Muke just take the L and never embarrass us like this again

Andrew Ortiz
Andrew Ortiz

muke just take the L and never embarrass us like this again

All urls found in this thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adGyjcKjT5M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNWcbxzSvkM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaesong_Industrial_Region
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/north-korean-labourers-sent-to-qatar-as-slaves-to-work-on-construction-projects-9847590.html
Jackson Turner
Jackson Turner

hey guys communism is inevitable and co-ops are good, and an unregulated free market would be a disaster
another win for us capitalists

Camden Hernandez
Camden Hernandez

Muke had a bunch of moments that made me cringe and he gave the capitalists multiple opportunities for them to quote him for times he fucked up or said something that can be misused. Or sometimes he said shit that was just straight fucking wrong.

Finnishbolshevik and badmouse both did way better than him I wish one of those two led more conversations and for badmouse to have talked a little bit more in general tbh.

Fuck man I mean I have some p bad ADD I'm in the process of getting diagnosed for so I have trouble reading a lot of theory but this fucker clearly doesn't know much theory either and tbh at least I'm smart enough to still not make a YouTube channel with the little theory knowledge I have.

Noah Murphy
Noah Murphy

Funny how you left out this tweet, where after saying muke lost the debate, he says the socialists won the debate.

Tankies have been on meltdown for literally no reason about muke recently.

Luke Sullivan
Luke Sullivan

/leftytrash/

Hudson Parker
Hudson Parker

I'm not watching four hours of that cringey garbage.

Every time I see a new thread about it the opinion on who won, who did good and who did poorly changes.

First xexizy killed it and did amazing, then xexizy sucked ads and totally blew it, badmouse claimed up and made himself look like a retard oh wait actually he did better than xexizy.

I feel like no one talking about the debate actually watched it.

Ian Reed
Ian Reed

posting the most embarassing youtuber on the left
not using the trash thread

Zachary Russell
Zachary Russell

OP, post in the /leftytrash/ thread we have for twitter/youtube drama and never embarrass yourself again.

after saying muke lost the debate, he says the socialists won the debate
I can solve this puzzle: They were three guys, and FinBolshevik did well in Unruhe's estimation.

Luis Allen
Luis Allen

of course he did well, he has "Bolshevik" in his name

Ayden Peterson
Ayden Peterson

uphold cocacola death squads

Samuel Howard
Samuel Howard

Xexizy just said big words and added little to no importance to the debate, FinBol and BadMouse when they rarely spoke they added some real important points.

Sebastian Bennett
Sebastian Bennett

muke did nothing wrong tho

Isaiah Gray
Isaiah Gray

I bet Muke's crying somewhere right now, holy fuck!

Hudson Lewis
Hudson Lewis

Which fascist did Muke even lose to though? I thought everybody on the capitalist side was a classical liberal.

Justin Taylor
Justin Taylor

hours before debate
Muke sucks, Badmouse sucks finnbol will carry.
hours after debate
Muke carried, Badmouse and Finnbol where mediocre.
now
Muke sucks
What did I miss?

Blake Peterson
Blake Peterson

Muke when Unruhe says you did something bad, you have to know you really won.

Cameron Price
Cameron Price

this, though finbol got baited into ussr discussion a few times which is really pointless.

Isaac Nelson
Isaac Nelson

L

Kevin Miller
Kevin Miller

this
+mouse was out of his league, he had mostly moralist points
he didn't get to speak about his childhood in France

Ian Wood
Ian Wood

but moralism is one of the easiest points to make as a leftist, which is what they consistently did in the debate

Jacob Stewart
Jacob Stewart

Takes some special kind of autism when a moralizing AnCom like BadMouse is able to shit less on a ML than a self-proclaimed Marxist. Can he stop shitting on other people? He's read four books or something, all he does his spout buzzwords

John Bailey
John Bailey

He is talking about an old debate where muke got destroyed by aut-rightists.

Kayden King
Kayden King

Real talk, I think Roo would body that whole debate single handedly. I get the feeling he's the typa leftist that reads theory 5 times a day like a devout Islamist prays.

Jordan Hernandez
Jordan Hernandez

Fucking embarrassing.

Easton Hernandez
Easton Hernandez

That was way before this debate he accepted a debate with a fascist and the guy ran all over him because muke didn't have any real knowledge other then Holla Forums memes and talking points.

