Autismball: free-for-all edition

Noams been reading leftism since his balls dropped, and he has an excellent understanding of history as seen with his various interviews and written works.

I wish I could find a witty enough way to combine "That's false" and "Go fuck yourself" into a single sentence.

Yes, good prole! Don't take the state parasites off your tax dollars and force them to face the market! Halliburton is your friend!

Read anything by Marx, will you? Rhetorical question, I know you won't.

The reason why capitalism makes way for socialism (proper socialism i.e. economic planning) is due to the anarchy of production, that is cyclical fluctuation, crises, overproduction etc and the need for a reserve army of labour aka unemployment to keep the system working.

Market socialism doesn't fix any of this and has no reason for existing.

He literally buys into every last piece of cold war propaganda and furthers its spread.

The point is "corporate welfare" is just how capitalism works and believing otherwise is socdem tier.

...

Also capitalism has other issues that are fixed under market socialism such as wealth accumulation, private ownership of the means of production, labour exploitation through the wage system, and the oligarchic control of the state by the capitalist elite.

Marx offered precise arguments and a lot of evidence.
Ball's been in your court for century and a half.

kekkles

also:
stays in market socialism
ditto, ownership by the coop is not social ownership
stays in market socialism
will redevelop within a few decades, if that.

3/4 stay. the last comes back quickly

You rekt ur own ideology, congratulations.

Without a parasitic upper class stalling democratic proceedings market socialism can be regulated into democratic socialism.

You know for a guy posting that pic you sure are producing a lot of it.

...

what about “Noam ‘Viva Chávez’ Chomsky”?

it's a mutual banter thread.

duh, just like marxist plans are more nuanced than just forming a proletarian state. second reminder: this is a banter thread.

except we have historically documented examples of planned economies creating great growth and by extension improving life expectancies, literacy rates and making possible all manner of other developments. third reminder:

your anarkiddie is showing again, as well as your fourth insistence on not approaching this thread as banter but as a serious discussion (while not providing any serious or challenging arguments in it).

look at this idealist, his lack of material analysis and the resulting fact that he cannot see that the two cannot exist without one another. just like you and this thread cannot exist with banter for the fifth time now, it seems.

what people "like" is entirely in the hands of what the bourgeoisie will make them like. these "people" (as i hope you specify as proletarian here) currently have a deep aversion for anything socialism not because they can properly argue that it doesn't work, but because that aversion is made popular by ruling ideology. it's too bad ruling ideology can't make you conscient of the fact that this is a banter thread after now 6 times.

if a given territory lacked any modern industry, yes. i would otherwise advocate for a centrally planned economy, or in a post-bourgeois world simply see communes forming and collectively self-organizing production regardless of whether i advocate for it. just like you won't accept that this is a banter thread despite me advocating it for now the seventh time.

i wish these was an analytical theory for describing the logical process of refusing to accept banter after being reminded of it after precisely eight times.

autism.

The comic in the right was created by an anarchist

Do you know why Holla Forums's memes never will be funny, because you do not provide a snappy one liner but a wall of text

...

I'm definitely going to save that 2nd picture for November.

>youtube.com/watch?v=nh0ac5HUpDU
your average leftist

That pansy isn't a leftist

Dude I have no problem putting both Ayn Rand and Adolf Hitler(may peace be upon him) in the right wing camp, leftists shouldn't be affraid of that either

But social liberals aren't leftists. I don't hate Oliver. I just think he's an idiot, but he certainly isn't a leftist.

The leftist wishes to overthrow capitalism, not reform it and make it look "nicer."

So everyone you do not like, even though they identify themselves as left-wingers, are not a leftists. Mkay

No. Social liberals aren't leftists. They're capitalists.

Market socialists, democratic socialists, anarchists, Marxists and all of these groups' divisions are leftists. I don't like a lot of them but they're leftists nonetheless. Social liberal's don't want to abolish capitalism. They aren't leftists.

irrelevant to whether they're leftist or not.

so -selfidentification is enough to validate actuality? is xir a woman when xir tells you xir is even though xir has a penis? are you a crypto-postmodernist?

Tankie edition

I like the humility, but I'm more fond of the idea of endlessly memeing about ancaps on social media until they notice and get butthurt.

Nice graph. Saved.

Technically yes, but it's massively reduced by equal distribution of profits, and can be mitigated even further my taxation and redistribution.

Yes it is.

Equal splitting of profit isn't a wage. A wage is compensation that is worth a fraction of the value created by labour, profit splitting is the full value of labour.

Any co-operative that would possess enough wealth to influence the democratic process would have to be so big that it would be mobilizing literally thousands of people. When you mobilize thousands to petition the government to act in their interests it isn't a capitalist oligarchy, it's democracy.

