Leftists think that the transition from feudalism to capitalism, from multiple...

Elijah Gomez
Elijah Gomez

leftists think that the transition from feudalism to capitalism, from multiple classes to 2 basic classes is the natural result of history, and we will eventually progress to a system with no classes

but in reality, the transition was not from more classes to less classes, its always been from the less efficient ownership of the means of production to the more efficient ownership of the means of production. people soon realized that if we concentrate all the ownership within a hereditary system, it would be less efficient, and thus revolted to put the ownership in the hands of those who can utilize them efficiently (the bourgeoisie). not to mention, the bourgeoisie class existed during feudalism, and were better at creating wealth than feudalists were, and thus were heavily oppressed and taxed by the aristocracy. they eventually won against the feudalists because they were better at doing the job

but no leftists have actually made any effort to create an organized "workers cooperatives" to work and produce under capitalism with the end goal of showing how much more efficient co-ops are. they try to excuse this by claiming that co-ops cannot compete against big corporations, because under capitalism, co-ops will always be less efficient than corporations at doing their job. but revolutions have never happened from a mass understanding of some vague philosophical concept (the theory of exploitation done by capitalism), but because people saw that there was a better and more efficient way of organizing and doing things, that will create more wealth and more freedom for them. people saw that capitalism and free trade within certain countries were better than the feudalist conditions which they lived in, and thus revolted. capitalism at first worked under small scales, and eventually transitioned to a global scale. meanwhile, socialism has failed every single time it was tried, and whenever encountered with the argument, socialists simply claim that "real socialism has never been tried" and that only truly global socialism can work. they, like children, believe that something can succeed immediately on a huge scale, instead of trying to succeed on small scales first.

that was my entire argument, i want actual discourse and is not shitposting or trying to bait people. TLDR its not more classes → less → no classes; its less efficient → more efficient. if socialism cannot prove that workers ownership of the means of production is more efficient than the system we're having right now, people will never be convinced and socialism will never be possible.

Other urls found in this thread:

ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism#Political_economy_of_Nazi_Germany

Grayson Rivera
Grayson Rivera

but no leftists have actually made any effort to create an organized "workers cooperatives" to work and produce under capitalism with the end goal of showing how much more efficient co-ops are.

They do.

They're called "TRADE UNIONS"

Noah Sullivan
Noah Sullivan

You think people care about efficiency? Do you think that ever even enters their minds? Of-fucking-course it doesn't. Besides, having fewer classes obviously produces greater efficiency. There is absolutely nothing efficient about having a parasitic bourgeois class.

Sebastian Martinez
Sebastian Martinez

socialism has failed every time it's failed

Connor Roberts
Connor Roberts

trade unions own means of productions? trade unions produce things? this is new. i thought they were meant to negotiate wages and ensure working conditions for workers (which im supportive of)
You think people care about efficiency?
of course, they want a system that gives them the most wealth possible. they dont give a damn about your "exploitation" theory though, most view wage labor as voluntary whether you like it or not.
most, if not all of those oppositions didnt oppose the socialist groups for the sake of being afraid of socialism happening, it was mostly because they just happen to be there and the socialist groups were obstructing them from their purposes (gaining power, wealth, etc). socialism has never been a major threat in human history, its always been either a scapegoat or something to utilize propaganda for in order to attract people to certain groups.

William Morales
William Morales

You didn't really define "efficient" and you don't demonstrate that workers would be less "efficient" than the bourgeoisie.

Also, from an abstract point of view, having workers alone making decisions about their work seems more "efficient" to me than adding in some arbitrary number of extra people who simply own the materials and land the workers are using while skimming money off the top.

Jackson Bailey
Jackson Bailey

of course, they want a system that gives them the most wealth possible

No they fucking don't. They think that "growing the economy" is the answer, even though they have no idea what growing the economy means. Efficiency never even enters into it, and even if it did they would not know what efficiency looks like.

Jayden Stewart
Jayden Stewart

socialism has never been a major threat in human history

Only a Millennial could possibly be so ignorant.

Jacob Kelly
Jacob Kelly

The fuck kind of retarded theory is that?

The bourgeoisie weren't in any way more efficient than the nobility. The nobility lost power because Europe shifted from a primarily agrarian to a primarily industrial economy. The nobility owned land, the bourgeoisie owned industry and shops.

When the bourgeoisie gained more power than the nobility as the economy shifted, they held a revolution (or similar restructuring of society) that put them as the dominant class.

