/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Proletariat without Borders

Mode: Reply
Name
Subject
Message

Max message length: 4096

Files

Max file size: limitless

Max files: 3

E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion.

IRC: Rizon.net #bunkerchan
https://qchat.rizon.net/?channels=bunkerchan

(209.59 KB 940x1434 str2_wow0808question_MAIN1_cn.jpg)
/QTDDTOT/ Anonymous 08/20/2019 (Tue) 17:50:55 No. 36099
Questions That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread.
I have a fetish for hijabs
>>36101
shit taste tbh
When advocating for gun ownership, how should leftists go about it.
>>36103
They shouldn't
>>36101
god tier
>>36103
Burgers should stop obsessing about guns.
>>36099
Unlocked by request
>>43627
Why was it locked?
>>43681
Don't we have another open QTDDTOT? That's why it was closed, innit?
>>36099
It is very embarrassing to me. I forgot to save the answer in the previous QTDDTOT thread, so please pardon me for repeating it here -

1.What is leftist/Marxist view on trade and commerce?
2.(This is a fresh question) What are some books/online articles that highlights IMF/WTO/World Bank's impact on third world countries and their economy? I recall some anon most probably in the Vietnam thread had mentioned that the those organizations have forced the resource rich countries in Africa to give away their raw materials to much advanced industrial nations. I want to know more detail about it.
>>36104
>>36107
Libs detected.
>>36103
We need to emphasize the importance of working class self-defence organizations, as well as the right for individuals to keep and bear arms. In fact American leftists should actively be building armed community defense organizations as a self-preservation measure in response to the fact that rightoids are armed to the teeth and hoping to kill us.
>>45394
Your number 1 is too generic.
Number 2: check this out. I haven't read it myself, but the author is known as one of the foremost critics of IMF/Washington Consensus kind of policies and stuff like that.
All questions deserve their own thread. These kinds of threads have always been shit and they kill board traffic.
>>45415
1. Anons had given answers from Marxist perspective (such as how trade, commerce/finance is viewed) and had suggested some books too in the previous thread but stupid me forgot to save those. I don't know if someone archived it elsewhere.
2. Thanks
Will check it out
>>45836
What I was trying to ask was how trade (an age old practice) and commerce is different than capitalism since I have seen many conflate both.
>>46115
Trade and capitalism aren't the same thing. Capitalism is a fully realized mode of production, it's an entire system of taking raw materials, turning them into usable goods, and then distributing those goods. Trade and markets is just the mechanism capitalism uses to accomplish this last part. Capitalism itself is characterized mainly by wage labour and commodity production. While commodities existed in other modes of production like feudalism, they weren't the main form of goods. Most things, be that crops, tools, etc. were made for and by the people who used them, or at most, very small scale trade. Where capitalism is different is that almost everything is made as an object of exchange, rather than to be used by its manufacturer.
>>46121
Saved!
Thank you anon.
(979.93 KB 1280x1500 Karl_Marx.jpg)
What will happen if I give Karl Marx some headpats like a cat?
>>46449
Marx would only allow Engels-kun to pat him
Does the idea of sortition conflict with ML?
ALso, as a theory on how to carry out a revolution, does ML actually have much relevance post-revolution?
why is my opinion wrong in this thread >>42113?
why isn't it marxist-materialist?
what I'm basically saying is that it's impossible to completely know reality, we can only hope to better understand it with incomplete and inaccurate scientific models. Marxism is one of those models. Yoshi-poster seems to disagree and implies that you can know reality "as it is" by observing it (pic related >>41196) but as I see it, this is completely wrong. What you perceive as reality exists only in your mind, and what really exists is similar but not actually what you perceive it to be. I find that scientific-minded people that claim that things _are_ as science explains them, are being idealists. For example, the idea of the atom, a small nucleus conformed of little balls of protons and neutrons, with electrons whizzing around very far from the center. Literally doesn't exist in reality. Atoms sometimes behave like that, but the reality is much much much more complicated than that mental model. This is basically always true, no matter what the model is.
many thanks.
redpill me on the Japanese Communist Party. They seem to get a lot of flak for not having supported the USSR. I was surprised to learn they're one of the largest communist parties too. Any thoughts on them?
Am I an idpol wrecker if I believe things like racism and sexism exist and that things such as bigotry and gender roles should be challenged, but that ultimately class is the ultimate divide and things like the progressive stack are just stupid bullshit
>>48481
Retards will tell you you are, but there's nothing wrong with identity politics so long as you understand unity and destroying capitalism and the state are the main goals.
What's the difference between capitalist and socialist commodity production?
>>48483
kill yourself liberal
(11.44 KB 171x266 198384.jpg)
>>49190
There's no "socialist commodity production". Stalin (and Engels btw) argument is that not all of capitalist production can be done away with at once. There indeed were elements of capitalism in USSR, but that doesn't mean it was capitalist. Likewise there are elements of cyber fascism in capitalism
How the fuck did fort paying his employees higher wages make economic sense for ford?
Wouldnt him paying his employees higher wages than normally just lead to mostly increased consumption from industry he did not own? Wouldnt it just lose him money? How does the equation work out in his favour if he is the only capitalist increasing wages?
>>50924
Maybe it would drive all the workers to him and the other companies could not operate profitably at competitive wages so they would go bankrupt. This only works with scarce labour though, so generally skilled professionals with degrees at least today.
>>50924
Sometimes porkies make strategic decisions which don't appear to immediately benefit themselves. I don't know the specifics of early auto production, but I would imagine it would decrease agitation in his own plants, and potentially increase it in others, while putting pressure on competitors to increase their wages as well. Sometimes bigger corporations will make apparently reformist or progressive plays because their smaller competitors can't cope. They might support a minimum wage increase for example because they know smaller retailers can't pay it, or support increased legal fines for this or that because while it might increase their own production costs, they might be big enough to absorb it while this or that other company can't. It can have the effect of driving profitability down in the short term, which if the bigger company is looking to purchase, could make selling more attractive to the owners.

There's a lot potentially going on behind the scenes, but they generally don't do anything that they expect is going to lose them money, unless not doing it will cost them even more money later.
>>48070
>what I'm basically saying is that it's impossible to completely know reality, we can only hope to better understand it with incomplete and inaccurate scientific models.
This is a completely valid position to hold, please don't change it because it isn't "marxist" enough.
>>50924
At the same time, Ford was hiring thugs like Harry Bennett who would terrorize workers into not forming unions by practicing target shooting in his office above workers and beating the shit out of them with clubs when they protested.
>>48481
From: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/monsieur-dupont-nihilist-communism.pdf

For example one communist has argued to us that white workers must come to respect black workers before there can be a revolution. This is the sort of position Cleaver takes in his book, where he argues white workers' racism oppresses black workers and impedes the communist movement. We think this mistakes the symptom for the cause. If all the symptoms are put right, that is, if all the nastiness in capitalism is removed, would that in any way affect capitalism itself? It is a question that takes us right back to the origin of this discussion on consciousness.

If it is truly believed that before revolution can occur certain political-institutional reforms have to be set in place then there is no purpose in being a pro-revolutionary. Better to work to get the reforms done first. We should not hold onto illusions about the nature of capitalist power; capitalism is fundamentally not racist, sexist, or prejudiced in any form. Anti-racism is now a specific project of all capitalist political institutions. Autonomists would argue that this is because militant self-organisation has forced this reform onto the capitalists; in fact such militancy has merely opened up possibilities for the breaking free of capitalism from traditional social forms.

Prejudice and bigotry impedes the smooth running of production. It, like national borders, must be altered to serve capital more efficiently (the reduction of people to ethnic identities, which has been the project of identity militants, is a new form of racism which works much more effectively within the distributive, state-funded, sphere). It is not the role of pro-revolutionaries to take up a political position on prejudice. It is not for us to improve life conditions within the capitalist form and obscure with side issues the tyranny of the commodity which goes unchallenged in the competition of identity markets (for funding). However, as individuals of course it is our ethical responsibility to oppose bigotry whenever we en-counter it. We must not confuse our personal ethics with Revolutionary Movements.
>>51355
Wish someone would proofread this shitty scan, it's almost unreadable.
>>51356
The fuck are you talking about?
>>51358
The text is from OCR and full of scan errors, misrecognized letters and similar.
>>48080
>>51006
The Japanese Communist Party split with the Soviet Union after WW2 adopting Mao's stance of Soviet "Social-Imperialism" during the Khrushchev Era and applying it to the Japan-Soviet Kuril Island dispute at the same time the party's immediate policies and goals began to drift down a more reformist route eventually alienating them from the wider world socialist movement in the 20th century

as far as i know the party still claims to be Marxist-Leninist or at the very least Marxist but since the split with the Soviet union has pretty much just held Social-democratic positions on most issues to remain electorally viable with the collapse of socialism in the 1990s
a more EuroCentrist comparison would be to something like Berlinger's ICP in the 70s and 80s definetly containing plenty of dedicated Marxists but equally infected by Social-Democrats and Centrist beliefs
>>51360
It really isn't.
>>51355
Shouldn't we go after all form of bigotry then? As destroying it, will make organizing the working class far easier.
>>51364
This is exactly what the book argues against.
>It is not the role of pro-revolutionaries to take up a political position on prejudice. It is not for us to improve life conditions within the capitalist form and obscure with side issues the tyranny of the commodity which goes unchallenged in the competition of identity markets
Newish, transitioning out of being a lib.

Watched/listened to some Wolff lectures, as recommended, and while he seems like a cool dude he seems to be too reformist for my impression of /leftypol/ -- is there a particular term for his particular view of socialization/direct democracy of the workplace?
Would that be considered syndicalist?
>>51379
>Would that be considered syndicalist?
Or juche
>>52117
Dead people can't have opinions. Hegel died 1831, and Marx was 13 then.
(102.84 KB 800x511 Baby Marx.jpg)
>>51372
>It is not for us to improve life conditions within the capitalist form and obscure with side issues the tyranny of the commodity.
Yes I agree, but I think your missing my point. I'm saying destroying all forms of bigotry. Would making organizing the working class easier. As for example straight workers refusing to organize with members of the LGBT community, The reverse would be just as bad, even if its more unlikely , would be a barrier for the organization of the working class, under one banner.
>>52118
Marx was 2 when he published Capital dumb-ass.
>>52154
New forms of bigotry would continue to pop up, and you'd be playing bigotry-wack-a-mole for the rest of your life while capitalists laugh their asses off.
Most bigots in the working class could currently work within a communist movement with gay/black/trans people so long as they aren't expected to be liberal intellectual saints.
(1.37 MB 320x180 7Basof.gif)
>>52117
Probably shows my autism, but when I began reading Marx I thought literally that he was a student of Hegel. Kautsky and Engels did know each other though
>>51379
>is there a particular term for his particular view of socialization/direct democracy of the workplace?
Mutualism or market socialism.
>Would that be considered syndicalist?
No. The term “syndicalism” can mean a number of things, but it has three main ones. First, it can refer to a particular form of revolutionary strategy, wherein workers, through radical trade unions, work to carry out a general strike designed to topple capitalism. Second, it refers to a model of socialist economy, usually meant to be implemented after a general strike succeeds. Syndicalist socialism would have a planned economy where economic authority would be exercised by the trade unions rather than the state. Finally there’s “syndicalism” as used by fascists, which basically just means replace all unions with company unions and pretend that this gives workers representation, when in reality it just destroys their ability to organize.
So I have some questions about Marxism that I've been wanting to ask for a while:

Wouldn't crisis of overproduction still be a problem under socialism and communism? Workers still have to e exploited out of their surplus, so they wouldn't be able to acquire what they produce (say through some kind of labour vouchers), thus there would have to be overproduction, right?

