the general regularity of mankind's transition to socialism. The struggle of the Mongolian people for non-capitalist development has ended in abolition of exploitation of man by man and in complete victory of socialist production relations. Socialist industrialisation, socialist co-operation of agriculture, the cultural revolution and the establishment of socialist ownership of the means of production.


File: 1656467960818.jpg (542.84 KB, 1800x1200, 1632618656538.jpg)



There also these two I havent read them yet but they could be useful to you.

plus here's a random fact you might enjoy.
>"There were in Ulan Bator two statues of Stalin two of the few that survived in that part of the Communist world which looked to Moscow for leadership. . . in all the Soviet Union there were no statues of Stalin, except for three or four which survived in Georgia, Stalin's birthplace. The two statues in Ulan Bator were not inconspicuous. One stood in front of the Academy of Science building, in the heart of the city, on the main street, only a block from the Sukhe Bator Square. The other was outside the Ulan Bator University. I well remembered that in 1959 Stalin portraits were still hung up for the Mongol holidays. Nothing in a Communist country is accidental, certainly nothing so political as the statue of Stalin. Why did Stalin's statues still stand in Ulan Bator? . . . The Stalin statues were never mentioned; Mongols never gave them a second glance. But no Russian could arrive in Mongolia without being startled by them."

> Khrushchev had actually asked Tsedenbal about the statues. The latter replied, "Stalin did a lot for safeguarding Mongolia's sovereignty. If we were to take away the monument, the Mongolian people would not understand it." That is a rather valid point, considering how the Soviets helped out Mongolia during the Battles of Khalkhin Gol, and it was a 1945 treaty between the USSR and China that made the latter recognize the independence of the Mongolian People's Republic (Chiang Kai-shek's government on Taiwan declared the treaty abrogated in 1953, but obviously by that point Chiang wasn't in a position to threaten Mongolia.)

- Harrison Salisbury (Orbit of China,1967)

The statues were still standing in 1990.


is there any thread here that has documents about the superiority of socialsm or jornals that back it up ?, having these documents in mind is really helpful.


File: 1656531601524.png (340.79 KB, 496x450, lupin water.PNG)

I'm reading Capital. Do I bother with the Harvey companion or not? Some people say it's great, others say it and Harvey are trash. If not, I might go for the Choonara one instead.


Just read Capital yourself, force your way through it and take plenty of notes to form your own interpretation, and then and only then bother with any of the companions


Famed Jehu has advised that one should read Capital sans any assistance first so that the interpretations do not corrupt one's experience of it.


Harvey has managed to read Capital over and over again, year on year, without understanding it. If you are using a companion pick another one.


why doesn't industrial capital just off the financial capitalists? they don't actually produce anything, aren't they just pure leaches?


corporations need stocks to finance themselves


>just off the financial capitalists
that's not how it works anon. capital will move from industry to finance. we're moving towards rentier capitalism because that is more profitable


productivity in capitalism is purely based in exchange, or the holding of capital [money], so financial capitalists provide "value" for industry through investment. Making "stuff" means nothing if you can't sell it, which is why there's so much waste in a market.


because these things take decades


What is value-form and how does it differentiate with exchange value


do any of you fags have that /pol/post of them admitting that most rich people share their views and how bad the "White uyghurs" are beneath them.


I don't know how to word this without sounding like an nazi, but i'm not a nazi, just centrist who wants to know the leftist point of view on this.

What is the leftist response to the racialist argument about black people committing most of the crime?


socioeconomic conditions which, crucially, we can do something about. also what crime?


We're all descended from Adam and Eve. Racial pseudo-science is wrong and unnatural. What separates Humanity from all the other animals is our ability to grow and learn and pass on knowledge.

Peasants were functionally illiterate in the past, and most crimes went unresolved because DNA evidence and modern forensic science had not yet been developed yet. Those who claim racial homogeneity = less crime are outing themselves as idiots since modern statistical/crime/population data took a long time to be invented, standardized, and enforced as well.

Furthermore crime rates have been dropping for quite a while now. It has been speculated that leaded gasoline was what caused people to become more irrationally violent during the great crime waves of the 20th century. Given the lax safety and environmental standards of the American government as well as the de-funding and disbanding of supervisory organs tasked with enforcing safety/environment regulations it wouldn't be that much of a leap to assume that there's going to be another crime wave in the future given how hellbent both political parties are on selling everything off for a profit.

Just look at Flint Michigan. The lead in the water already entered into so many African American families and newborns. That poison can't go away it will stay there and continue wrecking havoc for generations to come. Couple that with lack of mental health treatment in America or a universal healthcare program among many other requisites for a stable society and you have the perfect storm.


>What separates Humanity from all the other animals is our ability to grow and learn and pass on knowledge
many animals do this too
>That poison can't go away


>many animals do this too
When those other animals start building trains and infrastructure and space stations let me know. Knowledge is cumulative, building upon prior discoveries, and no animal can reach a level of intelligence past "does it harm me y/n" or "can I get a treat from it y/n". For instance beavers are hard coded to build dams near the sound of rushing water and have no conscious thought behind doing so just like how bunnies automatically go into a coma in an instinctive play dead response if you flip them onto their back even when they're not actually in danger. Ascribing human characteristics and intelligence to animals is silly and I have no patience for those who try to anthropomorphize their traits onto what are essentially nature's robots.
>chelation therapy
Yeah I'm sure a country where over 60% of the population is living paycheck to paycheck can really afford that shit.


of course non-human animals don't have human-level intelligence or language. but for example wolves will teach their young how to hunt. if hunted, prey will learn to avoid humans
and yeah of course chelation is expensive. the point is that we can cure heavy metal poisoning, and in a socialist society we obviously would


hi i'm new to this, r ALL cops evil? like detectives aren't evil right because they solve the bad kind of crime


all police help maintain private property. this doesn't mean they're personally bad or that they don't mean well. it's the system that sucks


Even excluding China, World Poverty has been decreasing over time to a significant degree. Why is socialism needed for this process?


