Muke just take the L and never embarrass us like this again

Xexizy just said big words and added little to no importance to the debate, FinBol and BadMouse when they rarely spoke they added some real important points.

muke did nothing wrong tho

I bet Muke's crying somewhere right now, holy fuck!

Which fascist did Muke even lose to though? I thought everybody on the capitalist side was a classical liberal.

Muke sucks, Badmouse sucks finnbol will carry.
Muke carried, Badmouse and Finnbol where mediocre.
Muke sucks
What did I miss?

Muke when Unruhe says you did something bad, you have to know you really won.

this, though finbol got baited into ussr discussion a few times which is really pointless.

L

this
+mouse was out of his league, he had mostly moralist points
he didn't get to speak about his childhood in France

but moralism is one of the easiest points to make as a leftist, which is what they consistently did in the debate

Takes some special kind of autism when a moralizing AnCom like BadMouse is able to shit less on a ML than a self-proclaimed Marxist. Can he stop shitting on other people? He's read four books or something, all he does his spout buzzwords

He is talking about an old debate where muke got destroyed by aut-rightists.

Real talk, I think Roo would body that whole debate single handedly. I get the feeling he's the typa leftist that reads theory 5 times a day like a devout Islamist prays.

Fucking embarrassing.

That was way before this debate he accepted a debate with a fascist and the guy ran all over him because muke didn't have any real knowledge other then Holla Forums memes and talking points.

Also:
youtube.com/watch?v=adGyjcKjT5M
youtube.com/watch?v=CNWcbxzSvkM

...

That's what I'm saying. Lefties better watch them "muh goolags" hooks. I knew the direction the debate was heading in after the commies spent the first hour or so defending communism instead of criticizing capitalism.

Why is he so pissed all the time now?

yeah it's a real pattern in this sort of debates… the capitalists really try to force their own terrain on which the debate can take place; they can't even imagine there's other ways of thinking about the world. this is also something i struggle with personally when i talk to liberals and so on. how do you create discourse on, for example, alienation or austerity with reference to marx - the first two being something everyone feels, the second something everyone's been taught to fear

That's true, but anti-communist memeing and resistance to anti-capitalist politics are intimately related. In the minds of reactionaries, any attempt to change the system can only end in the gulag etc, etc.

Muke needs to get out more and stop being such an autistic shutin. Would probably help with his debating skills

Schnitz gets it. There needs to be *ORDER* till Porky and his minions after the revolution to end all revolutions ain't a threat no more. Shit, we've seen how capitalism goes fascist when it's on it's last legs so it's foolish to think a buncha Titoist communes could keep creeping capitalism at bay all alone.

Read Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists you ignorant fuck

and delete your account

Suck my dick, armchair leftist.

He has just been retweeting and liking a load of selfies of females on twitter, i think he is realising he wont get a 2D gf

about right for a namefag tbh

X D

He's not wrong

You did see the original debate thread, right?

No Muke is literally right

Lol im not disagreeing with him, its just he has been getting so mad over it

Can you blame him tbf

this
everyone was sucking his dick,originally.
This thread reeks of jelly sectarian ML and Tanky butthurt.

I mean, he definitely wasn't the carry of the debate that's for sure which it seems he thinks he was.

...

He was. They moderator had to tell him to give others a chance to speak because he was "dominating" the debate.

where has he said that? He hinted that badmouse was better, earlier.

Wtf I thought we were proud of Muke

...

We are, comrade. Ignore the tankies. They're literally just mad he refused to say the USSR was Socialist on a debate against liberals.

Oh, I thought that's what you were referring to. Why do you think he thinks that then?

Is this becoming Holla Forums's version of I.Q.?

Does he think the USSR wasn't socialist?

It was important enough to let him speak most of the time, and "carry" the debate.

He never did, this was well known.

How else do you know if somebody knows what they're talking bout?

Literally kill yourself

Why do people care about a crazy guy like the Roo anyway?

This. Muke was clrealy the better debater on the socialist side. It is just a pity that his knowledge of theory is quite poor.

They're literally "what about the memes?!?" tier autist.
There's a ton of shit I disagree with muke about, but I'd have to be blind not to see how well he did

Yeah, but the whole debate wasn't a bit lackluster in general. He was the best on the socialist side, but they shoulda taken the fight to the capitalists a bit more instead of letting Sargon and that whiney CEO bombard them with the "Stalin killed every atom in teh universe!" meme.

Internet debates are cancer. You need to set a topic, otherwise it just becomes a conversational manoeuvre fest.

