What will be the synthesis of Capitalism (thesis) and Socialism (antithesis)?

What will be the synthesis of Capitalism (thesis) and Socialism (antithesis)?

Other urls found in this thread:




Post-left anarchism


I don't understand dialectics myself, but a Norwegian communist (Pål Steigan) said recently that communism is the synthesis.


How can communism be synthesis if its only a end state of socialism?


Socialism is not the anti-thesis of capitalism but the synthesis of the conflict between the bourgeois and the proletarian.

why not?


Now thats something i can get behind

This is just a meme, dialectics is not thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

The anti-thesis of capitalism is not the socialism because the have some intersections in their worldview … anarchy would be the "anti-thesis" but i think anti-thesis is pretty hard to say in so complex topics

then what it is?

dialectic is only philosofical shittalk and describes nothing and all so what do you want to tell us?

Hey can all you cancerous memeing faggots stop shitting up nazbol? It's not funny unless you put some effort into it.

Also, this:



You have to speak English and have an I.Q. above plant life to post here.

well played i guess

Read this

socialism is no anti-thesis rather than a thesis it's an worldview, political-system/Direction, tenet and so much more … threads like this are so funny because all people think they could talk about something like this in the net and find sollutions xD … If you can find one or two pls publish it in a magazine you would change the world




They write a lot about this ruthless criticism while saying little about laying bare the internal contradictions.

That is because criticism is merely a different word. Contradictions are not just contra, aka opposites, it is also different relations. Such as concepts which presuppose each other, or concepts which don't make sense without each other. Such as the wage worker and the capitalist. They are not strict contradictions, instead, they both oppose each other while also defining each other. You can't be a capitalist without wage workers. The term capitalist doesn't make sense without wage workers.

Okay, but then what? How do we arrive at the negation of the negation?

Capitalists and wage-labour are mutually dependent, but use-value does not depend on exchange-value and it's still considered a contradiction, right?

The use-value exchange-value contradiction is centered around the commodity. An analysis of the commodity brings us to the conclusion that the central part of the commodity within capitalism, is the that people need the use-value while capitalists sell it for the exchange-value. This is the contradiction, instead of people trading for use-values (think of trading real items, where trading results in something both want). Capitalists trade purely for exchange-value.

Here it becomes clear that the dialectical method isn't always as simple as some might think. Both the anti-thesis and synthesis are slightly more complex than finding simple opposites and smashing them together. Marx's dialectic goes from the contradiction between workers and capitalists to the sublimation which is class struggle. Which brings the relation between capitalists and workers to a more universal/concrete level. Class struggle describes the relation between capitalists and workers in a never ending struggle for control. It describes what the relation between the two leads to. The sublimation of use-value and exchange-value turns into the value form. Which Marx describes differently as socially necessary labour time (SNLT). Where use-value is affected by the amount of labour put into commodities. As in, commodities which are difficult to produce, seem to have more value. This means that most people are willing to exchange (exchange-value) more for a commodity which needed more labour to be created. Again, it preserves both concepts while also creating a more universal and concrete picture of what they mean.

Thank you for your answers, I think I'm starting to understand.

So when Marx says that a commodity has to be realized as value (i.e., exchanged) to be realized as use-value, but to exchange it it has to be realized as use-value first, otherwise nobody will want it, is a contradiction, and social metabolism (or the circulation of commodities) is the sublation that both preserves and resolves this contradiction?

Yes. Using dialectical thinking to recreate Marx's thought can be fun. Also since applying it directly can be hard, without at least having some kind of example. Pic very related.

This is wrong. It's capitalism and not-capitalism.

hegel is a spook

nice ptolemization faggot


these really are the best posts i have ever seen in this board.
i don't have any applause gif, so i hope you like this frederick douglass

Private Helicopter rides?

No. Privatized gulags full of Jews.

market socialism


but this is literally true.