The first picture is fucking hilarious when you realize that it was probably made before the DNCleak.

...

I am not talking about fucking Marxism/socialism, I am talking about left or left-leaning people you retard there is a difference you know. It is no need to bring up your autistic chart, I get your ideology by now and it is still retarded

Social liberals are the left-side of the right. Conservative liberals like Fox News are more to the right. They're both liberals and liberals are by definition, not leftists.

i think Jason Unruhe is a retarded autist but he's a leftist (barely).

John Oliver is a liberal and therefore literally of the people that the socialists want to tear down.

Leftist a person who is a follower of left wing politics.
Which….covers quite a lot. Under that umbrella, you will also find leftists that generally support the free market aka capitalism
There is quite a long journey from Adolf Hitler and Ayn Rand, yet I do classify them both as right-wing. I am not entering fag-mode and say "Hitler wasn't right-wing because he was a statist" unlike you.

...

No you imbecile.
First of all markets != capitalism

Leftists who support markets rather than a planned economy would be market socialists.

The left is a movement that wishes radical change from the status-quo whereas the right is the movement or tendency to maintain the establishment.
The first leftists were liberals who sought to abolish feudalism and fought a revolution against the feudalists/monarchists (the right-wing) to bring capitalism and liberalism. Since liberalism took over, the liberals (who were once the left) became the establishment and thus the right-wing and socialists rose up as the Left.

John Oliver is not a fucking leftist. I know you yanks like to say that he is with your ahistorical political language much like how Obama is a "communist" or how "libertarianism" is right-wing, but he's a fucking liberal.

It is because there is no banter in left wing ideology.They/you have to put up a wall of text to somehow rationalize why the capitalist is exploiting you

So they're leftist then, good we finally agree on something
Your subjective definition,Hitler and Pinochet wanted some rather radical change, does it make him left-wing?
tell me about it
projecting

So what is he then, is he right-wing?
Because then I will enter fag-mode and say that no one who is an ancap is a right-winger because they do not truly believe in true capitalism and property-rights

The contradiction is between use-value and value, not use-value and exchange-value.

That has nothing to do with it. Society-wide there is an accumulation of wealth, meaning value, separate from the creation of use-values based on the needs of the rest of life. You are simply ignoring social total capital. Material wealth and economic value are separate things, and society will always be kept creating more and more value. All of society will be reorganized to facilitate this, co-ops with more traditional hierarchical structures will probably be the most successful ones, state spending will still only be able to either simply use value created by private capital (co-op or not) or create infrastructure which allows for further exploitation (and if it fails, have an ever enlarging debt). We are, sooner or later, right back in traditional capitalism.

Co-ops work in isolation from each other and produce to expand value, not to meet social needs. Society as a whole does not control the productive forces as a whole. Unless by "ownership" you mean purely a legal notion divorced from real relations of production, which is a fiction.

Individual enterprises creating value presupposes labor unable to realize its social nature unmediated by exchange, which in turn presupposes the separation of producers from their conditions of production. This means labor can only realize its social nature by being reduced to labor in general (abstract labor), and being alienated, and the worker must sell his ability to labor before the production process even begins. This selling of labor power means that it is being purchased by what is needed to reproduce the worker, which is called a wage. The worker, at no point, is being rewarded based on his concrete labor, he is being rewarded based on his labor through the filter of value, expressed as exchange value in the measure of socially necessary labor time, only certain parts of their labor even enters the picture for calculation (enough to meet the average labor time).

If the co-op is made to use this money to reinvest in itself beyond what is needed simply to maintain it how it is at the moment - which it is forced to do by the market, there is no "staying still", there is only growth or death (where it will be soaked up by larger capital) - then value has self-expanded.

Do you know what the self-expansion of value is called?
Capital

If there was social ownership, there would be no separation of producers from their conditions of production in the first place, and thus their would be no labor power.

No it isn't, it is compelled by capitalism to reinvest back into production.
The main theft from the worker doesn't come from the capitalist, it comes from capitalism, and the capitalist only facilitates this insofar as he personifies capital. So much of their concrete labor is simply unaccounted for.

see above

Market socialists are socialists. Social liberals are not fucking socialists! After feudalism, capitalism became the status-quo.

When the fuck did I say everything is moving the left?

What the fuck isn't? Especially language.

Yes, he's right-wing.

I am not a tankie, I don't like Stalin. Stalin is a leftist. This isn't about who we like or who we don't John Oliver who complained about some factories being seized by workers is not a fucking leftist. Everything moved to the right ever since the neoliberal shift and now people are fucking stupid and think he is when he has similar positions to old Republicans.

