Cuba becoming capitalist

Private companies already exist


Other urls found in this thread:

Wasn't shit being turned into co-ops though?


This is the same moron who made the thread about "so and so% leftists are neets", he posted this same link there. Just ban this fucking cunt.

Because without involvement of the market Cuba can`t change its export-import ratio and will keep economically degenerating.

They should go with Chinese model here if they want to improve their exports while still keeping control of their economy in hands of the party.

Capitalism always wins. Even Lenin was for mixed-markets.

After China dropped the socialism meme and embraced Capitalism thanks to based Deng "friendship with marx cancelled, capitalism is best friend" Xiaoping, China became the powerhouse it is today.

Same with Vietnam dropping that shit hard.

literally a non-existent meme

State and the party still control almost all the exports in China thanks to their national monopolies on most industries. Mixed economy is not an capitalist one



You do know that the people of Cuba have been heavily oppressed under the tyrannical rule of Castro? Seriously you would have wanted to live there if you saw how fucked in the ass the people were. Although capitalism isn't ideal the people of Cuba will at least have a little more freedom than they had before.

Capitalism in the end always wins. Even Lenin wanted a mixed-market state.

And the rest is from state owned companies that operate for profit aka state capitalism.

Marxist economics is literally a fucking failure. EVERY TIME.

You need private companies and private property to generate economic growth and not be dirtpoor as fucking shit.

When people refer to mixed-market, they mean a capitalist economy with a welfare state, muh roadz and free healthcare and education.



No he wasn't.

Or Cuba might go full China and then they'll have no freedom and even more exploitation. Capitalism and democracy don't inherently go hand in hand.


A) That growth typically doesn't translate into increased standards of living for the working class unless there is heavy state intervention

B) The Soviet Union's economy never once contracted during peacetime, but instead experienced continuous and sustained growth, becoming the second largest economy for almost all of the Cold War. One of the reasons they had major problems in the 80s was because their economy was literally growing faster than planners could keep up.

Capitalism literally saved China. Its people are more richer and poverty rates plummeted after Deng realized how much of a fucking charaltan Marx was.

The only argument you have is that wealth inequality increased. People went from being equally dirt-poor as shit to being unequally much richer.

Marx isn't an economist though, he's a critic of Capital. Only a part of people here want shitty command economies.

nice try porky, use better arguments next time

You just need to redistribute the wealth with reasonable taxation like 40% at the highest income brackets. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Alongside state-subsidized healthcare.

Which was proven to be greatly exaggerated when examined by the CIA, other researchers and even Soviet officals near the collapse themselves.

That is not going to work long as there are economically less developed countries on this planet and tax havens.

China is literally communist in name only at this point. It has not been communist or socialist for fucking decades now.

You can thank this glorious man who put sanity before ideology and adopted the capitalist reforms China desperately needed.

Isn't it coops tho?

wow great sources user, I'll stick with Chomsky who despite opposing authoritarian USSR said the USSR was a global achievement in creating wealth in a single generation.

But it's working in every developed country now?

90% of companies in Sweden are privately owned. 5% are state-owned meant to generate profit for the state (again state capitalism) and ONLY 5% are worker cooperatives.

In no European country do the workers own the means of production. They're all capitalists.

NEP was meant as a temporary measure given the lack of development in Russia and failure of revolutions abroad. Apologize for Rosa.



Here are soviet officials even saying that the CIA actually overestimated their gdp and economic growth.

Its not working if we compare economic growth of Nordic states to that of developing economies. Without further investments and thanks to legalized tax evasion via Luxembourg and Malta those welfare states can`t sustain themselves and will collapse along with public healthcare,welfare state and public education.


Finally cuba is becoming real socialism instead of state crapitalism.

exist because international porky wants to have privs above and beyond the poors, because porky. 100% exit tax solves the haven problem neatly.
Tax havens are just a game that we play because we think that porky is some Ubermensch and that we can't, as a matter of policy, declare their claims illegitimate and their lives property of the State. Contests can be stopped when people walk away from the table and refuse to grant the table power over them.

does it say this in the article or do you know this from elsewhere….is….is the s…t…..ate going to…..w…..whither?

If this becomes true I will become a tank commander myself

Nigga what?

They're privately owned.

Cuba is following the same trend as all ex-communist/socialist economy and already gravitating towards allowing private businesses to exist. Poor Che is rolling in his grave.

The workers own them unless there is only one worker.

I found it in another article.

But those countries are not on the verge of collapse or slowly becoming unable to sustain themselves. Anyways tax evasion is already being cracked down upon hard by the EU.

The workers do not own shit here. Private companies already exist in Cuba.

this is an interesting twist.

Some but most of the private sector is co-operatives.

They don`t need to be. without further growth austerity will be needed as population keeps aging too fast. Soon there will be no such thing as "developed economy" with exception of USA

is never "needed". kys liberal

They still compete on a very small market but it appears Cuba is headed towards real worker control instead of crappy state crapitalism.

Those aren't private businesses though. I never denied that worker co-ops exiet in Cuba. So do private businesses.

Socialism dictates that the means of production are owned by the workers. Cuba already has many businesses where this isn't the case.

How is it socialist now?

The co-ops are not controlled by the state. They are private companies with worker democracy and they take up most of the private sector. The rest is people who sell newspapers and drive cabs with a few exceptions.


Capitalism works because NEETs don't have to work in capitalism. Now don't forget to pay for those autismbux taxes, neurotypical normalfags.

Even if that's true they still maintained the 2nd highest GDP in the world until 1987.

Also having Keynesian policies would be great if they were stable and could last without being gutted by porkies. The 20th century proved that Keynesianism can't exist because porkies will just destroy it.

People like you almost make me believe retarded conservative talking points.

These cannot occur together comrade. Private companies as in private individuals operating a business that hires workers to operate the companies while the owner continues to own the business exist in Cuba.
If the workers own the company then it isn't a private one. It's a worker co-op.

The workers are being """"""""""""""""""""exploited.""""""""""""""""""


Worker co-ops are considered private property by economists as they are not state owned.

god damns it, miss by two.

When will the 'state v private' dichotomy end?

They are considered by economists. Economists probably put together these stats

Cuba doesn't need to turn to the "free market" in order to boost their exports. The Cuban government can decide to prioritize export production if they wish.

I'm not terribly knowledgeable about the situation in Cuba (other than the fact that in 2013, 72% of the economy was in the public sector and 28% in the self-employed sector and Cuba's export-to-import ratio is extremely poor). But I'd imagine that the problems there are either with government mismanagement or Cuba is too lacking in natural resources as a small island nation to support a population of 11 million people. Cuba is a fucking tropical carribbean. What the hell is Cuba supposed to export more of? Tourism? Sunshine? Prostitutes? And the export embargo placed on Cuba by the United States and whomever else does no favors to Cuba's economy.

No they aren't.

No they didn't. This is only if you use the TsSU stats were proven to be greatly exaggerated by Soviet authorities.

TBF economics is basically a religion.

No they weren't. Khanin wasn't working with the original data on output. He was extrapolating using small #'s of firms to the whole economy.

The proof the Soviets weren't lying and that Khanin's methodology was shit can be seen in how the Soviets were able to bleed their infrastructure dry for months and still beat the Nazis. If the growth was on the scale that Khanin implies it was, then the Soviets were literally military genius's.

Keep in mind also that other Caribbean islands that have adopted capitalism are actually struggling more so than Cuba is. Jamaica, Trinidad. Barbados and Bahamas are tax havens with a higher GDP. But who do you think is getting the money? Rich bourgies or BBC waitstaff and BBC prostitutes?

My ex-girlfriend is from Guyana (not an Island technically but from a similar type of tropical locale) and the Guyanese have adopted capitalism and they are facing even greater problems. What the fuck is a small tropical country full of sunshine and prostitutes supposed to export? And the funny thing is, Guyana only has 736,000 people and the population is dropping more and more by the day (hence why my ex lives in Canada now) because their economy is fucking garbage. If Guyana adopted socialism, they would be in a much better position today. Closer to Cuba.

You're using the definition literally. I'm using it in an economic sense.

Worker co-ops and privately owned companies are almost differentiated from each other. Let me reiterate. You already acknowledged the existence of private companies in Cuba, right? Companies that are privately owned by the owner(s), serve to generate a profit for these private individuals and hire workers for labor.

This exists in Cuba as you already admitted. The argument is over.

Very few exist in Cuba. Most of the private sector is coops.

No he is. You are using it literally.

Bernie Sanders

Good, maybe they will catch up to the world in 50 years.

Did you miss the article where SOVIET OFFICALS said the CIA overestimated their economy and growth?

Khanin wasn't the only researcher to reach similar conclusions. His estimates correalate extremely significantly with CIA estimates.I can link other studies by other researchers if you want.

So it essentially boils down to this:

The economic growth by the TsSU was completely legit.

The CIA, Khanin, other researchers, soviet officials in 1990 are all in a giant conspiracy seeking to undermine Communist success.

Dude, this is ridiculous. Soviets were notorious for exaggerating and lying about statistics.

I need a citation on this and even if 10% of companies are privately owned (again, not worker co-ops) that means capitalism already exists in Cuba.

True capitalism exists.

Actually, yes.





This exists in Cuba. The argument is over. CAPITALISM EXISTS IN CUBA.

If we were to use the definition literally, I could argue every company in the world in any country is inherently "privately owned". The elites in the government who control state companies are private individuals, yadda yadda.

This is a major problem with the left. You always resort to semantics. The USSR was state-capitalist when it looks bad, but when the economy was growing it was communist success! Again, if a country performs badly like Venezuela it's state capitalist. When it was doing relatively decent under Chavez it was socialist.

Why is the left stuck in a constant perpetual haze?

You're right. You win.

Serious question. If capitalism is so great, how come there's so many NEETs? Under communism, all NEETs would be sent to the gulag for being anti-work anti-worker and anti-revolutionary. Capitalism is literally meant for lazy pigs who live off the work of others or don't work at all aka pork.


I'm a market socialist. It's a reality that both the left and the right suddenly become economically blind when they begin to experience stagnation. Communists refuse to believe that they have a productivity problem as the Capitalist refuse to believe that they leave people behind in the dust.

I welcome people being able to open markets in Cuba as long as they aren't a hole to more western domination.

Why are capitalists so pathetic? There's a reason why you are called capitalist pigs.


Why are you posting the investopedia? How does that refute anything I just said? Are you implying cooperatives are public property?

I actually agree with the state Capitalist critique of the USSR. Socialism shouldn't be characteristic of "growth" because growth ad-infinitum is what socialism is, or should be. The fact that GNP grew so much under Stalin is evidence of the State-Capitalist character of the USSR.

Now, here's the problem with "the right"(like - THE right. There's a right, right?). You always group the left wing which is full of thousands of people with widely diverging theories and histories into one monolithic group as proof of internal inconsistency. I shouldn't have to explain how this is pants on head retarded.

Venezuala may be "socialist" for utopians and petty-bourgeois socialist, but it was never socialist via any Marxist definition. Socialism is the dawn of a new historical epoch. The fact you think any one country can be socialist, rather than socialism being the fall of capitals hegemony proves how shallow an understanding of Marxism you have.

This is you.

Since when do NEETs not have to work in order to survive under capitalism? What kind of comfy socdem country do you live in? We have workfare here and it pays shit.

This is why being a communist is so painful. How can you implement any policy what so ever? You need a world conquest where everyone just happens to organize perfectly.

If China or Cuba has some successes and some failures lets acknowledge them. I'm so fucking tired of having to go along "not real socialism" responses. Why can't every policy change and reform be seen as a great step toward an attainable communism?

Keynesian economies don't exist fam. Neoliberalism killed them all.

Also I said that the USSR had the 2nd highest GDP, not growth. They did however have continuous, uninterrupted growth, unlike capitalist economies which move in fits and starts.

No, you need revolution in the countries where capital hegemony is the strongest. The left had the opportunity for revolution. They failed.

Because we are today no closer to communism than we were in 1917.

And just like being communist in name only, it's also a power house in name only.

fuck off already lazy capitalist pig dogs

Because the left looks for this spiritual purity and then they never fucking organize. The last century we were the terror of the world. We can do it again.

So essentially true socialism has never been tried yadda yadda.

Here's what I gather from simply looking at empirical evidence. Countries that abolished private companies and property in their attempt to become "true socialists" (as in the workers owning the means of production) end up reverting to capitalism in the end. This happened in China, Vietnam, Russia, etc. It's happening in Cuba now.

I can come to a conclusion that Marx's economic theories have been nothing but disasters whwn implemented or attempted to. I can conclude that countries NEED private companies and property to maintain economic growth and not be poor as shit. Deng realized this in China when he dropped the failed ideologies for sanity.

So there has never been a true socialist country, right? The economic policies end up backfiring thus the need for capitalist reforms.

The definition of fucking insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

Marx had legitimate criticisms of capitalism, but his solutions to said problems ended up being even worse when implemented.

Go study economics. Almost every economist is either Keynesian or Austrian. Very few are Marxists and advocate the the abolition of private businesses and property. It's telling.

Khanin had no links to the CIA. Other independent researchers replicated the results:

Soviet officials admitted that the CIA overestimated their economy:

It isn't a fucking conspiracy.

In the end it all boils down to this: private businesses and property need to exist to have a prosperous and rich economy.

You can alleviate most of the flaws that are inherent to capitalism with a reasonable taxation rate of 40%, subsidized healthcare and education, public infastructure operating in tandem with private ones.

As it stands, out of all the economic theories, capitalism literally has the least amount of flaws and overwhelming empirical evidence to support it.

Stay stuck in your haze.

I pretty much agree. Just exterminate the CEOs and turn everything into co-ops already.

It's a start, but co-ops are still not socialism.

They exist in European countries, Canada, New Zealand, Australia.

These countries are not purely keynesian. You are absolutely right. They have mixed both Keynesianism and Austrian to form their economic policies. None of these countries are "neoliberal" . Neoliberal economies are Hong Kong and Singapore.

I never once argued for a pure free market economy. I acknowledge the reality that there has to be state interventionism. So yes, I agree with what Lenin stated. The state should build the roads, provide healthcare and education. But it has to exist in a capitalist framework. You need private companies.


