Towards a New Socialism

...

You're the one that needs to do some reading.

...

Kek. I didn't even mention post-modernism or society. It wasn't even relevant to what was being discuss. I have no idea why you brought it up out of the blue. The fact that you think you can support post-modernism and marxism at the same time just makes you an even bigger moron then I thought you were. You really need to read more bucko.

Postmodernism isn't even formally a political ideology, you tuberous cretin. It refers to artistic elements developed in historically contingent and intersubjectively established truths. Moreover, you did nothing to qualify what was neoliberal about anything save that women were included in industry, which isn't even the maturation of neoliberal capitalism but something which constitutes the adaptation of agents to circumscribed power. In other words, women were already a communal labour force before neoliberalism came about, and perhaps you should read some of your own theory. The reason I even mentioned postmodernism is because you like everyone who bitches about cultural Marxism also conflate it with the abovementioned and dismiss any criticisms of the social-economy as forgetting what was crony about "their" capitalism, forgetting what was corportate about "their" capitalism, forgetting what was neoliberal about "their" capitalism, forgetting what was (­(­(monetarily altered)­)­) about "their" capitalism, and so on. In short your solution is probably just another capitalism without capitalism, with strict subduction of human to machinical, industrial intellect that mediates the labour for the protectionist multitude in power. If we abolish the obstacle, the inherent contradiction of capitalism, we do not get the fully unleashed drive to productivity finally delivered of its impediment, but we lose precisely this productivity that seemed to be generated and simultaneously thwarted by capitalism—if we take away the obstacle, the very potential thwarted by this obstacle dissipates.

I read it a few years ago. from what i remember it seemed pretty decent. while i understand the pitfalls of trying to outline exhaustively the form a future socialist society will take i think extensive research into old planning methods, and concepts of new ones are necessary. even to just prove the logical feasibility. its actually not that difficult at all. schumperter pretty much btfos the economic calculation problem in Capitalist, socialism and democracy in one chapter

Wow I've never seen a post that long with absolutely no substance. Post-modernism is an umbrella term for a school of thought. Many branches of post modernism are certainly political. All of them are incompatible with marxism. I don't consider anyone who's a post-modernist a leftst. It's a reactionary school of thought. Which gets me to my second point. You're actually such a deluded moron you thought I was a capitalist or belived in cultural marxism because I acknowledge that modern neoliberal capitalism isn't the same is industrial capitalism. Are you some traveler from 1896? Women are not systematically oppressed in neoliberal capitalism. They have the same rights as everyone else. I'm going to ignore the pathetic rant on types of capitalisms. Due to the fact that literally no one in this thread implied they supported any form of capitalism. You seem to believe that anyone that doesn't support your ignorant branch of idpol must be right leaning. When my opinions are fairly prevalent here. Based the moronic blanket statements , poorly constructed strawman, the smug tone and complete ignorance demonstrated in your mess of a post, I'm going to have to agree with the other guy that you're probably fresh off the boat from reddit. You should fuck off back there and save us all the trouble.

I'm not who you replied too, but I think you'd be a lot less upset if you actually read the section of the OP you originally complained about. All it was saying was that domesticated women perform labor without compensation in the household. The same could easily be applied to stay-at-home husbands in today's society. It has nothing to do with SJW memery.

I'd be a lot less upset. If they didn't assume that anyone that didn't share their social beliefs was a reactionary and launch into a poorly constructed rant on the pitfalls of capitalism. A women doesn't have to have children in neoliberal capitalism getting married and having children isn't a requirement for a women' survival like in industrial capitalism. Like you said the same thing applies to single dad. It isn't a gendered issue.

Where exactly did they say, specifically in the book posted by OP, that anyone who didn't share their view is a reactionary?

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I wasn't talking about the book comrade. I'm talking about the asshat I'm arguing with in this thread. He started ranting about cultural marxism and crony capitalism as if I was some libertarian or member of the alt-right that needed to be lectured. I'm pretty torn on the issue. On one hand, I agree that parents are providing a useful function to society that isn't be compensated. On the other hand, I don't support the nuclear family or single parenthood. I'd prefer of we moved towards a community based model for child care.

Sorry, I mistook you for the meme poster from earlier that was complaining about the chapter on women's subordination.

What exactly don't you like about labor credits? What alternatives would you propose for dealing with objects of scarcity? Is there something about labor credits you'd like to improve?