And another question, isn't the equality of pay no matter what profession you have (what Cockshott proposes in TANS, where work hours would be the only determination of pay) anti-Marxist? From what I've read of Kapital, Marx says that a better educated worker does more labour in the same time as an unskilled one, so wouldn't equal pay for all mean that the professional workers are underpayed, as they would produce more labour than the unskilled ones, but would get payed the same amount.

Next, one, what exactly is "commodity production", and what would ending it entail?

And finally, what does the saying that robots don't produce surplus value mean? I can't really see a difference between a human worker and a machine economically, as the machine needs maintenance just like the worker needs a wage.
>>53510
>Wouldn't crisis of overproduction still be a problem under socialism and communism?
I would say, no. The point of a planned economy is to get rid of the chaos inherent in the markets. A firm puts a commodity on a market without certainty whenever it will make profit or be bought. Then you have various firms who behave independently of each other, but still rely on market signals which creates even more confusion and so on and so on. The point of socialism is to put end to this. Essentially make an economy which people control, instead of an economy which controls people.
>isn't the equality of pay no matter what profession you have
This is more of a debate about how pay should be structured under communism. Cockshott takes the approach of taking into account people education into cost, but not into pay. My personal view is that wealth inequality, as long not caused by private property, isn't in any ways bad and won't get to undesirable levels.
>commodity production
A phenomena that happens when people alienate their labor. Think of a simple hunter, who after a day of work "produces" one hunted dear that he consumes for himself. Here, his work is directly consumed by himself and nothing gets exchanged. Take into account an other scenario: You have a farmer who besides simply producing what he needs, he also produces well above that. With it he gains goods (commodities) he can exchange on the market.
>what would ending it entail?
Engels argument boils down to that commodity production contains the seeds of capitalism, although he said that it couldn't be done away with at once. It would simply mean people don't sell and buy goods on the market with each other.
Do you have any suggestions on where to learn more about Hegel and the way his thought contributed to shaping the Marxism? Any sources that are entry level and don't require solid grounding in the history of philosophy, so that a brainlet of my proportions would understand it?
Why?
Who?
>>54044
you can listen to these two episodes of revolutions about marx that just briefly touches on why he became a student of hegel and how that made marx's philosophy unique compared to utopian socialists
https://www.revolutionspodcast.com/2019/05/102-the-adventures-of-karl-marx-and-friedrich-engels.html
(395.86 KB 998x1330 Thankyou.jpg)
>>54049
The first lecture is already very interesting.
(55.34 KB 952x1200 TcJ_UFxZ02M-952x1200.jpg)
state capitalism?
Does the theory of state capitalism even make sense? If everything is run under one ownership, you don't really have exchange or even economy which depends on profits/capital. I'm even talking if you keep capitalist relations; by that point there's no competition, so with it no real reasons to cut wages, produce for ever higher profits and what not. Perhaps the class structure could exist of capitalist > worker? But even then it seems like a very unstable class formation that won't be sustainable for long. I could maybe see Yugoslavia being state capitalist, but that isn't exactly what I'm describing. The closest to capitalist relations existing under one ownership would be China.
>>55088
my brain is steaming trying to understand it.
Anybody got that article on homosexuality in the USSR?
i've once read online that marx and engels and others of that time period were influenced by archaeological diggings which uncovered details of hitherto unknown ancient societies and their various life styles and cultures and that this challenged the predominant belief that human nature is unchanging and made people all dialectical.

my question is, is this true? and if so where can i read about it? i want to learn about weird ancient societies
>>56564
many thanks
>>56563
Engel's Origin of the Family, Private Property and State goes into that stuff.
(315.98 KB 1920x938 Albania.jpg)
This probably shows how much of a newfag that I am, but can someone explain the joke about Albania to me?
>>57117
Hoxha got drunk and built bunkers everywhere
>>57117
There's no joke here
>>57125
The bunkers were described to be the Albanian Equivalent of the American back seat. ie The place where you lost your virginity
i have a question regarding the marxist/materialist theory of knowledge. is it true to say that you are externalists? and how come the word "justification" never seems to show up, instead just directly taking it as a matter of fact that humans have objective knowledge?
How do I deal with burn out? I'm not a defeatist, but I'm struggling to put any effort into organising at the moment, the past couple months of my personal life have been insanely draining and I'm in the middle of escaping wage slave hell

I feel exhausted most of the time and in the limited free time I have I can just barely decompress and feel semi functional again before I'm back into stress

I've not put any effort into my group in months now, every time I think about it I start to feel sick, and I don't know how to communicate this to them and let someone else take my role over without basically telling 200 odd people that I'm too unstable to be in any kind of leadership position, which is something I cannot handle doing

tl:dr, how do I step down gracefully from a position or how do I fix my lack of drive?
>>58009
stand up for yourself and tell them your too tired and overwelmed for a leadership role right now and you/they will transer/vote in new leaders. they will have to understand.
(15.38 KB 250x250 1374723694333.jpg)
Should I bother arguing with family on Facebook? I use it as an easy way to keep in touch with family and friends. I don't really ever post on it, but they're always sharing/posting dumb right-wing boomer shit and it's turning me into a doomer.
How the fuck am I supposed to organize with my fellow proles if 70% of them are immigrants that are afraid of getting deported if they so much as look side ways at their boss? This on top of the fact that only half of them speak any English and those that do can only talk conversationally.
>>58131
>This on top of the fact that only half of them speak any English
Then learn Spanish (assuming you're American) faggot. It's your job as a revolutionary to speak the language of the proles, not the other way around.
>>58132
It's entirely reasonable to learn Spanish, but then philipino, Arabic and Swahili too? There are only a handful of Spanish speakers where I work and that doesn't change the fact that they're also under threat of being deported.
>>58134
Unironically, learn the language(s), or get comrades whom know the language(s), of all that could potentially be organized. Like I said, it's *your* job to organize if a revolutionary you be. "Reasonable" doesn't factor into it. You do what must be done.
>doesn't change the fact that they're also under the threat of being deported.
Depends, are they actually illegal? If so, you shouldn't push them to risk themselves tbh. Let them do what they can, and let them know you understand why they can't do more; you can't expect the world from everyone. If they're not, organize and show solidarity with them; let them know that you, and those you've organized, are with them and will support them (materially, not some "emotional support" bs) if anything goes down.
I'm a theorylet and drunkposting so forgive if this is dumb, but how come actually existing socialism wasn't able to (or at least isn't as good at) sublimate and absorb opposition to itself in the way the capitalist world does? The origins of feminism, punk, reggae, and hip hop culture are all proletarian and at least partially anti-capitalist, but you know how the story goes with commodifying and creating markets out of these things. How do we solve this conundrum when simply banning cultural signifiers (like long hair) didn't work in Albania and violent cultural revolution didn't work in China?
(35.29 KB 622x439 Getty621Images-179807875.jpg)
>>58161
>How do we solve this conundrum when simply banning cultural signifiers
Socialists need to mellow the fuck out and stop trying to send everyone to the gulag for not agreeing with everything they say. Look at China with Hong Kong protesting right now: the entire world is anti PRC because there's videos everywhere of police beating people in the streets. Not a good look. If the PRC just kind of ignored protests like literally every neoliberal government on the planet it, no one outside HK would have even noticed what was going on. The US government and military-industrial complex during Vietnam didn't give a shit about Woodstock or any other hippie movement. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have record low approval ratings from the US population but the government doesn't give a shit and carries on. When people started to become pro-gay the military just started painting their drones in rainbows. A lot of "socialist" governments seem to actively make a scene of every little transgression started by teenagers in their garages for some reason. Even the keyboard warriors on this very board throw around how great censorship against "anti-revolutionary" thought is, it's fucking ridiculous. Sometimes you really do catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
(44.51 KB 640x628 IMG_20171205_150101.jpg)
What is the materialist reason why so many cultures do or have done ritual sacrifices? Seems like a complete waste of resources that would disappear from society as a purely harmful behavior.
>>58315
The materialist reason is because the bourgeoisie worship the god of plenty. The sacrifices to him would only make them richer, inexplicably.
Think about it. His name's Saturn.
>>58315
please ignore the shitposter
>>58315
Probably just a way for priests and shamans to get rid of people they didn't like.
>>58125
Depends if you think they could be swayed in the first place. Either way, if you do decide to argue, be friendly, open-minded and most importantly, tactical (don't openly go full communist for example and don't come across as too radical). You always have to ask yourself the question : what is the best thing to say to this particular person that could slightly change their view? Also use examples that appeal to them personally, etc.
>>57117
The leader of socialist Albania, Enver Hoxha, was basically an ultra-leftist who cut off relations with other socialist countries (for not being socialist enough) and built an outright ridiculous number of bunkers throughout Albania to protect against hostile attacks. All in all, he was not a good leader but compensated this by being a very meme-worthy one.
>>58346
iirc getting sacrificed was the highest of honours in Aztec culture and the soldiers (because it was enemy combatants they took) that were captured and sacrificed were supposed to have an afterlife better than those that died in combat.
(21.51 KB 600x336 BritanIsDeng.jpeg)
Can someone explain to me how private property, wage labor, and markets are socialist?
>>58620
It's really mostly just private property that isn't socialist imo.
When you abolish private property and keep markets, capitalism gets restored and you live in poverty, but at least you have Adidas tracksuits?
(396.80 KB 684x686 1471538666380.png)
>>58576
I usually have to walk a thin line if I plan to say anything, but honestly most of them are too far gone into far-right evangelical identity politics.
>>58620
China's / Vietnam / Laos's economy as of 2019 cant really be considered socialist in the Marxist sense but can be considered State-Capitalistic in the Marxist-Leninist sense with State-Capitalism being defined as a stage in which a capitalist economy guided by the state exists for the purpose of laying the preparation of Socialism in the future

>>58161
A lot of the reason movements like Feminism hippy's and punks were so easily subverted by capitalism was that Socialist states and experiments of the time borderline intentionally alienated them through admittedly harsh moral standards in culture and the arts

>>56563
Im not sure about the "Inspired by mysterious unknown ancient civilisations part but Marx and Engel's did base some of their theories upon pre-Sumeria / Indus valley Hunter-Gather society

>>56530
State-Capitalism is a Capitalist mode of production it is simply one guided by the DOTP and the Socialist state to lay the groundwork for socialism
Is there any difference between social liberalism and social democracy?
Redpill me about Economies of the Four Asian Tigers, Japan and Israel(elsewhere I would get meme answers) since those are cited as success of Neoliberal/capitalist policies.
What is the true picture? Any good reading material about those?
>>58719
tl;dr Social liberalism is more lenient on markets than social democracy. Social democrats tend to view unions and working class interests more favorably while social liberals want to make things more "fair", but mostly through regulation and some welfare.
>>58728
Don't know about others but Japan's economy was pretty much centrally planned with heavy investments from murrica during Korean War, until central Bank intentionally created a bubble in the 80s, after the bubble pop they used the crisis as an excuse to implement neolib bullshit and the country's economy was cucked ever since, leading to declining birth rates, high suicides and NEET shut in epidemic.
>>58719
Social-Liberalism generally means a strain of Liberal-democracy where the interest of the Proles and the porkies are at least attempted to be equally catered to with adequte concessions being given to each to preserve liberal democracy and capitalism. meanwhile Social/Socialist-Democracy ideally represent an attempt to incrementally move the economy away from capitalism and towards socialism