A capitalist is lazy, backwards, and spends his money on frivolities such as those of the inferior nigger race would. The socialist is hard working, forward thinking, and spends his money on farming tools such as a hammer or sickle like a superior European

You're like the first capitalist here who has ever read Marx.

It's really nice to have someone who doesn't respond with just republican mantras.

Hey, Vietnam may have been an inevitable part of this global capitalist nightmare

But we sure knew how to have a blast before it happened :)

Like we're all saying, NEET are worthless. Only clings to capitalism because it's the only economic system stupid enough to tolerate them by feeding them instead of making them break rocks or outright fucking die.

Mixed markets are a stepping stone. The goal is still communism.

Is nuance lost on you?

There is no "Marx's economics theories". Marx's work was critique of economics. It was not a positive work on how to run the world. The "revert" back to Capitalism would make sense if you possessed the reading comprehension of a four year old, but instead you just keep rehashing your tired old points. This isn't how you argue. When you say "X'" and in response I go "Y", you don't just repeat X and ignore Y. But this is what you do, because you are trying to argue against something you can't even begin to understand.

Because capital has never been overthrown. There have been various attempts to establish dictatorships of the proletariat which have all gone sour since they were attempted in undeveloped countries.

That's not the definition of insanity.

Marx had legitimate criticisms of capitalism, but his solutions to said problems ended up being even worse when implemented.
Marx's "solutions" were not solutions. He focussed on critique to make explicit the real material forces that bring on the surface phenomena. The contradictions in our society, the negation of the proletariat IS communism. The fact that the next epoch is the destruction of class - communism is what allows use to finally understand class as it is. As the basis for societies reproduction and expansion.

I actually do thanks. See , read the second part. Also:
Austrian economics is just as, if not more heterodox a school as the so-called "Marxian economist". What the fuck are you saying? Most economist are Keynesians or Neoclassical.

Gorbachev was not a communist. I'm not speaking about Soviet economic data after Kruschev, we are talking about the Stalinist growth - the moment it passed from DOTP to State Capitalism. That was very much real and its results are telling.

Sure, if you think of "prosperous and rich" to mean whatever ideologically conforms to a bourgeoisie narrative.

Is this why we saw widespread stagflation after Keynes saved Capitalism? Look, Marx's theories have been vindicated far more than any other economist. Crises continue to happen, have been happening consistently since the 1840's and seeing as where I live is still in a recession, it doesn't show any sign of stopping.

I'm not here to convince bourgeoisie philistines to come join the secret Marxist club. But thank you very much!

Private companies then start sucking the teat of the state and become the largest recipient of government welfare.

That's why UK's NHS are overpaying tens of billions pounds for privately built hospitals.

This is what American Capitalism looks like, actually.

You're were just all too suburban to know it for any part of your life.

The rest of the world is worse.

I suspect we have a closet tankie in our midsts.

Vietnam loves the shit out of capitalism.

It loves capitalism more than America.

What the fuck are you saying? Beyond the incorporation of some first generation Austrian economic concepts like opportunity cost into the mainstream, Austrian economics is a heterodox school. Keynes literally ran Hayek out of Cambridge into obscurity. He then made a name for himself with his edgy book against socialism and the welfare state. Austrian economist have been more or less irrelevant for years.

USA Today and the New York times, populated by writers either old or wearing thick rimmed glasses with a fucking button up, surely know more about Vietnam than a first generation Vietnamese immigrant.

Tell me more, what else does Vietnam love?

I'm dying to know. We're even now I suppose, you used to be dying to know.

I got good joke, comrades.

So a NEET under capitalist system walks into a the benefits office, receivings cheque at expenditure of a true real hard workings proletarian, and then goings off home to masturbate to cartoon mongoloid catgirls (invent of capitalist origin provings of how sad they are).

But then workers revolution beings reality and is success as workers fully seize the means of production. Same NEET under former capitalist system goes to benefits office except it was of demolishing by workers. NEET starves to death and dies to repent for not beings of working a worker and living in decadence of pig disgusting capitalist system that allows a non-worker to be a leechings off worker proletariat justice

Deng Xiaoping identified as a Market Socialist.

it's settled that capitalists are lazy stupid fucks. go be a neet somewhere else.

TBF lumpenproleNEETs are smarter than Capitalists.


Stop being so autistic. He's making good points. I'm in favor of socialism as a structure to keep capitalism in check, but you kids need to stop mending so hard.

There is no doubting the technological potential of capitalism as as as an economic system. But it's our role as a people to put capitalism in a headlock morally. Make capitalism work for us.

I don't think he implied they were.

Spooky AF. It's an organization of labor, not a magic wand. People make things, not capitalism. Turn everything into co-ops and you will get rid at least one of the contradictions.

It is the ideology of cancer.

He's getting some stuff wrong, but I welcome someone who read Lenin and Marx and agreed with some of it. He's not some autistic libertarian spouting memes about "muh freemarket" and "forcing people to pay taxes is theft".

This is the best argument I've seen on Holla Forums for a very long time.

Good! statists BTFO!

He's basically a social democrat I think, those of which are the biggest challenge to the left IMO.

Yeah, nah. Marx shilled the FUCK out of socialism. It was the wonder drug that would cure the ills of capitalism.

He argued against private businesses and propery, about the workers being "exploited". About not owning your own labor.

So people tried to implement his theories in practice, they got rid of private businesses.

What happens? Stagnation and poverty. They hold onto this meme for a few decades then drop it adopting capitalist reforms.

This has happened in literally every socialist country.

Every time countries get rid of private companies it backfires. You see the same result over and over again. The countries go back to being capitalists and permitting private businesses.

I don't drown myself in ideology and theory. I look at empirical results. Marx's solutions to capitalism have been a disaster.

Out of every economic theory, capitalism has the least amount of flaws.

I repeat myself because you regurgitate the same points I have addressed. I don't give a fuck about DEEP MARXIST LMAO THEORIES. I care about the results when said theories are implemented.

Yes, socialism has failed because it was never attempted in a developed country. I certainly see all the developed and rich economies rushing to eradicate private businesses and capitalism. Not.

I never said the USSR didn't have economic growth under Stalin, I said that the GROWTH WAS EXAGGERATED. Big fucking difference. There certainly was growth, but it's not as big as you believe it to be. I base this on studies by multiple researchers, CIA estimates, and Soviet officials saying the CIA overestimated the size of the Soviet economy. Occam's razor applies here. It isn't a fucking conspiracy against your fat neet kike's theories. It's because the Soviets manipulated statistics deliberately on multiple occasions for political gain. They were notorious for this.

Yes, we have economic crises, Marx was not wrong on this. But his solutions to these crises ended up being fucking dogshit in practice. The countries that shilled hard for comrade Marx reverted back to capitalism.

Capitalism still remains the economic theory with the least flaws as it stands.

We are arguing in circles and we have devitated greatly from the OP.

Cuba is becoming more capitalist. It's akin to what Deng did. 20 years max and you will see Mcdonalds in Havana. Just like Vietnam.

The closest you can get to socialism is social democracy, which still operates within a capitalist framework.

And people say I'm awful with the reddit spacing

Private companies are what drive the vast majority of economic growth in the UK. They bring in the money far more than the state owned companies. This means nothing.

Abolition of private companies in the UK when? Oh wait. Labour is still pro-capitalist.

You may find this interesting. This is also much closer to the Socialist definition than having state regulations. Also, a Social Democrat flag would suit you better.

I'm not a hundred percent agree with him either but the people that are replying to him with these asinine memes are so cringe-worthy and embarrassing it makes us all look like children.

Crapitalism is the shittiest most immoral system on earth.

The porky gets a huge sum of your hard earned capital.

The NEETS unemployed and other trash gets a huge sum of your hard earned capital.

What does the worker get?

When the worker revolution when the workers of the world unite comes through know the true vengeance of the working class that all the porks and NEETS and whatever fucks that are enemies of the workers will be righteously brutally slaughtered in the worst ways.

What about the rest of the population, because you have no solutions to the biggest glaring problems Capitalism faces that end in disaster.

Why are all of you, I mean people like you, why do you always talk like soothe sayers it's condescending as fuck.

How about, instead of being sure of yourself, you actually read the criticisms you're confronting because right now you are answering none of them.


The Vietnamese love capitalism.

No it wasn't. You have not read Marx. You have no idea how he approached socialism, or historical materialism.

No he didn't. Not in Capital. Capital is devoid of moral sentiments. It was a scientific investigation into what is happening behind the scenes. Also, the idea of "surplus value" is something he borrowed from Smith and Ricardo. He merely improved it by distinguishing between absolute and relative surplus value, dead and living labour etc.

Once again, you don't know what you are talking about.

Once again, you don't know what you are talking about.

Once again, you don't know what you are talking about.
That actually applies to most of this post, so I'll address what little there is worth addressing.

If you don't give a fuck about engaging your opponents honestly then why don't you read a book or fuck off?

The Soviet officials were talking about the USSR economy years after Stalin industrialized. Again, is nuance lost on you?

Agreed, Cuba was never "socialist" because socialism is not something you can have in a small island nation. It's the transition out of Capitalism, the beginning of a new epoch.

Anything else is just drivel.

What's your solution besides being the special-est of all special snowflakes?

Wait, so you think criticism of Capitalism amounts to being a special snowflake and not vice versa?



the special snowflake economy

im sleep cuh

Because it's after the war. Of course they're going to enjoy a post-war era.

Actually confront criticisms of Capital. Next post. Do it. Do you even know what you're arguing against?

How is Capitalism not an equal if not greater disaster?

Right. Because you refuse to presuppose Marx. You are arguing against Marxism by refusing to approach his methodology. Really, this is the same as you flinging shit at a wall and seeing what will stick.

Do you have a better alternative and how will you implement it?

Except, you know, the part where it's going to turn the most populated parts of the planet into deserts and oceans but yeah, other than that, great system.

I think the porky flag is triggering everyone. I mean even Zizek has gone over the fact we have to do things differently this time. I mean I come from Cuba and Venezuela. I remember the victories and failures of these countries. I think the problem with a lot of communist revolutions is that they try to pretend material conditions of capital aren't present. I remember in Poland the Russians had built amazing towers and all of the rich americans at the tour couldn't conceive of how they did it with it without big money.

He could understand theory a little better would help his points.

It's hard for there not to be a better alternative because at the moment Capitalism is running head first off a cliff into massive population shaving.

The amount of death we are talking past 2080 is going to make the Soviets look like angels.

But that's supposing what you want to hear. The other actuality is that its always been starving people out, it just takes the suburbs to get it for smug albinoids to get out of bed and worry.

God I can't wait for another 2008, and another 2008, just so you fucks can get foreclosed on.

"Doing things differently" - what do you mean? Do you think we will vote socialism into office? Zizek supports a vanguard, the use of the state etc. He has no nostalgia for your flag nation.

We have a fucking Nostradamus over here

Can we all agree that Marxism has failed already?

He critiqued the shit out of capitalism. His solutions failed. His ideology was a failure in practice.

All the countries that adopted Marxism collapsed, or continue to be poor as fuck, or begun to revert back to capitalism (china, vietnam, russia and now cuba)

I don't drown myself in semantics and theories. I prefer empirical evidence. Empirical evidence says that Marxism had been a tremendous failure. Capitalism continues to reign supreme.

Irrelevant because again, the CIA, Khanin, and other researchers reached the conclusion that the growth was greatly exaggerated by the TsSU. There's no compelling reason to believe that they didn't manipulate statistics under Stalin for political gain. Especially when an independent agency and other unaffiliated researchers come to the conclusion that the economic growth was greatly exaggerated.

I have heard this complaint about "hurrr you can't tell the future!" a billion times, and it isn't mine to fault, but yours that you even lack the information and capacity for foresight.

But I suppose having foresight is also being psychic. Accurate prediction making from evidence is actually rubbing a crystal ball.

Communalism and DiaNat not Communism and DiaMat, OK? Praise Bookchin.

If you call the Industrial Revolution at the time a successful alternative you are bat shit insane and should stop talking economics, politics, and social theory altogether effective immediately.

No, Bookchins ideas about nature are memes. He has not moved past Marx because Marx represents a new scientific paradigm. For all the work both petty-bourgeois socialist and liberals have done to dethrone him, you sure do a shit job.

Bookchin fetishizes nature like a liberal fetishizes the free market. He elevates it to some special mystical significance, and then goes to make asinine claims about how it's even possible for Marx's claims that the most important aspect of everyday life is the material reproduction of said life.

Listen, see . You are not engaging me honestly. I have repeatedly explained to you the basics of Marx's theory of scientific socialism, instead you keep memeing about the USSR and Cuba.
And that is why you fail at science.

It was accurate in the context of his time, and the failures of Lenin and the people that followed his model of revolution isn't Marx's failure. Marx did as well as he could with the information he had at the time.

reproduction of said life is wrong*

China is by all means Market Socialist.

Is something capitalist by mere existence of capital? Then Marx poster is right that all these societies you are criticizing aren't socialist.

Mien nigger

Capitalism is responsible for these two people having a substantial amount of power over any one of us.

If you defend it, you are defending them, and if you are defending them, you are a sycophant and probably look like them.

Empirical evidence suggests that socialists, their countries, movements, and political parties were sabotaged, repressed, undermined, and exterminated for over a century by capitalist governments.

Is this how you want to do this? By arguments from strength?

Because they kept the ideology for almost two decades after the war, and then dropped in the late 80s because it was such a fucking failure. They fully embraced capitalism, and now Vietnam is much richer and one of the fastest growing economies.

Why do I have to address the criticisms of Capital? I never said Marx didn't make legitimate criticisms of capitalism. I acknowledged that he did multiple times in this thread.

All I'm saying is that his ideology has been a disaster when implemented, and virtually all the countries go back to capitalism. His solutions have not worked. Thus despite the criticisms, Capitalism has the least flaws out of all economic systems.

McDonald's in Pyongyang in 35 years. 😅😅😅😅😅😅

Goddamn why does she look like a sith lord.

What's hilarious to me is you have to take into account only suburbs to see the successes of Capitalism.

Capitalists have been reduced into arguing in terms of Yuppie life experiences and it's fascinating

Capitalism will fall apart faster than Feudalism.

All I'm saying is you refuse to confront his ideology as it stands. You prefer to fling shit at ebil Marx and see what sticks.