File: 1656724201244.jpg (2.14 MB, 4032x3024, 20220701_201232.jpg)

What's going on here?


The share is far more modest without china and the definition for world poverty is useless


>Even excluding China, World Poverty has been decreasing over time to a significant degree.


why is it called communism not cummunism


File: 1656756263047.jpg (92.66 KB, 1200x915, world bank poverty.jpg)


2 USD a day is not a livable wage for any human being.


Thank you for two amazing Youtube channels for the price of one, mate.


you are not a communist, you are a socdem


Tourist here. Apolitical to the degree that I mostly think socialists are right but I'm nowhere near educated enough to form an opinion of my own.

>Russia is imperialist

About that.

It seems that Russia being imperialist is thrown around a lot in left circles to argue against supporting the war(whatever that means) or sometimes for NATO of all things. The argument goes that it's an inter-imperialist conflict and so it is not the concern of the workers which bear the damage for such conflicts.

Okay, but barring some insane opinions, unchecked NATO/US imperialism would be worse. If one is to look at it from a distance and see the actors in this conflict as mere agents of a system enacting a foreseeable conflict(the US refusal to have capitalist competition on a global scale) then surely one can also understand what the potential outcomes are and identify which ones would be better for the workers. Which since, the war seems to be fought with relatively low casualties it may be harder than just "war bad".

On the other hand if these wars, are a systemic problem then war may indeed be bad because it will keep escalating and propagating until a victor is found. But then stopping "this war", protesting or whatever is irrelevant because unless the system is changed the conflict will remain. If a genie granted a wish and every person involved got their mind rewired and NATO/Russia made peace on this specific conflict, the system that made this war would make another. Which is why I don't buy pro/against war activism, it's asking in the way that hasn't worked for a long time, for something that goes against the system works.

So, What does it really matter from the point of view of socialists, if Russia is Imperialist, aspiring to or just capitalist? Surely the levers of change are beyond taking sides.


what is he wrong about


File: 1656912625352.jpeg (33.5 KB, 474x299, marx engels 2.jpeg)

what did harvey not understand about capital?


NTA but harvey has some weird ideas like that having currency with a "best before" date will somehow solve anything


The labor theory of value


Out of all the weird Harvey stuff, that actually is a good idea, unless he is arguing that it should be applied to capitalism, in witch case that's basically just Georgism in the sense that it might be good, but will never happen. But for a socialist economy, having best-before labour tokens is good, as it prevents hoarding and also allows for smoother acounting of how many goods need to be produced.


porkies are good enough with money that such a scheme would only impact workers. here's one way to work around it:
1. buy gold with money that is about to expire
2. sell said gold, get fresh money back


Right at the beginning of Capital there is a bit about how things made by skilled people count for more in exchange compared to the output of not particularly skilled people and Harvey is puzzled by the passage. By that I mean he literally can't parse what is said in there and says it's a highly controversial passage! (He gives no citations that would show other Marxists struggling over muh controversy in there.)


Anti war activism would be good
>What does it really matter if Russia is Imperialist
It doesn't
there is no discernible reason to concern yourself with a hypothetical little imperialism when the Great Imperialism exists.


yeah but how does his weird modern ideas invalidate his book "companion to capital" or his 40 years of lecturing on Marx's capital? I found them pretty useful when I was first reading capital and I just wanna make sure i haven't internalized any of harvey's BS. He usually says "This is just my opinion and not marx" before he says something stupid but if there's times where he doesn't do that I'd like to know.


File: 1656963877487.jpg (1.03 MB, 2005x1524, leisure_time.jpg)

Is there any particular term for people who, despite being proletarians, still have a material interest in maintaining the bourgeois state due to their job? For example, police, soldiers, etc, who despite being a part of the proletariat, are still decidedly reactionary and with no revolutionary potential.


>Is there any particular term for people who, despite being proletarians, still have a material interest in maintaining the bourgeois state due to their job? For example, police, soldiers, etc, who despite being a part of the proletariat, are still decidedly reactionary and with no revolutionary potential.

this phenomenon is called "false consciousness" and the people are called "lumpen proletariat"


>>1048888 (waste of quads)
Lumpenproletariat is the criminal underclass, people like gangsters and junkies, not the cops or the bureaucrats, and false consciousness is when your understanding of politics and economics is the bullshit you are fed by the system and not based on the real forces at work, not when you have a personal material interest in maintaining capitalism.

>despite being proletarians, still have a material interest in maintaining the bourgeois state due to their job?
Class traitor applies. Sometimes people call them labor aristocrats or petty bourgeois but those are not per se the same thing. You will often hear liberal types calling them PMC for "professional managerial class" although this normally is intended to target white collar workers specifically rather than people like cops. We definitely should have an agreed-upon standard marxist term for it because none of these are apt enough.