They did have topics, did you even watch the debate

This is how most debates go. The biggest portion is spent on explaining socialism, because people don't know it, and don't care enough to learn. Besides, the vast majority of people already know the bad things about capitalism. The set of pseudo-intelectual "contrarian" teenagers that make up sargon's viewers are hardly a group of people that can be convinced. They have never worked a day in their lives, and most likely have lived quite comfortable lives. This allows them to believe most rationalisations about capitalism. They also associate communism with feminists trying to put women into their videogames, so you can see how they might not exactly be the most rational bunch. Attacking capitalism wouldn't achieve anything with them, because they are not capable of being convinced, and it wouldn't achieve anything with the regular worker, who already knows all this bullshit, because he feels it regularly. However, explaining things about socialism helps to dispell the enormous ammounts of strawmaning that the right spreads about it.

What are your problems with platformism?

I'm an anarcho-syndicalist, and I have found that a lot of them are against anarcho-syndicalism. They prefer revolutionary syndicalism, because their main idea is infiltrating existing groups and turning them anarchist, whereas anarcho-syndicalists want to make the groups anarchist to begin with. This makes them often collaborate with social-democrats, and be against other anarchists.
So yeah. They are fucking dicks.

No.

Does Jason suffer from hearing comprehension?
They admitted that it works in the sense that any system "works", like feudalism "works", primitive hunters and gatherers "works", fascism "works", so socialism also "works" but it gives you breadlines and famines so capitalism is a "superior system".
Am I the only one who endured the entire 4 hours of the debate?
The overall consensus from the porkies side by the end was that they recognize that capitalism has problems but when compared to the alternatives it is still the best system we can possibly have for the time being. Like they know that it sucks but at the same time they failed to see how socialism could be implemented and be better than capitalism given what happened all the times it has been tried.

based on what books they actually read and which theorist they subscribe to

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't call myself a platformist and I agree with what (I presume) you say in .

I just feel like the section on the defence of the revolution gives some useful information as to how anarchists could organise in terms of defence. Maybe I'm wrong.

i didn't even watch the thing nor am i ever gonna do it but i know for a fact if jason is sperging against him then muke was right

Honestly, the vast majority of Holla Forums heard what they wanted to hear. Then they decided declared victory for the socialist side on that basis.

Probably

Yeah, I've actually read their Platform pamphlet, and it isn't that bad. A lot of the stuff they say is very good. Particularly the parts that defend a higher degree of organisation. The thing is the pamphlet was about creating an organisation of anarchists that would be dedicated to infiltrating the unions (which, at that point, where independent, non-corporativist, democratic entities) and turning the workers anarchists. In its historical context, it is actually not a bad idea at all. The problem begins when people want to apply that to the modern day, when unions are non-independent, corportivist, non-democratic, and only a very small portion of the working class is in them.
So I guess you could say I understand the point of platformism, but I think its supporters are utter idiots.

No, he just has very low standards for what makes a debate "over". No wonder he goes around saying "he never lost".

I predicted some time ago that his e-celeb status would get to his head. It's been happening for some time now. And his getting super sectarian too wtf

It always happens to everyone.
Post examples.

There is literally nothing wrong in those posts tho.

...

Fair enough. I never picked up the whole entryist/infiltration thing when reading the Platform before, honestly, though reading it back now it's pretty plain - I got the idea before that they were just encouraging participation in syndicalism. The "anarcho-trot" thing makes more sense now.

But yeah, I definitely find the text relatively useful as an example of how a general higher organisation could be achieved without necessarily becoming authoritarian, though I'm not too keen on some of its aspects (complete theoretical unity, for example.)

That's really fucking sad.

This is my take as well. Everyone including me was singing his praises in the second half or so.

Finbol didn't carry the debate. He kept going on about the USSR which only tankies appreciated.

Welp, I guess Schnitz is a stupid cunt then.

Do you know why "tankies" do this? Because the other side keeps demanding hard evidence that socialism is sustainble, and the USSR has been the biggest example of a socialist experiment so far. You won't convince people by laying out some speculative a priori assumptions for the future. I'm not trying to bash what Anarchists in Spain or the Paris Commune did, but it is just not sufficient as a hard argument for a socialist mode of production.

Well, a lot of platformists don't really follow the Platform correctly. Some of them don't follow it at all, and keep only the bad bits. Like this group of platformists I once heard about where they would constantly infiltrate groups, but were very disorganised, and actually defended "informality" as desireable.

Theoretical unity is a very great thing, but I have never seen it work in reality. (good in theory, but bad in practice meme)

Right. So sustainable it went back to capitalism.

