/QTDDTOT/

Can anyone recommend some good history books on the Spanish workers movement/the Spanish anarchist movement?
It doesn't have to be exclusively in relation to the Civil War and they can be in either Spanish or English.

Death since their both just a continuation of shit

1. Why the fuck does everyone hate Trotsky?
2. Why are all the reddit moderators on "left" subreddits all trotskyists?

Are conflicts about racism in accordance with dialectical materialism?

So I downloaded one of those dating apps. I noticed my on-line behavior when seeking girls to chat quite changed.

Listen to him. Then proceed to Cockshott.

Yes, it's a divide and conquer strategy in the battle of the ownership of the means of production.

you should have used this one, because 8ch fill in the background with the post-blue, not OP-blue

Isn't it because the idea of "revolution errywhere forever" is laughably ludicrous since we can't even get it one place?

behold the 4th international's glorious entryist strategy, every subreddit brings us one step closer to world revolution

Capital

At what point should I stop feeling feels about the spanish civil war

Is my immediate family in danger if/when a socialist revolution occurs? My father is a white collar worker who makes a 6 figure salary and works at a bank but is still, by definition, a prole. Is he and my mother gonna get kulak'd if shit goes down?

read the manifesto, critique of gotha program, then any random shit you find interesting. These are good intros to his economic theory but the CORE THEORY of Marxism is historical and dialectical materialism.

also read Lenin (State and Revolution) and Stalin.

no, telos pls go

You have a rather distorted view of what a revolution is and what it implies. Most of the blood is shed to estinguish reactionary forces, not in the name of ideological purity. See the French revolution and the "terror", we are told that Roberspierre beat his meat everytime a frenchman was hanged, but the fact of the matter is that he had to face constant reactionary responses, most of which could not be answered in any way other than violence, the threat of a reationary movement actually forming was too great, he could not afford a civil war.

So the answer is: don't join the white army and you should be fine.

Never, comrade.

Why do people say wealth isn't an indicator of class but the relation to the MoP? I've seen images here claiming multimillionaire actors aren't porky because they don't have the MoP, but clearly anyone with wealth as the potential exclusive access to it.

Class is a social relation, not an indicator of wealth.

I know, but doesn't wealth indicate a potential for social relation? I.e. I can become a porky at any moment I want, stop being porky, and then back again.

(cont)
or like take shareholders for example of industrial firms, or financial magnates that don't actually have any control over MoP but can influence politics and so on.

Lower your standards, Jesus Christ.

What does socialism actually change for someone who work in public administration?

Higher standards of living
Reduced alienation from labor process because you'd have much more say in decisions
Reduced alienation from other laborers because you would discuss with them what to do
Reduced alienation from species essence because public projects are under the control of the people, and you no longer do the bidding of politicians and businessmen so you can feel pride for contributing what the community needs

Brainlet question but
could automation not lead to the fall of capitalism, but instead everybody just getting easier jobs instead (like service sector, or artisan)?

I think I asked some of these things in the previous such thread but I'm a dumbass and forgot to check for answers.

Is there a place with social-economical-demographical data on the USSR? Nowdays you can find all sorts of indicators for current countries like the CIA factbook and shit, but I don't know of any place that centralizes such data for the USSR?

AFAIK, the most authoritative publication of Lenin's works is Lenin's Collected Works, edited in Moscow by Progress Publishers in the 60s I think. However, the USSR being what it was, it's missing a bit of material, most notably his infamous hanging order, and the editors apparently take jabs at this or that person. What I'd like to know is, is there a collection that is really complete? Including personal letters, memos, everything?

Automation will likely remove most of the most popular jobs currently. Retail, clerks, cooks, drivers, office, etc.

I don't think capitalism could function with such a high unemployment rate. The jobs produced by robots wouldn't be enough to replace the jobs robots fill.

How many kids do you comrades plan on having/raising?

his hanging order was good though.

at a conference a local group of armchair gommunists told me that automation is not a benefit to the capitalists cause it doesn't produce surplus value and so you can't make re profit out of it. To me it seems like total bullshit, but maybe they were only bad at explaining someone else's theory. Anybody of you guys knows something about that?

If I want to get into the situationists, what would be the best text to start with?

find some fuckable not-normie/not-stupid girl irl and stay with her. Dating sites are a scam when it comes topeople like us who usually are better at words than at appearence and body language.

not exactly what you're looking for and i don't want to trigger Žižek, but Focault's Discipline and Punish is a pretty fucking good leftist analysis of modern prisons and criminal justice, and of total institutions in general.