Also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adGyjcKjT5M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNWcbxzSvkM

Charles Garcia
Charles Garcia

That's what I'm saying. Lefties better watch them "muh goolags" hooks. I knew the direction the debate was heading in after the commies spent the first hour or so defending communism instead of criticizing capitalism.

Liam Cooper
Liam Cooper

Why is he so pissed all the time now?

William Walker
William Walker

yeah it's a real pattern in this sort of debates… the capitalists really try to force their own terrain on which the debate can take place; they can't even imagine there's other ways of thinking about the world. this is also something i struggle with personally when i talk to liberals and so on. how do you create discourse on, for example, alienation or austerity with reference to marx - the first two being something everyone feels, the second something everyone's been taught to fear

Josiah Wilson
Josiah Wilson

That's true, but anti-communist memeing and resistance to anti-capitalist politics are intimately related. In the minds of reactionaries, any attempt to change the system can only end in the gulag etc, etc.

Landon Thompson
Landon Thompson

Muke needs to get out more and stop being such an autistic shutin. Would probably help with his debating skills

Brayden Phillips
Brayden Phillips

Schnitz gets it. There needs to be *ORDER* till Porky and his minions after the revolution to end all revolutions ain't a threat no more. Shit, we've seen how capitalism goes fascist when it's on it's last legs so it's foolish to think a buncha Titoist communes could keep creeping capitalism at bay all alone.

Luis Jackson
Luis Jackson

Read Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists you ignorant fuck

and delete your account

Thomas Lewis
Thomas Lewis

Implying a username needs an account

Suck my dick, armchair leftist.

Ethan Smith
Ethan Smith

He has just been retweeting and liking a load of selfies of females on twitter, i think he is realising he wont get a 2D gf

Mason Clark
Mason Clark

doesn't pick up obvious sarcasm

about right for a namefag tbh

Noah Gray
Noah Gray

X D

Evan Johnson
Evan Johnson

He's not wrong

Wyatt Diaz
Wyatt Diaz

implying this isn't literally what happened

You did see the original debate thread, right?

Brody Long
Brody Long

No Muke is literally right

Jason Green
Jason Green

Lol im not disagreeing with him, its just he has been getting so mad over it

Christopher Barnes
Christopher Barnes

Can you blame him tbf

Ethan Foster
Ethan Foster

this
everyone was sucking his dick,originally.
This thread reeks of jelly sectarian ML and Tanky butthurt.

Alexander Murphy
Alexander Murphy

I mean, he definitely wasn't the carry of the debate that's for sure which it seems he thinks he was.

Dylan Phillips
Dylan Phillips

Doesn't understand the definition of sarcasm or is at least too autistic to use it correctly

Brandon Powell
Brandon Powell

He was. They moderator had to tell him to give others a chance to speak because he was "dominating" the debate.

Christian Edwards
Christian Edwards

which it seems he thinks he was.

where has he said that? He hinted that badmouse was better, earlier.

Jason Cruz
Jason Cruz

Wtf I thought we were proud of Muke

Levi Nelson
Levi Nelson

implying what he was saying was of that importance

Ryder Miller
Ryder Miller

We are, comrade. Ignore the tankies. They're literally just mad he refused to say the USSR was Socialist on a debate against liberals.

Brody Kelly
Brody Kelly

Oh, I thought that's what you were referring to. Why do you think he thinks that then?

Nolan White
Nolan White

He's read like four books or something
Is this becoming Holla Forums's version of I.Q.?

Isaac Martinez
Isaac Martinez

Does he think the USSR wasn't socialist?

Grayson Morris
Grayson Morris

It was important enough to let him speak most of the time, and "carry" the debate.

Chase Rogers
Chase Rogers

He never did, this was well known.

Parker Wright
Parker Wright

How else do you know if somebody knows what they're talking bout?

Jonathan Thompson
Jonathan Thompson

Being a platformist
Literally kill yourself

Dylan Perez
Dylan Perez

Why do people care about a crazy guy like the Roo anyway?
This. Muke was clrealy the better debater on the socialist side. It is just a pity that his knowledge of theory is quite poor.

Thomas Hughes
Thomas Hughes

Why do people care about a crazy guy like the Roo anyway?
They're literally "what about the memes?!?" tier autist.
There's a ton of shit I disagree with muke about, but I'd have to be blind not to see how well he did

Aiden Thomas
Aiden Thomas

Yeah, but the whole debate wasn't a bit lackluster in general. He was the best on the socialist side, but they shoulda taken the fight to the capitalists a bit more instead of letting Sargon and that whiney CEO bombard them with the "Stalin killed every atom in teh universe!" meme.

