Experiment

I'm not sure. But I rep NazBol because I think communism would entail for lack of a better way of putting it "going back" to more tribalist modes of organization but not quite as far back as AnPrim.
Capitalism is a mode of production characterized by private ownership, wage labour, credit systems and capital accumulation.
Socialism is a mode of production characterized by worker ownership, production for use, and the dissolution of any kind of class system.
I don't know, if I did I'd probably tell very many people.
I don't think so. The workers didn't seem to meaningfully control the means of production and lots of production for exchange was happening on the count they didn't manage to spread the revolution to the entire world. Even in times when they seemed to be stepping in the right direction on these fronts it didn't seem to last very long.
In terms of what single book has made the most impact probably The Ego and Its Own.

Wittgenstein stopped hitting children when his autism negated itself into meta-understanding. I would recommend Philosophical Investigations to everyone who ever gets frustrated in arguments or is interested in spookbusting with more substance than stirner the hedgeheg.

As opposed to marxism, which is about reals and doesn't give a fuck about feels (can't have those when lining up kulak families). Marxism is materialist, so marxism is obviously true because how can it be otherwise when it's about things that are real. This is why sleeping with a whore is revolutionary act, they have no feelings for you and you don't have feelings from them which is just like it should be because it means that reals>feels.

Repent
youtube.com/watch?v=ecj4yU3K-rc

What did he mean by this?

Now you're catching on.

Are you just spewing random lines from propaganda or was this a failed attempt at a coherent statement?

I will repent

I put aside my feelings to take a look at the world with realings.

And when there isn't a pimp in play she is getting the full product of her labour too.

It's a successful attempt in placing reals>feels.

>What political ideology do you feel most accurately describes your beliefs?
Eco-socialist, a recognition that socialism will not be able to overcome the tragedy of the commons on its own.

>How do you define capitalism?
An economic system dominated by an arrangement in which workplace dictators decide what to do with surplus labor value.

Democratic control of the means of production and distribution of surplus labor value.

I think it needs to start with using the state to promote worker cooperatives on a massive scale. That means participating in bourgeois democracy. However in all likelihood the capitalists will eventually fight back at some point and a bloodier revolution will ensue. The role of these immature socialist institutions is not to ease people into socialism from capitalism, but to prime people to take responsibility when the time comes.

Maybe for the first 5-10 years of its existence in the form of collectivized farms, but after that not a bit. After Lenin's death, the USSR proclaimed a socialism where the means of production were publicly owned, but all they really ended up doing was replace the private capitalist with a government bureaucrat. The class antagonism remained.

This and Graeber's Debt have really influenced how I think about class and capital.

I'm communist because I want to live under anarchy. saying anything else is IDPOL
system where private property and wage labour exist
state in which workers directly control means of production
Just keep the workers armed and don't take their freedom of speech [read: ability to criticize government without any penalties whatsoever.]
yes, because my dad says so.
Wage Labour and Capital by Marx, State and revolution by Lenin and Towards new socialism by Cockshott

I don't know shit and I admit it. There.

Lukacsian Leninist or communist
production for exchange, private property, value form
A weight off your back.
A vanguard party.
No. Failure to abolish value form. Capitalism.
State and Revolution, Wage Labour and Capital, The Book Bread, Lenin: A Study in the Unity of his Thought

...

Ancom with a heavy social ecology bend
Private ownership of the means of production, wage slavery, statism.
Ownership of the means of production by the proletariat, stateless, classless. moneyless.
I strongly believe a mixture of resource depletion and extreme climate change is going to lead to a cascade of failing 3rd world nations over the next 50 years that will spark a revolutionary movements all around the world.
They are what I consider a Socialism building state. They didn't quite get there or did for a few years but they put a legitimate attempt at it.
The Communist Manifesto, Capital, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Socialism Utopian and Scientific, The Conquest of Bread, The State and Revolution, Endgame, The Great Transformation, Debt The First 5000 Years, Towards a New Socialism, Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung , Planet of Slums, The Ego and Its Own, The Sword and the Dollar Imperialism Revolution and the Arms Race, Against Empire, To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia, Superpatriotism, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle, Death of the Liberal Class, Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt, Wages of Rebellion: The Moral Imperative of Revolt, Open Veins of Latin America, The Black Jacobins, Bordiga, The Collapse of Complex Societies, Limits to Growth, Merchants of Doubt, The Sixth Extinction An Unnatural History, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilization, Manufacturing Consent, A People's History of the United States, Learning to Die in the Anthropocene Reflections on the End of a Civilization, Green Illusions The Dirty Secrets of Clean Energy and the Future of Environmentalism, Listen Liberal.
I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch, along with hundreds of lectures on YouTube from people like Richard Wolff.