It's true though. Debates vs Jason usually exceed the 30min mark, and they never managed to even slightly corner him. Some people have been writing pseudo-intellectual blogposts about him where they ridiculed his demand for a debate.

Oh you fucking faggot, you got me.
I immediately went on to check his twitter to see if there were any cuties but he is not doing anything.

That is not the point though, it is that it still was the hell of a lot more sustainable than everything else which was tried. Also it not necessarily that USSR socialism collapsed into itself - it was dismantled by the ones in power, and I know you see that not as a bug but as a feature of Marxism-Leninism, and I agree the fact that revisionists came into power needs to be addressed. However, it still doesn't disprove that socialist economies collapse, because they never did. Even Cuba and the DPRK are still arround and far from collapsing any time soon.

Hi Jason.

lol

Donating money to Sargon is what makes me upset. Being flippant about it afterward is just dancing on the grave of my respect for him.

Dude, Schnitz is a troll.

...

Great argument. As always the tankies give us the "at least [insert irrelevant thing here]" meme. It still collapsed, so you have to deal with the fact that it wasn't really that stable.

This should serve as an argument for non-hierarchical structure.

That happens when the "bug" reveals itself every time the program is run. Either the programmer hasn't fixed the bug, or it is a feature.

Why do tankies base their politics completely on the foreign policy of the Soviet Union?

this is like getting mad over Sam Hyde's skits

Your personal definition of it doesn't really matter when it comes to the fact that both entertain a different economy than capitalism.
Also, Cuba is currently democratizing and localizing economic planning by incorperating direkt worker democracy, DPRK has worker-controlled cooperatives that produce for use. You should really contain these debates for internal marxist discourse and not go on about this during a stand-off with right-wingers.

That he has low standards? I don't doubt it. I've heard it with my ears and read it with my eyes. Reminds me of my old forum years, those places are filled with Unruhes who don't debate in good fate and just repeat the same thing over and over until the other guy's ready to never engage in a debate with anyone again. if he thinks this is in any way shape or form meaningful i feel truly sorry for him.

well I've read what he writes on his blog, i guess those people are trying to fit in.

Muke taking hundreds of Ls ITT

This moved on from muke a while ago lol

Stop associating us with shitty ecelebs and they won't be able to embarrass us.

t. Muke

Are you serious right now? USSR economy was more stable than the western economies, it didn't have booms or busts, didn't have inflation.

Fine, but that's just a political argument.

I'd say the "bug" is a result of the material conditions, not the policy itself. I don't think it's possible to build socialism in an underdeveloped country which is going to have to face half the world being hostile to it without making at least some compromises in terms of unchecked democracy.

What do you mean? I'm a Maoist, I believe the USSR was not justified in their foreign policy after 1956.

Shitty ecelebs who post on this board who or who have been long-time posters here are going to be associated with us no matter what.

Once again, we are given the "at least [completely irrelevant thing]". The instability doesn't have to come from the economy. Nor does the fact that it was more stable prove that it wasn't capitalism.

Yeah, and it is also very difficult to build socialism when you have a class of rulers telling you not to do it. Particularly given that socialism involves democratic control of the economy, and you are told that you have to make "some compromises in terms of unchecked democracy". One might see this as a very convenient thing for said rulling class to consolidate its power.

Need I say more?

So wait, the only guy on the socialist side who did well yet only made a few good points and kept getting interrupted by his own side did a good job, therefore the socialists won?

since when does "socialism" mean "a different economy than capitalism"? and that's debatable too, btw.

how is having a stable economy that's not subject to capitalist crises irrelevant, especially when it's arguable that the soviet union didn't abandon capitalism?

The argument was that it was a stable form of socialism. That neither proves that it was stable, nor that it was a form of socialism.

It's Marx's, not mine
"Muh democratic exploitation". Co-ops are not socialism and the same goes for state ownership, keep shilling for capitalism with a human face. Also North Korea had a whole region where South Korean companies were free to exploit North Korean proletarians (until the ROK closed it in 2016) and literally sends workers to building projects in Qatar.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaesong_Industrial_Region
independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/north-korean-labourers-sent-to-qatar-as-slaves-to-work-on-construction-projects-9847590.html
Read Marx (and Bordiga)

Then what was it if it didn't have a business cycle? It's pretty obvious if you've read Capital that a business cycle is part of capitalism. It would seem that the USSR succeeded in making crisis-free capitalism something bourgeois economists have been looking for an answer to centuries.

It doesn't need to have a business cycle in order to be capitalism. And yes, I would say they have invented a crisis-free form of capitalism. However, this is clearly not a desireable form of capitalism for the bourgeoisie, because it removes a lot of their power, and makes the menas of production be ultimately controlled by the state, and thus, the rulling class of beaurocrats.