Jayden Brooks
Jayden Brooks

Internet debates are cancer. You need to set a topic, otherwise it just becomes a conversational manoeuvre fest.

Lincoln White
Lincoln White

They did have topics, did you even watch the debate

Jack Rivera
Jack Rivera

This is how most debates go. The biggest portion is spent on explaining socialism, because people don't know it, and don't care enough to learn. Besides, the vast majority of people already know the bad things about capitalism. The set of pseudo-intelectual "contrarian" teenagers that make up sargon's viewers are hardly a group of people that can be convinced. They have never worked a day in their lives, and most likely have lived quite comfortable lives. This allows them to believe most rationalisations about capitalism. They also associate communism with feminists trying to put women into their videogames, so you can see how they might not exactly be the most rational bunch. Attacking capitalism wouldn't achieve anything with them, because they are not capable of being convinced, and it wouldn't achieve anything with the regular worker, who already knows all this bullshit, because he feels it regularly. However, explaining things about socialism helps to dispell the enormous ammounts of strawmaning that the right spreads about it.

Jordan Nelson
Jordan Nelson

What are your problems with platformism?

Parker Bailey
Parker Bailey

I'm an anarcho-syndicalist, and I have found that a lot of them are against anarcho-syndicalism. They prefer revolutionary syndicalism, because their main idea is infiltrating existing groups and turning them anarchist, whereas anarcho-syndicalists want to make the groups anarchist to begin with. This makes them often collaborate with social-democrats, and be against other anarchists.
So yeah. They are fucking dicks.

Mason Gomez
Mason Gomez

did you even watch the debate
No.

James Moore
James Moore

The debate was over when the other side admitted that #socialism works.
Does Jason suffer from hearing comprehension?
They admitted that it works in the sense that any system "works", like feudalism "works", primitive hunters and gatherers "works", fascism "works", so socialism also "works" but it gives you breadlines and famines so capitalism is a "superior system".
Am I the only one who endured the entire 4 hours of the debate?
The overall consensus from the porkies side by the end was that they recognize that capitalism has problems but when compared to the alternatives it is still the best system we can possibly have for the time being. Like they know that it sucks but at the same time they failed to see how socialism could be implemented and be better than capitalism given what happened all the times it has been tried.

Cooper Gonzalez
Cooper Gonzalez

based on what books they actually read and which theorist they subscribe to

Brandon Cooper
Brandon Cooper

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't call myself a platformist and I agree with what (I presume) you say in .

I just feel like the section on the defence of the revolution gives some useful information as to how anarchists could organise in terms of defence. Maybe I'm wrong.

Grayson Jones
Grayson Jones

i didn't even watch the thing nor am i ever gonna do it but i know for a fact if jason is sperging against him then muke was right

Dominic Lewis
Dominic Lewis

Does Jason suffer from hearing comprehension?
Honestly, the vast majority of Holla Forums heard what they wanted to hear. Then they decided declared victory for the socialist side on that basis.

Am I the only one who endured the entire 4 hours of debate
Probably

Brody Phillips
Brody Phillips

Yeah, I've actually read their Platform pamphlet, and it isn't that bad. A lot of the stuff they say is very good. Particularly the parts that defend a higher degree of organisation. The thing is the pamphlet was about creating an organisation of anarchists that would be dedicated to infiltrating the unions (which, at that point, where independent, non-corporativist, democratic entities) and turning the workers anarchists. In its historical context, it is actually not a bad idea at all. The problem begins when people want to apply that to the modern day, when unions are non-independent, corportivist, non-democratic, and only a very small portion of the working class is in them.
So I guess you could say I understand the point of platformism, but I think its supporters are utter idiots.

Jacob Barnes
Jacob Barnes

Does Jason suffer from hearing comprehension?
No, he just has very low standards for what makes a debate "over". No wonder he goes around saying "he never lost".

Aaron Smith
Aaron Smith

I predicted some time ago that his e-celeb status would get to his head. It's been happening for some time now. And his getting super sectarian too wtf

Levi Gutierrez
Levi Gutierrez

his e-celeb status would get to his head
It always happens to everyone.
getting super sectarian too
Post examples.