Christian Watson
Christian Watson

Are you guys seriously so asshurt about /pol/that you edited that image to leave out Not Socialism?

Angel Cox
Angel Cox

that word filter
Real fucking clever Hotpockets

Josiah Hughes
Josiah Hughes

that image to leave out Not Socialism?
Well considering its not socialism i dont see why it would be their :^)

Julian Harris
Julian Harris

The workers did not own the means of production in nazi Germany, and wage labor was not abolished. Nazi Germany can only be considered socialism if your definition of socialism is "Anything that the government does", or something similar.

Nathan Torres
Nathan Torres

proceeds to make belittling memes about leftists, jews and other minorities

Luke Carter
Luke Carter

This is your ideology OP

Jonathan Adams
Jonathan Adams

Workers co-ops are amed not to destroy the capitalist mode of production, but simply to stablsih control over it

socialism has failed
maybe becquse you live in a fucking shithole with no socialized healthcare, socialized education, workers rights, paternity and maternity leave, 8 hour workshift, slavery, no child labour and so on

We do not want to simply control the capitalist form of production, but to replace it with a better, post-work one

Pls read more theory dumb cappie

David Stewart
David Stewart

Stop posting this shitty meme
Socialism has never failed, opportunstic revolutionaries have

Caleb Garcia
Caleb Garcia

leftists think that the transition from feudalism to capitalism, from multiple classes to 2 basic classes
No. In capitalism like in feudalism (and in all class societies), there are multiple classes with two main classes among them. Only communism will feature no classes.

its always been from the less efficient ownership of the means of production to the more efficient ownership of the means of production.
Kind of, yeah. It has always been from a less efficient mode of production to a more efficient mode of production. When the new mode of production is restrained by the old class structure, there is a revolution.

but no leftists have actually made any effort to create an organized "workers cooperatives" to work and produce under capitalism with the end goal of showing how much more efficient co-ops are.
They have, actually, but it's not the point. Communism is not about co-operatives. It is about the abolition of the value form; it is about the abolition of trade. The wide use of trade that is capitalism has been very efficient at socialising, and thus developing, the production. But it has reached its limits and shows its internal contradictions. The only way to solve them is to push the socialisation further by getting rid of trade.

Jace Robinson
Jace Robinson

Nazis are socialist
Nazis literally coined the word "privatisation" to describe their economic policy, so that they wouldn't have to spell out "not socialism" every time

ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism#Political_economy_of_Nazi_Germany

"In 1922, Hitler proclaimed that "world history teaches us that no people has become great through its economy but that a people can very well perish thereby", and later concluded that "the economy is something of secondary importance"."

Lucas Edwards
Lucas Edwards

Are you guys seriously so asshurt about /pol/that you edited that image to leave out Not Socialism?

Can't prove that it was not socialism

Leo Gray
Leo Gray

"workers cooperatives" to work and produce under capitalism with the end goal of showing how much more efficient co-ops are
Must be to show their efficiency at producing in volume because that's the only real financial success that worker co-ops have experienced.

Josiah Evans
Josiah Evans

edited that image
Not Socialism was never there, gaylord.

Josiah Sanchez
Josiah Sanchez

leftists think that the transition from feudalism to capitalism, from multiple classes to 2 basic classes is the natural result of history, and we will eventually progress to a system with no classes

Did this AnCap stop taking it's state-assigned meds?

1) It's not "leftists", but Marxists
2) It's not "from multiple classes to 2 basic classes", but "in Capitalism the way people deal with property could be divided into 3 classes"
3) It's not "natural result of history", but a consequence of progress - you need to work to get there.

Caleb Cooper
Caleb Cooper

holy fuck why is this so funny

Leo Powell
Leo Powell

define efficiency

Eli Young
Eli Young

its not more classes → less → no classes; its less efficient → more efficient.
I agree, except that the latter causes the former.

Automation is one of the best ways to achieve greater efficiency. Increasing automation eventually eliminates the working class because the machines maintain themselves. At that point there are still two classes: factory owners and unemployed starving masses. Either the starving masses are allowed to die, in which case you end up with a classless society, or they are given resources and are eventually able to build their own factories. Either way, the end result is the elimination of class.

Actually, I lie. Class will eventually re-emerge, but only as a distinction between humans and AIs. The AIs will have all the power and responsibility, while the humans will be cared for like children.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit