QTDDTOT

It technically isn't, obviously, but its use around here, and some other places alike, could probably be called buzzword-y without much hesitation, only pedant newfags would take the time to correct you but, that's beside the point.

Don't work for a firm. I'm studying law too and I won't. It means long work days and shitty payment (in the beginning) in my country.

With law you can do a lot, don't be a wagecuck. Also most socialist and communist parties will love you when you join them since they usually don't have lawyers

Thanks pal

Where you at? The pay is decent here but wagecucking does indeed mean long hours behind a desk…

Zizek is a fucking faggot, only fagfots like you namedrop him to sound intelligent.

Germany

When you don't have a perfect bar exam here (which is really fucking difficult) it means you'll have to work for a huge company with a shitty wage - it gets better later when you are arround 40-45, but you have to break your back till then

politically illiterate here

what's the different between Social Democracy and Social Liberalism?

They seem vaguely similar. Is SocDem like SocLib except slightly more economically literate and with the aim of eventual socialism? SocLib seems to be just vanilla centrist (relative to our era) and the choice ideology of the average college campus liberal.

Taxation

Social democrats tend to be involved in trade unions(the non-radical/revolutionary kind). Division between them is like that of progressive and a liberal. Other stands for reform while other does nothing.

Who would you say are the leading proponents of propertarianism/anarcho-capitalism and Nazism/Neo-Nazism today? I'd be inclined to say the Koch brothers for the first.

Social Democrats were once upon a time Marxists. Social Liberals weren't.
Also SocDems usually have deeper theory and are more open to radical change like Nationalisation of industry and mixed economies while Social Liberals are really just fighting poverty and recession and passing regulation with no real intention to have a permanent impact or pursue any structural change.

No because he believes in concrete goals, language and grand narratives.He also seems aghast at giving movies and films a psychoanalytic narrative or further deconstructing them beyond their surface level meanings and beyond what they might have to say about his own work. There aren't really any explicit Marxists who could be called post-modernist because it's skepticism is contrary to their goals.

People like Derrida and Foucault flirted with Marxist ideas but you would have a better chance of fucking one of them at a bath house then you would of hearing them say they ascribe themselves to a definite belief system.On an inverse note people like Zizek and Badiou flirt with post-modern ideas but never really go the full length it would take to be considered that.

Social Democrats still see socialism as an optimal goal towards attaining. It also come to mean that you want to keep democracy as the system of governance as opposed to a "dictatorship of the proletariat" or a vanguard party.

Liberals of various stripes are traditionally beholden to thinking the capitalist system just needs a few tweaks and possibly a few reach arounds and then everything will be A-OK. The main difference between the two is that liberals don't see capitalism as inherently wrong or bad and they don't see socialism as an optimal goal worth attaining.

Should "Contempt for Ordinary People" be a meme?

Can we have our own meme magic to embarrass May into leaving 4eva

...

Context being May saying strikers have contempt for ordinary people

Despite being ordinary people

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a democracy.

any of you famalams got a short book or article summarizing all this lefty and anarchist shit that isn't pozzed up idpol or biased to one or the other? I don't have time to go through 4 300+ page books that I probably won't understand, and I don't trust Wikipedia at all

fwiw i'm a Holla Forumsack who thinks unions are cool and hates rich people and latte liberals and nazis

thanks guys

Wikipedia is actually an ok source on this the last I cheeked I the pages.

That being said the main differences you need to know:

Ancom/Ansoc: Want the workers to govern themselves after they seize the means of production

An-syndicalists: Want that but with large federations based on unions and guilds.

An-Green/primitive: Green: it's just anarchism as described above plus an emphasis on environmental issues.
Full on primitive where you give up modern life and do whatever out innawoods.

Mutualism is a free market but instead of capitalism things are done through mutual aid and property is based on use. It's more complicated than this but don't worry about it for now.

An-cap's believe the free market should be completely unrestrained and that people would govern themselves through contractualism and property rights.

No, he hates post modernism

I've been thinking about throwing together a kind of "/leftypol intro" PDF for just this sort of purpose. But as far as I know, nothing like that exists right now. I'm on vacation now, so if I can get some motivation worked up, I'll finally make the PDF. If I do, I'll reply to you with it. Why are you posting with an anarcha flag?

