QTDDTOT(Questions that don't deserve their own thread)

Why is Holla Forums so easy to make fun of? Every argument they have against why whites are being displaced in education and elite positions of society boils down to "muh joos."

I'm more of a socialist, but none of the other three fit my stance. Besides, my end-goal is to abolish the state and establish communism.

Are consumer cooperatives in any significant way better than standard capitalist businesses?

I'm here again and this time on human nature. While I agree that most of human nature is fluid and we're shaped by our environment, how come all societies shun: murder, theft, rape and assault? Is their not a part of human nature which is innate such as the protection of the individual, as well as the survival of the community?

The nature vs. nurture dichotomy is a bit of a made up one. Most things are in a way both. A typical analogy is that nature gives as the buttons and dials while nurture gives the settings on them.

Because all societies are harmed by murder, theft, rape and assault and thus will shun these practices?

Things like an animalistic survival instinct are certainly innate to us but we know that environmental factors can lead to us overcoming even them (i.e. suicides, anti-natalism etc.)

We come pre-programmed with a wire-frame for how to function but its due to external material conditions which cause our development to actually form us.

Murder, theft, rape and assault are non-beneficial to a society since if laws against this are nor enforced, it can be used against you. As such, in a roughly egalitarian society, all members share an interest in enforcing these rules.

In a non-egalitarian society, as we have seen in history, these laws dont exist or are not enforced, unless its the lower class doing it against the ruling class.

pretty much all leftists are anarchists, since everyone wants a stateless classless moneyless society, the only difference is the mean to get there

this thread is a pretty good idea, we can ask "what does Holla Forums think about x" without shitting up the board.

what does Holla Forums think about openness in sexuality? is it capitalist dege-neracy or should we continue to have it under communism?

I don't see anything wrong with being open about sex, I just want to see sex in advertisements to disappear. Photoshopped models, both male or female, are not really helpful for your self image and on top of that I find it most distasteful that they try to market me cheese with boobs.

If we want to be open about sex, lets be open about real sex, not this commodified version of sex.

Not sure what you mean by 'openness' but I'm for free love and all that shit. I hope that once we pass capitalism people will over time stop giving a shit about labels and hedonistically enjoy themselves together if that's what they want.

Moralfags will stop getting assblasted about others doing what they want and degenerates will be able to stop being so loud about their preferences.

Post more hot anime ass!

yeah I agree it goes both ways, but I still place more emphasis on nurture itself.

I'm personally against the trivialization of sex as it leads toward hedonism and devalues the purpose of the act. I hold the same opinion as

I get what you're going for there, but I'm not even sure if it makes sense to say that one has more effect than the other. If we are talking about some measurable trait by itself, then sure, there are statistical methods that can evaluate the importance of environmental factors.
However, there is no way to measure anyone's whole personality, their whole mind, their whole self in any way, so as far as I can see, the claim that one is more important than the other (or even that they are both as important) has no interpretation.
If I were to say that X% of who you are (what does that even mean?) is because of your environment, I don't think I would have made a meaningful statement.

Can't a group of workers just pool money and collectively purchase or develop means of productions for use?

That assumes they have money.

I suppose, I was going more along the lines that the self is ever changing due to our material conditions, external conditions and facticity.

Sure, but building class-consciousness and worker organization under a society deliberately designed to suppress such movements is difficult. And furthermore, without changing the economy as a whole any worker-owned enterprises will still be forced to produce for profit rather than use.

What does sage do?

Normally, when you post a reply to a thread, it is moved to the top. When you write sage into the email field, replying won't do that.

lurkmore.com/view/Age_and_Sage

In a few words, why did the Yugoslavian economy crash? I'm too drunk to read through a whole essay on it.

IMF debts and government corruption mostly

Revisionism

The oil crisis and stagflation in the 70s fucked over basically everyone, the US recovered relatively quickly, and they used their relative advantage to fuck with the USSR and other communist nations. I vaguely recall Bush 41 put some sort of sanctions or other negative economic action on Yugoslavia and the only help they could get was the IMF - who would only loan them money if they privatized everything (progs who like supranational organizations kill me every time)

How long is it until revolution time here in the U.S by your estimates? 40-50 years?

NOW

How many sexual partners have my fellow Holla Forumstarians had? How many gfs/bfs?

I don't know how many girls I've fucked, but they've mostly left me after sex and I rarely talk to them again. I've only had 4 gfs because while I can fuck almost any girl that gets me hard it's difficult for me to get close to people.

I think it depends on what relationships you're in and what works for you. To me sex isn't inherently special, it's just something that feels really good and helps me relax. So if I'm single I got no problem fucking whoever is down. If I'm in a relationship I'll act accordingly to the standards me and my gf agreed to.