>"false consciousness"
I mean anyone can have false consciousness, no? Even a McDonald's employee who thinks that capitalism is giving him freedom and that he should be grateful for the job. I think a policeman versus a mcdonalds worker, both in false consciousness, have very different potential in becoming revolutionary. Both can form unions by following their material interests, but only one of these unions is encouraged by socialists. So even though both proletarians can be in false consciousness, one is actively encouraged to seek his material interests while the other is not.
>"lumpen proletariat"
I thought the lumpenproletariat were the homeless, street gang members, etc, who were oppressed by capital to the extent that they are kinda pushed out of society? Isn't that why Maoists sometimes claim that all black or indigenous people are all lumpenproletariat? That doesn't seem like an apt word for the police if it also fits those that they oppress.


If someone has the full support of the mainstream media , mainstream political parties & major universities , are they fighting against the system?


Remind me again of the merits of the collectivized agriculture system? I was reading Alec Nove's chapter of it in "An Economic History of The USSR", and I still get the impression that it still largely couldn't stand on its own too legs after all, even with the NEP. I understand that a lot of that was from a lack of infrastructure necessary for centralization at the time in the countries(and that there was also a lack of funding caused by state-owned firms being tax-exempt, as written by Andrew Rothstein in his history on war communism), but even then, I fail to see any positives. Please either tell me what I've missed, recommending additional sources if you have any.


No, that is why christian pussies can't build a theocracy in the US.


economics of scale. but that doesn't actually work as well as one would expect in agriculture. Michael Ellman brings this point up in Socialist Planning


Thank you. I found a related work of his on this era on his website as well.


interesting find. this supports my thesis that the famines were the result of incompetence and partymindedness/lack of communication
>For example, at the October 1931 plenum of the all-Union CC, [Kosior] stated that the procurement plan was ‘entirely realistic and fulfillable without any bitter sacrifices by the collective-farm peasantry or our Ukrainian countryside in general’.
this bit is also interesting:
>It seems that the population at the beginning of 1935 was about 18 million less than it would have been if NEP had been continued (Nefedov 2017, p. 351).
but of course this ignores the growing threat of fascism from the west, something that the authors do point out later in the conclusion


Who are you talking to? That post hasn't even been available for months now.


New to communism.
1. if there is no money, how would I be able to travel the world or acquire products not made at home?
2. if I wouldnt want to work because those are my needs, Im still getting food and housing, right?


Think of communism as a society wide engineering project to consciously improve itself in various ways, particularly quality of life.

Each project depends on what is currently there and how to improve things from there. It doesn't make sense to expand free universities if 90+% of the population can't read, for example.

What you're asking is very "late stage" when you take most countries in the world right now.

That said, here is an answer, with the caveat that I am not read on this subject. I recommend you search the cybercommunism / cybernetics thread and you read through that. Also recommended is the book Towards a New Socialism by Paul Cockshott (real name).
1. Money is a specific form of commodity. An alternative is something like a "proof of work" voucher that you can't transfer to another person which entitles you to acquire products and services that correspond to the work you have done.
2. Every country, every people, every culture is different. There is no one size fits all socialism, nor is there a hard blueprint for what socialism is. Consider what I said above about it being an engineering project.

The famous quote you're referring to implies that if you can't work, then you'll still be taken care of. Homelessness and hunger are usually a result of bad planning in capitalism (because of negligence or because it is unprofitable). Under socialism, ideally those things that lead people to that situation would decrease significantly, as well as people who are in situations where they can't work will be taken care of.

Let me re-state that homelessness and hunger under capitalism is almost a conscious choice taken by the ruling class.

Check out this video where this guy talks about how a very poor US state is basically erradicating homelessness while rich states.


Wow, it sounds really, really idealistic. Thanks for your post, I shall explore it further.
>Let me re-state that homelessness and hunger under capitalism is almost a conscious choice taken by the ruling class.
Obviously, when money is created as interest bearing debt and its issuance/supply manipulated at will by a central bank that isnt sovereign nor benign, that will happen. China hasnt experienced any boom-bust cycles in 30 some years of growth because their central bank cares.

>Let me re-state that homelessness and hunger under capitalism is almost a conscious choice taken by the ruling class.


He said the word


File: 1657108386104.jpg (213.4 KB, 1280x720, those who don't work.jpg)

1. by asking? in the transitionary period: labour vouchers. this is the difference between lower-phase communism and higher-phase communism
2. can you work? if so, pic related. housing and food might be provided as a basic right, depending on circumstances. but don't count on free beer


>while rich states.
while rich states don't*.
Idealistic =/= idealist.
Idealistic is closer to utopian, far fetched, romantic, naive.
Which to be fair it kind of is up to a degree. The principles and findings of cybernetics can be applied by the current ruling class, and many do to limited degrees. Labor vouchers are partially applicable to public health insurance that is conditional on employment and paid with salary tax. Employers in some parts of the world sometimes pay with food vouchers that can only be used in supermarkets. They are somewhat hard to trade because nobody wants lots of supermarket vouchers that are otherwise useless. If you put a name on these vouchers (very easy) and require store tellers to check the name, then you have a very basic prototype for the labor vouchers I described.

It's not super far fetched and as I said, its all about working towards goals. Before getting from A to B you need to find a middle point.

Most countries don't need to worry about it because they don't even have strong communist presence yet.


