Hey goys and gals, Holla Forums here. I can get behind some leftist ideas and wouldn't even be opposed to socialism within one state. Whats the appeal of internationalism and global wealth redistribution. National wealth redistribution makes sense but wealth redistribution on an international scale would defiantly fuck over the western world. Why would someone in the first world support an ideology that would see their slice of their nation's wealth being transferred to a poorer region? Why is international socialism better than Not Socialism for rich countries?
Hey goys and gals, Holla Forums here...
the global GINI index (the measure of income inequality) is higher, than the index within any individual country. socialism can only be done all the way down the supply chain. no worker, anywhere in the world, is exploited if socialism wins.
that's the practical reason
but my question was how do citizen of the first world benefit? Not Socialism seems more beneficial than international socialism
there's no money in communism
Establishing socialism in one country is pointless when poorer countries can undercut you
I said wealth (resources) not money
what did he mean by this?
under socialism, the workers are no longer exploited… in the first world, third world, second world. there's your "benefit". oh and borders are a spook
because maybe there's snowniggers in iceland that like coffee and they might find that their country is unfit for growing that shit.
meanwhile here's some twat in brazil who thinks it's a good idea to try shark meat. so there you go, we have two groups that want something the other group has. they can exchange it as they see fit.
Wealth re-distribution? We want democratic and collective ownership over the means of production. all though I do commend you for coming to talk in good faith
wealth redistribution may have been the wrong way to phrase it, capital distribute seems better
btw OP, just for clarity's sake, could you put namefag as OP for this thread so its more clear for others just coming into the thread?
objection retracted then :^)
Have a nice day :^)
muh niggers won't migrate into your society and fuck whyte wimmins because they won't be trying to escape poor violent shitholes anymore.
communism isn't wealth redistribution. it's a stateless classless society where goods are produced for use-value rather than exchange. the problem isn't how wealth is "re"distributed, it's how wealth is distributed in the first place.
I don't know if you know this, but the average worker only gets 50% of the exchange-value he produces. that's the problem we have with our society, it has nothing to do with whether there are welfare queens or not.
It's an absolute necessity for Socialism to happen. The bourgeoisie is international, therefor the proletariat must be also.
That's not something we advocate, nor is it something that's possible. The first world is wealthier than the third partially through imperialism, but mainly because its more developed and you can't redistribute that.
No one cares about "their" nation's wealth, they only care about their own standard of living and livelihood. Many countries are very wealthy, yet the majority of its people aren't.
Because one is necessary and the other is impossible.
"Fuck the government."
That's the appeal of internationalism
There is no such thing as the term is usually used, existing on the left. Remember that, in real life, little pieces of paper are actually meaningless.
The types of "wealth redistribution" that DO exist on the Left involve things like workers taking over their workplace, or just camping your way across the world without regard to imaginary property.
While current capitalism often DOES sell a factory for scrap and build a new one overseas, no one is going to dig, say, North America down to the seafloor and dump the dirt off the shore of Africa. That's just silly.
No. Ending Imperialism would fuck over the western world.
That's why they'll never revolt.
The only thing imperialism does to help the 1st world proletariat is it allows them to sometimes buy cheaper shit. The bourgeoisie does not share their imperialist profits.
socialism in one country sucks, international capitalism sucks
Dog that’s the very end goal, like the very end. We want a world in which there is not 3rd world era being fucked over by special interests. That does not mean we are coming to your doorstep with guns to take your wealth. It’s juet that eventually we think that it’s worth making th entire planet a more equitable place, not just one section of it
What is this? Basic economics class in college?
Im a working class guy just wonder what international socialism has to offer me. I admit that as a first worlder colonialism and imperialism do currently benefit me but my main question is how would ending these policies benefit people like me?
It’s a net gain plus minus thing man. Currently capitalism as a whole is hurting you. That is undeniable
Thats my whole point lad I admit that capitalism is pretty shit but in terms of the benefits of imperialism why would a first worlder give them up at their detriment?
Because, unless you are Porky, the meager drippings falling from Porky's Imperialist soup bowl benefit you far less than socialism would.
In other words, worker in 1st world < worker in socialism anywhere.
>In other words, worker in 1st world < worker in socialism anywhere.
literally how? Most workers in socialist nations have much lower living standards than first world capitalist nations.
That's not true. Compare relative standard of living by national production, workers in the DPRK certainly have it better than the people of Rwanda.
Where do you live?
are you seriously using that as your example? Come on man name a worse country on the planet then Rwandan…
Take an object in your home – any object. Now read the little mention: "made in…".
again my point is that the first world benefits from imperialism, why should I as a working class first worlder willingly transfer economic power from my country to some 3rd world nation?
You're acting as if wealth redistribution is a zero-sum game. Lift third worlders out of poverty and they will generate more wealth that the whole world will benefit from.
But even if you don't believe that, the US alone spends about $100 billion combating "terrorism." You could probably bring that number down quite a bit if the countries we're currently bombing to bits and raiding with navy seals are broke as fuck and susceptible to saudi salafists bearing gifts
$100 Billion, user. Imagine what that could be spent on if the US wasn't the world's policeman?
Because it's not yours in the first place. Any boon you take from imperialism is theft, by definition.
By your own logic the person you're extracting capital from has every right to kill you.
So why should anyone decrease thier own standard of living because of MUH MORALISM?
bad news for you porky
Do you enjoy the notion that any success you have in life isn't earned? That any accomplishment you think you've made is, in reality, just the product of someone else's slavery down the line?
