People doing bad things is due to capitalism because under the reign of the hypothetical idyll of socialism they...

read Bordiga

Materialism, son.

You'll find that giving primacy to economics, rather than the usual culture-reductionist viewpoint results in far fewer leaps in logic.

Which is what? Spreading their genes as much as possible; the only interest that can be deducted from nature?

I cannot imagine a politics more idealistic than such just-so manichaeism.
The socialism here is a big theoretical negative, which presupposes capitalism as a totality, this is again similar to the christian notion of evil being the absence of god because there would be no evil in the kingdom of god, it fundamentally begs the question.

If the picture didn't give it away, it is in the working class to be in control of the means of production, and to abolish the property of the idle class.

Where does the field of genetics come into this?

Or is it one of those "genes stop at the neck" kind of things, sure there's potential genetic links to patterns such as violence, substance abuse, etc but it's still MUH MATERIAL CONDITIONS…somehow

What makes this their rational self-interest; how can you claim that there is such a thing as rational self-interest without this being total social darwinism?

That would be communism. Stalin's communism caused the starvation of 120 million. Lenin's communism saw the genocide of 60 million Christians. Mao's communism saw what, 200 million genocided? All 3 of the biggest genocides were due to communism. It makes what Hitler did look like a joke.

Explain homosexuals and asexual. Explain Isaac Newton and Nikola Tesla, famous geniuses who died virgins by their own choice. Your worldview falls apart at the slightest touch, ironic for someone so keen to compare other ideologies to religion because of superficial similarities.

Marxism isn't Manichaeist in the slightest. It's dialectical and materialist.

This is a confusion on your part. No serious Marxist believes all the bad things will go away under socialism, but merely that the social conditions created under capitalism will fade away, and new (better, but not perfect) conditions will arise.

this tbh

And you just stated why it will never work. You are trying to defy natural law.

What are you talking about? You have to be a moron to not think it's in your rational self interest to join a subversive movement, attempt to overthrow the government, after which you either get sent to prison or fight in a bitter civil war - and assuming you're both victorious (and not purged by a rival faction that holds slightly different interpretation of what Marx meant), you might have a chance at owning the means of production (if you're part of the committee appoint by the Party to oversee the factory you formerly worked at)

Genetic determinism is bunk, my Nazi friend.

OP please put your thoughts in a single post, this is not a fast board.

this tbh (2)

WEW THERE LAD
Show me a law molecule. I'll wait.

...

If you're going to deduce rational self-interest from nature, that's what you're getting. If not, explain to me how you determine what rational self-interest is.
A (cargo cult) dialectical materialism manicheanism is manicheanism none the less.
Tell me, why is the use of under to describe man and his world so peculiar to marxists?

...

I'll become one with the Big Other, and will therefor own the means production even when materially rotting away in an unnamed grave.

Holla Forums isn't one person, so you may find my opinion is not consistent with other posters'.

Capitalists always act exclusively in their self-interest, which they like to boast about on television. Whether a capitalist decides to fire workers, reduce their pay, increase their hours, use slave labor in the third world, fund death squads in Central and South America, or anything else is for him exclusively a question of whether it is profitable. Morality or anything doesn't factor into his decisions. And why should it? After all, the capitalists argue, they have a right to act in their rational self-interest—a rational organism is strictly concerned with the logical solution to a problem, and while considering the feelings or rights of others is nice, it is an altruistic behavior and therefore illogical. The capitalists argue that if we only rule our society by self-interest, then everything will naturally work out well.

So if there isn't a double standard here, it is just as valid for the working class to adopt this thought process.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Creole

Tank posters, everyone.

Almost as if a material analysis is the opposite of idealism. Read a book.

I… kind of loathe Marx over the events of the first, but both marxist analysis and buddhism, oddly enough, make a single claim…

Things arise and/or occur for reasons, it's not random. As long as those reasons are there, those things will continue to happen, whether you try to use force to supppress them, or beg, or whine, or plead, or whatever. If those reasons that cause a thing to arise are not there, these things will not in fact happen, because the situation which produces them is no longer.

Of course, this means materialism is also an argument for anarchopacifism, because you have to actually fix the problem or it will keep happening… but, well… it all arose from something, and your choices for a while now have been capitalism, feudalism, and the underlying causes of roman expansionism.

The ability to gather to one' self the means of survival, the ability to aquire one' various desires, and finally the ability to pursue some form of self-actualization.

For the worker, this means throwing off the constraints put on them by the boss and capital.

Except it isn't and you've yet to provide any argument that it is.

It isn't. Most people see large political or socio-economic systems as being "above" individuals or groups residing within it (i.e. - "Under feudalism, leadership was hereditary, but under democracy, leaders are elected.) Youre seeing things that aren't there.

Watch this:

Learn how to read.

No, it's not. Have you perhaps tried reading Engels' Anti-Duhring? Read Rafiq.

It's mostly environmental. Humans, being a social species who have inhabited and multitude of biomes, have adapted to adjust our behavior to current social and material conditions, rather than following pure instinct.

search in /trash/ thread, that's where they usually post.
you might even get some boipussy if you ask nicely.

there's no such thing

unless you provide proof that's it

...

Yeah, actually, it is - you have to actually solve the underlying problem, because punching symptoms won't do a damn thing.

Socialism is the true inheritor of the European Enlightenment.

prove it

Well there's your problem!