ESL here, yeah I meant idealist. Communism is an idea, right? This whole materialistic dialectic stuff I dont understand. As a layman lurker this whole site to me feels like it's people endlessly arguing about which idea is correct and which country is or isnt communist. I dont get it.
About the personal labor vouchers, how would a state inject money for productive growth. Does labor come before credit (money) or vice-versa or both? I believe it's both, credit can do wondrous things for society.
Thank you, anon. I do appreciate it.


>how would a state inject money for productive growth
it wouldn't. you requisition the resources necessary and their cost (in labour) gets added to the output


Why did Hoxha outlaw abortions and birth control?


cause he a bitch-ass faggot


To create more babies to fight the imperialists and social-imperialists.


Happy to help.
Idealist is usually used here for another purpose, related to materialism, dialectics, etc. Idealistic would be a better term for what you wanted to say. It doesn't really matter as long as you're understood.

This site is more of a hangout and a place to bounce ideas, at least for me. Many of us are active in orgs and its often useful to read what other people outside your org are saying. It is also helpful when working through marxist theory, or philosophy more generally beyond the basics. Nobody in my org really understands or knows about the more advanced stuff.

Also, this site is like when a crowd sings at a concert in the sense that individuals might sometimes hit the notes, sometimes be wayyy off the mark, but the general unison is generally in tune. Part of why an anonymous imageboard works so well with leftism.

And finally, arguing about stupid shit is sometimes a good way to exercise what you've learned, actually acquire what you've learnt. Even more so when you enjoy it.


I enjoy this site, it reminds me of pre-2008 4chan. Its the first chan Ive found that isnt a racist rightwing /pol/ clone shithole. I consider myself a socialist and havent studied Marx hence the questions. Thanks again.


If the interest of the proletariat without the bourgeoisie is to increase the number of the proletariat does that mean that, in a socialist world, abortion will become morally abhorrent?


population levels don't actually matter, so long as we stay within economic viability


>Also, this site is like when a crowd sings at a concert in the sense that individuals might sometimes hit the notes, sometimes be wayyy off the mark, but the general unison is generally in tune. Part of why an anonymous imageboard works so well with leftism.
really liking your analogy.


What is going on in Sri Lanka? Why are they in deep shit


Anyone have a higher resolution version?


Because they used the red scare to crack down on labour movements, unions and the like in the US.


Isolated island got rekt by the cost of imports skyrocketing and tourism diving


Is absurdism compatible with Marxism? I've been told that it isn't and I don't understand the argument.


File: 1657196624225.gif (1.81 MB, 244x180, utilitarians.gif)

you mean as in Camus? I don't see why it would be a problem. constructing a purpose in life for oneself to spite the uncaring universe isn't really a hindrance unless you choose to engage in reactionary shit to deal with the absurd


That's what I was thinking since absurdism seems to align with how I've always viewed life.


Why isn't communism (in contrast with mere socialism) considered by materialists to be an idealistic utopian goal that is being rationalized?
What evidence is there that an (economically) classless society can exist at a modern national scale. Sure, I don't see why it can't exist, but that doesn't imply it can. After 200 years of writing theory and 100 years of national communist parties in power, including two of the three post-WWII biggest global powers and dozens of allies, and the advent of digital simulation, I would expect some material evidence more scalable than a few anarchist communes.


I see absolutely no reason why it wouldn't be. Can you link/reiterate the argument that you don't understand?


one does not simply change the mode of production in a heartbeat. for communism to emerge will likely take generation after generation of struggle. what it will look like is literally unthinkable to us


How can a communist government ensure that it is receiving accurate data about production levels so that it can make accurate decisions?

Because history has shown us that incompetent or corrupt officials that fail to meet production quotas for agriculture will lie about their surpluses in their report and supplement their shipments to the central warehouses with food intended for local consumption resulting in famines and further losses in production that can not be masked in such a way.

What measures could a future communist government take to avoid this problem?


still seeking an answer on this


Wouldn't a deficit in local consumption reveal this deceit quickly? Especially if you have point-of-service devices that automatically relay such data. A visit by an overseer to examine whether there's a drought or something nefarious behind a shortcoming will lead to corrective measures then, whether it's a replacement of the officials or provision of additional resources to deal with an unexpected shortfall.


who are some important african revolutionaries that all communists should know?


i wanted anons to give me indications about one thing: Democracy.
how the democracy in Socialist nations worked, as well as to know how in capitalist nations it gets destroyed and only used as a talking point.
This question came to me after watching that Webm of cockshott talking about Athenian democracy and how elections are the most anti-democratic thing you can do and only through Sorting you can be a actual democracy (If you can give indications about that to i would be happy)


File: 1657598026535.jpg (49.78 KB, 960x668, 876576.jpg)

Thomas Sankara
Mengistu Haile Mariam
Samora Machel
Agostinho Neto
Robert Mugabe
Mathieu Kérékou
Amílcar Cabral
Muammar Gaddafi
Alphonse Massamba-Débat
Siad Barre
Abeid Karume


File: 1657598664550.jpg (58.2 KB, 600x902, VisBildeServlet.jpg)

>>1064269 (me)
I also recommend this documentary to everyone.


>robert mugabe
One of those pretend-Marxist faggots who acted communist until 1991 to get aid from the Soviets and then immediately flipped to a bourgeois kleptocratic dictatorship.

Wasn't even communist while he pretended, he set up an entire new class of landlords in a region of Zimbabwe.
You could probably find some dirt on most of these if you wanted.


File: 1657598926752.png (192.23 KB, 534x468, GLOWIE.png)

> could probably find some dirt on most of these if you wanted.


