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

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets 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
Please give feedback on proposals, new on Mondays : /meta/
New /roulette/ topic: /spoox/ - Paranormal, horror and the occult.
New board: /AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

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.


What's the materialist explanation for debt forgiveness by capitalist countries?



Its rarely granted. Something like 0.5 percent of all federal workers in the US get debt relief. Companies that offer debt relief rarely dole it out or pay very small amounts after years and years of work. A company profited off your labor for years making 100x more than what they gave you to fix your student debt.

It is a tool used to entice workers and make them stay for a small hope of losing their debt.


How is my workplace being ran by a government official any different than being run by the bourgeoisie? As the Soviet Union showed the workers have no real say in their work life.


Doesn't debt forgiveness happen more often to foreign countries?


I don’t know about the DSA, but CPUSA seems pretty decent these days. I’m not a member, but from what I hear they have become much better since the departure of the former chair Sam Webb (who actually ended up joining the Democratic Party). If you’re interested in the progress they’ve made, be on the lookout for our resident CPUSA Anon who occasionally posts here.


The economy doesn't work if all money goes to pay off debt.


In a properly managed government owned institution, there focus is on providing a service/product, not making a profit, therefore you won't be pushed as hard, and you'll get paid more. My best workplace so far is owned by the municipality, and the work culture is very relaxed, which makes my life far more enjoyable. That's despite the municipality being kinda shit and run by liberals.


Why are asian immigrants so much more successful than blacks/whites in the US? They come to america with hardly anything and manage to becoming upper middle class within a couple decades. They seem to be living the "american dream".



Yes but only after they completely accept terms of the western dominated IMF or the individual country that granted it. In many cases, its not really granted. There is always debt forgiveness in exchange for the benefit of the imperialist powers.


Asian Immigrant descendant, here. They let in mostly the middle-class, educated ones. Also disaggregate the data and you find that the SEAs are basically the same or worse in many outcomes as black americans.


Now weep for asking a stupid question


Why let in mostly educated Asians and not educated Latinos for example? Were Asian countries much more developed or something?


1) Who says they don’t let in educated latinos
2) How many educated latinos want to come to this soon to be shithole
3) Latinos are closer and can be more cost-effectively brought in as unskilled labor. Many come in on the sly (and props to them for that tbqh). But bringing in unskilled labor from all the way across asia? That’s a lot of money


Is it true that after the Cultural Revolution many children of previous elites became the new elites?


Are most /pol/ users media worshippers, like they don't read fringe sites instead choosing to read mainstream?


Can someone tell me what cultural marxism/frankfurt school is really about? Is it just a meme or legit?


Cultural marxism is an obscure British school of sociology that got renamed to cultural studies as they abandoned marxism

As for the Frankfurt school read Adorno


It's a nazi conspiracy theory originally known as cultural bolshevism. American paleocons recycled it in the 90s as cultural marxism but it refers to the exact same narrative: muh commies (read: liberals) are subverting the arts and the media trying to take over the country from within. Of course this sounds utterly ridiculous and idealist to any actual marxist, but many rightoids don't care and have already internalized it as the main cause for the current failures of capitalism. If you see a right winger talking about it you can dismiss anything they're saying, but you should remind them they're parroting old nazi propaganda (some are actually unaware of this and tend to malfunction when you inform them)
>Cultural marxism is an obscure British school of sociology
You can be sure no rightoid who talks about "cultural marxism" nowadays is thinking about that.


As for the all powerful boogeyman the right says it is…is a meme, the Cultural Marxism school (Frankfurt School) actually existed though but they never had any real power AFAIK.

This is a bitchute video about what the right thinks cultural marxism is, keep in mind that is full rightoid/schizoid propaganda, but it's important to know what the other side is thinking, proceed with caution.



this video is so vague and unspecific. i don’t understand how people can watch shit like this and feel educated, much less worked into a froth about it


File: 1631487169369.png (4.02 MB, 1920x2654, ClipboardImage.png)

Conspiratorial thinking is the bread and butter of these people

Supposedly "being in the know" gives one the sense of (false) superiority over "the unthinking masses". Never mind the fact that bullshit like this is routinely propped by conservative think tanks funded by billionaires.


200 autism score image that neglects to point out that one works in a university and one got fired from one


The saddest thing is that "Cultural Marxism" isn't marxism at all, even the propaganda video from bitchute admits that it's something different from soviet socialism.

"Cultural Marxism" as the right sees them may exist, but the name is "Cultural Liberalism" or maybe "Pseudo-progressive liberalism" and the endgoal is to prevent a worldwide revolution, not start it.


No one who uses the term "Cultural Marxism" has ever read Adorno.
Link because image upload is broken on iOS: https://lefty.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=11295


Why have Taiwan and South Korea adopted democracy unlike their socialist counterparts?


bourgeois democracy is worthless


>it's democracy vs. socialism
you are mentally ill


it’s just history.
in taiwan’s case: the government of the republic of china fled to taiwan, the island, after getting buttblasted by the ccp in the revolution and they’re still there today.
south korea, on the other hand, is the united state’s fault. the us took it off japan’s hands after ww2 and arbitrarily cut it up, taking the southern half and instituting a puppet government beholden to the us and laying down structures that still exist today.


lol at thinking taiwan and south korea are democracies


File: 1631587280552.jpg (54.62 KB, 1280x720, norma.jpg)

Can someone explain to me what the fuck cybernetics is without saying some vague hippie shit. Explain it like I'm an old man and you need to convince me


using computer software to plan the economy
in economic planning you have a lot of calculations to do, regarding the "inputs" and "outputs" of production.
Computers do this faster than people can.
If you create a network connecting your production centers (factories, mines, farms, etc) and they share information this can facilitate a more efficient planning process.
You can even use more advanced algorithms to take the currently available resources (raw material and productive forces like factories, plus labor) and simulate alternative scenarios to help you find the best way to use them.
This can also be subject to democratic control, where the public or elected experts or something can vote on which version of the plan is best, or what parameters to give the algorithm. For example maybe a major problem the country is dealing with is a need for more infrastructure let's say transportation. You could give the algorithm the information about the production costs for upgrading the transit system, and it could show you the impact it would have cost-wise on the short term economy and the benefit it would likely have in the long term. It's basically upgrading the tools at our disposal for deciding what the economy does (it's not making the decisions for us hopefully, but that is also a possibility)


Yeah but what is cybernetics? This is just economic planning which goes back long before cybernetics was a thing.


Is xi trying slowly undo deng's reforms? Or he's just doing damage control from the social consequences of these reforms?


It's just control theory applied to society. You know how you get in the shower and continuously adjust the temperature of its water based on how it feels on your skin? That's cybernetics, you have some kind of process that you want to control (the water's temperature), you have a sensor to measure it (your skin) and you have the controller (your hands) that modify the process to make it adjust to what you want.


Comrade Xi is guiding China on the long path towards Communism, and Deng's reforms were always intended to be temporary.


(different anon) my understanding is that one way of thinking about it would be the study of feedback loops.
for example an aircraft autopilot might be told to maintain a certain height. it will take data from the altitude indicators and if the height is too high or too low, move the control surfaces to return to the intended height.
the system forms a loop: the control surface inputs determine the height of the plane, and the target height determines the control surface inputs.
cybernetics as i understand it would be looking at that system, the inputs, outputs and instructions and their interactions.
(which is distinct in theory, if not in practice, from engineering the system that moves inputs from the computers to the physical control surfaces, and from programming the autopilot system that actually implements the logic that cybernetics concerns itself with.)

that's a nice and clean system because it's human programmed and engineered, but you could apply the same sort of thinking to, say, animal population dynamics if it turns out that (say) there's a reasonably stable cycle of predator and prey populations in a given area, you can look at that as a "system" too.
or perhaps to electoral politics: the election result determines who gets power, which determines what policies are picked, how they're explained, etc, which determines how voters feel at the next election, which will determine who gets power… again in more or less a feedback loop.

then there's control systems, which is probably where things start to sound hippieish. in the autopilot case the whole system is more or less a control system, with the pilot setting the target height. in nature, you've got the problem that (absent human wildlife management programmes etc) a stable population more or less came about by its own, so you might find someone making the case that "nature" is the control system or something. in the case of politics, you've a similar problem of deciding exactly to identify where to put control - do voters control their politicians, do politicians control their voters, or is it all a matter of elite patronage? you can look at them as systems too, but it's messier.

but i'm not hugely into cybernetics, that's just my passing understanding so someone else might be able to say that's wrong.


What the hell is the national bourgeoisie that Mao talks about? Those who owned large amounts of capital but were nationalists so it's fine?


Petit bourgeoise who were sympathetic to land reform and nationalized industrialization.


File: 1631623168905.jpg (143.71 KB, 1024x762, calculation.jpg)

by your own estimation, what percentage of leftists would you say have taken the jab?


i suppose it refers to the part of the bourgeoisie not immediately aligned with the interests of foreign capital, i.e. the national bourgeoisie as opposed to the international bourgeoisie


File: 1631683527259.png (4.05 KB, 370x320, No thank you.png)

Capitalism: you're dominated by the rich.
Communism: you're dominated by the totalitarian government.
Fascism: you're dominated by the totalitarian government.
Anarchy: you're dominated by egoists exercising their freedom to dominate you.

No matter what you're always fucked.


1) leftists hasn't been a descriptive term since the 1800s, its meaning varies wildly based on who says it
2) within what nation or state?
3) how the fuck should we know?


>communism is when much government n shieeet
Don't come here if you're this retarded, don't waste our time.


You: dominated by your lack of reading books


Why does the US bail out big companies instead of nationalizing them? Wouldn't that be cheaper?


Okay my definition of communism is wrong, but why do communists praise China, USSR, and North Korea so much?



Congress uses tax dollars to bail out big companies because congress is intertwined with big companies by lobbying (bribes) or have directly served on the boards of big companies. Its a form of organized distribution from the rich to the poor. Congress doesn't care about prices. Debt cellings can be raised and their salaries will happen regardless. 95% of their salaries come from lobbying, owning stock and speeches anyways.

The on paper story sold to the people is they bailed it out so people don't lose their jobs.


government runs in the interests of business
neither of the two run in the interests of society
it's more expensive for the government to bail them out but also more profitable for them



*its a form of organized theft from the poor to the rich.


If you're not ready and willing to die for the cause of liberation, are you even really worthy of living at all?



Your parents are probably not revolutionaries yet you wouldn't kill them because they aren't willing to die for liberation.


yes. we’re weird ideological fanatics so the rest of society doesn’t have to be. that’s how the party was in the ussr and that’s how it is in china too.


Is political repression beneficial?


Do you think all crimminals can be reformed? or are there those who due to their nature will allways be a threat to people around them?


>do you think all
stopped reading there tbh


Beneficial to whom?


Yes, because my meaning for existing isn't politics.

I doubt many ancoms praise them.
But some other reasons may be how they actually improved many aspects of quality of living, improved social services and reduced poverty. Hell, Pyongyang looks better than most American cities.


what site is ismael on now? forgot the name of it thanks


he also has an account on somethingawful and posts on its c-spam board


this is more like a request

does anyone have the link to that youtube video that is almost one hour long presenting various examples of communists/socialists experiences that "worked"?

i think it was xixezy narrating it



What are some effective measures a protest marshal can use that will contain agitators and alt-right infiltrators?


Is Confucius the reason why East Asian culture is so autistic?


Does Marxist historiography have any problems with macro events that didn’t happen due to material reasons nearly as much as glory seeking or metaphysical ones, like the crusades?


the crusades happened cuz there were too many aristocrat sons that had no shit to do



Are the Nazinsky/cannibal island stories true, or propoganda? any reads and/or sources on the topic?


Fuck your uyghur ass you faggot. Gaddafi deserved nothing that NATO put him through. Italy and France have no right to complain about the mass immigrations they went out of their way to cause.


I believe many of the crusaders were pretty well off people who had no material reasons to go off on dessert adventures
The ticket to heaven counted for much


>glory seeking or metaphysical ones
those are material reasons though


Rate my braindead take out of 10, on your own scale of chosing.
Authoritarianism is basically inwardly-directed colonization.


Anyone here bought any soviet flags or soviet propaganda posters?
What are good websites? I'm in Australia
Any good portraits of Marx, Engels and Lenin?


etsy imo


But they did have reasons - getting glory and land which was deined to them at home due to their older brothers getting the glory and land. And then it's like fuck it, I'm leaving.


pal if i could rate you 100 in stupidity i would but you limited the number to 10

so im saying 10


Is it unethical to invest in index funds as an communist in hopes of reaching early retiriment?


