Okay Holla Forums, I'm a newborn babe in this adult world...

Reading this helped a bit. One thing that always confused me was why America was so scared of Communism when it seems to be the ideals of Democracy taken to their logical conclusions. Why the fuck have we been fighting so hard to fight something that seems so rooted in our own political ideals?

This is the thing, whenever I start delving in I keep finding more reasons for people to start moving towards a more level playing field but people keep screaming that it's more complicated than that. Fucking how? I want the same chance as everybody else and want everybody else to have the same chance I have. That's the core of my personal ideology and for a while I assumed that was the default driving force behind the American ideology, but so many people on all sides seem to feel like I'm wrong.

Marx is extremely relevant though and reading Marx will give you actually a very good understanding of today's world. Not everything Marx wrote about applies today and some of it needs to be updated while other stuff was just plain wrong, but ignoring Marx when trying to understand the current global economy would be like ignoring analysis when attempting to understand stochastic.

Sweden is not socialist. There is in fact not a single socialist society currently in existence. I'm afraid you've fallen victim to the very limited range of discourse that is allowed in American politics. In socialism there is no flow of capital, because the organization is not organized around it anymore, capitalism operates on something called the law of value, while socialism would be the step after which organizes the economy around use value. The basis for socialist ideology (socialism is btw just a "nice" term for communism) would be historical materialism, which is an empirical investigation of society and how our societal organization is related to our relationship to the means of production and our material reality (basically, what kind of technology, infrastructure and industry there is, how this forms us and society and how we interact with it).

Perhaps I could interest you in a one hour long video that attempts to visualize Capital by Marx? It's not that hard to understand and makes a good job of describing of describing capitalist organization of society. Disclaimer for the future: David Harvey's understand of "value" is pretty dubious.

youtube.com/watch?v=83Yx6RBvoFc

Don't really want to derail OP's thread, but en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism

*because society is not organized around it anymore

What should confuse you even more is why people fled to America when communists took over, I mean, why would they flee to an inferior version of what they just got?

It just doesn't make any sense.

...

Not sure if you're OP, but the simple (and often made fun of answer) is that it wasn't "real communism". I would of course agree with that. To gain understanding of the situation requires a lot more reading however and first an understanding of what capitalism is, then of what socialism and communism is and how these concepts as the next steps for society were developed, and lastly of why the (genuine, proletarian) revolution in Russia degenerated into state capitalism.

I was merely namedropping "scientific socialism" in case you wanted to do any reading on it yourself, not as an argument. As I said I don't want to derail OP's thread.

You are going to get pretty solid answers from everyone on the first question.
The second is different. There are so many different people with different ideas on how to abolish capitalism and achieve the end result, being communism.
What's important is to READ the basic books to really understand for yourself, and then decide what you want to believe in the most efficient way to achieve communism is.

I may despise leftcoms just as much as the other guy, but come on man!

Marx's main theoretical work was describing capitalism and how it functions. Considering we're still living in capitalism, I'd say it's pretty topical!

'no'

Sweden has social democracy, that is reforms the capitalist government instituted to placate its workers and keep it's capitalism running efficiently. Socialism isn't just government doing stuff, the more government doing stuff being the more socialism.

In terms of McDonalds, don't you want to have more control over your workplace, I bet you spend a lot of time there. The fact is McDonalds isn't run for its workers, or its customers, it's run for its shareholders. Society at large, the workers, the consumers, all have absolutely no formal say in how McDonalds does its business although their corporate decisions effect everyone. The purpose of production in a capitalist society is to make money for the owner, for the capitalist. Workers need to get control of the means of production so that we can begin to move towards production occurring only for personal or social consumption, not for the purpose of enriching a few legally muh privileged capitalists. The reason this is in your self interest is because for one it means better working conditions and better pay in real terms, more production is geared towards meeting your needs, you get the healthcare you need, the housing you need, the food you need, and get your say in how the world around you is run.

I'm sorry if I was a bit abrasive in this reply. Posting for so long here conditions one to respond to Holla Forumsack trolls.