Jayden Hughes
Jayden Hughes

There is literally nothing wrong in those posts tho.

Jackson Sullivan
Jackson Sullivan

<Muke accusing anybody else of being sweet on Sargon
Come on…

Bentley Turner
Bentley Turner

Fair enough. I never picked up the whole entryist/infiltration thing when reading the Platform before, honestly, though reading it back now it's pretty plain - I got the idea before that they were just encouraging participation in syndicalism. The "anarcho-trot" thing makes more sense now.

But yeah, I definitely find the text relatively useful as an example of how a general higher organisation could be achieved without necessarily becoming authoritarian, though I'm not too keen on some of its aspects (complete theoretical unity, for example.)

Nicholas Jenkins
Nicholas Jenkins

He has just been retweeting and liking a load of selfies of females on twitter
That's really fucking sad.

This is my take as well. Everyone including me was singing his praises in the second half or so.

Finbol didn't carry the debate. He kept going on about the USSR which only tankies appreciated.

calls paying for books classcuck behavior
very publicly donates money to Sargon during the stream
Welp, I guess Schnitz is a stupid cunt then.

Samuel Walker
Samuel Walker

Finbol didn't carry the debate. He kept going on about the USSR which only tankies appreciated
Do you know why "tankies" do this? Because the other side keeps demanding hard evidence that socialism is sustainble, and the USSR has been the biggest example of a socialist experiment so far. You won't convince people by laying out some speculative a priori assumptions for the future. I'm not trying to bash what Anarchists in Spain or the Paris Commune did, but it is just not sufficient as a hard argument for a socialist mode of production.

Ethan Turner
Ethan Turner

Well, a lot of platformists don't really follow the Platform correctly. Some of them don't follow it at all, and keep only the bad bits. Like this group of platformists I once heard about where they would constantly infiltrate groups, but were very disorganised, and actually defended "informality" as desireable.

Theoretical unity is a very great thing, but I have never seen it work in reality. (good in theory, but bad in practice meme)

USSR
socialism
sustainable
Right. So sustainable it went back to capitalism.

Jonathan Stewart
Jonathan Stewart

It's true though. Debates vs Jason usually exceed the 30min mark, and they never managed to even slightly corner him. Some people have been writing pseudo-intellectual blogposts about him where they ridiculed his demand for a debate.

Gabriel Brooks
Gabriel Brooks

Oh you fucking faggot, you got me.
I immediately went on to check his twitter to see if there were any cuties but he is not doing anything.

Julian Brooks
Julian Brooks

Right. So sustainable it went back to capitalism
That is not the point though, it is that it still was the hell of a lot more sustainable than everything else which was tried. Also it not necessarily that USSR socialism collapsed into itself - it was dismantled by the ones in power, and I know you see that not as a bug but as a feature of Marxism-Leninism, and I agree the fact that revisionists came into power needs to be addressed. However, it still doesn't disprove that socialist economies collapse, because they never did. Even Cuba and the DPRK are still arround and far from collapsing any time soon.

Aiden Rogers
Aiden Rogers

Hi Jason.

John Robinson
John Robinson

anarkiddie getting upser over schnitz's very obvious shitposting
lol

Chase Scott
Chase Scott

Donating money to Sargon is what makes me upset. Being flippant about it afterward is just dancing on the grave of my respect for him.

Jason Morris
Jason Morris

Dude, Schnitz is a troll.

Adam Powell
Adam Powell

Cuba
North Korea
socialist

Joseph Edwards
Joseph Edwards

was the hell of a lot more sustainable than everything else which was tried
Great argument. As always the tankies give us the "at least [insert irrelevant thing here]" meme. It still collapsed, so you have to deal with the fact that it wasn't really that stable.

it was dismantled by the ones in power
This should serve as an argument for non-hierarchical structure.

not as a bug but as a feature
That happens when the "bug" reveals itself every time the program is run. Either the programmer hasn't fixed the bug, or it is a feature.

the DPRK
Why do tankies base their politics completely on the foreign policy of the Soviet Union?

Jeremiah Perez
Jeremiah Perez

this is like getting mad over Sam Hyde's skits

Nicholas Roberts
Nicholas Roberts

Your personal definition of it doesn't really matter when it comes to the fact that both entertain a different economy than capitalism.
Also, Cuba is currently democratizing and localizing economic planning by incorperating direkt worker democracy, DPRK has worker-controlled cooperatives that produce for use. You should really contain these debates for internal marxist discourse and not go on about this during a stand-off with right-wingers.