Everything is unethical under capitalism. You aren't going to do anything for communism by your consumer choices. It's a political struggle that happens outside the realm of individual economic activity.


How can Stalin's quote about letting Soviet soldiers "take some trifle" and the following order of the day be reconciled?:
>Stalin's Order of the Day from January 19, 1945: "Officers and men of the Red Army! We are entering the country of the enemy. the remaining population in the liberated areas, regardless of whether they’re German, Czech, or Polish, should not be subjected to violence. The perpetrators will be punished according to the laws of war. In the liberated territories, sexual relations with females are not allowed. Perpetrators of violence and rape will be shot."
One quote shows he allowed it, another has him enforcing death penalties.


is this what you’re talking about?
>Does Djilas, who is himself a writer, not know what human suffering and the human heart are? Can't he understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometers through blood and fire and death has fun with a wench or takes some trifle?
i don’t think these contradict. one can acknowledge and understand what drives someone to do these things while simultaneously punishing them for it.


>Can't he understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometers through blood and fire and death has fun with a wench or takes some trifle?
And yet you have Stalin "not understanding" this by having these people shot. On one hand he downplays the severity of it, on the other he has them killed.


how do you feel about the nurture vs nature question?


He changed his mind?
Do people here really require Stalin to be their flawless imaginary daddy?


That is weird. It's a big shift from a rather easygoing attitude to giving out death penalties. There's also no record of him having changed his mind.


the record is that he had an “easygoing attitude” about it and then later killed people for it. i think you’re overthinking thos.


How would /pol/yps respond to the fact that there were/are both Jewish socialists (Trotsky, Rosa, Einstein) and (philo)capitalists (Rand, Rothbard, Mises)?

As far as i'm aware, shouldn't they be working as hivemind for ZOG or some shit?


They would say that even though they have different ideologies, they have a double loyalty and an evil racial nature. Communism comes from the Jews and capitalism is rigged for the Jews. Why not just ask them?


>shouldn't they be working as hivemind for ZOG or some shit?
yes. however they twist the facts to fit this conclusion depends on their mood that day


They generally say that jews are playing both sides and vague shit about a grand conspiracy, but not much more than that. It's impossible to get a nazi to explain in depth the grand conspiracy nowadays. You'd have more luck reading old fascist and reactionary literature. I actually have, they believe the jewish conspiracy started centuries ago. Basically the good catholic feudal monarchies of Europe were overthrown by the evil bourgeois democrats who are in service of jewish forces. Some LotR shit.


File: 1632801755508.mp4 (11.55 MB, 608x1080, 1629825402974.mp4)

Socialism is workers own the means of production, but do workers also own the MoP in communism also?


Which type/s of communism? State? Anarcho-? "Real"?


Real communism, a moneyless, stateless, classless society.


Newfriend here with couple of brainlet-tier questions. I no means try to bait anyone, but rather look for an genuine answer to my questions.

-If communism is so good, why it has never been implemented?

-If communism in an best ideology, why vast majority of people oppose it? Including working class.

-Why communist parties get little to no votes in most countries?


>If communism is so good, why it has never been implemented?
Communism is the end goal of socialism. It is the final stop that must be teached through a variety of processes.
>If communism in an best ideology, why vast majority of people oppose it? Including working class.
Several countries' working class members due to being less educated are more susceptible to brainwashing from American shills. Take Indonesia for an example, most working classmen here are insanely religious and anticommunist (a relic of Suharto).
>Why communist parties get little to no votes in most countries?
They are relatively small and obscure.


File: 1632958562552.gif (365.22 KB, 500x275, tfw.gif)

>No reply
Did i get "real" communism wrong? i guess i'll never know..


what's the role of lumpen and petit burgs in the DOTP?


Ownership almost doesn't apply in real communism. Everyone owns everything so nobody really owns anything, in a sense. You don't have sole rights to productive forces. They're publicly held and you can access them, but they're not "yours" beyond that. You can't stop other people from using them and disposing of them needlessly would probably piss off the others.

Depends on who's in charge really. There's precedent for either repression or amnesty in both cases. IMO we should rehabilitate anybody we reasonably can.


>If communism is so good, why it has never been implemented?
Because total and complete communism would require 2 very complex requisites, first that every single country on earth is communist (not even capitalism has managed this) second a classless society that eventually leads to what is commonly called the "withering of the state".

>If communism in an best ideology, why vast majority of people oppose it? Including working class.

Because most people are absolute retards that haven't read a book in their whole live (this is true, look it up), and in the case of burgers it's even worse, a very large part of them genuinely and unironically think that communism is when dems are in the WH and troons and blacks roam the streets free.

-Why communist parties get little to no votes in most countries?
Lack of organization,lack of funds (of course the capitalists will do everything in their power to negate funds to those parties) the abandonment of classic working class demands for identity politics shit CIA makes it clear that every single country that chooses even a mildly socialist government will be coup'd and embargo'd to death (see Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia as examples)

A lot of communist parties are still popular in places like Russia, India, Nepal etc.



>if communism is so good, why hasn't it ever been implemented?

A stateless, moneyless, classless society cannot just exist. It has to progress to that point and socialism's end goal is communism. They eventually want to reach that. In the modern world, a nation that becomes communist (no government, no class, no money) would be instantly annexed by various governments and reimpose the state on them. Even if they all collectively revolted and organized to fight and won, they would still be a communist area within a statist society.

>if communism is the best ideology, why do the vast majority of people opposite it? including the working class.

Because most people have never read marx, lenin, engles or any other communist theory. They know about communism through propaganda in schools that says that the soviet union was a communist society and that the USSR killed 30-100 million people along with everyone cuing for lines and living in poverty. Meanwhile, many nations who propagate such beliefs in schools have actively silenced leftists (socialists, communists) by killing them, arresting them and suppressing them. Capitalist societies do not benefit from people knowing what socialism actually is.

>Why do communist parties get little to no votes in most countries?

See above. too much propaganda and too little funding also plays a role. Most parties are essentially funded by corporations and the rich and will exist on their behalf. Communist parties aren't going to get funding from the rich and will thus have a harder time even getting people to know of their existence through advertising much less having enough money to run campaigns around the country.


Thank you.


What vaccine should I get?
Is it safe to use?





>See above. too much propaganda and too little funding also plays a role. Most parties are essentially funded by corporations and the rich and will exist on their behalf. Communist parties aren't going to get funding from the rich and will thus have a harder time even getting people to know of their existence through advertising much less having enough money to run campaigns around the country.

Pathetic. Communist parties should notbe about campaigning around the country. They need to go to the workplaces and organise workers and agitate among workers directly. Not bourgeois campaigning.

Communist parties are irrelevant cuz all they do is sit around and read and argue abute muh Lenin Trotsky Stalin and not actualy going among the people.


>If communism is so good, why it has never been implemented?
Because it's a giant break in the society. Capitalism was started being born already in the 12th and 13th centureis, but not until after 1848 did it really win in the west and only after ww2 in most of the world. Communism will also take lots and lots of time.

>If communism in an best ideology, why vast majority of people oppose it? Including working class.

There are hundreds of million of communists in China, India etc. IDK what you are talking about. And imperialism enabled proles of the West to have a good standard of living and they stopped fighting for revolution. This is fastly changing since 2001.


Do we have any threads were you can ask for pdfs and such


yes, in edu


File: 1633015549248.jpg (103.29 KB, 700x617, 18542030_403.jpg)

Any good Felix Dzerzhinsky biographies?


The only one I know


File: 1633043277816.jpg (150.83 KB, 820x820, wp-content-2.jpg)

What do you make of the theory that the CIA injected Bob Marley's toes with cancer cells? Circumstantial evidence in favor is that Bob and the rasta m9vement behind him were pro peace and pro Michael Manley, the democratic socialist Prime Minister of Jamaica in the 70s who was good friends with Fidel Castro. 30 years later Hugo Chavez also got a similar type of cancer in the big toe many speculqte was CIA.


How could they be certain he'd refuse surgery?


he was anti vax


Soak your feet in warm salt water every day to thwart glowies and the reaction comrade


Does that actually prevent Melanoma?


Have you met any religious Jews in real life before? They're overwhelmingly and deeply conservative. ESPECIALLY the petty bourgeois ones.
Perhaps media is generally liberal-leaning, but that wouldn't be the case if wealthy jews had controlling shares of all mainstream media outlets.


I've noticed the typical liberal reasoning for homeless people is that most of them are just trying to get money without working for their drug addiction or are just panhandling for money and have a home. liberals at work keep talking about how all the homeless people they see are just lazy bums who don't want to work and reciting stories from a "brother's coworker's relative" who knew a guy who would act homeless and get 2,000 dollars a weekend.

How can i refute this stupid shit? Do they really think people are giving all their money to homeless people to the point where they get 2,000 dollars in a weekend much less a month?


File: 1633292205022.jpg (16 KB, 342x216, 1632728183923.jpg)

Skip to 2:30 https://www.bitchute.com/video/EFzCg9XW5I8G/

There is a theory that the Jesuits started communism in Paraguay in the 1700s-1800s. Is this true?


my dad does the same shit. would bring me in his car to stalk homeless people and literally soyface to me when he saw they had a car or a phone and rant to me about some conspiracy about family values and work ethic and finding a job


Explain why human rights are bad and the marxist view on human rights.


Thoughts on abusing red flag laws to get righties in jail/shot?
Saw a neighbour with a gadsden flag on his house carrying rifle cases to his car the other day. P sure he smokes weed too.


File: 1633481165059.jpg (108.92 KB, 1009x768, neolib.jpg)

>b-but capitalism akschually reduces poverty!!!!

Can anyone give me some statistics or research on that argument? I have seen some data supporting the claim that extreme poverty rates and such have been declining over the last couple of decades, but I'd like more info on that. What do you respond to neoliberals who approach you with this argument?


File: 1633485967929.jpg (832.96 KB, 2324x1464, 21312.jpg)

I'm sorry but this image is not correct in certain areas. For example the quote that says "the Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts" (Baba Mecia 114-6) the Image says it's a complete fabrication yet it's still quoted from the Talmud in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M60FUPVtq9k There are different version of the Talmud some are censored and some aren't.


Well they have been if you use like a ridiculous number suchas 1,90 or 2,20 dollars per day. So someone in the USA having like 5 dollars a day is not considered poor in such metrics. But if you adjusted this to each country accordingly, there is far more poverty.


Because human rights are an empty concept when there is no state/other authority to "protect" them. Even a liberal Hanna Arendt wrote extensively about the silliness of human rights in Origins of Totalitarianism. And in the realm of "rights" - a proletarian has the same rights as the capitalist exploiting him. The "law" states that both a rich guy or a homeless man will be punished if they sleep on a park bench etc- because they are equal in the eyes of the law.



China has seen the greatest poverty decreases by absolute numbers and is ruled by a communist party and dictated with socialist principles.

tell liberals china was as poor as central africa back in the 1950s and is now as rich as romania or russia on a per capita level.


Leftypedia has a lot of good counterarguments against common talking points:


The Talmud is a collection of texts from different rabbis who basically all disagree with eachother


Why do rightoids love to use infographics so much?


I have to socialise and meetup is shit. Where the hell do I find lefties in my area?
Shout-out to Albert.


easy to digest visual info, most of them are unwilling to put any significant amount of effort into learning anything and it works as a great rhetorical tool because it takes 10 seconds to read and 10 minutes to debunk. when you say something is le bad and someone asks why you can just spam them and make it look like you actually won even if the factual information is wrong or skewed. we should make more infographics tbh


Look up "communist party/socialist party/labor union + your city/county)"


just compare china to india and philipines
also compare cuba to haiti

just cause they had some decent ethics/philosophy doesnt make them communists

lib bourgeois "right" are shit cause they're "on paper" rights (meaning only rich ppl have them in reality), and cause somehow owning a factory or land is part of it (because, again a bourgeois revolution wrote them)
socialist are all about fulfilling these fake promises libs did

sociology studies could help here. Also, being a beggar != homeless, theres a lot of homeless ppl that would never beg.


>theres a lot of homeless ppl that would never beg.
There's also beggars who have homes. You can get a surprising amount of money begging, and some people who don't need to do it for extra money or for attention.


>The land and all that stood upon it was the property of the community. The land was apportioned among the caciques (leaders of the indigenous groups) who allotted it to the families under them.
>Agricultural instruments and cattle were loaned from the common supply. No one was permitted to sell his plot of land or his house.
Okay, so it's not exactly communism, but it was very communistic.



Or, for that matter, Argentina vs Chile, where Chile had phenomenal economic growth and Argentina kept on defaulting? ;) (Chile turned out to be the favorite playground of the monetarists who favored discarding all the social safety nets).