How do anarcho-communists plan on withstanding a fascist army and/or a tanky army that will inevitably turn on them. Is there a historic example of anarchists ever winning anything in the long term?

The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord, his films are more beginner friendly though.

None, I don't want any children to born in capitalism.

TL;DR: While there aren't exactly any shining examples of past non-hierarchical armies, modern military theory has provided modern and efficient organizational principles that make an decentralized army a realistic and functional solution. These organizational solutions are to some degree or another being employed successfully around the world.

Modern mobile warfare requires a high level of independence and initiative for relatively small units in order to guarantee a quick and on-the-level flexible reaction to hostile operations.
While modern communications systems allow a centralized command or sub-command to co-ordinate and keep track of much larger collections of units in real-time than before, without having them rely on a strict and cumbersome hierarchical sub-unit based command structure or generalized standing orders to direct a grand battle-plan, these systems also allow the relaying of accurate situational data, which may permit independent sub-units to co-operate successfully and out of their own initiative, without having to rely on a centralized command. A centralized command of sorts might exist in a anarchistic military, but to remove hierarchy it might operate more as a supporting unit, providing the front-line detachments with analyzed and relevant data while coordinating supplies, rather than giving direct orders.

A high degree of unit-level independence and initiative (within the standing mission-parameters), all the way down from battalion-level to the single squad, is currently considered a great advantage among most advanced armies, as it immunizes the organization against "decapitating strikes": strikes focused on key points of communication-lines and the command-structure. Therefore, in theory, a decentralized military may to some degree be more effective, especially when on the defensive and merely attempting to counteract and react to emerging threats and not required to operate grand-scale offensive operations.
This has been experimented on by the Finnish Defence Forces in their "Ground-forces combat 2015" doctrine. This doctrine assumes that the enemy nearly always has most of the advantages, in consequence relying on a flexible and distributed organization requiring local initiative and mobility to wear down the enemy trough defence-in-depth, constant flexible enveloping, combined with the threat this poses on the supply of the hostile spear-head. These distributed units are supported by mobile strike-forces waiting in the rear, which, if required, deal the finishing blow on enveloped forces and move to execute counter-attacks when and where they're necessary.

A strict and hierarchical organizational model was detected to be flawed and somewhat out-of-date as early as during the First World War.
Quickly developing threats and opportunities could not be dealt with or exploited properly due to the delay caused by the slow and lossy flow of information up the command-ladder bureaucracy and orders down it. The development of the radio as a properly portable, and therefore mobile piece of equipment, during the Second World Fighting Championships extended the life-span of the hierarchical command-structure by shortening this delay, but eventually also permitted cutting off several of the middle men, bringing the long-lived pyramid-like arrangement to its end.

Organizing the fighting units themselves and implementing some sort of democratic principles and instilling "our leader, not a our boss" sort of principles without risking efficiency by allowing debate or refusal to follow orders in combat (where bullets and shrapnel tend to disallow such luxuries) is another thing and out of my field of knowledge. I'm not certain how one could hold on to "free association", when the structural solution I've presented requires quite a lot of training and cohesion within the units, and some people tend to "de-associate" from the army quite quickly when things get hot.
Also the question of upholding democratic principles while at the same limiting the electability of candidates for key positions to only officer or NCO-trained individual to guarantee properly proficient persons in said posts, is something I've not yet thought trough.

What is the actual difference between keynesianism and social democracy?

As far as I know, keynesianism is the economic theory behind social democracy

Accepting my homosexuality?
What benefits does it have?
In the internet, I’ve been caught acting gay, towards some men and then I relentlessly deny everything.
In real life, I once told my mom that I had something really important to tell her.
She looked back at me and said, are you going to tell me that you are gay?
I was like MOM WHAT FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? IT WAS SOMETHING ABOUT SCHOOL!
I keep asking myself, if accepting my homosexuality, could improve or deteriorate my current situation?
I find myself mostly attracted by men, but I feel attracted to women as well.
But some of the people that I’ve met that are gay, they shyly came out of the closet first as Bisexuals, then they ended up as deranged homos.
What if I end up becoming a full-fledged homosexual?
I’ve been abstaining from having sex with other men for almost 4 years.
I keep telling myself, that if I hold myself, then maybe the gay desires/thoughts will go away but they don’t go away.
I’ve had sex with prostitutes and ugly women, humps and dumps only, because I’m socially dysfunctional and all my attempts of getting a GF end up in failure.
As I’m typing this, I think it’s a stupid idea, because someone could recognize me, or that even having discussions about this, will only open the doors to my self-doom, but my head just doesn’t shut up, it just keeps bringing these thoughts and questions over and over again.
Honestly, I’m scared confused and extremely angry at myself, for being like this.
Any response would be greatly appreciated.

