Outsider here. can you guys link me some leftist materials that are easily consumed like documentaries, youtube stuff...

my sides

Yeah and everything about your ideology is wrong.
See how much of an argument I'm presenting by saying that?
Everything instilled in anarchy is destined to fail or worse; serve the bourgeoisie that you leftists so desperately hate. The collapse of culture and the collapse of moral values is what they desperately wish for so that people will be easily controlled by materialistic value don't you get it?

What's this doing on your computer, friendo?

Fascism is a death cult that does nothing but bring suicidal mania to the population. Homosexuals such as Evola who advocated drinking your own semen to gain super powers to kill your family and steal their position to better have influence and convince people to commit suicide shouldn't be taken seriously.

Are you saying that "The people will control the means of production" is society destroying discourse?

Why not?

Hey leftypol gimme quick commie info so i can misread it to reafirm my bullshit

^this

Even most rightwingers hate him.
Pseudointellectual craplord. Maybe some Holla Forums guys like him. Maybe.

>when in reality this is a sick fabrication created to misguide youngsters into working for the new world order

Who said anything about fascism?
…What?

People already control the means of production, so therefore that statement in general is false. What marxism REALLY promotes is the destruction of hierarchies inside of production. Production = no longer managed privately it's not managed by the state (The people). While this is good in theory it does not express a diverse functioning economy because everything is managed for the same amount of payment at the same time at the same place from the people that all work the same amount of money. (Egalitarianism). I'm going to get into economics in a second but don't want to torture you by making you read a whole wall of text

youtube.com/watch?v=FqPwr-cVz_M

One of the best talks by Bookchin, dense fast and nice to listen too. Its only 48 mins and feels even shorter.

Sorry

Capitalists do, most people are not capitalists.

Unless you go for something like worker coops or council communism.

A worker's co-op could decide to pay some more than others. Are you saying that nobody will innovate without the profit motive?

In a diverse working economy with many people, social and economic hierarchies NEED to be fabricated in order to instill an economic inequality that balances out the amount of people working while controlling inflation at the very same time. While it is a hard truth to swallow, people should show no fear to the dreaded bourgeoisie as the state should be allowed to step in when:
I fully agree, many of these big business assholes do whatever the fuck they please while crushing the main population underfoot. But fully abolishing all systems of hierarchy in order to promote this strange equality complex only leads to the destruction of civilization.

One sec.

Traditionalism is defined by an attraction to little boys (the original tradition they call it) and their political and economic tactics are all used with legalized pedophilia in mind.
I too can make outlandish claims about things. Everything you said in your original post is about as valid as this.

Don't you think the owners of these big businesses are going to be in a position to ""negotiate"" with the state?

Not everyone here is an anarchist, and even they usually only want to abolish unjustified hierarchy.

Does leftypol/Holla Forums have any sort of archive? I always watch threads like this but they 404 before I have a chance to look at everything

Still waiting on that argument about your o so great system.

Yes, a hierarchy of elites control privately owned businesses. You could very well start your owned businesses if you wanted to and employ your own workers it would not be very hard and you're a person you are "the people."
Yes that could very well work on a small scale town or group of people. But on a flat of land with millions of people? Forget about it.
Then it's no longer Communism.
On a scale of a couple million people? Yes.
Not if the state holds an iron fist over them. There must be an incredibly strong "grip" on the businesses so that they don't have the power to put their money into government and get away with slimy deeds.
Then you're not an egalitarian.

youtube.com/watch?v=e4YDkWzQZAw
youtube.com/watch?v=9_DQ3IhNH9o&t=13s
northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm
clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html
clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr2.html
msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/gf_tatalk_bj16.pdf
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=1B5D53448641DB1C424B2C2D0757F7B9
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=4F13589002A3DFA4B0139B332FEF54AD
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=2A465EA2A003644077523F690545F113
revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/BlandRestoration.pdf
I got you fam. I put the videos and short-articles first plus books if your interested in reading more about Soviet history.

Right back at ya mr "anarchism has no structure"

It's workers democratically controlling the means of production.

Why not?

Your flat land of millions is made up of towns.

Nobody thinks people are identical, but giving some people arbitrary muh privilege seems like a bad idea.