You have to go into detail to make the relevant arguments. Here's a very basic argument for the superiority of Communism / Socialism over Capitalism (or more realistically fascism or failed state) at certain development points. China succeeded where India did not because China poured massive amounts of money into human capital investment. All the Dengists have to remember that it was Mao that drastically improved the Chinese life expectancy and drastically improved Chinese literacy. Without Mao, Deng would not have been possible, and what's more, Mao created a serious discipline in the Chinese Communist Party by forcing them through the Cultural Revolution and assorted terrors.

Moreover, if you look at any given Third-World socialist country, health and education outcomes tend to improve, providing the country with a competitive labor force for the next phase of development. The absence of such is a major reason why countries like India can't compete; India tends to funnel education spending into the middle and upper classes, after which, if they're smart, they emigrate to the West and take all that expensive human capital with them.


How do I cope with the fact that I will very likely live rest of my live in an capitalist treadmill?


Fight to change it, join a party and start organizing, agitating and educating others.
Maybe you will convince the next Lenin to start a new world revolution, Who knows?


The vast majority of Poverty reduction in the last decade (70% according to the fucking world bank) is thanks to China and the common prosperity plan.

Even if you say that China is not socialist its certainly not neolib, neoliberalism is a meme and it doesn't work, it should be clear by now.


does cpc/prc like sun yat-sen even though he created kuomintang?


How would be male sexlessness also known as Inceldom solved by communists?


Inceldom is a symptom of consumerism and hedonism. These things won't exist in a socialist society.


So all incels would be able to get into an sexual relationships in an socialist society? How?


In a socialist society, there is no consumerism, so entertainment will no longer be crafted in order to keep people glued to it. As a result, teenagers will no longer deal with video game addiction, excessive consumption of Cheetos and other consumerist distractions and will be compelled to focus on social and civic activities, which will help them find a mate.


is it at all possible to reconcile christcom with neo-scholasticism/contemp thomism? ik a really disproportionate amt of river forest school/aristotelian thomists and id like to be better equipped 2 talk to them abt how communism fits within the context of christianity. i know they care enough about their religion to take th ideas somewhat seriously but they disagree from a mostly philosophical perspective, tracing marx back to descartes by way of kant/hegel and then attacking cartesian doubt. i plan on reading all the guys i mentioned nd seeing if i can put shit together for myself but beyond that, does anyone know of any non-regressive critiques of neo-scholasticism? thanks


File: 1633898173475.jpg (57.19 KB, 750x786, society.jpg)

Let's be real, most incels are incels not because they are irredeemably ugly, but because they let themselves sink further and further into brainrotting online communities out of loneliness and frustration with their meaningless lives. The incel community actively encourages doomerism, the "black pill" and general hopelessness. These are all symptoms of social isolation and alienation under capitalism, and obviously detrimental to the goal of finding love and forming meaningful relationships with other people.
Incels don't like to hear this, but their problem is our society, and not the way they look. Doomerism is a common and understandable reaction to the fucked world we live in, but it is also something that can mess up your brain.
Of course those who are now incels would have a vastly improved life if they had a genuine stake in and reason to care about their workplace, co-workers and local community, no more meaningless NEET / wageslave life, easy and free access to therapy, no more commodification of sex, and a future to actually look forward to.


How do i use Tor without fucking myself.


File: 1633905560697.png (1.83 MB, 1200x1126, ClipboardImage.png)

I'm pretty sure he's seen as some form of founding father for country, so yeah.


Cpc admires Sun Yat-Sen. Sen did not want the KMT to go down the path it went


dont do anything that would get you fucked


does marx's split of bourgeoisie and proletariat apply to modern society or are there different denominations now? anything i can read on the subject?


if you're rich, what's the best way to make use of your excess wealth from a socialist perspective?


File: 1633985699753.png (211.23 KB, 600x460, sun.png)

You tell me.


Invest it, always keep your money moving and and never still. make capitalism march to it's own end.
Or donate it to some org.


Does anyone have some good info on Bukharin? I keep on hearing mixed things about him (i.e.: he was a visionary whose life was cut short by Stalinism/ He was a proto-dengist set on letting Capital take control of the USSR and so on).


in fact he is the father of chinese republicanism


Just read his writings first.


Become a patron of a socialist org./union/etc.


which ones?


Economic Theory of the Leisure Class
Imperialism and the Accumulation of Capital



Bukharin came up with "socialism in one country".


if communism is good then how come its so bad


Could you explain why?


i'm quite new to this so i'm not well read or experienced
are the upper class more or less powerful in a capitalist society in comparison to past societies? i heard that in say, ancient rome, the wealthiest people could fund entire wars if they really wanted to, but today even jeff bezos or whatever couldn't fund an invasion against russia


because you should see a medic if your come hurts you.


File: 1634497962401.png (992.47 KB, 1857x1336, what libya lost.png)

>i'm quite new to this so i'm not well read or experienced
welcom fren
>are the upper class more or less powerful in a capitalist society in comparison to past societies?
apples and oranges tbh
There's greater technology making more things possible but they don't outright own the workers like in slavery or in feudalism so what they're "allowed" to do is not as powerful. They still find ways to do it if they really want to but it is harder. They also are a lot more constrained by capitalism's rules. If you're not trying hard to out-compete your peers as a capitalist you are going to be left in the dust and get booted out of your position pretty fast. So while in theory they might have a lot of power, unless they're super wealthy they usually have to operate in a pretty specific way. It's like a big competitive game and they're all trying to find the best way to win at the same time, and if you lose you no longer get to play and have to end up as one of the peons the players use as resources.
>i heard that in say, ancient rome, the wealthiest people could fund entire wars if they really wanted to, but today even jeff bezos or whatever couldn't fund an invasion against russia
Private armies exist, but they mostly serve corporations rather than individuals. Individual billionaires can't fund wars against major states because modern military budgets are so large (since they incorporate capitalist enterprise through weapons manufacturing etc). There definitely are war profiteers operating pretty openly now and business interests driving warfare, but it's all happening at a systemic level instead of in any individual person's interest. Also worth noting the manpower and hardware involved in modern militaries is much greater than in classical antiquity like Rome. That would be akin to Bezos and Musk hiring mercenaries to fight over some factories. They do have the money/power for that but the violence has been abstracted into the system of capitalism now. The rich wage these kinds of struggles economically instead of physically. One billionaires maneuvers to buy another billionaire's stuff. It's important to understand, however, that this is still backed up by physical violence (and/or the threat of it) because enforcing property law and the function of the economy ultimately goes back to sending in the cops/military if somebody doesn't comply.

But there are cases where somebody has the power to wage war for personal reasons. It's not for being rich though. It's for being in positions of power in government. Keep reading this post for an example.

It's bullshit. Libya was fucked over because Hillary Clinton is so out of touch she thought it would be her "we killed bin Laden" moment. DC insiders know who Gaddafi was because he's been a useful scapegoat for various foreign policy posturing measures, but the average burger has no idea who he is. Libya went from most prosperous country in Africa to failed state purely for her ego and expectation it would help her win the presidential election.


Though Gaddafi did have some documented successes it appears that this 16 things copypasta has many holes in it which apparently many Libyans online will tell you (vid related is one example). Housing projects were limited and given out primarily to certain tribes and areas, with Libya also being an intense police state where many people were imprisoned/executed unfairly, with many people also being employed as informants. In conclusion, if he was so good, why did people overthrow him? Keep in mind the country's GDP/capita also went from being higher than the US's to being quite lower, even while Gaddafi was still in power.


File: 1634503212742.png (689.21 KB, 1111x597, glow pc.png)

>if he was so good, why did people overthrow him?


I understand that Labor Theory of Value is fundamental in Marxist state communism with central planned economies, but which other ideologies purport to use it? Do most common forms of anarcho-communism accept and use this theory? What about non-communist forms of socialism?

In a sentence or two, do they deviate much from Marx's interpretation, or simply manage it differently?


The LTV is a theory of value origin in capitalist economies, it does not apply to socialist economies.


>it does not apply to socialist economies
Why not? Isn't a socialist economy also aimed at producing value through labor?
What should I read about to understand the proposed methods of rewarding labor under socialist societies?


Socialism and socialist theory isn't world bulding fantasy D&D stuff. The point is to figure out the best way to abolish the commodity form, the LTV, and establish a cooperative post-scarcity society.

The issue is that you can't simply wish it away. Your best bet is to research how existing socialism has developed itself. The pitfalls, the successes, etc. You can make a beautifully laid out plan, but if it doesn't pan out in reality, then it's instantly useless. Plans should consider what the current state of affairs is, and plan from there. A ready made "socialist" solution is unscientific and bound to fail.

Does that make sense to you?


Not an argument. It's a real question as to why many of his own took up arms against him despite his positive image among leftists.



Why isn't animal liberation considered to be part of communism? I mean if we shouldn't exploit any humans, I don't see why we shouldn't exploit any animals.


What is the feminist answer to how elite men's power trickles down to non-elite men?


is anarchism a good idea on a large scale? i have heard of a priest - or something like that - that bought a land and did a anarchist society - no money, no autority, with everyone making their own houses and such -. but will this be possible on a large scale?
yeah, i know communists support anarchism. but, as a good third worlder, i do not believe anarchism will be a good idea for people in my country, so, for now, i believe we should reach communism and that is it.


sounds as true as engels adopting the child of marx and his maid


You're thinking of Mao during the cultural revolution


It probably has something to do with the industrial/mechanical nature given by the Industrial Revolution, the conception of humanity and animals being separate, and the inability of earlier communist movements to end human exploitation, which necessarily precludes the possibility of ending animal exploitation.




Everyone is a capitalist so everyone is right wing.



>Twitter has admitted it amplifies more tweets from rightwing politicians and news outlets than content from leftwing sources.

>The social media platform examined tweets from elected officials in seven countries – the UK, US, Canada, France, Germany, Spain and Japan. It also studied whether political content from news organisations was amplified on Twitter, focusing primarily on US news sources such as Fox News, the New York Times and BuzzFeed.

>The study compared Twitter’s “Home” timeline – the default way its 200 million users are served tweets, in which an algorithm tailors what users see – with the traditional chronological timeline where the most recent tweets are ranked first.

>The research found that in six out of seven countries, apart from Germany, tweets from rightwing politicians received more amplification from the algorithm than those from the left; right-leaning news organisations were more amplified than those on the left; and generally politicians’ tweets were more amplified by an algorithmic timeline than by the chronological timeline.

>According to a 27-page research document, Twitter found a “statistically significant difference favouring the political right wing” in all the countries except Germany. Under the research, a value of 0% meant tweets reached the same number of users on the algorithm-tailored timeline as on its chronological counterpart, whereas a value of 100% meant tweets achieved double the reach. On this basis, the most powerful discrepancy between right and left was in Canada (Liberals 43%; Conservatives 167%), followed by the UK (Labour 112%; Conservatives 176%). Even excluding top government officials, the results were similar, the document said.

link to the research document


Books on the history of US trade unions in the 19th and early 20th century.





Am I wrong in thinking libfems think we’ll solve sexism when half the bosses are girlbosses and radfems think the girl boss is the real victim in the patriarchal office?


File: 1635207685929.jpg (203.73 KB, 929x1200, FBiEsaSXsAM_Oq9.jpg)

Why did Mongolia adapt cyrillic? The general opinion seems to be that the Soviets "forced" them to do it. With some people saying that it helped them industrialise and break from the remnants of the Qing Dynasty, and others saying Soviet pressure to adapt cyrillic was a form of reactionary social imperialism.


The correct answer is that cyrillic is a cool script


How do we bring about the Revolution in Europe by around 8am tomorrow? I can't go back to work.


A teacher marking an answer on a test as incorrect is authoritarian social imperialism according to leftcom-types. This is why Hitler was a genuine revolutionary.


by G. Edward Griffin's Zeitgeist Addendum - A Critical Review
>Perhaps the biggest insult to our intelligence is the main theme of the program. It is that profits are the root of all our problems today. That being the case, we must change mankind to reject profit and we must work together on some other basis. It is never quite clear what that basis is, but, whatever it is, it will be administered and directed by an elite group, at least in the beginning. I was stunned by the fact that this is pure Marxism.

>Marx theorized that people had to be re-educated (in labor camps, if necessary) to cleanse their minds of the profit motive. He and his disciples, such as Lenin and Stalin and Khruschev, said that, eventually, the character of man would be purged of greed, and then the state would wither away because it no longer would be needed. Sure! We saw that in the Soviet Union and China, right? Yet this Marxist nonsense is exactly what is offered in this video program. It is Communism without using the name.