We're the only ideology as far as I'm aware of that practically demand that you be versed in Western philosophy and neolibs love to deride us for apparently being stuck in the 19th century.

That doesn't answer the question. KISS principle doesn't avoid confirmation bias.

There's a degree of confirmation bias in everyone, but I became a Marxist because there are few to no "leaps of faith" that I have to swallow.

In any kind of man-made catastrophe, the socio-economic system is going to have played a big role. For the past two and a half centuries, the dominant socio-economic system has been capitalism.

It's painfuly obvious that you have never read a book in your life. Capitalism is a real concept, read it's definition from a dictionary for starters.

In addition, we can look at the previous mode of production, feudalism, and see that, for all its flaws, the economy under that system never just suddenly fucked up for no physical reason, no famines amid bumper crops, so we can deduce that these things must be a peculiarity of the capitalist system.

So according to logic, capitalism played a big role but not the only role.

There are other economic systems besides feudalism. And people tend to bend the rules every now and then.

Begging the question in its assuming of purely striving for profit as self-interest and evidently wrong in its own criteria; If they did, there would be no socialists from among the capitalists.
Please go outside if you actually believe owning property or capital assimilates you into the borg.
Having to provide for people who can't work is not in this rational self-interest, will the handicapped therefor be put alongst the wall besides the porkies?

Socialism is a socialists rational self-interest because a socialist desires socialism. Bullet proof logic.
It compresses the world into a duality of itself and its counter (a mirror image), much like how libertarians argue that the real political spectrum is libertarianism vs authoritarianism. This compression into duality is figuratively spoken as manicheanism.
No, most people use in or don't speak of socio-economic systems in such idealist terms.

Do you think people would actually do that, write things in books of which rote repetition leaves people with a lack in understanding?
Lrn2ontology

Yep. You got it, boss.

And capitalism is the only one for which you have these big economic catastrophes for which there is no physical cause, famines admits bumper crops, empty residences outnumbering the homeless, etc. This is a peculiarity of capitalism.

Feudal arrangements added to famines due to restrictions and incentives, like caps on grain and rice prices. From which sources are you getting your information?

Except that's not even remotely what I said.

That's dialectics, not manicheanism. Once again, these are only superficially similar.

Nor would I agree that this is any kind of "compression". A framework for analysis isn't "compression".

Except they do, and we us "in" as well. I don't think you understand what idealism is. Most people are idealist, we aren't.

Source? Name a famine under feudalism that didn't occur because a poor harvest.

...

books.google.nl/books?id=VRSXz25X5P8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0804748187&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiR7KOiwr3XAhVGb1AKHUByBYIQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Look up Dong Wei's criticism of the famine prevention methods of feudal China in particular.

My point exactly.

I wanted an example of a famine that occurred under feudalism during a good harvest. No physical reason for it, purely a fuckup of the economic system. I'm not a fan of feudalism, I don't need convincing that it was shit.

There is no separation from an economic system and the physical world. The link I gave you explains how feudal restrictions and quota's attributed to famines and how the lifting these helped elevate the situation.

Honestly read Rafiq.

Are you denying that there is such a thing as a bad harvest and a good harvest?

That's not what I said or implied. I've read rafiq, he goes into the category of the over-rational and the over-orthodox, those neurotic obsessives who take an ideology so fully and bluntly that they're an embarrassment to it.

No.

Then what are you getting at?

Sure, Chinese feudalism may have contributed to bad harvests, but that's irrelevant. My point was that economic crashes with no physical cause was unique to capitalism. Even if Chinese feudalism contributed to bad harvests, that's still a physical cause.

What I'm getting at is that capitalism gave more food security over feudalism, even with there being stock market crashes.

Capitalism also caused famines, like the famines in India under British colonial rule, when food was shipped off to Europe to people who would pay more for it, leading to a shortage where previously there was none.

this also happened in the Soviet Union in 1931-33

There was a bad harvest.

Fucking retards giving a bad name to communists

There were no famines under feudalism that weren't caused by bad harvest. That is, a physical cause for the economic problem.

Which famines are you referring to? As far as I know the Indian famines were exacerbated by much the same issues as those in the feudal period.

Kuli's deserved it.

that too, but it was because stalin paid the clouds not to rain

you're barely any better than the moralists, fuck off

With bad harvests being related to feudalism and capitalism being an improvement to this

Not even slightly. Capitalist free-market fundamentalist policy often exacerbated what would have been some pretty hard times into catastrophic events with millions dead both in India and China. Drought events in China during the 18th century where met with massive scale relief efforts that where aided with extremely well planned grain buffer-stocks and most of the relief efforts were given as a dole system until normal agriculture could be reassumed, combined with price control, punishment for price gougers and temporary tax relief for the poor. A few people died sure but nowhere near as during equivalent drought events in 19th century China under British influence like the 1877-79 famine when free-market fundamentalism meant that people starved outside filled granaries, food prices could increase more than ten-fold, food was exported during the famine, tax pressure on the poor was maintained or even increased despite people losing their incomes, and what little relief effort there was was often sub 2000 kcal a day in exchange for 12h/day of hard labour, i.e. slow starvation. People often tried to get arrested because prisoners where the best maintained people in the entire country.

Capitalist laissez-fairé dogma turns what would be hard times into outright disasters. Read "Late Victorian Holocausts" by Mike Davis.

>Hurrrrrrr muh european thought checkmate commies

This is a good oxymoron. I had a chuckle.

Read Marx