Not to mention he refuses to admit that Capitalism is a disaster.

You're frustrating us because you're not engaging in theory when being critical of Marx. You are attributing these failures to Marx when that's what he wasn't about.


Care to elaborate? Marx misjudged capitalism's ability to evolve. To simply label it as a "new scientific paradigm" is to make an ultimately vacuous statement.
Actually, he looks at nature from a purely scientific standpoint. He as quite critical of people who did mystify and worship nature. If you have any concrete examples of what you mean, I would love to see them.


You didn't answer my question.

Why do countries that adopted marxism or tried to implement end up going back to capitalism? Again, multiple countries.

and now Cuba beginning to allow private businesses again.

Why do they keep going back comrade?


top fucking kek you won't last a week during the happening

Ask CIA.

Do I have to explain Monroe Doctrine, Truman Doctrine, the Cold War, material conditions in other nations not being ripe for agriculture, and how much genocide America has had to back or commit to get where we're currently at

Or do you just listen to what your smooth brain social security hog uncle who bitches about family court says about reality at face value

Even in the 20th century, and especially the 21st, Capitalism has been a disastrous failure.

So arguing in terms of other failures refuses to point out the complicated nature of why poverty exists, and certainly, Capitalism is no angel in this regard, its one of its greatest perpetrators.

You have to deliberately ignore complexity in favor of simplicity and from that I have to assume you're not capable of actually debating any of us on matters you wish you could.

I'm criticizing porky poster you dolt

Why are you criticizing supposed urbanites when you're the Capitalist? I thought you enjoyed success? Where is the consistency?

Protestant work ethic hypocrisy, etc.

I meant to reply to another user, my mistake.


We haven't had Capitalism since 1913

Why do they keep going back comrade?

uhhhh sure.

Because they were a form of state-capitalism that didn't really establish socialism. No, this isn't a no true scotsman. Just read




Because this was never part of my argument. My only argument is that countries that adopted his theories either collapsed, continue to be poor or go back to capitalism after a few decades.

You're the one not addressing this and continue to insist that I debate the flaws of his theories
I don't have to. I just look at what his theories when adopted by countries have led to in practice. It's been nothing but disaster.


China is the primo definition of state capitalism mixed with free market policies in designated zones. It has free-market cities like Shanghai and Shenzhen which end up driving by far the most economic growth in China.

It is not socialist. The workers do not own the MOP.


so much edge

Lol if you live in developed world and think you'd survive any societal collapse.

Newsflash buddy capitalism has made you a week bitch. Sahib and his caliphate friends will survive an apocalypse not a pampered white boy crying about the NAP

And neither do I because you refuse to admit to the criticism of any kind of Capital, and seemingly do not understand the causes of poverty or how global trade works while at the same time having draw backs.

You're spouting nonsense while parroting black twitter emojis, it's better if you got your glasses adjusted and focused on reading what you're criticizing before you make an argument.

I'm saying that Marxism theories when adopted by countries continue to fail every time. The big threes happen: They collapse. They remain poor and third-world (North Korea), or they go back to capitalism when they realize that private businesses need to exist to drive economic growth. Again China and Vietnam for examples.

You misunderstood me. I don't have an alternative. Mixed capitalism at best.


Good thing I'm in a university then. Which again goes back to what I was saying about you being a hypocrite both praising those who escaped poverty while simultaneously condemning them.

You aren't very bright.

The numbers for Holla Forums are worse, anyways.

What diamat represents is a new method of looking at history. This is a pretty bad misrepresentation of Marx. I'll quote Marx here:

What Marx represents is a new method of looking at history. A particularly dangerous method, because it removes a great amount of the glamour and flair the bourgeoisie like to attribute to these great men. What Marx was trying to do in opposition to other socialist or social scientist of his time was formalize "socialism" from a utopian ideal into a scientific reality.

Diamat stands, as a scientific way of looking at history. Marx provides us with the tools to examine the evolution of a historical epoch without projecting our notions of modernity into it by basing it on an irrefutable but nonetheless empirical axiom - the most important aspect of life is the physical reproduction of that life.

Ultimately, any statement about the gods - how they live is a statement of how they reproduce themselves. People who choose to adopt X or Y ideology are making a statement about how they want to live their life. This of course, is inexorably linked to the material reproduction. This is why it is asinine (as Bookchin suggest) to abstract from a given epoch the social relationships for examination as opposed to the material. It is not scientific, any examination of the social relationship will automatically become an ideological one. Nonetheless, this does not mean "social superstitions" can not persist as Engels points out. But rather, the prevalence of them must be linked to the groups actual reproduction.

This is why Bookchins critique of Marx (at least the couple PDF's I have read) fall flat. Bookchin is making an ideological statement about how to examine history. Not a scientific one. This is why his solution or "sublation" of Marx into dianat is an ideological theory, not a scientific one. The statement "man can not dominate nature" is an ideological statement. Vaguer than anything Marx ever posited. It elicits all sorts of ideological battles over what "nature" really is. This is why Marx represents a new scientific paradigm. Because he provided us with the tools to analyze history AND the development of Capitalism up till this day in a scientific, as opposed to ideological way.

Are you being intentionally retarded?

Except for the fact that capitalist reforms in Vietnam drove economic growth to massive proportions and halved poverty in HALF.

You can't even name specific, you are a god damn Yuppie gold mine.

Never stop posting.

Lol then what is? I'm so confused by this shitty meme that an economy dominated by cooperative enterprise isn't socialism. Isn't it a permutation of the true idea that a single cooperative isn't socialism?


And you fail to understand how temporary that actually is.

Capitalism is dying, it is shrinking down in a series of booms and a series of busts.

That's one of many against it.

You also don't mind the fact without the defense industry in the West, Capitalism would fall over. It is as an old man with a cane, kick the cane over he falls.

Capitalism is quite literally only surviving off a state of war.

Really what degree faggot?

Reminder: Litteraly nobody gives a fuck about your college degree in women's studies.

Congratulations you support George Bush and Obama


What exactly is your opinion on market socialism and mutualism?


I am majoring in emergency psychiatry. Suicide attempts, the like.

I'll see a lot of confused Holla Forums posters I'm presuming.

I'll pass thanks.

The future is globalization and mega-corporations friend.


You act like they did this purposefully by their own accord.

Again, address the criticisms I'm making. None of those private businesses would even be on the face of the Earth were it not for Capital's cold war invented crutch.

Capitalism is dying though. Are you fucking naive?


Yuppies are amazing

China stopped being embargoed during Mao.

Yet did the GDP grow? NO. It only rose after Deng adopted capitalism in the late 70s.

congratulations, your shit tier degree has less market value than all other liberal arts majors who pay to learn huffington post talking points

now kys grownups are talking

>China stopped being embargoed during Mao.

Only a fucking Yuppie like you would praise Nixon Administration foriegn policy jesus h christ

You don't even understand what our focus is, holy jej


USSR does poorly, it's state capitalism. When the USSR succeeds it's communist success.

kys worthless ancrap.

Who cares?

I'm not in it for Market Value, but thanks for looking up some stats.

I'm sure being in fields bloated by albinoids looking for a bigger paycheck aren't at all intensive on continuous education near all of them aren't ready for. Should have just picked a safe degree like programming or engineering



No such thing. The Austrian economic policy is not to have economic policy.
You're thinking of Friedman's Monetarism and his Neoclassical dickheads who brought us The Great Recession.

All I'm seeing is evidence for markets and a lack of state ownership, both of which are compatible with several forms of socialism.

Please respond to the points made in these posts, you have not addressed a single criticism

Top fucking kek another special snowflake from the third world is acting all high and mighty on the fucking internet. Holy fuck my taxes subsidise this bullshit. Holy shit cucks still think this shit is capitalism


He's an economic illiterate (lol wut? Austrian policies) lecturing socialist about being economically illiterate.

I was born in LA actually. But my parents were.

I think I can act high and mighty above some people who prioritize their importance on how pale they are.

Reminder. Vietnam embraced capitalism in the late 80s.

GDP per capita rose after being stagnant to shit.
Average wages and per capita income rose.
Poverty was halved.

Capitalism was the savior of Vietnam.

White people did this!

You also don't realize Asians are fucked over more than white when it comes to issues by Affirmative Action, and yet we still thrive, but that's neither here nor there because everyone already knows you're a bumble fuck.

Like the chinese or japanese?

I actually didn't say that. I said that because of the population of people in it, there's an extremely large competition for jobs, based only on the people flooding it for the paycheck. Yuppies, the like.

You're not in college so I fail to see why you're criticizing me on supposed lack of success, especially given your opinions on how the world operates.

They're not the same thing.
Cuba and China, like all of the other state capitalist (Marxist Leninist) countries, found success in transitioning to a more free-market capitalist economy. The success comes from reducing state intervention in the economy, *not* from implementing capitalism. People like you who blame their failures on "socialism" are being disingenuous.

All evidence for the success of a "transition to capitalism" is in reality a reduction of state control. It is state control that encumbers economies, not socialism. In fact, when you have a competition between socialist firms (cooperatives) and capitalist firms in a free market, the former tends to be more productive.


I'm glad that the porky poster has given up on engaging me honestly and has not decided to engage posters as autistic as he is.

You really just compared the Chinese to the Japanese



Please respond to the points made in these posts, you have not addressed a single criticism

meant for

But all the suburbanite drivel you're shitting out on an impressive pace might as well be the same post.

They both prize pale skin.
I know they're completely different cultures.
But they both value pale skin more highly than less-pale skin.

Why can't workers just accept their place as slaves to the NEET masterrace?
You're called wageSLAVES for a reason.
Don't forget file on time to tax tsar.

I finished muh university degree thank you. I majored in accounting and economics and learned a bunch of Keynesian/Outdated Chicago school shit. I don't go around acting as a high and mighty faggot about it either.

Holy fucking shit do you know how many asians hate whites

Go move to China and watch how fast they worship the gwai lo

Jesus Christ and you compared Japan to China

Holla Forums is amazing

As I said earlier, all I'm getting from you is evidence that markets and a lack of state ownership are superior to economic planning, a stance which is compatible with several forms of socialism.

You clearly didn't. I don't believe you've set foot on even a continuous education campus.

Then you have no argument. You are sputtering words in an insipid argument to come across as well spoken, or at the very least not completely moronic.

Because you are insisting Marxist shall be heald responsible for the work of his self appointed disciples. Worst, you are insisting this is intrinsically to his "solutions" and then retreat whenever I press you on it.

intrinsically linked*

Also what the fuck is that graph? Is lower Unemployment a bad thing?
This entire post better be a joke.


Leftists are smug pieces of shit with an unwarranted sense of self importance no surprise there

China drives the vast majority of its economic growth from private companies. Not state-owned companies or worker-cooperatives. Private companies remain the most productive.


toppest keks

lmao working class trash will never know this feel

Reread your posts, you have no self awareness whatsoever

Why are you asking people to explain themselves to you? You aren't making an argument, you are just playing polemics.

Please respond to the points made in these posts, you have not addressed a single criticism

What the fuck do europeans have to do with far easterners prizing pale skin?
And no I didnt compare them as though they were the same. I referred to one thing they both have in common, to give two examples of "asians" who think higher or lower of people depending on how pale they are.
And im not Holla Forums. I just think you're making everyone here look bad by saying retarded shit


We understand that, but what we are saying here. ==You are wrongly attributing these economic failures to Karl Marx== He didn't plan anything or cite any change in policy. You're being facetious or stupid at this point that you think we are trying to debate you on the fucking failures of communist states.

Market Socialism is not workers owning the means of production

Market Socialism is a mixed economy with central state planning! Which is what China is!

You are literally just repeating yourself.

No one has provided an argument for me to address. They just keep memeing about the USSR.

What on earth are you on about

Be specific then.

What's funny is you are wrong. Do you know how much hate Asians have for westerners?

They aren't thinking "wow this foriegner sure is cute" when they're smiling at you they're thinking "when the fuck can I get away from this goober".

Chances are some Asians you walked by you thought were chatting to themselves were chatting about you and every flaw you have.

You have no idea how any of this works.

An ultimately false method
An ideal that ignores the reality of evolving organisms, seeing them ultimately as static, wooden things that do not change.
Looking at nature merely by this one mechanism is to judge a machine by one cog. Life does more then just replicate itself, it evolves and changes.
By qualifying marx's beliefs as the only "scientific theory" of history is to ignore not only the ever changing nature of science, but it's to make it into something very anti-science: a religious dogma to be observed.
Marx's theory is not a scientific theory at all anymore. It's merely a religious dogma at this point. Science is not a unchanging thing. We learn, dispense to what we thought was true, and build a new theory. This is not how you are treating marx's theory of DiaMat. To imply that DiaNat is not a tool to observe history is to merely reaffirm the religiosity of DiaMat, not the falseness of DiaNat.

You didn't ask that

This entire board is dedicated to alternatives.

Why not, lurk?

But that's what you're doing

Capitalism is continuing to gain momentum comrade. Countries are becoming more capitalist, they are not set on getting rid of private businesses.

I have like eight LITERALLY SHAKING marxists replying to me. It's tiring trying to address all of you when none of have addressed my arguments.


Please respond to the points made in these posts, you have not addressed a single criticism

You did.

lol he literally barged in with personal attacks then demanded to be taken seriously afterwards.


it is a meme. Even all of you now agree that it wasn't socialism but just a very shit tier form of Totalitarian state run slave plantation "state capitalism"

Still cannot provide a viable alternative to markets without larping about brutally murdering a whole bunch of people yet smug and self confident af tho

Im not fucking talking about westerners you delusional bitch.

Brilliant, any more observations

I think hoochie is only here to discredit this board by making posts that are half correct half bullshit, thereby associating the correct with the bullshit.

There are a million things that go on in China that nobody else in Asia gives a fuck about and they're completely different than those in Japan.

But both of them do not prize pale skin in the European sense, except for perhaps Japan, but all of Asia hates Japan.

This talk of pale skin is such a fucking non sequitur in context to what you're originally replying to I can't help but accept the fact you're a triggered whitie.

1. markets aren't capitalism
2. not all of us want to abolish markets

Private companies exist because (in China) the state promotes them over worker-owned companies and union arrangements. You can find many examples of the Chinese government acting as the strikebreaker and preventer of organized workers movements. China is not a good example of the success of capitalism because, despite Deng's reforms, the state retains a large presence over the economy.