There'll be cosy collusion in a month.

thanks

Go piss up a rope and then take said rope and neck yourself.

Communism in practice does not promote unequal wages.
People want to get paid and eat for their work. They don't just up and do it for free like machines. Building and structuring a civilization takes resources, time, and energy. And if the people are not motivated by SOMETHING to work then they won't work.
That are managed personally by people who work jobs in a capitalist society.
Not if they have the personal resources to do so. Look at the USSR the higher ups were some of the most well pampered, well fed people who never happened to work a day in their lives and you go talk about not giving people 'muh muh privilege?'
And how is that? Things like that don't simply just happen.

This is how retarded you are. You keep making things up. Just pulling stuff out of your ass and going "this sounds kind of right I guess, it must be true, add it to the alt-facts" isn't a valid way of doing anything.

Rude.

Your ideal system, in practice, promotes eight headed unicorns eating everyone.

People will be paid and will eat, and since they'll have access to education, and won't be miserable wageslaves they'll pursue their interests and talk with one another and ~innovation~ will occur.

What's that got to do with what I said?

In your opinion. In mine it is a bad idea. What you say about the USSR seems to side with me. Why do you have a problem with t 'higher ups were some of the most well pampered, well fed people who never happened to work a day in their lives'? Doesn't that make them aristocratic supermen?
Do you imagine that capitalists start out working 18 hour shifts as welders?

I don't know man. How could rich, powerful people push their interests? It's a good thing that the state is made up of uncorruptable ubermenschen.

When the fuck did I say any of this?
Are you incapable of formulating a coherent reason as to why your ideology should be promoted what so ever? Or are you too much of a close minded retard to even try in the first place?

It's all an ass pull.

No, while the jobs of the higher ups may not be as soul crushing they still have important jobs to manage and maintain. Even the most greedy shitty capitalists in the highest CEO ranks still have to manage and work out their resources, trade agreements, ideas, ect. They are the owners of their own personalized businesses and therefore it IS logical for them to obtain the most wage. However, if they begin to try and find plot holes out paying reparations for what they make then it is up to the state to step in and take over so that the jobs remain but the assets are redistributed into housing, public property, the economy, ect.
If a government is as easily corrupted as putting some money as a means of control from big business then the government was unfit to rule in the first place.

Yeah and so is any idea that comes out of your head. Go circle jerk about it on tumblr.

As opposed to getting banned from any other board here for not sucking presidential dick and drinking cop cum Mr "I just make shit up and don't have to read"

I can say exactly the same thing about the Soviet elite.

By what margin?

People are usually corruptible. Do you just want to pay anyone involved in the state huge sums of money as an anti-corruption strategy?
How do you decide what is and isn't exploiting the workers too much?

Boy, are you high or just retarded?
Funny how you talk about cops though since it's the same antifa 'anarchists' that would complain to cops about people would fight back when physically assaulted by low Autism Level faggots who don't even present arguments like you.

Yes you can. But they certainly were more pampered than some of the lower class workers now weren't they?
Higher position of hierarchy = Higher wages, it's ALWAYS worked like that.
Indeed they are, but in MY state of society the highest ups in a position of government don't NEED the resources provided by individual businesses, they'd be powerful enough. Furthermore the individual businesses would typically only have enough resources to cover a self sustaining businesses, pay workers wages, all that. They would be held so hard by the balls by the law that 'business' merely becomes a way of developing the economy and making wages. No super power banks, no super power corporations allowed.
You check the businesses themselves and make them follow regulations it's not difficult.

Holy fucking shit kek

Did I say otherwise? I am not in favour of recreating the USSR.

You're restating your point rather than answering my question. If the business is a factory how much more should the owner get than the line worker before the state slaps him?

So where does the profit go?

And how do you organise the super powerful state in such a way that the power hungry sociopathic types are prevented from entering it?

I think "you just made everything up" is a pretty valid argument when you just made everything up.

If the CEO or owner is obtaining at least 400% more of general income then there's a serious problem. But like I said before the state will have issued taxes and while the businesses are dealing with that they also have to manage resources so at that point there pretty much is no room for businesses becoming super powers.
To the workers, to the economy, to getting more resources to manage the company and help it keep producing. Where else would it go?