Degeneracy is bullshit anyways. There's nothing wrong with exploring what works for you and you shouldn't feel ashamed for doing it. The idea that a monogamous relationship where you pop each other's cherries is ideal for everyone is bullshit. In fact the only couple I know that did that ended up having a bitter divorce.

Does my hand counts?

Yes.

2 gfs.

0 :(

0,0

I've had 3 gfs and 6 sexual partners in total all at once

I'm 28 and have had ten sexual partners (if we're just counting piv) and four girlfriends in the past ten years.

wew

?

ogey

How can materialists explain that my country decresed it's poverty rates by 22% but crime incresed by 5%?

White collar crime increased. Next.

No, assault and robbery increased, why?

Niggers

Will you tell us what country, user?

Holla Forums pls.

What's ur secret fagoot

Urgay.

There probably became more to steal, if, as I'm assuming, quite inequality and poverty remained despite a middle class coming to fruition.

I'm good looking and I take care of myself. It isn't hard to get laid if you take care of yourself, almost every single girl or guy between 18 and 30 is willing to fuck and there's various apps to meet dtf folk. Not every person I want to fuck wants to fuck me, but I live in Houston so there's a lot of people around.

well I guess there's my problem. Currently at 260 pounds, gained like 5 over the summer.

Check this out:

Listen to . I was over 100 pounds overweight and lost it all before building 30 pounds of muscle. Chisel yourself out of the granite and build yourself into a fucking apex.

What did you do?

I cut my daily calorie intake to 1.5-2k, mostly protein and carbs, and started jogging twice a day. About two months in I started lifting instead of cardio three days a week.

1 bf, 1 gf

Can you truly be a leftist without wanting to mass murder all alt-right faggots?

Yes, but you have to accept it's either extermination or gulag for them.

lucky. what did you feel were the differences mostly due to gender there?

...

Well being a Marxist does imply that, yes.

I've had three gf's and then a couple one night stands. Although my last gf was over 2 years ago now and the one night stands were literally just making out in a night club, so nothing too impressive tbh.

Idk if one night stand is the right term to use but I didnt wanna sall pull because as I understand most Amerifats dont know it.

...

you're not fooling anyone muke

look at the flag muke.

The poll's categories are literally

Of course leninism, ml, maoism and trots would all fall under that category.

Ok I guess you're right that it's meant to represent all forms of Marxism, though as it didnt say Marxism I was got the impression it was saying all Marxist were tankies, mb.

...

What if we're wrong? About everything? What if everything is ok rn and we're the bad guys?

If capitalism is the best humanity can do, who the fuck cares if we're the bad guys?

Like 5 girlfriends

And you are going to have to define terms, do people who you have only had oral sex with count as a sexual partner? Because that would double my figures

primo en estos paises la pobreza solo se reduce en estadisticas, las mismas condiciones materiales y sociales continuan.

econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm

nevermind that author is ancap
read C. The Dilemma, Part I: Capitalist Anarchism

I kissed a girl in Junior High, so .000000000001

I'm 24

I'm no fucking anarchist
I understand statelessness as abolition of armed forces and police

but it doesn't mean that there will be no laws or hierarchy

so if you anarchofucks will not abide by the laws of society, then I guess conscious citizens gang up on you and end your wild west delusions

0 gfs, 2 sexual partners. I don`t have any interest in having romantic relationships.

2 gfs, 2 sex
didn't have sex with the first gf because we were teens and she wanted to wait/wasn't ready, i wasn't in a hurry either.

i had to wait 10 years to get my second gf, who i lost my virginity to.
surprisingly her best friend was the second girl i'v ever had sex with.
we ended up being in some sort of polygamous relationship.
it lasted almost a year till i moved out

whats Holla Forums's deal with hating nationalism?
you really expect underachieved industry workers who have nothing but their national pride to suddenly drop it because "muh workers have no nation"?
socialism has to be achieved within a country before it can be internationally

We are the end for all traditions and history. We will not subcome or please the values of dying right for it is us who are history in the making.

what about proletarian nationalism? we can create our own values and apply that value to socialism, preventing class collaboration

Nationalism is based on the boundaries of culture,language and ethnicity. Since we seek to destroy bourgeois culture(ergo all culture that exists today),eradicate most languages for the sake of universality and ignore ethnicity nationalism has nothing to offer us.

why cant we create our own socialist proletarian culture to unite the people within a country for the cause of socialism?

Why the hell does the existence of humans with mutable sexual preference invalidate the requirement for labels to identify said preference, why is the assumption that all humans are mutable in the sexual desires in this manner and what does it have to do with socialism?

We can and probably will, but that progress has to wait for the creation of socialist state in the first place. Best way to achieve it is trough international agitation.

why not utilize nationalism to create a socialist state?

