[ 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.


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.


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?


Is there any reliable source for the "i wanted to liquidate communism" quote? I tried searching for it and only got this:
Though i've also found other sources calling it bullshit:
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=subject:%22Re%5C%3A+%5C%5BMarxism%5C%5D+Gorbachev+quote+hoax%5C%3F%22&o=newest&f=1


Anyone know good theory on immigrants having their culture erased? I know as an American I feel I have basically no culture, and my ancestral culture was removed. My great great grandparents or whatever were forced to change their last name into an Americanized one, and ended up not passing down their language, or even traditions really. So I have nothing. I'm just an "American" with no culture. Except that which I've tried to create myself. Like a blank slate for capitalist indoctrination.


what is the popular ai art generator called? google finds many, but not this one that is popular on imageboards




thank you tovarish, much obliged


Is it worth it to try to spread liberation theology in the catholic church? Should I try to join the knights of columbus or some shit or will I just wind up a wacked out detached ideologue like caleb maupin?


File: 1660168384813.jpg (278.29 KB, 982x1600, 765765.jpg)

Do I need to read Marx's Capital before I read this?


Just read whatever you want to read, otherwise you will put it off until you've read what you think you should read.


What is it with people who support SwCC while also rejecting Khrushchev? How is Jiang Zemin declaring that the CPC represents the "overwhelming majority of the Chinese people" not similar to Khrushchev declaring that the CPSU serves as a "party of the entire Soviet people"?
It seems similarly revisionist. That the CPC has openly declared itself to no longer be revolutionary.
>Our party is the vanguard of the working class. If we allow those who are unwilling to give up exploitation and rely their lives on exploitation to join the party, what sort of party will we build?
This was Jiang in 1989, and now supposedly allowing the bourgeoisie in the party so that it may represent the majority of the entire people is not admitting that the CPC has dropped revolution?


People mostly dont like Khrushchev because of the ideological damage he did to the CPSU by ruining Stalin's legacy, not because of 'state of the whole people'.

Allowing Property owners into the CPC was decided in reaction to what happened in the Soviet Union where 'Defectors' and Capitalists played a major role in its defeat, so the aim of the CPC was to make sure they stayed subsumed to the party's interests and didnt become a Fifth Column against the Communist Party.

Hope this helps.


File: 1660188794035.jpg (367.28 KB, 1163x911, WW1.jpg)

Why was the Second International backing the Entente a bad thing? Why was Revolutionary Defeatism so important?


There literally are capitalists in the highest levels of the CPC including gensec. Fucking deng was a capitalist and made millions from private ownership.


> Bro Stalin was worth 7.3 Trillion Dollars!


look it up for yourself. His family turned up in the offshore bank account paradise papers


Because it powers the war of proles against other proles, instead of calling on the whole of proletariat, who were finnally completely armed, to turn on their own BOURG governments and overthrow them.


So its purely on ideology, not material changes?


Do corporations really only care about the next quarter/short-term growth? By far most of the people holding stocks will be around for the fruits of medium- and long-term investments, which are better in the long term than not.


So every time I see a bunch of communist leader headshots one of them is some woman in a headscarf that I have neither heard of nor seen before, who tf is that


It's more profitable to squeeze a company for short term gain because in aggregate even if the company fails the actual stock holders have a broad mix of stocks and one stock dumping isn't a huge deal


Ilhan Omar maybe


She's holding an ak in some images


Leila Khaled


Anarchists: Do any anarchists run for political office? Can they?


If I understand correctly, most libertarians would say that the Fed is an anti-capitalist intervention caused by business interest, however a communist would say that the state is inherently necessary to defend property rights, and things like the federal reserve inherently necessary to protect big capital no matter what an ideologue says, correct?


Black people predominantly are literally still enslaved through the prison system which makes a legal exception to the abolition of slavery.


Correct ancaps have pure idealism and don't realize capitalists want the fed


Was Charles de Gaulle Left or Right wing?


hes dirigsme gang, aka hes right wing


A lot of them do realize that, but they believe that therefore we live in "not real" capitalism and that they can just "counter-economics" their way out of this(though that practice is an ideology in itself, agorism).


File: 1660520728224.jpg (308.1 KB, 980x1470, Enrico Berlinguer.jpg)

Opinions on Enrico Berlinguer? was he based?


Anyone here know more on the claim of party leaders not liking biologists?



I got this from a link from a PBS article, so it was strangely trusted even if literally who


what has been the communist approach to establishing a constitution?


you get some folks together and then you write that shit


File: 1660636991731.jpg (96.44 KB, 940x1080, Michal-Kalecki.jpg)

how do i get into M. Kalecki? There was a general marxist reading guide which Cockshott compiled that said that he should be read after Vol. 3 of Capital, is this good advice?


In a socialist society would large amounts of sexless men exist anymore? What are solutions for such problem?


there would be national service, young pioneers etc… to socialise young people, and give them opportunity to learn how to have relationships and SEX


File: 1660664288051.png (49.26 KB, 444x287, what.png)

I've noticed a lot of contradicting stances on this on here. It usually goes like this:
· Don't date party-members (implies that you date outside the Party)
· Don't perpetuate patriarchal norms, encourage the women to class consciousness, politicize (this will gravitate her toward the Party)
· ??? Massive contradiction
Are people that say "don't date within the party" feds? This is not even hyperbole, every single notable communist I can think of had a significant other that was also a committed communist. Where the hell does this "don't date other communists" come from? Taken to its logical conclusion, it implies preying on uneducated women.


If you can't figure this one out you definitely shouldn't date within the party


>Today, Imperialism: monopoly The Highest has become Stage a fact of Capitalism V.I. Lenin


pointless reply


How so?
If they're so inexperienced they don't get that relationships can be messy and cause drama then they definitely need the guard rails of don't treat the organisation as a hookup joint

As a rule of thumb don't date coworkers either, if you did and made it work good for you and all but it's probably not a good idea, and if you can't figure out why you definitely shouldn't be doing that either

for the extremely slow, you still have to see these people everyday if you break up with them to begin with


File: 1660670976074.jpg (30.35 KB, 480x447, che's-wife.jpg)

>treat the organisation as a hookup joint
Dishonest distortion of what I'm saying straight of the bat.
>you still have to see these people everyday if you break up with them to begin with
>As a rule of thumb don't date coworkers either
This is what your whole post hinges on, and its central assumption is that people can't break up with civility, which is clearly untrue for most past their late teens.

Now waiting for another anon that doesn't advocate for either celibacy or praying on uneducated women (what your retort amounts to) to weigh in.

And to reiterate: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Che, Fidel and so on prove that what you're saying is full of shit since they all were successful communists with significant others who were as well.


What is it about burgers and their incel tier right to sexy fun times anyway?


Ah I get it, you are the fed I was talking about.
>Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Che, Fidel were "incel burgers"


>>Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Che, Fidel were "incel burgers"
You're comparing yourself to them and call other people self important?


Americans have a deeply unhealthy view of Sex in general.


No you are comparing having significant others that share your political views to being what "burger incels" do. I point out that this is practically the norm within the communist movement and that you sound socially incompetent at best and like a disinformant at worst.


File: 1660690302539.jpg (35.77 KB, 900x450, 376565.jpg)


Both communism and love has, for the CPC, more to do with money than anything else, so they're not lying in this case, I'll give them that.


File: 1660883470005.png (109.08 KB, 1116x379, 648568450865490654.png)

Does anybody know the source of this image?


While I'm at it, does anybody know of any communist forums or at least places that accept communists?


Rhizzo­ne.net, an on­line mes­sage board where shit-tier Maoist Third Worldists and oth­er ran­dom nerds can meet and mingle


File: 1660894652260.png (1.08 MB, 1675x1080, Screenshot (24506).png)

how come dalle 2 can't give results like this even though it's supposed to be more powerful


File: 1661061102923.png (8.57 MB, 1999x2648, 87657.png)

Is there a good book that gives an overview of Marxist Aesthetic Theory?


Yes, it is. Marx himself abandoned the concept later on. It's a complex topic, nonetheless.
Idk. I guess it works better with "mainstream" stuff.
>Is there a good book that gives an overview of Marxist Aesthetic Theory?
I don't know, but I found this article with this funny line:
<The same epigrammatic style [of Lao Tzu] and the same fervent puritanism can be discerned in the writings of Mao Zedung, who initiated in the Cultural Revolution the most successful war against beauty that has been waged in modern history.


They aren't fed the same data.




Is there an infographic or something that explains inflation in simple terms that the average person can understand? My aunt wants to understand the phenomenon and why everything is so expensive now/what inflates prices/what makes the dollar the dominant currency. Or any resources to this specific topic aimed at beginners who have no clue about economics so I can attempt to make an infographic myself and distribute it. Thank you.


What are some good texts to help me understand democratic centralism better?



File: 1661225137081.png (2.35 MB, 1030x1236, zinoviev.png)

Quick, non-political question about history: did Grigory Zinoviev wear glasses in private settings? I've never seen him photographed with any on but it is plausible he would have only used them in private settings. Asking because he wore glasses in the movie Reds, pic related.

I already know that it got a few things wrong, for example Louis Fraina is portrayed as a graying middle-aged man with a heavy accent when in reality he was still in his 20s and spoke native English. I still gotta ask though.


File: 1661231610319.mp4 (3.5 MB, 480x360, Breshnev.mp4)

Why did Brezhnev coup Khrushchev?


File: 1661243330978.jpg (265.32 KB, 680x791, 7657656.jpg)

Are there any good books about Mugabe that arent Rhodesia apologia or Liberal hand-wringing?



File: 1661258062871.jpg (91.88 KB, 620x583, falklands-war.jpg)

Whats the Marxist analysis of the Falklands War?

was it just British Imperialism?


Argentine national bourgeoisie try to prop up their regime by engaging in irredentism.


this. the brits did nothing wrong, other than sinking the belgrano which was unnecessary


Can you grow food in a garden and sell it to your neighbor under socialism? If not, can you barter said food for another object under socialism?


Killing the shithole that was the argentinian junta was the only good thing Thatcher did tbh.


File: 1661300925594.jpg (95.11 KB, 750x880, 76655.jpg)

Yes of course.


>>1134620 (nta)
How does this interact with a planned economy (for example, what dickblast proposes)? It is inherently a black market?


Does the CPV even claim that Vietnam presently has a socialist mode of production?


File: 1661309385516.jpg (62.75 KB, 731x561, lunaoisheher.jpg)

I remember watching a lot of Luna Oi videos a while ago, and i remember her being based, giving lectures on ML theory. But now she has the nomenclature markings of the neoliberal woke emporium in her videos. Did something happen ? did she throw in with radlibs or something ? Or is she forced to do this so she doesn't get canceled for anti-imperialist content ?

Cockshott's system has a provision for making the labor voucher system interoperable with money markets, he envisioned this for letting people use their labor-voucher-card as a credit card when people from socialist countries travel to capitalist countries. Basically the socialist state opens up a bank account in capitalist countries and then people can spend labor vouchers in money-markets based systems, by using foreign currency reserves of the socialist country. And the same will work in reverse when tourists from capitalist countries come to a socialist country.
At least in principle this could also be used to enable local farmer's-markets.