If you don't care about accomplishments, do you e joy the knowledge that, under capitalism, you will within 50 years see yourself in precarious labor, shifting from job to job barely subsisting while watching the greatest ecological disaster in human history take place? Remember, all the while Porky will be living in his mansion bunker getting fat and laid while you're trying not to starve or die of a curable illness.
Okay, why shouldn't I go next door and murder my neighbours so I can steal all their shit? I'm massively increasing my standard of living if no one finds out.
Have you read my previous posts? Im in favor of As a materialist I don't give a shit about what is "earned" or not. A standard of living is much more important than anything else.
When leftists make these prophetic, quasi religious statements like "the revolution is inevitable comrade" I tend not to take them too seriously based on the fact that not one have ever come true.
So as a materialist, you don't see anything inherently wrong with some rich banker fucking you over with a "bank error" or blatant lies about service fees and interest? All that gouging you helps his standard of living, which is all that really matters apparently.
That's not prophetic or quasi religious. The capitalists have non incentive to quell climatic change. The world's usable landmass will decrease due to sea rise, condensing population and the trend of precarious labor that shows no sign of slowing, logically, will only accelerate under aggravation, thereby this almost certainly will occur.
right but why do you assume this will lead to a leftwing revolution as opposed to a rightwing revolution. It seems to me that the resulting migration crisis caused by climate change will create a huge deal of xenophobia and a rise in the nationalist right.
Because you can't revolt from Capitalism into Capitalism
I don't think it will lead to either. My post did not imply either. Capitalism could easily survive global ecological catastrophe. My point is that socialism is the only system with a chance of mitigating it's effects. In the past one may say primitivism could stop it but we are over the hump. The cycle of temperature rise to ice-bound CO2 melt to temperature rise has begun, it will happen, the only choice left is to deal with the consequence. Porky will put himself in a bunker and you on the street, socialism will try its best, with your help, to make sure as few die as possible. When it comes to rational self interest the choice is obvious.
quite the opposite in fact. Environment destruction is extremely useful for late capitalism to keep itself relevant.
Because fascism is a direct reaction to a potential left wing revolution, not the other way around.
I mean I know how leftists like to frame fascism and liberal capitalism as the same thing but they are actually different.
So define fascism for us, then.
So what? Fascism is capitalism in decay.
Where do people keep getting the fucking impression that I'm saying that climate change will cause revolution? I have literally never said this, all I am saying is that ecological catastrophe is certain and the socialism would deal with it better, in all likely hood the revolution probably won't occur though.
Fascism is, in reality, capitalists protecting themselves from revolution, I know the rhetoric of people like Hitler doesn't verbatum say that but their ideals have literally never happened and are absurd.
An ethno-centric, nationalistic, autarkic, state-corporatist nation. Much like China is now.
not really decay implys that capitalism should have failed after the events of the 1940's but it came back stronger than ever…
…so literally just neo-liberalism but slightly worse? Gotcha.
But it would have failed in Italy, Spain and Germany if it wasn't for the rise of the fascist movement. At that point having half of Europe red would have posed more than a serious threat to France and England and eventually the US.
How is it that different from every western nation right now?
The ethno-centric, autarkic part
Then how is Fascism not capitalistic?
its a middle point between state owned industry and privately owned industry. It essentially allows private ownership as long as it is in the national interest.
are you actually arguing that the Chinese were better under maoism than dengism?
No I'm arguing that it is " literally just neo-liberalism but slightly worse"
do you have anything to back that up?
You got it backward. The state was used as a hammer against those that would threaten the profits of the resident corporations (be it communists or other countries)
Where did this legend of fascist nationalizing the economy come from? The Italian fascists barely did so and the Nazi never did thoroughtout the war. The allies nationalized more than them.
not him but you pretty much admitted to his point over here.>>2291300
I admitted that neo-liberalism is shit but I never said Not Socialism was bad.
What makes Not Socialism so much better when it's exactly the same outside of 2 characteristics?
Capitalism has been stagnating since the '70s; wages are stagnating but productivity is rising, couple it with the existential threat of ecological destruction and you got yourself a recipe for a disaster.
Meant this post for
Most fascist states were not overtly racist, or had racial superiority as a central pillar of the state ideology.
21st century supply chains are painfully complex. How do you intend on ripping an entire nation from that and forcing complete self-sufficiency onto your nation's economy without socialism?
"workers and porky will get along because I said so"
Most of western europe recovered under social democrats or christian democrats stealing policies from resurgent socdems to keep the proles from going full commie. Europe also got a massive capital subsidy from the US to rebuild industrial capacity and Bretton Woods regulated currency fluctuations to maintain price stability
SOCDEM GANG STRIKES AGAIN
what if vietnamese, iraquis and nigerians spent their time making animu, vidya and porn instead of going rambo on each other, huh? more people doing stuff that does not suck equals better content and less boredom
not by flag but by words these men
are all anarcho capitalist dont take them into consideration
this man is actually just factually wrong nazis did indeed nationalize things
Absolutely disgusting, but true.
of course some things were nationalized, but compared to the allies, the supposed bastions of capitalism, they nationalized far less. Even when the war was turning for the worst Hitler refused to nationalize important industries. This is the main reason I find it ridiculous to claim that Nazis were socialists.
The standard of living in China would be far higher now if it still followed Maoist policies.
Living standards were rising at an incredible rate under Mao, and have since stagnated.
ha suck it nerd
Well at least socdems will never be a mass-movement in Europe anymore. Their neoliberal policies have made sure of that. In fact the only way they manage to maintain popular support from a large part of the people , in my country, is by copying spooky right wing rhetoric. Even though a large part of their leadership is pretty unspooked (as much as it's possible for socdems that is).