How do I find out if my fanatically-purist strain of Marxist thought will win the inevitable post-revolution power struggle?

Who's your favourite poster?
I'm torn between wolff feeder and catgrill drawfag

Can someone explain to me the benefits between market vs non-market socialism? Also, is it even possible for a successful socialist sate apparatus to exist without a planned economy?

Anonymous

Thank you comrade. Revolutionary spirit restored.

fuck off normies

Non-market socialism is usually run through a planned economy, either directly by the state (such as with the Soviet Union) or indirectly through communes (such as with Catalonia and anarcho-communism).
Direct planning has the benefit of easily being able to mobilize the entire country's resources to where it's needed (shipping food from the countryside to the city, etc.), but it's a nightmare to properly organise, and if you fuck up it can have major consequences.
Indirect planning has the benefit of being way easier to organise (since it's people on the ground doing the planning on a small scale rather than bureaucrats half the country away on a large scale), but it gets more tricky once you move beyond the commune.
Both have the benefit of avoiding the pitfalls that come with having a market economy.

In market socialism, the economy is regulated through the market, just like today. The difference is that all the companies are owned by the workers rather than capitalists. Basically, every company is a coop. This avoids a lot of the problems of Capitalism (unemployment, the fight for wages, companies moving abroad) while keeping the hands-off regulation of a market economy.
It's also way easier to implement. You can actually imagine a political party getting elected and doing this; funding coops and creating a good environment for them to thrive. I think Italy has a policy where unemployed workers can borrow 10 years worth of benefits for the purpose of establishing a coop, which seems to have worked pretty well.

Both are highly unstable and inefficient. gift economy is the only way

You're going to find more evil normies and sex havers in places like these than Holla Forums. I'm sorry.

To explain the differences more clearly:

In a direct planned economy, the state decides what is produced and what is done with it.

In an indirect planned economy, the community decides what is produced and what is done with it.

In a market socialist economy, the individual workplace decides what is produced and what is done with it, which is then sold on the market.

Honestly I think any future socialist project should include all three types of planning

'no'

get off your high horse anarkiddie, states aren't going away anytime soon

Are services commodities?

True, but the thing about economic models/theories/whatevers is that you never see a pure example of them in the real world. You always get a mix (most liberal economies have some state-owned industries, for example). They're archetypes.

because "socialist" states have worked so well in the past

yeah, this is exactly what I mean. A future socialist project is probably going to come about from a socialist party/movement, and if they want to be effective they should use whatever method of planning is best for a given commodity.

they've worked better than any given anarchist project

That's debatable.

Mom, Dad, pls don't fight.

they actually didnt tho

...

...

rojava is based tbh.
rojava, zapatista, naxalites, DPRK, china, vietnam and cuba are all socialist states or communes, and should be defended unconditionally as such.

...

not my comrade

stay buttmad

Not even asshurt trots claim that lel. They usually claim that it's some non-capitalist mode of production that they can't fathom.

Wow totally not state capitalism.

are you talking about zapatistas?
schoolsforchiapas.org/advances/womens-empowerment/online-store/
no-gods-no-masters.com/zapatista-ezln-zapata-C84731/

DPRK doesn't even claim to be socialist, China is implementing even more neo-liberal reforms along with vietnam and no one even gives a shit about the naxalites anymore.

...

you'll notice I said self declared socialist states, whether they actually had socialism as an economic system is irrelevant.

They werent socialist
If you're talking about the USSR and China, then both developed through state capitalism
Having fascists, marxists, and liberals all trying to destroy you doesn't help your survival

No, but they aren't capitalists if the political structure prevents them from owning capital. Don't bother replying, you and I both know you're completely illiterate when it comes to the Soviet economy.

Either that or Mandel's insane ramblings about the USSR being "in transition" out of capitalism.

Owning the means of production ain't that good when its for a few months before you get shot by fascists or put in Franco's concentration camp. Meanwhile Soviet workers may not have diirectly owned the means of production but they enjoyed healthcare, housing and education . I think the Spanish workers would have appreciated that a fair bit more than kekalonia.

The Zapatistas are "libertarian" Marxists (i.e., underfunded tankies)

I don't deny they had state capitalism, except for maybe Yugoslavia. But regardless, state capitalism accomplished a lot more than anarchists ever did, and so did capitalism for that matter. I just happen to believe that market socialism would accomplish more than either of them.

Not intrinsically, but they are commodified under Capitalism.

Example:
Your friend offers to help you fix your car pro bono. Your friend is offering you a service for free, so it's not a commodity.
You decide to take it to a mechanic instead, who charges you 300$. The mechanic is selling you his service in exchange for money, which turns the service into a commodity.
It doesn't have to be exchanged for money, though. If your friend offers to help you with the car in exchange for you helping him with his kitchen, then you are exchanging services, which also commodifies them.