Nobody is gay.

You are just shunned by women.

Instead of shunning women altogether, improve yourself, get a job and find girlfriend and start a family, basically think about your future, not your present..

Accept your homo means you might get AIDS, and nobody want that,

>>>Holla Forums

you have to accept it user, fuck this other moron. if you don't, you're just going to keep being conflicted inside

Anyone have information on Stalin's connection with the Russian Orthodox Church?
Their relationship seems very complicated. They weirdly adore him nowadays even if the only shit you see if you do a quick search is him destroying Churches right before Barbarossa kicked off. I've also heard from other people on here how he revived the church in the 40s putting it in the modern paradoxical situation it is in right now (also proteshits I've noticed love to go how "atheism killed 50 gagillion people because the Soviet Union and China existed" while Catholics seem to connect the Russian Orthodox Church a lot more than atheism).
What is the correct stance? Prots or Caths in the case of Stalin.

Contradictions must be resolved and transcended or else they cause, well, exactly what's happening now.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Whatever happened probably doesn't have anything to do with their homosexual inclination.

user, go back and read your post. I think you're well past the stage, such as it is, of "becoming" here. You already are what you are and acknowledging your love of guycock (male) isn't going to materially change that.

Or you could do like me, split the difference, and embrace futanari superiority.

Why is it that reactionarism in the US has so many contradictions and problems in comparison to it's Euro counterparts.
I've met reactionaries who have basically said the Israel PM is being set up by the zionists and falsely accused of corruption despite him showing clear liking for an Israeli Ethnostate (Zionism).
I've seen this about 3 times this week between 3 separate people.
Then there's others who are willing to drop the ball on anyone in a second (For example they hated the brief art exCEO after his book released).

Firstly, who the actual fuck cares where you put your dick aside from you and the people you'd like to fuck?
Second, if you're properly attracted to women you're actually bisexual.
Thirdly, these desires won't go away, embrace that they're part of you. What you do with them is up to you.

Accept yourself user. You're probably bi.
Even if you marry another dude you can still be bi if a woman turns you on.
This is a you issue, but if you want my advise, if you live in a socially liberal or apathetic area go ahead and declare yourself bi. Don't shout it out to the world, tell your friends about and say you just want to tell them and it isn't like "you like them" so the relationship shouldn't change.
I'm bi with a boyfriend and I told some of my friends who accepted it. However, if you live in a socially con*ervative area it might be best you limit it to family and friends who will understand.
Don't make it your whole identity and don't bring it up in unneeded conversation, don't do the whole "pride" stuff unless you face discrimination (where I guess it's justified). Just don't act like a fag and have idpol consume you.

What was the material basis for racial segregation in the USA and why did it end when it did?

How do ☭TANKIE☭s justify the rightist-trotskyite case, the Tukhachevsky case and other repressions against OG revolutionaries?

I keep drifting closer to the STALIN DID NOTHING WRONG GANG with every passing day but this is the biggest thing that gives me pause.

We don't. Some blame Yezhov (he was insane), some think the purges went too far (Tukhachevsky was ex-royalty and anti-semitic, but Esperanto speakers didn't deserve it), and some think the entire thing was a mistake, and Spanish civil war made Stalin too paranoid about his own military.

The court records of this are still sealed but those who have been allowed to see it have said that they came out convinced Tukhachevsky was guilty

there's no such thing, no "title" will keep the revolution from rolling over you if you're in the way
just as the counterrevolution took out Stalin by poisoning him and slandering his name
such is history

And then there's the problem of confessions taken under duress. Because it's early 20th century and of fucking course they are taken under duress.

maybe in the USA or Germany
the Soviet Union was an advanced civilization

*Rokossovsky smiling in the distance*

Yezhov was punished, justice was served. This had nothing to do with the time but the work of a mole.