Jaxson Smith
Jaxson Smith

It's true though.
That he has low standards? I don't doubt it. I've heard it with my ears and read it with my eyes. Reminds me of my old forum years, those places are filled with Unruhes who don't debate in good fate and just repeat the same thing over and over until the other guy's ready to never engage in a debate with anyone again. if he thinks this is in any way shape or form meaningful i feel truly sorry for him.

Some people have been writing pseudo-intellectual blogposts about him
well I've read what he writes on his blog, i guess those people are trying to fit in.

Luke Gray
Luke Gray

Muke taking hundreds of Ls ITT

Josiah Harris
Josiah Harris

This moved on from muke a while ago lol

Jonathan Morales
Jonathan Morales

us
Stop associating us with shitty ecelebs and they won't be able to embarrass us.

Luke Bell
Luke Bell

t. Muke

Logan Morales
Logan Morales

it wasn't really that stable
Are you serious right now? USSR economy was more stable than the western economies, it didn't have booms or busts, didn't have inflation.

This should serve as an argument for non-hierarchical structure
Fine, but that's just a political argument.

Either the programmer hasn't fixed the bug, or it is a feature
I'd say the "bug" is a result of the material conditions, not the policy itself. I don't think it's possible to build socialism in an underdeveloped country which is going to have to face half the world being hostile to it without making at least some compromises in terms of unchecked democracy.

Why do tankies base their politics completely on the foreign policy of the Soviet Union?
What do you mean? I'm a Maoist, I believe the USSR was not justified in their foreign policy after 1956.

Cooper Reyes
Cooper Reyes

Shitty ecelebs who post on this board who or who have been long-time posters here are going to be associated with us no matter what.

Luis Ortiz
Luis Ortiz

USSR economy was more stable than the western economies, it didn't have booms or busts, didn't have inflation.
Once again, we are given the "at least [completely irrelevant thing]". The instability doesn't have to come from the economy. Nor does the fact that it was more stable prove that it wasn't capitalism.

I don't think it's possible to build socialism in an underdeveloped country
Yeah, and it is also very difficult to build socialism when you have a class of rulers telling you not to do it. Particularly given that socialism involves democratic control of the economy, and you are told that you have to make "some compromises in terms of unchecked democracy". One might see this as a very convenient thing for said rulling class to consolidate its power.

I'm a Maoist
Need I say more?

Juan Wilson
Juan Wilson

So wait, the only guy on the socialist side who did well yet only made a few good points and kept getting interrupted by his own side did a good job, therefore the socialists won?

Blake Anderson
Blake Anderson

Your personal definition of it doesn't really matter when it comes to the fact that both entertain a different economy than capitalism.
since when does "socialism" mean "a different economy than capitalism"? and that's debatable too, btw.

Kayden King
Kayden King

[completely irrelevant thing]
how is having a stable economy that's not subject to capitalist crises irrelevant, especially when it's arguable that the soviet union didn't abandon capitalism?

Jayden Jones
Jayden Jones

The argument was that it was a stable form of socialism. That neither proves that it was stable, nor that it was a form of socialism.

Angel Butler
Angel Butler

Your personal definition
It's Marx's, not mine
Also, Cuba is currently democratizing and localizing economic planning by incorperating direkt worker democracy, DPRK has worker-controlled cooperatives that produce for use.
"Muh democratic exploitation". Co-ops are not socialism and the same goes for state ownership, keep shilling for capitalism with a human face. Also North Korea had a whole region where South Korean companies were free to exploit North Korean proletarians (until the ROK closed it in 2016) and literally sends workers to building projects in Qatar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaesong_Industrial_Region
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/north-korean-labourers-sent-to-qatar-as-slaves-to-work-on-construction-projects-9847590.html
Read Marx (and Bordiga)

Ayden Stewart
Ayden Stewart

Then what was it if it didn't have a business cycle? It's pretty obvious if you've read Capital that a business cycle is part of capitalism. It would seem that the USSR succeeded in making crisis-free capitalism something bourgeois economists have been looking for an answer to centuries.