If we look at Western economies we see that cooperatives tend to outperform their authoritarian counterparts.

I don't need to discredit the board by posting, everyone else is doing fine.

Ideological policing is what made 8/pol/ what it is today.

Whatever you say Mr. Champagne socialist.

You must have trouble reading, right?

*Looking at the undeniable basis for all life itself.

Not at all. I explained WHY examination of ideological social relationships is an ideological, rather than objective evaluation of history but you are replying in memes.

No, it's to imply that Bookchins ultimate observation on the primacy of "nature"(whatever that is) is an ethical argument. It's an ideological argument that when stripped down to its bare bones, amounts to nothing more but a meaningless truism that "duh nature is important guis!". This is not only characteristic of the banality of petty-bourgeoisie, but already implicit in diamat itself.

Are you back LLA? Are you back to entertain us again?

Markets and capitalism aren't the same thing.

Also, anti-communist tip 101. When encountered with something you can't (or refuse) to wrap your head around, accuse Marxism of being cultist/religious etc. Then post a smug reaction pic and declare victory.

No, it's still functioning because governments are printing money in their fiat currencies. The people have not lost their trust in these systems, though increasingly people know and are making plans accordingly, but the majority inevitably will lose all trust due to the market crashes. Most governments in the 1st world are running on fumes having lived well above their means since the 70's and based all of their economies on debt. They have no liquid capital to even remotely fix any pothole that comes along their road, let alone rebuild a road.
ctrl+f "white"

hell, lets say vietnam
im tired fo hearing this retarded shit about the white devil and his ghostly white skin. Its no personal offense, I dont give a fuck, but this shit is just wrong on so many levels in terms of culture, history, and just basic reality, all things I care about.

Social democracy in those countries has been continuously rolled back since the 80s. The only reason why they aren't as bad as the U.S. is because Keynesianism was far more entrenched and extensive there than in America. Also I don't know about the other countries but in Canada we are quickly approaching US levels of inequality, wage stagnation, declines in standards of living.

Global capitalism is on the verge of collapse m8, all it needs is a little push. One more recession or a big war will spell the end.

>he takes his job and class very seriously

China is state capitalist. Not market socialism.

Private companies operating for the profit of private individuals exist out the ass in China. Market socialism does not allow private companies operating for private profit.

I'm getting bored and it's getting late. I have work tomorrow.

But to reiterate: capitalist reforms in China and Vietnam have lead to a far more prosperous economy. Poverty rates plummeted, GDP per capita sky rocketed, average wages and incomes rose.

People went from being equally dirt-poor as shit to becoming unequally much richer. The latter is always preferable to the former. And most Vietnamese and Chinese citizens agree with me as indicated by the surveys I posted.

Keep planning to smash capitalism and start the glorious revolution comrades.

Cuba is becoming capitalist. The only marxist nation you have to look up to is North Korea. 😅😅😅😅😅😅👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌

Then you'll self-implode when it too adopts capitalist reforms.

There are multitudes of reasons this exists and again none of them are in worship of Europeans.

They are for multitudes

Employment, Marriage, trying to look interesting, and it's far more preveleant in Japan in the European worship sense.

I can tell you for certain Vietnam Capitalist or not, and especially those of us who came from refugees all have a raging hatred for Europeans.

Anyways I'm sorry that my talk of how Holla Forums cannot thrive off their own success in the social darwinistic sense they push so worship their paleness trigerred you, it was no offense to any and all albinoid retards on the internet or image boards.

Though you are one of them.


Please respond to the points made in these posts, you have not addressed a single criticism

What happens to Capitalism if Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman both went under?

Already resorting to namecalling? We haven't even begun really.
Nope, you have trouble seeing my point though. Marx looks at people as unchanging, ultimately acting within a predictable framework of action based on material self interest and "class consciousness", when organisms adapt to the material circumstances of their environment all the time not necessarily adapting their environment to them as Marx predicted that the proletariat would ultimately do.
Reducing all things to merely the desire to eat and fuck is to take an incredibly complex being and reduce it to it's crudest aspects, not taking that whole of the being into account. Merely examining it on the basis of it's crudest of functions.
But you're ultimately saying nothing, merely attributing negative labels to what does not conform to your ideology and positive labels to what conforms to your ideology as the "objective truth".
Primacy of nature is merely looking at the realities of the natural world, the consequences of it and how it ultimately effects people. Again, you're not saying anything by attributing labels to something. It's akin to yelling "sinner!' or "heretic". It's hilarious that you're accusing me of spoiting a meaningless truism when that's precisely what you're doing with DiaMat. Observing the complex functions of the natural world is not reducing anything to a "truism", it's merely what it implies: observing the reality of our existence.

You didn't answer a single question or address a single point I made ITT.

so smugly implying the absolute truth of your ideology is not cultish?

How does it feel knowing a asset of mine caters to over 720.000 Americans every months by providing them basic mental health care, sells them mental health courses, gives them a community to talk to without the social pressure, while you can't even get a job in your field unless it's part time with 0 hr contract?

While you sit at home, type furiously about muh communism being the solution. I automated you.

This is very true. someone wearing Yuga flag should know better.

Juche is anti-Marxist in several ways, I also read they've already had some market reforms early-Deng style (localised and contained) some time ago.

You're the same guy from last time? You posted the same graph which I had debunked so that's pretty lame.

It feels like I really don't believe you, because nobody actually rich posts on image boards this obscure.

Two years in four year, and I'm actually applying for two more after that for a doctorate.

And emergency medicine is always hiring, are you joking? If you're knowledgeable in medicine you would know this.

Don't try to lie to me next time little boy

Never suggested even for a moment any of them were.
You said to him,
So, like, far easterners, in general?
Here, have more ghost white women from when japan killed christians and didnt let any euroepans in except the dutch at one specific port.

How many times must I say mainland Asia except for South Korea, but only so much so, has a raging hatred for Japan and their entire way of life

All you need to do to draw out the raging idpol in a former or current Holla Forumsyp is to call them albino, it works every time.

You cannot even define communism. Also there is only profit in capitalism, there is no service provided out of the goodness of your heart.

Rope with which we will hang them et cetera.


Deng Xiaoping and China also come up as Market Socialism on wikipedia



Again, I dont give a shit about being called whatever, I give a shit about blatant misrepresentation of cultural history and present reality to suit some retarded narrative about how the race of men act so arrogant towards the race of elves or something.

what about the ones who have no money beacuse they cant get a job because of untreated mental illness tho

When is only argument that china is state capitalist is wikipedia I don't really care at that point.

Yes you do

Because reality.

But this is a completely valid complaint, like the Keynesian thinkers said that the Keynesianism of the late 60's had dismissed most of of Keynes's goals and propositions and would eventually go on to for the Post-Keynesian School.
Or Austrians who claimed Friedman ignored most of their criticisms outside of Monetary Policy and say that problems they described wouldn't be fixed as long as there was a central bank and so on.
Theories are proved wrong when their claims are shown not to match reality, not when people who believe them do "bad" things.
Marx didn't advocate a command economy.

I've seen hell and I've not returned the same

I lack tolerance for those who speak in memes ;).

No, you misunderstand Marx. One, you interpret his theory of history to be a one predicated on predictions rather than retrospection. Hegellian logic 101 is that nothing is inevitable until it happens. After that, the contradictions that led to X can be unearthed. I remember we had this conversation before.Engels did not think "class consciousness" was the rule, he thought it was an exception. Ultimately, the proletariat is much more likely to side with the bourgeoise for temporary material relief than they are to agitate for radical, unpredictable change. I dare you to tell me that isn't true, and that Marx or Engels were wrong about this. The reason they advocated for revolution, is because communism is dependent on the will of communist. History is made by men and woman, but the ultimate factor - what physically reshapes social relationships, what these relationships MUST be subordinated to is the reproduction of everyday life. You can try and deny this as much as you like, but that doesn't cease to make it true.

No. The evolution of "social ideas" is an ideological evaluation. It is a political, not a scientific conversation. There's a reason Althusser noted an epistemological break around the time Darwin came out with the "Origin of Species". I guess you'd fault Darwin for reducing the behaviour of organisms to being ultimately dependent on their environment too. I suppose he was not taking the "whole being into account". The funny thing is, Marxist have shown a great ability to predict class behaviour. Even Stalinist with their fuzzy class of "Kulak" managed to predict their response to the abolition of their class, which is why the opposition to collectivization sprung up spearheaded by Trotsky and later Bukarhin. This is what I mean though. Petty-bourgeois socialist personally take offence to the idea that we can scientifically investigate historical evolution outside of "great men" or humanistic attachments to X or Y. It reduces human beings down to what we really are - animals. And I think that's what frightens you the most, despite it not being a negative or a positive. It's sure does crush the ego.

No I'm not. What you are doing is mystifying human volition. I'd like to point out something from this "whole being" that Marxist can not account for. What social relationship did not at one point, or was not changed by the physical rearrangement of the production process? Will you talk about religious wars? The Muslim crusades? The outlier Plebians of Rome as Bookchin does? Do you think the physical restructuring of the productive process that happens because we have crusades, because the Plebian's revolt is not linked to the reproduction of life?

And the "primacy of nature" is already implicit in diamat. Diamat already contains the "primacy of nature" because it asserts itself through our mortality. Bookchins ideological argument - how we SUBVERT nature. How Capitalism is the logical conclusion of the domination of nature is not a scientific argument. I might think the domination of nature is an incredibly fine thing as I pocket the money from my oil rig. Ultimately, the reason the oil baron has no problem with the domination of nature while those who live where the Oil spilled do can be explained on the basis of material self interest. What Bookchin is really saying, is that the domination of nature is a violation of humanistic subordination to it.


Eat shit asshole

The porky flag should have given away that dialogue with them was pointless.

Actually, let me just ask you this: do you think the "human volition" that brings out mystical "social relationships" divorced from their material conditions were the same in 20,000 BC as they are now? If not, why? Will you make the asinine attempt of explaining this in terms of poverty of philosophy, rather than an undeveloped ability for society to physically reproduce itself?

I have no fucking idea what he was trying to argue. He would go on about Lenin saying yeah we need markets. Deng Xiaoping who he kept citing idetinfied as a marxist.

Then deflect the fact nobody in the western world wants globalization right now.

I think he was just a former socialist who get rich.

Marx was literally the JUSTiest person to ever exist. Communism is a post-meme.

His only goal was to "prove" that market economies grow faster and to "debunk" 150 years of economic and political philosophy with it, he didn't want to discuss or learn anything.
He did the same thing on another thread a week ago.

He also failed to acknowledge pro-market socialist theories despite clearly being aware of them.

Considering he started brinkmanship to nuclear war posthumously I think you're really pushing the idea of failiure here since this was a historical blink of an eye

Before you know it that toothbrush is going to rub my cervix and if you won't give it to me the secret police will bust down your door for refusing to aid the collective

How do you know it was the same guy?

I remember him too.

It's frustrating because he seemed to have an open mind when he came in. Then quickly dropped it.

Same flag, similar posting style, similar Images, same arguments and similar shallow knowledge of economics through memes and charts.
Maybe Holla Forumsyps are just a hivemind.
Also he put the second graph here because I called out the horseshit of the first one the last time.


See right here. He springs on the idea there is something privately owned means the whole state is capitalist now.

My only argument is this and this only.

You need private companies and property to have a prosperous economy. When China and Vietnam got rid of the socialism meme by embracing capitalism they improved tremendously.

I got annoyed with that Marxist flag autist when he kept trying to drag me into debating his criticisms of capitalism and other theories. I didn't engage him on it because it was never my contention. I just let empirical evidence speak of how much of a charlatan Marx is when his theories are ever implemented.

And really debating communists and socialists is tiring because they miss the forest for the trees by constantly trying to argue semantics.

The only thing you've proven is that centrally planned economies don't work, which is true.

Unfortunately for your argument most forms of socialism reject Marxist-Leninist economics.

Also, said Marxist-Leninist countries are not at all what Marx advocated for so citing them as a failure of Marx's ideas is bullshit.

Speak for yourself dipshit, you confuse "the entirety of capitalism would collapse without federal welfare, particularly the military industrial complex" with semantics

It always gets to this point, always.

Then it strips everyone of their rights bit by bit until you have an industrial revolution scenario, everyone gets sick of richies' shit and out come the guilotines and guns

This coming century is looking particularly disastrous, everything that could go wrong is currently going wrong.

If you want to defend this cycle of violence be my guest but you will never be able to stop it as long as capitalists breathe

No. It's a result of a somewhat wider analysis of socialism relative to society at large.

Consider that, since cooperatives are going to still be operating under the rules of a market economy through the exchange of commodities, it still retains commodities as the primary form of interaction. Therefore, the things that are profitable in capitalist-driven market economies will largely be profitable still in cooperative economies. Companies are still driven to create that which is profitable at the expense of other considerations.

It does not escape the profit-driven growth of capital which is what is the core of capitalism really is, more than private ownership.

Right. You got annoyed because I refused to accept your bullshit. You kept trying to attribute X or Y to Marx's theories. I acknowledged that while this is an accurate empirical observation, it has nothing to do with Marx's theory. Your only argument is hot air. You do the same thing again in this post. You are ideologically tied to this notion that Marx MUST be wrong, Capitalism MUST be right that you will argue around in circles and then retreat to your less glamorous claim. Empirical evidence means nothing if you have no theory to explain it. You lack this, and hence your entire approach to critique is lacking.

Thank you for coming back being more polite this time. I lost my temper too. I apologize.

Some of us aren't debating the efficiency of markets. Some of us like markets and want them, but to say Marx is a straight charlatan isn't genuine when you can apply that marx-esque/democratic attitudes toward community building/education or health care making things better. Especially when you said you agree with Lenin on some things (that should mean you think Marx has some value).

Yeah that's what you do when dealing with something as complex as the economy.

(cont) Especially when you seem to be either a state-capitalist or a social democrat. There is no real reason for you to be shitting on Marx it's completely contradictory to what you are trying to prove here. You are seemingly rejecting marxist theory for no reason other an than a meme understanding of Marx. You have much more in common with Holla Forums than Holla Forums.