I have a job, does that make me capitalist?

Tankies everyone.

who were then?

I freely admit they had state capitalism, though they were run by communist/socialist parties. I'm just saying they still got more done than you.

...

thats not the point. the point is you're claiming past socialist countries are "state capitalists" simply because they needed money to defend themselves, zapatistas are doing the same thing but no anarchists are complaining.

Anarkiddies everyone.

workers cant be trusted, you know. got to have a manager to watch over them :^)

pure revisionism

delet this

The context is that social democracy is better than socialism faggot.

The difference is Sweden isn't trying to achieve socialism whereas the USSR can still be said to have been trying to fend of capitalist powers and establish the DotP.

> M-My comrades are better capitalists than your comrades!

...

Im saying theyre state capitalist because workers didnt own the MOP

You just described a social democracy

Isn't a commodity a goods produced to be sold?

anarchists show their true colors again

think about it, state socialism is best at industrializing shit, capitalism can work for you if you have a labor shortage and you start out with most of the capital in a given political economy. But in a consumer based economy liked the US what will be the most successful is what creates the most demand, which would obviously be workers owning their firms and having capital socialized.

they owned the means of productions were owned through the state, and thinking you can fight off imperialist capitalists without a state is retarded

If your method of achieving socialism leads to it only existing for a year it's a shit method, at least marxist states have some durability and stand a chance to destroy the porkies so that socialism can actually develop safely.

Ends justify the means faggots, your 'principles' are no different from the fascist obsession with 'honour'. We should do what whatever allows us to win.

...

Going by the wikipedia definition here:

...

I'm more interested in Marxist theory than Wikipedia, though

Every country with any sort of nationalized industry is socialist now. got it

You sound like a socdem tbh

the end goal of past socialist countries were international socialism, while countries with nationalization are simply capitalist countries that dont want to collapse within 4 years. stop thinking in black and white

classic anarchist

Who said anything about doing that? Besides, it's very rare when we actually went beyond capitalism in the first place.

Social democracy is bound to fail thanks to the inherit nature of crisis and freedom of capital movement in a global capitalist political economy. You cannot have a large social safety net and a growing economy and long term stability. You can only choose two.

If that's what capitalism is then every ruling class in history has been capitalist. You might think that, but for the rest of us your illiteracy is plain to see. The Soviet economy didn't even have any capital accumulation process at all, such a thing is obviously impossible when the economic authorities didn't purchase any commodities, but merely allocated resources directly. It isn't even remotely difficult to prove that the Stalin economy set up in the 30's USSR was the foundation for a socialist society, it's just that those who have never read or understood Marxist theory (trots, left-coms, anarchists, market socialists etc.) wouldn't be able to recognize socialism if their lives depended on it.

...

So the workers didn't own the means of production since nationalization is capitalist…

Sounds a bit like the state "socialist" countries

Anarkiddies didn't even last long enough to have famines, just gulags.
smh

thats not what i said at all, what i said was the nationalization under communist countries were for the purpose of achieving socialism, while capitalist countries does so because they fucking have to.

anarchists show themselves as liberals. its chomsky all over again

and see how that went

Don't bother bringing them up if you're not going to clarify on the context, your debate skills rival those demonstrated on a youtube comments section.

You didn't address anything I posted, but I'll humor you anyway.

Everything I just said in my last post implied common property relations even if it didn't correspond to the "worker control" that this board has told you defines a post-capitalist system. Common property meaning no group is able to monopolize the use of a means of production to be used against the rest of society, that is private property. It would only exist in a market economy. So yes, all property was held in common even if control over them was tightly-centralized. Said centralization is obviously dangerous for common property relations, but it wasn't enough to immediately destroy them in favor of private property.

since when did nationalization = capitalism? are you fucking retarded?

:^)

there's only one solution then

thanks fam

What is a means of production?

learn to use google

the means used to produce you fucking nerd

...

you can do better comrade

...

sorry

use duck duck go you mongoloid retarded shitstain of humanity

...

Are the means of production under capitalism so inexpensive that socialism has been rendered obsolete and that's why all you guys are buttmad?

do you even know what means of production is?

You're typing away on one.

More importantly do you know what socialism is?

Can you live off shitposting?

can my computer produce anything?
are you seriously mistaking means of production for commodity? are you this retarded?

Shitposting is socially useful labour famrade.

Just answer the question. Don't counter my ? with ???.

answer this

For a Socialist state - unlikely. Not sure what "apparatus" has to do with anything, though.

It's practically impossible to industrialize that way. Stuff is going to be half the country away anyway. And minor stuff was handled on local level even in USSR.