Where did this meme come from?
You think Tito finally sent that one single assassin he kept talking about?

Post-slavery

I'm not sure but I would say due to the Second Great Migration.

The US is a "young" country and have been built by immigrants (including the first settlers) contrary to Europe.
Also, zionism is way stronger than Europe due to the Jewish population who's much bigger than in Europe.

Do you happen to have any more of 'em?

"Destroy homosexuality, and fascism will vanish!" - Maxim Gorky

DIE FASCIST PIG

Haven't read it yet but bookchin has a book on spanish anarchism.

Building on that question, what do anarchists do about foreign spies and subversives? Will there be an unanarchistic activities investigation bureau?

non-leftie here, why the fuck does mainstream left parties pander to idpol and immigration so hard? how the fuck is that caring about the working class? how to fix it? I really want to vote for Vänsterpartiet with no guilt, but the fucks make it impossible with their fetish.

Like clockwork

Because the mainstream "left" isn't leftist, they're succdems, or bourgeoisie socialists in Marx's terms.

What you should do is to take the red pill and realize that bourgeoisie parliamentary politics are worthless.

Checked dubs.
Good imitation of Holla Forums
Keep it up.

We all know that destroying the west is the biggest cause of internationalist "capitalism" otherwise known as banking and usury.

If communists are supposed to be so pro gun, why did communist regimes have such strict gun control?

Waldheim Cemetery (burial place of many anarchist comrades) vandalized:
youtube.com/watch?v=BRfEYEa9ewo

How did the USSR and Maoist China allocate consumer goods?

Brainlet here, what is the difference between Anarchists and Libertarian Leftcoms / CouncilComs, besides changing the iconography from hoodies and vapes to sweaters and corncob pipes? Honest question.

...

I do have a question. Who should I vote for? This is a year for elections in Mexico.

There are three candidates with chances of winning.

The first one is Ricardo Anaya. He runs for the PAN party (known for being fiscally liberal, actually reactionary, allied with the Cathollic church), and the PRD (a formelly powerful "left" party). Dude was the head of his party (PAN) until he launched himself to presidency. Anaya is described as being machiavellical in his way to power. He is currently involved in a corruption scandal, and given more attention by the press.

Second one is Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. He ran for presidency in 2006 and 2012; after failling he split from his previus party (PRD) and created his own party, MORENA (which dank skinned in Spanish). AMLO is messianic in his discourse. He calls himself and is considered by many left wing, but he actually makes mostly id-polish and populist promises. He obtains his money from his party, which is by law funded by the government. Since this time he actually has a chance of winning, many politicians have jumped from other parties to his. AMLO previously has denounced such politicians as rotten and such.

(cont.)

(cont.)

Next one is Jose Antonio Meade. He comes from the currently rulling party, PRI. PRI was pretty much the only party in Mexico since the end of the Mexican Revolution in 1917 until 2000, when it finally lost to PAN. When PRI was in power in the XX century, corruption was extremely commonplace in the government (even more so than now). This term, since 2012, PRI has privatized many industries and downsizing government agencies, getting contracts with private industries instead. Meade has also been involved in corruption scandals, but not covered as much as Anaya since the current rulling party doesn't want him looking so badly.

The current polls say that the most probable thing is that AMLO would win, followed by Anaya, then Meade.

Currently our country depends heavily on manufacturing and free trade. NAFTA got many Mexican farmers out of business, and the country buys a great part of its food from the US.
This may probably continue if Anaya or Meade win.

What I am mostly concerned about, is AMLO wanting to close the economy and making it more depending on oil again, like XX century Mexico under PRI. That and the fact that if AMLO wins and is bad as president, Mexicans will lose any small amount of faith remaining on leftism.

Mexico is spooked as hell. Think of the aspects of working oneself to death like in the US and the "pride" of being part of one culture.

What should I do? Sorry if I still give liberal opinions or speak as one, I'm kinda new at this.

I feel that it's worth a read. There's a chapter about the Ku Klux Klan that is very much related I feel to Holla Forums's mentality. Also I liked the chapter about drug dealers. Felt that it described the petty-bourgeois nature of organized crime pretty well. It's fun.

Vote for the one that will inflame the people further against the system (albeit in a more left leaning nature). If there is no such option than don't vote.