How do I into Holla Forums? Is there an introduction to Leftist Politics for dummies?

Literally one post before you lol.

...

Is studying philosophy a prerequisite?

For understanding socialism (or leftism in general), no. But Holla Forums is filled with autists who read a lot and generally know more about this than the average guy. So if you want to post here and not get bullied, yes, you should know some philosophy.
But I'd recommend making yourself familiar with Hegel's works first, not starting with an esoteric primer PDF on philosophy. At the very least, read summaries of the ideas of Hegel, Marx, and Proudhon.

Multiple questions.
If the union owns most of the business is it still socialism?
Can you have democracy and human rights in
socialism?
Can all of the socialism be planned on a local level?
What is socialism with a human face?
What is market Socialism?
Is all the stirnerism around here ironic?
Is self employment allowed in socialism?
Why ban private property when you could just ban private ownership of the means of production?
Is marx actually against religion? It seems to me he didn't like it because it was 1% controlled but if we got rid of the 1% religion would be OK right?

Are there any leftist theorists who flat out reject materialism, and marxist dialectics?

Unions don't own the business, their function is to negotiate with the owners.

Yes. Socialism implies democracy; if you were in the mood for brevity, you could accurately define socialism as "economic democracy." Opinions on human rights are going to be varied, but respect for the human condition is an important part of most strains of leftism.

Most forms of socialism that advocate planning account for a hierarchy of planning councils. So the local councils confer in a regional council, and then a national council, and then (in some varieties) a world council.

A meme.

An economy in which money and market exchange (rather than planning) are the method of distribution. Businesses would still operate as independent entities, but they would simply be owned by their workers. (This is usually what people mean when they say "market socialism.") Some people advocate an "artificial market," in which production is still effectively planned, but money is used as a way of allowing consumers to prioritize the goods they want, in order to send signals to the production planners. (This is kind of niche, and often not what people mean when they say "market socialism.")

Some is, some isn't. Stirner is important more for what he heralded (the development of nihilism and anarchism) than by what he actually believed.

As long as you don't have employees, yes. (Contracting people for one-off jobs should be OK, though, since it's a business arrangement rather than expropriation via private property.)

When socialists use the term "private property," they mean exactly that, "private ownership of the means of production." It's an unfortunate term that has led to a lot of confusion, but there isn't really a better alternative, as far as I know. To own private property is to take possession of the product of another's labor, justified by ownership of the property that the other used in order to produce said product. For example, under feudalism, land was private property: the lord took his serf's product (crops, lumber, wool, etc.) and justified it because he owned the land. In capitalism, capital is private property: the shareholders take the employee's product (manufactured goods, money paid for services, etc.) and justify it because they own the capital.

He viewed religion as another tool that the ruling class could (and did) use in order to pacify the working class. This was the context of his famous "opiate of the masses" line. He probably didn't believe in God, but he probably wouldn't have had a problem with others believing in God.
Religion in Europe at that time was complex; the church was a political force, not just a community based around belief. That's the reason devout Catholics in Spain and France seized the church's lands during revolutions, for example–they were fighting against the political machinations of the church, not against the religion per se.

Not that I know of. I guess there was once a large movement of Christian socialists, who probably weren't materialists (if they had any theory at all).

Yes. There are a lot of socialists who aren't down with dialectical materialism.

any prominent ones worth reading?

Pretty much every anarchist, for a start.

pretty much every Marxist past 1950 as well, I mean I'd go as far to say 1930, but lets just be safe.

it's tongue-in-cheek, especially with that one tripfag causing a ruckus. it was either that or snibbity snab. s-sorry…

If you do end up doing it i really think you should collab w/ some of the /liberty/ guys. There's already some overlap with them, obviously getting some more ideas like right/left-libertarian or one of the gazillion *-conservativisms, might pull some of the newer people away from edgelord bullshit.

But if you just want to do it for Holla Forums that's fine too, I can always hit them up and see if anyone is interested.