Dissolution into a racous mob is not a preferable way to reach communism lad.

Communism, specifically left-communism
generalized commodity production, generalized wage labour, market exchange of commodities.
Socialism is a mode of production wherein global production is coordinated by following a scientific production-plan.
I think that the Leninist conception of how a revolution should work (vanguard party, capturing the state, nationalization of key industries) is the way to go. This however needs to happen on a global scale, which is the reason why the October Revolution ultimately failed
The soviet union was capitalist / on its way to industrial capitalism. Compare the industrial development in Russia to what Marx called 'primitive accumulation' and you'll see that Russia was essentially going through catch-up modernization.
idk, I'd say Capital but I guess that's a kind of boring answer.

the problem is that it's not in rational self interest of the vanguard to reach socialism, so you will have to establish it before sincere revolutionaries die. But material conditions of western/post-socialist societies might be ready for that, I'm just not sure that I would want to live under Stalin 2.0

Also, Finbol made video on left-wing rebel groups, someone might want to ask him if he doesn't want to write that article.

I can't see it, so I'm either blind, he removed it or it wasn't him but some other youtuber.

Barring from the fact that there is a time and place for vanguards (Lenin was very clear about this), if the vanguard cannot secure their proletarian nature as militant representatives of their class it will only lead to ruin.

Read link related for short explanation.
marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/1924/lenin/ch03.htm

Social-Democracy with a wee bit of syndicalism/market "socialism" thrown in here, but mostly socdem.

The current situation of the world. Basically, wage labour, division of work, bosses ruling their business like a feudal Lord.

Classless, stateless, moneyless society as the end goal. Otherwise, a vast umbrella for different strategies to get there.

I honestly doubt it can happen ; Capitalism has proven to be quite sturdy and Socialism itself quite fragile. However, with socdems being elected and starting to pave the way, to liberate workers, to give them more time to read, to reduce inequalities, maybe we will achieve socialism through elections.
The more destructive your revolution, the more fragile it is.

Technically not. It had been state Capitalism and lacked the element of democracy to be socialist.

Étienne de la Boétie, Rousseau, Kant, one history book about the Industrial Revolution and the horrible conditions of workers, and I'm currently trying to read Marx. Will try to get Kroptkin after that.

>Classless, stateless, moneyless society as the end goal.
That's communism user.

Yeah, but it's also the strategies you use to get there.

Libertarian socialist
Private ownership of the means of production, wage labor, production for exchange - all the usual Marxist definitions of capitalism.

Worker ownership and control of the means of production, the extension of democracy into the economic sphere, the abolition of markets in favor of communal distribution.

Economic collapse followed by revolution. We will see more economic collapses over the next few decades due to the inherent instabilities of capitalism. If there is an undercurrent of socialist/Marxist thought in the first world permeating the public consciousness and a large enough base of activists/politicians, they can spurn the working class into action during the revolution to seize the means of production. What would come out of this is anybody's guess though. It would be important to avoid the failings of previous attempts at socialism, such as the Soviet Union and China.

No. The workers did not have meaningful control or ownership over the means of production. The party/bureaucratic class effectively controlled the workings of the economy. It is merely replacing the capitalist class with a bureaucratic one.

Haven't read much in the way of political or economic theory, but I'm getting into Marx to get a better understanding of Marxist economics. I'll move on to other authors from there.

bump

Marxist-cockshottism
A system of production for exchange, with private property and boss-employer relations.
A system without private property, with production for use, without boss-employee relationships and with collective control of the means of production
Through revolution and then computers.
No, it tried to but reverted back to production for exchange, that being state capitalism, while also not giving the workers control over the means of production (directly or through the state)
I dunno tbh. Mainly marx.

