Lets have productive discussion

I identify as a conservative person. I am here to listen to your debates on socialism/communism/anarchy. Bear with me this isn't my cup of tea (The socialism and what not) you know the debate everyone makes against your ideology (Human nature,success to failure ratio etc).I am just here to understand both sides.
Lets be civil.

Other urls found in this thread:


Could you be a little more specific? Do you have a particular argument you want us to engage with? What do you mean when you say "Human Nature" and "Success to failure ratio" in regards to Socialism?

Whenever people debate socialism you hear things like Human nature dooms the noble movement to failure and they always bring up how a majority of socialist countries failed (success to failure ratio)

So generally I'd just like the argument of how it does work. And the general rebuttal you make to people who insist it doesn't work.

What sort of discussion do you propose to have if you bring neither questions nor arguments? Listening to our debates on these topics can be done by simply lurking other threads.

read marx

I have.

let's start
answer those two questions :
-What's socialism ?
-What's the law of value ?

But the human nature debate still remains.
What about that one lazy fuck?

Some people, by their personal nature, are just lazy. But the society the individual belongs to has a huge impact. People who look tirelessly for a job but can't find one may give up, for example.

Literally what reason is there to be a conservative anymore? Everything you people tried to "conserve" has crashed and burned and it's not going to change.
Didn't work, women can vote and gays can marry now.
Didn't work, gov't is massive in contrast to the founding fathers' vision.
Didn't work, Free Love movement happened.

Exactly what is there to "conserve" anymore?

one side has brought immense suffering to untold numbers of people, all of this forgotten and not talked about because the glory of profits and luxuries for the developed world (and what's considered developed is shrinking with every passing year).

the other side being about the emancipation of humanity through the struggle of the working people.

these sides are not equivalent.

also communism is NOT an ideology

Is there some coherent argument?

What about him? Girls don't like lazy fucks. He will be outcompeted by scientists and engineers.

< LeftCom false-flagging as generic Marxist
I noticed your flag got changed.

I guess Marx was a Leftcom then, according to you?

Sorry buddy, but your question is way too broad to be answered comprehensively here. If you wish to genuinely learn about left wing view outside the histrionic and paranoid rants of right wing pundits and 'intellectuals' I suggest you read some left wing theory.
A video series on marxian economics:
Engels - Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
I'm sure others can point you in a direction of other introductory texts to left wing political theory

He never made a cult out of terminology.

Did you ever wonder why Marx never talked about "capitalism," only the capitalist mode production?

In what sense? It seems like most of you guys care strongly about social cohesion and strong social bonds within communities, and so do people on the left, but we generally think such things are largely rooted in economics- the atomization of modern society is primarily a result of the capitalist system, not greater personal freedom for women and gay people or anything like that which right-wingers frequently blame. Another big thing you guys seem to obsess over is immigration, and while those of us on the left don't really have a problem with immigration per se, we wish to eliminate the issues that cause mass migration in the first place such as imperialism and economic exploitation.

The "human nature" argument is absurd when one considers that agrarian societies all throughout history were essentially communistic in most regards. Communism is defined as a stateless society with common ownership of the means of production, and while I know you guys tend to scoff at the "not real communism" argument, places like the Soviet Union and China obviously did not fit that definition. Rather, they were intended to be a transitional state in order to build the proper conditions for such a society which would eventually dissolve when they were met. I suppose its debatable whether such a thing would have actually happened, but the extreme opposition from outside forces certainly didn't help anything (right-wing boogieman George Soros alone spent billions working to destroy the Soviet Union). The lesser-known anarcho-communist societies such as revolutionary Catalonia changed to a stateless society without a transitional period, and while they were eventually destroyed by outside forces they were pretty nice while they lasted.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of the M-L states but they were still a massive improvement over monarchy. The most frequently used argument against them is that X number of people died under them, but those numbers are based on bogus criteria that blame the system for nearly any death that wasn't of old age- even the researchers whose data was used to calculate those numbers have called it out as bullshit. According to those same criteria, the capitalist system is far, far, worse, causing over 10 million deaths per year.

