Is there a good critique of socialism from a social democrat perspective?

No.

Only revisionism and bourgeois shit.

Forgot to turn off shitposting flag.

Does this actually mean anything except for a slur for Tankies to hurl at one another?

Main Currents of Marxism

HAHAHAHAHA

What?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Nigger they don't even know the definition of socialism.

Soc Dems are just commies full of spooks and econ 101

Bernstein tried to argue Marx and Engels were against revolution.

That's the revisionism I mean.

kautsky maybe?

basically this.

No it doesn't.
Social democracy is only possible due to wealth-transfer from the third world keeping up profits for the bourgs while the citizens are satisfied with the public dole. it's still a terrible system for billions of people.

...

Yes. Socialists have imagined themselves to be scientific and not utopian, while Lennon-style "imagining" the FALC Absolute Idea apotheosis of existence, resolving all contradictions in their contradictory theory.

Soc Dem is the sane compromise until capitalism has actually exhausted itself. There's no good argument against it yet. Unless the obviously psycho&retarded Commie parrots can convince us to trust them this time, or anarchists actually devise a plan that involves more than saying "spook" and contradicting viral hepatitis from sharing needles

Chuck in some borders and protectionism, rebuild unions, destroy transnational trade deals, end neoconservative meddling, enhance freedom for the proletariat, destroy the globalist "aid" and "development" and billionaire "philanthropy" programs and agitate for actual justice, mock the libtard piece of shit normies until their brains collapse under the dissonance, stand in solidarity with workers across the world without trying to shortcircuit the long term evolution of capitalism with disasterous results.

...

famrade pls. you can recognize third world exploitation without believing the first world proles "aren't proles"

underdeveloped world will reach western standards of living by 2300 according to IMF,world bank and UN. Developing countries will reach this level of wealth by 2100. Wealth is not tied to oppression of people but to the investments into capital and social policy on national level.

400 million Chinese have risen to middle-class form those who used to live under 2 dollars a day under market socialism of China.

Yes, and the argument is often employed by many "radicals" specifically anarcho-syndicalists who turned reformist.

Dialectics is only even possible within a maximally freely expressive liberal society and involves discourse as much as the dynamical evolution of an abstract structure. Our ability to name and describe, and finally overcome the structure hinges upon this. The allegedly dialectical states were abominations and obviously collapsed due to the inherent incoherence of such a system, which is completely vulnerable to seizure by nutcases, where the system becomes basically an extension of themselves, necessitates ideological fealty tests, client-patronage sycophancy, militarization, paranoia. And ultimately accomplished nothing.

I like how neither of these criticisms really apply to bookchin's communalism

Class containment =/= class collaboration. The class collaborationists are the bourgie educated faggot Marxist cult who see us as peasants, incapable of escaping our mental prison, when they themselves are just as much a structural product as us, and are totally delusional due to their exaggerated, and artificially elevated nepotistic muh privilege in liberal society. The only thing they've made a case for successfully is the revocation of that unearned status, as the proles wake up to their doubletalk headgames and decide what we want for ourselves.

Nobody who has read Marx ends up as a socdem.

well put fam, that and it's also inherently class collaborationist, and subsequently masks all all social and economic antagonisms that result from capitalism while silencing its opposition.

this is a system I'd actually be in favor of if social democracy ever did any of that

woops forgot my flag :^)

I'm pro-Rojava partially because I find it obnoxious that so many of these book-learned revolutards dismiss it, most likely because it doesn't temptingly promise to install them in some kind of hypnogogic perpetual sleep paralysis of society that passes itself off as a vanguard state that's "helping".

Spurdo flag is even worse that Not Socialism tbh

A lot of anarcho-syndicalists turn into neo-Bernsteinians.

(It's crypto-nat-soc fam.)

That's not third-worldism, you newfag. It is awareness of the fact that capitalism is a global system that ignores arbitrary national boundaries.

I`ve only read the communist manifesto and The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State by engels but I was not convinced of these arguments. Like most social democrats in Funland in 1917 we were on board with revolution and kept defending SU in united front with communists post-war, but as Soviets came to end so came the Marxism(particularly M-L`s) in its historic relevance. Only hope that we truly have anymore lies in reforms that are going to lead into further demands by proletariat.

but it's just a meme flag

Wrong.

You are a peasant? Where in the world do peasants actually still exist?

