Is he right, Holla Forums?
Is he right, Holla Forums?
Americans are dumb. sage
For a most part yes, particularly when we are talking about conscript armies.
depends who the soldiers represent & how they got in their military
conscripts are 200% workers
The idea that the communist agenda is wholly for the sake of "the proletariat" is class fetishism. Yes, the sine qua non of capitalism is the exploitation of the worker through the rent/profit/interest mechanism, but that's not the problem with capitalism; that would be the phenomenons of environmental and social commodification (what I'd call "undermining of the commonwealth") and the various wastes of labor resulting from the pressure to sell (intellectual property, advertising, Ludditism, protectionism).
To advocate for a "worker's communism" focused solely on abolishing the exploitation of surplus value is to be moralist and infantile. That surplus value cannot be given to the workers; it must be used to enhance the commonwealth by repairing the environment and enhancing the efficiency of production. Because of this, we must not campaign on being the "worker's party" trying to "win" the class war on the behalf of the proletariat. Yes, the agenda will require the abolition of private property and the distinction between bourgeoisie and proletariat, but that's not why we want Communism. To suggest to the proletariat that we're solely "their guys" against the bourgeoisie is to lie to them. Hence, the question of whether X is proletariat or not is irrelevant.
That being said, soldiers do not own the MoP and are therefore proletariat. Like I said, though, this is irrelevant.
I like how scared this makes Holla Forums. They have no idea how many enlisted men are secret leftists. Almost every soldier I have talked to despised the status quo. All they need is a bit of political education and they will be immensely helpful to the cause.
wait, this guy made Holla Forums scared?
what? yes it fucking can.
Statistical outliers my dude.
I read CotGP; what exactly about that rebuts my point? Marx said that resources for inputs, development, insurance, administration, and charity must be taken before the final product is given to the worker. If our modus operandi is to loudly bark about how worker exploitation is so terrible, how exactly are we supposed to turn around and invest heavily into all of these barring inputs with a straight face? I'd say it's important to as soon as possible after the revolution advance to carbon neutrality, nearly-total automation, and universal communication, transportation, and education as quickly as we possibly can; won't this require if anything reducing the resources available to consume to the workers?
forgot to include space mining in my list, whoops
Where does this meme come from?
19l7 would have never happened if not for them, so yes he is.
Liberals are right-wing and are individualist
You can be a leftist without completely or even somewhat agreeing with Stirner
American mythology that we're a nation of individual go getters
Conscripts are literally slaves
Yep. Tho obviously less proletarian among officers and in more developed countries, but the principle holds true. Until America makes its people completely dettached from the horrors of war by reaching full automation of troops.
good job tbh
Certain strands of leftism have always been individualist, particularly American leftism. American socialists (DeLeon, Debbs, Wobblies) have always been excellent at fusing American classical liberal individualism with socialist economics, which makes sense when you think about the fact that socialism is simply trying to end domination of the individual by an elite. Socialism is the logical conclusion of classical liberal principles in the era of developed capitalism.
We need to do more to bring back leftist individualism.
I'm certainly not disagreeing with you there; it's totally possible to be an individualist and a leftist simultaneously. I was just saying it's also possible to be a collectivist and a leftist simultaneously.
The ideas of Jeffersonian democracy, if they were taken seriously, imply Communism. (That's sort of the reason for my flag.)
No idea. When you read Hayek he explains how the actions of individual firms don't matter as the price mechanism sets the price and firms are simply price takers. Sounds pretty collectivist to me.