>>58728
>Redpill me about Economies of the Four Asian Tigers
Singapore Taiwan and South Korea all held at the very least keynesian policies through most of their development even today most important infrastructure and major companies in singapore are managed as sub-divisions of holding firm that is in turn owned by the singaporean goverment (https://www.temasek.com.sg/en/index.html) so the myth of "Da free market capitalism" being the sole cause behind these places wealth is bullshit. Hong kong is the only one in which this is close to being true and that only happened due to brutal repression of basically everyone to the left of thatcher (see : 1967) and the living standards of the working class of Hong Kong is actually pretty horeshit relatively speaking
>Japan
Keynesian until 80s when some voodoo economy stock market shit was used as an excuse to privatize everything and the economic growth has been anaemic since
>Israel
Literal colony of a global superpower Tel-Aviv has been turned into a silicon valley in the middle of the desert by Euro and US companies being actively encouraged to move in
>>58728
Don't quote me on this, but to my knowledge the Asian countries used 1st 5-year plan esque economic policy to develop after the war, which led to them industrialising really fast
>>58739
>>58761
Thank you, I believe groups like New Labour and the New Democrats as well as the German SDP kinda blurred the lines a bit between social liberalism and social democracy
What if humanity is counterrevolutionary and real communism will be built by AI's?
>>58714
>for the purpose of laying the preparation of Socialism in the future
Anyone who thinks that Chinese billionaires will give up their property without a violent fight is fooling themselves.
>>58621
>wagr labor and markets are socialist
shut the fuck UP Proudhon
>>58833
Anon didn't claim that.
>>58833
Well yes obviously the National-Porky class will be hesitant to give up their lands this is the entire issue why the issues the USSR experienced in the 1930s occurred but it can still be done as we also saw in the USSR in the 30s
>>59444
You could've just said "faggots". Pleonasm.
>>59446
Ah pardon me comrade
(47.57 KB 695x558 marquis.jpg)
(129.50 KB 632x738 D0wkme.png)
Who was in the right.
>>57138
why does this board idolize Hoxha? He essentially alienated all his allies and backed the country into a corner with a massively expensive, and not even militarily sound, bunker building campaign...
pushing away potential friends, retreating to an underground lair...
Nevermind, makes perfect sense.
>>59473
Israel, antisemite bigot
>>59473
this is what happens when you randomize teams on Civ
Is 8chan truly kill?
>>58780
>I believe groups like New Labour and the New Democrats as well as the German SDP kinda blurred the lines a bit between social liberalism and social democracy
UK labour and the German SDP both did use to be Marxist-SocialDemocrats basically until World War One and the collapse of the 2nd internationale when these groups chose to endorse World War One
US politics is an insane beast that i have no real ability to grasp as a Non-American but im not exactly sure what the economic / social difference between the "Old and New" Democrats are
from what i know both Major US parties had Pro-Labour and Pro-Business factions and this changed repeatedly overtime
I'm trying to remember the name of Colombian film i watched a long time ago, it was about a landlord who wanted to sell his property but the people living in it didn't want to move out so they resisted him and one of them(or maybe not one of them) was a clever lawyer who used clever legal tricks to delay the selling process, i also remember very clearly that there was a character that looked a lot like Karl Marx and he was the friend of the protagonist of the film.
>>60427
La Estrategia del Caracol
https://youtu.be/oUNOYp5yYz0
>>60435
Yes this is it!, thanks anon.
(105.62 KB 1200x720 gdr.png)
Where can I read about the GDR? Specifically their specific strain of socialism. I don't know where to start.
>>60448
Ismail might have something on them >>11571
What is financial capital and what is the difference between it and normal, industrial capital?
I don't suppose anyone would have that infographic that claimed the frankfurt school was a CIA psyop?
How can we weaponize the autistic incel poster?
Is the political comoass a meme? I’m a castroist but it put me at centre left
(190.30 KB 1200x1306 saucecompass.jpg)
(195.86 KB 2000x2000 churchillcompass.png)
(564.88 KB 600x601 mccain.png)
>>65969
No, the pol comp is real. Pic related.
>>65969
>castroist
That's a made up thing
Rehabilitative Justice or Punitive Justice?
>>66061
Rehabilitative Justice for countries with development to support it Punitive Justice for those that cannot
>>66061
Rehab as much as possible, if that doesn't work because someone is somehow both a born psychopath and has no impulse control humane detention is justified
>>59331
The USSR in the 30s didn’t have huge numbers of Porkies in the CPSU. Their were no billionaires in the Central Committee or Party Congress. And the NEP didn’t last for forty years.
>>59473
What conflict was this?
>>60193
>By the "Withering away of the state" does Marx mean the withering away of the coercive domination of one class onto another?
The two go together. As classes themselves vanish, the conditions for the existence of a state (i.e. an instrument of class domination) will also vanish.
>If so to what extent was this achieved under Stalin's USSR with the elimination of the peasants, bourgeoisie, and petty-bourgeoisie classes within the nation? In other words is a country with a single class relation to the means of production inherently stateless?
Obviously the USSR was not stateless nor was it even close to abolishing the state. There was still a class struggle to be fought, not only with the internal former exploiting classes but also with the international bourgeoisie that threatened the USSR. I believe stateless or classless societies will only be possible at a point where virtually the whole world has entered the socialist stage and there is no more imperialist threat. However, under socialism the masses can already become more accustomed to actually governing themselves instead of being governed. Cuba is a good example: participative democracy through the CDRs that are present in every district, arming the populace, settling some court cases on a local and somewhat informal basis, etc. In Che's terminology it's all about creating the "new man" who will be able to live in a classless society. But this society is most likely something none of us will get to witness.
>>65969
Yes, it mostly is
Also can you explain what differentiates "Castroism" from Marxism-Leninism in general outside of being another snowflake label
>>66718
The NEP would have lasted longer though, if it wasn't out of pragmatic necessity. China is completely right to be gradually developing its productive forces instead of rushing to "full communism". Of course I recognize the dangerous risks in this for the task of building socialism but in most areas the Chinese are still doing very well
>>60448
Idk but you can watch "Why women have better sex under socialism", it's about the DDR. Think it's on YouTube
>>67039
It's a book, here's an interview with the author
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrdisOZdsTo
>>67177
https://youtu.be/WrdisOZdsTo?t=1739
>Do men also have better sex under socialism? Asking for a friend
The whole thing's worth watching, especially the bit before this time stamp
has cockshott ever spoke on his opinion of anarchist conceptions of economic activity, namely free association and mutual aid? i'd be curious to know his take on why he (probably) sees these as unworkable.
>>67190
>Democratic Socialism in Scandinavia
cringe
>>67177
>>67190
Also nice, but I meant this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cMccZG-dGc
Accidentally confused the titles
>>36103
We advocate for (controlled, as in Cuba) gun ownership after the revolution. Not sure if leftists should also advocate for gun ownership under capitalism and play into the weapon industry's cards.
How many 29-year-old kids do we have here?

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1174413029120913408
>>67734
>29-year-old kids
They are basically boomers in my eyes

anyways where is everyone going when this place fades into obscurity? where did the majority of old full chan leftypol users go?
If the majority of post-Eastern Bloc countries say that things where better under socialist times than in the present, than why don't they elect socialists into power?
>>69735
>implying they have fair elections
>implying those who remember communism are a majority
>implying their is not a concentrated effort to silence dissent
>>69739
>>implying they have fair elections
Proof for any country besides Russia?
>>implying those who remember communism are a majority
Among the voting-age people? Sure.
>>69735
"Things being better" is a very subjective saying. The truth is that the communist regimes, while not as bad as western media would want you to believe, weren't that great either. The opinion in eastern Europe is very, very mixed. Notice that I said mixed, not bad. I think living through the end of eastern bloc would make you loose belief in socialism. That's the vibe I got from my parents, grandparents and people I know - some of whom said it was a "worker paradise" without any drop of sarcasm. Besides, a great number of people in places like Czech Republic or Poland are better off today. I don't think any sane person thinks a return to that kind of socialism would be preferable today. Economic growth pretty much stalled and the economies weren't able to cope with modern computer technology. I consider myself a Marxist, but I have to admit there really was no future there. Not that we should cowardly hide under a blanket in face of 'doom and gloom'. Zizek expresses in the best way how that's one of the ways capitalism grips around the minds of the people.

>The predominant ideology today is not a positive vision of some utopian future but a cynical resignation, an
acceptance of how ‘the world really is’, accompanied by
a warning that, if we want to change it (too much), only
totalitarian horror can ensue. Every vision of another world is dismissed as ideology. Alain Badiou put it in a wonderful and precise way: the main function of ideological censorship today is not to crush actual resistance – this is the job of repressive state apparatuses – but to crush hope, to denounce immediately every critical project as opening a path at the end of which lies something like a gulag.
How do you tell someone they suck without crushing their hopes and dreams?
>>69771
There's no real way, was playing chess once with someone who had a lot of raw talent

Good enough that me going easy on them would only damage their game so I offered them a rook advantage, since I judged that would make us even

This did not go down well
>>69772
The guy's trying to make comics, but he's just... definitely got a ways to go. I honestly just cried because I feel bad for the guy, but like I have no idea how to help him.
Sorry about your situation comrade.
Will DMT and other psychedelic drugs be freely distributed according the people's needs under socialism/communism?
This is important because literally the only way to cure some illnesses like depression in some people is by taking psychedelics.
>>69854
No, unless there is solid research to back up your claim.
Why are we not currently engaged in a full scale online war with the right, and how can we have left unity?
>>69935
Because online wars are futile and useless. Why aren't we organizing IRL is the better question?
>>69944
That too.
>>69946
What is their to prove to be correct? Its pure opinion. I will say though, saying that nationalization of industry and playing politics is equivalent or compatible to mass killings of political enemies and outright dictatorship requires being pretty high on ideology.
>Andrew Neil
>That famous Conservative
Ben Shaprio ownage aside, typical right wing diatribes about Allende. Allende's main goal was to bring gradual leftist reform through electoral politics than an armed revolution. He wanted to create a style of Marxism different than that of USSR and PRC. He started programme of giving One glass of Milk to poor kids in lunch. He wanted to try Cybernetic planning to run economy (See Project Cybesyn). It is true that extreme left wing organization such as MIR were in the streets, but the author also overlooks that CIA funded truck strikes and Nixon wanted to make Chile screen through sanctions. Right wing just wants to make the narrative look like an October Revolution was just about to take in Latin America and Pinochet saved everyone from gulag by sending people to rape camps instead.
Not to mention even greater economic hardships Chile went under Pinochet.
But guess what, they will keep defending Neo liberalism's first bloody experiment.
Slight of hand here is that it is essentially a Pinochet apologia.
Moar here
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3ofDqqHLe-o
>>70141
Meant for >>69946
>>65973
My great grandpa loves Louisiana hot sauce, but he's a hard-line conservative. Also, where would mustard be on this compass?
>>65346
Sadly, that is a highly /pol/ secret. We might never see this secret cracked in our century.
>>58125
Just try not to get into politics with them. That shit can really hurt an otherwise good relationship.
>>59629
They took it off the clearnet. It take a bit of effort to get on it with Tor, but you can get it on ZeroNet with no trouble. Only time will tell when Jimmy Boi will give cripplechan back.
>>59491
One word. Bunkers. Bunkers are a huge meme within the leftist community, but I don't even know how it started.
(296.95 KB 1014x1024 gettyimages-514080092-1024x1024.jpg)
(138.76 KB 1200x871 Mao_zedung_last_image_1976.jpg)
How do you go from this.... TO THIS?
>>71144
People age
>>71144
Time is one hell of a drug.
What exactly does Marx mean by commodity fetishising?
>>70328
The sole purpose of mustard is to go on hotdogs, other than that nobody even remembers it exists.
I see a lot of people on the left idolize Gaddafi. I know he stylized himself as a socialist, but how socialist was he really?
Fuck fam, what’s our take on the Eastern euro slime that inhabits the western world. I’m talking those worthless monkeys that go around talking about how Uncle fucking Boris who was lucky enough to live had such an awful life in the Soviet Union. How the Red Army didn’t liberate their shithole Eastern Euro backwater from the Nazis but actually occupied it too. Lmao you fucking little hideous retard worm. If your take on the Red Army is that it was evil for beating the Nazis then your family should’ve been fucking executed by the Nazis. Fuck the Eastern Europe of today, it doesn’t even deserve to exist, I’m sick of the fat hideous dogs that wonder around slobbering america, you fuckin slime, your country should be fucking ash right now, wherever you’re from isn’t even a fucking civilization, it’s some ramshackle piece of shit that pales in comparison to what it was forty fucking years ago.