Not all of them. And MarkSoc always ends the same way - economical collapse (as it happened with Yugoslavia, late USSR, or is happening in Venezuela now). It can't handle the main problem of Capitalism - lack of regulation.

It always did, I think. USSR (until Khrushchev, obviously) had all three going, for example: heavy industry was under direct control, farming - local communes, and co-ops in light industry (luxury goods) were left doing their own thing uncontrolled by anyone.

It can produce and make use of software. It can also access the internet and provide services to others remotely.

...

do i hire other people to produce and make softwares on my computer? no. my computer is a personal property, until i hire other people to do shit on my computer.
learn to distinguish "commodity" and "means of production" before you make a tard out of yourself

What stops you from hiring a language teacher and making use of her to satisfy a client based over the internet? She can simply use her own computer. She can even publish language books with a printer. It's inexpensive.

Do we live in a post-socialist society?

They aren't. It's hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment per worker.

Human capital doesn't count.

if you "hire" that woman, what exactly do you do? the only thing you do is contact the client and tell the woman what to do. the woman and the client can do that by themselves without the need for a "hiring man".

you're just curving the argument to avoid looking like an idiot at this point.
im asking this for the third time: what do you think "means of production" is?

Explain online remote services and goods. Hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin a business that provides it?

The woman in that example would cover a hole in my firm (language I didn't know or have time to teach). But exactly, the woman and client can do that themselves as the means of production (computer) has been driven down to such an extent that the worker can afford it.

Don't turn the question on me. I initially asked what the means of production is. Let me know.

then why the fuck do we need capitalism, when the worker and the client can conduct businesses by themselves, without the need of a capitalist to exploit the worker?
you're literally rekting your own logic

and i told you to use google, but since you dont seem too intelligent, i'll answer that for you.
literally on wikipedia.

Has capitalism bought us to a post-socialist society in which the means of production is accessible and inexpensive to the worker?

How does a computer not fit the definition of a means of production? Where is the dispute?

you have still failed to demonstrate your understanding of what socialism is.

If anything if means of production are available to workers it's a post-capitalist society.

In the distant future, when all bourgers have been purged, gommanasm achieved, and there is total unity in our lovely stateless, moneyless, classless society, the only purpose of a military would be to repel ayy lamaos. Do we therefore have an inter-commune militia to defend against E.T., or is that a waste of resources, time, and effort?

how can this be a "post-socialist" society if we havent even achieved socialism yet? socialism means the workers ownership of the means of production, this havent been achieved universally, it fact its barely achieved even in the knowledge economy like the example we used. software companies still exist, and though sometimes people do work on their own computers, they're paid wages while the surplus values are taken by the capitalists (the company owner).

the computer is a mean of production if it's being used by someone to create a software, etc like you said, but when workers do it by themselves, we (socialists) dont have an issue. when the workers created the software for the client, but the capitalist (software company owner) didnt do anything in the process other than communicating (which even you agreeed), yet the capitalist gets all the surplus value and the software creator gets a tiny amount.
we support independent software developers, like the one you mentioned "owning the means of production (computer)" by themselves, and receive their pay instead of having their surplus values exploited.

wew

aliens intelligent enough to visit earth will probably have communism as their mode of production, and will more likely be far more civilized than us, so i doubt we even have to defend against them.
there are always risks of reactionary capitalist rebels and religious fanatics

By post-socialist, I mean, has capitalism at this stage rendered socialism obsolete by bringing down the expense of acquiring a means of production to the point that the worker can attain it?

no. capitalism at this stage rendered itself obsolete by making the capitalists completely useless in the process of production.

Do you know what socialism is faggot?!

Does capitalism alone tend towards that universal? How does socialist thought, and not capitalism, advance us towards being able to be in ownership of the means of production?

i dont even know what you're implying. do you mean "does capitalism make itself universally useless because the capitalists are obviously not needed in the process of production?" then the answer is yes, capitalism is rendering itself useless.
socialism IS being able to be in ownership of the means of production

It's an active process, the capitalist is rendering previous aspects of itself obsolete. Advancements are made, the knowledge base increases and greater, more complex means of productions are employed.

I would suspect so, but it's not impossible it may be a violent, speciesist, ideologically obsessive strain. I think it's unwise to assume all communist societies would be perfect utopias where everyone gets along.
that too

m8, i imagine some dude back in 15th century saying the exact same shit to a capitalist
of course capitalism advanced humans, just like feudalism and slavery did in the past, the issue is it's becoming useless since we dont need the capitalist to advance ourselves! what role does the capitalist play in the process of technological advancement? he doesnt go into the labs nor collect samples or research, he does nothing but pay researchers to do research and sell their products (technological achievements, whatever) later.