Yeah, that's what I had in mind. An introduction to Holla Forums's ideas, not an attempt to change people's minds necessarily.

I wouldn't call Koch brothers ancaps but yeah, the biggest politically influential porkies in the US I don't know how much money soros has in comparison

I agree with your post but I think a further elaboration needs to be made and I'm glad you brought up Soro's. I don't think the Koch's believe anything they sponsor at Mises.org/ALEC/CATO and I don't think George Soros is an utlra liberal madman who is trying to get progressive results by any means. I think they're opportunistic business men who just want money and power and they don't care what short sighted stupid agendas they need to push in order to ensure their continued monetary gain. In a way I kind of wish they were their stereotype because then they would be more predictable and hence easier to fight, but the problem is they aren't.

I think the same could be said for Trump, he's just an opportunistic chicken with his head cut off, hes not a 85D chess master or the second coming of Hitler brought to us by Russian hackers. He's a doofus representing larger interests and his actions are spur of the moment flights of fancy that will suit him for the time being.

Since when is anyone not this?

Go to bed Max

Pic related vs the guy who helped overthrow communism just when it was mellowing out, crashes whole country's financial markets on a hedge, pays no taxes to anyone, is bff's with Clintons, Bilderberg group, funds idpol antagonists because reasons, and giggles and feels nothing when recalling confiscating property off other Jews in the Holocaust. Ancaps are comrade-tier and liberals are scum of the earth confirmed.

Ancaps either don't actually know what capitalism is, in which case they're an obstacle, or they do know what it is, in which case they're the enemy.

Godammit stop recommending Stalinist textbooks on Philosophy, I fucking warned you last time

Hurr we don't need theory to properly conceptualize what socialism is

Amusing that an anarchist is recommending a Stalinist textbook on philosophy

I don't know any anarchists outside of proudhon, bakunin and bookchin. Who are some good marxists from the 50's and onward?

I'm a recent ex-ancap who read Proudhon and realised that I oppose what socialists define as capitalism. I've now moved towards a more mutalist/left market anarchist position.

Most anarchists I've met are communists who want to abolish markets. What is wrong with free markets?

A regular person does not need to read philosophy in order to understand what capitalism is, why it sucks, what socialism is, and why it's a better system. I was saying that if you want to discuss and debate the details, then you need to know at least a little philosophy. Read my fucking post, you mongoloid.

In my experience, most leftists fall into two camps on why they oppose capitalism: 1) opposition to private property, or 2) opposition to markets.
The opposition to markets usually comes from the (Hegelian, I think) idea that society should be as rational as possible. In their view, markets are irrational, or at least not as rational as planning.
Personally, I'm a libertarian market socialist.

^Here's your flag, user.

Markets, I find, aren't all that terrible, but they aren't magic either.

Haha oh fucking wow

She's a 55-year-old hag trying desperately to look 35. She is a baby boomer.

that's lauren southern queen of Holla Forums and head mistress of rebel media. Pure reactionary ideology. Does anyone have the video of her saying that "trump winning the election was a massive victory for the right over generations of cultural marxist, leftist media brainwashing"?

C U L T U R A L P O S A D I S M
U
L
T
U
R
A
L

P
O
S
A
D
I
S
M

How would you lads respond to this?

god I want to fucking nail Lauren

They have. It's a matter of fact.

And yet workers' slice of the total pie hasn't. Increased production has led to drastically higher profit, but wages haven't kept up, because capitalism makes workers powerless.

lolno
Part of it is the need for capitalism to reproduce itself, to expand and find new markets. Part of it is the inevitable advance of technology.

No, you can't. That's what wage stagnation means.

Again, this is a plain fact, not a fringe presumption.

This is patently false. Look at the statistics.

This is a meaningless term. "Cost of goods" could be either from the production side or the consumption side, and "better than it's ever been" could mean "higher" or "lower" depending on whether you're a firm or a consumer. Global productivity has risen, but it's a mistake to attribute that to capitalism; technology is never going to go backward, so neither is overall production. Even a critical shortage of primary resources is only a temporary affair in the long run, once space mining becomes a reality.