I do suggest reading up on this topic. Here's a very beginners reading: s3.jacobinmag.com/issues/jacobin-abcs.pdf

Just look at the essays that you feel are the most interesting and go from there. check you the reading list thread for more shit: 8ch.net/leftypol/res/1312944.html

You know what, what have I got better to do? I might as well read Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto. Those are the two core books on leftist theory that I can read, right?

Those will work just fine.

Das Kapital is a very difficult book even for advanced readers. Begin with Wage Labour and Capital.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Wage_Labour_and_Capital.pdf

It's almost like the lack is constitutive, that there will never be real communism because it is a fantasy of completion.

Capital is really long and complicated and Communist Manifesto does actually not apply to our modern times anymore. It was meant as a pamphlet that directly spoke to the workers and their issues of their time. I'd recommend going with the suggestions here

Commiefesto has some insights into how Marx thinks with his theory of history, but its mostly a propaganda pamphlet. Just follow>>1566718

Its a solid guide. You can probably start on Das Kapital after all of the works listed under Marx

There will probably never be utopian communism, but the shift to a socialist organization of society is inevitable, else we will either destroy ourselves or regress into more primitive forms of economic organization. I extend the offer to follow the reading recommendations to you too. Reading Marx and understanding how he came to develop communism from an empirical standpoint is paramount to understand why there is no communism today and why every attempt to instill it in the past failed and often times was doomed from the very start.

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."

If you want a theoretical basis of politics beyond just Marxism, I'd suggest reading Machiavelli's The Prince, Discourses, Rousseau's Social Contract/Discourses on Inequality. You could also look at more individualistic thinkers such as Max Stirner or Emma Goldman. But that's up to you.

OWO sure is pretty POPPER in here.

The necessity that can never can be actual, some might call it.. fantasy.

In the same way that the ideal of capitalism is a fantasy, and yet we live in a capitalist society. Whenever dealing with reality, economic forms of organization will never be pure and completely realized. Even today we can observe primitive communist elements in society, just as we were to observe primitive elements of capitalism in feudalism.

Books on Marx. Reading even one will help you.

What of the contradiction of capital accumulation and the size of the proletariat. As the amount of capital increases relative to labor, as the rate of profit falls, and automation increases and increases, doesn't that mean that the proletariat is also decreasing over time, that the masses are slowly loosing their collective power to throw a wrench in the system around them? How many jobs in the US can really be said to exist for the purpose of social production, how much is now just pushing papers around, making things look pretty, ect.

The fact is, yes, we must resist capitalism because as it destroys itself on the rocks of environmental catastrophe, war and overproduction, but we cannot expect this undoing to happen on its own. Capitalism can survive a multitude of internal crises, contradictions, itself growing stronger as its logic and ideology disassociates from reality more and more, going on until it surpasses its external limits.

The capitalist fantasy would be the pure market, it's from where we get the "it's not capitalism, it's crony capitalism/corporatism!" from.

The fault is intrinsic, it's that it talks about words, which can never be the things.

I find it funny that you say this and yet wear the leftcom flag, critiquing anything that attempts to put workers in control, anything that attempts to prevent capitalism from hitting its deadly external limits. No, economic forms of organization will never be pure and completely realized, but then why must we constantly critique programs, platforms, and any movement that does meet what vague hand-waves Marx ascribed to socialism and communism!

Take cooperatives and Richard D Wolff's ideas, he's inspiring people across the country to try to take control of their workplace, to politically organize to force a transition away from the formal place of the capitalist in our economy, which, like it or not, is a part of THE PRESENT STATE OF THINGS WHICH NEEDS ABOLISHING.

We must resist capitalism, but we must do so intelligently. I can only assume here, but I would guess from my flag you would have the impression (because of stereotypes being peddled here) that Leftcoms advocate doing "nothing" and that communism will just naturally emerge. That is not the case.