If you fam comes from Eastern Europe and you hate the Soviets you’re a degenerate and should eat some fucking rat poison.
Tbh Eastern Europe is better off fucking nuked to oblivion than anticommunist, like, every fuckin time I see another Eastern euro scum talking about muh evil Soviets I just wonder why the fuck Stalin couldn’t finish all their genetic deadend relatives off.
>>72123
>>72120
Cringe but redpilled
(158.69 KB 800x1067 Joshua_Nkomo_(1978).jpg)
/leftypol/
educate me about him, was he /ourguy/
A self proclaimed "Centre-right" collegue keeps recommending Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West and Submission by Michel Houellebecq in order to sway others toward right wing politics.
Please redpill me about those works and their authors.
>>73127
Forgot to mention - this is happening in the third world country I live in.
Can someone give a summary of Oswald Spengler?
I can't recall where but I had read somewhere that Karl Marx had fought off two Prussian officers who came to assassinate him in bath robe.
Is it true?
What's deep ecology and (more importantly) why do I keep seeing it brought up in the context of fascism?
>>73959
>not means of reproduction
missed opportunity
What is the Marxist explanation for the widespread anti immigrant sentiment? The system needs this cheap labour force, so how come there is wide spread opposition to it that is even getting supported by pretty big media porkies? Is this just a symptom of the fight between the national and international bourgeoisie or something else?
>>74385
Workers don't want more competition. An increase in the labour supply lowers its price, so those who sell their labour obviously do not want it. Immigrants mostly do unskilled labour so it is mostly the uneducated who oppose immigration as they are materially harmed by it, labour aristocrats benefit from cheaper goods and services and the national bourgeoisie through cheaper labour and thus higher profits. Pretty much every national bourg supports immigration, porkies who (claim to) oppose it probably just do it out of populism to channel blame onto immigrants and away from the rich who opened the borders in the first place.
>>73959
based
What does Biden, have to do with Trump's call to Ukraine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNgnuZwVjp0&t=0s
>>59473
I got a soft spot for Biafra.
>>36103
Everyone should know how to fire a gun and operate as a militia, and on top of that with free guns for every closet in your home.
>>67704
Go along with it. They're practically selling the noose they'll be hanged by.
opinions on stephen kotkin's stalin books?
>>79102
It's the liberal take.
>>79107
in terms of his moralistic takes yes but what about as a historian of soviet era?
or else what would you recommend instead
(1.35 MB 826x1169 IMG_5180.png)
Anyone has the pic of what appears to be a communist guerrilla hideout with portraits of Marx and Lenin and a shit ton of guns laying around?
I think it was posted as the OP image of a lefty/k/ thread either back in 8ch or in the early days of our exodus here.

>pic unrelated
(51.35 KB 579x960 j_p_g.jpg)
>>71701
Gaddafi was a schizoid.
(283.80 KB 640x1108 umi-has-hair.jpg)
is psychiatry fascism?
What is the marxist explanation of skilled labor value vs "unskilled" labor value.
A computer program that took 10 hours to make has more "value" than 10 hours of baking cakes or whatever.
Or do they have the same value but the artificial scarcity of programmers make it so they are paid way above their value?
>>82785
I'd like to remind you that development of bunkerchan has halted for now because he is doing unpaid, essentially slave labour as an intern and it has broken him before you continue this line of inquiry
>>82798
*he being our resident dev
>>82798
I'm a dev so I used that as an example. Replace dev with any high paying profession. Another example could've been a construction worker and a doctor.
I'm reading about how value is imbued into commodities via abstract labor, and how supply and demand as the main determinant of price is retarded. I understand both, and I can see very clearly how labor is what creates value and determines exchange value. I can see how supply and demand can make prices be higher than their value as well.
What I don't get is why "socially necessary labor" does not always correspond one to one with actual labor time. Specifically, what is the mechanism that causes this.
To clarify some points:
>artifical scarcity of programmers
education is shit and very costly.
>they are paid way above their value
I'm assuming that everyone's working hour has the same value. So if average wage is 1 dollar an hour and a programmer 10, the programmer is being paid 10 times more than the "market rate" for 1 hour work.
>>82945
What if you consider, training education interning etc as part of the socially neccesary labour time

For construction, it's probably partly the risk causing a level of scarcity, definitely and that they need more calories simply to keep functioning

Look up death rates and injury rates per number of stories of a skyscraper for a horror show also what if you include neccesary recovery time, quite literally recreation as part of the labour time?
>>82953
Interesting.. So knowledge and skills are, in a way, dead labor.
Does that mean 1 dev hour is more productive than 1 farmer hour?
>>82958
I presume that training/education/interning would be paid work under socialism. Thus, there is not need to compensate with higher wages.
>>82785
Here's Marx on this in Capital I:
>Productive activity, if we leave out of sight its special form, viz., the useful character of the labour, is nothing but the expenditure of human labour power. Tailoring and weaving, though qualitatively different productive activities, are each a productive expenditure of human brains, nerves, and muscles, and in this sense are human labour. They are but two different modes of expending human labour power. Of course, this labour power, which remains the same under all its modifications, must have attained a certain pitch of development before it can be expended in a multiplicity of modes. But the value of a commodity represents human labour in the abstract, the expenditure of human labour in general. And just as in society, a general or a banker plays a great part, but mere man, on the other hand, a very shabby part,14 so here with mere human labour. It is the expenditure of simple labour power, i.e., of the labour power which, on an average, apart from any special development, exists in the organism of every ordinary individual. Simple average labour, it is true, varies in character in different countries and at different times, but in a particular society it is given. Skilled labour counts only as simple labour intensified, or rather, as multiplied simple labour, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a greater quantity of simple labour. Experience shows that this reduction is constantly being made. A commodity may be the product of the most skilled labour, but its value, by equating it to the product of simple unskilled labour, represents a definite quantity of the latter labour alone. The different proportions in which different sorts of labour are reduced to unskilled labour as their standard, are established by a social process that goes on behind the backs of the producers, and, consequently, appear to be fixed by custom. For simplicity’s sake we shall henceforth account every kind of labour to be unskilled, simple labour; by this we do no more than save ourselves the trouble of making the reduction.
>>82945
Later in Capital, Marx mentions in a footnote:
> The distinction between skilled and unskilled labour rests in part on pure illusion, or, to say the least, on distinctions that have long since ceased to be real, and that survive only by virtue of a traditional convention; in part on the helpless condition of some groups of the working-class, a condition that prevents them from exacting equally with the rest the value of their labour-power. Accidental circumstances here play so great a part, that these two forms of labour sometimes change places. Where, for instance, the physique of the working-class has deteriorated, and is, relatively speaking, exhausted, which is the case in all countries with a well developed capitalist production, the lower forms of labour, which demand great expenditure of muscle, are in general considered as skilled, compared with much more delicate forms of labour; the latter sink down to the level of unskilled labour. Take as an example the labour of a bricklayer, which in England occupies a much higher level than that of a damask-weaver. Again, although the labour of a fustian cutter demands great bodily exertion, and is at the same time unhealthy, yet it counts only as unskilled labour. And then, we must not forget, that the so-called skilled labour does not occupy a large space in the field of national labour. Laing estimates that in England (and Wales) the livelihood of 11,300,000 people depends on unskilled labour. If from the total population of 18,000,000 living at the time when he wrote, we deduct 1,000,000 for the “genteel population,” and 1,500,000 for paupers, vagrants, criminals, prostitutes, &c., and 4,650,000 who compose the middle-class, there remain the above mentioned 11,000,000. But in his middle-class he includes people that live on the interest of small investments, officials, men of letters, artists, schoolmasters and the like, and in order to swell the number he also includes in these 4,650,000 the better paid portion of the factory operatives! The bricklayers, too, figure amongst them. (S. Laing: “National Distress,” &c., London, 1844). “The great class who have nothing to give for food but ordinary labour, are the great bulk of the people.” (James Mill, in art.: “Colony,” Supplement to the Encyclop. Brit., 1831.)


But to answer the question of the programmer's salary, value and price are not identical, so the scarcity / abundance of programmers does not apply to value. It definitely applies to price, companies have a practical need for programmers so they can bargain for more money, but there's no way we can say "4 years of learning to be a teacher is intrinsically more valuable than 4 years of learning to be a programmer".
Basically, Marx is not privileging one type of skilled labor over any other, and skilled labor develops out of lesser-skilled labor out of necessity. The value that goes into developing those skills is very real and reflected in the cost of reproducing that labor (education, supplies, etc.), and it is possible for the working class to deteriorate to where a formerly common profession becomes skilled. But much of this process is actually quite invisible, as the skills do not always line up with the credentials a college hands out, or it's a type of skill which isn't readily taught.
(30.46 KB 650x366 COUzGuQ.jpg)
(862.12 KB 1526x1982 1570196425879.jpg)
Everyone points out the thing about engels being a capitalists, but given that marx lived mostly off of engels money, did this make him an unproductive worker? I'm just wondering if in some writing or maybe their letters to each other if they ever mentioned where they fit into their own theory. Of course not in a dumb sense of lamenting some hypocrisy, but just how they related to it considering they would attack others along the same lines. have some dinosaurs
>>89162
Engels wasn't a capitalist, he was a manager.
>>82785
As an aside; a computer program cannot really be considered a commodity as much as it is a means of production. Value emerges in reproduction, not original production. The socially necessary labour time required to reproduce a computer program, once originally created, is essentially zero (or equals whatever the labour time is required to press Ctrl+C Ctrl+V). This is why piracy is a thing, and why computer programs can only really be sold by way of imposed artificial scarcity and state sanctioned monopolies (copyright and the like)

As for your question I guess you can view it in terms of the creation of any other means of production. The creation of skilled labour is itself associated with socially necessary labour time, such as the five years of schooling required to train an engineer. The wages of these professions are in turn also often artificially heightened by way of monopoly (doctors unions for instance are notorious for lobbying the government to limit the wider access to training so as to limit the supply and thus keeping price of labour power above its value).
(324.94 KB 382x417 question cat.png)
A liberal friend of mine was saying that the reason UK and USA did not become fascist after the first world war due to liberal democracy whereas Germany, Italy and Japan did due to lack of it.