Historically, the countries in which revolutions happened contained a massive amount of illiteracy amongst its population. To think that full direct democracy works under such conditions is a utopian. That being said, I don't believe most of the Marxist-Leninist countries which existed were entirely undemocratic. That's simply not true. They usually had a very tightly organized national leadership, but on a communal level democracy was often very well alive. In any case, even if you disagree that it was socialist, Marxist-Leninist countries have not only increased the living standards and the sustainability, it also effectively cut off the first world from enforcing imperialism on these countries. Lastly, I also disagree that political power always constitutes a class. Classes are economic classes if you follow the Marxist definition.

It is not at all irrelevant to the topic we are discussing - mind if I remind you? People demand evidence that socialism even works in practice; and this evidence is provided by several long-lasting Marxist-Leninist states. It doesn't matter if you discard economic stability or anything as an indicator for socialism, it is still an argument that something else than the capitalist mode of production is viable. To put this in perspective, Anarcho-Capitalism has theory but it has never existed - wouldn't you hold this against AnCaps in a debate? You surely would. Same dilemma for socialists who deny that the USSR wasn't socialist.

Not an argument.

I think Muke did pretty well. There has been some shilling against him recently, mostly from idpolers and tankies.

It literally does.

MARX BTFO

CAPITAL BTFO

How the fuck will we recover? Somebody get Janet Yellen on the phone, someone has discovered crisis-free capitalism.

Doesn't exist anymore and the trade surplus with China makes up less than 5% of North Koreas GDP.

When there is no market but a production for use, democratic exploitation is limited as much as it is possible.

Marx said specifically that lower stages of communism will carry one defects which are remnants of capitalism.

Please…

it doesn't, but unless you are totally naive you have to admit that as long as global revolution doesn't occur simultaneously everywhere, capitalism and socialism will be in competition with each other; ergo, different economic models matter.

And from actual socialists who are tired of embarrassing liberals like Muke representing this place.

Kek

You don't need to be literate in order to be able to vote rationally.

Evola-tier.

Literally all irrelevant to whether it was socialism or not, but ok.

You have not proven that it was socialist, and you yourself have admited that it wasn't politically stable.

Have you considered that perhaps people do not want a regime where the economy is controlled effectively by the state and its rullers? This, to them, is the same as capitalism, because they still do not control production, and are still being dominated by a class of rullers. Literally, it would be best if this form of "socialism" had never existed at all, because it simply serves as evidence for how bad socialist experiments can turn out. It is no wonder then, that when porky wants to give an example of socialism being bad, he turns to the marxist-leninist regimes. Nobody likes your form of "socialism".

Not really. It just means nobody was yet able to put it in pratice. Given that it is a recent ideology, that is quite excusable. However, it is perfectly possible to prove that ancap doesn't work simply by looking at its theory logically and finding its flaws.

of course they do, as worker rights/welfare matter under capitalism. that's a far cry from saying these are socialism, as anyone on this board knows. at the same time these countries can't be socialist even accepting the "lower stage of communism" definition. there's no worker control of the means of production OR the state, there's wages, there's markets. i mean these are the fundamental characteristics of capitalism.

I highly disagree. Looking at how the bourgeious revolutions by the end of the 18th century happened, they would have been quite insustainable without the enlightenmnet era upgrading the level of literacy.

Again, if you are discussion the merits of socialism it doesn't matter, nobody, I repeat, nobody gives a wet fuck on wether or not a 19th century definition of socialism applies. That being said, I actually do believe they were socialist, but this is not the thread to argue about this.

Yes, and our critique should tackle that. I think the Leftcom argument that revisionism was inevitable quite infantile.

In Marxism-Leninism, everybody is the state. There is no more dichotomy between the individual and the state like in capitalist states.

A majority of people who actually lived under my form of "socialism" disagree with you.

Not at all. Wages are not the same as salaries, wages imply surplus extraction by a private entity. And markets? That is simply a ridicolous statement.

So, the DRPK wasn't socialist until 2016 or is socialism compatible with companies exploiting the proletariat? I'm confused. Also, it was the ROK that closed it, not the brave anti-imperialist workers' state.
Businesses exist in those countries, you were talking about your sacred co-ops.
There is no production for use and commodities are produced
"Okay we didn't abolish capitalism, but at least we tried"

What Marx was referring to was labour vouchers. Not that the lower stage of communism (which is still communism) will be capitalism with red flags.