Libertarian Communist
Private ownership of the means of production and property, markets, curency, production for exchange, etc…
Common ownership over the means if production and property, abolishment of curency, production for use, etc…
revolution ofc, but the revolution will fail if its not global or at least inter-continental. There will be another crisis soon, both economic, social and ecological. During the comming crisis, there will be some revolutions and revolts but they wont go anywhere or lead to some form of pseudo fascism if the left wont be ready to provide people with an alternative to capitalism. Not saying some vanguards of leftist academics should lead the revolution, just that there must be a network of worker and leftist orgs ready to educate and agitate during and before the crisis.
Curency, production for exchange, little to no common ownership of property and the means of production, and even some markets. The Russian Revolution was a real socialist/worker revolution but the USSR was not socialist. If the World Revolution of 1919 - 20 had succeeded then things might have gone better.
Some of my influences would be: Marx and Engels, Rosa, Kropotkin, Zizek, Bookchin, and real life experiences in wage slavery

Why is she bullying that fat kid?

Communism.
Generalized commodity production.
The free association of individuals not unmediated by commodities and private property.
The transformation of exchange values into freely accessible use values (communization), meaning the destruction of all forms of (private) property everywhere and for every time. I believe that today, with the confluence of capital and the domestication of personfied labour and superfluidity of personfied capital, such transformations can occur almost immediately without proletarian dictatorship. Alternatively, Leninist class-party politics wherever that still shows itself to be possible (places where production still properly dichotomizes proletariat and bourgeoisie), meaning seizing the State, establishing a DotP and working towards the abolition of all capitalist ontologies until the State is superfluous and there is communism.
No, it was capitalist (plain capitalist, "state capitalism" is to me a fantasy). The reason of the capitalist nature of the Soviet state was not the State itself, rather the State is the symptom of capital existing. And the reason for capital existing, respectively the failure of the revolution was that the international revolution didn't come - Russia stayed isolated. The problem of this was increased by the class composition of Russia, as it mainly was comprised of peasants that produced for subsistence rather than for the market, and that subsequently did not have a vital interest in communism. Additionally, in the course of the civil war, the proletariat lost control of the State, which is also due to the effects of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk demanding for Russia's consolidation as a "normal" state within the international system. PDF related and the section on left communist analysises of the USSR are a good elaboration on views similar to mine on the matter.
Critique of the German Ideology, chapter 1 (Marx and Engels)
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (Marx)
Wage Labour and Capital (Marx)
Capital vol. 1~3, chapter 1 of Capital vol. 1, on commodities, being most important (Marx)
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (Engels)
State and Revolution (Lenin)
Party and Class (Bordiga)
Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism (Bordiga)
Eclipse and Re-emergence of the Communist Movement (Dauvé)

Some flavor of Marxist.
Production for exchange where labor is a commodity and the means of production are not held in common.
Production for the real needs of the population where the means of production are held in common.
It's too late now, capitalism will drag us all down to hell with it.
Obviously not. Stalin even admitted production was still regulated by the law of value.
Marx's "Wage Labour and Capital", "The German Ideology" and "Capital", Engels' "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific", Gramsci's disorganized scribblings, Althusser's "The Reproduction Of Capitalism: Ideology And Ideological State Apparatuses", Debord's "The Society of the Spectacle", Raymond Williams' "Marxism and Literature"

Cybernetic socialism.
An economic system in which the means of production are owned privately.
An economic system in which the means of production are owned collectively
At this point Ive only read economic theory and not revolutionary, so i cant answer that right now.
It probably was under Stalin but after cruchachev came to power it wasnt socialist any longer.
Towards a new socialism.

...

he is kulak

please answer the following questions
Left Communism, but heavily influenced by Stirner and some traditionalist thinkers.
Private control of MOP, wage labour, production of commodities, currency (specifically currency not tied to a tangible product i.e. Gold.)
Worker control of the MOP, as a base line. Later elimination of currency, the destruction of class, production of products as use-values rather than as commodities.
It will occur spontaneously from the proletariat. As capitalism undergoes it's natural internal processes, and as we advance technologically the economic situation will become unacceptable for the working masses, and they will rise up and organically form socialism -> communism.
No. The USSR effectively had private control of the MOP (certainly not worker control), money, commodity production etc. I don't see how it was in any way socialist or communist.
Most important authors would be: Stirner, Marx, Engels, Pannekoek, Luxemburg, Bordiga, Žizek, Guénon and Evola.