How much of it is accurate?
>>89162
There is literally nothing wrong with hypocrisy. Just because you do the same doesn't mean what you say isn't valid.
It's a completely pointless, useless accusation.
>>90853
Barely any? Yes, Britain was more liberal in it's monarchy, but it still had it. And sure, France was a liberal democracy, but so was Germany until NSDAP took over. The reason was that the defeat in the war led to German economy turning to utter shit, which created a crisis of capital, and then porkies shat themselves out of fear of a possible communist uprising, so they funded the fascists into power. Not 100% sure on Italy, but I think it was mostly the same as Germany, except the crisis came from the nation being underdeveloped. And I wouldn't really call Japan fascist, they were the very same monarchy as back in WW1, and just used ultra-nationalist propaganda. Also Spain would be a pretty obvious contradiction to your friends argument
>>90853
Germany had a democracy. They voted for fascism
>>90896
The nazis never got over 50 % of the vote.
How anon know what kind of commie anon is
>>93627
by reading
are there ever going to be /leftypol/ memes that aren't just ripoffs or parodies of /pol/ memes?
>>93658
Considering /leftypol/ started off as a safe haven for commies on /pol/, i'd say no.
(1.79 MB 550x310 1569157486090.gif)
>>93658
we have an original meme but people complained
>>88254
>>93658
are there ever going to be /pol/ memes that aren't ripoffs from other memes?
>>93658
porky, bunkers, spooks, alunya, nazbol gang (reminder we started the GANG meme) - the list goes on.
remind me, which "/pol/" memes aren't stolen from hobby boards? besides souless wojak/pepe edits that regurgitated every month, all that comes to mind is the moonman, mutt, and le merchant.
it's also worth mentioning that the very essence of claiming ownership over memes and bitching "u stole eet" is both infantile and shows your complete disdain for what memes used to be. this is one of many reasons why 4chan is such a shithole that has failed to produce anything creative in the past years.
(917.92 KB 265x317 dancing_moonman.gif)
>>95897
Moonman was actually a ytmnd meme.
(131.23 KB 939x1024 e329162c.jpg)
>>95897
>the very essence of claiming ownership over memes and bitching "u stole eet" is both infantile and shows your complete disdain for what memes used to be
This.
Redpill me on the national debt. What the fuck is it and to whom does the government owe money? Would it exist in a socialist government? It seems like just vague spooky bullshit that never really has any effect on anything and doesn't actually matter, especially considering the government could erase it tomorrow by magicking dollars out of thin air
>>74006
People think fascism just means big gubernment to take control so if they took control over climate things'd be better.
Regular fascists trying to coopt ecological movement.
Greta being very aryan.
STEMfags disillusioned with democracy trying too hard.

>>69893
Research can be done by meta-analyzing selfreports. Any test for depression is like that anyways.
Allowing and measuring these things to our people would greatly increase productivity.

>>69775
Drawing guides?
Maybe ask if he's open to constructive criticism first.

>>46121
This implies opposition to division of labor, which is important for economic efficiency (even if it means alienation)
Perhaps it's a problem regarding the exact meaning of "exchange", but generally, at least before it's easy to make your own bread, we'll need to produce for the needs of others (eachother).

>>96653
The government debt is the magicked dollars, in a way.
It's owned by pension funds, other countries and large corporations.
Traditionally, it is seen as a stable investment, a safe place to keep your money. But the return on them has been slowing down.
At a certain point, the value of owning this debt is in the negotiation position you acquire against that government. If they fear you selling the debt, they will listen to the demands.
The EU took over the Greek debts, and all the finances of the government were handled by the EU. They effectively got colonized.
Mexico suffered a similar fate, except by the world bank.
>>98477
>If they fear you selling the debt, they will listen to the demands
Why doesnt the government simply tell them to fuck off? It feels like this debt shit is like a magic legal spell or something?
>>73127
Haven’t read the other guy but Decline of the west is basically how westernoids have let themselves become decadent because of libtardism and will be “replaced” by the less decadent and hard living third world which will bring about the new dark age like after the fall of Rome or some shit
>>98481
There are lots of "private security" companies/consultants all around the world.
Half the total military spending is on them.
Companies can just buy a coup (and the necessary PR to present it as a revolution), if governments "attacks" them.

Or, with some of the recent trade deals, sue them.
Why do people still think Trump is some impressive businessman? If any person even slightly competent in business were to have the start that he had, they would be one of the richest people in the world by now, but he not only managed to go bankrupt multiple times, but has only a few billion to show for it?

Just think, the man grew up having literally millions of dollars laundered into his bank account by his father, one of the biggest people in real estate, since he was a child. He grew up with connections, insane wealth, and simply the right timing to be in the real estate market and managed to fuck up MULTIPLE times. How the absolute fuck does that happen and how does anyone think he's some midas touched genius?
>>98486

Dark Age was good though. All that it was bad is crap by Muh Rome Fetishists.
>>99426
absolute yikes
>>99428
The dark ages were actually a relatively prosperous time when warfare and disease killed far less people then typically was the case in Europe.

The Western Roman Empire honestly deserved to fall as it became really shitty if you were a "free" Roman Citizen. For an example, the Praefectus urbi strengthened Slave rights because they didn't want there to be revolts, but the rights of tenants were lowered, because the state needed the taxes from the landlords and by the 4th century it was actually better to be born a slave than a "free" Roman citizen who was a tenant.
why is notorious rbg a bad person?
Does the LTV not incentivize laziness?
>>100526
LTV, in any of it's iterations in classical political economy, as well as in it's marxoid economist forms (not actually present in Marx) is descriptive, not prescriptive
>>100567
If people in a certain job are paid by the hour, then why bother trying to excel?
>>100580
Most everyone in a capitalist system is paid by the hour. I wouldn't say the majority of people are trying to excel but it just works (tm). I don't see the issue.
>>100580
Its the SOCIALLY NECESSARY labor time, not individual labor time

Read capital, seriously
>>100526
>>100580
>If people in a certain job are paid by the hour, then why bother trying to excel?
I don't think you understood the other anon. The LTV is a theory that describes how value functions in a capitalist market economy. It's not meant to be a prescriptive theory of how society should function.

What you're probably thinking of is the idea of using labor vouchers that are paid out according to hours worked. That's a way of rationing consumer goods in a socialist society but it isn't based on the LTV, only the need to measure productivity and provide a fair method of rationing.
>>100580
This applies under capitalism more than socialism.
In a Socialist society, should restaurants be banned?

For the most part, they are wasting a metric fuckton of food every year which could be used to feed the most endangered and impoverished individuals, while simultaneously perpetuating one of the most exploitative and draining industries in our current times, the service industry.

https://www.moveforhunger.org/startling-reality-food-waste-restaurants/
http://www.cec.org/sites/default/files/pdf/fww/wb-presentations/6-genaro-aguilar.pdf
https://oshwiki.eu/wiki/Psychosocial_issues_in_the_service_sector
(106.61 KB 500x333 buried-under-books.jpg)
>>100580
>If people in a certain job are paid by the hour, then why bother trying to excel?
If you work for your bosses profit why bother to excel ?
>>100892
>Read capital, seriously
Well at least try to post quote, as sort of teaser, telling people to read a book will not cause people to read books
>>101223
>Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent
on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more
time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is
homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour-power. The total labour-power of
society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society,
counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour-power, composed though it be of innumerable
individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average
labour-power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity,
no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour-time socially
necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the
average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England
probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The
hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the
product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour's social labour, and
consequently fell to one-half its former value.
Page nine. reading the first section of the first volume dispels 75% of anti-marxist theory myths
>>101229
that was all supposed to be green except the last line, never trust copy and paste kids!
(23.74 KB 200x369 for-impeccable-service.jpeg)
>>101229
pic
>>101230
if you past test in your browser address bar, all the line-breaks will be removed from your text. Then copy from the address bar, and your text will be green all the way.
why does the falling rate of profit matter if in absolute numbers the amount of surplus extracted (in labour hours) remains the same?
>>102560
>if in absolute numbers the amount of surplus extracted (in labour hours) remains the same?
What really matters most here is the proportion of investment in labor vs in capital. The more you automate, the more complex and expensive the machines (capital) get, because the machines are "dead labor" and producing more sophisticated machines is more labor intensive. Porky can't skim off the top of those purchases because they're made on a market with their peers. Even if one Porky dicks another over, one Porky's loss is another Porky's gain and the net effect from a class perspective is zero. Porky can only exploit labor by making you work more than they pay you for (since only work can create value). But the more efficient/automated production becomes, the greater the proportion of Porky's budget has to go to capital, and the less of their investment can yield a return.

Also, quick refresher:
The viability of a capitalist venture/investment is a question of expected rate of profit (they call it return on investment at an individual level). Porky takes a calculated risk. If their expected ROI gets too low it's not worth the risk to do business because it's a losing proposition. Porky will only spend money if the expected returns are greater, otherwise you're better off saving it. If the rate of profit (in general, not just for some businesses) is too low it can't offset the risks and the Porkies stop doing business because there's no money to be made any more.

This part's a tangent, but:
You can actually see this IRL right now because there's uneven development in different industries. Some industries develop to be efficient enough that the rate of profit is too low, and either business struggles to continue, has to jack up prices in a monopolistic way (basically consumer-end exploitation), or get subsidized by the government. That last one is what's happening with farms in the US. There was an overproduction of food and people couldn't buy the shit, so the US government ever since has paid farmers to grow less food than they can, to avoid a crisis of overproduction. For the monopoly example look at soda or water. That stuff is incredibly cheap to produce, but a few companies de facto agree to overcharge people. Water actually gets into clown world rent seeking behavior that I won't go into here, but look up Nestle privatizing water sources.