1. your vote won't make a difference.
2. laws are approved or denied by congress. the presidential powers are rather limited.
3. PRI is corruption in it's purest form. PAN and PRD are following in it's steps.
4. AMLO is a populist as you have said. This doesn't mean he will suck, in this case it just means nobody knows what his actual politics are besides being vaguely liberal "leftist"
5. I'm not really sure how funding works, but your vote might be better invested in a smaller party that is not a shit show like PRI, MORENA, etc. I think your vote determines how much funding they get next year. Otherwise either anul your vote, to make sure no one votes on behalf of you or don't vote at all.
6. The typical sentiment of leftist is to not vote for liberals, ie all the candidates.
7. Fuck El Bronco.

Reposting this from /liberty/ because I want to have Holla Forums's perspective as well

So I've been trying to figure it out the entire day but I'm too tired to process anything complex.
As far as I understand, the value of a currency, disregarding for the moment other factors, fundamentally rests on its country's produce. If so, can speculation on currency occur in the same way it does in the stock market? Say some underdeveloped country is projected to develop in an exceedingly fast pace in the coming years, or that some developed country suffered a disaster and its economy sinks but expected to surge back, can speculators then buy the currency thus artificially driving its value up against other currencies without there being anything substantiation to hold the currency? Is this a bubble then and can it default?

So how do you think this will play out?
First there's the fact that there's another currency being affected (for the sake of simplicity let's leave it at two exchangeable currencies, currency A that is being bought and currency B that is being sold), and I'm not sure if inversely or otherwise. Since the speculators will be buying A mostly from banks my guess is that the banks will then acquire property, capital, or any profit accumulating assets in country of B. Initially that means that B will also experience a shortage in its home market, but then it trickle back from reinvestment and spread back through the various layers of the market. But will it negatively or positively affect the economy? I'd assume there would be improved production from these purchases and the economy will be boosted, but I'm not really sure.

Currency A, on the other hand, after the initial wave of purchasing, will a have significant amount of it off the market and in storage driving up its value thus allowing citizens and banks to buy even more foreign goods, services, and of currency B. Then there's the fact that with its increased demand, and possible fears of deflation or whatever, the state or private institution, depending on the system, will begin printing more of A and either using it to buy various foreign assets, pay off debts, or inject into the domestic market. And finally the crucial question remains, will all of this process help or hinder economic progress for the recovering/developing nation? Can this process bring a default?

Thinking through all of this makes me realize economics is a clusterfuck.
And just for the record, how will this scenario play out if we used gold as a currency/back up for currency? Either as a universal standard that people literally pay with gold or a global currency that is backed by gold, or individual currencies backed by a country's gold.

*for clarity, Banks in country of A will acquire the assets in country of with B.

What's the difference between Maoism and Marxist-Leninism? And how does Troskyism differenciate from Marxism-Leninism?

Yes.
Yes.
Yes, it's a bubble, yes it can lead to a default, unless the country starts printing more currency to offset the deflation.
Hoarding of currency A does not have the same level of impact as supplying currency B.
Negatively. Deflation causes hoarding, which slows down the flow of money. No purchasing or reinvesting will happen.
Deflation also increases value of debt.
Gold is a shit back up for currency, because it depends on gold mining, and gold has very little use value. Energy is better.

Which one of you did this, /lefty pol/?

Is it correct to say:
All turnover earned by a company is equivalent to labour power in terms of money, even that which is profit, since all profit will be spend on products or services within a certain immediate timeframe, and all products and services are embodyments of labour power
Hence if a company makes a profit of 20% of the wages it pay, or if all companies in society within a certain time period make a profit of 20% as a fraction of the wages it paid, that means that there is 20% profit-as-labour-time that could be spend on making more consumer goods or to reduce the workweek without damaging the standard of living?

Put simply, Maoists take Mao's claim to ML ideological purity after the Sino-Soviet split in the 50's, whereas people who identify simply as Marxist-Leninists don't. Maoism is still a branch of ML theory.

Trotskyism is an "ideology" which some misguided workers/guilty bourgs fall into, where you can pretend to be a leftist without having to bother with understanding, defending or being held accountable for any leftist movement that has accomplished anything whatsoever in the real world.

...

Why the fuck are marxists utterly convinced that artistic self-expression is a form of bourgeois decadence?

Are these people living in the delusion that nobody before capitalism has ever wanted to express themselves?

Art only became about "self-expression" in capitalism. Before then, art was an elite field that was almost entirely about satistifying the aristocracy or religion.