Capitalism doesn't cause technological development (development of the forces of production) any more than feudalism does. That happens independently at an exponential rate. Capitalism is a form of organisation of relations of production which becomes obsolete with the development of the forces of production, just as feudalism become obsolete and gave way to capitalism.

Capitalism is just a step in the dialectical development of society.

What is there to explain?

That's not means of production.

That's a very weird way to put things. Either retarded or genius.

I'm betting on retarded, by the way.

Are you going to contribute anything and correct it if it's wrong or just shitpost?

capitalism did advance society, it's just become obsolete now.

I'm not sure I understand what the post meant. As is it looks like user didn't read the fucking Das Kapital and doesn't understand what the word "dialectical" means - using it in this context makes no sense.

What is the context in which it has become obsolete?

Because in regular meaning (everyday life), it will become obsolete only when it will cease to exist. Did Capitalism cease to exist? Do we have an overabundance of MoP? No, we do not and capitalism is still out there.

It has become a hindrance to human progress - yes. But it is not obsolete. The word "obsolete" does not apply to Capitalism, because it is a socio-economic system. Even if we will get rid of it, it will appear whenever there is unmanaged deficit of MoP.

It has become obsolete in the sense that better systems exist and we can replace them with such.

The guy with a Porsche doesn't make all other cars obsolete.

That also doesn't make anything obsolete.

It's like saying that Capitalism is violet. If people hate violet - it is useful for propaganda. But IRL it doesn't make any sense.

false equivalence

capitalism as a whole is withering away because its own contradictions are causing it to collapse on itself.

Why? You don't have an option to painlessly choose Socialism.

This was always true. Even when Capitalism was progressive and was taking down Feudalism.

because you can't compare a fucking car brand with a sociopolitical and socioeconomic ideology. Cars also don't inherently destroy themselves. I was also referring to the scientific, medical and mathematical innovations, inventions and discoveries made about capitalism thanks to private research grants more than anything. Capitalism also raised the standard of living for everyone in their country as well. Of course it is now diminishing, and profit margins are falling.

I don't actually care about explaining anymore.

At the very least, it will be easy to detect you in the future by the lack of formatting.

there's nothing idealist about my argument, but keep being a dumbass.

I been following this conversation
A thing like a computer isn't a means of production, computers are still made by larger and more complex machines, same thing with a car.
the point of socialism is for people to make their own cars and computers themselves instead of having to work for a wage and buy a commodity.

...

GO
TO
SOCIAL
GATHERINGS.

If you do, back to square 1. If you don't, stop crying.

How does Holla Forums counter Holla Forums's arguments of race and IQ correlation. Worse yet, race and IQ correlation in economic classes as well.

Still irrelevant to politics and better to focus on individuals

race is a spook and IQ is a meme

but this is one of their most pivotal points, and it's a large part of how they convert people. How is IQ a meme, and how is race a spook?

guys please help

What is this Irish meme I see all over leftypol? I'm a hopeless newfag.

it makes fun of the Holla Forums jew meme, taking a few elitists who just happen to be jews and make it look like jews control the world. we do the same thing but for irish

Male, 23. Have had sex with five women.

Stormcucks want to be able to reduce human worth to a single number, simply put, and most people obsessed with IQ are either idiots with Dunning-Krueger syndrome, or want to avoid political discussion entirely by appealing to biology because they are intellectually bankrupt.

How is it not?

So let me get this straight, the reason SocDem doesn't work is because it works under the assumption that social reforms/policies are only made as a means to an end, rather than a transition to a socialist state? Furthermore, that these policies are contingent upon capitalism itself, and that when crisis occurs these policies will no longer be sustainable and eventually lead to an uprising?

Is it not scientifically accurate that race exists, and there are blatant physical and biological differences between other races?

I forgot to add that Social Democracy also seeks to suppress the antagonisms that exist in capitalism rather than abolishing them, and as such does not actually produce real class consciousness, but instead furthers class divide?

The problem here is "works". It functions well to prevent capitalism from collapsing from social degradation, but still maintains the inherent economic contradictions and exploitation and will thus never truly alleviate human suffering.
Race is a highly nebulous and politically dependent term. Human biological variation is quite complicated–though some geographical clusters will be more similar than others, to cleanly divide populations into subspecies is literally impossible.

yeah this is what I was getting at with my second post
Yes, but are those not seen as the general of the population which attempt to accurately categorize the general population?

Yes, but are those not seen as the general of the population which attempt to accurately categorize the general population?
That's exactly why it's a spook, the divisions change based on political need, especially during times of conflict between nations. It's a tool for societal control. A working class black man will always have more in common with his light skinned peers than with Herman Cain.