When the rate of profit falls too low in a specific area, it can be subsidized by the rest of capitalism either via taxes or by charging more prices on consumers. Eventually this will affect all industries and there will simply be nowhere left to extract value from. Proles will be too poor to pay higher prices (see: every "Millennials Are Killing X" article) because they're already being squeezed at work. Injecting money via subsidies will cause inflation if the government doesn't have enough poor people to tax to balance the money supply. Businesses will be at a loss for what to do because they are structurally, culturally, and legally built on profit seeking, and if they can't turn a profit they collapse.
>>102635
Now THIS deserves >>101234
>>102635
Now THIS deserves >>101234
(35.23 KB 320x208 135125-17n.jpg)
>>81978
yeah it was this one. Though I mistook Lenin for this other guy. Anyone knows who he is?
How do you motivate peeps when there's like no money bro
>>102677
Garibaldi
>>102807
what if i told you people have motivation outside of money
How would turism be handled under socialism?
>>102807
Blowjobs
>>102888
Nationalize airbnb
Would it be accurate to say that socialism would be merging making bourgeois out of the proletariat and vice versa? Like once the means of production is seized and given to those who work it, the distinction between bourgeois and proletariat fades away?
>>102635
many thanks
>>36099
Why do opponents of socialism/communism - and some, not all, socialists/communists - expect them(selves) to take an oath of poverty as a litmus test? You know the common response “you have_ product so that means you support capitalism”
>>103221
That would be "the abolition of class", wouldn't it?
when i think about exploitation i think about it in terms of how much of your own labour time you get back in terms of the purchasing power of your wages. if a week's wages can buy commodities worth an equal amount of labour time then i'm not being exploited. however since the proletariat class vastly outnumbers the capitalist class, it seems intuitively like workers should be getting ~90% of their labour time in return.
no matter how many yachts and mansions they own, if the labour cost of sustaining the lifestyles of the capitalist class is spread among all of the proletariat class, then the labour "tax" on each individual worker should be negligible. if that is the case, then it would mean that under socialism we shouldn't expect to see dramatic increases in quality of living. yet, also intuitively, it seems like workers are being exploited such that they receive back maybe 50% to 70% of their labour time back in the form of wages. where does that surplus labour go to? is it the military? are there other factors i'm missing? help me out bros i'm confused
>>103291
I think you underestimate how expensive the rich are to society. Especially if you count the upper 10% or so which are exploiters according to your definition, which I agree with. Another reason socialist countries manage to do so much with so little is because they are more efficient due to a centralised and planned economy that does not waste resources on duplication, marketing and competition in general.
>>103278
Yea but it is hard to conceptualize it so like my 'bourgeois out of the proletariat and vice versa' is a way to attempt it
>>103299
>how expensive the rich are to society
is it possible to calculate this?
>>103302
>>103302
Not that anon. But, their carbon footprint might give us some indications.
>>103302
Looking at feudalism might give a lower bound, it was 10% I think and the reason it was not higher was because productivity was too low but today the rate of exploitation can be higher. The wage share of income is like 50% although the rich do not spend all their income and on the other hand it includes as wages the very high ones that are more than what they contribute but it might bean indication.
>>103276
I think they assume socialists and communists are anti-capitalist in the sense that they want the whole system to collapse when post-capitalism is a better description where socialism is the next step/evolution of capitalism.
>>103291
>when i think about exploitation i think about it in terms of how much of your own labour time you get back in terms of the purchasing power of your wages. if a week's wages can buy commodities worth an equal amount of labour time then i'm not being exploited.
I'm not sure you understand how exploitation works. The value of wages are, by Marx's definition, the value of goods needed to sustain workers in their specific roles. In some cases wages might be higher or lower depending on how much training is required or how much bargaining power the workers have. Exploitation refers to the theory that workers receive only part of the value they create with the remainder going to the capitalist to be used by him for whatever purposes he chooses.
>however since the proletariat class vastly outnumbers the capitalist class, it seems intuitively like workers should be getting ~90% of their labour time in return.
This does not follow.
>yet, also intuitively, it seems like workers are being exploited such that they receive back maybe 50% to 70% of their labour time back in the form of wages.
Cockshott & Cottrell have calculated this based on statistics in the UK and the rate of exploitation varies from one sector to another. In the energy sector, for example, they calculated that workers only receive 27% of the value they produce. In manufacturing, workers received 75%. The average, if I recall correctly, was roughly 50%. This means that workers are spending half their time producing their own means of subsistence (in an abstract sense) and half their time producing surplus product that is expropriated by their employer.

This is mentioned in Towards a New Socialism.
>>103311
>The value of wages are, by Marx's definition, the value of goods needed to sustain workers in their specific roles. In some cases wages might be higher or lower depending on how much training is required or how much bargaining power the workers have.
this doesn't make sense to me. i understand that it's in the interest of the capitalist to pay as little as they can get away with but if you introduce bargaining power then that's obviously not going to be automatically equivalent to the value of the goods needed to sustain them.
(131.29 KB 1533x961 1552462536605.jpg)
>>103309
>caring about the poor exploited robots under luxury space communism, or the bacteria under supercellism
It's like you're not even a human being.
>>103314
>this doesn't make sense to me. i understand that it's in the interest of the capitalist to pay as little as they can get away with but if you introduce bargaining power then that's obviously not going to be automatically equivalent to the value of the goods needed to sustain them.
Right, but we aren't talking about bare subsistence. Employers must bare the minimum level of wages required not only so that workers survive physically (bare subsistence) but also to prevent them from leaving their jobs and finding new ones (market competition). This is what I meant by "sustain workers in their specific roles."

Here is where bargaining power affects wage levels. A well-organized working class can engage in trade-unionism and political activity that pushes the average wage up. The relatively high value of real wages in places like USA, Europe, and Australia are mainly functions of the (past) bargaining power of organized labor. In the USA, this was subverted by neoliberal policies like mass immigration and offshoring. The de facto merging of the US labor market with the world market meant that American workers lost all bargaining power and have seen their real wages stagnate for decades.

This dynamic is also why skilled workers generally earn higher wages than unskilled workers. Employers must defray training / education costs for skilled workers either by providing the training in-house or by offering higher wage levels.
>>103387
+ don't forget deskilling of jobs
Is it right for Syrians in Turkey to flee to Germany/France/etc.? Some say that Turkey isn't all that bad and that if anything those Syrians should stay and fight rather than seeking welfare… is this correct?
>>104688
Bump. Should Syrians really go back to at least Turkey, and are they really greedy for going to Northern Europe?
(2.80 MB one of us.webm)
>>105665
Yes. The higher social mobility the lower are the chances for revolution, because the less those who are ambitious and capable join the upper echelons of society from where they help oppress those below them. If they are unable to individually advance themselves, they might fight for their group of lower people as a whole which gives a better chance of all lower people having it better and not just the (potential) elites under them.
>>106154
So that's what you would do as a Syrian?
>>106266
I don't expect them or anyone to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, this is why charity is not a solution. I would act in my self-interest like them but since I'm not them my self-interest conflicts with theirs.
>>106287
So I guess it's more what the governemnts should do
dealing with a Latvian, need not to look like I'm ignorant sob. trying to fight claims against "muh soviet agression" can I get help on history...
Hey. I wanted to ask what are some good books to get an intro to Maoism?
I need a good philosophy reading list that doesn't force me to digest the whole canon (too busy with work related stuff), something like a reading list that leads to Zizek or whoever. Can anyone help?
(123.40 KB 1200x900 1557275957036.jpg)
>>107185
>Zizek
Bruh
>>107193
I don't know, my friend. Badiou maybe? I just cited him as an example of a modern "leftist" philosopher, an author at the end of the reading flowchart if you will. It can be Badiou for all I care.
Does anybody have that pic of pol pot hanging out with the cambodian royal family down at a waterfall?
>>109216
Dropping the one on economics too
>>109216
Is there something more "general" than this? Isn't the Politzer book very leftist?
>>109216
SotS has nothing to do with the Frankfurt School.

>>109334
It's very bad Soviet "Marxism", don't waste your time on it.
>>109334
Well didn't you want some leftist philosophy? Either way it's a really basic introduction and great to start with
>>109337
t. vulgar materialist
>>109334
i don't think the politzer book is a very good introduction to materialism as it doesn't present idealism fairly. i would recommend "materialism and empirio-criticism" although it's not an introductory philosophy book it's written in a style meant to be read by ordinary working class people and lenin's polemics are supremely entertaining
>>109217
Have you read anything of that? Does anybody making these collections actually read anything? David Harvey is loathed by Cockshott and Cockshott is loathed by Paul Mason. As for Mason, have a repost:

Paul Mason is retarded. From Chapter 8 of Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future (2015):
>ATTACK OF THE CYBER-STALINISTS
>Over the past twenty years, Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell – a computer scientist and an economics professor – have worked tirelessly on a problem we thought we didn’t have: how to plan an economy. Though not well known, their work is rigorous and performs an invaluable service; it is a textbook outline of what we should not do.
(...)
>The huge service Cockshott and Cottrell perform here is not the one they intend. They show that to fully plan an early-twenty-first-century developed economy, it would have to be stripped of its complexity, see finance removed completely, and have radical behavioural change enforced at the level of consumption, workplace democracy and investment.
(...)
>In order for the plan to work, society in this project has to go back to being ‘plannable’. Workers interface with every aspect of Cockshott and Cottrell’s plan via ‘their’ workplace – so what happens to the precarious worker with three jobs; or the single mum doing sex work on a web cam? They can’t exist. Likewise, the financial complexity that has come to characterize modern life has to disappear...
WHAT ABOUT THE SINGLE-MUM SEX WORKER WHO GOT THREE JOBS SO SHE CAN PAY BACK THE COMPOUND INTEREST ON HER DEBT, EVER THOUGHT ABOUT THAT, YOU COMPUTERNAZIS?!
>>109551
>so what happens to the precarious worker with three jobs; or the single mum doing sex work on a web cam? They can’t exist. Likewise, the financial complexity that has come to characterize modern life has to disappear...
hahaha what the fuck am i reading bros this can't b real
>>109555
The following is also Paul Mason, same book, same chapter:
>In a complex, globalized society, where the worker is also the consumer of financial services and micro-services from other workers, the plan cannot outdo the market unless there is a retreat from complexity and a return to hierarchy. A computerized plan, even if it measured everything against labour values, might tell the shoe industry to produce shoes, but it could not tell Beyoncé to produce a surprise album marketed only via social media, as she did in 2013.
(32.54 KB 333x499 the cope book.jpg)
I am so fucking tired of defeatist bullshit. Did any anon here read pic related?
Should I give it a go?
Also: how can I read an ebook on my phone without ending up blind? Reading anything in a phone can give me terrible eye sores.
>>107091
>dealing with a Latvian, need not to look like I'm ignorant sob. trying to fight claims against "muh soviet agression" can I get help on history...
You should study something BEFORE you make conclusions. Having a pre-formed opinion then looking for evidence to support it is called confirmation bias.

>>109551
Those quotes are awful. The fact that a reviewer called him "a worthy successor to Marx" makes me want to puke.
Modern monetary theory. is it bullshit?
>>110067
also good book recommendations
>>109551
I didn't make the list. It's from late 2017 I think, back then most of the board still liked Harvey, but yeah I agree Postcapitalism shouldn't have been there.
What did left communists actually stand for? "Hurr durr they sat in chairs they didn't stand" is not the answer I'm looking for. And what sets them apart from council communists and communizers?
>>82367
In a way. Foucault wasn't fond of it.
(4.10 MB Autism.webm)
>>110595
From the first link:
>So-called wars of national liberation are subtle traps to drag the working class, the dispossessed, behind the chariots of reactionary bourgeois interests.
WEW
>The internationalist slogan is “proletarians of all countries, unite”. The creation of new national borders is not a step forward in the direction of the international unity of all proletarians. National struggles involve the proletariat in wars among bourgeoise factions at international level, which in no case imply the defence of proletarian interests. Those struggles, instead, divide proletarians of different nationalities and push them to line up under national flags, to pour their blood for a bourgeoise homeland, instead of struggling to free themselves from the wage labour exploitation, from the one imposed by stranger owners as well as from the one which new local owners would want to impose.
Good luck freeing yourself from capitalism when you refuse to take up arms to defend against an imperialist invader.
>>110267
So it seems he diddnt like MMT based on its theoretical foundations but what if it were phrased in a more leftist manner like: When the state employs people, it can create money based on the value of the workers labor time in reference to the SALTV, theirfore its not creating debt but just rewarding value creation?
>>110617
It makes more sense to think of money creation as debt creation. You work for the state, and they create money to pay you. The money is a universal debt token indicating society is in debt to you. Taxes destroying money are therefore a form of debt cancellation, but instead of cancelling debt held by a person they cancel societal debt to people. You could justify that ideologically based on the idea that society pays its debt passively by what opportunities it provides, and that therefore taxes are a rent you pay to benefit from society. That's pretty much how people justify it already, just made a bit more explicit.