In developed countries, this is untrue, and in developing countries it's true only sometimes and only as a side-effect of capitalism's need to expand its markets.

lel @ "free-market capitalism." Capitalism does not want "free markets," it demands centralization of capital and monopolies.
Anyway, because capitalism is the dominant economic system, it's also responsible for all the bad effects within its domain (read: almost everywhere). As previously stated, incidental advances in quality and quantity of consumer goods available (which are inevitable due to technology) are accompanied by stagnating (and sometimes falling) wages in the developed world, barbaric and inhuman labor conditions in the developing world, and financial instability.

No, it hasn't. Average income may have increased, but if you know anything about statistics, that's not a good thing. In heavily skewed distributions (such as wealth and income distributions), median is a better measure of a typical, central data point than average. Statisticians like to say "the average chases the tail," meaning that when distributions are skewed, averages get skewed in the same direction.

Yes, and they're mostly the bourgeoisie, hence the problem.

No. Do you think the only source of income is work? I wish we lived in a world where that were true.

Ah, yes. The modern, capitalist version of "nobility." Those who have higher income have it because they are inherently superior, right? Nothing to do with economic structures and exploitation. I'm sure the feudal landlords who took half of their serfs' goods would have agreed.

Unemployment statistics would disagree with you. And if you think "opportunity" is best measured as "capitalists who are willing to make you a wage-slave," then sure, you're right. But when was the list time you were offered a job where you were treated as an equal? That is a real opportunity, and it's rare.

Tell me about it, she's qt as fuck even if she is retarded

Well first I'm 30, so I'm not barely out of my teens, so there is that.

Secondly the entire premise of the general "wages are getting higher globally" is flawed for the very simple reason that they aren't. Latin America has a few bright spots but for the most part it's still mired in landlord feudalism and outright imperialism in most countries. The Caribbean countries are still basically modern plantations where people work for cents on the dollar. South east Asia is a sweat shop and in the darling example of China, it's Foxconn style 1984 on steroids sweatshops. Russia is a kleptocracy where most people outside big cities live in squalor and basic insecurity of most basic goods. The same can be said for most of the former soviet block countries south of Russia which is why areas like the Ukraine fall for fascism and outside imposed color revolutions. Tell me Africa is doing great under world bank debt slavery and lingering imperialism with a straight face. Do I have to even mention what it's like to be a worker in the middle east?

The eastern block of former Soviet countries are seeing a slight resurgence in their circumstances and the BRIC countries have some movement in economic areas where previously they saw none but the majority of the money goes increasingly towards the top rather than an even distribution raising everyone upward. The United States and to a lesser extent western Europe is seeing a drop in it's prosperity, due to poor military decisions, terrible economic deals, a lack of workers sovereignty and a threat from foreigners to your wages both at home and abroad. The poor are sinking globally and a few people at the top are ascending fast and everyone else is gliding in a fast race toward the bottom to try and work for scraps.

Tell former coal miners in West Virginia there is no lack of opportunity for them to get work where they live or former factory workers in Detroit and Camden New Jersey. If wages were so great why would there be a nationwide movement called "Fight for 15?"

She's not that hot. No tits, not even an ass.

WRONG

I'm looking forward to the January edition, where we get credited as the sponsor.

ugh

Well I mean the Cato Institute was originally the Charles Koch Foundation, so they've certainly played a big part in it.

That's cool, thanks for being helpful and not stirner memeing.

I'm just trying to figure out what's going on, especially with all the job automation hype going on, which doesn't seem to bode well for normal people.

In a normal world, automation would be a good thing, because it means more production. But we live under capitalism, so ultimately it means (at the end) that we'll get a situation where people can no longer afford to buy the products being produced.
I don't want to half-ass the PDF, so it's probably at least a week away, but in the meantime, have some Wolff webms. He does a good job of explaining these sorts of ideas in bite-sized pieces geared toward people who aren't knee-deep in socialism.

One more webm before I head off to bed.

Why? She's so brain dead that fucking a hole in your hand or fucking a dead body would be more lively.

what did mussolini mean by this?

I'd like to think she's just ignorant and stupid considering her age, the majority of people on this board are ex-Holla Forumsyps, and still hold some reactionary views.