You have an awful tendency of labeling things you don't like negatively instead of saying something substantive.
And yet the reproduction of every day life leads us to a situation in which life will become irreproducable. Furthermore, if we're speaking dialectics then we cannot ignore the most fundamental of principles of dialectical thought, that of being and becoming. To say that simply everything merely defined by this one function is to ignore the reality of dialectical thought, by which A is not only A but is also -A.
On the contrary, I never argued that humans weren't animals, only that being animals is not the only thing that defines us. There is first and second nature, after all. Now you're just being disingenuous. You're clearly ignoring the failures of marxist class analysis in regards to the importance of industrial proletariat to revolution, when in reality revolution has happened in the least industrially developed parts of the world. Indeed, organisms are dependent on their environment, but the way in which they accordingly interact with and adjust to their environment is not assured. The way in which they evolve is unsure.

Mystifying human volition how? I just see history as an essentially organic process while you see it as mechanical. Something is more then it's parts. I never said that production did not play a part, only that it was not the entirety of it.
Except that DiaMat looks at it as a mechanical process when it is an organic one. Nature cannot be dominated or subverted, but we can doom ourselves to extinction through our volition. What qualifies as a scientific argument? Capitalism is the logical conclusion of man's domination of man, in which everything beyond man becomes something to "dominate", to exploit and extract resources from. The oil baron is as much bound by the rules of biological life as any organism. An organism cannot live without an environment in which to sustain it, which for complex life demands the existence of other life.

This implies that I said that they were divorced from material conditions, which I didn't. I merely said that it was not the entirety of it.

Going "but it's false" is not an argument. It's a meme.

No it isn't. The unity in contradiction is implicit in any historical epoch precisely within the material. What was this even supposed to address?

No I'm not. I'm going to hope that these strawmen you pull up stem from an unfamiliarity with Marx and not a deliberate rejection of his methodology for ideological purposes. For one, Marx and Engels never claimed that revolution was GOING to happen anywhere, only that is must happen in these industrialized countries for socialism to become the dominant mode of production. They were right. In the preface to 1877 Engels remarked that Russia was evolving and that revolution might soon arrive. He does specify however, that if the revolution in Russia serves as a signal for revolutions in developed parts of the West, socialism can take hold. If not, it is unlikely the hegemony of Capital will be weakened enough to take hold. In this regard he was right. Marx and Engels edited later additions of Capital to reflect the possibility of revolution in Russia. I also find it amusing that petty bourgeois socialist like Bookchin rely on right wing strawman pushed by philistines like Popper:

One, the fact that Marxist may have misidentified something when examining it in retrospect dos not mean that Marx's method collapses in on itself. This is inherently unscientific. It does mean however, that we have to go back and ask ourselves: what was the class character of this historical event? Why did this give way to X instead of Y? It's actually quite easy for a Marxist to identify why revolution failed to take hold of the West prior and especially after WW2 and I can do so if you like.
Two: You are deliberately ignoring not only why the idea of a vanguard is implicit in Marx and Engels writing, but why Lenin conceived of the vanguard formally in the first place. The proletariat wasn't and isn't going to be capable of class consciousness. They are however, capable of trade union consciousness. The reason for this was identified not only in the writings of Marx and Engels, but by Lenin himself. So it's fucking bizarre that you're making this accusation. And not only making this (false) accusation, but using it as the basis for the dismissal of the core of Marx's method.

Because abstracting social relationships without the objective material conditions is nonsense. It shrouds them in ideology as Althusser would say. It makes what would be conceivable (like why despite class interest the more wealthy bourgeoisie sided with royalist instead of their fellow bourgeoisie) a product of spontaneous human will. The supposed spontaneity of it is why is becomes ideological.

No it doesn't. It looks at it as an organic process of humans interacting with their material conditions. If your entire objection to diamat is based on this all too common strawman that Marx was deterministic or mechanical, it really begs the question of why you object to it in the first place besides misplaced vehemence.

Why? What is nature? What qualifies as "dominance"? The latter of the two is an ethical argument. A matter of a degrees. The Unabomber says agriculture is too far. Ultimately, the arbitrary barrier between coexistence and domination is firmly rooted in humanism.

It makes the inconceivable conceivable. It grounds what might be mystical and beyond comprehension in epistemology. It's the difference between Darwin's "Origin of Species" and the notion that God magically shapes animals how he likes and makes them act how he desires. The former is not "provable" (this is after all, the paradox of science) but it does open up the process by which we observe the change of our world to critical examination.

But this is an ethical argument. Why stop there? If there is an arbitrary level of domination we shalt not cross, why aren't there primal desires we shalt not repress like racism? Noting about this makes the logic of Capital or its effect on this world conceivable. Rather, it brings it down to a humanistic connection with nature. A connection that is sacrosanct.

But this is a moral command that he shall obey the laws of nature, it tells us nothing about why he does not. Hence why Marx is needed.

But this meaningless truism, which like I said when stripped down to its bare bones it the equivalent of "nayshure dood" tells us nothing about why this is in conflict with Capitalism.

But you have yet to explain what this entirety is beyond a vague inability to "dominate" nature.

because the productive forces of society aren't developed enough for full Communism yet, as in, no wage labor, no state, no money, etc.

You cannot have a prosperous economy without private businesses. There was nothing stopping China or Vietnam from being market socialists like Tito. They didn't opt for that route and embraced capitalism for a good reason.

Then decades later they go back to being capitalists again when they start liberalizing the economy because of the stagnation or they collapse on themselves.

So you always go back to square one. Except the Chinese and Vietnamese people tend to be the strongest supporters of capitalism. It takes living under system where private businesses are no longer allowed to exist and being dirt fucking poor to really begin to appreciate capitalism. The age-old question thus remains. Is it better for everybody to be equally poor? Or unequally richer? The great majority of people prefer the latter. You cannot fault them for this.

Now go back to locking people up in an asylum for trying to exercise a human right, my comminist psychiatrist friend.

Because none of my contentions have to do with with Marx's actual theories or critiques, but simply the empirical results that happen when countries try to implement Marxist theories into practice. What happens is that essentially all these countries revert back to adopting capitalist reforms by restablishing private corporatoons. Almost all popular "socialist" parties in the world are social-democrats. We all know social democracy operates within a capitalist economy, but by massive welfare states where money is more redistributed. This is the closest to socialism you can get while having a functional and rich economy and mostly alleviates the biggest flaw with capitalism which is wealth inequality. In the end though private businesses still exist and need to. Very few socdems will go "yeah but eventually private corporations need to be abolished."

Digressing, back to my original point then it's arguing semantics about how X wasn't really "real socialism." This is not exclusive to the left as I will freely admit that the right wing goes "yeah Y wasn't really real capitalism" when a recession happens. But I see this constant neverending nitpicking at terminologies far more with communists.

it's almost like a third world nationalist convinced a bunch of well meaning but retarded humanities students to agitate against their own empire for a bunch of island beaners who wanted to steal the valuable sugar mills and tobacco farms the americans built.


Because of the United States and Europe.

Once they fall, and the intelligence community cannot bring it back, there will be no bringing back Capitalism. Markets are another matter. Capitalism will be dead. It cannot survive the pace it is currently at, the geopolitical environment it's currently in, and the corrosive effects to human quality of life it needs to sustain itself profitably. Such as war, and the profit it brings to be the state welfare crutch to keep it standing. The oceans, global warming.

Capitalism can only survive when the conditions allow its survival and forces demand it exist, once those forces are gone, we reduce to our natural communal state.

And before you say Capitalism is our natural state, it is not. Community is.

Anthropology, biology, psychiatry, human behaviorism, animal behaviorism, it all has been trying to scream at you through deaf ears about the fact Capitalism is not forever, nor, was it ever.

Also, science, history, everything you can name is on our side. The brightest minds were all communists with FBI files on them.

And still you refuse to cooperate with us, and its only because you think Capitalism is heroic and good from your childhood, not for any logic bound reason no matter how much you tell yourself so.

No it isn't. The validity of your point rest on the the idea that the way socialism was "implemented" were Marx's "theories in practice". You do the same thing I've been calling you in for in this post over and over. You claim you are dealing strictly with empirical evidence, and then at the end you sneakily try to link it back to Marx's theories. You can't do the last part without first addressing Marx's theories as they are. You must first presuppose Marx. My point still stands and I'm glad you've conceded - you have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about. You have an ideological goal to reach and hey, you're not going to tire up till you hit it. If you have no theory, empirical data is meaningless.

I'm not the other guy but I'd like to hear about it.

This is going to be a quick analysis as I am watching a lecture and want to get back to it but: The point of both Marx and Lenin regarding "class consciousness" is that it is not something immediately palpable to the working class. This is because as workers get organized into trade unions, and parties like "labour" that offer reforms come into existence despite the long term material self interest of the proletariat objectively resting on communism, this short term material self interest is much more appealing. This is the Marxist explanation for the lack of revolution prior to World War Two and has been analyzed in great depth by all monoliths of Marxism and isn't something I feel I should go into more.

Back to post World War Two, we should look at what the labour market looked like. Due to the fact that the two world wars had left the west with a depleted reserve for labour, the proletariat had much more bargaining power in regards to their negotiations over their income in the form of wages than they did before. For anyone familiar with the Golden Age of Capitalism, we should know that unemployment was close to 0% for decades. Anyone who has taken a cursory glance at Capital 1 knows the role the "industrial reserve army" plays in keeping wages at their value. Again: more instances where the material conditions led to opportunities for short term rewards, which were taken instead of the gloomy prospect of "revolution". We also at this time, see the rise of credit (more purchasing power for the proletariat without immediate need to pay it back. An arrangement that traditionally took place between bank and Capitalist or Capitalist and Capitalist was now opened up to the proletariat). Of course, all good things have come to an end. Which is why we've seen the degradation of the welfare state accompany stagnating real wages. Quite frankly, the working class in the United States and Europe has nostalgia for the lost "middle class". However in Europe, you see an inverse relationship between the quality of material conditions (in terms or moral or historical terms) and the amount of revolutionary/class consciousness.

Capitalism is inevitable if you have people who dream of private property and ownership like a selfish Stirnerite such as seen in Cuba now with stupid anti-revolutionary bike shops and anti-revolutionary bike shops and anti-revolutionary bike shops

Once every anti-revolutionary who desires private property is eliminated we'll finally achieve true communism and utopia

(Karl Marx, Economic Manuscripts, 1844)

(Rosa Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution, 1900)

And failing much more miserably than the centrally planned state capitalist states the MLs had: ? See also:

>See also:
Wrong link:

stop posting anytime

Don't you have the econ thread to go to and get BTFO again?

You can be an Ethical Capitalist, Post-Left friendo, but you'll never be a Socialist according to anyone other than Proudhon.

big fucking deal

literally no one was able to explain the inconsistencies of what kapitalism101 is talking about

I'll ask again

1.- Does reducing the SNLT reduces the amount of value each commodity has embodied?
2.- If so, how does capitalism reproduces value?
3.- If decreasing the SNLT reduces the value embodied in each commodity, does increasing it increases its value?
4.-If reducing the SNLT does not reduces the amount of value each commodity has embodied, where is the exploitation, in reality, you would be exploiting you less as you create more value in less time
5.-how do you explain the fact that planned economy exists under capitalism?

try to answer with proper arguments this time

so if you have to abolish markets to have socialism how come every planned production socialist country failed? were they not true socialism? why? why is there planned production under capitalist regimes?

no it isn't

Depends on how much surplus is allocated towards that same end. The knife cuts on both end in capitalism. Read Marx.

M-C-(L+Mp)…P….-C'-M'. Read Marx.

Yes. Read Marx.

It does, the exploitation lies in the allocation of surplus labor; exploitation here always meaning "to make use of" (as in exploiting a resource), no, because your labor is disciplined to remain competitive. Read Marx.

Planned-market dichotomy is a false one. Planning simply refers to the human allocation of resources to meet the impersonal market forces that must be tackled. Read Marx.

Because state capitalism never abolished markets; it simply centralized the executive power of the otherwise decentralized bourgeoisie towards a red bureaucracy. Again: (the planning-markets dichotomy is a false one; both answer to the whims of capital).

Mein nigger.

Like what? Embargoing them? We already established the fact that the embargo on Maoist China was removed in 1971 and trade between the two nation began to happen.

Look at

Did you see any significant improvements in GDP per capita once thr embargo was lifted and trade began with America again? No. The rampant rise only happened when Deng Xiaoping essentially thought to himself that capitalist reforms were needed by abandoning Maoism and transforming China into a state capitalist economy with free market zones like Shanghai and Shenzen. The reforms had to have happened after Mao died, as Deng would have probably been shot dead as a traitor if he tried to implement the reforms while Mao was still alive.

Vietnam noticed the massive success of China's capitalist reforms and essentially emulated it with Doi Moi in the late 80s. Again, their GDP per capita, and average wages and incomes greatly rise, poverty is halved. This did not come without a cost however as income inequality did increase.

So you go up to a random Vietnamese person in Vietnam and ask if they'd rather be equally poor, or unequally richer. The vast majority of Vietnamese would choose the latter, as would any sane person not blinded by ideology.

And we advanced from that. We stopped being cave people a very long time ago. Humanity progressed and went through different economic and societal systems before arriving at capitalism.

Marx develops his theories, countries begin implementing it and thus you get the same story that I constantly repeat again and again. You get countries that adopt socialism or try to, they last a couple of decades, then a push for market liberalization happens so that private companies are allowed to exist once more. This is literally happening right now with Cuba.

I do not know what the economy will be like in 1000 years. Long after me and you have taken the eternal sleep. Maybe we won't have an economy at all, or some sort of utopia that is neither capitalist nor communist emerges. Something like everybody being able to live like the 1% now and never having to work again, with their own personal fuckhuge space mansions, hoverboards, luxury personal spaceships and the top-of-the-line technology that is being developed by robots who exist only to serve us cyborgs.

Or some shit. Fantasizing aside, its a guarantee that private businesses will not be abolished in our lifetimes, because as it stands, there is no viable economic model to replace capitalism in existence right now.

The reality is that countries continue to adopt capitalism. We are not moving away from it. We are moving towards more free trade and globalization.

So you are saying that Marx never advocated for socialism and communism as the ultimate goal, correct? None of his writings supported socialism and then communism? If so then it's really hopeless to continue this meaningless debate. You win dude. You want to argue another point.