File: 1657599824451.png (1.14 MB, 1024x536, ClipboardImage.png)

Sounds like the argument was some kind of naive nihilist cope. Pic related is how a lot people view absurdism, a sadist enjoying the world's horrors instead of being numb to it. A lot of nihilists never make it past the stage of feeling sad that god is dead. But the point is that when you realize that all the shit people believe in like that was made up to begin with, you realize that you can find whatever purpose and meaning you want. There's not some inevitable conclusion to that line of thinking but a wide open field. It's easy to fit that with communism or more pointedly to see that Marx's understanding of history should be instrumental for intentionally effecting any real change in the world.


Ask yourself why most bourgeois opportunists suddenly stopped being "people's republics" in 1991 but continued to run their klepto-states. Even with the same parties and party officials in charge, just suddenly not communist anymore.
>By 1991, his government agreed with rebels to introduce a multi-party system, while changing the MPLA's ideology from communism to social democracy.
>It effectively lasted until 1 March 1990, with the adoption of a new constitution, and the abolition of Marxism–Leninism in the nation in 1989.
>it was originally a pro-Soviet, Marxist–Leninist vanguard party which founded the People's Republic of the Congo. It took a more moderate left-wing stance following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and adopted social democracy as its principal ideology in 2006.
>The party's current name was adopted during the final year of the State of Cambodia, when the party abandoned the one-party system and Marxism–Leninism.
And so many others. Most of them stopped playing along when the Soviet bureaucracy was no longer around to give them handouts. Sankara was one of the only authentic communists and the Soviet revisionists never gave him shit, then he was murdered by a bourgeois opportunist.


File: 1657600595159.jpg (265.32 KB, 680x791, 876576.jpg)


> Sankara was one of the only authentic communists

oh your one of those are you.. 'the only authentic communists are the dead ones'

> the Soviet revisionists



And you're probably a dengoid who thinks sweatshops and mining companies in the Congo are proletarian internationalism.


File: 1657623026224.jpeg (75.03 KB, 411x720, foolish igbo.jpeg)

>all this rhodesia hate out of nowhere
feels like nairaland in here


File: 1657660939690.jpg (122.92 KB, 800x535, 1657660880988.jpg)

Is there any writings of Marx or by Marxists expanding on the explanation of the depreciation of constant capital? It seems like Marx just says that this cost just reduces the associated profit.


File: 1657663126051.png (348.76 KB, 500x640, ClipboardImage.png)

>Liberals defending the fucking UAE to own the commies




What happens to people who work on advertisement/marketing under socialism? are they retrained to do something else? can their skills be used for something else other than selling products and services?


forced labor for advertisers will be the following;
"produce pictures of scenery and artwork with absolutely 0 advertising for literally anything, to be plastered over every billboard and advertisement poster in america"


probably, there's no such thing as a clean revolution and hero worship is infantile. most historical revolutionaries have been psychopaths partially as a problem of selection(normal people don't have the will to power to lead a revolution) and partially as a result of the effects of prolonged violence on the psyche(ex: Che becoming gradually more dehumanized and violent).
These individuals serve a purpose for the proletariat in a historical moment but can come into conflict with it as their control of the state threatens to establish them as a class in conflict with the proletariat(as seen in the USSR). That's a major flaw with any vanguard party - we need our leaders to win, but we need to bury them afterwards. Of course, the other approach is to simply wait until the mass of the population supports Communism, and hence needs no vanguard to establish DOTP, but this seems unlikely in the face of constant anti-communist agitation.
From a somewhat idealistic and Great Man perspective, we need a George Washington-like leader who will both sieze power and abdicate power when the time comes.
From a more materialist perspective, the solution is a second revolution. The thing I notice about the fall of the Soviet Union is that most russians didn't want capitalism, they wanted a more democratic socialism. During that time of conflict, the contradictions of the Soviet Union(ruling vs working class) were heightened, and the ruling class won via the support of the West.
But now imagine that the Soviet Union had won the cold war, instead. The contradictions still exist within it, but there is no West for the ex-vanguard capitalists to turn to. Reactionary tendencies have been purged(as within the Soviet Union, as evidenced by the low popular support for capitalism). Result: undivided popular revolution against the ruling class(or more likely, the abdication of the ruling class in face of undivided popular support of democracy). A senate/politburo is sampled at random from the population, which has been rendered sufficiently well-educated and anti-reactionary so as to not collapse this immediately(once again, as in the Soviet Union, for its many faults it did not lack in education). The will to power of great leaders is rendered ineffectual due to the nature of the political process, and they are gradually genetically selected out of humanity over many generations as their futile attempts to sieze power for themselves are continuously defeated by mass popular opposition.
I've gotten pretty far off topic from your original question but anyway that's my thoughts on the kind of hero worship your comment hints at, and a possible solution. Feel free to correct any part of this that is retarded, I never really had a strong grasp on dialectics lmao.


Best Korea style, I like that.


What did Trotsky's and Mao's opinions of each other?



How much does labor cost? What I mean by this is how much does 1 minute of labor cost? I know that the LTV states that the price of a good (let us take a commodity such as an Iphone for example, because funni) would be determined by the average time needed to extract the natural resources used in a phone, assemble those resources into parts and then assemble the parts into a usable final consumer product, which in this case is a phone. And let's assume that the average time needed to complete this process is around 24 hours, with a cost of $253, and is furthermore sold at retail for $849. How is the price of 1 hour of labor determined beforehand? Is it some sort of universal metric that decides the cost of labor? Or is this just subjective?