>The enemy of mankind is not profit. It is a political system of big government. Yet, this program is supportive of some of the most notable big-government collectivist on the planet. Marxist/Leninists may be enemies of collectivists in Washington, DC, but they are collectivists in their own right.

>The Communist model is no better than the Nazi model.


can marxists can religious? i was told that they cannot because that religion, being metaphysical, is diametrically at odds with marxist materialist analysis.


Unfortunately, religion is the opium of the masses. If you banned a religion in your new revolutionary state, there WILL he straglers who refuse to drop it, and may even resent you for it.
So in a way, it may be better to reform a religion to work with materialism than to ban it outright. This would entail reforming the church more than the religion, so the clergy would come under the most fire instead of the masses.



yes, but you need to remember that the church is is an institution, and as one it bows to something, in the past the lords, these days capitalists, and in some the priests are capitalists, on a socialist the institution needs to be reformed to bow to the people, this is easy depending of the religion and the people you put in power.



The church cannot be gotten rid of but its influence can be reduced overtime. Look at the church of norway or any other national church body in europe. These churches have unironically reduced religious beliefs by steadily becoming more progressive by being regulated by the state and having a monopoly on christian beliefs.

We need to do something like this. Regulate religion but allow it to exist and allow people to pray. Slowly, people will naturally wean themselves off religion. Poor people are especially drawn to the church because of their charitable givings and intense propaganda. We will replace the church in this function. A socialist state should focus on getting people to not be NEETs or isolated from society by organizing people to socialize. If we create institutions that can replace the church's various goals, people will abandon religion. We moderate religion so it is always limited in its ability.

You can be religious as a marxist but always remember the church is a institution and there are times where it stands in the way of socialists beliefs. You can try to reconcile socialism and the church but it would be hard imo.

Modern day churches are basically mini capitalism anyways. The clergymen make huge amounts of money and basically direct their parishioners to vote a certain way and do certain tasks. Its all just a scam, especially in America.


good entertainment, forge collective spirit, good for health, workers should have access to it

not really, there have been plenty of religious marxists. The main opposition is with the church, which is an org and a power structure usually very reactionary and tied with porkie interest


Would covid vaccination be mandatory under socialism? If so who would arrest, restrain and inject vaccine into someone who refuses to take it?


The conditions in Japan are arguably not much different than Sweden


They don't really have as many social-democratic safety nets though in Sweden those are eroding gradually. Also there are differences like Japan having an ethos against armament, whereas Sweden has conscription and several military companies that make international sales, on top of Japan having a tremendous US military presence that Sweden does not - besides other things like population size (over a magnitude of difference) and elderly populations relative to the total.


For Marxists, history is about class struggle. But what about pre-class societies, and before humankind which Marxism also describes? What wording fits actually all of history?


File: 1635540685666.jpg (92.2 KB, 640x480, femdom nkvd.jpg)

>Are vaccines mandatory
>Who would force us
Femdom nkvd agents


maybe ? i'd be a lot more on board if a vaccine was produced purely without profit in mind for starter, the people would decide if its needed to be made mandatory, informed straight by their scientific community and not through the lenses of the retarded porkie mass media. and it would be a small part of a general strategy with a functioning healthcare system, which is beyond our capitalist countries abilities

>what about pre-class societies
primitive communism (stateless classless, but with shit productivity and 0 capital / capital accumulation)


Ok coomer


Was the Red Army Faction in Germany based?


This is highly debatable. There are Marxists who say that the law of value exists under socialism as well, and the USSR also claimed this. What this user says is actually a left-communist position. Furthermore the LTV precedes capitalism as well. And even if an advanced socialism would not have the LTV apply anymore for a lack of commodity exchange, you would still need to plan using limited human labor time so that the SNLT would be used for planning.


Are roads socialist?
(Not a troll question. I’m being serious regarding it)



What in the ever loving fucking was Mao thinking with the laogai camps.


the same thing people who set up goulag were thinking I guess : many people deserve to be punished for their actions but not shot, human work is very valuable, hard work is preferable to be given to some who have something to pay back to society, and give appreciation for the lowly workers backbreaking work


What are good resources on how currency is used to control foreign economies? I hear about the petrodollar, and how the US defrays the burden of its inflationary policy to other countries by forcing them to have dollars, thus lessening the impact to itself somehow… where do I learn about this?


Confessions of an Economic Hitman is a source from someone who was involved in that kind of thing. Vidrel is a condensed version the author gives in a TED talk.


You can be religious but you'll be a worse Marxist and prone to make errors because the philosophical basis of religion is at odds with the philosophical basis of Marxism (or just modern secular society in general). You don't have to renounce god or anything, but if you take very seriously religious propositions you are going to run into conflicts with Marx, and not simply because he didn't like religion.


Something that bugged me while reading about the post-Soviet states. Polls usually show most people there miss the USSR and say its breakup did more harm than good. So why don't they flock to the communist parties in their respective countries? Sure it could be a way to get the old cherished system back?


What do Maoists think about Stalin?


usually the love him. Most Maoists consider themselves the highest stage of ML with incorporates the experiences of Mao while fighting post khruszchevite revisionism.


Because the communist parties are not a vanguard anymore, just a bunch of hobby leftists (mostly), that are in most cases just edgy liberals. In Russia, the Communist party of Russian Federation was (and probably still is) a controlled oposition so people figured why vote for these guys?? In other post-soviet countries the cpaitalist class simply started waging a gigantic war and managed to win and erase any communist/socialist influence. In Russia they literally mowed down people who were against the dissolution of the USSR and the Red Army didn't intervene (not sure why, idk anything about this part of history).
Communism and socialism came back on the menu only after 2008 collapse, but they are still fringe in most countries.
Communists HAVE TO go among the proletariat, they ahve to agitate, educate and organize. They are mostly NOT doing this. We are back to basically pre-1848 levels of communist influence and we have to build from scratch.


Because you can’t support an organization that was banned or disbanded. However, many of the communist parties transitioned into “democratic socialist” or social democratic groups and would indeed go on to be voted into power


File: 1635859222679.jpg (706.37 KB, 2450x2062, Soros finaced antifa.jpg)

Proof that Soros financed Antifa, i can't find the original tweet but the video of them chanting for Soros is saved in another tweet.



I heard it's not that good and that other people have poked holes in his story. Anything to corroborate this account, or separate works on currency?


you forgot to sage, friend


So I live in Finland where conscription is still in practice. My options are:

>spend 6 to 12 months in military with around 60% chance of serving 12 months

>spend 12 months in alternative civilian service, where you work in an public institution such as school or library
>refuse to do either and spend six months in an ankle bracelet. Movement restricted basically to work/school and single hobby you do outside of home, such as gym. Timetable for all movement has to be in created in advance and accepted by the same institution that takes care of prisons.

You can also lie about having an medical problem and get freed from any options above but I don't really want to do that. Which one is best for an socialist cause? I am currently leaning towards last option ie. total objection of any service.


The best for the socialist cause is to learn how to handle weapons and basic scenarios of armed conflict.


learning to use weapons is nice but army is shit
public service seem a good enough choice


Don't you choose the length of your conscription term in Finland? I would say go for the military option anyway so you can learn how to handle weapons and other skills. It sounds like something worth trying for a time.


File: 1636001720269.png (170.11 KB, 1024x1071, out.png)

How many workers would need to emigrate to Canada/Europe/Australia for US to improve worker conditions?

Porky can't live without workers. It's a fact.


>>spend 12 months in alternative civilian service, where you work in an public institution such as school or library
Sounds based as fuck.


File: 1636198872590.png (424.96 KB, 615x680, Soviet-Pepe-cut.png)

To all the Posadists out there: Do you guys even consider nuclear winter? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCTKcd2Ko98
Here's a handy documentary that displays the effects of it with plenty of scientific supporting evidence.
Also, do you know how fucked the world proletariat would be? Have you seen Threads, for example? All the people who could have led revolutions would be subjected to that shit.


>refuse to do either and spend six months in an ankle bracelet. Movement restricted basically to work/school and single hobby you do outside of home, such as gym.
oh no officer anything but that
I can't imagine how heavily my lifestyle would be affected


>To all the Posadists out there
Are there any?


>Sir, we've noticed comrade's position hasn't changed in over 8 hours
>Send someone to investigate potential tampering

>Sir, comrade's position hasn't left their house in over four weeks. Should we investigate?


File: 1636212213318.png (726.86 KB, 736x733, ClipboardImage.png)

<Uses leftypol
Shouldn't you people detest us or something


Is land considered a type of mean of production? If yes, then does this mean it is private property that needs to be handed to common ownership? What about personal property (that seemingly always get forcefully collectivized, irrespective of the difference between it and private?).


Finland was one of the countries, where White Terror ran rampant and indiscriminately around 1919


The Winter and The Continuation wars.


Go take the military training, it might be useful. Hopefully they teach you a technical skill in addition to weapons and tactics.


File: 1636253248388.png (164.21 KB, 1587x612, ClipboardImage.png)

Basically the question on picrel but no bully pls


This question deserves it's own thread, hell its own thread on /edu/. It's complicated. Shortest version I can give that's still an answer is that basically everything is a process. Everything exists in a context that puts it in contrast and conflict with other things. The way these conflicts play out drives change in the real world, as the things that are disappear into the conflict and new things emerge as a result. But the new things that emerge still have in them the old things that have disappeared, as those things were necessary preconditions for the new things.


Does the Three Arrows still mean the same as it used to? (that is, fuck reactionary conservatism, fuck nazism, fuck communism)


Yea this is my understanding as well. This is opposing to just the negation, which is a new thing that completely supplants the old without taking anything from it. Both regular negation and negation of the negation (also known as dialectal negation) exist in history, though dialectal negation is the one most relevant in describing the progression of history, with each mode of production basing its economy and customs off the last and not completely destroying it (negation), with such destruction really only occurring in non-general, specific instances (e.g. revolutionaries or reformers getting executed, ancient civilizations like the Inca and Aztecs getting razed).


Change "conflict" to "relation" and we're Gucci.


Why according leftists, murderers, rapists and everyone else deserves a second chance but regular people have to apologize over something that their ancestors did hundreds years ago?


File: 1636387872063.png (275.7 KB, 426x568, ClipboardImage.png)

I guess this would warrant its own thread, but i can't be arsed to make one.

But what could picrel be considered? A reactionary, conservative, or even a futurist (if that makes sense)?


fascist, reactionary, somewhat conservative but not really, definitely not a futurist


>definitely not a futurist
Given the inspiration he took from Mussolini, i would've have he was.


File: 1636413546292.png (594.58 KB, 800x2583, white finland.png)

Educate yourself


Church is not the building, it is not an organization with book keeping, CEO, hierarchy where few rule over many. Church is living organism where every believer is part of. You cannot demolish it, you cannot destroy it, you cannot make it bankrupt.


There was apparently an imperial japanese officer/war criminal who had quite a lot of bad things to say about white people in asia, and who justified his atrocities on purging the colonial influence from asia.
Does anyone know off hand who this fellow was? I intend to use it for blatant propaganda.


oh no, this guy is strawmaning


How come? It's a genuine question.

I repeat my question: why do I have to apologize over something I didn't do?


Are there materialist socialists who don't believe in vanguardism? What's their rationale for how socialism is supposed to arise and progress?


Wrong place to ask this. Go to some liberal, antifa, BLM, subreddit and they'll give you a more insightful answer (or not) on this subject, as they're more concerned with this matter than us.

As for my personal take, a second chance is only valid for those who are apt to be safely reintroduced to society (however that may be evaluated). And, despite all the memes poking fun at honkeys, hwites are obviously not at fault for things that happened centuries ago and they had no agency in, that falls on theirs governments' laps, as they – most often than not – retain the policies of colonialist era, just to a softer, less visible degree.


Since semen has nutritional value, does this mean vegans can't/don't/shouldn't go down?


Is it better to go with national bourgeois instead of global capitalist? Or both doesn't make any different at all?


There is no meaningful national bourgeoisie in the imperial core, so all capitalists are shit.

If you live in the capitalist periphery, then maybe natbooj, but jettison them first chance you get.


Does the claim that the Chinese Communists sat back and gathered munitions and weapons while the Nationalists did all the fighting during WWII have any grounding in reality or is it just another anti-Communist lie?


Semen is vegan if both parties consent.

t. vegan dicksucker


File: 1636553060439.png (439.96 KB, 640x640, ClipboardImage.png)



does stonetoss really think people get into the sheets and just talk about consent before fucking?




So if there is no ethical consumption under capitalism it's not wrong to have sex with trafficked prostitutes?


On the contrary it means that even paid sex in cooperative brothels is wrong.