Anyways really wanna sleep tbh fams. I don't want to wake up and have to reply to thirty fucking people. Last post for realzies

No, I'm saying you are trying to paint the failure or 20th century socialism as being the result of a step by step program Marx laid out and that therefore, Marx is beyond redemption. If you want me to offer you an explanation I can. But I'm not going to except slander.

Do you think the Cold War was just China, America, Vietnam, Korea, Western Europe, and the Soviets?

Do you think all these people were dooped? What about the brightest minds of the 20th century, all of them more or less, majority communists?

Are you that simple?

You fail to address any of my points, against you, and against the way this society organizes itself on a basic material level, you fail to address the criticisms academics have consistently made that this is headed towards utmost disaster

And you fail to argue on a basic level besides repeating yourself in the face of criticism I'm not sure you even read.

It is petulance.

Read the abstract I posted. Read the criticisms I'm making. How Capitalism wouldn't exist without a military making a gigantic profit being a point, how it has always thrived on violence from the Industrial Revolution into today.

Listen. Understand.

When you fail to argue any point being made at you with what essentially amounts to Cold War propaganda, none of which is the point being made, you look like a colossal retard who doesn't know how to competently argue a point


what same end? the reproduction of capital?, if you belive exploitation comes from the necessity to reproduce the productive process, how do you think planning eliminates the necessity of this? a farmer needs new seeds to grow more corn, even you produce corn for its use and not for its exchange

but this wouldn't increase value, as according to Saint Marx, decreasing the SNLT does not increase the value embodied in commodities, on the contrary reducing the SNLT doesnt decrease the amount of value in commodities, again, you cannot have both

My point is, if capitalist exploitation comes from the decrease in the SNLT of the productive process to outcompete others in a market economy, then how can you speak about decreasing the SNLT reducing the amount of value each commodity has? as if it does reduce the amount of value each commodity has, value wouldn't reproduce itself

wrong, Saint Marx specifically talks about reducing the SNLT reduces the value each commodity has, which is one of the reason of the falling rate of profit, you cannot deny Saint Marx when it suits you and support it whe it does not

then how do you explain that if I take more time to produce THE SAME commodity as my competition, I still cannot sell it for more, remember Saint Marx is talking about EXCHANGE values here

by who? labour is done by a subject, therefore someone must allocate the subject somewhere, if planned production aims to allocate the subject in order to follow a plan, how is this not exploitation?

and it isn't obliged to remain competitive under planned production?

wrong, either to have an economic that follows demand and supplies accordingly, or you have one that don't

why, according to who? Saint Marx? planning cannot meet market forces, as market forces are not fixed in any way, human dsires are not logical

so how do you plan to abolish capitalism if planned production doesn't work? remember that both markets and planned production have an specific framework of reference, the system you are advocating for must also have one

yes, gubernamental centrally planned production absolutely defends private property rights, this isn't wrong at all

Your loss, bucko.

I accept the fact that you cannot defend the positions you desperately try to defend

And as an explanation of picture from the source, one of multitudes made throughout the 20th and 21st century, you can freely access, that corroborate 19th century critique

And because you apparently can read, here's another simple bar graph you can look at. Since Holla Forums only communicates in them.

I accept the fact that you're a total plebeian who can only argue for his market "socialism" by ignoring value production and having a reductionist, hierarchical view of capitalism as essence to it as mode of production.

Holy shit dude, how do you misinterpret the basics of Marx's theory of value this badly.

nice post, doesn't adress what we are discussing

Deng's reforms was the nail in the coffin. At some point, you have to admit that people do better under capitalism precisely because it's evil and exploitative and one merely need not look far to know why. Even if I agree with communism, I'm not going to be a hypocrite. Capitalism is very effective.

Take it to the econ general, this thread has gone in like 6 different directions at once.

Capitalism works too well. All the excess capital flying around is pure decadence and capitalism works so well that people don't even have to work to survive in capitalism. They just wait for the bloke who makes his mailing rounds.

that is LITERALLY not an argument, what am I misinterpretating about him? his humanism is subjective, only the economic laws are objective

market forces cannot be impersonal as they are created by people

Except the rest of the world is headed to do worse than it was in the last 400 years precisely because of Capitalism.

Have fun defending it once pandemics start and the ocean acidfies causing ecological disaster

It won't be as easy as ignoring the perpetual state of war that supports it.

You are a simpleton who puts faith in a complex system because you hate complexity. Your kind, who makes these arguments, are of no time and place the kind to discuss politics whatsoever. Take a few years, if I'm being optimistic.

like I am not defending capitalism or anything,but achieving production for use does not guarantee social ecology

If you're N1X I'm extremely disappointed in you.

If you're not, I'm still extremely disappointed in you.

Its alright I hear that on a daily basis :v)


I already did and literally no one but you replied

Certainly most of the predictions were false.
Was that directed at the promise of ecological catastrophe or what I said after?
It's meant to address your view of this mechanism as the end all be all that rids people of autonomy supposedly, even though by your own admission "communism has to be chosen".
*as he pulls strawmen from his unfamiliarity with Bookchin*
It fails when it fails to address the changing nature of class, and therefore class struggle. It fails when it labels capitalism as a progress force in history instead of a essentially corrosive force on all of society, as well as on the environment. It fails when it fails to identify the potential of classes besides the proletariat for revolution.
Hogwash. Lenin's vanguard takes DiaMat and uses it as an excuse for autocratic power, as if statecraft and politics can ever be reconciled. As if a core elite can represent the unwashed masses truthfully, and not simply use the state as an instrument of domination.
I never did that, I merely said that material conditions is not all that goes into it. People are not inanimate bodies, they're dynamic, alive. To view them otherwise, as inanimate bodies without autonomy, is ideological.
Interacting with their material conditions but not in the way Marx subscribes to them.

The subsuming of one will over another, to put it simply. Nature does not have a "will". The desire and attempt to dominate nature coming from mans domination over other man, and the personification of nature.
This definition is unsatisfactory, for there are multiple ways to achieve comprehension. A way of conceiving the world without mysticism are not all uniform.
What is wrong with an ethical argument? Do how humans act not effect anything? To say that ethics does not play any role is again to reduce being to merely inanimate objects. People have the choice of what to do given a situation, and that choice usually comes down to ethics. If that was all that DiaNat, Social ecology etc said about capitalism then sure, it wouldn't be sufficient, but it's not.
No, it's an observation of reality. Is saying that a man jumping off a building won't fly a "moral command"? Absolutely absurd.
It's not a meaningless truism, it's observable scientific fact of life. It's no less a truism then the law of gravity.
Human agency, and the social ideas and ethics that affect it.

dengs economic changes improved china in virtually every category after communism was disposed of. while you are correct to say that china still maintains a large degree of state control over the economy most of the growth is from the SEZs and they are state capitalists

worker coops very rarely end up being anything more than memes like vegetarian bakeries for a very good reason. the only exception is mondragon in spain which lost their largest manufacturing firm during the crisis. and mondragon is not even the most profitable or productive company in spain. it isn't even in the top 5.

your non peer reviewed study refers to worker cooperatives existing in a capitalist economy. under socialist or communist economies they are quite shit, under state capitalism they preform worse than private companies. it isn't even just china where this is the case. russia and vietnam too

capitalism makes worker coops more profitable and productive.

Oh hey, trading with other nations apparently causes more money to be spent for things (how GDP is measured)
What a surprise.
Still, you need to take into account how much the average income of different classes goes up. Bottom 90% usually profits less from higher GDP per capita compared to top 1% or top 0.1%.
And what will happen to Cuba's sustainable society after this? They had the highest standard of living without consuming more than what could support them, IIRC.
Does anyone have that one graph showing that? With amount of earth on the horizontal axis and standard of living on the vertical?

Cuba's gonna need the dosh in order to prepare their island for climate change. It's sad, but pragmatic.

At least they waited until Fidel was dead.

Everyone becomes capitalist eventually, we all becomes members of in the end because the idea that life has value is just an idea, but power is real.

And I've already pointed out that Marx's method of retrospective and not predictive. Weird strawman to bring up again. Really, this is in opposition to guys like Bookchin who thinks the failure of Marx to "predict" all that is or will ever be is the failure of diamat. You fault the lack of "predictive power" as being linked to some flaw in his ideology, rather than predictive power not being its aim in anyway, shape or form. Really, its a repackaging of Poppers critique that we ad-hoc invent explanations. This could not be further from the truth. It's why Popper called evolution a "metaphysical research program". A committed Marxist engages in ruthless self criticism when an event is misidentified in retrospect.


It doesn't though. You are pulling all these notions that Marxist are somehow ties to Marxist dogma out of your ass. We aren't. We aren't tied to anything Marx said. It's the base of his method that we adapt. It doesn't mean it isn't malleable. But if you'd like to point out what these potential classes are and how revolutionary they are, I'm all ears. Marx and Engels stressed NOT to do what you just said they did over and over. Do you want me to quote them?

Let me get this straight. You critique Marxist for supposedly not acknowledging the fact that the proletariat is not apt for revolutionary change. Then when I point out we did address that and tried to come up with a solution you go "muh authoritarianism". Now you are using bourgeois strawman about the conception of the vanguard (i.e. it is an elite rather than an organic part of the working class that pushes for revolution). You have basically shifted the conversation to "The USSR was T-O-T-A-L-I-T-A-R-I-A-N" instead of addressing my main point which is that we already covered you critique that we dogmatically adhere to the idea that the proletariat MUST revolt 100 fucking years ago into something completely different. This is the most inconsistent argument you've made yet.

I don't think you understand anything I'm saying. That or you are ignoring it. This is some meaningless "you ignore the HUMANITY" of history that has been lobbed at Marx by bourgeoisie philistines as early as the 1877 letter I already quoted for you. It's a strawman. What can I say other than: we don't? It helps to make conceivable however, WHY someone might do X instead of Y. This is some appeal to ethos about how we all bleed red blood.

As in….?

I didn't say nature had a will. I said that the point where domination becomes coexistence seems rather arbitrary.

Yes, you can "comprehend" (in quotation marks) biological diversity in terms of the big guy. It does mean you are making it conceivable in human terms. You are still mystifying it.

Nothing, except that science is not about ethics. It is about formalization of a method prided on reaching objectivity.

The introduction of "nature" into diamat as some sort of refutation of Marx is what I'm arguing against. Really, Bookchin isn't saying anything counter to Marx's theory. My objection to you is this idea that Bookchin somehow offers this great replacement for Marx or that Marx screwed up and ended up creating a theory only useful for a terrorist state. My point is that the idea we are dependant on nature is already implicit in Marx's work. What I'm wondering is what Bookchin does besides turning this connection already present within it into a humanism. And I'm wondering what his critiques of Marxism are besides easily refutable strawman like the idea Marx and Engels were economic reductionist. Whereas in reality, they thought the investigation should begin with the material because the way ideals interact with the material is almost always inseparable from the material whereas the material can be abstracted as in its own logic.

No, it doesn't explain anything about why the oil baron just doesn't give a shit. Which going back to my original point, is that you (and I hope you aren't a student of Bookchin because I feel when I do get around to reading him beyond the couple critiques of Marx I've read, I will be severely disappointed) dismiss the concept of material self interest as an explanation for human volition and in the process, mystify history.

So how does Marx ignore this?

i am neet

sniff my feet

workers give me stuff to eat

if you don't

i don't care

i'll revolutionise your underwear and hang you from a tree

This is really true:

Marx completely incorporates these things in materialism. Bookchin argues against a caricature of Marxism, and it shows that he is ineffectual when his ideas are completely dead, going nowhere at all.

Yeah this is what I'm saying. Honestly, the reason Marxism has not, and can not be refuted it because it is true. Just like evolution COULD be refuted but has not. The reproduction of everyday life remains the condition of life today and this will be true in 1 million years. Formalizing this observation into a scientific understanding of history does not reject the humanity of history, rather it gives us an opportunity to understand it better. That doesn't mean we as Marxist have to uncritically accept everything Marx said or did. Marxism was born as an ideology of self critique. While I find value in his economics and the classical school in general, you don't have to accept the LTV to accept Marxism. You can be a neoclassical socialist who holds the same beliefs about the proletariat and the role that the class struggle plays throughout history.

Where Bookchin really fucks up, is turning the actions of Marxist into Marxism and distorting its character as paradigm of self critique.



If only Fagor had been the only company to die during the crisis. It's fucking imposible to open a new business in this country without it closing in a matter of weeks. Even middle-tier franchises. It's mind-boggling to me how much I'm seeing them shift, in a year, this small place I see every day has been a bakery, a tea place, a weeb shop and a chinese manicure place. It's ridiculous. These are hard times for everyone who's not porky, and that's why I hate this brand of capitalism. Those small business owners eat shit, but those business genuises blow their money in private runways who fail and have to be rescued with taxpayer money. That's were your "profit" goes. Say what you will about Mondragón, but they still employ more than 70000 national workers.

And about how those "five companies" get their profits. Europe shills for corporations by forcing immigrants here and pushing for the abolishment of hard-earned protectionist muh privileges. They employ migrant workers paying them crap and shill for their rights, or basically have all their labour on Bangladesh or other 3rd world shitholes, like Amancio Ortega's Zara. They "politely" fire you should you take a leave of absence if evaluated by THEIR medical consultants(pic related), or threaten to relocate you very far from your home. For fuck's sake, my brother has been working for one of the biggest companies in this country as a salesman for 12 years, and since they've been cheating him off raises by periodically firing and re-hiring him, he still gets a really shitty salary. And he's even been awarded for being one of the best sellers of his branch. In fact, the poor dumbass was so sure he was some sort of big deal and started spending a shit ton of money to invest in clothes and commodities, and as a result we had to help him with debts.

I'm not doing great either, working completely alone in an hotel reception desk is straining, there used to be at least two people in this kind of place at all times AT LEAST, and not even before the crisis. Sometimes, it's not an issue of not being able to do stuff, rather of not being able to be in 2 places at once. And I haven't even met my boss. Ever. Luckily, my manager is cool as shit, and even if we almost never are in the building at once, he supports me as much as he can.

So yeah, sorry for rambling and going full moralfag, but if this is how porky makes it big, fuck him AND his profit. Not like this.

