/siberia/ - Off-topic

>>731154
it's funny how every anarchoid movement eventually reproduces hierarchical structures in order to be effective, but actually oppressive, backwards and dysfunctional because they don't have any practical theory and have to invent shit ad hoc

makhno, for all intents and purposes, was a warlord

"Когда Кирова убили, нам торговлю разрешили.
Когда Сталина застрелят, все колхозы переделят."
It's part of the a folk song from the 30-s

>>731160
You don't "achieve" communism during a revolution, liberal.
You seize the means of production and establish a DoTP.

Communism is achieved AFTER that is done.

>>731164
There is no difference between a dictatorship and a dotp in practice. I am against any dictatorship, as a leftist.

>>731167
There are only two classes, diametrically opposed to each other.
Therefore, there can only be a dictatorship of one class over another, until class society is abolished.
Either a dictatorship of the proletariat, or the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
There is no third position.
"Neutrality" here is an implicit endorsement of the status quo, therefore of the bourgeoisie.

>as a leftist
Just say "liberal".

>>731168
>There are only two classes
There used to be. Maybe there were two classes in Marx's times, but still. A lot of things have changed since the mid-18th century. The class structure has, too.
Btw, I think discussions about classes and so on are mostly useless because of differences in methodology and axioms.

>Therefore, there can only be a dictatorship of one class over another, until class society is abolished.
That is an unproven statement.

>Just say "liberal".
The commie n-word is here.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

He had a wife
He had children
He had a family
He had millions of supporters
His death is not funny

Rest in peace Michael Jackson 💔

>>731174
>Never said this.
It doesn't matter what you said, what people profess to believe, what they believe, and their objective practice might not coincide.

> workers had no power over the state or the means of production.
Proofs?

Again, there are only two classes, so there's either a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of the proletariat.
To prove that the USSR was the former, you'll have to demonstrate that the USSR engaged in production for accumulation and that the party members owned private property.

Or maybe you want to invoke a secret third thing, in which case I await your materialist theory of a 3 class mode of production.

>>731178
>A lot of things have changed since the mid-18th century. The class structure has, too.
demonstrate that this is the case
>methodology and axioms
liberal gobbledygook
>That is an unproven statement.
I await your theory of a 3 class mode of production.
>The commie n-word is here.
Liberal racist engages in self-victimization by comparing theoretical disagreement to racial prejudice and bigotry.

>>731180
lol the first anon's post got deleted after I reported a transphobic bigot on the lgbt board
coincidence?

anarchists = reactionaries, confirmed

>>731168
>There are only two classes, diametrically opposed to each other.

Does anon know how Das Kapital ends…

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch52.htm

>The owners merely of labour-power, owners of capital, and land-owners, whose respective sources of income are wages, profit and ground-rent, in other words, wage-labourers, capitalists and land-owners, constitute then three big classes of modern society based upon the capitalist mode of production.

>In England, modern society is indisputably most highly and classically developed in economic structure. Nevertheless, even here the stratification of classes does not appear in its pure form. Middle and intermediate strata even here obliterate lines of demarcation everywhere (although incomparably less in rural districts than in the cities). However, this is immaterial for our analysis. We have seen that the continual tendency and law of development of the capitalist mode of production is more and more to divorce the means of production from labour, and more and more to concentrate the scattered means of production into large groups, thereby transforming labour into wage-labour and the means of production into capital. And to this tendency, on the other hand, corresponds the independent separation of landed property from capital and labour,[58] or the transformation of all landed property into the form of landed property corresponding to the capitalist mode of production.

>The first question to he answered is this: What constitutes a class? — and the reply to this follows naturally from the reply to another question, namely: What makes wage-labourers, capitalists and landlords constitute the three great social classes?

>At first glance — the identity of revenues and sources of revenue. There are three great social groups whose members, the individuals forming them, live on wages, profit and ground-rent respectively, on the realisation of their labour-power, their capital, and their landed property.

>However, from this standpoint, physicians and officials, e.g., would also constitute two classes, for they belong to two distinct social groups, the members of each of these groups receiving their revenue from one and the same source. The same would also be true of the infinite fragmentation of interest and rank into which the division of social labour splits labourers as well as capitalists and landlords-the latter, e.g., into owners of vineyards, farm owners, owners of forests, mine owners and owners of fisheries.

>[Here the manuscript breaks off.]

>>731147
why do you post this scary woman degeso?

>>731147
we are charlie kirk actually

>>731192
cant be my face isnt that small

>>731188
Quote doesn't support your point, the middle strata don't constitute a class in themselves but hitch their wagons on the bourgeois interests

>>731157
>>731164
>>731180
>>731181

you commies and anarchists should start having gay sex instead of arguing with each other online smh

Stop posting this numb skull, let them qemon frde