/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Zion Bling

>>690110
You can't beat the logic of capital. You either run a business or a charity, you can't do both. And I don't mean actual charities, which are money laundering and tax evasion businesses.

based schwab advancing the capitalist mode of production a step closer to socialism by introducing internet-of-things and more egalitarian concepts

>>690116
>by introducing internet-of-things and more egalitarian concepts
Can socialism be described by these two ideas alone? I'd be impressed if you can fir the IoT in there.

>>690119
>alone
>advancing […]
>step closer
IoT is based and will be widely used in cybersocialism

>>690122
IoT under capitalism is hyped up bullshitware. Refrigerators with twitter. Toasters with bluetooth. Etc.

>>690110
>commerce
>doing anything about the fundamental mode of capitalist production
???

>>690123
>>690122
How would IoT look like under cybersocialism

>>690110
>What do you guys think of the concept of stakeholder capitalism?
22:30 here is pretty interesting

>>690125
Toasters with Das Kapital audiobook

>>690125
>>690122
>>690123
It's a fucking terrible idea no matter the economic system because it turns your appliances into a security nightmare.

>You will own nothing and you will be happy (WEF)
>Techno feudalism is emerging! (Varoufakis)
>COVID-19 is the death knell of neoliberal capitalism (Klaus Schwab in his book THE GREAT RESET)
>Communism is on the rise!!! (Libertarian boomers)

Connect the dots and form your own conclusion. I believe, Stakeholder Capitalism is global Corporatism. As both, Corporatism and Stakeholder Capitalism try to overcome class antagonism, but through peaceful coexistence of classes (WIN-WIN COOPERATION as some would say).

>>690188
It's also usually just a waste of time and resources. No one needs a toilet that can be flushed from two rooms away. It's just a way to keep shit expensive.

>>690110
By what mechanisms do these suits expect "stakeholders" to influence capitalist production and distribution?

>>690225
Well it's funny you post that video because CPC member Eric Li here >>690158 is shitting on stakeholder capitalism.

>>690110
>Stakeholder Capitalism
More like copeitalims

Just marketing with no actual content. I don't give a shit if I "matter" as a stakeholder. That's just code for talkshops and fig leafs. Where is my voting right and my share of the profit for companies I'm a stakeholder of? Then it would actually amount to something, that's actual power and actual benefits.

What schemes like this are for is tricking you into becoming complicit in your own exploitation without even getting paid properly

>>690248
I don't think a regular party member knows better than Xi. But aside from that, Eric Li is weird: He himself is a capitalist, yet he claims to oppose a system which serves capitalists. He is either a class cuck or a liar.

>>690290
>He himself is a capitalist, yet he claims to oppose a system which serves capitalists.

Like Engels?

>>690290
The national bourgeoisie are represented as one of the stars in the PRC flag. I think most states in human history have tended to end up as a balance of different class forces and I don't see why that wouldn't be true in a socialist republic either with a dictatorship of the proletariat majority over the exploiting minority which *goes on existing*. But you see this in bourgeois republics as well, like Rep. Barbara Lee in the U.S. House is a former Black Panther Party member from a proletarian background. She's also the only representative who voted against the Afghanistan war. But she's just one representative in a lower "plebian" house that was set up by design to be checked by an elitist and opulent / plutocratic Senate.

The fact that she's an elected representative doesn't mean the U.S. is now a proletarian state anymore than Eric Li providing consultation to the Chinese government means they've betrayed socialism or whatever. He doesn't have political power in a real sense.

>>690294
Actually, I think you are right. If class affiliation doesn't matter, it means the core assumption of many "marxists" is wrong. The proletariat isn't inherently the revolutionary force to bring socialism. The idea of "class antagonism" is false consciousness. In fact, the bourgeoise and the proletariat must work together to establish communism.

It's a branding exercise for fascism. The only stakeholders of note to the rulers are the cartel that sits at the top of such operations. You the customer don't have a stake - you're told, day after day, to accept whatever shitty service you're given, because everyone else does the same shit. You're not even really a customer in their eyes, but livestock to be herded, fleeced, and butchered, in all the ways exploitation can be imagined. You the worker are very much not a stakeholder, because the whole premise of being a stakeholder is that you are a manager rather than someone doing actual work. Management has always been an inefficiency in the system, and part of the new push is to make new roles for managerial labor - look here, there's a new covid marshal gang to tabulate your social credit score for compliance! Management everywhere! Manage for the sake of management. As for the environment, well as far as the stakeholders are concerned, the environment is their property to use and abuse as they see fit. When they invoke the name of capital-N Nature, they're really saying "we are Nature". "We are one with Nature, and Nature is identical to us. We are fused with Nature irrevocably and our will is Nature. Your will is not Nature. Your wants are un-Natural, because We are Nature." This is what their pretense of stewardship of the land has always been about. If they cared about the environment, they would have to concern themselves with toxic waste dumped in the water supply or some poor sod's farm, but that only affects un-Natural objects like filthy plebs. They literally consider such waste a benefit to Nature because it removes what they consider the real waste of the world - the "residue" of humanity that comprises the lower classes, as Galton described them. That this "residue" is increasingly defined as the majority of people should not be a surprise, since it's been an openly announced goal of the WEF Davos assholes.