Fascism is simple enough. Inventing an overly complex, overly technical internal system of taxonomy is redundant. I'm not going to go from discussion to discussion with an express unified treatise for the sake of expediency. That is unless it is necessary.

This comes with an addendum however, as most seemingly lack a formalized articulation of what Fascism is, and prefer to knit a rosary out of what they would consider symptoms of fascism. The Wikipedia page is surprisingly a good resource on the subject.

The primacy of capital in a system. From this axiom there is often a series of cascading suppositions depending on the context. A seeming failure (to me at least) is that those who describe capitalism do not seek understand the personal forces that underlie the material superstructure nor do they fully understand the sum of the superstructure, willful or otherwise. Not that this is really something you could expect otherwise, in that those who analyze capitalism are materialists.

Social capital holds primacy in a system. The most common supposition is that to substitute capitals, one must transmute the concept of ownership in a given system; in that the workers of all given subsystems will own the means of production collectively. As it is often the case that the primacy of capital overwrites the social.

My personal opinion is that apart from misunderstanding the material superstructure, socialists misplace the primacy of components such as agency to the dustbin as well as violence and the capacity for extrapolational thinking. Not that I mean to imply that socialists are pacifists, but in any given system violence underlies all exchanges; in that the chains of suspicion that bind us in regard to our material reality is insurmountable, especially by social capital. Seemingly to me, the only true way to leave the system of capital is to transcend the parameters that dictate the necessity of its existence; in that our 'nature' is contradictory and pulled in different directions from the top heaviness of the different rates of information exchange (biological vs. memetic) whereupon memes will often overpower our previous modes of existence despite our lack of aptitude for such systems.

Non-specific questions get non-specific answers. Broadly speaking many constituents of the USSR were socialists themselves and as such for part of the USSR's history it was aspirationally socialist. But there was never a victory of social capital over capital under the USSR and the means of production were never meaningfully handed over to the proletariat. The notion of a socialist USSR probably went out the window after Stalin. This is ignoring the fact that the USSR was setup as a smash-and-loot economy for the j00z ofc

I don't read books, those things are for nerds. Especially ones on economic theory.

now this is pretty fucking impressive

Imagine my cock

It's kind of hard to read when you're illiterate you counter revolutioanry class cucks :'(

As bait goes, this is actually good.

Can't even imagine how it must feel to not begin to move beyond all ideology in 2017.

It's literally just technology. Marx mystified it while claiming himself to be a fedora tipping reddit stemlord after getting thoroughly rustled by an elaborate spookpost. It's currently configured to fuck us as hard as possible in the near future.

Abolishing said by any means imaginable.

Certainly the promulgation of wave function collapse tier posting styles on Holla Forums in an effort to try remotely execute hostile ideology from the memetic C&C located in my spotless bedroom, is a start to route around the brainrot caused by """neoliberalism""".

No. It was a really euphorically shitty attempt at best and fucked it up for the rest of us.

…

Yeah nice work but I've already moved on with new posting styles. :^)

What's the name for will follow pretty much any revolution as long as it takes down capitalism?

Capitalism being private ownership of production and therefore in turn owning peoples time and therefore owning other people.

Socialism being worker ownership of the MOP so nobody can own anybodies time.

After the revolution give anyone who owns a substantial amount of private property the option to quietly step down and join the workforce or be treated like the criminals they are.

I would call the USSR somewhat socialist with collective farming it certainly wasn't completely detached from socialism and it's system was preferable to capitalism.

Most influential book is hard to say, terrible attention span so i listen to lectures rather.
I suppose Michael Parrenti or Slavoj Zizek (Zizek only for breaking me out of normie status)

Why would someone put this much effort into a shitpost

Libertarian Socialist.
An economic system characterized by private property backed by the state, economic exploitation/wage labour, markets, and commodity production
A system characterized by the socialization and democratic operation of the economy and MoP, democratic governance, and production for use.
A dual approach, a social revolution from below that is assisted by sympathetic elements from above (socialists in government). Direct action from the population through strikes, boycotts, protests etc to force reform and push towards socialism.
No. It was a dictatorship of the bureaucracy, was no democratic worker control over the economy or government.
On Liberty, The Conquest of Bread, and Discourse on Inequality.