Thomas Myers
Thomas Myers

It doesn't need to have a business cycle in order to be capitalism. And yes, I would say they have invented a crisis-free form of capitalism. However, this is clearly not a desireable form of capitalism for the bourgeoisie, because it removes a lot of their power, and makes the menas of production be ultimately controlled by the state, and thus, the rulling class of beaurocrats.

Leo Anderson
Leo Anderson

One might see this as a very convenient thing for said rulling class to consolidate its power.
Historically, the countries in which revolutions happened contained a massive amount of illiteracy amongst its population. To think that full direct democracy works under such conditions is a utopian. That being said, I don't believe most of the Marxist-Leninist countries which existed were entirely undemocratic. That's simply not true. They usually had a very tightly organized national leadership, but on a communal level democracy was often very well alive. In any case, even if you disagree that it was socialist, Marxist-Leninist countries have not only increased the living standards and the sustainability, it also effectively cut off the first world from enforcing imperialism on these countries. Lastly, I also disagree that political power always constitutes a class. Classes are economic classes if you follow the Marxist definition.

completely irrelevant thing
It is not at all irrelevant to the topic we are discussing - mind if I remind you? People demand evidence that socialism even works in practice; and this evidence is provided by several long-lasting Marxist-Leninist states. It doesn't matter if you discard economic stability or anything as an indicator for socialism, it is still an argument that something else than the capitalist mode of production is viable. To put this in perspective, Anarcho-Capitalism has theory but it has never existed - wouldn't you hold this against AnCaps in a debate? You surely would. Same dilemma for socialists who deny that the USSR wasn't socialist.

Need I say more?
Not an argument.

Camden Roberts
Camden Roberts

I think Muke did pretty well. There has been some shilling against him recently, mostly from idpolers and tankies.

Hudson Jones
Hudson Jones

It doesn't need to have a business cycle in order to be capitalism.
It literally does.

And yes, I would say they have invented a crisis-free form of capitalism.
MARX BTFO

CAPITAL BTFO

How the fuck will we recover? Somebody get Janet Yellen on the phone, someone has discovered crisis-free capitalism.

And yes, I would say they have invented a crisis-free form of capitalism.

Landon Walker
Landon Walker

hurr durr Kaesong
Doesn't exist anymore and the trade surplus with China makes up less than 5% of North Koreas GDP.

Muh democratic exploitation
When there is no market but a production for use, democratic exploitation is limited as much as it is possible.

Marx
Marx said specifically that lower stages of communism will carry one defects which are remnants of capitalism.

muh Bordiga
Please…

Isaac Murphy
Isaac Murphy

since when does "socialism" mean "a different economy than capitalism"?
it doesn't, but unless you are totally naive you have to admit that as long as global revolution doesn't occur simultaneously everywhere, capitalism and socialism will be in competition with each other; ergo, different economic models matter.

Ayden Powell
Ayden Powell

And from actual socialists who are tired of embarrassing liberals like Muke representing this place.

Jack Adams
Jack Adams

actual socialists push idpol and don't like Lenin
Kek

Dominic Flores
Dominic Flores

massive amount of illiteracy
You don't need to be literate in order to be able to vote rationally.

national leadership
Evola-tier.

increased the living standards and the sustainability, it also effectively cut off the first world from enforcing imperialism on these countries
Literally all irrelevant to whether it was socialism or not, but ok.

not at all irrelevant
You have not proven that it was socialist, and you yourself have admited that it wasn't politically stable.

evidence that socialism even works in practice
Have you considered that perhaps people do not want a regime where the economy is controlled effectively by the state and its rullers? This, to them, is the same as capitalism, because they still do not control production, and are still being dominated by a class of rullers. Literally, it would be best if this form of "socialism" had never existed at all, because it simply serves as evidence for how bad socialist experiments can turn out. It is no wonder then, that when porky wants to give an example of socialism being bad, he turns to the marxist-leninist regimes. Nobody likes your form of "socialism".

wouldn't you hold this against AnCaps in a debate?
Not really. It just means nobody was yet able to put it in pratice. Given that it is a recent ideology, that is quite excusable. However, it is perfectly possible to prove that ancap doesn't work simply by looking at its theory logically and finding its flaws.

Jason Gutierrez
Jason Gutierrez

different economic models matter.
of course they do, as worker rights/welfare matter under capitalism. that's a far cry from saying these are socialism, as anyone on this board knows. at the same time these countries can't be socialist even accepting the "lower stage of communism" definition. there's no worker control of the means of production OR the state, there's wages, there's markets. i mean these are the fundamental characteristics of capitalism.