Frankly, what they're describing isn't capitalism in the sense that it has existed for the past couple of centuries, except in the broadest sense that the rich have money. A lot of the "stakeholder" part is the effective abolition of markets in the sense of a place where you can buy a whole lot of things with money, to be replaced with "arkets" where you are provisioned at the company store. You may be allowed a superficial choice of what you can buy from the list of permissible items with your chits, but you're going to be induced to make the "correct" choice for you. They can build profiles and blueprint, at least in their models, your legitimate wants according to the system, and steer you towards them. That's the long term goal, and they're already quite successful at steering people towards pre-arranged conclusions with every intervention. That's been an objective of schooling since the Blackest Reaction began, since Bob Corporate doesn't really need soldiers any more and doesn't want a large army of unemployable workers or dissatisfied techies. It might resemble capitalism superficially, but it is really an announcement that the rich won the class war, and they want us to eat and drink shit - literally - for the rest of our lives. Either they will succeed, or they're going as big as possible to intimidate people into not rebelling. I have to think it's the latter, and the real plans are much different from the technofetishist delusion they want us to believe. But they really do believe in eugenics - it's been the savior of class society, and without eugenics class society would have very flimsy justifications and could not be realistically supported by a mass movement. Hitler understood it best when he called fascism "revolutionary conservatism" - it really was a revolution in one sense, in that there was a broad and fanatical base ready for Nazism and wanting Nazism to go further. I can only make some speculation of what full eugenism will be like, but the words that come to mind are "all lies dies screaming, forever."

>>690300
>The national bourgeoisie are represented as one of the stars in the PRC flag. I think most states in human history have tended to end up as a balance of different class forces and I don't see why that wouldn't be true in a socialist republic either with a dictatorship of the proletariat majority over the exploiting minority which *goes on existing*.

Sounds alot like corporatism to me bro. I told you, dengists are /pol/tards with chinese characteristics.

Capitalism in all shapes and forms will be doomed to fail.

>>690309
Who said anything about Dengists? That comes from Maoist era "New Democracy" and the "Bloc of Four Classes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democracy

>>690316
It seems like, there never was "socialism", throughout history, but only different flavors of corporatism.

>>690316
deleuzian stalin

>>690321
I think every successful economy so far has been a mixed economy and, after all, Lenin said that if they managed to achieve a kind of state capitalism then that would be progress.

>>690309
>>690316
History repeats itself.

>>690326
There isn't really such a thing as a "mixed economy". Socialism as a concept is pointing towards a very different ethos at a basic level, rather than something you could just insert into the system arbitrarily. You could have command economies that are not organized around profitability, and to some extent that has existed for as long as capitalist formations, but those wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with socialism.
You can say there are socialist elements in the society of America, but the basic arrangement remains that people work for a wage and have to be hired by employers. It would be socialist in the sense that there are these extremely large firms employing tens of thousands of people each, covering a whole country or the entire planet, and this formation itself requires the cooperation of a whole lot of social labor, and all those firms are tied into something that is planned by even bigger apparati, which integrate very large sectors of society into it. This formation requires obedience to a very different ethos form the earlier formation of capitalism in which there were many firms and lots of small producers, and the major firms were financial, involved with slavery, or coming into their own in the extractive industries that were growing into much more sophisticated enterprises. You could say what happened around the world after WW1 was a kind of socialism, in that you had all this interlocking stuff, vertical integration, and a rising oligarchy that had a much different, managerial view than the dog-eat-dog logic capitalism would suggest. It was necessary to present socialistic features and justifications for rulers to continue ruling, while earlier capitalism was literally the capitalist as a new kind of feudal lord. At the same time, the individualist ethos was made stronger at the level of the workplace, and the solution in many societies was to get the workers to turn on each other over the most petty distinctions. There would be, in essence, socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor, and this was very intentional and noted at the time the oligarchies were forming in the 1920s.
Obviously this was different in the USSR and PRC, where the socialist ethos was a part of the entire project at the start, and it gradually rolled back as the incentives of an essentially oligarchic formation took hold. The haves didn't want that ethos of sharing with the have-nots in the long term, and the have-nots were asking why the government turned to cajoling them more. There is a remarkable naivete in Russia about just how insidious the American project was during the second half of the 20th century, and they couldn't quite conceive of the monstrosity of it all. But then, a lot of Americans still can't get it, either, and wonder why their country is Nazifying fully and against their will.

Really a giant mistake is conflating socialism with communism, since the two are talking about quite different things. The political project of communism was abandoned and turned into an ideal to be reached in the future, and the future was always pushed back, or people were told that this was all that there is immediately after WW2. There was still the spirit, that remained until the bitter end, but the socialist idea overtook the communist drive for political equality, and the intellectual formulation of the project had this flaw that was never corrected, where no one seemed to know what either word was supposed to mean. People wanted freedom and things to be affordable as they should be, but the idea was transformed into this do-or-die struggle against a behemoth on the other side of the world. Everything became a comparison to how the capitalists did things, part out of necessity and part because there was an unwillingness to confront intellectually just what had gripped the intellectual classes of the capitalist world.