That phrase refers to the futility of consumption as a way of steering capitalism out of its crises, e.g. going vegan to try to decrease emissions, animal suffering, etc. While veganism, for instance, won't solve capitalism it will certainly alleviate certain things, even though you shouldn't rely on that. In the case of sex-trafficked prostitutes, it would still be wrong to provide demand for them even though it won't end capitalism's inherent problems.


What did Mao mean by "Reactionaries are paper tigers"? Suddenly they're a non-issue anymore?


How can I implement communism more into my campus? What can I do to get more attention from people and actually do communism? How can I implement communism more into my life when nobody takes me seriously?
I'm part of a gonzaloist organisation in my town, my job being to hand out little red books on campus, but I still feel like I need to make more of an impact on people because nobody pays attention to me. I had to order 500 of them printed last month out of my own pocket, and only like 8 people actually cared enough to take one.
Last week I got a Che Guevara beret that I began to wear on campus, but my fascist history professor made me take it off before lectures which is annoying. He used to argue with me when I corrected him about basic communism facts, but now he doesn't care anymore and just ignores me when I debate him.
Basically everyone is afraid to debate me now, when I approach someone in the hallway, they just pretend I'm not there, or walk away.
For the winter months, I've decided I'm going to buy an ushanka with a red star, and a commissar trench coat with wool lining. Hopefully, this draws more attention to our movement, but just in case it doesn't work, I'm looking for input and backup plans to get more people to debate me and actually take the little red books I've been handing out.


File: 1636937522051.png (839.42 KB, 960x945, ClipboardImage.png)

Is there any witty response to images like this one? I know this isn't an argument, and my reaction "k, so what" whenever it is brought up, but that's kinda of a anticlimactic answer, even if not incorrect.


File: 1636937593462.gif (62.44 KB, 570x537, 1627378378020.gif)

>Is there any witty response to images like this one? I know this isn't an argument, and my reaction "k, so what" whenever it is brought up, but that's kinda of a anticlimactic answer, even if not incorrect.


How do you respond to people saying socialism equals taking away peoples guns?


File: 1636941942895.mp4 (17.9 MB, 480x360, albania.mp4)


File: 1636942093247.png (2.74 MB, 1200x1200, ClipboardImage.png)

It's a fake quote and a rip off of this.

Also that guy fought for Apartheid South Africa.


File: 1636942409087.jpg (207.78 KB, 543x751, UK Weapons Sweep.jpg)

I would say look at the state of gun rights in the top capitalist countries on Earth, but of course they would still say that's socialism/communism, so… don't argue with fools?


>>598265 looks like the British police system is shit


Is the burger slippery slope from banning assault rifles to banning screwdrivers real?


Quote made up by an edgy "journalist". Ganowicz was a mercenary in Africa, so he more than likely had kills to his name, but there isn't any reliable evidence that he had a flippant attitude toward human life.


File: 1637003775658.png (1.32 MB, 680x1010, 500.png)

How did a murdered US eco-activists daughter become a biopharmaceutical shill when that entire industrial complex in the US is so environmentally unregulated and dangerous? The FBI couldn't have intended to get so lucky… either groomers run the whole show or money just has the strangest way of making life farcical in every vulgar way you'd imagine.


I heard about this story before, is there any source to back it up? I looked through the dude's wikipedia and wikiquote page and found nothing, so at very least i'm suspicious about the authenticity of it.

Same as above plz. There might be a day where a rightoid could its two brain cells to ask me to show proof.


Is there any study that has measured the race/religion of the bourgeoisie to shut up those who say that they're predominantly jewish?


File: 1637042175412.jpg (103.8 KB, 1024x576, literally me.jpg)

Don't care, gigavaxxing.


I haven't looked, but most of the /pol/ infographics rely on over-representation rather than majority.
How do you propose we define bourgeois in this question? If we define it as the billionaire class we can measure easily: I can find one source where someone checked the Forbes billionaire list (I intentionally didn't cite it as there will be better sources) and they claim:
North-West Europe: 29%
Asian or Pacific Islands: 22%
Jewish: 17.5%
Middle Eastern or Central Asia: 8.5%
Eastern Europe: 6.5%
Southern Europe: 6%
Hispanic/Brazillian: 5%
South Asian: 5%
Black: 0.5%

Various other sources are claiming 20-25%. Clearly not predominant numbers when compared to white people or Asians. Chinese did Zion!!!1!


thank you very much, this answers my question completely. i knew /pol/ was wrong about them being the majority.

Here is an article i found on this topic. https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2018/03/07/jews-make-19-forbes-200-worlds-richest-list/


This is from 2017, but according to the book Giants by Peter Phillips (a study on the world's richest 0.1%), the biggest financial firms in the world are run by mostly old white men.
>One hundred thirty-six of the 199 power elite managers (70 percent) are male. Eighty-four percent are whites of European descent. The 199 power elite managers hold 147 graduate degrees, including 59 MBAs, 22 JDs, 23 PhDs, and 35 MA/MS degrees. Almost all have attended elite private colleges, with 28 attending Harvard or Stanford. People from twenty nations make up this central financial power elite core. One hundred seventeen (59 percent) are from the United States; 22 each are from Britain and France; thirteen each are from Germany and Switzerland; three each are from Italy, Singapore, India, Austria, and Australia; two each are from Japan and Brazil; and one each are from South Africa, the Netherlands, Zambia, Kuwait, Belgium, Canada, Mexico, Qatar, and Colombia. They live in or interact regularly in a number of the world’s great cities: New York City, Chicago, London, Paris, Munich, Tokyo, and Singapore.


Thank you very much, i'll look into that book.


despite being 80% of the people in the US, whites constitutes 70% of all suicides.


Here is one that should be easy, does anyone have evidence of identity politics being spread by a white bourgeois?


File: 1637096243202.jpg (157.81 KB, 614x762, 1637086019873.jpg)



That's perfect, thank you!


File: 1637099316424-1.png (650.16 KB, 415x606, ClipboardImage.png)


Do Marxist Leninists want to turn the state into an anarchist region? If so, when is the time appropriate so they do so? How much does a Marxist Leninist state have to industrialize before becoming “anarchist”.


File: 1637294487623.png (3.15 MB, 2944x3316, Rothchild caused 911.png)

How do you debunk the /pol/ claim of the jewish loyalty of George W. Bush?

>Iraq war

>clearly ignores and abates israeli involvement in 9/11

I don't think jews were entirely to blame for 9/11 even if they did profit from it.


What's with the poster or posters who are so autistically against the left-right divide?


but the family can sustain themselves, Cubans can't


The definition of socialism appears to vary among leftists.
Does it mean:

1. An economic system in which the workers own the means of production (Dictionary version)
On this definition worker cooperatives are socialist.

2. An economic system in which the means of production are oriented to benefit society (Caleb Maupin version)
On this definition the US Postal Service and the Interstate Highway System is socialist.

3. A mode of production that explicitly is defined by social ends (Haz version)
Also Postal Service and the Interstate Highway System

Is there another definition of this economic system that I am missing?


Yeah, Saudi Arabia orchestrated it, Israel profited from it, aka Saudi Arabia and the US profited from it
Disnt GWB have a PMC or something of that caliber take over the war on terror? Because he didnt take this "war" to Congress for a vote, he just initiated a "conflict"


I'm sorry, How do that debunk that Jews profiting from it, or are you agreeing?


Of course Israel profited from it.
If you're talking about the broader issue of countering nazi propaganda, in which every Jew is somehow complicit with Israeli settler business, I ask you, how does your neighborhood Jew profit from 9/11?


Why did western communist parties like the Italian Communist Party turn into succdem parties after the collapse of the soviet union?

I understand the USSR funded these parties to a certain extent but why didn't they keep their marxist leninist or at the very least socialist beliefs instead of going much further to the right and supporting capitalism?


Just started going through the reading general. I'm on page 13 of Principles of Socialism.

>That, though big industry in its earliest stage created free competition, it has now outgrown free competition; that, for big industry, competition and generally the individualistic organization of production have become a fetter which it must and will shatter; that, so long as big industry remains on its present footing, it can be maintained only at the cost of general chaos every seven years, each time threatening the whole of civilization and not only plunging the proletarians into misery but also ruining large sections of the bourgeoisie; hence, either that big industry must itself be given up, which is an absolute impossibility, or that it makes unavoidably necessary an entirely new organization of society in which production is no longer directed by mutually competing individual industrialists but rather by the whole society operating according to a definite plan and taking account of the needs of all.

It seems like he's completely discounting the third option, that does away with competition and crisis of overproduction and creates a planned economy, but is not the "whole society operating according to a definite plan and taking account of the needs of all," which seems to be the way that Western society actually developed since it was written, which is the consolidation of the capitalists into cartels and monopolies.

It seems the whole argument rests on crisis so large that it topples the whole system, but nothing has come close to that. Instead every crisis has been leading down the third path, and I see no reason it can't indefinitely.

Is this really about hoping that the capitalists fuck up so bad they just wreck themselves? It seems naive to pin your hopes on some unforced error, especially with almost 100 years of hindsight.


>almost *200 years of hindsight.


Opportunism. Occhetto saw that communism as an ideology wasn't viable anymore now that the USSR wasn't around and decided that social democracy was the best way to finally win the elections. In a certain sense he was right as the new centre-left won elections many times and enacted (actually, it keeps enacting) the worst reforms for workers. Last time I heard about that piece of shit, he supported the zionist whore Bonino and her libertarian party.


>Is this really about hoping that the capitalists fuck up so bad they just wreck themselves? It seems naive to pin your hopes on some unforced error, especially with almost 100 years of hindsight.
not only. But capital have regular boom/bust cycles due to its nature, and the bust part are great opportunities for political upheaval. Combined with profit falling, we as communist can prepare the minds and orgs, to exploit those and usher in a new era when the opportunity arise


File: 1637501510281.jpg (75.69 KB, 638x479, -1.jpg)

And not to mention the capitalist cartel controls 99% of the world, so it is way more efficient than any socialist planned economy could hope to be until worldwide international revolution. If The Chinese and Western capitalists fully merge, that's pretty much a wrap.

But that's the thing. The crises are getting much more tolerable, not less. They could easily make the crises even more tolerable if they wanted to even but they choose not to because they don't have to. They can manage the crises enough to keep the people from starving. Matter of fact, how about that?

When has a revolution occurred when the masses weren't literally starving to death? Russia, China, Ethiopia, etc. It's a really low bar they have to clear and one that is impossible for them to not clear with today's technology and systems.


Do we even have time for better theory? Just direct action and stick with the old leninism?


>The crises are getting much more tolerable, not less.
That is absolutely wrong. Even with new markets opening up after fall of USSR and socialist block which alleviated the severity of the crisis in 90s, each new one is wrose than one before. Next one will be comparable to Great Depression if not worse. Compare the crisis we have right now to 2008 one and you will undestand that what you have said is wrong.


Why according socialist I don't deserve the money I have earned trough investing?


You do deserve it since you are getting your labor value back from capitalists.


Read what you yourself wrote.
>each new one is wrose than one before.
>Next one will be comparable to Great Depression if not worse.
The next crisis will be comparable to the crisis that happened 100 years ago. So literally that means every crisis since has been better than the one 100 years ago and according to the 7 year metric, that's 14 crises that were milder than the one proceeding it.
>Compare the crisis we have right now to 2008 one and you will undestand that what you have said is wrong.
But the 2008 was a true systemic crisis whereas 2021 is a crises deriving from non-human factors mostly. Also it's still not even remotely near revolution levels. They could easily give us more welfare to tide us over, but they don't because they don't even need to.


But more than debate the crises themselves, please debunk my main point:

That the capitalist classes can indefinitely mitigate the crises of over-production arising from competition and poor planning by consolidating their interests and creating a planned economy that eliminates competition but at the same time is not the "whole society operating according to a definite plan and taking account of the needs of all,"


Any good English language biographies of Zhukov out there?


There's a Zhukov biography by Geoffrey Roberts. I haven't read it but I've read 2 of his other books and for a liberal historian he turned out to be way less biased than I was expecting, he even refutes some popular myths (ie. Stalin being a bad wartime leader). There's also Zhukov's own autobiography, which is pretty interesting to read. The latest english edition is called Marshal of Victory (also edited by Roberts)


How would writers who make money off roaylties publishers pay them be able to sustain themselves once an dictatorship of the proletariat will be established?