The cybernetic economy will outperform markets in allocation efficiency so i don't know if people would really want to use this because it will make goods more expensive all things being equal. But it could be a temp solution because it will take a while until habits change. Cybernetic planning will have many skeptics in the beginning and it will take time until we have won the trust of the masses. Allowing a virtual market structure to coexist until people have experienced the advantages of cybernetic planning first hand might also go a long way to establish said trust.


File: 1661333255193.jpg (28.21 KB, 468x347, Gorky React.jpg)

What year did Spain cease to be a Fascist country?



How much military ability did the Soviets really lose in the Great Purge? I heard many of those purged were those used to old styles of combat, so it wasn't much of a loss. On this note, was purging Tukhachevsky necessary?


File: 1661382724894.jpg (Spoiler Image, 447.53 KB, 911x911, 1634988751475.jpg)

Anybody have any counters or anything regarding the Chernobyl disaster? That incident and HBO made it so that my liberal friends will never see the USSR in any positive light.

Also I need that one Quora thread where that guy debunks the 100 gorrillion who died in the USSR.


File: 1661383722227.mp4 (283.06 KB, 640x544, 1658970950103.mp4)

The the Chernobyl disaster only killed 50 people overall and its held up a some horrible crime because it happened in a Socialist Country and allows pro-Capital people can use it as a talking point against both Communism and Nuclear Power (and Russia).

Now compare a Chemical Disaster in Capitalist Country, the Bhopal Disaster from India that killed 16,000 people but is never gets mentioned because it happened in a Capitalist Country and because its not political useful to our leaders, so HBO would never make a tv show about it. (Over 500,000 people were exposed Toxic Gas)


1945. Franco purged the actual fascists from his party before Hitler's body was cold.


File: 1661402654835.png (56.19 KB, 645x729, 1443.png)

What is 'Ground Rent'?


So Franco wasn't an actual fascist?


No he was just a generic Catholic Bonapartist.


Lol, I've never heard Stalin speak before. Did everyone just have a higher pitched voice back then?


Embedding error.
Just wait till you hear Tito's voice Lmao.. (Skip to 2:15)

also I think its because we expect these great leaders to have booming barittone voices, so its a massive surprise when they dont.


HBO's Chernobyl was full of anti-scientific scare mongering.
Here is a debooonking video. That guy has a very particular presentation style, but it is enough to discredit the show as over-exaggerated disaster porn.


File: 1661404922889.png (320.03 KB, 480x360, ClipboardImage.png)

>also I think its because we expect these great leaders to have booming barittone voices, so its a massive surprise when they dont.
It's just I literally speak an octave below Stalin.

Assuming the videos isn't sped up he was speaking like G3 around and I speak at like D2. I'm a little as uygha too.


File: 1661404987332.png (87.45 KB, 750x267, ClipboardImage.png)


File: 1661405042253.webm (3.52 MB, 640x360, Kim's voice.webm)

Then theres the Kim's with the Deepest of Bass voices


Yeah thats his voice.


File: 1661406411239.jpg (40.25 KB, 363x393, FPsRk-WWUBAx9Ba.jpg)

Are there any croatian communist parties around? Or even individuals? (preferably anti-revisionist)


>Jews had to create Israel to escape Nazi persecution and nobody else was taking them
Is this a valid point?


File: 1661478806888.jpg (342.94 KB, 771x1024, n94szuh0m3041.jpg)

How much did the rhetoric against communism shift gears over the rise of the USSR? I recall in that Thomas Nast cartoon in picrel that it was portrayed as "mob rule" before it shifted to call them authoritarians and dictators. Or were anti-communists always playing the "dictatorship" angle?
>reddit image filename
Couldn't be botheres to find it anywhere else


I haven't met a teacher in my entire life that wasn't a self-entitled, "middle class" aspiring, cunt. All of them are the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps sweetie;)" type of people, mocking and despising people that are "leeching on welfare", yet they constantly cry about low pay and how hard they work, despite having two entire months off every year (not counting paid leave) and spending 5h tops at the school during each work day. They see themselves as better than the plebs, because they feel like they belong to le intelligentsia (t. eastern european). What is the root cause of such vicious, petit bourgeoise, reactionary sentiment amongst them? The fact that they aren't employed by capitalists (at least directly), but by the state and that obscures the class relations for them? The powertrip from spreading their Wisdom (TM) to the uneducated children (who, quite often, know more than the teachers, at least in soft sciences)?


Because they are managers. If all testing and grading were done by another group of people and teachers were merely coaches for doing well on the tests, they would have a totally different attitude.


File: 1661660712746.jpg (14.64 KB, 250x346, Lucio Colletti.jpg)

Opinions on Lucio Colletti?


What's the most communist magic the gathering deck archetype? My type is Rakdos Anvil, Sokenzan Smelters = Stakhanovites.


tips on making a book club?


No, because Israel wasn't even established by Jews, it was established by the British colonial authority and it was established in 1948 which was three years after the collapse of Nazi Germany.


File: 1661769128387.jpg (231.59 KB, 700x430, 7654654.jpg)

Does any one know of a good critique of Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle? (from a Marxist-Leninist perspective)


what is the leftist stance on GMOs and genetic research on crops?


They make everyone queer


so all food will be gmo under communism?



Prior to that though the Jews were creating their own zones of habitation that were intended to be Jewish-only, so Israel kind of existed before the declaration. Was this justified?


A large portion of right (and some on the “left”) is obsessed with supposed population control being enacted by the ruling class, and as a communist, I never really understood why the elites would want to reduce the population.

More poor wagies = more people to easily indoctrinate, enslave, and profit off of, via labor, advertisement, and consumerism. You literally just get richer.

It’s not like we’re running out of land, and even if we were, the rich could just buy it for themselves. What would the masses do? Nothing (as seen by the housing market crisis).

Global warming, and pollution as reasons for why they’re pushing population control doesn’t make sense, as such phenomena are a direct result of capitalist activity, not overpopulation, a fact I’m positive the capitalist class is aware of, considering they’re the ones doing it.

Resources are going to dwindle regardless of if we reduce the population or not, as capitalism is designed to produce the maximum possible regardless of demand. Even if we did reduce the population, we’re gonna run out of fuel and shit soon. A few million unborn won’t change that.

So why would they be trying to drastically reduce the population? Or is this just another case of schizos being largely misguided by easy to swallow “the cabal of lizards want your dick” mantras?


they want to reduce a specific part of the population anon, aka the poors and minorities


I've heard the US somehow forces the EU to trade in dollars/keep dollars in reserve for trade, and then uses inflation to effectively suck away their wealth or something like that. Anyone have resources on this topic?


What the hell is the materialist explanation for the current weather patterns? Theres massive drought in china and europe but pakistan and my home town are getting torrential rain. Before you call me dumb, i KNOW it's global warming and HAARP weather manipulation technology/cloud seeding (i believe in both). Something to do with the ionosphere or something. Anyway wtf is up?



Poor is a subjective term. Are you inferring that the global poor is 3rd world sweatshop workers? Or is “poor” considered the impoverished class of 1st world countries? Or is it just anyone who isn’t a top 1% capitalist?

Minority is also a subjective term, cause all minorities are majorities depending on their location.

Regardless of terminology, that doesn’t explain why they’d want to do it though. Low reading comprehension poor immigrants seem like the perfect wage slaves/hyper-consumers to get richer off of. Why reduce them?


why are economists so schizo
Ive noticed that certain economic theorists(besides marx) advocate for economic policies that go against the historical record:
-they advocate for free trde
-market liberalization
-open borders
and etc

but when i look at the historical record of economics, govs did the opposite of that
-britain was highly merchantlist
-germany was state cap
-south korea and japan and maybe even taiwan were fascist
-france was dirigsme
-and modern china is a socialist market economy

why the fuck are economists like this?


hell even america followed the national system of economics which is the opposite of free trade


it's mostly about weather cycles going completly haywire. If you are more interested there is one interesting video made by some proffesional kiwi science populariser which explains how climate change degregulated the Indian Ocean Dipole when DEBOONKING the stuff about australian fires. It's mostly well done, with a lot of sources, so despite that, I recomend.


what do you guys think of the idea that anarchism is unsuitable for overcoming capitalism and achieving socialism but it's what's required to overcome socialism to achieve communism, through causing the state to whither away at the appropriate time?


What exactly was the theoretical disagreement between Zinoviev/Kamenev and Trotsky? Apparently it was stark enough for Zinoviev to antagonize Trotsky initially but not to the extent that they could join the United Opposition later on. Afterwards, Stalin would go on to say that Zinovievism was just Trotskyism in a different cloak.


Asking any question about anarchism on this board is baiting assmad walls of text from MLs, just FYI.

To answer your question it is not at all desirable to have a situation where more than one revolution is needed. Maybe reforming from lower phase communism to higher phase communism through anarchism could happen, but that is essentially just what Marx and Engels envisioned in terms of having a dictatorship of the proletariat, a workers' state, and the state withering away.

What is most likely to happen in reality is what has already been happening, i.e. many different attempts at building socialism trying different methods and some succeeding more or less depending on the situation and how well the movement is suited to dealing with their particular situation. In spite of what people too stuck in theory will tell you, there is no single clean answer to how we will get from capitalism to communism. It is going to happen in many places at many different times in many different ways. It will be a struggle of many fronts between the workers of the world and the capitalists, and at the same time there will be struggles between the workers over how exactly to build socialism. Perhaps the worst error of 20th century socialism was this sectarian bickering over different methods, since history shows there is not a single golden path, but variations can work to hold power for the workers or at least for a communist movement. In the 21st century our most important lesson to learn is not to undermine each other when there is still capitalism to undermine. You can say whatever you want about a socialist experiment's ability to resist capitalism from within or without, but nobody resists capitalism better when they are being hobbled by so-called comrades.


>I am not an ML
I didn't say anything about you nor was I replying to you, Eugene. I was commenting on a trend on the board, in anticipation of what might be posted in the future.
>You're making this understanding about capitalism and communism as systems that are all meticulously designed by a theorist
No, lol. All systems grow out of their conditions. There are conscious designs that play into that, but by no means are the designs the driver of change. That's why I said that communism won't arrive by practicing the one true theory, but by fits and starts in a heterogeneous fashion with many people in many places dealing with many different conditions. It's hard to imagine how you could take from that the notion that I think they are abstract systems designed by someone and then implemented into the world when that's the opposite of what I was saying.


this entire conversation reeks of fascism. the proletariat will achieve socialism then communism and there will be no secret cabals


>To claim that it is is to engage in very autistic thinking
I'm autistic and I have no idea what this even means.


Where is reliably communist spanish language social media?


File: 1662257087092.jpg (7.89 KB, 263x192, download.jpg)

the argument that minorities are crime ridden because of poverty doesn't work because of this statistic. How would you debunk this?


>before bodycams


File: 1662257262299.mp4 (559.74 KB, 1920x1080, Crackers.mp4)

>How would you debunk this?


File: 1662257708907.png (1.17 MB, 1105x626, 1658274965161530.png)

anon i would just say they are fake


Is there some proof that this is a wide spread problem with rich minorities?


>replying to any shit about muh crime stats with anything other than "the system is racist"
protip: the reason is that the system is racist
black people on average get significantly worse outcomes at every step of the criminal "justice" process, from how often cops stop you to how likely you are to get your sentence shortened.


are tarrifs and exports a bad thing or are they a good thing?


