Hey leftypol, I'm still relatively new to Marxism and have been spending the past month looking at the different leftists branches.
The one that appeals to me the most so far is anarcho-syndicalism. Before I begin reading more on that, I wanted to get your thoughts on it. Is syndicalism a good method of raising class consciousness and laying the infrastructure for communism, or is it "petty-bourgeois socialism"
If it is petty-bourgeouis socialism, then what is a better way of achieving full communism? Is violent revolution the only way?
syndicalism is kind of dated tbh. and yes violent revolution is the only way. you think porky is giving up that power over votes? no fucking way.
Camden Smith
and just start reading Marx too.
Tyler Reed
If violent revolution is the only way, how do we prevent it from becoming another communist dictatorship?
Nathan Russell
it has to be a truly proletarian movement. start learning, and educate the masses.
Jason Campbell
Marxists advocate for a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Basically meaning the workers lead a revolution and install a government that holds true to the ideals of the workers. Though a more well read Marxist could probably elaborate better than I can.
Carson Fisher
I am asking questions to, as well. I don't understand the whole surplus labour and LTV thing. You need to have proof and empirical evidence for your claims if you are to argue for them to exist in the physical world. True, stateless communism has yet to be attempted because it is just an idea in that it has yet to be attempted. What I mean by this is it is just a hypothesis, a concept. If it has yet to be attempted, then there is no basis which one can argue for. The burden of proof would be on the Marxist to show why it is a logical system that holds up. For surplus labour, I don't understand how it can be determined as being surplus. You need to show that you actually are self-employed to exert full ownership rights over everything, but most people aren't self-employed and can't produce moral or legal ownership of 'x' (in order to make those who attempt to steal 'x' morally and legally "wrong"). By that logic, people who mine for rare minerals are the richest people ever because they own the minerals, but they aren't self-employed/cannot prove it. With the whole labour and wealth/currency in general, I don't understand how that isn't a currency. You are just exchanging a coupon indicating a unit that acts as an IOU you use to exchange other goods. It's just fiat currency. One dollar shows how much a miner must work per unit time, it is reflective of his labour. What I don't understand is how the labour tickets will be printed or how fiscal policy (lack thereof) will play out in the "market" when there is no central authority or state that can exist (i.e. we need empirical evidence first, we can't make the conclusion then work backwards).
Gabriel Rodriguez
why contain it
Dominic Rivera
To add, the biggest thing I don't get (and how antithetical it is to the scientific method) is the post-scarcity thing. If you wish to even hint at a stable society that exists "post-scarcity", then energy must be involved in that discussion. How could Marx predict some stable nuclear force that lasts humanity throughout the centuries (i.e. nuclear fusion) before theories of the atom or even nuclear fission was developed? That is the definition of working backwards, or attempting a concept before resorting to actual evidence. It just doesn't make sense. You can't argue for it within this generation, that's like playing poker when you know what hands will come up next. Finally, the blurry distinction between public and private makes for some odd cases, too. What happens to the small business owner? I own a shop that employs people and myself. We sell apples, let's say. I can become public-→private instantly. It assumes everybody is incapable of self-sustaining or relying on niches to be filled. It cannot be without central authority to kill the small business owner, it just doesn't add up. People aren't going to willingly give up their businesses.
Daniel Roberts
Or you could just endlessly claim everything is surplus labour. If there is no equilibrium which can be amended with respect to an excess or a shortage, then limits are arbitrary. Would inflation or deflation exist, or would everything stay stagnant/dormant? The best argument would be some real-world application, a wide-scale test or experiment that has been replicated.
Lincoln Fisher
Theoretically yes,though as many including myself (even as a Syndicalist) will point out, it's practicality here and now is a bit in limbo due to the fact that union participation in a lot of the world is at an all-time low; organizing/mobilizing the proletariat through such means would currently require a resurgence of union participation (particularly radical/socialist unions) before it could be put into practice. The value in syndicalism then right now is not necessarily the execution of some exact plan of organization, but to lay the groundwork/values that the revolutionary movement/society should have in mind when structuring itself in accordance to the material conditions of the society in question.