Can someone try and explain this giant discrepancy between this and the holocaust?

thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=85432

Why can't all the tankies just find a nice big hole and die in it?

Wed love to, but staying alive and making ancoms and snowflakes salty is more fun.
Posadism is still based as fuck tho

When should I start reading about capitalism, and capitalist theory and other schools of thought?

can someone explain how Holla Forums became a parody of itself?

Correlation is not causation, socio economics factors are more than just low income. Shit education (public US schools, nuff said), concentrated poverty (poor kids will develop diferently when the whole neihboorhood live in misery or if they are in the only indigent family of the community.), cultural factors ("muh real nigga don't do White stuff", Blacks too are spooked), purely environnmental factors (water in Flint)… So saying it's genetics is a bit short

What's the deal with Marxists calling their ideas "Scientific"

Why has the left so utterly failed at getting successful the past years?, with the crisis and such you'd have expected that the left would have become massively popular, it didn't happen, why?

What are some contemporary Marxists/Anarchists/leftists that are worth reading?

Will a revolution still be possible in the coming age of mass surveillance and killbots?

Why does the new right like gramsci so much?

The belief that there are general rules that shape how history plays out regardless of time period.

Bernie was the catalyst for the United States, we'll see what happens next. The failures of Mao and the Soviet Union turned a lot of people off.

Lol no

Marx and Engels used the German word "wissenschaft" or the english "science" to argue that their theory was based on knowledge of philosophy, economics, and politics. The german "wissenschaft" dosen't have the same connotations as the english word "science". It (the german word) usually just means an organized system of knowledge. The english word "science" denotes the hard sciences like biology, physics, chemistry,etc. When the german word "wissenschaft" is translated into the english word "science", people who don't know German or the intellectual history of Germany take Marxism to be the same as the hard sciences and that's why Marxists say "science" so much.

they're based on analysis and critique of past societies, as well as an objective view of the progression of natural sciences, and the usage of historical materialism
The left is sectarian, and small in the west, schools continually brain-wash generations of children with the anti-propaganda of the USSR, and more people care about racial identities, than class divides
pic related
until such a thing occurs, it's tough to say
I don't know

They stopped thinking critically. They let paranoia take over, and decided that going full reactionary is the only way to stop the corrupt politicians and rich industry owners. Probably started after the failure of GG and libertarians being shafted in every US election. The flames were fueled by Trump becoming a pres candidate. The influx of edgy stormfront neo-nazis didn't help either.

Define revolution. Some single moment of revolt/insurrection/etc where the means of production are at last seized? Definitely not

A long term political process that will start to trend towards communism in the new few decades? Maybe, but likely not.

For a lot of the West now is still a better chance that we've had since '68.

Well, what'll be a good alternative translation?

A good english translation would be "Marxism is a body of knowledge" or "Marxism is a theory of knowledge" or "Marxism is a systemic philosophy" instead of "Marxism is a science".

kissed a girls hand once

So if I'm getting this right leftcom is a collaboration of multiple political thinkers ideas, and isn't really a part of a strict ideology like ML's? Are leftcom's just people who opposed state socialism, and command economies?

sure a revolution can be won it'll just be cyber and homemade bomb-drones instead of guns and bombs

This one is good

Does anyone have the emerald empire meme?

Are the vast majority of leftist thinkers and writers all revolutionaries?

Why don't we call ourselves Holla Forumssheviks?

Practically every other relevant board has a demonym, sometimes several, but not Holla Forums.

What is state capitalism, what is state socialism? Did Marx want the state to take control of the means of production? Was the state withering away just a meme?

the cold war

Holla Forumsetarians

My nigga!
2 gfs here been 1 year and a half and it's pure bliss tbh

How does that work out for you? My ex was bi and liked fucking girls together but she wasn't really interested in a 3-way relationship.

4 gfs, 11 sexual partners #brocialist

one of which was 9 years older and i kek'd about trotsky once post bang

did I deserve it?

What exactly is post-scarcity?

How is it achieved under socialism? Is the type of socialism this endeavor is done would affect the feasibility of achieving post-scarcity and /or the time it takes to get there?

Why can't post-scarcity be achieved under capitalism?

Please and thank you for answering my questions.

when people's needs are completely satisfied and we no longer live in an age of economic scarcity in regards to resource
Socialism is nothing more than a means to an end to get towards post-scarcity. Post-scarcity is achieved under communism after the state has withered away. There really isn't a huge difference in socialism other than what sectarians view in regards to the existence of the state; as such the only way I view post-scarcity occurring is during the transition from socialism to communism.
because resources are hoarded by the capitalists in order to exploit workers, and continue their subsistence, as such post-scarcity won't be achieved as their needs will never be fully satisfied.