The thing MMT claims that does matter here is that you should always expect there to be an increasing money supply (i.e. a "budget deficit") because presumably capitalist society is always growing and adding more value. If the money supply grows commensurate with the value in the economy, you wouldn't get hyperinflation or anything. Where you get into trouble here is that the value of products decreases over time. That's because production becomes more efficient and SNLT (ie value) drops. With that understanding, value in the Marxist sense only increases when the working population increases and spends more time working (which relates to why people are so overworked now). MMT doesn't have Marx so they misunderstand value as fixed or subjective rather than objective and tied to production relations. The danger of MMT is runaway inflation because they tie money to the illusory view of value instead of the labor theory of value.
>>110607
And yet zero national liberation movements abolished wage-labor or capitalism.
>>110627
Is their any way to fix MMT to not be at risk of inflation? Im kinda leaning on it being a transitory system between the current system and vouchers.
>>110639
People being doctors hasn't abolished wage labor or capitalism. Not everything exists for that purpose, autist. The relevant question here is which outcome is better for the proletariat - imperialist conquest vs resisting it.
MMT isn't an economic system. It's a theory of how the current one works. It does logically lead to certain policies along Keynesian lines though. IMO we should try to de-convert MMTers by explaining Marx's theory to them, and intercept normies that they try to convert because it's easier to explain our shit the less other stuff people already believe.
>>110639
i agree, which is why we should support hitler. afterall the end goal is an entire world controlled by germany
>>110650
>People being doctors hasn't abolished wage labor or capitalism. Not everything exists for that purpose, autist.
I'm having trouble understanding why you think it's "autistic" for a communist organization to focus on communism...
>>109614
Have you tried reducing white point? I know it’s called that on iphone it might have a different name on other devices.
Also I use libby to read ebooks from the library it has the option to put your books in dark mode
>>109334
proper book on materialism is The Nature of things
start with that.
>>103309
The proper meme.
History moves in stages and communism is not the end of history.
>>103317
Back then slaves were not considered human beings and denoted as lessers so on and so forth.
>>111313
The ancient poem?
>>111321
by Lucretius.
I don't consider it ancient. It has to be before the Alexandria fires to be ancient according to me.
>>109625
you see everything seems to be Neo-nazi/NATO historical revisionism. I can accept some soviet misdoings, I just want to know whats anti-soviet fear-mongering and whats accurate. wanting sources
Let's say that a capitalist owns a factory that makes mattresses, and c = 75$ per hour and v = 25$ per hour, and he pays his workers 10$ per our, meaning he extracts 15$ per hour per worker. This his how Marx outlines profits are made, But let's imagine a scenario where both v and c are still the same but instead he pays the workers the full value of their labor. But the capitalist instead sells the mattresses for a 150$ instead of the actual value of 100$. This means with every mattress he sells he makes 50$ in profit, is this also possible way for the capitalist to make money?
>>112918
no cause the price is determined by the socially necessary labor time. that capitalist will be out-competed quickly. the only exception being if they just got done with some innovation that makes their workers more productive, then theoretically what you're saying is possible for a short time(until the innovation is picked up by the other capitalists) and that profit is called super-profit.
>>112920
But Marx himself said in Capital that price and value aren't the same things though. And also said that value was determined by the socially necessary labor time and price by the fluctuations of the market.
>>112930
right. sorry i was speaking loosely
Why don't we try to mix in some self-help bullshit with leftism to help attract alienated young people, kinda like what the right does?
>>110703
Capitalism vs communism are totalizing economic systems. There's more to them than merely wage-labor or not. Imperialism is part of capitalism, and opposing it is part of communism. Thinking that anti-imperialism is not communist because it doesn't abolish wage labor is autistic because it's an overly narrow and specific definition of communism. One of the defining traits of autism is focusing too much on specific details, missing the forest for the trees.
>>112930
this doesn't make sense to me. what do you mean by price and value are not the same? by price do you mean exchange value and by "value" you mean use value? if so then it makes no sense to say that use value("value") is determined by the socially necessary labor time and price by the fluctuations of the market. use value has nothing to do with the socially necessary labor time. and price obviously is determined by the socially necessary labor time if you believe in the LTV. i don't understand you
(4.91 KB 263x192 download.jpg)
Tell me about Lacan. What's the general consensus?
>>113047
Charlatan. Read Reich instead.
>>113055
>Charlatan
you know i always hate those obscurantist writers but then whenever i want to dismiss them as frauds there is a little voice in my mind calling me a retard for not "getting it" and i imagine zizek and all the other lacanians laughing and bullying me for being an idiot then i force myself to read the material and it's so terrible my god it's like doing homework struggling for 30 minutes to comprehend one paragraph
>>112918
>Let's say that a capitalist owns a factory that makes mattresses, and c = 75$ per hour and v = 25$ per hour, and he pays his workers 10$ per our, meaning he extracts 15$ per hour per worker.
I think your example is a bit confused. The constant capital would be a sum expended on the means of production and the variable capital would be the amount needed to purchase labor-power (i.e. pay for workers' wages). So if variable capital is $25, then the workers receive $25. The capitalist extracts surplus afterward from the sale of the commodity. So if the surplus is 100%, then the equation is like this:

C(75) + V(25) + S(25) = Value(125)

>This his how Marx outlines profits are made, But let's imagine a scenario where both v and c are still the same but instead he pays the workers the full value of their labor. But the capitalist instead sells the mattresses for a 150$ instead of the actual value of 100$. This means with every mattress he sells he makes 50$ in profit, is this also possible way for the capitalist to make money?
In Marx's terms, talking about "full value of labor" is tautological. The worker always receives the full value of his labor-power. If the commodity can be sold at $150 then the capitalist will do it. It price of the commodity depends more on what the market can sustain rather than a deliberate choice by the capitalist to increase his surplus.
>>113026
When Marx (and those who study Marx) talk about "value" they typically mean exchange-value, which is the rate of exchange for commodities on which price is based. But price and value aren't the same thing. Marx took it for granted that prices fluctuated in the market for all sorts of reasons and only occasionally coincided exactly with underlying exchange-values.

In Marx's terminology, it works like this:
1. The labor-time required to produce separate commodities creates different rates of exchange between them. (Exchange-value)
2. The average labor-time required by all producers of a given commodity established "socially-necessary labor-time" for each commodity category. (This is the exchange-value of different categories of commodities, based on averages.)
3. The exchange-values of different commodities in a market interact via money prices. These prices represent not only the rates of exchange between commodities, but also between each commodity and the "money-commodity", which is a bit different today than when Marx was writing since money typically isnt backed by precious metals.
>>112961
>One of the defining traits of autism is focusing too much on specific details, missing the forest for the trees.
Which is exactly what you're doing...
>>113144
thanks
>>113056
There is no good reason to be an obscurantist. If your ideas are so important then you have a responsibility to communicate them in a way other people can understand.
>>113333
based quads, however this is a common complaint for leftists as well. capital/tans isnt very easy to read and the manifesto lacks substance.
what do?
>>113339
communicate more better
Anyone has an archive of this thread? https://bunkerchan.xyz/leftypol/res/57186.html

I need an image that was some /tg/ anon complaining about modern Warhammer 40k fans take the fascist elements seriously
Does anyone have the meme of Mao with:
>They attack, we retreat
> They retreat, we attack
>>102677
Aris Velouxiotis a greek resistance leader( and a communist) during ww2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aris_Velouchiotis
>>113339
I very much recommend P Nikitin. Easy to read, very well explained. Much easier than TANS or Capital.
There's some copies floating around, Ismael made a good scan.
Are capitalists materialists?
(726.54 KB TheBibble.mp4)
>>116978
capitalists have taken the bible and replaced all the references to mysticalism with 'the market' so no
>>116989
I said capitalists not evangelicals (a fraction far less than half of the capitalist composition)

I ask again, are capitalists materialists?
Why was it called 'War Communism'? Why not 'War Socialism'?
>>117492
Leninism and the Bolsheviks associated themselves with the label Communism in contrast with socialism as a label for communism at large. Some people still use this distinction but it's confusing as shit because it means the word can mean very different things in different contexts. It's like how "guys" is gender neutral until you use it to specify male gender.
>>117494
Really? That seems kind of strange. I know that Marx used 'socialism' and 'communism' interchangeably, but I didn't think Lenin did
>>117495
social democrats were considered socialist back then, he didn't want to be associated with reformists and moderates
>>117495
>I know that Marx used 'socialism' and 'communism' interchangeably, but I didn't think Lenin did
It's more complicated than that. It's not really about the stage of socialism/communism, but the kind of movement you're part of like >>117498
>>117498
>>117502
>social democrats were considered socialist back then, he didn't want to be associated with reformists and moderates
Well then that just seems like he's feeding into the conflation of 'socialism' and 'communism' which is fucking annoying.
>>117505
They were originally synonymous. The distinction between communism as fully developed post-capitalism and socialism as the transition came later. (Stalin IIRC)
>>117510
probably said the n-word
>>117510
He wouldn't have been charged if he was white.
>>117492
During war communism there was central planning and distribution in the economy and a prohibition of private trade. It wasn't "communism" in the sense that Marx would have used, but it was a framework that some people assumed would remain until even after communism had been achieved.

This is what Bukharin said:
>In other words, we understood "war communism" not as "war-related", that is, useful only at a certain stage in the development of the civil war, but as a universal, general and so to speak "normal" form of the victorious proletariat's economic policy.

>>117505
>>117507
The idea that socialism is the lower phase and communism is the higher phase started with Lenin. It's what he wrote in State and Revolution.
On the topic of differentiating socialism and communism, what do you lads think about people who call themselves socialists rather than communists? To me it seems they're either succdems who are trying to look cool (DSA) or people who are afraid to attach the communist label to themselves for whatever reason
>>117721
I am fine with using the term socialist to, for instance, describe myself because it segregates a person from a ML, which is what people mean by communist, while still making it obvious they have similar views.
>>117729
So let me get this straight - you're a communist but call yourself a socialist because you don't want to be thrown in with MLs? Why?
>>117731
Not sure how I haven't seen this, good video, although usual I am thrown off halfway through a Zizek rant when something fucking absurd is brought up, in this cases, penises
>>117747
>you're a communist but call yourself a socialist because you don't want to be thrown in with MLs? Why?
Because I don't agree with them much, besides agreeing that capitalism will fall under it's contradictions. Besides that, I don't think 20th century socialism was that good, or that ML political structure can accomplish what it set out to do, not in today's world and in western europe. I also think more people are open to socialism, because "communism" has the baggage of the cold war. I would just call myself a Marxist, even though there I too have my disagreements with.
(152.38 KB 619x625 stalin.png)
Is this story true or is it yet another red scare propaganda lie?
>>119661
executions for shitz and giggles, this ridiculous, assume that stuff like this is a lie unless it's corroborated.
Did Marx actually believe this?
(219.92 KB 411x493 266186493028211.png)
>>120005
Yea but the first point is elaborated on and it's stated that the booj are still enemies
Can I get a quick rundown on the spectacle
>>120453
> In 1967, in a book entitled The Society of the Spectacle, I showed what the modern spectacle was already in essence: the autocratic reign of the market economy, which had acceded to an irresponsible sovereignty, and the totality of new techniques of government that accompanied this reign.
>>120018
Sauce?
Blockchain for labor vouchers? yes or no?
>>121116
what purpose would blockchain serve honestly?
>>121118
guaranteeing the vouchers dont transfer from person to person, replicating capitalism in a black market
>>121120
Why would you even need to trade vouchers????
>>121116
>One more proposal for the pile at https://deadcoins.com/
No. Waste of resources.
>>121116
That shit eats an enormous amount of energy just to validate transactions, it's retarded and unsustainable
how exactly is materialism supposed to be used
it seems to me like any revolutionary theory is at least a little bit idealistic if it wants to shape the direction revolution goes
how is materialism not just hard determinism
>>121339
>how exactly is materialism supposed to be used
Good question. The real use of materialism, if true, is that it gives us a way to understand the development of human society and thus, a guide for what is possible and the best course of action in a given period. But the usefulness of materialism is limited. G.A. Cohen wrote,
<The political applicability of historical materialism is limited, since it is a theory about epochal development, and the time horizon of political action necessarily falls short of the epochal.
This is why Lenin argued that Russia, in the 1920s, required a long period of development to reach socialism. Lenin wrote:
<There are now no other devices needed to advance to socialism. But to achieve this “only", there must be a veritable revolution—the entire people must go through a period of cultural development.
<At best we can achieve this in one or two decades. Nevertheless, it will be a distinct historical epoch, and without this historical epoch, without universal literacy, without a proper degree of efficiency, without training the population sufficiently to acquire the habit of book reading, and without the material basis for this, without a certain sufficiency to safeguard against, say, bad harvests, famine, etc.—without this we shall not achieve our object.