Mao was an anti-Trotskyist, held basically the same opinion as Stalin did on Trotsky and Trotskyism. I don't think Trotsky ever said anything about Mao specifically, although he did comment on the Chinese civil-war. I also don't think Mao ever commented his opinion on Trotsky as a person, although he does call him a "dishonest person" in a speech.


Trotsky got bopped before Mao ever came to proeminence


Does anyone have the Leftypedia rethoric pages archived somewhere ?, the site seems to have their domain expired.


What's the point between differentiating fabianism to social democracy? Aren't they the same?


How can World Bank data be trusted, given that it replies solely on the honesty of the country that gives it? Whether you doubt certain capitalist countries is fine by me, but clearly countries with the whole world at their necks would rosy things up a bit to try and win some small factions of the citizens to their side.


Didn't Marx use the thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic in one of his works? I think it was something called "on methodology" or something, but i couldn't find it online.




>we should have to reply — No. And it is precisely this ‘No’ that is the uyghur in the wood pile.
What the fuck did Bukharin mean by this????


What exactly was the theoretical disargeement that caused Stalin and Bukharin to strongly oppose Zinoviev and Kamenev in late 1924? Was it just political posturing or was it justified with real errors in the line adopted by Zinoviev/Kamenev?


File: 1658088971122.jpg (265.77 KB, 585x780, cover.jpg)

Do I read this before or after Capital?


> uyghur in the woodpile or uyghur in the fence is a figure of speech originating in the United States meaning "some fact of considerable importance that is not disclosed something suspicious or wrong".


How do I understand species-being and how is it not idealism? The idea that humans have an inherent essence is not metaphysics?


File: 1658210202517.jpg (12.08 KB, 217x217, ch.jpg)


the original han chauvinist


good morning sirs
is it just me or is constant inflation a direct result of the falling rate of profit among other things
can somebody spoonfeed me on what causes it if i'm wrong


What do you guys think of "socialism in one city"?


Because you don't have to, you can leave, but what you want is to impose state power to make them leave or to make them not allowed in. So by even bringing this up in a political context, you imply political desires on your part. And we can see what they are, even if you won't admit it. Racist policies meant to influence or bring about this desire of yours. Meaning state repression of these minorities. This is a fascist position.


Can anyone in here recomend me books about planned economies and their economical history ?, wanna know more what they did right and wrong in Communist countries


Socialist Planning by Michael Ellman
Red Plenty has a semi-fictional account
Cockshott has some writings too I think


what do you mean by Semi-fictional


it's based on interviews with people like kantorovich's family and people who actually worked at GOSPLAN, and a lot of real-life events, but it also mixes in fictional characters to tell a story


how does one study effectively? how do i become theorymaxxed?



Does anyone have good resources on how to deal with holocaust deniers? "Arguments & counter arguments" type of deal is what I'm looking for. A friend has become polbrained recently and I want to prep up.


ty comrade


rationalwiki actually has a decent page on that



File: 1658773665121-0.jpg (4.7 KB, 474x315, France.jpg)

File: 1658773665121-1.jpg (21.29 KB, 1980x1320, Italy.jpg)

I want to learn about the history of the Communist Party from each of these countries, can anyone recomend some good books or articles? thanks.


While there are legitimate answers I just find this argument rather interesting since to answer it some members of the western left have said, essentially, reduction in poverty is not an actual goal of socialism. Which if you consider it purely in terms of independent labor power, is true I suppose. This is a ridiculous conclusion but it shows the influence of anti-China thinking on the left.


does direct action work?


does anyone have any media that directly deboonks the white genocide meme?


>schizoid delusions
what is there to deboonk?


i agree with you, but there are many schizos out there, it would be good to have something on hand that i can reference from or direct them to read/watch


Yes. However, without a central plan or organisation direct actions are individual (and not connected) actions which bring no massive change.


a lot of these people are one-drop pilled, which means the hwyte population will keep decreasing by their own retarded definition


fair point


for milder cases there are a number of videos on YT that goes into how arbitrary whiteness is, and how it has changed over the ages. if you search for "history of whiteness" or whatever then you find tons


File: 1658857206791.jpg (80.19 KB, 526x800, 7656.jpg)

I remember this being shilled everywhere on here a few years ago, is it still worth reading or is it just a Meme?


Worth. Remember there's also accompanying lectures on youtube for the book.


If you got the math skills, absolutely. Just remember that it's high-level shit


Is there a books against the liberal narrative of democracy ?.
they love to use it as the new civilized vs barbarians so having counter arguments would be good.


Shaikh is Victor Magariño's supervisor and seems like a smart cookie, so probably
Towards a New Socialism has a chapter on this



File: 1658859171123.png (645.38 KB, 1049x604, shaikh.png)

Shaikh is a great economist, arguably the greatest currently alive, his magnum opus Capitalism is for somebody without a somewhat formal education in econ (and be it working through some texbooks) incredibly hard to read trust me I tried do your homework and then give it a read it's worth it.


>>1088012 (me)
However you can start watching the lecture series >>1087980 right now. In it he breaks his arguments down for the attending students.
I also recommend his lectures on the Historical Foundations of Political Economy >>>/edu/6098


>Shaikh is Victor Magariño's supervisor
Sounds amazing. I wish I had to attend these classes. I have 0 discipline God damn.