>black people on average get significantly worse outcomes at every step of the criminal "justice" process, from how often cops stop you to how likely you are to get your sentence shortened.


Yes no
What's the context and your goal?


building the productive forces as a third world nation


Yes of course network effects scale
For example shipping containers were a small revolution in the field of logistics


Underdevelopment is an issue there tariffs are in theory good but the threat of western retaliation has to be factor

With the multipolar world this balancing act becomes less of an issue



I'm currently working on becoming a self-employed music teacher. Would this make me one of the petit bourgeoisie?


yes if youre ideologically a capitalist. If youre a communist than nah


File: 1662342707921.mp4 (977.24 KB, 1920x808, meta.mp4)

Why do you care if you're one of the petit bourgeoisie? People who derive politics from identity are always going to create useless conflict and contradiction, I would only care for the sake of entertainment.


Self employed still means you are living off of wage labor.


>When you haven't read anything on a topic so you don't know
>Then instead of reading more you ask for sources and pretend like it's some kind of debate
lurk more


File: 1662350117436.png (98.67 KB, 480x360, ClipboardImage.png)

was strsser a genuine nazbol. I know his brother gregor wasnt really one, but wht about this brother otto?


If you make a claim it has to have evidence behind it or else it can be dismissed as easily, it's not really a debate, it's just common sense to not take people at their word. I am reading actually, i have many books in my reading list, some leftist some not.


Strasser was an anticommunist and didn't want to be friends with the USSR. In fact he advocated an European alliance against the Soviets, a sort of early NATO.

Paetel was the nazbol who wanted an alliance with the USSR.


Why is there so much nepotism in the DPRK? Don't tell me that two leaders just happened to be the previous leader's son because of pure merit, that they just so happened to be the most intelligent and capable people in the nation and rose through the ranks organically.


Their democracy got brutalized when like 60% of their population got blown to pieces


Do you think the labor movement has room to grow? What are its biggest limitations, and how do we get past them?


What does Mao mean when he talks about revolutions under full communism?


Too many people in the west still believe in liberal democracy and the rituals of voting with a paper.


>When you get called out for not knowing something everyone knows so you try to turn it into an debate rather than just reading more


Literally why the fuck did Marx have to have that gamer moment in the Lassalle Letter???


File: 1662526119392.png (61.44 KB, 1837x235, ClipboardImage.png)

How does the JCP justify this? This legitimately seems insane.
If you're going to go for the more radical sounding "Communist Party" why are you saying that the USSR was "not real socialism"???
Seriously, cheering its dissolution and the destitution of millions that the event left?


What do you think about treating China's capitalist turn in the '80 as "long NEP"? I saw some anons who treat it as such and want to know arguments for and against that.


How was Trotsky so good at organizing and yet so fucking bad at not alienating everyone around him on a personal level?




MLs have literally ceased to exist in Europe, and exist purely outside of it as a serious political force.


How exactly does Democratic Centralism manage to work alongside multi-party democracy (DDR, DPRK, PRC, etc) and how does it work with a party separated directly from the government (Cuba, PRC, etc) while still being the sole leading party?


File: 1663220212134.jpg (33.89 KB, 780x438, pepe.jpg)

What does leftypol think about getting rich online? Is that bad and anti-communist? Am I bad for running a pretty big ecommerce business pulling in ten thousands of dollars a month? Thanks a lot lefty-pol.


I think you should find a new meme to shit post with


>is it good that I scam people online?
Yes, since this mainly fucks firstoids. Thanks for aiding the destruction of western civ.


Any good works on the role of the intelligencia and students in revolutionary socialism?


It's obviously fine please read.
What's your business?


The usual crime victim is not somebody who gets murdered. Murder is a pretty rare crime that gets a lot of airtime because of how extreme it is, a story about shoplifting doesn't get eyeballs like that. Plenty of people steal shit because they lack food or have trouble paying rent, which is of course less of an issue in Cuba than Haiti. That's why you are pretty save in Cuba compared to Haiti. I don't see the problem here, just that you can't explain away everything by income.

Opportunism by what's basically a socdem party.


File: 1663256232055.jpg (4.7 KB, 194x260, gonzalo.jpg)

Because we love it when our projects get coopted and become reactionary bourgeois institutions by replicating the same power structures that we fight to destroy in the first place. Worker's dictatorship means handing the reins over to reactionary mouthbreathers, because MaSsAcRiNg sExUaL MiNoRiTiEs iS oKaY bEcAuSe iTs WhAt ThE pRoLeS wAnT


File: 1663356365804-0.png (42.04 KB, 967x570, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1663356365804-1.png (258.04 KB, 1200x847, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1663356365804-2.png (14.29 KB, 756x508, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1663356365804-3.png (147.66 KB, 1023x642, ClipboardImage.png)

What's up with all these conflicting indicators of the USSR's economy?
>Before 1991, the USSR was the fastest growing developed country in the world. Annual growth rates in the mid-1980s were 0.9% compared to only 0.1% in Europe or 1.1% in the US.


If you don't want to give me proof then fine, but don't act like you're automatically right because everyone else believes it.


Khanin is a fraud


Tanks. But please put the source next time.


File: 1663385626146.png (81.49 KB, 704x1046, Untitlesssd.png)

Debunk this, /pol/ is using it to say that the jews are the top 1% and the link to the full report is dead.



Was there a particular time in the lead-up to the October Revolution where the Bolsheviks became illegal? If so when? If not, is it because it was fluctuatingly illegal for a prolonged time? If the latter, why do some talk about it as if there was this one thing that happened that made them go from legal to illegal just like that? They were still in the Duma in 1917, but robbed banks for funding several years prior, so this confuses me.


>100 000+
That category cover many more situations than the top 1%
Like you could be a doctor, a petty bourg or a lawyer and technically belong to this category, you're still far from full Porky status.


I would be more interested if it stratified by occupation, these are just income brackets. Specifically in financial institutions, pension funds and fintech.
It's their historical role as creditors that has caused millennia of ethnic tensions.


what's there to debunk? if joos earn more than average then joos earn more than average


Cleary Hindus are the 1% judging by this.


why is no one talking about the curry question?


Hello my name is Bob Fatbutt from Texas. Kindly inform yourself of the facts: Indians are smart and work hard. In my humble opinion we should stop blaming Indian men (who we are envious of because they are very sexy and have the best dance moves) and watch out for Islamic terrorists.


What in China's economic policy allows it to have such overwhelming poverty reduction statistics(whether you use the UN's pitiful $1.90 mark or higher, more accurate poverty cutoffs, in which case the statistics are more amazing) while still using a mostly liberal system after Deng's capitalist reforms? Where can I learn more about this?


The 1% are anyone that is in the top 1% of income. Any inferences /pol/ makes stems from their schizophrenia.


Has anyone ever studied the relationship between operation GLADIO and Eurocommunism?


The liberals took over after the tsar abdicated and the Bolsheviks we're no longer illegal


Continuing the discussion from >>1192625 (you) >>1192712 (me) >>1192728 (you)
Why you can't just say class = relationship to means of production
If you say class = relationship to means of production, you are saying Marx was retarded to make distinctions between slaves and the working class instead of having one term always referring equally to both in his analysis. Remember neither slaves nor workers own means of production, so if you say that is all that matters, you must think Marx made the wrong decision here. But Marx was right and you are wrong and vulgarizing Marx. Class is not a relation of people to things. It's a relation between people mediated by things. And seen that way, it makes sense to distinguish between slaves and workers.

"I have seen zero evidence for this (rate of exploitation 1/2)"
>I have seen zero evidence for this, in fact Cockshott threw a misquote from Marx to me when i asked.
You probably misunderstood. It's a common thing in Marxist theory to assume that rate just as a convention, but much later it has been shown to be empirically so:
Guerriero, M. (2019): "The labor share of income around the world: Evidence from a panel dataset."


>Remember neither slaves nor workers own means of production
This is pretty retarded. Ownership is not the only relationship you can have with means of production, it is also about how and when you are allowed to work on them. Wage workers can relatively freely choose what factory to work on, slaves aren't.

>But Marx was right and you are wrong and vulgarizing Marx

You are the ones butchering him.


>I am pretty good at the "theory stuff"
What empirical research about the rate of exploitation have you read? You claimed to have seen zero evidence for it being 1/2. What studies is that based on (or is your statement just vacuously true because you just haven't looked at anything)?

>>neither slaves nor workers own means of production
>This is pretty retarded.
It is true.
>Ownership is not the only relationship you can have with means of production, it is also about how and when you are allowed to work on them.
These things don't make these decisions to allow you this or that, people do. You are expressing yourself in a fetishistic way.


>>1192813 (me)
I'll be away for an hour so please think of a decent answer to my question about what other studies you have read instead of whatever meme zinger you can come up with in a minute.


>What empirical research about the rate of exploitation have you read?
Well i just read the paper you provided and it's really not 1/2, it is only on average for the world at best, not for each country and you definitely can't make statement that it stays the same for every industry and every job inside one country. So, yeah…kinda expected better from Cockshott, but maybe they don't teach statistics on the computer science course where he got his degree.

>These things don't make these decisions to allow you this or that, people do. You are expressing yourself in a fetishistic way.

You either contradicted yourself or just made a completely meaningless statement. You were fine stating that ownership can be considered your relation to means of production (as if it is not other people who allow you to od that), but not fine with regulation about how and when and which means of production you gonna work with also being put into "relationship to means of production". Yes, all those relations are social, but it is still relationship TO the means of production. You dickblasters used some inane interpretation of what relationship to mop means just to state the obvious that this definition doesn't work.

Retarded, just as i have said.


Someone who can't even understand basic english sentence shouldn't be so smug just because he skimmed a couple of papers in his free time.


>>1192921 (continuing with answering off-topic stuff from elsewhere)
Cockshott is anti-imperialist in the sense of being against NATO and colonialism, he just doesn't follow Lenin's economic imperialism theory (which assumes the imperialist countries massively exporting capital into the victim countries) or some takes about unequal exchange that seem to rehash Proudhon.

>>What empirical research about the rate of exploitation have you read? You claimed to have seen zero evidence for it being 1/2. What studies is that based on (or is your statement just vacuously true because you just haven't looked at anything)?
>Well i just read the paper you provided
And what are those other papers that you read, anon? :^) And you want to complain about how smug people act towards you?
>it's really not 1/2, it is only on average
Literally what I said in the original thread.
>maybe they don't teach statistics on the computer science course where he got his degree.
Analyzing stats, especially in economics, involves guessing because we don't have perfect data. What he says about homosexual men being less likely to raise kids is true whatever the exact numbers are, and since he doesn't advocate for LE GAY TAX, but a tax on people who don't raise children this is a pointless discussion either way. The sensibility of the proposal doesn't stand and fall with how precise these statistical guesses are, you are just complaining about it because you are childless and covering up your financial motive behind word games.

>Yes, all those relations are social, but it is still relationship TO the means of production.

You can choose to define the terms this or that way and then find that you "disprove" everyone around you, but it might be that you are just speaking your own private language then. It is clear from the context that Cockshott meant it as I explained it. You are actively choosing to misread it as you feel misreading is necessary in order to "win" the "argument". It's like you are coming to a country and decide to drive on the other side of the road as anybody else while filming a vid about how everyone but you is retarded.