Access to air is post-scarcity. Mankind's economic relation with it could be called "primitive communism" (which obviously misses the point of having commune - organized industry, but shows the level of access to all goods Communists are going for).

By creating industry capable of producing enough to satisfy demand.

I don't get this part, tbh. There is only one Socialism, no?

Because it misses the point of Capitalism - profiteering from Capital (industry). Even if you get a machine that can create infinite amounts of some product, Capitalists will attempt to ban it or restrict access to it, rather than to use it for benefit of everyone.

Case in point: digital "piracy".

Either 4/pol/ has changed a lot, or the autistic obsessives have finally infiltrated the staff.

Won't there be a limited amount of materials to work with?

With the air example, is a cycle of materials relevant to attaining post-scarcity? As in trees takes in CO2 and gives out O2; with a set amount of trees/plants and an assumption of enough CO2 in the atmosphere, we have an environment that produces more than enough O2 for oxygen-requiring organisms on the planet. In there is a cycle. Of course, plants would also use oxygen (o2) for cellular respiration.
Would a similar cycle be needed for post-scarcity for various kinds of resources?
With people taking the place of plants in using materials to make goods and services and recycle them after. Perhaps with automation doing these cyclical processes after a certain point?

My question on the type of socialism is how the way of socialists organizing economically post-capitalism might affect the feasibility of and the time/difficulty taken to achieve post-scarcity.

Please and thank you once again.

alt/new right theory isnt actually that good, and not necisarriliy usable for movements who want to distance themselves from the old right (who often use the same theory).
Gramscis theory of hegemony and the idea of counter hegemony are fucking good.
It can be applied onto a right-wing perspective, if you just percive that, the left has won the cultural wars after '68 and regard stuff such as feminism, anti-racism and gay rights for example, as a fucking catastrophe.

Now you have a theory from which you can critiszie a "leftist cultural hegemony" and have a basic plan how to create your right wing counter hegemony.
The Identiarian Movement for example uses it.

not entirely, the earth itself can sustain over 50 billion people as is, and the vast majority of the problems that are plaguing the modern world today is a result of distributivity, not scarcity. The whole goal of socialism is to pave the way for communism through the DOTP and democratic control over the means of production, over time the state secedes power to the people as scarcity closes thanks to technological and scientific breakthroughs and inevitably reaches communism. Even if we somehow reach the point of resource scarcity, such a feat would occur much quicker in a capitalist society then it would under a communist society thanks to capitalism's incessant need for growth and overproduction.

Why do social democratic policies necessarily lead to fascism? I see this claim used all the time, arguing that social democratic policies will delay the revolution by alleviating the contradictions of capitalism. Historical conditions of fascism aside, I don't see why, for instance, a country run by libertarians couldn't have a successful fascist movement.

In the event of a crisis of capital, the ruling class would just need to convince a precarious middle class that brown people are going to threaten their property rights, or are all criminals, or tha the Jews were oppressing them, or whatever, and it becomes time for fascism. From the fascist turn of libertarians and ancaps this election cycle, this seems entirely plausible. An outgroup can always be found to blame the crisis on.

Considering the eventual failure of almost all previous socialist revolutions, it seems that a revolution isn't likely to succeed untilt the proper conditions have been met, which may not currently be the case.

Considering this, it seems questionable to argue that things need to be made worse before they can be made better, and that social democratic policies should be avoided in order to encourage a revolution as soon as possible, especially considering the current state of the left.

50 billion people?
Any source for this number?

My bad it was 10 billion, but according to scientists the population should dive down once we reach 9 billion which they estimate by 2050

livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html

Not the same comrade. So that means we got about 35 years to establish world-wide communism.

WEW.

Okay so let me see if I got this right, the reason the mudpie argument fails is because
>in capitalist society things are produced based upon the value they have in a given marketplace rather than their usefulness

did I get this right? Please respond…

Are we supposed to take the capitalist production for exchange/profit as a universal axiom?

FUCKING

NEVER

I would like to see everyone making under $50,000 needs to strike and of course actual human beings sympathetic to slavery being ended.

Breddy gud

Is donating $10-ish/month to a Sikh temple an okay thing to do as a leftist?

I don't know much about Sikhism, but it seems pretty cool for a religion from what I do know.

I've been thinking of going down to my local Sikh temple for free food every Sunday. However, I'd feel like a jackass for doing that without trying to roughly donate money back to the temple that it spends feeding my hungry ass, so it's not really free, but at least it isn't the oatmeal, potatoes, and beans I eat everyday, and I can finally eat til I'm full. Sikhism advocates for serving your community, equality of races and genders (probably other stuff), and the destruction of India's caste system. So, with that, is it fine to donate to my city's temple to roughly reimburse them for what they pay to feed me?