So what the fuck is the difference between Maoism and Mao Zedong Thought? Is there a difference? And what the hell then is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism? I think I've even seen Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought too


I'm no expert in this, but:

"Mao Zedong Thought" is expands to Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought, while "Maoism" nowadays broadly refers to the various currents of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, or MLM. ML-MZT is a continuation of Marxism-Leninism which appeared in China, particularly during the time of the Cultural Revolution. It is considered the application of Marxism-Leninism to the particular conditions of China at that time. MLM is a later formulation, attempting to learn from the lessons of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, while breaking away from what it considers to be the limits of ML, and therefore of its continuation in MZT. MLM considers that the events of the Chinese Revolution as a whole weren't just local happenings but were of universal interest, and so they believe that things like Two Line Struggle and the continuation of class struggle after the establishment of the socialist state must be fundamentally integrated into Marxism. ML-MZT doesn't really have much expression nowadays since it's not essentially distinct from the ML you already know. MLM is represented by the ongoing struggles in countries like the Philippines, India, and (previously?) Peru.

There's a thread on /edu/ with effortposts by various anons on the subject of Maoism. This specific post may be of interest to you, check it out: >>>/edu/5403


Did Lenin think his Leninist theory was applicable to more industrialized countries? Is it in fact?


How is fascism/the far right 'incoherent' or 'contradictory'?


Well, if you ask a random fascist what they think about Israel, it's mostly probable that they will have nothing nice to say, even though it literally embodies everything a far right ethnostate would saint and strive for.
Ditto in the opposite direction as well btw.


wtf, want*


Lenin thought his theories applied only to early 1900's Russia, he made this very clear.


But anti-semetism is a part of facism.


>reeeee I hate everything about you but I want to literally be you reeeeee there is no contradiction here reeeeeeeeee
didn't read, I'm a jew and I gain nothing from zionism, not a pay check, not "privilege", nothing.


Mao was good, maoists are to a man completely retarded.


Not really. Some of it yes, but in Infantile disease it was not just about applying shit in Russia


Given the bourgeoisie's method of artificially pumping up TFRoP by making planned obsolescence goods – which require consumers to constantly buy what they already had – , does that mean if it goes to near zero/zero (by the maintenance of the current production model, or by the introduction of some bullshit device), we'll be left with a bunch of shitty, non-durable itens? Or is there any anything i overlooked?


What do people from the Caucasus countries and central Asia think of the soviet times?


Was Lenin an imperialist because he worked together with German porkies to undermine Russian national self-determination?


>he worked together with German porkies
Where's your proof of this?
>undermine Russian national self-determination
If you mean the B-L treaty, no, Lenin wanted a fair and democratic peace and not the one that the German imperial command forced. You're blaming the victim and not the perpetrator.


>On this definition worker cooperatives are socialist.
Not necessarily. The USSR cooperatives were similar to any capitalist entity because they hired workers and they didn't reintegrate the new hires into the cooperative ownership.>>609533


No, Caleb doesn't state this. He agrees with 1.


I am not a follower of Haz, so I won't say no nor yes.

>Is there another definition of this economic system that I am missing?
Well, according to my Akal dictionary of philosophy they say that Lenin's version of late-stage communism would be a group of leaders that would control the means of production on behalf of the workers and the revolution.
They don't quote from what exact Lenin's work they took that phrase.
In my knowledge, those people become the people that once fails a socialist project (a.k.a the USSR or warsaw-pact countries) will sell you those companies/will be the next managers of those corporations in the new capitalist system, so if AKAL says that, and that's correct, Lenin's theory was wrong because those guys wouldn't fight back.


I think you confused Trotsky with Lenin.


Some people in Leftypol think is ludicrous the false dichotomy presented, but tbh, ignore them, left-right is something that came from the french revolution and it is where the politicians were sitting in their assembly, and it is indeed a guide to understand where and how lies their ideals.
What is left is to know more about that people's policies, nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is autistic screeching, in lpol we have a lot of that.


Anyone have data on state ownership of businesses under Ba'athist Iraq? I heard it was really high but can't find sources.


Anyone have the poster with Hitler standing in front of workers and going 'socialist workers-party' and in front of the bosses going 'german national-party'? It's not on the booru.


It was mostly state-owned.
Even during the war.


I have a job and just recently went back to school as well but everything's from home. How do I get involved?
Also I think I legit have autism, or at least I'm just incredibly socially retarded.


Ok this is a hard question but please tell me who used to own means of production in

>USSR in 1980

>DDR in 1980
>PCR in 2020
>PCR in 1980


What's the problem with the West hiring Nazis after WWII? It's not like they're going to hold a Nazi putsch or something.


From a historical standpoint, the Americans hired Nazi commanders to give the US Soviet strategy.
The nazis lied a lot and now most of WW2 history in the west comes through the lense of pompous fascist faggots.


Do workers have trade unions in socialism? If not how can they protect themselves from the bureaucratic class?


There were unions in the USSR, for one, though their role changed over time and they were supressed in some periods. Look into the whole debate on unions that was happening around 1920, which got so heated the party was split into various fractions, with the main ones being headed by Lenin, Bukharin, Trotsky and Kollontai, respectively. This debate is quite interesting to research as each fraction had a different perspective on how unions should be handled. The Workers' Opposition of Kollontai and Shlyapnikov wanted unions fully independent and to have total control over the economic direction of the country, while other fractions argued that they were not developed enough to manage the economy on their own. Another fraction (Trotsky's if I'm not mistaken) wanted unions to be completely subsumed into the state, so that they would become primary spaces for the revolutionary work of the party. There is no simple universal answer to the union question.


How come left com American critics of AES like China are always mentally ill trans people?


They are trotskyites of modern age. Ignore them.


File: 1638363599080.gif (137.76 KB, 270x271, fry chewing.gif)

Advanced Encryption Standard?


Goddamnit Rijndael


Im trying to find a youtube video of a history seminar or conference or whatever of a US professor giving a history of the Korean War. This professor was militarily involved in it, not sure to what capacity, it was an hour long. Sorry for the small amount of info, i seem to have lost the link some time ago and suddenly i need it again.


Well, the data is hard to find, but you can read some and most of those states and periods are state-owned means of productions. Either by % of net number of entities owned or by % of wealth produced by the state-owned entities.


Just how heavily did Marx and Engels anthropology research relied on ancient Greek culture? I keep reading about it, and the emphasis on class throughout it is startling.



What makes certain labor socially-necessary while some other isn't? Is it supply and demand?


File: 1638575761538.jpg (6.65 MB, 5100x3547, Siege of Leningrad.jpg)

Does anyone have a good book about the Eastern front?
There's so many of them, but they're all written from an American/German imperialist point of view.


bumping for our 2000iq euro comrades


>Does anyone have a good book about the Eastern front?

Do they need to be non fiction?

Because if they don't then I would read "The here a re quiet" by Boris vasiliev


I guess I should have specified that I'm looking for marxist historical nonfiction, but I'll check your book out anyways


File: 1638609096517-0.pdf (14.49 MB, 170x255, glantz2015.pdf)

File: 1638609096517-1.pdf (8.68 MB, 197x255, glantz2001.pdf)


So the workers didn't actually control it anywhere?


for a just cause by vasily grossman


I'm trying to read Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations (more specifically part II), and i'm getting my ass fucking kicked by it.

Is there any condensed version/explanation of the text somewhere, to make understanding the original easier?


File: 1638887453032.png (404.96 KB, 828x612, ClipboardImage.png)

The fuck is this now


Newfriend here please tell me good rebuttals for a following claims:

>it's ok to pay insufficient wage because it's proportional to their value

>there wouldn't be freedom of speech under communism
>muh soviet union, muh ddr, muh Cambodia, etc


The gigacope where /pol/ tries to distance itself from its huge collage of polfaced shooters


>buddha head
not like this bros…


Currently, extreme poverty is classed as living off of less that $1.90 a day. This was raised from I think $1.25 a day in 2017. However, due to inflation it should be $2.14 a day. So poverty, by their metric, isn't reducing as much as they say it is.


Why did Trump run for president if he's part of the bourgeoisie himself?


That's how liberal democracy works


Can you have a "body without organ" inside a "body without organ"? Is the word one big "body without organ?"


Correct. Many AES have achieved up to some degree some small transitioning to the working class with comunas (comunes), cooperatives (up to some degree). The problem is, capitalism in the form of imperialism predates AES and, as Lenin acknowledges how easy it for capitalism is to overwhelm a state that is transitioning to socialism, many AES ended up having state capitalism-oriented to socialism (as opposed to State capitalism oriented to capitalism like many social-democracies in Europe).

This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb5grDNww6U
From Breakthrough News. Rania Khalek is there, on that same channel.
Explains very well, using as an example the USSR, and it is the first of a series. I hope to see them released in the near future.
Also, Hakim addresses this, you should investigate his channel and the books he recommends.


File: 1639069875991.gif (137.76 KB, 270x271, fry chewing.gif)

… Advanced Encryption Standard?




Do I have places in communist movement if I think animals should be regarded as exploited ones and all exploitation regarding animals should be one of our goals? I mean I obviously I don't think animals are important as humans by large, but there's a hierarchy that needs to abolished?


How do you end the exploitation of animals that were bred over 1000s of years explicitly to be exploited? Yiu can't just release all the cows and pigs and goats into the wild they'd destroy the local ecosystems worse than farms already do


where do you draw the line on animal exploitation?
are pets exploited?
are bees?
exploitation in the marxist sense is very specific and concrete


Stop breeding them just to be slaughtered?


So they would all have to be slaughtered at once then all that meat is wasted, thrown away, left to rot


Make one last harvest and don't breed any more. The solution isn't hard at all


you can find commie vegans but if a communist group were to critique a slaughterhouse they'll much sooner point to unsafe working conditions and the serious mental health impact it has on workers before bringing up animal rights. similarly, criticism of deforestation will focus on the social and environmental impacts rather than the animals in the forest

that said, if you're a (bean?)burger DSA has an animal liberation working group, the downside is that it's the DSA


>are pets exploited?
>are bees?


Was there a revolution that transformed Germany's feudal economy to a capitalist one, or was it fairly subtle?


Prussian state settled the dialectic between nobility and peasantry by reforms.


How could it manage this, and why didn't France or the Tokugawa Shogunate for example do this?


The french king was a retard who failed to see the tides changing, Japan more or less closed itself fromù international trade which reduced the imperative for its economy to evolve.


File: 1639265834483.png (90.22 KB, 1200x630, Vegan Communist flag.png)

I am a vegan communist. Veganism can be considered Marxist when you look at it like this: humans in rich countries exploit animals not because we have to, but for our own short sited personal enjoyment, despite it being much more energy inifficient and worse for the enviroment. There is no reason why almost anyone in a Western nation would need to kill animals to survive. In communism people will look back on the animal genocide and be appaled. I think animal murder would have to be phased out through years or decades of change though. I think lots of vegans are just idpol libs though, who want to see animal emancipation but only mild improvements for humans. I will always campaign for socialism first. I am also not an anarcho-reactionary who hates technology.
This is a very poor argument. Let them live until they die naturally after a few years.
For me, anything which has a central nervous system shouldn't be exploited unless it is necessary. But I think this isn't a great definition as some animals without central nervous systems still have decision making capabilities. I wouldn't eat a starfish for example.


Are we going to need money if communism is reached? Exchange makes more sense, but it cannot be applied in every case. I am asking this because according to this link money should not exist in a communist society. https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/currency-of-communism-british-museum/index.html


File: 1639283777586.jpg (294.56 KB, 650x687, pasado-imagenes.jpg)

What's the significance of year 2k?
Was it just hyped up for being a round number or did it mark an objective change/material development in society?


Is French revolution indeed world changing event like it was for early marxist communists? Any recommendations?


There is no money in a communist society. Overcoming capitalism means overcoming exchange of commodities, and with that, the centrality of money in the exchange process. If you want a good theoretical look into what exchange means in capitalist society, read Capital Volume 1. In Communism there is no exchange as there are no private individual owners nor production for exchange value; there is only a kind of associated production, the product of which is meant for the direct fulfilling of social needs. There is some discussion of the distribution of the total social product in Communist society in Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme:
>Within the collective society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labour employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labour no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of the total labour.

The French Revolution has world historical importance for being the most clear-cut case of a bourgeois revolution. It took on a very transparent form, whereas the process of bourgeois revolution in most other european countries was more complex; Germany, for example, never had a proper "revolution" like the French did, but a slower kind of capitalist development with its own kinds of political struggles. To quote from Engels:
>France is the land where, more than anywhere else, the historical class struggles were each time fought out to a decision, and where, consequently, the changing political forms within which they move and in which their results are summarised have been stamped in the sharpest outlines. The centre of feudalism in the Middle Ages, the model country of unified monarchy, resting on estates, since the Renaissance, France demolished feudalism in the Great Revolution and established the unalloyed rule of the bourgeoisie in a classical purity unequalled by any other European land. And the struggle of the upward-striving proletariat against the ruling bourgeoisie appeared here in an acute form unknown elsewhere.