I assure you formulations like talking about a relationship between people mediated by things are rather common in Marxism, which I am now certain you are new to.


>And what are those other papers that you read, anon?
If you have something that would actually support the assinnine bullshit you are pushing, give it to me i will gve it a read. Otherwise, fuck off.
>Analyzing stats, especially in economics, involves guessing because we don't have perfect data.
Implyhing perfect even distribution when nothing indicates that is not guessing, it's an ass pull. Especially given the standard deviation numbers.
> you are just complaining about it because you are childless and covering up your financial motive behind word games.
lolwut, i actually have kids. Why would i care about some bullshit tax in a country that i don't even live in? Not that Cockshott even has power to make it happen in his own country. That's some seriously deluded shit right here.

You are just butthurt that at least two anons immediately discovered that your parrotting dickblast's "if it's only about relationship to mop then slaves are same as proles" is nothing but one of the most retarded takes on Marx.


Is it not true that Batista is responsible for around 7,000 deaths, whereas Castro is reponsible for about 10,000? Furthermore, can it not be said that U.S-backed dictators kill less people than Soviet-backed ones on average?


yes because rightwingrs want to keep the status quo while "left-wing" people want to radically change society.


File: 1664260131564.jpg (756.39 KB, 1349x908, Pinoshit.jpg)

It's not true until you can prove it.
Until then fuck off you bestiality-loving freak.


>using deaths as a metric
Please explain why you think this is meaningful.
How does a mere count provide any valuable insight? Does it matter whether a death is a preventable starvation or a political imprisonment?

>Is it not true […]

Batista ruled for only a total of 11 years if I'm counting correctly, while Castro ruled for 49. By your (completely uncited) metrics, Castro was a far less lethal leader when you consider how long they were in power.
But I honestly don't see any significance in judging them that way.. (see attachment 2)

Shut the fuck up, burger.


Is sartre worth reading from a marxist perspective?


>If you have something that would actually support the assinnine bullshit you are pushing
Excuse me, but did you not criticize the claim of a 1/2 surplus in the cybernetics thread with these words: “I have seen zero evidence for this”? And now it turns out that when you did say that, you had in fact not looked for any studies whatsoever on it. You are dishonest about this.

So when you claim to know your Marx why should anyone believe it? You are a stranger on the internet. If you have some blog as a Marxist, you can reveal yourself as the same person here and over there and post with a trip. You are mincing words over class analysis but there is not even a hint about what practical difference it would make. If it does not lead to a different classification, there is no substance to it. What motivation do you have other than throwing insults at Cockshott?

Yes ignoring how long Fidel Castro ruled is dumb and the raw numbers are not very telling in themselves. There were a lot of executions right after the end of the Batista regime, but none of those can be linked to Castro ordering them. People went to trial and some of them were convicted.


>Excuse me, but did you not criticize the claim of a 1/2 surplus in the cybernetics thread with these words: “I have seen zero evidence for this”?

Are you truly illiterate? I literally said that i asked Cockshott for evidence and was given a misquote of Marx in return, so that is why i said that. because it was true. When you ask for evidence and your opponent dodges the question, you can safely claim that you have seen zero evidence. I mean it is not my job to find evidence to support his claims.

>So when you claim to know your Marx why should anyone believe it?

Well, given the evidence in this thread, clearly better than you do, since you can't even understand that ownership is not the only relationship you can have with means of production. And if you actually read Marx (and Engels), that would be obvious since he gives plenty of examples.

>What motivation do you have other than throwing insults at Cockshott?

i am sorry that you homophobic cult leader manipulated data about wages and exploitation just to reach predetermined conclusions about gays being "middle class" (ffs, using that term unironically is alone enough to say he is not a marxist) and now you are angry at me because i showed you the truth.

What motivation do you have? You tried to explain smugly about how slaves and workers relationships to mop are the same and when showed wrong by me and some other anon you switched to personal attacks exclusively, completely evading the subject.


You said about 1/2 surplus:
>I have seen zero evidence for this
Had you read any studies on it before making that claim, yes or no?
>i asked Cockshott for evidence and was given a misquote of Marx in return
Post the conversation.

>when showed wrong by me

You have not shown anything. You are playing word games. What you do here is like making your own definition of what proper pudding is as if that would affect what the food in front of you is made of, whatever you call it.


>What you do here is like making your own definition of what proper pudding is
Literally the opposite. You made claim that if we define class by the relationship to the means of production that would mean slaves and wage workers are same class. People, including me, pointed that this is not true and you began your metldown. You base your revisionist theories on very dubious interpretation of words and project it on other people when they dare to point it out.

>Had you read any studies on it before making that claim, yes or no?

You still trying to make it about me personally and not about the fact that evidence you provided does not support your schizo theories.

>Post the conversation.

Somewhere in youtube comments, probably under his video about gay household economics, but maybe under some other recent videos, i didn't make a screenshot and i really have no desire to put serious effort and look for it unless you can prove that you are capable of intellectually honest conversations without ad hominems. Unless you start your next post adressing the flaws in your interpretation of what class is, i don't think i am gonna bother to respond.


>revisionist theories
The point of revisionist theory is to serve revisionist politics. What political consequences would come out of choosing between relationship to MOP meaning ownership or it meaning ownership plus something else, and if people spell out how they mean it how could they smuggle any bad politics through that word choice?

>your schizo theories

>i didn't make a screenshot and i really have no desire to put serious effort and look for it unless you can prove that you are capable of intellectually honest conversations without ad hominems.
I see.


Sartre wrote from a Marxist perspective


It also matters who was killed. Were they killing average peasants, socialist activists, or slaveholders and plantation owners?


Deaths are a simple way to measure suffering; if neoliberalism on average causes more deaths than communism ever has(which as a user of this board, you would likely argue it does), than that is proof that it's a more cruel system. However, I do acknowledge as >>1194194 said that it does matter what classes are the target of said violence.


Death is only small part of the suffering. If those who aren't dead are forced to live in inhuman conditions, like having no access to clean water, suffering from malnutrition and forced to make a living by melting cobalt and copper from disposed electronic while living in literal dumster site that their country is turned into, it should be counted too.


Why does the Catholic church have such a reactionary character in Europe and always align itself with anticommunists nearly every chance it gets?


File: 1664349479479.jpg (401.17 KB, 1920x1080, mpv-shot0007.jpg)

>Deaths are a simple way to measure suffering
…actually it isn't. In fact it doesn't measure most aspects of suffering.

>which as a user of this board, you would likely argue it does

Fuck anyone who lets their hypothesis determine their conclusions. I'm not saying you're wrong, many people on this board would do that. I just want them to know they're jerks.

Deaths is such a vague question, which is part of why I don't see the point of trying to use it as anything but emotive. Do people count if dying because they didn't want to foot the bill of USA hospitalization and doom their family financially, or dying because they can't afford insulin that their economy can evidently produce surplus of? I'd say yes, because in that same situation in my country, it is preventable and therefore cruel to subject citizens to. But how can I expect to measure all these (even just the lethal) issues and compare them? It's complex!


Please read this carefully: evidence and proof are not the same.
Even if there was an agreeable way to determine a death count, who died, why they died, and all of that, it would not be sufficient to establish with confidence which system is more cruel. Even if you could control for the myriad of even just economic differences between the nations of each system (korea, vietnam, laos, cuba, peasant china and post-tzarist russia were not really comparable to capitalist usa, the english empire or the german empire), and even if such a vague word as cruel had a concrete definition, death counts would still not be a conclusive determination of how cruel a system is. It could be evidence! Yes! Even significant evidence, maybe. But far, far from a proof.

Not an expert, but they were (and maybe still are??) a powerful institution. I think it's fair to say communism is inevitably a threat to their power, especially since communism was largely atheistic in theory and in European practice. The view of Christian churches as a repressive institution is far older than communism, and it seems like exactly the kind of institution that any anti-statist would strive to abolish.


Recommend me some accounts of modern life in the DPRK🇰🇵. It's impossible to find anything that is not 1984 George Orwell Edgy Refugee Fiction. Can be a book or even a blog, I just need want something genuine.


>How would you debunk this?
Depends on how deep we ought to get into this issue, and whether we're talking about crime in general, or just homicides.
If we're talking about blacks being more prone to violence or some other bullshit, then the self-evident truth that no such genetic predisposition exist is enough to dismiss it.
However, when talking about criminality in general, culture, inequality and even shit like single motherhood become relevant factors. The gap between races has also shrunk quite significantly in the last couple of years.
If you want, i can – haphazardly – post the references i've used.


What's the consensus on this board about anprims?


>What's the consensus on this board
what a silly thing to say comrade. consensus on this board ahaha look at this guy right here


No sir, I don't like it.
Their goal sounds like a hell to me just as much as capitalism is one, and I just don't see it happening.
And from what I've seen most people laugh at anprims here. There are even proposals to rename the flag to eco-anarchism since most of the people using the flag keep having to explain they're not anprims.


I have to do a uni assignment where I postulate and support an “unpopular” opinion in an open discussion.
What should I choose to piss off the most libs in my class?


File: 1664504435070.png (559.85 KB, 577x396, Anprim.png)


I've seen che called too idealistic, but he's been the most influential in my reading so far. Could someone tell me what specifically about his writings makes him too idealistic? Is it the moralizing? forgive me for my relentless dumb questions


People see Guevara as idealistic because of his pointless death in something that looked unwinnable at glance. It is common to misattribute the theory of Focoism to him, which was actually formulated by some French guy who briefly was with him. Focoism exaggerates the power a small guerilla cadre with the right ideas can have. So a popular idea about Guevara is he had this Focoism theory and trying to apply it killed him.

I suppose he was idealistic in the modern meaning of being very optimistic. He was brave. But he wasn't an idealistic writer.


Besides what >>1198825 pointed out, i guess people could acusse him of being idealistic for because of his humanism. Though, that's also the reason even non-communists admire him.




How there is no real proof for holodomor and great terror in ussr


i read a claim here that chairmn gonzalo was hiding in an apartment somewhere while his followers did most of the fighting.
Is there a source for this?


Does anyone know of books that examine advertising from an anti-capitalist perspective? I've been hurting my brain trying to figure out why Coca-Cola feels the need to spend tens and hundreds of millions of dollars on ads for their soda which is in every single store, there's literally no customer base they can reach through advertising, no one's discovering coca cola that way.


> centralized authority important to achieving communism and why is this seen a positive aspect.

Oh Wow a new spooky lenintard idea


America is a developing nation.


postie chad I kneel


Roll again in the Reading sticky, or if that fails, /edu/.

For what it's worth, my naīve hypotheses are:
>triggering craving or interest in buying, even if it was already your first choice when you're in the mood to buy a soft drink
[^ see medical theory on addiction, and things that trigger interest in an addict]
>launching new variants, for a quick money grab
>retaining. if there are no coca cola ads and lots of bepis ads, then a new generation may begin to see bepis as a main brand
>mere status quo, nobody questioning it, especially the people who get paid to produce the advertising


Because cola is not the only soda in the store and you need to constantly prime people so they would choose your drink and not competitor's (or not buy soda at all), since you make that decision each time you walk into a store. There is nothing here that needs some deep "marxist analysis"


Thank you. I take it there's no issue with his writing specifically then and using it as motivation.