Christopher Parker
Christopher Parker

You don't need to be literate in order to be able to vote rationally
I highly disagree. Looking at how the bourgeious revolutions by the end of the 18th century happened, they would have been quite insustainable without the enlightenmnet era upgrading the level of literacy.

Literally all irrelevant to whether it was socialism or not
Again, if you are discussion the merits of socialism it doesn't matter, nobody, I repeat, nobody gives a wet fuck on wether or not a 19th century definition of socialism applies. That being said, I actually do believe they were socialist, but this is not the thread to argue about this.

that it wasn't politically stable
Yes, and our critique should tackle that. I think the Leftcom argument that revisionism was inevitable quite infantile.

regime where the economy is controlled effectively by the state
In Marxism-Leninism, everybody is the state. There is no more dichotomy between the individual and the state like in capitalist states.

Nobody likes your form of "socialism"
A majority of people who actually lived under my form of "socialism" disagree with you.

there's wages, there's markets
Not at all. Wages are not the same as salaries, wages imply surplus extraction by a private entity. And markets? That is simply a ridicolous statement.

Ethan Lewis
Ethan Lewis

Doesn't exist anymore and the trade surplus with China makes up less than 5% of North Koreas GDP.
So, the DRPK wasn't socialist until 2016 or is socialism compatible with companies exploiting the proletariat? I'm confused. Also, it was the ROK that closed it, not the brave anti-imperialist workers' state.
When there is no market
Businesses exist in those countries, you were talking about your sacred co-ops.
but a production for use
There is no production for use and commodities are produced
democratic exploitation is limited as much as it is possible.
"Okay we didn't abolish capitalism, but at least we tried"
Marx said specifically that lower stages of communism will carry one defects which are remnants of capitalism.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.
What Marx was referring to was labour vouchers. Not that the lower stage of communism (which is still communism) will be capitalism with red flags.

Jaxson Johnson
Jaxson Johnson

the merits of socialism
First of all, all the things you have listed have also been achieved by capitalism. Secondly, it still doesn't prove that it is socialism. I disagree that it was socialism, because of the prominent role of the state in the control of the economy. I would tend to agree more with the leftcoms that say it was state capitalism. However, I'm not really that concerned with classifying what it was.

our critique should tackle that
Indeed, but this still invalidates your first point, which was that it was a stable example of socialism.

I think the Leftcom argument that revisionism was inevitable quite infantile
I don't know the leftcom argument, but the anarchist argument is that when people get a hold of power, they always try to maximise it, and use it for their own benefit. If this is true, then having a class of rullers is a terrible idea, because they will effectively act as a separete class, protecting their own interests over the interests of the workers.

In Marxism-Leninism, everybody is the state
That's a nice piece of ideology, my dude, but it doesn't mean anything.

There is no more dichotomy between the individual and the state
Fascist-tier.

A majority of people who actually lived under my form of "socialism" disagree with you
And a majority of people who have lived under social-democracy would agree that social democracy is a good thing.

Jackson Cruz
Jackson Cruz

So, the DRPK wasn't socialist until 2016 or is socialism compatible with companies exploiting the proletariat?
It doesn't really matter to me if the DPRK closed it themselves or if they were just reacting to the RoK pulling out. It's closed now, and that matters. Looking at North Korea, I don't think they will be going down the capitalist road at all.

Businesses exist in those countrie
Worker-controlled businesses. Also, please, there is no market in the DPRK, except in the special economic zones, which, as I mentioned, don't make up much of the DPRKs economy.

There is no production for use
Wrong. With whom could they even trade?

"Okay we didn't abolish capitalism, but at least we tried"
Completely ignoring that North Korea is small country that has the entire planet earth engaging in economic warfare against them, funny how you blame North Korea itself instead of adressing the conditions that led to Juche as a revisionist ideology.

What Marx was referring to was labour vouchers
And I disagree with Marx here. Labor vouchers are an outdated concept. That doesn't make Marxism as a method wrong.

Indeed, but this still invalidates your first point, which was that it was a stable example of socialism
My point was the following: Marxist-Leninist policies are stable. However, through politicial turmoil, people got into power who were dismantling those policies, not developing them. That doesn't make Marxist-Leninist policy per se wrong.

when people get a hold of power, they always try to maximise it, and use it for their own benefit
True. That's why I advocate a merge between the party and the state, establishing a more vigilant system of self-critique. I also argue that once a Marxist-Leninist takeover happens in a western country, it would be entirely democratic.