...

The real issue is that they end up at the conclusion that Imperialism did not cause these things or that imperialism cannot be stopped from happening.
In the United States, every person coming illegally coming across the border can be tracked back to a time the CIA overthrew a government.
It doesn't take a genius to pin this on Imperialism and it would be a great move for people on the "left" to show that the "Deep State" has many more consequences than whatever they think it is doing to Trump.

Despook me on Israel, Holla Forums. I am absolutely not a fan of the bourgeoisie state of Israel, but I don't know how the spooked muslims of Palestine and arab countries are supposed to be more progressive. Also can anyone point me to actual acts of Israeli state that can be construed as genocide? I am uneducated in this regard.

...

This is probably a brainlet question but I don't understand the difference between a communist and an anarchist "country". I understand anarchists don't accept socialism as a transitional phase and want to immediately establish anarchy instead of letting the state gradually disappear, but in what respects is the final result supposed to be different? Or isn't it?

The Nakba counts as a genocide IMO: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus
And Israel's recent techniques of gradually taking over the West Bank and targeting Palestinians are at the very least shady as fuck. I actually recently bought a book on the subject, which I haven't read yet so idk if it's as good as it looks, but here's the title anyway if you are interested: David Cronin - Balfour's Shadow, A Century of British Support for Zionism and Israel
Right now I'm reading the Oxford "short introduction" to the conflict which is a short (duh), readable and fairly neutral general overview.
Islamic ideology isn't too progressive in social matters, but I'd say that's a different issue. The primary problem in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the Israeli government, not necessarily the citizens of either side.

i have a question to follow this one, do i need to read something of hegel before capital?, or is that a horrible meme that i've seen in here.

also how would economies be integrated in socialism?, i've read TANS by cockshott of making an eu style thing, where planing is done across nations, but i'd like to hear takes of other ideologies, is there equivalents for like anarchists or leftcoms?

i've read TANS by cockshott where he has the idea of making a eu style thing

so if the value of two iterations of the same product is equal to the average labour time that takes to produce them, with the average skill of the labourer that took place in production, despite the fact that it might actually have taken more time to produce one than the other, because of stupidity of ineptitude or whatever, then does this mean that whenever you do a job your particular labour is only worth as much as the average labour time it takes everybody to do it, despite whatever particular time it takes you in a single occassion?, i guess put more simply if i'm a window cleaner and it normally takes 2 hours to clean all the windows and complete the job on average, but in a particular day my wife leaves me and it takes me 8 hours to clean, will i get 2 labour tokens, or will i get 8

oh shit didn't meant to respond

Ancoms and marxists do have the same goal which is communism. The split is in regards to authority and the use of the state to achieve their goal, marxists claim that a dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary to defend the whole process from inside and outside threats while anarchists think that it will create a new ruling class which will degenerate into a regular dictatorship, thus the need to skip the transitional phase.

Oh okay, then the answer is easier than I imagined. Thanks for responding comrade

Another question now that I think of it: if you would be to donate money to some humanitarian cause, which ones do you think would be the best options and why?

bump

does anybody have that diagram of all the dialectical relations in Capital with circles on a grey background? I can't find it

Sorry I dont really understand this part. What is maos claim to ML ideological purity??

2.

What's the verdict on Jim Jones? Was he just a cult leader who used socialism to get followers or was he a fighter and geniune socialist driven to suicide by the west?

1d4chan.org/wiki/The_Last_Church

Can anyone point me to some sources regarding the SU's interactions with the church? Was it really as bad as the hype says, or is this more "the bolsheviks are evil because they were mean and killed people like the Czar and his kids ;~;" type bullshit

...

I'll ask this one again, how did the USSR and Maoist China allocate consumer goods?

why did this guy get banned?

The guy with the cowboy hat

To anyone in general but especially swerfs, where is the line between sex work and not sex work?

Is drawing 2D porn sex work? What about making porn video games? Some games have Foley effects of sex sounds. I'm talking about the sound of body parts, not like pleasure moans, because that's another category. If nude models for men's magazines are sex workers, what about "tasteful" nude models? Just because the explicit purpose of the product isn't titillation doesn't mean that use doesn't drive sales.

Okay so what's a term similar to the idea of rainbow capitalism, but applied to minorities instead.
Also give me a term, but applied to women instead

how would you go about debating this statement:
"Freedom is less important than keeping society free of potentially harmful behaviors and things."