I'd also like to know how a marxist deals with the issue of nihilism. I've talked much with a fascist that doesn't seem to admit individualism or nihilism(nietzsche) despite expressing it, but what arguments are there in response to marxism being nihilistic. Do we accept nietzsche? Isn't he an extension of stirner?


So, no answer? Is hismat, as we know, worthless?


Advertising is not about convincing someone to buy directly so much as it is about establishing a presence in your mind. Because of things like the availability heuristic, competing to live rent free in your head is the main front for advertising now. They want you to just subconsciously buy coke because it's part of your mental landscape.


Also modern usage of the term "imperalist" has come to mean any country that uses military might to achieve it's own means against another so how would internationalists dispell this idea in a debate?


/pol/ says the reason jews don't take Palestine despite being so rich and powerful is because they get money from being able to play the victim in their own country. Wouldn't they make more money from having their own country though? Sounds flawed but i don't much about the economics.


These are all good points, and as such, I would like to ask the rest of this board for works that detail the deaths not directly caused by capitalist military action, but rather by capitalism wasting necessary resources, like you said. I am very new to this topic, and while I know of this being especially true in the neo-colonies(e.g have latam grandparents that don't like to talk about their past), I don't have detailed knowledge of this.


File: 1664683004410.png (835.55 KB, 1341x918, ClipboardImage.png)

>jews don't take Palestine
They're doing that, albeit in a purposely slow pace as to not make it too outrageous to the – by the default – indiferent liberals.


Do you anons know any good books about the Syrian Civil War from a more geopolitical analysis perspective, like about its relation with multipolarity and such? Though if you know one more strictly about the war itself, through just military lenses, like an Antony Beevor book, you can recommend it too.

Also, any good books about the USSR's relationship with the third world and anti-colonialism?


please dont post off-topic questions on an unrelated thread next time, thank you


Uh Zionists TOOK Palestine in 1948, what do you think the Palestinian catastrophe was? They expelled 800k people and razed hundreds of towns and villages. What you see on the maps today is the leftovers.



Marx states in VPP that as the price of necessaries decreases due to increased productivity, the worker's relative value decreases while profit increases. Is this assuming that paid wages stay the same or something? Otherwise I don't see the scam.


Can you rephrase that, you are not making any sense. Directly quote what you take issue with. I assume you mean the text Value, Price, and Profit. Marx isn't calling anything a scam there.


Can materialist explanations ever provide completely comprehensive explanations to idealist thinking and actions stemming from it? In other words, how do we explain with materialism the actions of people that are so profoundly mired in false consciousness that their ideology now feedback loops itself, the material origin of it long since irrelevant?


If I understand now, it's that the wages of the worker do not scale according to what his labor produces but simply adjusts according to price of necessaries?


Suppose the workers are only getting subsistence wages and have no money for knick-knacks. That passage is just saying if productivity increases in the sector that produces the means of subsistence for the worker so that this stuff can be sold for less, the wages of the workers (both in that sector and elsewhere) could be lowered by the corresponding amount without their quality of life diminishing, as they would be still getting the same stuff with their wages as before. So on an absolute scale the workers would not be worse off from that change. The riches of the capitalists would increase on both an absolute scale and relative to the workers.

But Marx did not believe that this is set in stone. The can I put in italics is what he thought very likely, as he believed that some sector having an unusually high profit rate would soon attract competition pushing it down. If workers are not much organized and remain very passive the would stuff follows by the automatic tendencies of capitalism; but if workers are militant enough they can transform some of the productivity gains into shorter work or getting more stuff for themselves or transform all of the productivity gain, or even more than that.


where can i ask a question to a progressive in good faith? i have some racial subjects i wanna ask. and i don't want it to devolve or derail. if that makes any sense? thank you.


Here might be alright, depending on the question. A new thread will probably get nuked when one of the touchier mods shows up, because of persistent attention-seeking /pol/ shit has fucked their heads into thinking every edgy take is /pol/ or le bait.

Doing what you said and urging people not to devolve or derail is actually a good thing to do, so keep that in mind where-ever you ask.


How enforceable are patents outside the US' jurisdiction? If the US already embargoes Cuba, and threatens anyone that trades with them with financial aid removal, why can't they just say "fuck it" and produce the machines they need themselves?
These were my main thoughts after thumbing through "The Economic War Against Cuba."


Well, my guess is that Cuba simply doesn't have resources for full production chain of machinery. Simple as that.


I am certainly not an expert, but it seems 'common knowledge' a really stupid pair of words, but I'm using it that China and other anti-US countries do this. How would they enforce their local IP laws? So that wouldn't be the issue.


My mind makes the comparison to Japan, but I'm ignorant enough that someone could probably tell me why that's a stupid comparison.


I dunno enough about Cuba, but look at how even The US is thrown into complete dissarray by "chip shortages." Hard for them to get into an industry they can't even make money at exporting because of embargoes. To do something only for self-sufficiency is a tall order.


In the manifesto and in other works, Marx and Engels criticize several different forms of socialism (feudal, petty-bourgeois, German, conservative/bourgeois, utopian). They also talk critically about primitive communism and barracks communism.
For each of the examples given, are M&E using the words "socialism" and "communism" seriously or not?
If undesirable forms of socialism or communism can exist, how does one best identify and avoid them?


[this is based on my own options, not any particular theory]
How do you determine what is desirable? In my opinion, it would depend on whether it is likely to succeed and whether it describes a world I'd rather live in.
Some people cop out and say 'well [x] isn't real socialism' but I think that's an emotional or rhetorical approach, I don't respect that. It is possible for there to be 'bad' socialist ideologies, they should be acknowledged, understood and rejected. You can have patriotic and nationalist elements with a socialist economy. I don't want to create it, but some people have tried and will continue to try.
Of course, there will be people who abuse words, such as the German 'National Socialism' ideology of which the name was literally suggested as a popularity stunt trivia: hitler didn't want that name and purged their socialist faction. Yes, Strasserism is dumb and spooked, but if they really were aiming for a bad socialism, they are socialist. They're just shitty socialists whose issues should be recognized and rejected from our socialist movements.
And of course that gets subjective, where do you draw the line without becoming so sectarian and perfectionist as to become doomed to fail? I can't tell you the answer there.


Did the KGB efforts to agitate race conflicts(e.g forging letters in the name of the Klu Klux Klan) have any favorable effects in your opinion, or was it a complete and total misstep?


Are subjective sensations such as humor or sexual arousal "use-values"? If so, can things like lap dances or stand-up comedy shows be considered commodities?


You can think of services as commodities that are instantly consumed, so yeah.


If that's so, how are these supposed use-values quantified? Do they have a role in economic planning?


>how are these supposed use-values quantified?
Sadly Marx and Engels hardly wrote anything about communism. The context of almost all they wrote is capitalism, likewise with use-values. There is no integration into one overall scalar use-value. Use-values are just counted as X units of this coat, Y units of this clock, and so on, with the caveat that units produced but not consumed by anyone count for nothing.
>Do they have a role in economic planning?
Well the buying decisions of people have to do with use-values. And the demand data figures into planning. Nobody is pushing proposals for directly planning with use-values.


Yes, I think your more poignant question of "do they even have access to the raw resources needed to build these machines, let alone industry" while they can barely access the materials to maintain their power plants over embargo is a much more productive question.


sorry i didn't realize you responded. I was slow to respond, I noticed it is bit slower here. So I am kind of on the conservative side about a lot of things. but i do have sympathy for progressive and some communist ideas. not a troll. I just know that it invites a certain dismissive attitude when you reveal you don't agree on stuff. or if you just plain don't know, or don't understand something. if i post on reddit it's usually like the poster wants to do a slam dunk in the replies. but that's not exactly why im here. i have some racial identity issues. I just wanted to talk to someone who was more liberal or progressive, perhaps a black/FBA user.

i guess ill ask one. there's a concept going around called "white privilege" we all know what it is. it's been beat into our heads. I've seen great arguments for it. but i notice it usually leads to people kind of taking certain successful people down a peg since they are white or white-passing. and even if there is a lighter skin successful black person. this is colorism and that's also a degree called light skin privilege. This is when I kind of start getting frustrated. But then I know. there's a lot of successful dark skinned women out there. I know they had to fight. But noteable black women like Lupita Nyong'o, Whoopie Goldberg, Serena Williams, Oprah and Lizzo, do they have a privilege that can be attributed to their success? I guess the only thing I can think of is first world privilege? But I was wondering if there was something a little more thought out than that.


Guy quoting Bukharin:
>>We may say of a system that it is in equilibrium if that system of itself, without the application of external energy cannot change its condition.
>The fuck is this?
A definition in plain English.
>Its saying that systems have no internal motion
No it is saying if a system is not changing, it is in equilibrium.


Is anarcho-mutualism good in any way or form?


Does anyone know what the big disagreement is between the ALO and the C(M)PA? The latter was created out of a merger of 5 Maoist parties so I don't see why the ALO couldn't have join in then.


Black anon here.

White privilege is real, but it's only limited to upper class whites.
And yes, colorist is a thing. In Middle East, Latin America, etc, light skinned folks are glorified while the darker skinned ones are shunned.


What's the difference between communism, socialism, and liberalism?

And why is liberalism considered leftist?
And what is leftist exactly?


File: 1665483608285.jpg (78.37 KB, 580x580, Frankenhole.jpg)

to preempt an extra question: the definition of libertarian depends on if you're asking a USA person or those who learn politics from them, or if you talk to others. The term was invented by socialists to refer to themselves, then in the USA it was used by 'economically-liberal' capitalists to refer to themselves.
>And why is liberalism considered leftist?
>And what is leftist exactly?
"Leftist" is a really, really stupid word. I personally believe everyone should avoid using it, and learn to use the words they are really referring to.

A decent summary of its history is here:
It was used to refer to the left and right sides of the French parliament in the late 1700s onwards, literally seating positions. The seating positions were based on policies of pro-monarchist and anti-monarchist sentiments, "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp", said a deputy.

So yes, liberalism was historically always part of the leftist grouping. They were part of the French revolutionaries under the monarchy, along with socialists and anarchists.

As politics changed, the left-right dichotomy became loose groupings based on various other values. As you can see in the linked article it changed a lot of times. And since there are different sociopolitcal issues and situations in all the countries of the world, it means whatever the hell in any country. Add in its use as a slur and now 'left' and 'right' are as worthless as a burger calling someone a socialist. Furthermore, I believe they have become identities to some, so they violently claim that 'only anti-capitalists are leftists' or 'tankies are rightists' and then the rationalizing centrists try coping mechanisms like horseshoe theory.
The Left-Right political spectrum is a bad political model. There is no popular definition of the axis. Trying to define the term will inevitably lead to irreconcilable fights, even in small anti-liberal 'leftist' communities like here.

To answer your question in a sentence: Leftist doesn't mean anything exactly, it depends on the person you ask and how they understand it. It tends to approximate social progressiveness on the left and traditional or reactionary values on the right, but even that definition has obvious contradictions.