No of course I'm not a peasant, I'm blue collar. Marxists still fall for the "false consciousness" meme as if we needed to transform the 98% agrarian Russia and internet doesn't exist, and only them with their cloistered autism silos can direct us into the glorious future

obligatory
dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/ghost2.html

It's because they're operating on outdated theories and assumptions. The thing I love about bookchin is that he wasn't afraid to actually admit that and work towards a new revolutionary theory.

Literally just "it doesn't work Xd"

or

"It's too mean to the rich Xd"

read the thread

So you believe that Africa has starved for all of human history?
That is absurd!
The primary reason that people are starving in the third world is that since third-world consumers have almost no money, it is much more porfitable for local landowners to simply grow cash-crops and sell it to the West, which has much higher purchasing power.
Sure, some wealth might flow into Africa, but african workers and consumers aren't going to see any of that shit, as profitrates for these exchanges are higher in the west than it is for local third worlders.

Social Democracy is only possible because of the hyper-exploitation of the third world and the increasing wealth-inequality is global.

ok but who is that qt

The one that made "no-whites" zones in British universities and got sent to prison for breaking laws that were intended for right-wing nationalists, that's who.

Get back to work you danish fuck

fucking kys faggot

Bernstein was a socialist, I thought?

no u

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

No, it just starves for a few decades every couple hundred years or so.

No.
Never like this before capitalism. Starvation was incredibly uncommon before the advent of heiarchal civilization and got even worse after capitalism, plus you've argued no counterpoint to the origin of their starvation that does not primarily originate from comparatively lower purchasing power, something that didn't exist before globalized markets.

I wanna slap that girls face and fuck her hard up the arse

Marxism in a nutshell.

really good meme

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
Famines are a product of division of labor and civilization yes. Glorious Return to pre-civilization is really the ultimate rebirth mythology, the bedrock of fascist mysticism.

Ummmm…
What? No, that's not at all the bedrock of fascism. They quite clearly want to return to the earliest most tribal and patriarchal civilization there is, early civilization.
A return to pre-civilization looks much more like Apoism.

Famines are a product of poor resource distribution and bad ecology. Pre-civilization societies were communalist. If you want to look for the "bedrock of fascist mysticism", look towards Rome or early civilization like said

What a massive load of shit. Sub-Saharan Africa experiences regular decades-long droughts every century or so that wipe out agrarian civilizations there. Civilizations in Africa have repeatedly been starved out of existence throughout its history.

he did say pre civilization, didn't he?

"Pre-civilization" is in this case prehistoric. African civilizations have been rising and falling with the drought cycle for millennia.

Reason for starvation is rather over-substituted farming and massive surplus of cheap food that Europe keeps pouring into Africa making sustainable farming into impossibility. Humanitarian help also keeps the local farmers out of work. Too high birthrates are not exactly helpful neither, African Union really needs to implement one child policy at this point.

Yeah, Marxist have a real problem with understanding gibberish. How can they ever hope to reach the poor when they can't even understand nonsense speech?

Her name is Bahar Mustafa

Depends on where you draw the line between socialist/social democrat but he was the first big revisionist of Marx's work

Those civilizations were agricultural. Pre-civilization societies were not.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hunter-gatherers_of_Africa

Why are leftists so uneducated?

Let's say that's the main reason.

Don't you see how Western capitalists benefit from exactly this and how it benefits and thus maintain SocDem states in Europe?
This also leads to the exact same conclusion - even though it is not the primary reason according to World Hunger Education Service, that states relatively lower purchasing power is the primary reason.

No I do not. Conflict based mining for example is unprofitable compared to more stable one that is build on bedrock of democracy and strong unions like they do have in South Africa for example. Prime reason for suffering in Africa is caused by the enormous fuck up that decolonization was, since it created nation states that were based not on their ethnic make up but on borders of their former colonies. Stable and predictable governments and societies in general tend to make more stable markets that are easier to exploit/invest in.

How is this critical of my post exactly?

when you get a healthy soil and fill it with mold and bacteria, it becomes just mold and bacteria not a rich substrate

this

Sure.
There's a pretty big information gap between what people need and what is made. Without the magic cure-all phlebontium that is speculative technologies re: automation, there's no replacement for market forces.

LTV as an argument against private property falls apart when, as individuals, nobody receives the product of their labor, only an equal portion of what society creates in aggregate. Therefore a wage system is no less preferable. Again the only response from the moneyless camp is post-scarcity handwavium.