First define "freedom"

Attached: stalin_freedums.jpg (480x335, 49.37K)

freedom as in freedom of choice or to do things as long as they aren't directly harming someone in some way. Like the choice to not have a family because you don't want one as opposed to having to be wed and have a family because it would be considered productive to society.

Pink capitalism for women.
Uhhh colorblind capitalism for minorities?

The point of avoiding harmful things is to avoid things that hurt your freedom. Harm by definition hurts your freedom, e.g. the freedom to live without physical pain/injury. There's no reason to assume the two should be opposed since harm can be recontextualized according to freedom as a metric. It's up to the person asserting they are opposed and demanding a reduction in freedom to justify that position.

Choice in itself isn’t freedom though. Choice is of the mind and can be restricted through material forces. Ability on the other hand is of matter. The problem with “muh choices” is that it assumes man having the free ability. They don’t. Especially when there is poverty involved. The libertarian right only see choices while the libertarian left see ability to be the prerequisite of ones will. If you have no ability then your will means nothing.

Attached: 2F64C414-9546-47BA-B944-CBD118B35466.jpeg (1200x800, 98.67K)

Attached: 220px-Capitalist-ni_bookcover.jpg (220x320, 16.66K)

that also sounds like capitalism aimed at LGBTs though, like it's used in pinkwashing

I regularly feel guilty for being a white heterosexual male, so I'm wondering, is it ok for me to identify as a nonbinary transmasculine person(pronouns: they/them) so can somehow lay claim to trans oppression?

Why exactly was homosexuality criminal in Cuba and the Stalinist USSR? I know the connection with the bourgeois and homosexuality very well, but were there any other reasons?

I'm just getting into this marxism thing but I have some questions about class. If my understanding is correct, the Bourgeoisie are those who own the means of production and the proletarian are those who must sell their labor power to the bourgeoisie, yes? Now my question is what of people who do not own the means of production but are so wealthy that they no longer have to sell their labor to the bourgeoisie? Or what of the people who are technically working for the bourgeoisie but have extremely comfortable jobs and make a large amount of money? I'm speaking of managers and directors of large companies. Where do these people fall under?

Apologies if dumb questions.

1) The theory is not meant to be all encompassing or perfect. There are extreme cases that cannot be easily classified into a class or another.
2) What you are talking about is labour aristocracy, the part of the proletariat that is bribed and used to control the rest of the class. In our modern world it's the uber skilled engineer/surgeon/lawyer becoming a millionaire in his twenties.

That said:
There is no realistic way to accomplish this. None gets rich exclusively by selling their labour. The cost of labour power is necessarily as close to its minimum average as it can get and considering this average is the cost of production and reproduction of the worker, there is no space for accumulation of any relevant entitity.

None gets rich only with their own sweat. Accumulation requires the exploitation of someone else.

I haven't finished Cockshott yet, can somebody tell me what he says on how labor vouchers will be distributed, specifically how we would avoid fraud

Attached: 883.gif (500x650, 1.89M)

did'nt mean to sage

Where does this meme come from that all people in socialist nations make the same amount of money. I'm personally more idpol but I hear this meme spouted all of the time and am 100% it's bullshit (hence why I replied with the Soviet 1936 constitution quote). Is this just a baseless claim made from ignorance or are they drawing this from somewhere I'm not aware of? I'm not super well-read on this shit but probably more than the average Holla Forums poster

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (886x87 35.11 KB, 11.87K)

How do you challenge this argument:
"Not everyone matters, if they do not benefit society in some way then they do not matter. They are only hogging resources for those who do."
Comes across a lot, especially when mentioning people with heavy disabilities.

from the idea of labor vouchers maybe?

If a fat banker has enough money to buy himself a harem of barely legal prostitutes, and his fetish is cutting off their limbs with high quality surgical assistance so that they end up qt quadriplegics, is that wrong?
If the prostitutes actually find their life meaningful and fulfilling, are they oppressed?

Tell them you agree, a parasitic class of people should be eliminated and that's why we should send to the gulags the capitalist class.

None cares about moralism user.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.

Any other questions?

I'm really ignorant on the whole over a dozen US military bases in Syria matter since I was busy with Uni for quite a while. Can someone explain in a very basic manner how the Kurds are organized economically and in what kind of political framework their economic system is situated in so I can do my own research from there on out?