>communism, socialism, and liberalism

Socialism is another word that varies wildly depending on who you're talking too, but 'a system where workers control the means of production' is a decent one for people who read about politics, in my experience.
Communism generally advocates for a 'stateless, moneyless, classless' society, which is inherently socialist and anarchist (unless somehow post-labour). However, major disagreement stems from how to reach this goal, hence all the variants of communism.
Liberalism (again, another term that gets abused in the USA and friends) advocates for personal liberty, individual rights, consent of the governed and equality before the law. To quote Wikipedia, "Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles. However, they generally [note: not inherently] support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion."
There are conservative liberals (usually economically liberal and socially libertarian, a lot of the US Republican Party are this), anarchist libertarians (who believe a government is inherently and critically anti-liberty. naturally they tend not to believe in private property), classical liberals, social liberals (what USA calls 'liberals'). Explore a little.

Yeah, words words words, but the point is you can actually be an anarchist liberal communist socialist, and whether there's a contradiction there just depends on someone's understanding of those terms. What terms mean depends on not only colloquialism but cultural differences, propaganda and innocent misunderstandings. So don't pretend there's a high-ground because you know the One True Definition; that makes you look like a jerk. If you know who you're talking to, you can probably guess their approximate definition of a word and clear up difference. Better yet, encourage more specific terms like 'anti-capitalist', 'progressive', 'pro-labour', 'egalitarian'.


Communism = socialism, except Americans have rewritten socialism to mean whenever the government does anything.
Liberalism is everything from people who say they're "capitalist" ideology, to social democrats, ancaps, conservatives, basically every political ideology except maybe pure ideological fascism.
Liberalism means "left" in the US because the left wing of liberals took on that name, while the right wing took 'conservatives'. Social democracy, the most "left wing" of liberalism, sometimes agree with socialists historically, but they always backstab the socialists, sell out, betray their ideals, kill communists, shill for imperialism, etc etc.

Does that help?


>Communism = socialism
Communism ∈ socialism
Many forms of socialism aren't communist at all.


Nonsense. Socialism is but a movement towards communism. Social Democracy is not socialism.


<representative republic or parliamentary system that protects property rights within a capitalist economy that may or may not involve a welfare state
<a number of different proposed systems in which workers own and control the economy, either through centralized planning, decentralized planning, cooperative markets, direct democracy, representative democracy, etc
<stateless, classless, moneyless society


>read a book flag
lol. Ok pseud.


liberalism is the political philosophy of the bourgeois. communism is that of the proletariat. Marx and Engels tried to form a scientific, materialist approach to socialism and called themselves communists to differ from the utopian socialists of their day. Lenin revived the term to differentiate revolutionaries from reformist socdems after WW1.

>And why is liberalism considered leftist?

No, liberalism is not left wing and it never was.

>And what is leftist exactly?

The basic fundamental difference between left and right is that the left wants to abolish private property and the right wants to preserve it.


liberalism is only considered "leftist" in the American MSM


Liberalism is centrist ideology with some variants having a slight left lean on some issues.


doesn't mean anything.


hi black anon. thank you for your reply! I was wondering if you can go in on how black women treat cases of dark~medium dark skinned women like Lizzo, Oprah, etc. (And I'm just truncating.) In which they found opportunity and great success. Reflect on how many people these women beat to be where they're at. I consider them to have made it off of their merit. Despite racially tense negative situations that they dealt with. Or like when Oprah had to deal with that woman who assumed Oprah was black or a lower class woman. At least in Lizzo's case, she was a tremendous artist and musician. She's on top of the world for positive and negative reasons. Regardless I'd say she's in a good place. But many people are using race and color as a factor to categorize opportunity and success. I find many self-identifying black women speak passionately about this on social media. What would you say are the factors of "privilege" that apply to this demographic of black women? Or are they not really talked about?

One of the reason's this got me very curious was because I saw an interesting comment. That to me seemed like a paradox. There is an Canadian performer (Alessia Cara) of Italian heritage; Who people seem to identify as having mixed race (with black) features. Regardless of whatever her genetics and features she may have, she is white. However the commenter seemed to point out that she is actually a white woman who is benefitting from her white privilege. But that got me thinking. If many people seem to consider her or confuse her as black. Can one really apply white privilege to her life experiences? And I know she is in Canada and ethnically an Italian woman. So I know she is white. Just interesting to think about the experiences and dynamics of colorism within the "swarthy" white people.

And I think this is a better place to ask because of social media conditioning the way people prepare their answers. If I were to pose these questions directly on the subreddit blackladies or mixed race. i think I would probably receive negative feedback, derailment, and be immediately banned. so im really grateful to get some clarity if you're still around and care to entertain it.


No-one is talking about Social Democracy, which isn't socialist.
Worker control of the means of production can and often does manifest without any intention on founding communism.

Consider Zapatismo/Neozapatismo (actually existing! an agrarian socialism that explicitly rejects any static long-term ideological goal like communism and instead embraces flexibility to achieve improved conditions) and other non-Marxist socialist tendencies, or even consider worker self-managed co-operatives (not revolutionary, literally workers controlling their means of production). These are examples of groups who are improving their own conditions through socialist concepts with no grand utopian vision of communism.

Socialism existed independently of a concept of communism and will continue to do so. To think of it as "but a movement towards communism" is absurd ideological narcissism.


File: 1665617558652.png (3.69 KB, 200x200, saddened.png)

>>1218603 [section 1]
Absolute knee-jerk shitposts. This is the kind of ahistorical arrogant ignorance that leads to delusional out-of-touch worldviews akin to 'socialism is when the government does stuff'.


File: 1665623195796.png (378.8 KB, 2036x1318, ClipboardImage.png)

I found this image on the booru, but it featured no source of the original work where it was taken from. I tried reverse image searching and dropping the text in google, but to no success. Does anyone happen to have the source of it?

Also, i found this glowpedia article claiming that famines were happening as early as 1930:
Is this bullshit or what?


Provide an argument instead of babbling like a schizo retard. It's not like I even said something unusual. Marx and Engels didn't try to form a scientific socialism now? Lenin didn't rename the bolsheviks to communists? Socialists don't want to abolish private property?


Ok so the end goal for communism is of course classless, stateless, and moneyless society but how do we distribute non essential item/services like art commission, crafting, brewery, or any sort of artisanal stuff?

Do we need some sort of market function but doesn't that contradicting with the moneyless aspect of communism? I hope someone can clarify this question for me.


Marx and Engels had a rather specific idea what money is, anything outside of that isn't money in their framework. They made a few brief mentions about the post-capitalist society possibly using something like personal consumption budgets ("labour vouchers") that cannot be transferred from person to person. To M & E that is enough of a change to be something else than money.

But most modern Marxists don't make the distinction between money and non-money that way. (This is not a conscious decision to be different based on any new theoretical insight, but people following spontaneous belly feel, "know it when I see it", while being ignorant of what M & E wrote.) These people have rather crude ideas like using a lottery or following the principle first come, first serve. Anti-communists equate this with a lack of any useful data, but even when items are zero price, you still can analyse data about ingoing products, stock, and outgoing products.

When people request to much of a resource, this can be dealt by proportionally shrinking the amount, e. g. people request in sum 400 % of what is available of some resource, then we can give everyone just a quarter of their requested amount. The problem with that is people can anticipate the shrinkage, so they exaggerate, and people can anticipate the exaggeration strategy, so there is a spiral of exaggeration. An innovation by /leftypol/ is the cookie algorithm that makes exaggeration pointless: https://pastebin.com/bPyr7Vau
If the quantity of an item is far below the number of people requesting some amount of it, this is still very frustrating because of how random it can get. Obviously you can't give a guarantee that everyone gets one unit a thing they ask for if there are more people than units of it. But you may make guarantees about getting something from an item group. So, instead of running the algorithm for each item separately, this can be applied to trees of use values (items get grouped into sets and super sets and super sets of super sets and so on), and then run recursively by first assigning you X items from a big set without specifying which, and then going into the more precise sets and finally the items themselves.

There are alternative allocation methods that require individuals to rate items and then everybody gets at least a share that is proportional minus one item. (E. g. Suppose you are in a group of five people and have 100 points for rating stuff, you then get allocated items that in sum are worth no less than 20 points minus some gap that could be bridged by one more specific item.)

Both the cookie algorithm and rating lack a way of dealing with higher utility of certain combinations. When you are looking to get a combo of items, for example if you want to follow a particular cooking recipe, these allocation methods get rather awkward compared to shopping with labour vouchers.


My argument to that is basically the same as the one >>1218143 wrote so just read the first half of that.
Supplement: If you unusually define the left-right axis as 'pro-private property' and 'anti-private property', then using the proxies 'left' and 'right' achieves nothing but confusion. Just say what you really mean.

Judging by the font choice, I wouldn't be surprised if it was OC.

/leftypol/ made a cookie algorithm? Cool.
Any other little tools like that to repost for the newer kids? All I know about is the Haz quote generator bot.
>_ Political Materialism is exactly like American Patriotic capitalism in order to restore the working class. This is due to the Arabic materialism that allowed capitalists to win the culture wars. Fake Leftists will say I’m wrong because I am always right. Fake Leftists are dumb fucks who hate the working class and I am an absolute chad who can destroy them in a debate.


Alright thank you for explaining it, I was somewhat confused at first that if labour vouchers are destroyed upon used then how the producer get their compensation, to which they probably receive a new labour vouchers of their own upon payday


Literally what the fuck is dialectical materialism? I have been in this site for two years, and i have never seen a single good explanation for it.
>inb4 read the buk
No. Be concise.


File: 1665993592312.png (102.85 KB, 300x273, 1657678020187.png)

Read Dialectal and Historical Materialism by Stalin, Anti-Duhring, Dialectics of Nature, and A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy by the Leningrad University.


A new way of thinking about knowledge, and the development of society. It centers understanding and knowledge as a social human experience that is deeply integrated and informed by human activity, of which is situated in a society organized for production. Human activity has a character of developing or changing by virtue of time passing and customs changing, or way more crucially, due to the changing nature of the organization of society around production. Production is a central part of diamat because our society is organized entirely around production, and even before our society, like feudal societies, and slave societies. A large portion of time of human activity in our socities is spent in activities related to production, which also includes the reproduction of conditions that allow production. As such, it is a crucial human activity and informs knowledge in a very deep way. In fact, if you think about it, diamat was developed in a specific time and context where industry, science, etc were burgeoning. It has many characteristics of enlightenment and about the development and expansion of industry at its heart. Before in agrarian societies, the development of society might not have been as obvious. So using diamat you can understand why diamat emerged when and where it did.

Hope that helps.


what books exposes liberal notions of democracy and electoralism as being wrong ?.


File: 1666169101245.gif (41 KB, 696x1038, RODINA voting.gif)

>Any other little tools like that to repost for the newer kids?
We also have an extremely boring alternative voting system (technically it was published on /GET/ first).


Do you know any good books from a conspiracy orientation that debunk the jewish conspiracy of the jews beinh behind it all, like Behold a Pale Horse?

"I give lectures all over the United States. At some point before, during, or after every lecture, some well-meaning but misguided soul, tells me that I have it all wrong and that it's the Jews, the Catholics, the communists, or the bankers that are the cause of all our ills. The target group is blamed for everything that has ever gone wrong. Power over everyone and everything is always attributed to this group - whichever group it happens to be at that moment to that person. These poor people are on the right track, in that there has been and certainly is a conspiracy to bring about a totalitarian world order. They are completely off track to think that any one ethnic, religious, or financial group alone could ever muster enough power to bring its plan to fruition. One group, you see, would always be opposed by all of the other special-interest groups that exist and have always existed throughout history. That is, unless they were all really the same group (the Illuminati) or for some reason they became unified (the Bilderberg Group)."