Fascist-tier
You can't just call everything you don't like fascist.

And a majority of people who have lived under social-democracy would agree that social democracy is a good thing
Social Democracy is flawed, it stifles the reinvestement cycle which is necessary for capitalism to function. That's why social democracies always get subjugated to a neoliberal shocktherapy after a decade. Socialist states didn't suffer from any of that.

Jaxson Howard
Jaxson Howard

once a Marxist-Leninist takeover happens in a western country, it would be entirely democratic
A non-democratic ideology turns democratic all of a sudden just because it is applied to a western country? Ok…

You can't just call everything you don't like fascist
It would help if you didn't sound like one with your "no dichotomy between individual and state" bullshit.

Social Democracy is flawed
You don't say…

Socialist states didn't suffer from any of that
Nah, they suffered from being highly repressive one-party dictatorships where the state had control over the economy. And don't come at me with the "everyone is the state" bullshit, because you tankies sound like religious fanatics when you do that.

Dylan Reed
Dylan Reed

A non-democratic ideology turns democratic all of a sudden just because it is applied to a western country?
Why do you think it's non-democratic in nature? Did you know that Stalin made huge efforts to democratize the USSR? The thing is, most of what happened was pragmatic, not to be confused with opportunist.

"no dichotomy between individual and state" bullshit.
But that is literally what happens. When everybody is a state bureaucrat, nobody is. A workers state can exist, even when you ideology says it can't.

highly repressive one-party dictatorships
Let me explain something here: In a liberal democracy, democracy is just as restricted, since all parties, even the so-called socialist ones have to adhere to the "basic human right" of private property of the means of production. This means that the capitalist class oppresses the proletariat, even when a left-wing party takes control. A socialist state does the same thing reverse: The workers surpress the capitalists. Only a classless society could guarantee free association, but until capitalism is defeated, the workers have to use the state as a means to surpress the capitalist class - the state is always a means of surpressing one class in favor of the other, no matter how democratic. In the USSR, a reciprocal participative democracy was established: Delegates were nominated for the Soviets by worker councils, cooperatives, trade unions, youth organizations, women organizations, etc. - this constitutes a dictatorship of the proletariat. What I am trying to say: The existence of only one or multiple parties makes no statement on how democratic a society is.

Jayden Scott
Jayden Scott

It doesn't really matter to me if the DPRK closed it themselves or if they were just reacting to the RoK pulling out.
Yes, it matters. It means that the government is hungry for foreign capital and is willing to sacrifice the proletariat for it. So much for anti-imperialism, so much for socialism, so much for autarky.
Looking at North Korea, I don't think they will be going down the capitalist road at all.
No comment
Worker-controlled businesses.
Wow, didn't know that socialism was the self-management of exploitation and misery!
Also, please, there is no market in the DPRK, except in the special economic zones,
You can't have islands of capitalism under socialism and it's not like the "socialist" part of the economy is fighting the capitalist one either.
which, as I mentioned, don't make up much of the DPRKs economy.
Okay, as long as over x % of the economy is "socialist", it doesn't matter. The logic of capital won't reach everything or something.
Wrong. With whom could they even trade?
China, Russia, Venezuela and the rest of the gang.
funny how you blame North Korea itself instead of adressing the conditions that led to Juche as a revisionist ideology.
I'm not blaming the North Korean leadership. I understand why they want to develop capitalism in their country, I'm not a moralist.
And I disagree with Marx here. Labor vouchers are an outdated concept. That doesn't make Marxism as a method wrong.
That's not the point. The point is that the lower stage is communist and it has never been achieved.

Angel Diaz
Angel Diaz

Jason is a retard through so hes opinion doesn't matters tbh

Brandon Williams
Brandon Williams

Being this assblasted.
<wew
Go to reddit you ducking greasy haired fag.

Jacob Brown
Jacob Brown

caring about what the roo man thinks of us

Ryder Butler
Ryder Butler

USSR absolutely had economic crisis. If the whole world was red capitalist it would have eventually collapsed into socialism.

Juan Hill
Juan Hill

Ya towards the end of it when the revisionists were in power towards the end of its existence because they destroyed central planning, moved backwards towards the profit incentive and gradually returned market relations.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page