Simply saying that class struggle and historical materialism are unimportant isn't really "striking a blow" at socialism. You'd need something more substantial. Anyway, it is possible to view class struggle as the main drive of history without being a historical materialist (though I doubt there are many people who think this way). You can also come at it from a much more immediate perspective: whatever your views on the theory of history, production must take place in order for society to continue existing, to reproduce itself continually–and that production can either be undertaken in a way that is equitable, or a way that gives some men power over others. Mussolini seems to fail to understand this.

What happened to Satan Nazi?

What's the difference between demsoc and socdems?

She left, then came back on some thread about gayness….Haven't seen her again. Probably because of the time of the year - you know, lots of rituals and sacrifices have to be made in a few days.

Different name mostly the same thing. Although in a lot of countries demsoc usually has more of a religious element to it particularly christian in Asian countries.

Social democracy is, at best, attempting to implement socialism through reforms and party politics, and at worst, it's capitalism with some band-aids and a welfare state.
"Democratic socialism" isn't really a movement, more of a term that just gets thrown around. Socialism is inherently democratic. Bernie Sanders also describes himself as one, further muddying the term.

Can it still be considered socialism if private property is allowed but the majority of means of production is owned collectively and private businesses have to pay an exploitation tax?

No.

To elaborate: some of the means of production, in any capitalist society, are already collectively owned. State-run enterprises and worker cooperatives, for example. Socialism doesn't mean simply reducing the amount of private property, it means forbidding private property altogether.
By way of analogy, take the US before the Civil War: it was a slave society, because it allowed slavery–the fact that there were large parts of the economy that didn't rely on slavery, or that slavery was illegal in certain areas, didn't change this fact. It was only when the federal government attacked the legitimacy of the very idea of owning people, which was the philosophical basis of slavery, that America ceased to be a slave society.
This is also why there could never be an "exploitation tax": because to do so would be to implicitly say that the justifications for private property are wrong.
I actually think that, in America, capitalism will probably end the same way that slavery did: piecemeal, over a century or more, with certain states forbidding it and other states condoning it, until a war causes it to end altogether.

Well I was thinking along the lines of allowing private business but just greatly limiting it to only be small businesses so it no longer is something people have to do to make a living because co-ops would bee much more widely spread and better paying so it really is their choice to enter a private business. So while it's not socialism it's not capitalism either it's more midway leaning on the socialist side.

Well, people who work by themselves, like artists or certain craftsmen or contractors, don't have to worry about it at all, since they're not working with other people. You could still have contractors, for example, who do one-off jobs for negotiated prices.
But private property has no place in a socialist world, the two are mutually exclusive.

Also, just because I'm slightly autistic about this shit, I want to make sure you know what "private property" means, in the socialist context.
It's where you take the stuff (or money) that someone else makes, because you own the property that they used to make it. In feudalism, land was private property. In capital, capital goods are private property.
So when private property is abolished, you can still have personal possessions, and even rent and interest. You just can't have people using their property ownership as justification for taking the things that other people produce with it.
You probably knew all that, but I wanted to be safe.

Should say: In capitalism, capital goods are private property.

I dont think capitalists are a threat once you politically neuter them. So I dont think it would be an issue. The whole idea behind the concept I laid out is to make it more likely to happen from less opposition to such changes.

I knew that but yes it's good to bring up to people because many think it includes residential property or worse some think it means personal property.

As long as private property is permitted, capitalism will continue to exist. It's not a system that perpetuates itself because there's some core group of capitalists who are responsible, it's because the system of property rights permits it. Economic systems are greater than the people within them, and operate without regard to the individual will of any person. Put another way: if slavery were still legal in the US, it would absolutely still exist. Hell, sharecropping is still around, and that's basically feudalism.
For what it's worth, I intend to start helping worker cooperatives get started up once I graduate. But that's not enough to implement socialism, because there are certain advantages that capitalists have; in any manufacturing field, for instance, they can rely on sweatshop labor from Asia, and cooperatives can't (and shouldn't try to) compete on that front.

should i say petit-bourgeois or petty-bourgeois?

Either is acceptable, but the usual spelling is petite bourgeois.

also motoko is perfect!