To what degree is it useful to consider USA as a country, and to what degree is it more useful to consider USA as a collection of states, akin to the EU?
For example, when making comparisons about comparing living conditions in the US against other countries, do different governance systems between states and the unusual size of USA compared to European states warrant the analytical treatment of individual US states as if they were their own countries in a union?

Bonus: Same question but for the USSR


>(technically it was published on /GET/ first).
Naturally, given the name. Thanks.

Consider asking the reading general.


File: 1666324332395.png (1.88 MB, 1050x690, ClipboardImage.png)

hello, i have a question about the NBP and national bolshevism. at first glance they look like retards that are basically just fascist, but i have heard they are not actually fascists and all the iconography are just ironic larp and they are just edgy communists/left wing nationalist. However i cant seem to find detailed breakdown on what they stand for, wikipedia says theyre basically fascist in all but economics(this seems ridiculous to me), but they have stuff like the black lenin dude and (iirc?)nazbol feminism thing. This shit is just so confusing, and all the nazbol gang meme and online nazbol larp doesnt help. Can someone explain to me what they actually are/what they stand for? Maybe a reliable reference too.


I dunno about the EU but in the US most states still work pretty coherently together as if they're one country instead of a federation.


What *modern* textbooks are there for Marxist political economy? And are there any that give a historical perspective of the origin and growth of capitalism as opposed to pure economic theory?


Read comrade Xi


you suggested that to me in my market socialism thread >:(


also i have a similar question Id love a textbook on market socialism like a real econ book that isnt theory or philosophy or whatever


In that case you most definitely should


i dont want red capitalism
i want market socialism
Like tito or what proudhon envisioned


This is not me btw>>1232536

I'm reading leontiev, but it was written in the 30s so it's pretty dated as far as historiography goes. And I've looked over Otani but it doesn't really have any historical overviews


not a book but Badiou wrote a good text on it


I just started reading the Capital, which proposes that workers sell their labour-power instead of their labour. How does the gig economy tie into that? Is that a case where they actually sell their labour (even if its precarization comes from other factors)? Can someone point out what I'm misunderstanding or provide additional reading? Google was not helpful.


Is DeLeonism meaningfully different from Marxism-Leninism? If so, how? It seems like, from a cursory overview, the nitty gritty of it can be explained away quite easily with "they had different material conditions". Am I oversimplifying?


File: 1666571017011-0.jpg (2.91 MB, 3472x4624, IMG_20221023_201900.jpg)

File: 1666571017011-1.jpg (3.58 MB, 3472x4624, IMG_20221023_201931.jpg)

Is there any particular reason why capitalism made society see children as being actual human beings? I mean, for thousands of years, even thousands of years of class society, is seems abuse was just accepted, can someone give me a Historical Materialist analysis of this?


Major red flag for rightoid trash. Be very skeptical of anything said by someone using this term. Also note that they are only talking about "western civilization" here instead of having a global perspective. Treatment of children varies a lot by culture and isn't necessarily determined just by the mode of production.


Try these.



Does anyone have that leftypol image comparing muslims and nazis?


>Judging by the font choice, I wouldn't be surprised if it was OC.
Is there any book/other source which makes the same claim (i.e. kulaks were killing their livestock before the famine)?


>Caussidière for Danton, Louis Blanc for Robespierre, the Montagne of 1848 to 1851[66] for the Montagne of 1793 to 1795, the nephew for the uncle
Can someone explain these figures briefly so that I know what Marx means when he uses these as examples for "First as tragedy, then as farce"? I'm assuming that the nephew for the uncle refers to Napoleon III using his uncle's likeness as merely as an aesthetic to try to pretend as though he is repeating a great historical era when its really just a farce, but what of the others?



File: 1666648088863.png (162.86 KB, 1737x567, ClipboardImage.png)

Found this post in the booru. What's incorrect about (besides the obvious, stramaw ones, like claiming that Marx invented the LTV).


The rise of capitalism meant capitalism was able to separate the home life as opposed to the work life. Previously, the entire family unit was involved in the economy including children. When feudalism gave way to capitalism, so did the family relations. In feudalism, the family structure itself was part of the economy. The economic and political relations of capitalism, however, resulted in a change of family relations such that children were separated from the family as a whole and sent to school instead of merely being tools (ex. for passing down property). The family unit of feudalism is based on the entire family's involvement with the economy and political life, while the family unit of capitalism has the wife and children removed into an emotional sphere as independent people.
There are a lot of theories of why children were now being treated differently, but I believe one other aspect had to do with childhood mortality rates being high. People could not invest a lot of time into a child because of the high chances of them dying.


<Boys were castrated as preparation for the popular brothel because, according to the belief of that period, intercourse with castrated youngsters was especially arousing.


pretty sure rampant abuse of adults was also accepted for thousands of years (and still is)


If at the current moment I'm too autistic to lie very good on the spot, is there a way that I can improve that well enough to partake in revolutionary activity, or am I just doomed to being the propaganda maker?




mix the lie with the truth and you'll get away with it every time


Where online do i find the LUNATIC FRINGE of the left wing? I mean something like UNZ.com , but on the left.




What is /leftypol/'s answer to this /pol/ question "Why do big banks continue to do work with dictators, gangsters, mafia, drug dealers and cartel members, but if you say something anti-semetic they cancel your bank account?"


I don't care about who /pol/ calls any of those things. But it also works for racism, they want to protect their image to people as that helps keep their implicit consent. /pol/'s definition of freedom is to stay uyghur and russian saboteur in every sentence and to commit genocide.


If the jews are not in power (as your side belives) then why are they able to ruin your life for anti-antisemitism?


If cats are not in power why can't I set a cat on fire without someone calling the police?


Capitalists prop up those dictators in the 3rd world or gang violence in poor communities, but at home, they like their current liberal government setup. Antisemitism is heavily tied to fascism and the bourgeoisie would rather not resort to fascism at home until liberalism becomes unsustainable.
Of course, they don't care about violence outside their communities or especially not outside their country, so they don't mind dictators and whatnot. That doesn't mean they won't cry and moan if that violence seeps into their own backyard, at least until it becomes apparent that the only alternative is socialism at which point they will tirelessly support at much violence is needed to maintain capitalist relations.


Because the “cartels/mafias/criminals” they corroborate with are from underdeveloped parts of the world, entirely disconnected from the cushy 1st world cities in which the global banks reside.
Most people don’t know such illegal relationships exist, so why would banks care about ceasing said relations in order to appease a public that doesn’t know/care?
On the contrary, Jewish people are everywhere, so for a bank to be antisemitic or encourage antisemitism, it would be detrimental for their business, as public spectacle observes antisemitism, but it doesn’t observe underground world crime collaboration.


is socialism when the workers control the economic production, when commodity production is phased out, when the economy is I think publically owned, when theres a dicttorship of the prolertarit and when class differences are removed over time


What does leftypol think of seperatism? Would ethnic minorites seceding from imperialist countries like the UK be a good thing?


No to that, creating ethnostates is a bloody affair, just look what the Zionists are doing.





This book would interest you. I'd say don't expect to find a party with coherent theory, as NazBol was more of an art movement and LARP. It had people with many contradictory ideas and views.


Is the communal toothbrush / fleshlight argument supposed to be for or against private propery? Because with something like that, it becomes an attribute of the item that it's only useful for the person that used it, because it's got their bodily fluids and such on it that cannot be practically washed off per use.
Do people who argue that think property is a literal property of the item?


For private property, because the people who say it either are denying or lying or don't understand what the marxist conception of private property is


We're coming for your toothbrush bucko


In my experience, it's made by people who think anything not public property is private property.
Therefore, to abolish private property means that you can't have anything personal, we're going to use your toothbrush and give you diseases!
So it's advocating for private property due to a lack of understanding our concept of personal property.


It's just ignorance over definitions I think or willful misrepresentation.


Do keep in mind Marxism defines personal property different. Correct me if im wrong but in Marxism your home is personal property because of personal use but everywhere else it's private property because private property is defined as immovable property while a toothbrush is personal property because it's movable property. So this causes another confusion where people think they can have their toothbrush but forced to have their home taken away and live in some communal home.


In Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx wrote that the early stage of communism might have individuals receiving labor vouchers for work that they spend on consumption. – Which doesn't make sense to write for someone who assumes people won't own these consumer goods. So it is reasonable to infer from that document that Marx expected personal property to persist post capitalism.


What do people here think of Elite Theory?


Good books on the Stasi?


wtf is this from half life 2?


PRIVATE =! PERSONAL PROPERTY. Distinction matter and only ignorant people (and/or capitalists) can't distinguish the difference


socialism is broad, but most of the time socialism is a political movement (I don't really want to say "ideology") that offers an alternative to capitalism which socialists object.


as an anarchist i don't really care for (national, ethnical separatism) separatism per se as a concept, because I don't believe in nationalism or other spooky things like that. But there are arguments to be made to some kind of separatism particularly if the state who controls such nation is authoritarian and actively oppressing the nation in question.
Stuff like Irish unity, I like. Palestinians freedom, I like. Kurdish freedom, I like. They don't really need a state, but as a realistic step towards freedom? Okay.


Private property is enforced by the state as a concept. There's no private property without a concept of public property. Mere possession is not the same as private property that you hold a deed to, that other people recognize. Without someone to recognize private property conceptually, it's not private property as such. If someone doesn't recognize your deed, then you have to defend it by force. Private property persists because there is a state or some understanding in society that you have a right to defend the thing on that deed, without having to resort to violence or self-assertion that it is so.

If you actually follow the ancap logic, it's not private property, but feudal property or simple possession. "Ancaps" really are reactionaries pointing to serfdom as their desired outcome. Capitalism was only possible as a concept because of this liberal theory of the state and society, and a certain moral philosophy that enshrined the role of a manager or human genius. Before then, capitalism only existed in embryonic form and was antagonistic towards the earlier arrangements of society.
(It is erroneous to think of "capitalism" as a singular system, since it's really a situation, as were the various feudal arrangements from before, and all of these built on a basic concept of an imperial society going back a long way, but basically capitalism proper - the capitalism we're talking about - arises with the free trade system, its logic and its perpetuation throughout the world. This free trade system was very much governed by institutions and states, and didn't exist just because or because someone had the idea to assert it was so by diktat.)


File: 1667221797039.pdf (37.38 MB, 161x255, rulingclass031748mbp.pdf)

What is "elite theory"? If you're talking about the theory of political elitism, I think it's true but you have to ask what makes a political elite an elite.


File: 1667264801551.jpg (109.43 KB, 700x1200, desertberg.jpg)

Yes/No, and more importantly, why?

(linking is fine, no need to write a one-off essay)


Never heard of it, sounds like a vague conspiratorial alternative to class theory.


File: 1667265689692.jpg (68.5 KB, 658x448, mpv-shot0008.jpg)

Imagine repeating something that has already been answered five times in greater detail, just to add insults and show that you're offended.


has anyone read this book ?, i got it recomended by a guy that talks about Soviet history alot, it's about nationalities and Nationalism in the USSR, if you did what you think ?.