I downloaded his lectures on the Historical Foundations of Political Economy, converted them to opus and listend to them during workout maybe try this.


interesting. might do that. Have you given the Captial lectures a try? Do you happen to have the files? Maybe you can upload them to /edu/


File: 1658872136148.png (202.3 KB, 526x512, ClipboardImage.png)

I don't mean for this to be a challenge, but I have skepticism for more mathematical treatments of economics. Whether it be marginalism, marxian, whathaveyou. In my experience there will be some abstraction and it maps poorly to the real data, or the data themselves are practically too difficult to obtain, or they can be obtained but only at great expense and no one bothers. Picrel for a meme that has a lot of truth to it, both in the case of bourgeois and marxian econ.

My basic question is: Does he make quantitative predictions and compare them to observation? If this is the case then I am excited to check out the book, and if it isn't then I must prioritize other things. There are some people whose ideology I like more than others, e.g. I like Roemer's more than Leontief's, but on the other hand Leontief's book is full of tables of real economic data that are used to compute real economic trends, while Roemer's book is full of math and graphs of abstract functions.


William Phillips was a bourgeois economist. the entire basis for modern bourgeois political economy since Marshall is nonsense since they reject materialism in favor of subjectivism


This has nothing whatsoever to do with my post.


It's not what he is talking about anon, he's talking about skepticism against economic theory based only on math and no real economic data to collaborate with said math, and wants to know if Shaikh is just math and no data.


Just watched the first episode while I exercised. Looking good so far. It seems light enough and informative.


Do I really need to read theory? I actually like reading despite never finding time for it. But it seems like a lot of theory just boils down to oppose at all cost whatever benefits the elite, rich, corrupt and overtly religious and I don't have a problem with that. But I just question how important theory actually is if I all that matters is total dominance of the ruling elite by the working class.


Okay, so, please forgive my relative ignorance, but my brain seems to work a bit differently than average, and the mainstream seems to produce the worst possible arguments for any position. This has left me in extreme disarray. As such, being fairly drunk, I am actually able to allow myself to consider alternatives to the typical /pol/ worldview (the naturalistic, non-christcuck, ones, at least).

Also, I swear on my waifu (a Shoggoth, from Monster Girl Encyclopedia) that these questions are posed in earnest, and not posted in order to troll or to try and spark dissent. Granted, I cannot prove this, but hopefully my struggles will be relatively familiar to any anons who have themselves been in a similar position.

As far as I can tell, the idea of leaving the running of communities up to the individual communities (e.g. communism, anarchism, etc.) seems to hold much merit. However, most groups advocating for communism/socialism/etc seem to be corrupted by the powers that be, and seem to be oblivious to the incongruity that so many supposed socialist ideas are being funded and pushed by capitalists who seek to use the rhetoric to expand their influence by proclaiming social agendas that sound good, while their actual policies serve only to expand their own wealth and influence. Is this a known thing in true communist/anarchist circles? I have not seen it addressed before, but it is entirely possible that normalfags, being what they are, are simply too simpleminded to notice.

Additionally, one issue I am struggling with quite a lot is the issue of transgenderism. While I strongly wish I had been born a woman, I cannot understand the claims that trans women/men are *actual* women/men, instead of simply having strong psychological issues, and/or a psychological affiliation with the opposite sex's typical traits.
The crux of it is, in a purely natural world, male and female need to be easily identifiable and certain to ensure ease of procreation and continuation of the species. As far as I can tell though, personalities are significantly less vital to the continuation of the species, and can thus vary far more than reproductive capacity is allowed to by nature. Given such, it is easy to envision people who's personalities line up strongly with the typical psychology of the opposite sex, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to claim they *are* the opposite sex, as variance in personality is quite common, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that personality could "outweigh", as it were, the physical attributes needed for procreation, with which the terms "male" and "female" have typically been associated with.
Granted, it is hypothetically possible that the capitalist class is simply pushing the mainstream version of transgenderism to distract from the true issue of the working class being exploited by the capitalist class, among many other distraction issues. Again though, I have not seen this position actually advocated for anywhere (nor have I seen any ridicule or hate from normalfags directed at such a position to hint that it exists), and so I am doubtful that anyone holds the position that the mainstream version of transgenderism is a distraction issue, or that they believe it is in any way incomplete.

I would greatly appreciate any advice or points of view from anons who have been in similar situations. I'm at the point where I have begun rejecting the idea that I have anything in common with humanity in general, due to the absolute blindness and willful ignorance of normalfags, and am desperately searching for any hint that others have gone through similar questions and doubt to what I've been recently going through. I understand that such questions are not very likely to have been documented or written about to any significant degree, but I can't quite bring myself to believe that I'm truly the only person who's ever had them.


this excerpt should answer you question




>Do I really need to read theory?


it's good to have grounding in theory because otherwise you end up like Caleb Maupin, Haz or Russel Brand, and becoming right wing schizos.


There really is no hard distinction between what is theory and what isn't, so contrary to what some dorks here have been saying, if you read history stuff or even biographies, you will also get theory by osmosis. Muh theoreee is absolutely not some higher form of thinking by special people.
Pretty sure Haz has read tons of bad theory.


You really didn't have to swear on your waifu, or really have the introduction. I don't know how good the DMT you were on was, but god damn I was surprised this wasn't a copypasta.

Trans issues are as much a distraction issue as women's rights are as much a distraction issue as civil rights. We all go together or we all fall together, social issues aren't supposed to divide a socialist movement.