What Leftcoms advocate for is intelligent organization of the proletariat, that emphasizes true democratic and direct representation of the proletariat's interests, as well as equipping the proletariat with the necessary intellectual understanding for the revolution (which is why Leftcoms constantly tell everyone and their grandmother to read theory), while avoiding to fall into the traps of opportunism and harmful activism (which is activism that only serves to reenforce the present state of things and is counter-revolutionary). Leftcoms also do not believe in concepts such as "raising class consciousness" outgoing from these principles, as this can be considered useless activism, and we emphasize being prepared for moments of revolutionary potential (which arise frequently due to capitalism going constantly through phasis of crisis).

see

We criticize programs and platforms because we consider them to be harmful, useless and at times counter-evolutionary. You will see that Leftcoms are in fact decidedly opposed to utopianism precisely because we cannot plan for the organization of society post-revolution, what we are concerned with is avoiding the mistakes of the past (for example the USSR), learning from them and doing it just right.

Wolff is a joke, he's not even a socialist, no matter what you think about co-ops.

Well guess what Bucko, you're not going to have an organization or anyone prepared for revolution if you don't engage in politics before the crisis, if you don't "raise class consciousness" and get workers organized. The Bolshevik Party engaged in parliamentary politics, for example.

I would say the same of yours.

If you have no idea what you are going to do, you aren't going to do anything. You can't expect people to simply follow you because you say, "we'll bring about socialism and the abolishment or private property…somehow". You need to take a stand on concrete issues, show in concrete terms how you are going to make people's lives better. Or else when crisis comes, people will laugh in your fucking faces. There's a reason why, in the communist manifesto, Marx outlined several planks of simple reforms the communist party would take once in power. Any modern movement will need an equivalent.

He is a socialist, he wants a transition away from capitalism. I'm sorry he hurt your precious leftcom sensibilities.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

youtube.com/watch?v=fSQgCy_iIcc

is this vid going to be autism, user?

Just because you're unfamiliar with Leftcom praxis and theory, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Personally I'm in favor of communization for example. I'm excited to hear your critique of communization and how it is counter-revolutionary.

And no, Wolff is not a socialist, come on, not even Reddit socialist think so. It's amazing how he managed not to grasp capitalism, but he did it.

I don't even care what your opinion on co-ops itself is, but it is quite clear that Wolff does not understand what communism and capitalism actually are.

not really, just see it, it's almost purely positive on marx.

Too many Jews, not enough dead niggers.

I'm mostly anti-Bordigism, but in general don't like the leftcom attitude towards most shit. I have no particular problem with communization theory.

As for Wolff, you yourself admitted that Capitalism contains in it traces of communist forms of organization, just as feudalism had traces of capitalism. I think that's what he is referring to there.

But regardless, he has a much deeper understanding of capitalism and socialism than you're painting, or that can get across in his lectures.

See: digamo.free.fr/wolffresnick12.pdf Contending Economic Theories

truth-out.org/news/item/39647-richard-d-wolff-what-is-capitalism-and-socialism-what-differentiates-them

He's right to critique the lack of focus on the employer-employee relationship in previous attempts at socialism. That's exactly what capitalism is about. An autistic focus on markets and value form will only lead you to dominate the mass of people with a central plan instead of a market. Don't get it wrong, he still sees private property and markets as a part of capitalism, but we've already seen that state control and planning can work just as well.

god bless you leftcom

...

Hahahaha! Yeah, sure thing mate. Jesus keeps telling the poor how the world will belong to them after God's intervention, violently assaults bankers with a whip, instructs people to give away all their property and is generally a radical social figure who repeatedly points out the evil of material wealth to the point where his followers set up a literal commune after his death and God has people there who don't share all their wealth killed (Acts 5:1-11), but of course he wasn't serious when he said rich people wouldn't be going to heaven. He actually meant something totally innocuous that would literally no value as a teaching or even an observation, and also does not critique the rulers and the wealthy in any meaningful way. Close call, because otherwise we might have to consider that our current society would be an abomination in Jesus eyes. I mean, surely all those nice rich Republican Christians who keep aloft a system that leaves billions in misery whilst destroying the planet are still going to heaven… right?