Another important thing is that the theory of class struggle which would later be further developed by socialists (and especially Marx and Engels) first appeared among french revolutionaries and intepreters/historians of the revolution. From Marx:
>And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic economy of the classes.

As for books on the French Revolution, there is a recent thread on /edu/ about this: >>>/edu/8822


File: 1639371552721.png (88.88 KB, 312x222, telepunk.png)

What is the socialist way of dealing with, for example, telemarketers?

On one hand, they are workers, on the other, some workers are social parasites. MLM pyramid shit is a good example. Does the fact that they're in a predatory industry but 'just following orders' make it ethically 👻 alright to neglect them? Should one be obligated to express empathy and inspire a socialist spirit in them?


Nah, people were just shitting themselves because some computers' internal clocks would spaz out once the year rolled over from 1999 to 2000, reading it instead as 1900. This resulted in some spooky theory about a crash in the stock market or some shit due to computer fuckery and the like from the incorrect dates, none of which happened of course.


File: 1639411342857-0.png (41.72 KB, 479x427, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1639411342857-1.png (24.44 KB, 464x241, ClipboardImage.png)

Welp, i happened to stumble upon my answer.


I’m a Marxist-Leninist and an incel.

Can these ideologies mix?(lol incel)


>Marxist-Leninist and an incel
>Can these ideologies mix?
Yes, they are synergistic.



>unable to view half of the proletariat as equals/as humans, hopelessly alienated and caught up in bourgeois notions of morality, sexual propriety, and chauvinism

read Kollontai and make female friends, WITHOUT ANY INTENT to have sex with them.


My only interactions with the female sex has been on tinder where I’ve been consistently ghosted after going on several dates.

I don’t see why I should respect a group of people who don’t respect me.


Incel ideology has capitalist ontology, so no.


>I’m a Marxist-Leninist and an retard.
<reddit space
>Can these ideologies mix?


On the contrary, the notion that one can 'pick themselves up by the bootstraps' in the 'dating market', the economization of sex etc. is a capitalistic ontology, which is why it's ironic that 'Marxists' think confidence (idealism) can magically bootstrap and offset looks (the real sexual class).


Lol stfu. Don't use words you dont understand.


"Waaah don't disprove me, I'll accuse him of using words he doesn't understand without actually providing an argument because I'm out of my depth and have to get hostile in order to cope!"
There was not a single malapropism (that means "the mistaken use of a word in place of a similar-sounding one, often with unintentionally amusing effect" just so we can be clear about an understood meaning :). ) in that post, and if you believe there was, prove it, pussy.


>waaah why dont you debate with incels
Been there, done that. It's a fruitless battle.


no point in trying to debate incels, they are basically accepting "yes relationships are not real, you can't have meaningful communication or feel love for people, but here you can still fuck because the state gives out gfs like candy"
they buy into the atomization of humanity, they are incapable of any degree of self-improvement because they offset literally all personal initiative onto structural issues. to some degree the left's ideological bent has been trying to persuade people that a lot of faults in their lives are not their own and have to do with the structural arrangement of society, but incels take that as an excuse to shift all personal iniative to the structure of society and then prescribe insane solutions like state-mandated sex slaves and shit. they are reactionaries by virtue of every facet of their belief and we don't want them here.

pre-internet they'd all be isolated and their views could not have any cohesion or capacity to spread, now though with the internet this incredibly small minority can form a parasocial kind of grouping and basically be a vocal hyperminority which allows them to pretend like they matter. they simply do not.


t. bootstraps


File: 1639480828756.png (389.35 KB, 540x810, lenin laugh.png)

>why don't women like me
>is it my personally reprehensible behavior, total lack of a self-care routine, and my demonizing them as being non-humans which must be corralled for the benefit of true humanity?
<no, its society which has done this!


Am I an incel if I'm a virgin and have various sexual hang-ups but don't hate women and the LGBT community?


Incel is a mindset not a state of being.



there were no women in your school? No female coworkers? Where are you from?


Bourgeois individualistic ideology


Incel means involuntary celibate. Anyone who is genuinely unable to get sex is an incel.


Is there an in/formal Upper Age Limit of Communist Party youth wings?
If so what would you say it is?
I tried to find a consensus definition for the word "youth" and, according to some sources, it's becoming more and more stretched with recent time.


You can't set a hard universal limit since each country has different conditions for "youth". Demographics, average age at which people join the workforce, age they finish school, enter college, get married, etc, all these things change what constitutes the "youth" socially. How the party should handle this also depends on the conditions of the movement.

In my country the CP sets the limit age for the youth wing at 28.


Your mind is not leftist, and that's the only place tbey have settled and colonialized.


Some parties set it at 28 and have 35 year olds. Seriously doesn't matter. The youth orgs tend to be better anyways, in terms of activity and theory level. At least where im from.


Why do some major news outlets push anti-illegal immigration sentiment when illegal immigration seems clearly benefitial to the bourgeoisie? They get to make use of cheap labor from people who have almost no legal rights.
I figure this may simply be a case of interests not aligning across different "camps" of bourg but I don't really understand why capitalists would ever feel materially threatened by illegal immigrants.


I was curious if anyone could possibly elaborate on the roles the Lumpenproletariat and Petty-Bourgeoise respectively play in regards to fascism? In addition, I was wondering about the class-composition of the Trump-aligned right in America. If they are ruined former union-workers that are still allied with capital?


Is the supremacy of the productive forces just a meme?
ie the concept that the productive forces are the determining factor driving material change.
Capitalist production is based on exploitation (surplus value appropriation) and domination. Therefore the productive cannot be an external 'neutral force'. They drive change in favour of capitalism. Technological innovation is a tool by capitalists to create more profit. It's the relations of production that allow the growth of certain technologies.

Surely Relations of Production should be superior to the productive forces?


File: 1639760815300.png (448.78 KB, 473x767, ClipboardImage.png)


And in every socialist revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat was created through a transformation of the relations of production by class struggle, not the 'productive forces'


File: 1639791462969.png (1.14 MB, 2048x1255, ClipboardImage.png)

I'm directly benefited by landlordism (even if it is only complimentary to my income, and not the main source of it).

Would i get shot in the back of the head for it?


ok bros i have a question. i've decided to start reading some theory and i'm reading marx's value price and profit, but i've ran into a problem. basically i don't fucking understand anything. should i read to the end and then reflect on individual chapters, or should i analyze each chapter carefully and take my time with reading them? would taking notes help?


Come on fren, we understand you must do what you can to get by in the capitalist economy.

But yes.


Read Capital (at least the first four chapters) instead of Value, Price and Profit. Capital is a polished work of theory, specially revised to improve the clarity of the text. Capital, so written, can be understood even by readers with no prior knowledge of political economy. From the prefaces:
<I applaud your idea of publishing the translation of “Das Kapital” as a serial. In this form the book will be more accessible to the working class, a consideration which to me outweighs everything else.
<The “St. Petersburg Journal” (Sankt-Peterburgskie Viedomosti), in its issue of April 8 (20), 1872, says: “The presentation of the subject, with the exception of one or two exceptionally special parts, is distinguished by its comprehensibility by the general reader, its clearness, and, in spite of the scientific intricacy of the subject, by an unusual liveliness. In this respect the author in no way resembles … the majority of German scholars who … write their books in a language so dry and obscure that the heads of ordinary mortals are cracked by it.”
<With the exception of the section on value-form, therefore, this volume cannot stand accused on the score of difficulty. I presuppose, of course, a reader who is willing to learn something new and therefore to think for himself.
>should i read to the end and then reflect on individual chapters, or should i analyze each chapter carefully and take my time with reading them? would taking notes help?
Taking notes would help you identify what it is you don't understand. Is it the vocabulary? The out-of-date historical references? Do you find the polemical structure of the argument confusing? If you don't know, read it again more carefully until you figure it out. If you continue having trouble on a specific point, go ahead and make a post in /edu/ about it.


It's fairly short so I don't see the need to take notes. When you have a question about a statement, you can just ask here about it.


only if you resist the inevitable land and property reforms



Do you think under communism we will still need to suppress reactionaries or will they be tolerated like nazis, fundamentalists and marxists are now as long as they don't pose a real threat?


>Marxists are tolerated
>Nazis aren’t feds or attack dogs on the leash
You have to correct those above assumptions. And as for the other part? No.


ideologies won't exist under communism


What do you mean? Feudalism doesn't exist but doesn't mean people don't larp as reactionaries.


File: 1639970834174.png (2.52 MB, 1586x1586, ClipboardImage.png)

Do we have an influx of 'stupidpolers' these last coupla days or is it just one retard or two reactionaries with a leftist coat of paint that is particularly loud?


Rumour has it that there's a purge going on over there so we'll probably see some refugees


File: 1640015021063.png (171.31 KB, 500x492, ClipboardImage.png)

Then the logic of class interest dictates that i must accept my own position as a small pork petty bourgeois.

Sorry frens, it was never meant to be.


File: 1640024634862.png (421.25 KB, 706x526, runner.png)

In Flying Saucers and the Socialist Future of Mankind, Posadas writes the following:
>It could be that matter is organised differently in other planetary systems or galaxies, in infinite combinations and in totally different forms to those that we know on Earth. We cannot imagine what it is like, but we can imagine very well that there may be an organisation of energy infinitely superior to what we have here. In the Soviet Union, they have discovered a ray infinitely faster than light, which is something totally new.
Was he referring to anything in particular when he writes "a ray infinitely faster than light?" Of course, I can't imagine this actually existing, or else the laws of physics as we know them are all wrong. But was there any specific experiment Posadas might've heard of and written of as this infinitely-fast ray? Is there speculation on this or is it just a totally mysterious reference?


How can planned economies develop their economy organically without the organic growth and development of creative destruction and darwinism? How can the needs of consumers be met to the greatest extent and how is this economical position obtained? What is the manuscript to develop this planned economy to achieve the level of goods production where all needs are met thus achieving full material communism?


File: 1640026976820.jpg (22.51 KB, 300x100, leftypol-says.jpg)

>Rumour has it that there's a purge going on over there so we'll probably see some refugees
Why do they have to come here though? How are they finding out about us? Cannot we send them somewhere else like GETchan or 4/pol/ or something instead?


The shit you mention is wholly irrelevant


Care to explain why consumer goods production and development is irrelevant to you?


What would be the practical result of the rate of profit falling further and further?


>Surely Relations of Production should be superior to the productive forces?
Doesn't really make sense to put this as an absolute. Read Stalin's Economic Problems.

>the words “full conformity” must not be understood in the absolute sense. They must not be understood as meaning that there is altogether no lagging of the relations of production behind the growth of the productive forces under socialism. The productive forces are the most mobile and revolutionary forces of production. They undeniably move in advance of the relations of production even under socialism. Only after a certain lapse of time do the relations of production change in line with the character of the productive forces.


Even if was a small porky, id still be a communist cause I value lot of things above power over others labor for a bit more money for my consumerism
perceived interest != real interests


Constant shocks, boom busts, burble busts, etc.
Some more and more delicate. Also motivate capitalists to start wars, etc.


What is leftypol’s beef with [email protected], he seems fairly benign.


Fewer industries being able to operate for a profit, needing either subsidies or nationalization to function at all. Already happened with agriculture about 100 years ago kicking off the great depression.


>Central Asia: Regrets the fall of the USSR
>Afghanistan: Opposed socialism and doesn't want it back
How? They appear rather similar. Is it because Central Asia was just somewhat more industrialized and thus more receptive to socialism?


A dangerous revisionist shat on Assange and wanted Assad to go (despite he has been elected by a fair big majority of Syrians), among the other things.


Just watch Haz's debate that eviscerated Agent Kochinski

Which brings up the question
Why do people here hate Haz when he's an actually intelligent good looking communist with great novel ideas?


he is a right-wing liberal that "cosplays"(strong word, he just calls himself communist) that hates minorities, both etnic and sexual, but wokescolds others when they display the same, that hates everything about every socialist state, gives retard takes based on the shit he made up in his mind, mind that is empty because he does not read/watch the most rudimentary videos that debunks his americanist dementia, as well as being a spineless worm that does the same thing 4chan did on the trump period foward of stating their retarded beliefs, but when people start to question what they said they start to go "it's just a le joke dude, i was merely pretended being retarded bro, why so sensible bro" then repeat the same thing after a week or two.