What math skills do you need to fully understand this book, might I ask?


how do you pronounce uygha? i always read as 'iuga' but i just now realized that's probably wrong


If communism can only exist as a worldwide state of things then why would it necessarily be wrong for a sufficiently advanced socialist military coalition to go into a world war with the intent of overthrowing and destroying the bourgeois in all parts of the world and establishing a proletarian dictatorship everywhere they occupy? Might be a stupid question, but I'm interested in the responses so I'll ask it anyways.


Two questions.
1.Why are Markets shit, Sources are welcome
2.Why is a Planned economy better than Markets, sources are welcome too.


Markets have some kind of user-feed-back (whether or not people chose to buy something), that part is good.
Markets are however not good at determining prices, it's basically just capitalists guessing, and that results in huge amount of inefficiency and waste.
Markets do not measure costs that are external to an exchange, that leads to irrational decision making.
Markets concentrate most of the money into a few hands. Trades are not perfectly balanced, usually one side in a trade gets a better deal, and over time creates a small number of people who by random chance win more often then they loose. They also get compounding advantages. This leads to wealth inequality which causes bad resource allocation, that leads to societal dysfunction and bad economic performance.
Markets lack a function for people to influence the direction surplus investment.
Markets have social relations veiled by money.

Planned economies retain the one good feature of markets the user-feed-back, and do away with all the downsides. Planned economies calculate prices based on labor time and that gives accurate prices and social relations are not behind a money veil. It's easy to factor in external costs to a planning algorithm so that the economy makes much fewer irrational decisions. Planning systems have no tendency to concentrate wealth and that avoids the destructive side effects of wealth inequality.

For most people a planning system would not feel much different, you would still buy things as normal except that prices are now expressed in time (the actual time it took to make a product or render a service). Everybody can see how much time they spend working in the economy and how much of that time they get back from the economy in one form or another. People would have it easier to make rational spending decisions. Scamming people would become harder.

The planning system also has the advantage that it not only accounts for human time spend working but it accounts for also material resources in physical quantities. That makes it very easy for the system to prevent shortages and supply issues, fixing the other downside of the monetary veil in markets. The planning system can have a lot of features that let people influence the direction of surplus investment


>it's basically just capitalists guessing
Don't companies have complex internal planning mechanisms, like those of Walmart? In capitalism prices already correlate very closely to the price of labor. I think any guesswork would only happen when a product or company recently launch and they're doing price discovery - after that they adjust prices to conditions they are mostly familiar with.




Why Marxist support Hegel when he was literal fash?


anyone who calls themselves a marxist and thinks of hegel as anything more than a footnote in history, a turning point where marx's sole draw from hegelian philosophy was to completely invert it, is just fundamentally a liar or been lied to.


Brainlet, Hegel supported the French Revolution until his death.



Did you not read Philosophy of Right? Who are you calling Brainlet?


Fascists also supported and drew from the French Revolution


philosophy today lives in the shadow of Kant, Hegel, and Marx.


File: 1659454324720.jpg (309.12 KB, 1584x1089, 7656565.jpg)

Nah im with Lenin on this one, you cant truely understand Marx without with a deep understanding of Hegel. It underlines every part of his thought.


I'm certain you can just read an overview of Hegel's thought from a concise text instead of having to drudge through his whole works. What makes you say that a deep understanding of Hegel is necessary?


What is the Marxist response to this criticism?
>Marx obscured his historical thought, from the Manifesto on, and was forced to support a linear image of the development of modes of production brought on by class struggles which end, each time, “with a revolutionary transformation of the entire society or with mutual destruction of the classes in struggle.” But in the observable reality of history, as Marx pointed out elsewhere, the “Asiatic mode of production” preserved its immobility in spite of all class confrontations, just as the serf uprisings never defeated the landlords, nor the slave revolts of Antiquity the free men. The linear schema loses sight of the fact that the bourgeoisie is the only revolutionary class that ever won; at the same time it is the only class for which the development of the economy was the cause and the consequence of its taking hold of society.


Would you smell alunya's feet?


File: 1659579580475.jpg (22.67 KB, 282x366, Nicos Poulantzas.jpg)

Opinions on Poulantzas? is he Based or Cringe?


Quick rundown on the Taiwan situation? I still don't get why it is getting so much spotlight now, wasn't all that pelosi stuff just a meme?




File: 1659756331685.png (208.2 KB, 850x400, ClipboardImage.png)

is this a fake quote?


File: 1659756736342.png (167.91 KB, 1688x610, ClipboardImage.png)

if Im not mistaken its Maxim Gorky quoting Lenin


Who is he?


Would a Communist prefer the proletariat to be poor under Communism or wealthy under Capitalism? Interesting hypothetical. Cuba is Communist but very poor. If Capitalism meant huge amounts of economic growth to Cuba which meant people got internet, luxury electronics, actual food and bare essentials would a Communist support this or would the Communist tell the poor it's better to starve under Communism than be wealthy under Capitalism?


File: 1659763883373.jpg (44.66 KB, 378x381, 243654765874734625343.jpg)

tfw heavenly music but must harden your heart


>Would a Communist prefer the proletariat to be poor under Communism or wealthy under Capitalism?
The latter, but it's a moot point. Cubans aren't starving and the realistic point of reference for what would happen under capitalist restoration is probably Haiti, meaning worse quality of life.


wow he's literally me


Finished Capital Vol I, should I move on to the next two volumes first, or branch out to other theorists before doing that? Both at once?

Unique IPs: 278

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]