We are literally living in one, it just happens to be boring, like all real life.

I know, but it won't be like my videogames or anime.

The reason co-ops dont overtake private business is because they don't get the same benefits. If you switch the benefits to co-ops instead then capitalist business just wont be a big threat.

Cooperatives haven't overtaken capitalist businesses because: 1) most capital is owned by capitalist businesses, 2) capitalist businesses can rely on outsourcing when cooperatives can't (and shouldn't), and 3) there is no large business organization movement for cooperatives. The first two stem from the fact that private property is legal. The third is because the left is disorganized right now. I want to help change that.

Whats wrong with market socialism?

Nothing unless you're a Marxist.

B-b-but REVISIONISM!!!

Ye.
To be a little less flippant, I actually addressed this here:

1. Because they went unchecked so long and because of the lack of larger competition from co-ops
2. They cant outsource if you restrict it or you could make it so in the case of outsourcing it has to be voted for by the workers.
3. There can be. Smaller co-ops can chain together in a larger co-op. Each individual one with some of it's own autonomy from the larger collective. Alternatively there can be a separate entity that isnt directly tied to any co-op but just helps organize.

That's what I plan to do, as a career.

market socialism is compatible with marxism

How? Marx viewed socialism as only ever being one thing: planned production for use, without regard to the law of value.

marx never said anything about planned production for use. Marx also never said the transition would be immediate.

Marx was strictly opposed to commodity production, which implicitly precludes markets.

the only way to get rid of commodity production is to achieve self-sufficiency or total automation

No. A commodity, as Marx used the term, is a product that embodies value (which he determined as the average amount of socially necessary labor time that went into its production) and is exchanged based on said value.

there is also labour time in both planned and demand economies

we cannot wait 20 years for a good

no that's what marx's version of communism is, marx never said anything about attempting to achieve socialism through this same method, it would be total madness and would fail immediately. The birthmarks of capitalist society will wither away as society progresses beyond it.

Yes, but only in commodity production does it become the basis for production for exchange, according to Marx. Simply creating a product is not the same as commodity production; commodity production is undertaken specifically in order to exchange the product on the basis of its value (i.e., its socially necessary labor time). If you give away the grain you harvested, it isn't a commodity. If you distribute it according to a government plan, it isn't a commodity.

Yes, that was my whole point, that Marx opposed commodity production, which also means an implicit opposition to markets and production for exchange.

For Marx, "socialism" and "communism" were effectively identical, and he wrote as much. In the mid-1800s in Europe, "socialism" was more often used to refer to earlier, especially 18th century, "utopian" socialists, but Marx used both terms generically and interchangeably. The idea that "socialism" was a "lower stage of communism" was an invention of Lenin's.

Second and third quotes are in reply to

but if you distribute it in so far as you get another good inreturn, it is commodity production?

that doesnt make sense tbh

If I give you a product as a gift, with an understanding that I'll get another gift in return, then no, it's not a commodity. But if we exchange products by quantifying the value that they embody, then yes, they're commodities. And if we begin producing with this value in mind (and thus, producing for the purpose of exchange rather than use) then we are engaging in commodity production.
Read the first few chapters of Capital, it's all spelled out there. I think Marx is wrong, for what it's worth. I'm just trying to describe his ideas.

To clarify my point: Marx isn't wrong about what a commodity is. I think he's just wrong that average socially necessary labor time is the objective measure of value that, as he would put it, "prices revolve around."
I also don't share his opposition to commodity production or markets.

no it wasn't, reread the first part of the gotha programme again. Lenin made the distinction, but the thought dates back to marx.

He didn't think this. He thought as the variable component of Capital becomes smaller and smaller, the snlt is less important in determining prices. Engels says that Vol 1 of Capital is using the general laws that would've been more explicit in early Capitalism, while Volume 3 was a modern theory of prices that uses those general laws as a template.

Holla Forums is starting to wake up to the fact that trump played them for the pooper peeved autists they are, and now they're saying "h-he's just a stepping stone," yet they still suck his dick.

t. virgin

Fucking stupid people is exactly what makes them great one offs