Two holes


Why do capitalists downplay the revolutionary aspects of people like MLK instead of downplaying their significance outright? Getting people interested in MLK increases the chance of them coming across his radical tendencies, doesn't it?


>intelligent good looking communist with great novel ideas
I hold no feelings toward Haz but none of this is true


Because if they did that it would expose how the US purposefully done this to prevent any sort of radical tendencies. Poor Blacks and Poor Whites in solidarity with one another? Can't have that, also it would reveal that the US actually had MLK Jr murdered by hiring an assassin to do the job.


Why not try to sweep it under the rug/keep silent about it like the Tuskegee experiments or Gulf of Tonkin incident?


Because Eventually just like we found out about those two things from declassifed documents and they can no longer control the narrative of their lies. It is much easier for the Capitalist to deradicalize movements to make them fit into the capitalist's world view, and being allowed to scrub any of that nasty baggage of radicalism.

Plus they can use it as a way to be like "Oh we are totally not racist anymore we passed civil rights" and people would eat that shit up despite the fact its not true and their is still massive amounts of racism in this country we call the USA.




Can someone refute this? There's a Marxism thread on lainchan but I'm too brainlet to answer it.


"Marxism goes against human nature. Its thereby destined to fail in its advertised goal.

It does however serve as a excellent gun for capitalists. Promise equality and let the gullible pay for their fellow man. This way everyone is equally poor and nobody can threaten your position by gaining power amassing wealth. Of course you yourself never lose your money because the regulations only hit where you don't sit."


1. what the fuck is "human nature"? How marxism goes against it?
2. equality is not the goal
3. how's getting rid of capitalists gonna help them?
4. who's amassing wealth and gaining power if "everyone is poor"?
Typical burger brained non arguments from people that don't know what marxism is.


why do you feel the need to "refute" one of the shittiest "argument", and one of the most common retarded rightwing strawman you can find.
just call him a retard with absolutely no clue what marxism is thanks to his burgerbrain

>It does however serve as a excellent gun for capitalists. Promise equality and let the gullible pay for their fellow man. This way everyone is equally poor and nobody can threaten your position by gaining power amassing wealth

i mean how can you take seriously someone who spout such retarded shit


lainchan has been psyop'd by fascists for years i think, i remember a fbi.gov full of some barely crypto's who'd post "aesthetic" pictures and shit and they'd talk about the ideological potential of lainchan and its accelerationism/futurism and shit like that, this was around 2017
also that thread is just embarrassing


Is it true the US always outproduced the USSR in most commodities throughout its history? What evidence do we have against this?


none, but ofc they have, they had a massive headstart in industry + didnt have to rebuild their country + could sell their shit to all europe. The impressive thing is that ussr managed to almost catch up


File: 1640920670501.png (88.92 KB, 740x289, ClipboardImage.png)

>human nature
>human nature
>human nature
>human nature
>human nature
>human nature
>human nature
Fuck this, i want out. Someone get a /pol/tard in line and tell him to bring a rope, i cannot deal with this bullshit anymore, i'm too fucking tired.


Why did the Soviet Union hush discussion of the Holodomor?
How do you explain a Soviet historian saying he refused to falsify his findings about the famine as man-made, instead releasing his findings?


How many pages of history/theory is it advisable to read a day? Like for information retention?


As much as possible to begin with lad to just familiarise yourself with the texts
Once you've skimmed the surface you can go back over it properly doing annotations etc


File: 1641214576972.png (543.48 KB, 2048x1446, ClipboardImage.png)

Does anyone have the saturated version of picrel which says:



>Marxism goes against human nature. It thereby destined to fail in its advertised goal.
Pseuds invent something not related to Marxism, or made-up stuff not related to Marxism, hence communism, they disprove it and say "see, doesn't work".
You need to prove is anti-human.
Anti-human how? I read Marx on a daily basis, am I becoming a xenomorph? a Yautja? a Draenarian?
Some moron replied "because capital is not natural". Let me add some olive oil to it, there, it is natural.

Or simply:
>nature creates Human
>Human develops Marxism
>somehow Marxism is not natural


Is gold valuable in a Marxist sense, given that work is embodied in it through mining and processing? Or is the labor not socially necessary and the price of gold is exaggerated? Haven't Marx and co. talked about gold?


Can I blame my non-existent self-esteem on capitalism?


File: 1641589140337.jpg (23.7 KB, 640x605, 1629968783721.jpg)

Leftists say that identity politics is just the elite distracting us from class issues, that businesses promoting liberal politics doesn't bring meaningful changes. What about the recent change to legalize gay marriage? is that not a meaningful change in favor of egalitarianism?


identity politics delayed the end of legal discrimination against gays for at least 20 years.


Can you prove that the Idpol specifically delayed it? If the elite are against gay marriage why would they eventually legalize it?


most faggots don't care about getting married, they just want bosses to not fire them (which they can still do just for being a fag)


File: 1641697269749.jpg (100.76 KB, 1024x640, gaddafi stick.jpg)

Somebody explain to me how a vanguard isn't just representative democracy with authoritarian characteristics and without the pretense of democracy.
It's just having a bourgeois ruling class with extra steps.


(Inspired by the Capitalism vs. Socialism Soho Forum Debate 2019, but not at all needed to answer the question)

I interpret Gene Epstein's arguments as suggesting a (capitalist) Libertarian political system with a functional tort system to enforce non-aggression [let's assume this is possible, as a prerequisite of my question] could enable workers to continue making successful co-ops, like some do already under liberal capitalism, thereby achieving the socialist goal without it being enforced by a state.

1) Are worker co-ops a small bubble of actual socialism within a parent capitalist nation? If not, why?
2) Is there any reason why worker co-ops could not become a dominant form of worker organization under a system capable of preventing foul-play between companies/organizations, such as the aforementioned utopian NAP.
3) If eventually every company in a capitalist state became or was obsoleted by a co-operative, would this be a socialist state?
4) Am I making silly use of absolute classifications of capitalist and socialist when in reality a system is a mixture composed primarily of either capitalist or socialist entities of workers, leading people to conveniently generalize a state as capitalist or socialist for simplicity or indication of a ruling party's intent/policy?


How can some of you defend socialist authoritarianism? What is the point if you defeat capitalism/capitalist if you're going into have another form of red elite ruling over you?


How is feminism not idpol?


Read State and Revolution and you will see that you are pretty dead on.


The economy is oriented towards the needs of people rather than a capitalist class. Those with a privileged position in a socialist society do not sap nearly as many resources for themselves as the actual bourgeoisie. They get a nice house, car, but not a working man's salary millions of times over – besides avoiding the infrastructure of capitalism, being advertising, planned obsolescence, addiction-creating industries, the like.


Its not a bourgeoise vanguard. There are definitely flaws in soviet style organization.
That is undesirable. The alternative seems to be, suffer under the capitalist elite authoritarianism, or see quality of life improve massively under this red authoritarianism you assume is an inevitability.
Feminism means many things. Feminism can be idpol if it is a fight for women rights that ignores class society and its role in subjugating women and perpetuating women's oppression.


Nice buzzwords.


It is idpol, from start to finish.


Is believing that OnlyFans users are petty-bourgeois philistines and Kulak-tier the legitimate Marxist-Leninist position?


I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around Dugin and Limonovs' National Bolshevik Party.
What exactly was the goal? I mean wasn't it obvious that uniting the far left and right was doomed to fail?


No. Vulgar marxism.


I've never seen anything to suggest that NazBol was more than an art movement and a LARP spouting a bunch of contradictory and incoherent ideas. A movement by theoryless young people too confused and shocked by the economic collapse of the 90s to understand what they were doing.


File: 1641955521377.png (161.94 KB, 471x642, ClipboardImage.png)

>The businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned "merely" with profit but also with promoting desirable "social" ends; that business has a "social conscience" and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers. In fact they are–or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously–preaching pure and unadulterated socialism

– Milton Friedman, ''The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits".

There may be occasions where CEO's express their honest opinions, such as when Chick-fil-A's chief executive officer came out against gay marriage in 2012 (lol), but at the end of the day the corporations always follow the profit motive as their superseding ethos, even if it implies going against the principles of the very people working there. This is materialism 101, and how marxism accurately understands the nature of capital and the capitalist.


Hakim did a great video on this subject, you may want to watch it


Not really since they still operate within market economy that requires maximum exploitation to effectively reinvest those profits in business. Those businesses that don't do that or do that not as effectively fail at some point and are absorbed by others.


I'm know that businesses follow profit above everything, And that there are conservative brands of identity politics done for profit like the freedom phone. The messages that are broadcasted through pop star idols are clearly on the side of liberal themes like egalitarianism, homosexuality and pansexuality/transgenderism. This isn't meaningful changes in their favor, but it changes the public opinion on stuff like gay marriage and eventually sets up meaningful changes like the legalization of gay marriage for example. The elite do social engineering to get their public on their side or to accept what they want us to accept for whatever reason it benefits them (for example homosexuality for depopulation). I think it's pretty obvious that the dominant ideology is liberalism (at least in the USA), and the media and businesses for the majority will reflect that. Am i wrong?


Socialist "authoritarianism" where it has existed has been a counterweight to a historical right-wing authoritarianism. I may differ from other anons here in that I don't defend it, but I offer critical support.


Don't you mean a counterweight to capitalist authoritarianism, because some leaders of socialist countries could be described as conservative like Stalin.


What is the diamat explanation for the Troubles? Irish businessmen wanting northern Ireland's resources and pushing out British competition? Or was it more idealistic?


No man has any natural authority over his fellow men."

"We are born weak, we need strength; helpless, we need aid; foolish, we need reason. All that we lack at birth, all that we need when we come to man's estate, is the gift of education."

This Rosseau French revolution dude was a materialist?


Are the masses inherently revolutionary?


Rousseau is a moralist of the "society bad" kind. He do not hold property in high esteem, however his analysis stops at :
>one day someone drew a line in the sand and said "this is mine" and everything turned to shit, because nobody said "don't believe that guy" back then
So i wouldn't call him a materialist.


File: 1642192547064.png (116.74 KB, 280x392, 1640916489987.png)

Who tf are the other 3 besides Marx in this pic?


Is Christopher Hitchens' account of the 1979 Ba'ath coup accurate? Was it really that bad?


Auguste Comte, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. Famous sociologists.


three days ago my fingers froze and they still aren't fully unfrozen, I was pissed off but my anger wasn't directed at the ruling class. Now I feel like workers are thinking about this snow storm instead of fighting porky. You don't really have time or patience to think about class exploitation, police brutality or oppression when all you're thinking about is not freezing. It especially applies to the homeless. What does /leftypol/ think about this and what's the solution? Do we just ditch cold areas?


File: 1642454182598.jpg (176.61 KB, 1078x1078, hammer and mittens.jpg)

If capitalism doesn't provide for a basic need like warmth in winter that's something you can use for ideological struggle.
It took you only 3 days to link your frozen fingers to capitalism, so i guess you got some class consciousness out of it.
It might be worth it to teach homeless people howto do squatting.


thanks man we really need more inspirational people like you who can connect with the masses
also do you think most commuters are labor aristocrats or are they are allies?


if you're homeless and getting frostbitten, the anger would probably be aimed at the middle class in general, which is good


Ignore the characterization of labor aristocrats. They're proles. If they are class conscious and politically active, they are allies, otherwise they are loyaly at the service of capital.


I was also thinking about the privatization of basic utilities which then leads into a corresponding drop in services and increases in prices.


I don't suppose there are ex-national socialist authors that wrote books debunking their racial monoliths?

Picture not related


How do central planners know not only what people want, but in what quantities to allocate each good to each person? Bourgeois theorists say markets do the best job of this.


Yuri was a grifter. Every /pol/tard circlejerks over his clips but none of them actually watched it in full. He claimed Social Security was a communist plot. Of course expecting a trumptard to understand that is too much so his youtube videos are a prime example of how no one actually watches the videos they supposedly like.


>Its not a bourgeoise vanguard. There are definitely flaws in soviet style organization.
Calling the vanguard running a state capitalist system not bourgeois is a bit like calling a rags-to-riches capitalist not bourgeois. Just because you came from the working class doesn't mean you are always a prole. Class is your relationship to the production process, which can change. If you have special control over the production process as a party insider or vanguardist that the common people don't have then you may not be strictly bourgeois but you are still in a separate economic class from them. The only way a dictatorship of the proletariat actually works is if it is indeed the proletariat who dictates what happens, not if there is a "representative" who dictates what happens "on their behalf" but is not accountable to them to put in place what they dictate. Even if you initially have dyed in the wool communists running things like that, their administrative positions are going to attract people who don't give a shit about the people's interests.

Unique IPs: 281

[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 ]