The people who make that claim tend to come in one of three flavors. There are the people who make that claim who have integrated centralism as part of their ideological program. The principle decentralized nature of Syndicalism is often claimed by them to be simply an attempt to "decentralize capitalism", especially when considering that direct workers ownership/control of the means of production is also integral to Syndicalism, which the opposition in this case might claim is indicative of bourgeois values if one were to pursue that as part of their ideological program. There are those who mistake Syndicalism as being entirely interchangeable with the trade union movement of the 19th century (usually accompanied with pointing out that syndicat is French for trade union); they share a common heritage, but Syndicalism does expand quite a bit on the goals and strategies of the earlier movement while integrating numerous other pieces of theory as well. One very key component of Syndicalism over earlier trade union movements is that the former embraces revolution while the latter (generally) was reformist. Last are those who associate Syndicalism (and all anarchist varieties for that matter) with being inherently pro-market and thus failing to abolish production for exchange in contrast to production for use. While there certainly are many within both the historical and modern anarchist AND socialist spheres who are either pro-market or at least not opposed to markets, Syndicalism has usually been theorized as utilizing some form of planned economic model (the specific setup varying with time and place)
Violent revolution is an unfortunate inevitability, even anarcho-syndicalism recognizes this. Strategies such as the general strike and other moves of direct action are in large part the prologue to the establishment of a socialist/communist society, and revolution is the first act or two.
Also this poster has the right idea
The DoP merely means that the ruling authority of the bourgeoisie is replaced with that of the proletariat, not a statement as to the form, organization, or operation of the new governing body. In that sense, the concept of the DoP is not inconsistent with the principles of revolutionary anarchism.
Anthony Lee
Sounds like someone needs some BASED EMPIRICAL MARXISM: thread very relevant
>8ch.net/leftypol/res/1590962.html Do you have any debate material? The biggest and unresolved issue is how you can have some great big collective of cohesive individuals working in harmony; how are defectors dealt with? If there is no state (anarchy), what is stopping me from doing as I please?
John Hernandez
Best thing to do fam, read Wage Labour and Capital. It's short and answers your questions about surplus value, ltv, and more.
I'm not an anarchist, but an empirical MARXIST. as stated.
IF by defector you mean someone who emigrates voluntarily, then nothing happens to them. Also there would be a state, at least temporarily, mainly being peoples militias i.e just every adult citizen being a gun owner. To enforce things. Check out that thread I linked and Paul Cockshott's "Towards a New Socialism" to see how a modern socialist society would be run.
Owen Sanders
You don't.
The goal of marxism is for the lazy & degenerate to enslave the productive & hardworking.
It's only possible through dictatorship & use of force.
Adam Adams
So there is a state. IF by defector you mean someone who emigrates voluntarily, then nothing happens to them. Also there would be a state, at least temporarily, mainly being peoples militias i.e just every adult citizen being a gun owner. No, I mean I want to start my own business. Voluntarism, like you hint towards. The people with guns, what happens to them? You say "temporary", what happens to the people with the power (guns). Do you expect them to just give it all up? Empirical examples such as? What societies have been Marxist?
Tyler Bailey
Marxism isn't a political ideology, you dumb liberal
Chase Diaz
Syndicalism and anarcho-communism seem like sensible systems post-revolution. Of course, the suffer from the same problem as every other branch of anarchism, namely that while capitalism is stil the dominant system on the planet a standing army is necessary. That necessitates an organization that is capable of handling a complex military apparatus–a state. The trick then is getting rid of the state afterward.
Jace Sullivan
That is literally capitalism.
Leo Cox
So class is like your race, basically? You virtue signal toward billionaires?
Who cares? They're destroying the planet and killing people.
Nathan Flores
We shouldn't even be talking to your silly ass, you're a Holla Forums raider-shill.
Camden Sullivan
Talk to Nigeria, one-tenth of all births in the world are set to occur in Nigeria as Africa assumes the greatest growth rate of any nation: worldometers.info/world-population/africa-population/ Those mouths will have to be fed. Demand doesn't disappear overnight.
You just disproved yourself twice.
Gabriel Morales
This is a fucking bot. No human could be so completely incapable of forming a meaningful and contextually relevant sentence twice.
Adam Phillips
Operating on the assumption that everybody is inferior, intellectually or ideologically, is not the basis of a democracy, which you allege to support. Democracy is about the will of the majority. My status as a "bot" (nice proof btw) is equal to your say for the future of society.
Aiden Garcia
LOL this bot is a faggot. I'm just gonna keep saying bot until it repeats the same thing twice and proves me right.
Jonathan Watson
And we have yet to arrive at actual, real-world examples of your ideal societies. Instead, we focus on attacking the source over the content. Actually, I'm not making any assertions, I am asking for your evidence. If your framework is so shoddy that a mere inquiry launches you into a "everybody besides me is a bot which is why they are wrong" bit, that is a key tell in your lack of substantive points.