First of all, all the things you have listed have also been achieved by capitalism. Secondly, it still doesn't prove that it is socialism. I disagree that it was socialism, because of the prominent role of the state in the control of the economy. I would tend to agree more with the leftcoms that say it was state capitalism. However, I'm not really that concerned with classifying what it was.

Indeed, but this still invalidates your first point, which was that it was a stable example of socialism.

I don't know the leftcom argument, but the anarchist argument is that when people get a hold of power, they always try to maximise it, and use it for their own benefit. If this is true, then having a class of rullers is a terrible idea, because they will effectively act as a separete class, protecting their own interests over the interests of the workers.

That's a nice piece of ideology, my dude, but it doesn't mean anything.

Fascist-tier.

And a majority of people who have lived under social-democracy would agree that social democracy is a good thing.

It doesn't really matter to me if the DPRK closed it themselves or if they were just reacting to the RoK pulling out. It's closed now, and that matters. Looking at North Korea, I don't think they will be going down the capitalist road at all.

Worker-controlled businesses. Also, please, there is no market in the DPRK, except in the special economic zones, which, as I mentioned, don't make up much of the DPRKs economy.

Wrong. With whom could they even trade?

Completely ignoring that North Korea is small country that has the entire planet earth engaging in economic warfare against them, funny how you blame North Korea itself instead of adressing the conditions that led to Juche as a revisionist ideology.

And I disagree with Marx here. Labor vouchers are an outdated concept. That doesn't make Marxism as a method wrong.

My point was the following: Marxist-Leninist policies are stable. However, through politicial turmoil, people got into power who were dismantling those policies, not developing them. That doesn't make Marxist-Leninist policy per se wrong.

True. That's why I advocate a merge between the party and the state, establishing a more vigilant system of self-critique. I also argue that once a Marxist-Leninist takeover happens in a western country, it would be entirely democratic.

You can't just call everything you don't like fascist.

Social Democracy is flawed, it stifles the reinvestement cycle which is necessary for capitalism to function. That's why social democracies always get subjugated to a neoliberal shocktherapy after a decade. Socialist states didn't suffer from any of that.

A non-democratic ideology turns democratic all of a sudden just because it is applied to a western country? Ok…

It would help if you didn't sound like one with your "no dichotomy between individual and state" bullshit.

You don't say…

Nah, they suffered from being highly repressive one-party dictatorships where the state had control over the economy. And don't come at me with the "everyone is the state" bullshit, because you tankies sound like religious fanatics when you do that.

Why do you think it's non-democratic in nature? Did you know that Stalin made huge efforts to democratize the USSR? The thing is, most of what happened was pragmatic, not to be confused with opportunist.

But that is literally what happens. When everybody is a state bureaucrat, nobody is. A workers state can exist, even when you ideology says it can't.

Let me explain something here: In a liberal democracy, democracy is just as restricted, since all parties, even the so-called socialist ones have to adhere to the "basic human right" of private property of the means of production. This means that the capitalist class oppresses the proletariat, even when a left-wing party takes control. A socialist state does the same thing reverse: The workers surpress the capitalists. Only a classless society could guarantee free association, but until capitalism is defeated, the workers have to use the state as a means to surpress the capitalist class - the state is always a means of surpressing one class in favor of the other, no matter how democratic. In the USSR, a reciprocal participative democracy was established: Delegates were nominated for the Soviets by worker councils, cooperatives, trade unions, youth organizations, women organizations, etc. - this constitutes a dictatorship of the proletariat. What I am trying to say: The existence of only one or multiple parties makes no statement on how democratic a society is.

Yes, it matters. It means that the government is hungry for foreign capital and is willing to sacrifice the proletariat for it. So much for anti-imperialism, so much for socialism, so much for autarky.
No comment
Wow, didn't know that socialism was the self-management of exploitation and misery!
You can't have islands of capitalism under socialism and it's not like the "socialist" part of the economy is fighting the capitalist one either.
Okay, as long as over x % of the economy is "socialist", it doesn't matter. The logic of capital won't reach everything or something.
China, Russia, Venezuela and the rest of the gang.
I'm not blaming the North Korean leadership. I understand why they want to develop capitalism in their country, I'm not a moralist.
That's not the point. The point is that the lower stage is communist and it has never been achieved.

Jason is a retard through so hes opinion doesn't matters tbh

...

...

USSR absolutely had economic crisis. If the whole world was red capitalist it would have eventually collapsed into socialism.

Ya towards the end of it when the revisionists were in power towards the end of its existence because they destroyed central planning, moved backwards towards the profit incentive and gradually returned market relations.