I'm 100% correct. Debate me

It's a love letter.

...

Social Monarchist
The system in which the government does not regulate commerce.
The system of government in which the people own the means of production.
A cultural shift is necessary.
No, the workers did not own the means of production, the state did.
My own conclusions and shidbosding on /lefdybol/

Idiot?

Leaning towards infantile shitters, but I cannot fully buy into their conclusions, something doesn't click.
Generalized commodity production.
Abolition of value-form, because from this stems the above.
For start it would require the class of wage labourers acting more like a coherent group rather than as atomized individuals, which would entail being some kind of a "vanguard"(but not just your typical party), still thinking out this how to prevent the degeneration of it while having more than ten members.
Workers' labour was economically valorized, so not really. It's nice USSR completed the agrarian question though.
No idea since I can't say how much I got influenced by the theory and how much by arguments on Holla Forums.

Communist
Thesis
Anti-thesis
Through post-scarcity and the eventual collapse of the capitalist economic system which will force everyone into adopting socialist economic policies
Yes, it was socialist but not communist as the means of production were public but still not controlled by the masses. The economics were right but not the abolition of the state.
The Communist Manifesto, Wage Labour and Capital, Dialectics of Nature, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

...

Alt-right
Humans
Orcs
Through the Jewish Cultural-Marxist subversion of Western culture and the importation of low-IQ third world labour which will genocide the white race and usher in a new era of Judeo-Communism
Yes because people were hungry in it
???

i like the cut of your jib

if you want to know the roots of judeo-marxism read moses hess

Alt-right Communist
The human thesis
The orc anti-thesis
Through post-scarcity brought on by the Jewish Cultural-Marxist subversion of Western culture causing the collapse of the capitalist economic system forcing everyone into adopting economic social policies and through the Jews trying to import low-IQ third world labour which will fail as the white people awaken to their own genocide and usher in a new era of Alt-right Communism
Yes it was socialist but not communist as the means of production were public but still not controlled by the masses. The economics were right but not the abolition of the state. Also because people were hungry.
The Communist Manifesto, Wage Labour and Capital, Dialectics of Nature, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money although I've never actually read any of them, I've just glanced at the blurbs

Post-Left Ultracapitalism
The only economic system that works and defends our liberal LGBTBBQ freedoms and rights from fascist communist subversion.
The economic system of the Fascists that would bring around complete oppression of every minority in existence under the white male patriarchy.
If those fascist brocialists win and manage to take over then we will be taken over by the fascist communists who will oppress us
It was because it was a very oppressive state ruled by brocialist fascists who were anti-abortion and mean to gay people
The history of sexuality, Speech and Phenomena, capitalism and freedom

Post Alt-Left&Right Ultracommunist Capitalism
THE NATURAL CONCLUSION OF HUMAN NATURE
THE NATURAL CONCLUSION OF HUMAN NATURE
THE NATURAL CONCLUSION OF HUMAN NATURE
IT WAS THE NATURAL CONCLUSION OF HUMAN NATURE
THE NATURAL CONCLUSION OF HUMAN NATURE VOLUMES 1&2&3

pre mainstream-right&left mild capitalist communism
the artificial introduction of alien artificiality
the artificial introduction of alien artificiality
the artificial introduction of alien artificiality
it was the artificial introduction of alien artificiality
the artificial introduction of alien artificiality volumes 1&2&3

...

post PRE-mainstream LEFT&Right&RIGHT&Left ULTRA-mild COMMUNECAPITALIST capitalcommunism
the NATURALLY artificial INTRODUCTORY conclusion OF alien HUMAN natural ARTIFICIALITY
the NATURALLY artificial INTRODUCTORY conclusion OF alien HUMAN natural ARTIFICIALITY
the NATURALLY artificial INTRODUCTORY conclusion OF alien HUMAN natural ARTIFICIALITY
it WAS the NATURALLY artificial INTRODUCTORY conclusion OF alien HUMAN natural ARTIFICIALITY
the NATURALLY artificial INTRODUCTORY conclusion OF alien HUMAN natural ARTIFICIALITY volumes 1&2&3