Christian Williams
bot bot bot bot
Jose Myers
You do your comrades a disservice by backing out of such a simple conversation. Who do you think sounds more like a bot right now. The guy who repeats the same word four times? Or the other guy who is asking your evidence for a framework that is presented a priori?
Robert Collins
read less, be more active
Carson Hall
I don't know who you think you are talking to, but I don't think it is the right person.
Levi Myers
i don't think capitalists are capable of making millions of products themselves…
Alexander Hughes
is this Holla Forums falseflagging?
William Sanchez
You've clearly never been within 100 miles of a business let alone a management position
Adam Hughes
A small minority of managerial staff I have ever met in my life are hard workers.
William Cooper
Leftists don't have points.
They 'feel bad' about something and therefore conclude that 'X thing must be bad'
They are incapable of reason.
If they were logical human beings, they wouldn't all be poor losers begging for a hand out.
It's virtually impossible to be poor if you live in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand or Europe.
In fact the only way to be poor in the west is to make terrible decisions and be a moron…
Which generally results in getting butthurt and idolizing Karl 'I dont understand economics' Marx because he promises them free shit and the fantasy of a world without people constantly reminding them they're a loser to mentally masturbate over.
Joseph Baker
boards.4chan.org/pol/
Dominic Reyes
/cuck/
Jose Brooks
Are you schizophrenic? I am honestly worried about your mental health.
Kayden Gray
truly, we should bow before their wisdom.
Robert Young
Provide one example, just ONE, of a socialist state becoming prosperous & experiencing a universal increase in quality of life. I'll wait.
When you realise there isn't a single example, and resort to typical left wing whining rather than making any arguments, just remember that capitalism has worked in every nation that has employed it.
Of course neither have ever been fully implemented, so lets leave the 'not real communism' argument outside.
British Empire at it's most capitalist point during the industrial revolution - MASSIVE increase in wealth & quality of life.
America during it's initial post-independence state - MASSIVE increase in wealth & quality of life
Russia under Putin embracing lots of capitalist ideology - massive increase in wealth & quality of life.
Modern day China (which is SUPER capitalist at the individual level, only the government claims to be communist) - Massive increase in wealth & quality of life.
There are more millionaires pouring out of these countries than ever before, because of capitalism.
It's too bad you're too dumb & lazy to actually work hard, you probably spend your time fapping to imageboards & smoking weed. But if you decide to actually contribute to society one day you'll realize it will work for you too.
Austin Sanchez
I do not remember this.
For the lazy degenerate aristocrats. Resulted in conditions for workers that essentially equated to slavery.
Slavery and wage slavery which continues today. Only the wealthy get quality of life. Everyone else is chattel.
You're joking, right?
You have got to be joking.
Virtue signalling for capitalists is embarrassing. You should be embarrassed.
Sebastian Richardson
Kerala. USSR - Imperial famines which had cycled for a millenium ended at last, full industrialization, mass consumer good production, still better than Russia's been since 1991, plus lots of social services.
British Empire was responsible for far more deaths than the USSR and China combined. America has had its own massive killings to achieve industrialization between the extermination of the Native Americans and the slave trade and the exploitation of Latin America once those came to their ends.
There are millionaires in those countries because they exploit the workers. If you see a millionaire boast about making his money through hard work, ask him "whose?". Russia and China today are M I S E R A B L E for the average person. Mao screwed over the peasants, yes, but they were still better off peasants than they are now.
What do you mean, communism's never been implemented? Humanity has been communist for most of its existence! The whole point of communism is to get a baseline idea of what a society where alienation, material scarcity, and domination of man over man is absent might look like based on scientific analysis of past societies. Such include the Iroquois Confederacy, Cossacks (see: stanitsa), and 18th-century pirates (even if the shipboard organization wasn't called it, it was anarcho-communist; read "The Invisible Hook"). Stop projecting, Holla Forums NEET. I only became ansyn after I got a job.
Camden Sanders
Is China worse off now than it was before Deng?
Nolan Johnson
It's no better for most of the people there.
Eli Lee
Historians never try to work out however many millions died from starvation, preventable diseases, overwork etc. under American, British, French etc. rule while they were industrializing, but they're quick to remember muh 100 Gorillion. Funny, that.
Jayden Garcia
Yes, Mao should have purged all the revisionists
Eli Rodriguez
wew laddo, got a non-thumbnail version of that pic?