Which of Marx's works have you read? Not trying to be condescending here, but usually when right-wingers say they've read Marx that usually just means they've read the Communist Manifesto which isn't terribly relevant these days and doesn't really explain any economic theory. Marx's analysis of the capitalist system actually praised many aspects of it, but he found it to be ultimately unsustainable for reasons such as the falling rate of profit which has continued exactly as he predicted.

This is (You) for you.

USSR was Socialist (first-stage Communism), China - not.

Catalonia was crime-ridden mess. Moreover, how was it "stateless"?

No, old age is included sometimes.

oh here we fucking go

So far I've never heard proper refutation. Tell me, how do you preach Soviet "State Capitalism"?

read the second chapter

Why not the whole book? Give proper argument and quote.

Also, IIRC I've already read it. His argument boils down to hearsay (about the way Central Planning in USSR works - Bordiga is factually wrong) and debatable interpretation of Labour Vouchers.

continue to dominate the world. Marx replies: We will see where the historical trend is
heading; first of all, I force you to acknowledge the irrefutable facts of the past: it wasn't
always commodity production that ensured that the consumer was supplied with the product of labour. As examples, he mentions the primitive societies based on collecting and direct
consumption, the ancient forms of the family and the tribe, the feudal system of direct
consumption within self-sufficient circles, in which the products did not have to take on a
commodity form. With the development and complexity of technology and needs, sectors
emerge that are first supplied by barter trade and then by actual trade. Which proves that
commodity production, including private property, is neither "natural" nor, as the bourgeois claims, permanent and eternal. The late appearance of commodity production (the system of commodity production, as Stalin says) and its existence on the sidelines of other modes of production serve Marx to show that commodity production, after it has become universal, just after spread of the capitalist production system, must go down with it.
Stalin's current thesis: “Why then, one asks, cannot commodity production similarly serve our socialist society for a certain period” or “Commodity production leads to capitalism only if there is private owner-ship of the means of production, if labour power appears in the market as a commodity which can be bought by the capitalist and exploited in the process of
production, and if, consequently, the system of exploitation of wageworkers by capitalists
exists in the country.” This hypothesis is, of course, absurd; in the Marxist analysis, any
existence of a mass of commodities suggests that reserve-less proletarians had to sell their
labour-power. If in the past there was commodity production limited to a few branches, it was
not because the labour-power was sold "voluntarily" as it is today, but rather because it was squeezed by force of arms from enslaved prisoners or serfs in personal dependency.

lol the board is so divided that even some shitty "uh guys socialism can't work cuz Reagan said so" thread gets derailed by the tripfag ☭TANKIE☭ and some leftcom

Which i guess isn't a bad thing, the derailed discussion is better than spoonfeeding some dude who read the manifesto and thinks he knows enough to dismiss Marx

Are you trying to say "Bordiga thinks Stalin's theory was wrong, which makes USSR Capitalist"?

Oh, wait. You didn't even read what you posted.

I mean to be fair everyone starts at some point. I think its better that OP comes here looking to talk rather than spit out every single talking point known to man at us.

you honestly have to be the most dumb tripfag on this board

This is a (You) for you.

one of us didn't, but it's not me

< posts Bordiga arguing against Stalin's text
< not a single word about USSR

That's true he didn't come here acting like a dick so OP if you're reading this keep on reading, hope you'll come around one day

I was genuinely curious. He had to invent tons of terminology, after all.

< claims that Marx invented term "Capitalism"
No, you weren't.

I have some questions for you, conservative person…

Are you aware of the existence of the two main classes in our present day world?

If so do you think that we are should fight within our own class because of our different biological and psychological characteristics, place of birth and other similar things that we have little to no control over them?

Do you support the people who don't work themselves but instead leech of other people who do all the work?

Do you think that those parasites deserve to be parasites just because their ancestors were parasites? Or because they used to work for the parasites in the past so they have a magical right to be parasites in the present?

Do you think that humans are inherently competitive or cooperative? Or both?

I'd like to hear your answers.

I said that Marx never called it capitalism. Can't you read? Are you illiterate?