That begins to spark the discussion of the psychological principles behind the power in a system. Which is too exhausting to get into at the moment.

We'll go with both mentally retarded AND high to fit your description. Stop smoking the green and learn a lesson on economics dumb dumb, goodnight.

Short answer why communism failed : planned market economy that was unable to adapt to innovations.

...

So right now everything is a howling, Lovecraftian nightmare?

It isn't really capitalism if the owner is forced to stay in place and make low multiples of what his wageslaves do.
From your point of view there is hardly more motivation to innovate for profit here than under socialism. If I can only ever hope to live twice as well as some guy on a production line, why bother?

You are saying words. I wonder if you know what they mean.

Are you trying to imply that esoteric, metaphysical text that are almost completely irrelevant except in some fringe groups are on the same level as Marx. You are advocating for a Keynesian-esque theory in your post, I wonder if you are aware that Keynes critique of Jean Say is more or less the same as the one Marx made, and was directly inspired by Marx?

meant for

Why did Keynes become a dirty word? Wasn't the wast going through large prosperity when his ideas were favoured?

I'm not shitting on Keynes persay, I'm trying to show that whether he likes it or not Marx is a much more relevant philosopher and economist than Julias Evola ever has, or ever will be.

For example in: . Typical Holla Forumsyp constructing strawmen, then knocking them down. It's strange that so many of Marx's critics feel the need to do this.

This is a short series of essays/articles. Aren't too hard to get through.
s3.jacobinmag.com/issues/jacobin-abcs.pdf

I meant in general circles. It might just be internet Austrians skewing my perception.

It's internet Austrians. They go on about "le ebil Keynesian", but outside certain sects of their heterodox school there isn't really any school in economics that hasn't integrated an aspect of Keynes theory (in Marxians case, it would be refining price theory while keeping value form in mind).

Radical subjectivist Austrians, and even some of the first generation of Austrians concede(d) that Keynes was right about one thing or another.

I know it's been hours and you're hopefully not actually still here, but just in case somebody is reading this thread who agrees with you on any level, I'll take the time to actually explain why every single sentence in your posts are wrong.

In your first sentence you reveal that you're a rabid idealist (of the metaphysical sense) that nobody has taken seriously academically for more than a century, by talking about "social downfall" as if that's an actual thing.
The only thing you could've said to make it more obvious is if you'd said "morally" instead. Which you actually go on to say in later posts. Sorry Holla Forums-visitors, I'm not here to convince you, you're too silly to be reached.
Social culture is a result from the economic structure of society, and while it may in return influence itself and develop, there's no way of analytically describing "social downfall" without admitting to some retarded romantic view of human relations based on some cultural lie that has no roots in history.

Well, that has absolutely no relation to any piece of libertarian leftist theory I've ever read. Nowhere ever has leftist libertarian theory had anything to do with rules. It's about hierarchy, which is why the name anarchist comes from the greek term hierarchy.

Except that hasn't been the case historically with any of the societies that has subscribed to leftist libertarian organization or thought. This is so fucking weak because there are so many much easier critiques of the various anarchist projects of the 20th century, and you somehow manage to choose one that's completely ahistorical and nonsensical that doesn't even relate in the slightest to any view any anarchist holds.

What the fuck? I'll assume you're referring to ML thought, but it's completely impossible to untangle what you're saying here because it boils down to:
What is NWO cultural decay? Why does elimination of class society necessarily lead to this? Who knows. I don't think you do.

It's easy to know that you don't know a fucking thing that you're talking about, since Marx did not raise any "principles of economics" to be applied anywhere. With regards to economic theory, he mostly raised a critique of Capitalism and further developed Smith/Ricardian economic theory with his addition of materialist dialectics. Most of the stuff he said about socialism and communism was based on writings from earlier libertarian writers, that he then critiqued on some specific problems.
This means that your entire sentence is pretty nonsensical, but if I were to take it seriously anyway, you still manage to not argue beyond your stupid claim anywhere in your posts.

Yeah, some other time maybe.

continued

Can you explain to me, what is this moral decay? What is this moral good you're taking as being so important that we should structure our society around it? Why should we prioritize that over human wellbeing and fulfillment? I'm not even a utilitarian, I even personally think that virtue ethics has some strong points, and solves some of the problems of deontological ethics. But holy fucking shit this shit about moral decay sounds stupid to my ears.