>it seems to me like any revolutionary theory is at least a little bit idealistic if it wants to shape the direction revolution goes
There are different meanings for the word 'idealistic.' In one sense, it describes a person or thing that wants to achieve an ideal. In another sense, it sees ideas as the animating force of history (and thus, existence.) Materialism takes the opposite view. It's our material existence that determines our consciousness and our ideas. Feudal society doesn't start with the idea of 'divine right' and then appoint kings to manage a system of feudal production. The feudal system of production comes into existence, social relations develop around it, and then the ideology of 'divine right' is developed to rationalize the already-existing system.

Marx believed that there was no point in creating an 'ideal society' out of one's imagination since it may prove totally unworkable or unachievable in reality. If a better society were possible it would have to emerge from existing society in some way. Most of his work was made with the purpose of showing how existing society, capitalism, would by necessity transform into a new society, socialism. But this transformation would be dictated by historical laws and tendencies. What it requires is that people become conscious of the real forces driving history in order to use them in a transformative way. Because of that, Marx saw his idea of socialism as being not idealistic but rather scientific - people could achieve a utopia on the basis of a new scientific understanding of society.

>how is materialism not just hard determinism
This is an area of dispute within materialist thought. Some thinkers place more emphasis on a narrow determinist interpretation of materialism. At minimum, materialist ideas indicate boundaries and limitations of human action without necessarily dictating what decisions individuals and society will take in any given circumstance.
I am becoming more disillusioned with various non market socialist economic models. To me, rationing everything is incredibly unproductive and chasing an immeasurable SNLT seems to complicated to be implemented in the short term. However, i have been thinking about a system where the government is the sole seller of products, the intermediate buyer between people, and issues money(purely electronically to prevent black market exchanges) to the creators based on how much it sells for. To me, this forces people to organize into co-ops and greatly increase the share of surplus value they get to keep, in comparison to the current system. It also seems to me that implementing this program can happen at the local level issuing its own currency. I feel like its feasable to use this system at the local level as payment for working in community industry, it may act weird in the begining however with few things to redeem the money with, but it does create more incentive to work on the projects. What do you guys think?
>>121339
It's just means that you can't speak about generalities but always have to historically (time+space) constrain your analysis.
>>121494
>To me, rationing everything is incredibly unproductive
It depends on the rationing mechanism. Money-wages and labor vouchers are just rationing mechanisms, after all.
>chasing an immeasurable SNLT seems to complicated to be implemented in the short term.
Why is it immeasurable?
>However, i have been thinking about a system where the government is the sole seller of products, the intermediate buyer between people, and issues money(purely electronically to prevent black market exchanges) to the creators based on how much it sells for.
But why issue money? Why not just issue labor credits? Maybe I'm not understanding, but it seems like turning the "government" into an intermediate buyer would only add an unnecessary level of complexity. I agree that in a centrally planned economy there would be to be a mechanism to centrally finance everything and to ration (in a flexible way) consumer goods. But this central financing would have the function of coordinating long-term production and encouraging optimal allocation of goods within the existing economy.
>>121493
>Marx believed that there was no point in creating an 'ideal society' out of one's imagination since it may prove totally unworkable or unachievable in reality. If a better society were possible it would have to emerge from existing society in some way. Most of his work was made with the purpose of showing how existing society, capitalism, would by necessity transform into a new society, socialism.
sounds like reformist bullshit to me
>>121494
>chasing an immeasurable SNLT
Companies are constantly making estimates of what can be reasonably expected from a worker in an hour without using a market for that. I mean it's really as banal as a few persons doing a repetitive task for a while and measuring that. Sometimes managers do some of these lowly tasks themselves for a few minutes to get a feel. Though I'd rather call that LC-TNLT (local current technically necessary labor time). I don't see it as an insurmountable challenge to get measures at various places producing the same thing to get an AC-TNLT (aggregate current technical necessary labor time). See how much the produced quantity overshoots demand to figure out the socially necessary labor time (how long AC-TNLT would have been if you had produced the smaller amount in line with demand). The means of production will be all one pool owned by the public (NOT separate co-ops) and people will have individual consumption budgets so that demand feedback can be used to tune produced quantities. (The consumption budgets are not the same as money in the Marxist sense of the word because they are linked to the individual and deleted by usage.)
How should Stalin's cult of personality be viewed? Obviously, in ordinary times, they are bad things, and Stalin himself knew that. For many years he himself tried to limit the glorification and praise that was heaped upon him (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_cult_of_personality#Stalin's_opinion_of_his_cult), but after a time this resistance dwindled to a point where he certainly accepted it. Could it be that as the world moved towards war he saw the need for a strong authority figure for the Soviet people to look up to, or is it just that he gave in to the exalters after a time?
Does anyone here know what happened to Ismail from /marx/? Where is he now? I know he was posting also here in the "scanning books" thread. But then he disappeared
>>123570
eregime.org
Should I really start with the Greeks?
how does the labor theory of value account for things designer handbags, old whiskey, or rare paintings where the price clearly doesn't correspond to the amount of labor it takes to produce but which the supply and demand theory can easily explain
>>124257
nah they're useless
(109.16 KB 430x241 xbox 360 kid.png)
>>125124
>how does the labor theory of value account for things designer handbags, old whiskey
These take extra work over the basic commodities, and the demand for an "elite" version of standard products gives them utility. That's consistent in a simple way.
>rare paintings where the price clearly doesn't correspond to the amount of labor it takes to produce but which the supply and demand theory can easily explain
This one is a little more abstract. The prices are absurdly high not because it relates to the labor but because the richfags are buying consumption itself. The product is not some painting of a basic shape. The product is the act of paying a ridiculous amount for it. It's the same logic of an auction. The product of "look how much I paid" is limited to the people who pay the most for some bullshit art pieces. It's not about the piece but about showing everybody how much you spent.
>>125137
>These take extra work over the basic commodities
no

>and the demand for an "elite" version of standard products gives them utility
what does this mean?

>The product is the act of paying a ridiculous amount for it. It's the same logic of an auction.
that's just conceding to supply and demand theory. the price doesn't correspond to the amount of labor emobodied in the commodity
>>125141
>no
Yes. It doesn't account for all the difference in price, that's usually also enforced scarcity.
>what does this mean?
It means that signaling wealth is something people want (utility), so they are willing to pay the cost to get it.
>that's just conceding to supply and demand theory.
There's no such thing as "supply and demand theory." You're thinking of Subjective Value Theory, which the rich people are basically LARPing here.
>>125153
explain to me how a 20 year old whiskey costs more to produce than 1 year old whiskey in such a way the explains the 10000% price difference
explain how designer handbags cost more to produce than regular handbags in such a way the explains the 10000% price difference

>It means that signaling wealth is something people want (utility), so they are willing to pay the cost to get it.
yes, and this falsifies the labor theory of value which predicts that i could exchange one designer handbag to and equivalent amount of oranges that take the same amount of labor on average to produce.
>>125141
>the price doesn't correspond to the amount of labor emobodied in the commodity
The commodity in question here isn't limited to the physical object exchanged.
>>125169
>explain to me how a 20 year old whiskey costs more to produce than 1 year old whiskey in such a way the explains the 10000% price difference
Maintaining the shit for 20 times as long takes more labor time, and a limited run means very low supply vs high demand for something that signals to people how you can afford expensive shit.
>explain how designer handbags cost more to produce than regular handbags in such a way the explains the 10000% price difference
Same thing but replace the aging with a shitload of marketing.

>>125169
>yes, and this falsifies the labor theory of value which predicts that i could exchange one designer handbag to and equivalent amount of oranges that take the same amount of labor on average to produce.
see >>125180
If you are buying a commodity to signal wealth, then the social context of its existence is very important. You could even say that paying more money just because you can is a product that's paid for by the labor that was exploited to make that person rich.
>>124257
>Should I really start with the Greeks?
No. But studying the ancient Greeks is excellent and you won't regret it. They engaged in all sorts of speculation about the nature of the universe, physics, knowledge, etc.
>>125124
>how does the labor theory of value account for things designer handbags, old whiskey, or rare paintings where the price clearly doesn't correspond to the amount of labor it takes to produce but which the supply and demand theory can easily explain
Supply and demand doesn't really explain anything.
Read this: https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2016/07/23/not-even-wrong/

Marx's labor theory of value is meant to explain general trends in the value of commodities. Basically, it's dealing with averages across the economy as a whole and how those averages move over time depending on things like labor and labor productivity. The "value process" in a market economy is something that only occurs when different commodities are traded against each other in a market. The idea that the LTV or any economic theory could "explain" why >individual< commodities have such-and-such price would have been absurd to Marx. He was only interested in the big picture.

If you read Marx's work you'd know that he measures labor inputs in terms of labor-time. And, something like aged whisky definitely requires more labor-time since someone has to at least keep an eye on the product for however long it sits for the aging process. That doesn't explain why some brands are more expensive than others, but like I said, Marx's LTV is meant to explain average values in a market. The really, really expensive designer handbags are, from what an acquaintance told me, made especially for each customer. You pay in advance and a couple months later they deliver your bag.

In any case, I think that prices of luxury goods are somewhat atypical because the consumers within that specific market are the super-wealthy whose fortunes are basically sustained by the extraction of massive amounts of surplus value produced in markets for the "typical" consumer. The fact that some rich lady has $20,000 to spend on a purse only indicates that somewhere people produced that much surplus value that the luxury market can then funnel into luxury items. Marx's model of the capitalist economy divided it into different "departments" to emphasize how this kind of process worked.

>>125190
This anon gets it.
Where can I learn more about the Kakumei-Teki Himote Domei?
How do you explain to people that capitalism is literally just forced labour under a different name? It is literally just an extra step in 'not working -> ded' by adding in 'not working -> no pay -> ded'
Can someone give me the quick rundown on U$A's (and €urope's) current Russophobia?
>>126168
i thought europe was mixed on that i remember macron meeting with putin and speaking like them and russia were pretty buddy relatively recently, but i know britain had basically a similar thing to russiagate over someone being poisoned
Does anyone here have that image that’s like “video game fans will eat anything companies shit out”

Delete
Report/Ban

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)


no cookies?