Dont try and read Capital alone. You really need a group to discuss every part with, or be very good at slowly digesting it.
The Manifesto is pretty pointless, it was written for a specific time and place and not meant as a philosophical work.

Ok. You make 80 burgers during your 8 hour shift. That comes out to 10 burgers an hour. Each of these burgers is worth 1$.

You make 10 burgers an hour and each customer pays a dollar for it. 10$ is exchanged for each hour you make burgers. You are paid 7.25$ an hour.

There's a difference here. Every hour, you get 7.25$ making a product which people pay 10$ for. What happens to the other 2.75$?

Some of it goes to expenses, sure. Transporting the meat, lettuce and buns. Cleaning the ingredients and testing them. And so on. Let's say it costs 2$

What happens to the last 75 cents? Someone bother with a whole operation harvests all this stuff, transports it and makes you prepare it. There is an owner of the harvester, the trailer and the grill. Now, he does none of the work. But because he owns that stuff, he skims some off the top. Say, 75 cents. This is called surplus value.

He doesn't do any of the work. He just happens to own the stuff that other people work on. Now, how many people are on your shift in a fast food restaurant? Let's say 5.

It doesn't seem like much, but it adds up. 5 people are working on your shift. Now, every time they use his grill, his sink and everything in the restaurant he gets money. There are 5 people working 8 hour shifts. He makes about 0.75$ for your collective 40 hours of work, so about 30$. the restaurant has two shifts every day, so that's about 60$ a day.

Let's say he owns ten restaurants. That means he makes 600$ a day. Every week when you get your paycheck, he gets 4200$.

He doesn't work at all for any of this. He can work or play with all the time you are working because he will always make this money. You will be forced to clean the place up by some middle manager before he comes by every once in a while.

The owner. He owns the means by which you produce burgers and therefore profit. The profit of your labor is for him.

I'll give it a shot. Capitalism makes some people work more than they objectively should, if you take a look at what they get out of the bargain. Liberals justify this with reference to the market and voluntarism, as in you get paid for your work what you are worth in the market, and you are free to make a different trade if you want.

This however ignores the fact that if you don't have a lot to start with, you are constrained in your freedom to trade. You cannot choose not to work if you are poor. Given that condition prevailing in the market, you are vulnerable to exploitation, namely having to trade away your work for less than it is worth, and less than you would trade it for if not for the threat of starvation. This surplus is appropriated by the capitalist. Marx' insight was that in a system where you produce to trade for a surplus value, the above becomes inevitable, as the surplus value can only come from this exploitation if you presume that all other trades are perfectly equivalent (everything is traded for what it is worth - then whence the profit for either party?).

We're looking at ways to remove that imbalance, but others also.

This is why I still like you leftcoms. You might shit all over Roajva, but at least you're well-read.

if you're the leftcom who helps people understand Capital who I've seen around here, just wanna say thank you for your service, it does help.

It's also worth pointing out that even in such organisations where the person collecting surplus does do work, such as in small businesses or in large corporations as some kind of management, it would not entitle them to the value of anyone else's labour in addition to their own.

Woah you got triggered pretty hard. The message behind that teaching is that a person who is well off will have to work even harder to stay just in God's eyes than a shepard. Camels would have to get on their knees in order to be guided through the Eye of the Needle. It's a message that worldly greed distances a person from God. Either way this is off topic, you just got triggered hard by a fucking parable my dude.

nice revisionist nonsense you fucking retard, especially since nowhere is it called "the eye of the needle," and especially not in god's official version, the king james bible

biblehub.com/matthew/19-24.htm

kill the rich

No, they're right. That nonsense about camels having to get on their knees is completely made up. There was never any such thing as an "eye of the needle" gate. "Needle" in the Bible only refers to the kind you sew with.

The bibble shits all over rich people. Way to go swallowing porkprop.

Isn't it a metaphor? Since the eye of a needle is tiny.

Fuck I am a retard we are in agreement.