File: 1667354031617.png (188.33 KB, 368x450, ClipboardImage.png)

whats the consensus on this guy? was he a schizo? a tragic forgotten economist? a contrarian? all of these 3 things at once?


>NATO prevented the Yugoslav collapse/genocides from getting worse
Debunk this


All I know


If my goal is to work less wouldn't I prefer capitalism with welfare and UBI over socialism where I will have to work harder for the good of the country?


whats ismaels site called again



cheers *tongue kisses you*


File: 1667696227320.png (926.24 KB, 1280x928, 168647a0.png)

what harm is there in a little kiss between fraternal comrades? 😘


Where do you live that has a sustainable and fulfilling UBI/welfare?


Any counters to the epic "Russia hacked our elections" hysteria? This seems to be one of the go-to for my lib friends. Apparently there is a lot of evidence that Russia manipulated our election



A boycott is an inherently passive abstinence of (for example) a product.

Is there a name for a similar consumer activism that involves the targeted theft of a product instead?


>Apparently there is a lot of evidence that Russia manipulated our election
Why wouldn't they?
Seriously, there are no good guys in world superpower conflict. USA is hacking Russia, Russia is hacking USA, North Korea is hacking Ireland. Don't transfer the lib idea of one team being above using power because well they're not the bad guy right now.

If USA is willing to coup small countries on the other side of the world, why wouldn't all the superpowers be exercising political manipulation on each other? The USSR would probably be doing it too if they were still around, they'd be fucking idiots not to.


Aaron Mate did a lot of reporting on this.
It might have happened but afaik there is no evidence it did, besides a shitty 200k USD campaign on facebook that played BOTH sides with run of the mill memes, which is a shady accusation anyways.


There probably is no term because this kind of action certainly won't yield anything. It will actually get the retailer to buy more of the product and thus put more money in the hands of the manufacturer. Even sending a message to the retailer this way doesn't make much sense.


File: 1667840234453.mp4 (10.2 MB, 880x720, NATO in Yugoslavia.mp4)

I've seen this posted around a few times so I decided to look up the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and I discovered that NATO was collaborating with a group called the KLA.

Were they fascists? I don't trust wikipedia's take on this.


When you ask the average burger who remembers Bill Clinton as president they think there was zero war under him.


Are there any communist sports teams i.e. teams with dedicated ML ultras and things of that nature?


even trump says so


File: 1667980426223-1.mp4 (33.56 MB, 480x360, Y2TR.mp4)

honestly I've given up on "debunking" that one and I just laugh and say "well you know that's what we get for doing the same thing to them with yeltsin and then bragging about it on the cover of time magazine"


reposting my question from the reading thread
what is a dialectic and what should i read to understand what a dialectic is



True or False?

A communist is loyal to the working class and not automatically loyal to the ruling party , and if the ruling party acts against the working class then it is a communist's duty to resist this and form a new party that is loyal to the working class if the old one has become corrupt.


What's the law of value? (not labor theory of value)


true IMO, strikes, unions, and so on should be legal in socialism


File: 1668430503908.png (346 KB, 983x983, ClipboardImage.png)

Is Alunya's name supposed to be a pun, or to stand for something? I can't figure it out.


is this sarcasm?


I think it's like Catalonia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia), Cat Alunya, Cat named Alunya.


No, I am retarded.


Is it true that the Marshall Plan made European countries concede power to the US? How did this look like?


>Want money? Kick the communists out of government and keep them there.


Since a communist society is a classless society, does that mean there are no hierarchies as well?


any good books on Knights?


Hierarchy is a far more general concept than class. A Chess expert and a Chess noob both acknowledge what they are (usually). It's an interesting question how big entirely voluntary hierarchies could get (Alice claiming she is better at math than Bob and Bob acknowledges that, Alice and Bob claiming they are each better at math than Carl and Carl acknowledging that, etc.).


I'm reading about LTV and it feels kinda like tautology/circular logic to me.
Value is defined as the socially necessary labor time to produce a commodity (or something along the lines) thus nothing else can produce value by it's own logic.

So how do you respond to the obvious question of 'why does only labor produce (surplus) value' without engaging in circular logic?


>Value is defined as the socially necessary labor time to produce a commodity
This is the conclusion of an investigation, not the premise of the investigation.
Instead of asking
>why does only labor produce (surplus) value'
>what produces value
You can't just say SNLT. That's not an argument. You can't say labor without explaining why. So you need to investigate the issue and come up with an answer with arguments. That's what some economists did and concluded that labor or SNLT (or subjective desire) was the source of value.

Remember that the conclusions are worthless without the reasoning. The reasoning is king because it might be solid reasoning with bad conclusions. But if you can carry the reasoning, you can conclude better. Marxism should be thought of as the process of constructing this reasoning, rather than the conclusions.


File: 1668648926538.png (554.53 KB, 1800x2560, download.png)

Is there like a special version of anarchsim that is also traditionalist?


ultra Orthodox Judaism


Why are maoists often a little weird


Nature is also a source of value (natural resources). You still need labour to harvest them though. But we don't "produce" or "make" oil, it's just in the ground and we build pumps to get it out.


They opened up their markets and USA companies bought up a lot of shit on the cheap.


St. Pauli, Livorno from the top of my head. Besiktas and Fenerbache have a strong communist group as well.


File: 1668746133299.jpg (Spoiler Image, 318 KB, 1920x1080, 1668389997369837.jpg)

Going to be obvious I never read Capital and I don't know shit but is there actually a difference between Socialism and Communism?
I had a discussion with my "socialist" friend, who is really just a libertarian millennial (he thinks latin america should give up its sovereignty to the US because some country had a shitty judicial system), he said there is a difference between socialism and communism and he defined communism in the most textbook libshit way, "it's when everything…is like, equal.." he said with very little confidence in his tone of voice.
Based on some things I picked up browsing this site I know he was wrong but I'm a moron so I couldn't really say anything.


File: 1668748005379.png (179.76 KB, 1717x818, Lenin on equality.png)

>It's when everything is like equal
smartest westoid lmao


anyone know where i can get hardback of capital vol 1-3 (as separate books) in english without paying £2000 why is this so hard to find i just want to stop being a theorylet


>paying for free books
lol. lmao, even. where do you think the money goes? Do you think Marx is still alive? Stop being a retard.


i prefer reading a physical book to looking at a screen when reading as it helps me focus more and i can put in post-it notes/highlight easily in a way that i find conductive for my learning


then print it out and staple the pages together you silly goose


Well, you are correct, he is wrong and i want to commend you for actually asking questions about this stuff.

First of all i will tell you communist definition. Marx and Engels used those terms as synonyms, meaning a stateless, classless and moneyless society that comes after workers overthrow capitalists and eventually build a better society. The thing is that both of them understood that such society can't happen right after revolution and there is gonna be a transitional period to it, they called it "first stage communism". After them Lenin needing a more specific theory about that transitional stage also changed terms so first stage communism is called socialism and late stage communism - just communism. That is a communist definition of those terms.

Of course there are tons fo people who don't use them, so when you hear "socialism" it can mean anything from "utopian society" to "it's when government does stuff". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq0EYo_ZQVU

Some different takes on socialism of note:

- Social democrats or succdems - generally refers to those who think that society doesn't need revolution and can achieve better version by reforms and participation in bourgeose parlament democracy. "Better version" varies from one socdem to another, it can be communism in the same way communist think of it or it can be same capitalism just with more taxes on the rich.

- National socialist, natsocs or nazis - not socialist. At all. Hitler used word socialism because it was popular with masses (he also though about calling his party liberal).


If tradition is a belief or way of life then it would be compatible. kind of like how monks come together out of free will to live in a godly way.


All of those things can be done with digital and much more. Like searching through the whole book in a couple of second to find a sentence you are looking for. I am not gonna crap on your tastes or habits, but with the amount of theory you gonna need to read if you want to be communism, physical book gonna bankrupt you unless you are from well off family or have some (in)decent income yourself. I suggest just power through your tastes, form new habits and go digital.


it's only important for hegelian or humanist interpretations of Marx. So you can read it after Capital.


Bump. Did NATO do a good thing here?


Why did most of the USA based anarchist accounts on social media either turn into government bootlickers or go silent the instant the Democrats won the election ?


What do the lines mean in this comic? Not endorsement, just confused.


Look at the flags in the background and on the arm patch… it's equating these conflicts.


That's retarded, the ones holding the guns are the right wing extremists


I know, but what do the graphs in the background represent?


oh, I'm pretty sure that's just speech bubbles


I think that's part of the point. The comic asserts that the gun holders claim disingenuously to be saving the ones at gunpoint from right wing extremism to justify their actions.


Oh! That makes sense. Weird way to draw it but I see it.


The Virgin Lands campaign seems to have failed because of easily solvable problems, such as practicing monoculture and not caring about the nutrient quality of the soil. If the Soviets had practiced crop rotation and used fertilizer where appropriate, would it have been a good idea after all to dramatically expand Soviet farmland into (at least the most workable) regions of Siberia?


How do you change a strongly religious country to be a secular country? Does the state need to double down on religious repression instead of peacefully transforming it because I don't think extremist or fundamentalist like being suppress either by peace or force


i think hoxhaist albania succeeded in secularisation with a strong hand, albania is not a very religious country now


are there any books about how they did it? I would love to read further about it


Do you mean merely a secular government, or transforming the population itself into becoming largely non-religious? If the first, western examples may be relevant case-studies.


The prohibition of "Reductio ad Hitlerum" is all but forgotten now,

In more enlightened times using it would automatically invalidate any point you were trying to make unless you could prove they were in fact an actual Nazi.

But now it is the favorite opening move and thought terminating cliche for pesudo-liberals who want to shut down a discussion before it can begin.


It's supposed to be smoke - ie. the country has been bombed and is on fire


"there is no ethical consumption under capitalism"
At what point does this argument still stands?


why did Stalin choose to fail and decided to create all those separate republics like China, Poland, Germany, Romania etc etc, why not immediately integrate them as SSR's?


>reductio ad hitlerum
Godwin's Law has been suspended for the duration of the fascist emergency
Inter arma enim silent leges


File: 1670472259330-0.jpg (224.81 KB, 541x376, unionofstruggle.jpg)

File: 1670472259330-1.png (251.65 KB, 345x475, ClipboardImage.png)

Is it true that this photo was produced based on >>1295767
after 1930? Most websites don't cite anything and others cite Wikipedia which itself cites nothing.
As far as I know, the one and only source is "the Commissar Vanishes" by David King, but that book cites absolutely nothing for either the photo or for the information (him getting shot in 1930/getting erased from the photo).
The book uses that 4-panel image of Stalin, Kirov, and two others at a table on its cover, which is really suspicious considering that image is extremely dishonest. only one person in that photo was actually purged and the other two images are completely unrelated: one was a photo included in one single history book that cropped the others out because they wanted to focus on Stalin and Kirov, and the other was just a random artist a decade before the purge who used the photo as a reference. Neither were pretending to "rewrite history". The one that only has Kirov and Stalin was literally produced while one of the cropped figures was still alive and in a high post. So already the book seems silly, let alone that it claims Malchenko was shot in 1930 with zero sources.

Unique IPs: 313

[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 ]