We need to settle this. Any suggestions for a highly compressed introduction to socialism that appeals to the average attention-deficient capistani?
>>667465i know what edge means. and I knew you would use the misuse of an image as an excuse to ignore the rest (for a 2nd time)
>>667463ok
>>667430>if not, then explain in marxist terms, how the price of a commodity deviates from its value.who cares? that's missing the forest for the trees
in answer to OP's question, something like picrel
>>667390The problem isn't that we can't condense our ideas it's that when we do people then accuse us of having simplistic views of the world or go "ah but you failed to consider X!" without checking for an existing reply
You can condense e.g. the notion of exploitation into something catchy like "boss makes a dollar I make a dime" but people are already conditioned to think "ah but the boss invested in the means of production so he deserves a big share and besides I wanna be a boss myself some day etc etc"
>>667390If theory is impossible for people in AES states to get (historically the case, try quizzing older people from ex-Soviet republics on theory), then it is doubly impossible to get for people in liberal capitalist states.
Here's the thing. The "educated, intellectual" worker is utopianism. There's nothing of Marx's theory that even implies this would be the case. Theory is for communists, in the same way liberal think-tanks are for liberal politicians. It's a political strategy.
So "dumbing down" theory is never happening. The actual issue is, number one, you are engaging in debatebro culture which is utterly pointless (I recall Lenin saying something about this), and two, theory isn't a replacement for propaganda. "Socialism bad" is propaganda, "akshually here's what Marx said" is theory. You don't fight propaganda with theory, you fight it with propaganda.
>>667514good but the top text should be "why are you
only mad about this" and the bottom text should be "but not
also this?"
because otherwise you'll have to answer "umm i'm mad my tax dollars fight endless wars" and it will sound like you're being dimissive of that
>>667514>who cares?its a very simple tautology. thats why dismissing supply and demand shows a deformed intellect. marx accepts supply and demand in regard to market prices himself.
<"Generally, the values of all commodities are only realized by the compensation of the continuously changing market prices, springing from the continuous fluctuations of demand and supply. On the basis of the present system labour is only a commodity like others. It must, therefore, pass through the same fluctuations to fetch an average price corresponding to its value." [value, price and profit, chapter 13, section 4]here he speaks of the relation of market and natural price,
<"The price of labour, at the moment when demand and supply are in equilibrium, is its natural price, determined independently of the relation of demand and supply" [capital vol. 1, ch. 19]on deviation,
<"the relation of demand and supply, therefore, only explains the deviations of market-prices from market-values." [capital vol. 3, chapter 10]<"the demand and supply of commodities, which heretofore was known to regulate only the market-prices of commodities" [capital vol. 3, chapter 26]and so on.
>forest for the treesa forest is made out of trees. we can speak of both.
>>667690its a conspiracy.
but its true
>>667691its existed for milennia.
all the same bloodlines carving up the world for their gain. a hereditary monarchy of patricians.
>>667863>>667870NTA but you motherfuckers don't even read.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htmYeah, socialism is an ideology. This is controversial to absolutely nobody.
>>667519>>667961Zizek's and Althusser's critique of ideology is relevant here, and excuse me for vulgarising their theory for the sake of brevity. The working class is conditioned from birth, by simply living in capitalism, into not being able to conceptualize that capitalism was not historically eternal and cannot be historically eternal. For example, the misconception that "capitalism is human nature". To borrow a term from Kant, capitalism in the unconscious collective of the working class becomes like a categorical imperative, "a rule of conduct that is unconditional or absolute for all agents, the validity or claim of which does not depend on any desire or end."
Hence, "working sucks but one day I'm gonna be a boss" (capitalism is unaffected), or, "working sucks but if we just replace the corrupt (Jews, elite, etc.) everything will be alright" (capitalism is unaffected)
<it is very difficult to change people, since the most inaccessible fortress is surely — as Marx used to say — the human skull!Lenin, in A meeting between V.I. Lenin and P. A. Kropotkin
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1917/a-meeting.htmlAlthough I have no clue where Lenin pulled this metaphor from Marx, the very fact is that Lenin was aware on some level of what I'm talking about
Unique IPs: 35