Wtf is this article? It's full of claims without any sources and it contradicts the CIA/Khanin estimates.

You have to be highly retarded to think that Batista regime was better than ML Cuba regardless of political affiliation.

Dude, you are the biggest fucking meme in this thread.

You NEED heirachy to maintain a society. We evolved to heirarchy for a very good reason. The only places where there are no rulers are subsaharan African tribes. Do you think we should revert back to that way of living? By all means move to Africa and live amongst them.

Anything else than small-scale tribes need heirachy to function. To have societies that we have today, governments and police need to exist. Has Anarchism ever been successful in the real world? No and for a very good reason. Anarchist Catalonia lasted for very few years before being quickly dominated by another force.

We are not going to revert back to non-heirachy cave people. Communism in the sense of a stateless society has been tried, ended up having a state after all, then went back to capitalism after some decades. It blows my mind why you insist that it's the final state of evolution and what we are heading towards when all empirical evidence proves that this is not the case. We continue to be more globalized, capitalism continues to be adopted by developing countries, etc. If anything all evidence points towards eventually a global government with mega corporations existing centuries from now.

Memes aside, the quality of life has risen and mankind is in a better off state overall than 100 years ago.

In regards to global warming, what you will see are governments like the EU forcing private corporations to adopt technologies, reduce emissions and invent said newer technologies to counteract the eventual effects of said warming. Even China is starting to do the same thing.

It's going to lead to a rise of greater state powers, not less. Barring a zombie apocalypse or something to that extent, we are not heading towards a stateless society, but to a society where the state has greater powers.

You are so stuck in fucking ideology and worshipping everything Marx has said and advocated even when it ends up being detrimental to society. It takes truly courageous people like Deng Xiaoping to look past shitty ideology and implement reforms that are in opposition to the communist ideology of what China was founded upon to improve your country.

Is there a pro-capitalist flag on this board? No. I have to use Porky and it gives you guys the assumption that I am in favor of unfettered capitalism when in fact I acknowledged multiple times that there has to be a degree of state interventionism.

Essentially, other researchers and even Soviet economists say the CIA overestimated the size and growth of the Soviet economy.

We will never know the true figures because the Soviets manipulated the fuck out of stats when it was advantageous to political gain. They didn't do this solely in regards to the economy.

I'm not even against anarchism if it would work. I have many beefs with the existence of a state, but it is impossible to have societies like what we do today without a government. Again, maybe 500 years from now we won't need any state. However to make such assumptions would be baseless and groundless. I simply have no idea what it will be.

You can however make more accurate claims about the state of mankind in 50 years from now from trends and the direction we are heading in. I don't see a glorious uprising, capitalism finally being smashed and us transitioning to a classless, stateless and moneyless society with no private companies or property. I see an increase in state powers and globalization with mega-corporations instead.

DiaMat cannot be both a "science" and merely retrospective. If it cannot make predictions then what use is it as a tool of analysis? The falseness of Marx's predictions regarding the role of the proletariat, the inability of capitalism to advance technologically, and the role of other classes such as peasants and "lumpens" in revolution is what is in question here.
What part of that don't you understand?
The base of his method, of DiaMat, has not only been applied incorrectly by Marx when used to make predictions (as much as you like to pretend that he did not make predictions, and did not base much of his theory on these predictions) it has been used incorrectly by the Marxist schools that followed him be it SocDems and Kautsky, Leninism and Lenin, Marxism-Leninism and Stalin etc. If DiaMat can not be used to make predictions, you've reduced it to merely an exercise in ideological retconing, and has no use as a tool beyond that retconing.
No, my criticism of the vanguard is that the vanguard cannot be a tool of revolutionary change since the vanguard is based firmly in the realm of statecraft, not politics. The vanguard in practice, as shown by the bolsheviks and other parties, was an institution firmly alienated from the working class. The fact that Marxists do not distinguish between the two is a classic failure of Marxist thought.
You mean what you quoted here ? This speaks to nothing of the political and social processes that allowed the expropriation, beyond the fact that there were financial interests that wanted to consolidate land and capital into their own hands. It views humanity solely in the realm of economic interests.

As in, not solely to the realm of economic interests, economic interests which most of the time took a back seat to social order.
How is it arbitrary? It's the difference between symbiosis and self destructive parasitism
I wasn't speaking of religions comprehension of man through a teleology, I was speaking of alternative uses of dialectics to conceive of things
What your proposing is not science. It has no predictive power, no real objectivity, only the ability to ideologically retcon
Let me be clear: Bookchin does not call for the abandoning of Marx, the annulling of marxism, but for the transcendence of Marxism and of DiaMat.
The point I've been trying to make is not that dialectics is not a suitable method of observing history, merely the the lens that marx viewed history is confined to the limitations of knowledge of his time, and that Marxism has indeed been economic reductionist in practice in theory despite what Marx might have said. The material cannot be abstracted from it's own logic. It's essentially to have matter without energy.
I never dismissed material self interest, only that it exists within the larger context of social order, and the ideology that goes with it.
The larger tradition of Marxism has certainly ignored it.

pics related

Marxists have been saying this for a century

Holy shit yeah, Bookchin never understood Marx. The entire point of capitalism is that for the first time in history we have overproduction, not scarcity.

Hate to break to you kids but…


Capitalism doesn't cause scarcity, it is rooted in scarcity. We are living in a scarcity society. Communism is a post-scarcity society. Learn to read




You're joke.

stay cucked

Keep jerking yourself off with that invisible hand.

Not my problem that you have a limited idea of what a "science can be". It's usefulness can't be predicated on making predictions because you can't predict that which you are actively taking a part of. You are not a passive observer. Do you even listen to yourself speak? This is like dismissing evolution because it can not make testable predictions about the future.

Why do you keep bringing up strawmen I've already addressed. One, Marx never said any of what you are saying. The idea of the vanguard is implicit in his writing specifically in CotGP. He didn't believe a proletariat revolution can be composed of classes not part of the proletariat because well… they aren't the proletariat. He was right in every respect. Every revolution that took place in a country with a heavy peasant base and a small proletariat degenerated in less than a decade in the case of the Bolshevik revolution, and never took place at all in China. What drivel you spew.

It's just words. It's not saying anything.

No, it's a tool for studying history. Basically, your opposition to Marx's method is based on some weird strawman that Marx was trying to craft a science that could make predictions about the future. He was never doing that. In fact if it was possible for you to stop reading in these strawmen into Marx's method, you'd see Marx already addressed what you are saying. In the letter I quoted . He says quite clearly: using materialist analysis you are able to pick out WHY in history two identical situations led to different conclusions You are able to understand the logic of the epoch in of itself. You just keep bulling shit out of your ass, throwing it at the wall and seeing what will stick regardless if you are being faithful to what you are arguing against or not. It's a reoccurring trend I've noticed as far as Bookchinites go.

That's not what I was addressing though. You are shifting the conversation here from "Marxist failed to predict the inability of the proletariat to revolt" to "the solution didn't work out". It was not in anyway a "failure of Marxist thought". The proletariat in Russia was incredibly small and uneducated. They were not prepared to run factories, and were not prepared to fight a civil war. You are making some asinine and false dichotomy between the state and politics. As if the state can not be used to further political interest. It's really hilarious. You repeatedly make these three line rejoinders that have vague notions of coherency and whenever I push you on something, you collapse like hot air and move on to the next point. Go ahead then. I dare you to give me an

give me a comprehensive rebuttal* And don't just copy and past Bookchin.

No it doesn't. I've actually had this conversation with you and I remember last time you. I quoted the exact same thing I am about to quote next. My guess is that you are a drooling idiot who just like last time, it going to continue to read into Marx and Engels what you want to find instead of accepting what they actually said. Why don't you prove me wrong?

You are conflating the material as the starting point of investigation with being the only point. I expect you will continue to do this, because no matter how much I explain to you otherwise you just continue to engage in stupefying pseudo-intellectual masturbation over Bookchin.

smith was /ourguy/

Really I don't know what to say. Bookchins understanding of Marx is so bad it's "not even wrong". What I do find is that Bookchin as a petty bourgeois socialist rejects materialist analysis all together. Instead choosing to view class(?) in terms of "degradation" and "youth revolt"(lol) instead of real material dynamics. He reminds me of the state socialist like Rodbertus that Marx throughly dismantled, this idea that "class" or "strata" is anything other that the real apportionment of labour throughout society is simply nonsense. Bookchins divide of class in terms of the "youth" is as meaningless as forging a revolutionary movement based on whether you are left or right handed.

This is false. Are you implying people can sustain themselves on air and dirt? If not, you misunderstand what Marx was saying.

Because any sort of interaction with "nature" let it be agricultural or otherwise, can be damaging. It's a matter of scale.

Then evolution is not science.

Right. Thank you for confirming my suspicion. Both Bookchin's critique and yours is aimed at Marxist, not Marxism.

Neither did Marx but of course, you keep rejecting that (quite conveniently).

I guess as a non-Marxist, you are incapable of grasping the decline of authentic practice of a movement in terms of material and historical circumstances and instead choose to look for non-existent flaws in Marx himself.


You can make predictive statements regarding evolution, though . My problem is with you redefining what science is. Do you hear yourself? "I can't predict that me putting this gun to my head and pulling the trigger won't kill me, because it's something I'm actively taking part of" t. you
You're blaming the failings of the vanguard party on the peasant population, when the factors leading to the destruction of the revolution are demonstrably tied into the organization and actions of the bolsheviks. It's his view of the proletariat as the "revolutionary class" that is in question, not revolution as a whole.
Can you write one post without being intellectually dishonest?
So his view of the proletariat as the revolutionary agent is not a prediction regarding the future? Please. Stop being intellectually dishonest for just a second. This conclusion of the proletariat as a revolutionary agent is based on his applications of DiaMat to past history. He took a view of history using DiaMat, and used the trends he saw as a way to make predictions regarding the future.

Not at all, I'm merely addressing the assertion that the proletariat is simultaneously the revolutionary agent and in need of a vanguard, which you say is implicit in Marxism, and pointing out that the policies of the "vanguard" were in fact the main reason for the failure of the revolution. Statecraft and politics are incredibly different. One is the expression of an elite to create or take over institutions of domination, the other is the expression of a citizenry to make decisions for themselves. The soviets were in the realm of politics, the vanguard in the realm of statecraft, and the reason for the failure of the revolution is predominately the domination of the latter over the former.
Issues of hiearchy and domination existed before economic class, even in so called "primitive communism". Materialism is not the basis for how society operates, it is a component but not the basis, and to say so is not to mystify history. You can view history through the lens of social relationships, social order and institutions and not mystify it in the process. Can people survive without food, water, and shelter? Of course not, but that does not make that the basis of social organization. People historically have been incredibly resistant to changes in production that threaten the social order.

No, I'm saying that production is not the basis of social organization. You can say this without saying that people do not need food etc.
The collection of resources is something that all life practices, and the eating of an animal is not damaging to the environment anymore then killing an ant is. The damage comes when resources are collected in such a way that does not create a sustainability, does not recognize the interdependence and necessity of other life within the ecosystem.
As I point out earlier evolution does indeed make predictions.
Hold on, I didn't say Marx isn't off the hook, only that I'm not as unfond of him as you might think
Marx did indeed see material self interest as the basis, and I still reject this.
As I mention earlier, the vanguard is certainly a failure among other things

Right, but these are all predictions about the past. These are all predictions about retrospection. Similarly, evolution has changed significantly since Darwin introduced it. Marxist HAVE changed parts of their analysis based on their findings. This is what Marxist historians and many Post-Marxist have done. Your problem, is that you have an ideological vendetta against Marx. Really, that example is so mind boggling retarded that I don't even know if I want to continue this argument. It's probably the single best example of the apples to oranges fallacy I've ever seen in my entire life, and that's impressive because I've spent time extensively arguing with Holla Forums over race. I'm going to deconstruct this so hopefully, you will actually learn something for once.

In your example, we are dealing with a direct cause and effect situation There is quite literally only two variables. The gun, and yourself. Not only that, but this is more or less an isolated situation. This example only makes sense if the person shooting themselves is the only person in the world, and not only that - they have never seen a gun used before. Other than that - why the fuck WOULDN'T they be able to predict what's happening. This isn't even an example of history. Finding out what happens when you fucking shoot yourself can be done in a lab. You can't replicate historical circumstances in a lab to test them. You can't even quantify them because we are talking about events which are abstracts. This isn't what Marx gets faulted for "not predicting". He gets faulted for not predicting that the Social Democrats would betray the 500,000 striking workers in Berlin and crush the potential for an international revolution. He gets faulted for not predicting the majority of the proletariat would perish in the Russian Civil War leading to the degeneration of the revolution. He gets faulted for not predicting two world wars leading to the destruction of the industrial reserve army. Seriously, how is any of those critiques tangibly related to blowing your brains out?

I did no such thing you liar.

Oh really? Why don't you demonstrate those then? The failure of the revolution is tied to the failure of international revolution. A Marxist revolution does not last isolated, the fact that you think otherwise shows your unfamiliarity with Marx.

You can't apparently.

No, you can't even begin to comprehend Marx because you are ideologically committed to not understanding him. Marx's views on the proletariat as a revolutionary agent is precisely because they are the first real class(his words not mine) and the class thats negation leads to the abolishment of ALL class. That does not mean that "the proletariat has to revolt in X years'". Do you know what socialism is inevitable means? It means no matter what the bourgeoisie do, no matter how much they to fight it the negation of the proletariat is the negation of class itself. Marx actually directly refutes what you said in the exact thing I quoted. You are implying that his "prediction" about the proletariat as a revolutionary agent was him predicting a general historic path they would take, and if this ceased to be true he had failed. He says, and I quote:

So I really have to ask, after reading that how is it you can possibly think that he was making a prediction that no matter what else occurred, the proletariat would have to revolt by 2017? No, his remark on the proletariat as a revolutionary agent is a remark on the fact that no matter what the bourgeoisie do, the next negation is the negation of the proletariat. The negation of class itself.

Because you have a rigid interpretation of what Marx means by that. You have this rigid interpretation that Marx means the proletariat as a class will always lead the revolt rather than the revolution that negates them with have a proletarian character.
I guess if you have a reductionist view of history. In reality, the failure of 1917 in due to much more complex material and historical factors that you can't be arsed to bother with because it conflicts with your ideology.