Is liberal America not the progenitor of this so called "materialistic value"? Have you seen any piece of communist or leftist propaganda, soviet or American teenager with Photoshop? Have you heard a labor song?
Does any of that relate in any material way to the destruction of culture, individuals or propagation of "materialist value"? Unless you mean materialist in the metaphysical sense.
Also, Anarchists pursue the destruction of unjust hierarchy, you cannot seek to subjugate people and also seek to eliminate unjust hierarchical structures. Where does this subjugation arise? Practically? Analytically? Any examples or arguments?
Also, this again does not relate in any way to any historical example of either libertarian socialism or even the fucking soviets & co.

Socialists don't disagree. Socialists believe that it shouldn't be a specific caste of people.

This depends a lot on who you're asking. But generally the state is argued to be transitional tool, and not the end goal. Which means that it's a small minority of leftists who see state control as common or social ownership.

Fucking lol, again straight up wrong.
Not true.
Completely ahistorical, has nothing to do with either historical application of leftist thought anywhere or the thought itself.
I have no idea how to refute this, since it's a complete fabrication that has nothing to do analytically or historically with anything leftists suppose to stand for or defend.

Okay, there is a lot of bullshit here to be unpacked.
First of all, you're now arguing from practicality and utility. Which flies in the fucking face of your moral idealism. If there's a moral society to uphold, why is that not the founding principle of the state?
You use the word inflation, what does monetary policy have to do with hierarchy or inequality? It isn't explained in the slightest how any of this relates to banks or currency.
You refer to the state, but how does this respond to libertarian views that critique the very existence of the state? Who cares, since you obviously don't understand anarchism anyway from every mention you've made so far.
You also haven't explained why the capital relationship is necessary for the economic inequality you explain is necessary. Your argument fails at every single step of the way.

It's very easily argued that they do so by their very existence. Why should the state not interfere to eliminate this exploitation? What exploitation is acceptable? Do you have any response to the arguments of either Proudhon or Marx?

Ah, so status quo, except slightly more efficient.
How does this society solve any of the problems raised by leftist critiques of the status quo?

You managed to use some of the words of libertarian leftists, but you're still able to completely misunderstand it every time you tried to respond to it?

continued

No, you could not. If you can, then you have access to capital and you're a capitalist. If you're a part of the bottom 95%+ of even the richest countries in the world, you'll need to take out a loan from the banks, which mean that the banks in every practical sense have complete ownership over your business and the MoP you use to employ people. If you're able to then pay back the entirety of your debt (far, far, far minority of self-owned businesses) then yes, you've successfully exploited your employees of enough of their labor to pay back the loan you took out of the bank, and now you're a capitalist.

It has yet to be explained how a country of millions of people is not equivalent to an amount of towns or groups of people, and how these groups of people could not associate without complete economic disaster.

Please, fucking please, link me to the place that Marx, Lenin, or any other prominent communist thinker said the following:
This just does not have any
fucking
thing
to do with communist or leftist thought at all. It's a complete fabrication.

This is another thing that liberals like to say, that doesn't relate in any empirical way to the real world.
There is tons of empirical work that shows that people work less efficiently and are less motivated (due to alienation) when they are dependent upon the work they do, and close to no evidence to the contrary. Most evidence that liberals use to the contrary is just evidence of people innovating or working more efficiently under promise of reward, which doesn't in any way presume wage relationship or profit expropriation.

You're the one who started using the word.
Also, why?
Could an anarchist not argue that hierarchy that results in a non-egalitarian society is unjust?
You're a fucking moron.

Fucking sigh. Also does not relate in any way to question being asked you.

You're not responding to the question asked. You're just repeating platitudes.

Does not in any way respond to the question you're being asked.

I can't be bothered more. But this guy's critique of leftist theory is nowhere, and what he says has nothing to do with anything anybody has every written. It's conjured in his mind from how his imaginary debates with leftists has gone.
His idea of how different parts of society relates to each other is completely magical, has no strong basis in anything, which also means that his personal political beliefs are nonsensical, shaped by his weak understanding of what he wants out of current society, rather than how a rational society should be built.

the USSR is just another example of a failed capitalist state tbqh