How do we repair the left's reputation?

Addressed

WE HAVE THIS THREAD EVERY HOUR

SHUT

THE

FUCK

UP

ALREADY

try to not be shit and don't get trolled by shills in your groups and in the MSM.

post your butt

Why not just dump the labels "left" and "liberal" and start calling ourselves centrists or even just socialists? That way, we can pick and choose what political beliefs we want to have individually, and the media can't bitch at us about not being a "real" leftist?

Also, we need to start supporting the liberties that everyone likes unconditionally, including the second amendment and the first amendment when it's people who disagree with us. We can't go around flashing the constitution on our right to privacy from government surveillance but then ignore it when it comes to someone's right to be well armed.

...

What the left needs to do is figure out the mechanics of a post-capitalist economy.

We'll whine endlessly about capitalism but whenever anyone asks us what we're proposing as an alternative, all we can do is talk in insultingly vague terms about 'a society based on need and not profit'. When pressed about how that will actually work, pretty much every leftist pulls out the limp-dick line about how 'the workers will determine that in the course of the revolution'. A particularly smug leftie (hurr durr read bookchin) will say something vague about co-ordinated councils, never getting more specific than that.

Well it's been 200 years, we've had multiple rebellions, and the working class and its' precious councils/soviets/shoras/cordones/whatevers never managed to spontaneously figure out how to run an entire national, let alone global, economy without resorting to the market or money. It was maybe a little silly to expect them to do that in the middle of a revolution/civil war/retributive state crackdown.

It's time the Left faced up to the fact that we don't actually have a clue how a moneyless economy will actually work. Only once we've admitted that can we actually start figuring such an economy out.

Once we know what we're actually proposing, figuring out how to get it most effectively will be much easier. At the moment all we have is a scattershot bullshit 'diversity of tactics', since if nobody knows what the actual goal is, how to achieve it will be equally unclear.

...

By not associating with them. Pick a different label.

Gradualist [[[socialism in one country]]] seems the most practical step, working from there to integrate, on a voluntary nation by nation basis, certain industries and services. There's nothing on paper that stops two social nationalist governments working towards shared goals. Additionally I think talk of higher communism is naval gazing until post scarcity is technologically and logistically feasible. Somewhere along the line people will need to realise there is more to life than trinkets.

These kinds of pronouncements are exactly where the left breaks down into hissy-fits and slap-fighting, and I think they are totally unnecessary.

You have no idea what kind of post-capitalist society you're proposing, what on Earth makes you think you're qualified to talk about how we'll get there? What if a post-capitalist economic structure is impossible to implement on less than a global level? What if a post-capitalist economic form is so remarkably efficient that we can start implementing it on a business-by-business basis? You simply don't know, so getting into fights with anarchists and tankies and trots and what have you about it seems like a huge waste of time.

It's like talking about the best way to travel when you haven't decided whether you're going down the street or to Jupiter.

On a raw productive level, post-scarcity is more than feasible. We make enough stuff to provide everyone on Earth with what they need, that's been true for a while. And giving people a good life is the only proven effective method of population control, so no worries there. Further to that, we have the information-gathering and processing capacity to co-ordinate the effective distribution of goods across the world.

All we lack is an effective system of organising that distribution. That is the key material condition that we need to achieve to make communism a viable prospect. I maintain that the only remaining barrier between capitalism and communism is a programming task. Which is why I find it so annoying that so many leftists want to burble on about philosophy or pissbaby slapfights about muh holodomor or whatever.

Conspicuous consumption only really makes sense in a society defined by scarcity and wealth inequality. Remove those factors by building an economic system that transcends the market, and you remove the material basis for that kind of behaviour.

People who can't afford to live on their own with their shitty wages become left-wing activists? Color me surprised.

That's one thing not to be ashamed of. Seriously.

>Holla Forums

>being a NEET
oh right, because we're pass 2007, being a nerd rocks ^3^!!!

Easy. Stop believing right wing bullshit.

Also, stop internalising whatever stupid shit people say about you. You know enough theory to hold to your principles.

And fuck the language of personal responsibility.

Who are you quoting?

Serious question. You linked my post, but you're replying to something else entirely, something nobody in this thread ever said. You even posted a picture that entirely supports my point.

why not fuck the entire communist manifesto while you're at it.

/jp/ please

We must go beyond the liberal fun, its not about the freedom to trigger fundies or SJW but the freedom to get drunk and fuck

Fuck this gay earth!!

There's this book called Anarchism and Workers Self Management in Revolutionary Spain that elaborates on some of the methods used by the Spanish anarchists and communists during the Spanish Civil War. Some of them were pretty interesting. Everyone talks about labor vouchers and things like that, but something I thought was even more interesting was the idea of two systems of currency.

To preface this, I don't think there is anything inherently bad about currency, it's just a symbol for debt or material obligation, or even more abstractly, a tangible representation of social power within society. More functionally, it's just a means to an end, that end being exchange and/or movement of goods and services.

So, back to the idea that intrigued me in this book. The idea was two currencies, one for consumer needs (goods such as food and household supplies, and services such as haircuts or daycare for children), and one for commercial and industrial transactions. The former would be managed in a way to ensure that everyone can get what they need, and the latter could be allocated to (worker owned and operated) businesses by an (elected panel of experts or however you want to do it to ensure transparency and fairness) authority in order to prioritize the current needs and wants of society at large.

There are obvious pitfalls to this system, but I just thought it was an interesting idea for a market socialist economy. On the one hand, you'd have freely competing worker-owned enterprises ensuring that consumers get what they need, and on the other hand, you could also ensure that the priorities of society are managed by humans with human interests rather than pure market forces and greed.

Yeah but there's way more animator jobs than voice jobs. Getting the voice actor job is too much like winning the lottery