No it isn't, what a load of shit. The bourgeoisie uses the state right now indirectly. Marx's "class dictatorship" means the majority of choices made by the State being made with that classes interest in mind. This is an incredibly narrow definition and not only that, you are implying that Lenin was not interested in Democracy which is a blatant lie.

Not at all. The revolution died a lot earlier than Stalin. The revolutionary potentail died around the time of the Russian civil war. Anything after that is statecraft, but if you can't be bothered to even take into consideration nuanced Marxist analysis, why should I continue debating you?

And you say I'm reductionist?

No they didn't. Just because you don't get what Marx means by class doesn't mean he's wrong. Class via Marxist terms is the role we play in reproducing real, material everyday life. Got anymore strawman for me to knock down?

You're right, in reality we only have sense perceptions and can never perceive the thing in itself :^). Of course, we still have to eat.

Blatantly false. Find me a person who can live without eating or drinking.

At least your smart enough to understand that.

I hope you really re-read what you just said:

I literally posted a quote where Engels says he agrees with you and anyone who reduces Diamat down to this is creating a strawman. You are a sophist, why should I continue arguing with you?

No you can't. This is just nonsense. It makes no sense at all. You are literally denying reality, which is more or less what denying Marxism is. Marxism has not, and can not be disproven or "transcended" like Bookchin wants to do because it is true. It is the basis for organization because people must eat for any further organization to take place. You are quite literally denying natural laws so that you can push anti-Marxist rhetoric.

So basically, what Bookchin is trying to say (if I gather is that we are all binded together by nature and therefore, we can forgo "reductionist" materialist analysis? How petty bourgeoisie! The idea we are bound by nature is already implicit in Marx's analysis. He stresses over and over that nature is the basis for value creation in Capital. The problem isn't that Bookchin wants to adapt diamat with the times to focus more on ecology, it's that he's more or less insinuating class collaboration while attacking strawmen of Marx to give his unimportant ideas importance.

Right, but they don't predict what is going to evolve in 10 million years after they are dead. This is what you are asking Marx to do.

Because ultimately, individuals need to conform to this. I will repeat again: the reason Marxism can't be disproven is because it is true.

The vanguard did not fail. The revolution failed because international revolution failed. The Bolsheviks then conflated protecting the State with protecting the revolution, when in reality the revolution was already dead. The USSR was never socialist, the command economy introduced by Stalin was just the NEP taken to its logical conclusion - the State taking on the role of the national Capitalist via Capital 1.

Look, I know I'm getting angry with you but I feel like everything I'm saying is falling on deaf ears.

And the vanguard like I said is an organic part of the working class. It's a part of the working class that has time to theorize and dedicate themselves to revolution. They have the power to lead. An example would be the revolutionary parties members of parliament, or just anyone who was involved in government and has experience organizing civil affairs. He never meant there had to be something akin to Pancake-mans spontaneous revolution. Hell, not even all the bourgeoisie revolted. Richer ones sided with Royalist.

Please try to engage me honestly and don't repeat tired old points when I correct them (which you've done - I don't know how many times). I just want to let you know, if I stop replying it's not because you've won. It's because it's like arguing with a brick wall.

To clarify, it's true that issues of "class struggle" did not exist in primitive communism. However, that does not mean these societies and "issues of dominance" are immune to materialist analysis. The reason Diamat IS true is because where it begins investigation is transhistorical.

So still no responses?

Anyways to the Marxist flag poster ITT. When I referred to "Marxist theories" I was referring to him advocating socialism and then communism. While the concept of socialism predates Marx, Karl Marx was arguably the biggest and most influential advocate of socialism and communism in history. If Marx didn't exost, Tsarist Russia would have never been overthrown if Marx didn't exist.

So really, all attempts at socialism/communism just ends up like this:

It's safe to say that most of Marx's predictions have been wrong so far. The world is not transitioning to socialism or communism, but towards capitalism through globalization and free trade.

Pretty much social democracy is the closest thing to socialism that can exist. ==But social democracy is in favor of capitalism, just with heavy state regulations and interventions.==

Ancap detected

National geopolitical policies have no bearing on whether or not Marx's theories were correct or not.

But the policies he shilled for endlessly (socialism then eventual communism) keep failing. You always see an eventual transition back to capitalist reforms by allowing private businesses.

His predictions that we will gravitate towards socialism is pretty wrong too. If anything the world continues to become more capitalist.

what a shit meme.

Anyways to the Marxist flag poster ITT. When I referred to "Marxist theories" I was referring to him advocating socialism and then communism. While the concept of socialism predates Marx, Karl Marx was arguably the biggest and most influential advocate of socialism and communism in history. If Marx didn't exost, Tsarist Russia would have never been overthrown if Marx didn't exist.
That's a pretty simplistic view of history. Speculating on alternate history is nothing but a game, you have no source material to even begin basing a theory like that on.

Marx never said socialism was a command economy in agrarian nations.

If you can show us these policies that you allege Marx shilled for and how they were carried out in the various regimes you mention and the circumstances that made them fail I would appreciate it.

I seem to remember Marx saying that Capitalism was a necessary stage between feudalism and socialism actually. And considering many of these countries experienced years, decades, or sometimes even a century or more of economic and social unrest or disruption I'd like to see you demonstrate that it was necessarily the fault of Marxism that they had to join the ranks of global capital.

I guess, if you ignore more than a century of socialist revolutions in every inhabited continent on the planet and the capitalist reaction.

Yeah, and? The millennia of domination of hereditary monarchies didn't "disprove" theories of republicanism or democracy. Especially as we remain mired in economic crisis seemingly without end and socialism continues to gain popular traction the momentary predominance of one ideology or another at any given moment doesn't hold any bearing on whether it's "right" or "wrong."

And yet they still don't recognize the effects of domination and hiearchy on the shaping of society. They still insist in creating institutions of domination instead of liberation. They are predictive statements nonetheless, and to predict the discovery from the past is not merely retrospection. Don't pretend this is what you meant the whole time by retrospection.
calm down m8
That is essentially what you're doing by the saying peasant population was not suited to revolution
Bookchin speaks of this in The Third Revolution. In short, it was the subsuming of institutions that once empowered workers by the bolsheviks lead by Lenin. Pic related.
"No u"
This all implies marx said nothing about the circumstances that revolution would take place under. Furthermore, this still doesn't deal with the issues of hiearchy and domination.
It's not that the "proletariat would revolt by 2017", it's the prediction that capitalism would bring about conditions in which the proletariat would revolt, and when these conditions did manifest the proletariat did not revolt.
Define "proletarian character"
Yes, and pic related had nothing to do with it right? : ^ )

Way to miss the point. The state is not the only institution of domination. Even if the state was the only institution of domination, the indirect control of the state by the bourgeois is still a form of statecraft. The state itself can do nothing but dominate, not liberate, simply by necessity of it's structure and alienation from the population. Contrast this with institutions of empowerment and liberation like popular assemblies, like the soviets before they became subsumed by the state.
I said bolsheviks, not Stalin. It did indeed die a lot earlier, the death beginning with the bolshevik takeover.
Yeah they did. Gerontocracy being perhaps the most common form i.e. the old ruling over the young.
Because people need to eat and drink does not mean that the basis of society is merely eating and drinking, especially in situations of abundance.
To go back to that quote:
and I disagree with the assumption wholeheartedly, especially as it relates to capitalism

Way to miss the point. The state is not the only institution of domination. Even if the state was the only institution of domination, the indirect control of the state by the bourgeois is still a form of statecraft. The state itself can do nothing but dominate, not liberate, simply by necessity of it's structure and alienation from the population. Contrast this with institutions of empowerment and liberation like popular assemblies, like the soviets before they became subsumed by the state.
I said bolsheviks, not Stalin. It did indeed die a lot earlier, the death beginning with the bolshevik takeover.
Yeah they did. Gerontocracy being perhaps the most common form i.e. the old ruling over the young.
Because people need to eat and drink does not mean that the basis of society is merely eating and drinking, especially in situations of abundance.
To go back to that quote:
and I disagree with the assumption wholeheartedly, especially as it relates to capitalism

This proposition is based on the idea of scarcity, not abundance. It's this idea of scarcity and competition for resources that marxism is based on, and which Bookchin ultimately rejects.

Bookchin can hardly be class collaborationist, considering that his program for libertarian municipalism calls for the destruction of "bourgeois" institution just as much as the state.
Not at all, and you're moving the goal posts.
Again, this is based on the assumption of scarcity.
Look to my other post for why you're wrong about this
Shame. I'm having lots of fun :3

State institutions are categorically inorganic, though. That's why the "vanguard" cannot lead the revolution, at least not through inorganic institutions of domination like the state.

This implies that DiaNat is not also transhistorical, and again material analysis doesn't deal with the issues of domination and hiearchy.

So what? It was already state-capitalist

So a liberal, a Bookchinite and some market socialists walk into a bar full of Marxists. 400+ replies later…

Because literally all of Marx's predictions besides muh constant recession in at least a single country in the world is false. Him predicting that a market economy would have recessions doesn't mean he's God Almighty and all of his predictions are bound to happen in the end. If it wasn't for Marx, Lenin wouldn't have been a communist revolutionary and neither would the bolsheiviks be a thing.

A stateless, classless, moneyless society will never exist. Revolutoonary Catalonia existed for very few years in the midst of a civil war before getting clapped quick by Franco.

Lenin drank the ideology kool-aid hard. He was entranced by Marx's utopian vision of communism being the end-goal of humanity. So he tried to establish a communist country.

What happened? As I have previously said. You need heirarchy and rulers to maintain the societies we see today. We stopped being cave people a very long time ago. Nobody here would unironically go live amongst subsaharan african tribes.

So Lenin realizes that you still need rulers to maintain a state. He establishes state socialism in the hopes that one day the country will be able to transition to communism. Replace Lenin with Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung, and Castro.

But the state powers increase ad infinitum under such rule. You don't see an iota of transitioning to communism, because it's impossible to achieve. They hold power for a few decades until one of the three happens: collapse on themselves, adopt capitalist reforms so they can stop being poor and stagnant as fuck (china, vietnam and now cuba), or continue to be backwards and poor as dirt (north korea).

After China and Vietnam dropped the failed socialist economy, their gdp sky rocketed after being heavily stagnant. GDP per capita skyrockets, average income and average wages rise, absolute poverty rates plummet.

The FARC got fucked by the Colombian government. The rest of the low level insurgencies have barely to nil made strides towards their goals. You see more globalization, more free teade and more capitalism everywhere else. At best you see socdem picking up grounds in countries like the US, but socdem operates within a capitalistic economy. Just with a massive welfare state to supplement it. And every developed country outside the US has generous welfare to keep the workers complacent.

Once again, you need the concept of private businesses and private property to maintain a prosperous economy.

The only viable left leaning economic system with a ton of empirical support behind it is social democracy which again operates within a capitalist economy.

Glorious uprising will never happen comrades.

Cuba was always garbage.

I just gotta say, this is a good thread

Lot of theory that's for sure

I really wanna read Bookchin so I can be in on the memes

Fuck's sake don't encourage him.


Anarcho-Syndicalism is dead tbh

Like Rojava will be by next year.

You fags say that every year.

Simply an objective analysis of the situation, comrade.

I love this place

I'll be drinking your tears in a year gomrade, mark my words.

[Spoiler]Who is this artist[/Spoiler]

this is how you spoiler dummy

Not an argument

If it wasn't for Darwin Nazism wouldn't have been a thing either, should we give up on evolution too?

This ( I know it isn't yours) claim is dumb, the Neoliberal Restoration is only now slowing down and there's no organized alternative to it at the moment, we might be planting the first seeds for a new movement but we're nowhere near a turning point.
Calling things "more" or "less" Socialist is very anti-Marxist anyway.
also Insurgencies are at an all time low for the most part.

I'd rather go full AnCap dystopia than beg bourgs for scraps forever tbh.


Yes. Completely irrelevant. Strikes aren't the way to revolution


And when was the last successful socialist revolution? Perhaps in the coming depression the deep state will be too troubled to stop them, but even then you'll only be taking third world countries.

You mean all the failed Marxist and Anarchist revolutions? :^)
should be noted that communalist conception of revolution isn't even necessarily violent

Violence isn't a problem to me. Nearby states will simply run over your mildly more organized anarcho-communism if you don't get hit by the CIA.


nah, going to rojava is basically my SHTF plan. It's just that not having a serious military organization irks me.

I wouldn't say the YPG isn't serious. If you're talking about Bookchin's idea of militias being the only force, there's much to say about the potency of militias. Just look at the Cossacks

Bluntly, it's no different than rednecks larping in the woods, and tolerated by the state for the same reason. Militias get run over by serious armies every time. Your only option at that point is guerrilla warfare, which must be hierarchically organized and supported by an outside state.

Again, is this to refer to the YPG or militias? Militias themselves have historically been an effective means of defense, and I don't know what leads you to believe otherwise. Asymmetrical warfare does not need to supported by an outside state, and beyond the democratic choice of commander it doesn't need to be "hierarchical".

You are both retarded. The Tsar would've been overthrown regardless of whether Marxism as an ideology existed before. There were socialists before Marx and there were revolutions before Marx as well. For Russia in particular, there were revolutionary groups trying overthrow the Russian Empire long before they even heard a word of Marx. Marx's usefulness is in providing the theory that helps to clarify and explain the inner workings of society as it moves historically. I find it sadly ironic that you people are treating Marx, the man who discarded Great Man theory of looking at history, as if he is a great man who is singlehandedly responsible for all the revolutions. The tankie is right, however, that its illogical to discard a theory just because its followers made mistakes

Bolsheviks wouldn't have been a thing without Marx.

When you have multiple people try to implement his theories and keep failing, then it's probably because they were basing it on unachievable theories. Maybe 400 years from now technology will advance to the point where post-scarcity is a thing. But it's not going to happen any time soon. Thus as it currently stands you need private companies and property to have a functioning and prosperous economy.

Maintain reasonable wealth distribution so that you can have a decent emergency social security net in times of financial hardships for the persons. You have thus eliminated the vast majority of the flaws with capitalism.

Socdems are the only people on this board with real-world evidence to support their theories.