Again, if you're not going to post any sources for why you think people are starving, then please accept the ones I have actually pointed to, as the WHES, that has tracked world starvation since the 1970's and their caues.

Also, there are plenty of money to be made from instability, either in the form of limiting a market and thus driving up prices or in the fact that people that are too poor to produce their own infrastructure and treatment facilities are more willing to sell off their raw-materials for dirt cheap to rich investors.

So yeah, your social democracy is only possible because Africans are starving to death, and Africans are only starving to death (largely) because of your social democracy.

I forgot.
A brilliant example of this is the huge market for blood-diamonds.
They benefit the locals way less, but Western investors can make a buttload of cash from it, and thus, to a capitalist, such a market is much preferable to what they have in South Africa.

Those market prices for raw materials would still remain cheap regardless even if conflicts would not limit the markets, rather their prices remain relatively high due to poor labor conditions that they are produced in as this is more costly. Chocolate plantations for example are more profitable and efficient in South America compared of west Africa for this reason.

If these markets were more stable more industrialization and later stage production could be moved to cheaper labor market of Africa therefor we can conclude that it is ultimately inefficient to rely on conflict based limited markets and that capital by its nature would work to stabilize these markets to gain more profitable models of production.

Yeah, prehostoric. We were talking about starvation not being a problem in Africa before capitalism. His thesis:

Genius there seems to think that Sub-Saharan Africa was nothing but hunter/gatherers before capitalists showed up. Nevermind Zimbabwe, Timbuktu, Ethiopia, etc.

You socdems have no idea how much like nazis you sound, do you?

Industrializing Africa would not make industrial production any cheaper, because industrialization drives up the cost of living in an area and wages along with it. Doing that would make resource extraction more costly, require a large investment, and offer no cost savings over existing industrial centers in Indonesia, Mexico, and the like. No, resource extraction nodes need to remain impoverished in order to keep the cost of resource extraction to a minimum.

Pic related. Can you summarize this for me please?

sooo if I'm reading the above correctly, Marx bought into the ramblings of an /x/-tier schizo, modified it to be socialist propaganda, and now it's an immortal science

It says that in looking for the geist (this was originally written in German, and all instances of the word "spirit" are in fact the less translatable "geist") of particular thing, an individual will only ever to be able to find a reflection of himself. As such, all things that he perceives are functions of himself and thus his property. Stirner explains what he means by property elsewhere in the book. Also, a person's ego is the identity of his self which is also the basic essence of his self. It is an odd blend of the cartesian self and the materialist self.

This is Stirner. God, you guys really can't understand anything that you read. Stirner is easy mode philosophy.

It's Hegel.

If it seems to be managed well by the market now (and it can be argued that it isn't, with many failed products being made it's a risk even for experienced companies), I can't see why it can't be when they are consolidated. If anything, planning becomes more efficient because there is no competition and secrets as to what will be made.

How is it decided what's equal proportion? Wages aren't providing equal proportion, and the provider of those wages has no reason to give 'equal proportion' because they can continue extracting surplus value.

With the products of labour you can see that you're not getting short-changed. Wages obscure that process.

What is dialectical materialism, and why is this concept necessary for socialism? It seems more like a metaphysical position than relating to political economy.

Many of the criticism of socialism come from fundamentally attacking DM as ill-informed, without evidence etc.

Well shit.

You-all-should-read-a-book-about-the-"theory"-of-Lacan/Foucault/Debord/Deleuze/Marcuse/Hegel/Negri/Zizek/Reich guy revealed to be a pseudo-intellectual bullshitting cuntcloaca, episode five billion.

let uncle stalin help you out

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

How unfortunate.

Look at the intensity of the famines.
Half of them are after the beginning of the 1800's.
The claim was not that it didn't happen before capitalism, just that capitalism made it much worse and more frequent, as it was no longer ad tied strictly to environmental factors.

This. Capitalism, whether it's full liberal or SocDem is fueled by poverty and dirt cheap raw resources.

lel
There's a pretty big fucking reason we aren't all using low processing power terminals hooked up to one giant supercomputer in Germany or something.
That's precisely the point: with "planning" the failed products have no barometer for whether or not they're failing. This is the purpose of market forces. They cull things that aren't needed and naturally encourage things that are.
Pure ideology *sniff*
Your argument isn't even valid, it's a total non sequitur to mine. You've only reiterated the defintion of LTV.