It is a vague promise of ethical capitalism which will change nothing. Cruelty is inherent in the capitalist system.

>>690225
AKA class collaboration, which is fascism.
Death to capitalism in all its forms.

>>690446
Class collaboration is incompatible with class struggle. It's one of the core elements of fascism, where the working class should lay down their arms and cooperate with their oppressors to create a better world where the oppressors are still in charge.
This is all the great reset is. They want to preserve capitalism so it can continue to exist.

>>690446
Unlike contemporary China, Mao and Lenin didn't let capitalists into the communist party.

Literally SuperCapitalism.

literally just capitalism

>>690501
Mussolini or Agent Kochinski's definition?

>>690301
>Actually, I think you are right. If class affiliation doesn't matter, it means the core assumption of many "marxists" is wrong. The proletariat isn't inherently the revolutionary force to bring socialism. The idea of "class antagonism" is false consciousness. In fact, the bourgeoise and the proletariat must work together to establish communism.
tell me you haven't read Marx without telling me you haven't read Marx, not even the communist manifesto, which is the 101 text

>Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.

>Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.

>The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

I think it's an easy sell to your average person
>"Bro, literally everyone just becomes a shareholder in everything"
imo it's nice for encouraging co-ops, and with co-ops then syndies and unions, then finally the last reasonable point of "Everyone owns a share of everything, especially the stuff that produces and makes stuff…"

>>690110
>What do you guys think of the concept of stakeholder capitalism?
Its smoke and mirrors
>Stakeholders are basically anyone or anything that is affected by the business being done. From managers, customers, shareholders, workers, and even the environment.
this is impossible without giving all those groups of people real power in decision making which would require a complete restructuring to how most corporations operate, which doesn't seem to be very realistic

>>690110
from the graphic
>all stake holders matter equally
So 1 capitalist = 1 worker ?
There are a lot more workers than capitalists, so if that were actualized, the workers would run the show.

In capitalism you can't trust the marketing material, only trust what you can verify So the questions to ask are:
1 who controls surplus, do workers get to decide where economic surplus is invested ?
2 it's class society therefore it will have class struggle, where and how is the class struggle going to unfold ?
3 who controls the state ?
4 who controls technology ?
5 what is the mechanism to remove people from power (other than voting with bullets ) ?
6 what is the mechanism to change economic policy ?

>>690445
>>690450
It is not really fascism. Nazi Germany is basically the closest to "class collaboration." But as a concept, it was pretty badly run. There was less actual collaboration, and more state-enforced "collaboration" if it can even be called that.
Italy was another story. It's a bunch of party-members that merged the economy to trade unions representing different sectors of the economy, all belonging to the state.

>>690798
I don't think we can psyop people into anticapitalism, if there was ever an actual risk of co-ops becoming a major force in the economy, the elites would crush it and declare to everyone how it's socialism.

>>690110
This is very main stream idea but rather modern in current academia. Nothing new to me.

>>691065
It's also incoherent because there's no chance that normal people can be 'stakeholders' in capitalism when wealth inequality is skyrocketing

Fuck it and fuck them. Capitalists only compromise when they are weak. We strike while its hot.

>>690110
Getting old and reckoning with our mortality is humbling and terrifying enough as a normal person. These days they don't even live that much longer than the "middle class" nobodies and for whatever few extra years they are able to claw before death, it just means they'll be a desiccated half-corpse for longer fearing for every breath to be their last.

How do these fucks cope with the fact that all their money won't stop their flesh from withering like any other pleb?

>>690300
China only had that because of its situation in 1940s.

USA today has no peasantry, no bourgeoisie who will support socialism.

The proletarian dictatorship as laid down by Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin is the only real way for the workers to win.

cope likely by the bourgies and indicates that they are more afraid

>>691147
Nope. There's never been a socialist revolution in western European countries, never whatsoever. France came the closest with the Paris Commune and the French protest in the 60s but that's about it. France is literally the only good example we have of what socialism would be like in the imperialist core.

>>690445
Class Collaboration isn't fascism. Fascism is corporatism mixed in with the state. It's a kind of social liberalism, distinct from social democracy.

>>690309
>Sounds alot like corporatism to me bro.
Come on m8 don't be ridiculous. He's literally just describing Gramsci's theory of hegemony, which is absolutely correct. States have a class character yes, but it's typically in reality a coalition of different classes and strata in which the interests and power of one predominates. No small minority class like the monopoly bourgeoisie or nobility could rule without the complicity and support (active or passive) of the a much wider segment of the population, including at least some of the people they exploit.

>>691161
Doesn't matter, the Bolsheviks laid down universal principles which improved on the Paris commune.

>>691171
I think the Paris commune was closer to how I envision the social aspects of communism tbh