Does any comrade have that picture of a liberal chart explaining different trends of liberalism?

Those are liberals, dumbshit. They're centrists at best.

...

They're center of the right.

Social democrats (today's), I would argue, are the real centrists.

Not this shit again.
You're just revising socialism to only include Marxist conceptions.

>Individual enterprises creating value presupposes labor unable to realize its social nature unmediated by exchange, which in turn presupposes the separation of producers from their conditions of production. This means labor can only realize its social nature by being reduced to labor in general (abstract labor), and being alienated, and the worker must sell his ability to labor before the production process even begins.

...

fucking amazing comrade

damn Holla Forums is bad at memes

...

Read history. You can say it's flawed but it is socialism. Proudhon was known as part of the socialist movement and he referred to himself as a socialist. This was before shits like B e r n i e and conservative liberals began fucking with the word. His work predated Marx and his mutualism was based off of worker-ownership of the mop and used the LTV. The early adherents of mutualism were known as and called themselves libertarian socialists. This was before Marx's work. His system used the market as form of exchange (because that's just what it is) and Proudhon came up with important concepts Marx borrowed. Mutualism is a libertarian form of market socialism. The term "market socialist" of course didn't arise until the economic calculation debate among socialists, but they had already existed prior to that. Just like the term "classical liberals" wasn't used until after the emergence of liberalism to distinguish early liberals from social liberals.

It takes some serious balls to pull to this ahistorical shit off and especially when they came before you.

Of course you do right in the middle of an argument with a liberal which is so fucking typical.

...

Source fam.

International Communist Mene Fraction

Really? He's important as hell. Proudhon with his conception of property and calling it theft, exploitation etc.

...

'Market socialism' is self-managed capitalism, proletariat, as a class of those who have nothing but their labor, exits ( and everyone is proletarian ) so it's still class society and value production.

Also, I don't mean to attack Marx. I think Marx made plenty of good critiques and became prominent for a good reason, but this shit about saying market socialists aren't socialists is fucking stupid. Markets have a tonne of problems, but shit.

...

Nothing changes so long as there are production units
trying to increase their respective amounts of value.
What happens if the State ("democratic," "workers',"
"proletarian," etc.) takes all enterprises under its control,
while keeping them as enterprises? Either State
enterprises obey the law of profit and value, and nothing changes. Or they do not obey it without destroying it,
and then everything goes wrong. Inside the enterprise, organization is rational: capital
imposes its despotism on the workers. Outside, on the
market, where each enterprise meets the others, order
exists only as the permanent and periodical suppression
of disorder, accompanied by crises and destruction. Only
communism can destroy this organized chaos, by
suppressing the enterprise as a separate entity. - Gilles Dauvé

No the hell it isn't. It was explicitly anti-capitalist.
And again, it came before your ideology.

Socialism won't have workers?

The apologists for Capitalism did happen to precede the founders of scientific socialism

...

Wtf.
When did Proudhon defend capitalism? Get your head out of your ass and go read. I think it's outdated and naive, but to call it capitalism is fucking stupid. You have the same definition of capitalism as the fucking propertarians!

hurr CAPITALISM THE MARKETS!!!

juraj katalenac - Yugoslavia : capitalism under red banner

libcom.org/library/yugoslav-self-management-capitalism-under-red-banner-juraj-katalenac

Please elaborate

Memery Bulletin Group (Internal Faction of the International Communist Maymays)

Communist revolution is the process of the proletariat self-abolition, there will be no alienated labor ( neither under economic pressure, nor state repression ). Work is commodified activity, with abolition of enterprise you no longer have commodity production, so even things which are no work will be done volunteerly and they won't be work but an activity.

...

don't forget "its okay cuz, not only is it from below, but it is a multi-ethnic nationalism"

There will still be workers in socialism. Communism cannot be achieved until it's possible.

communism and socialism are the same thing

Oh, no fucking wonder you say this shit then.

"worker" implies the rule of dead labor over living labor, that productive activity is reduced to creation of value

'Nationalism of multitude of the oppressed'

...

Yeah. All those colonies Sweden owned.

imperialism =/= colonialism

...

...

There were wikileaked memos of Clinton saying she needed to stop S█████ "at all costs"

But sure, a man who has been part of the establishment since birth, who personably profits off of its continued existence and who preaches establishment ideas is totally anti establishment

Now I believe we need to abolish private property and collectivise/democratise all industry by any means necessary

Post how you used to suck.

Inb4

This was supposed to be a new thread, a well I guess it kind of still fits

Go ahead and make one blackfag, the leftcom autism is shifting this one up.