Jump to content

zlemflolia

Supporting Member
  • Posts

    6,045
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by zlemflolia

  1. ah yes USSR is to blame for imperial russia and china is to blame for what was done centuries before. they started with fucking nothing. they started with a plow and were left with nukes because of marxism-leninism
  2. ussr provided similar quality of life as US without requiring centuries of imperialism and slavery to accumulate stolen wealth, same as china, the idea you keep putting forth that these economic modes have had their fair shot and capitalism just came out on top because its better at "providing more for its citizens" is absurd and ahistorical, you havent even bothered to mention class conflict once in any of these analyses
  3. i hate synthesizers, i hate looking at things, i hate computers, i hate typing, i hate clicking mouse, i want the music to come right out of my brain into the speakers, ill settle for nothing less
  4. company owners are every bit as despotic as the worst national dictator, they will happily condemn thousands to the precipice of homelessness then talk about how the company is a family, or other absurd stuff you'd see typically attributed to for example anti-NK culture propaganda with capitalism its actually much more convenient that these despots dont need to do their own bidding, its the natural design of the system itself that if you have no money you will become homeless and starve to death and lack medical care, so they dont have to actually do that themselves to anyone, they dont have to send the armed squads to the persons house, some other landlord will do it for them. this decentralization of the bourgeous class allows them each individually to avoid blame for many of the atrocities they commit, while still being, as a class, responsible, but they obscure this latter fact in culture + media
  5. ur also pretending like computers, supercomputers, upc codes, nfc trackers, etc dont exist which would drastically increase the effectiveness of central planning
  6. ur really gonna sit here and say food output would be better if they left land distributed into small landholding manual labor peasants? give me a break. if they did not take these type of measures they would have been decisively genocided by the nazis u think ur advocating for capitalist economic planning when ur actually advocating feudal economic relations which is hilarious as fk, you think youre comparing equivalent countries where only capitalism vs "central planning" are the differences but instead comparing undeveloped rural nations, and one literally imperialized for centuries, to the most industrially advanced imperialists LMAO u think ur talking about capitalist nations non-collectivized non-centrally planned vs centrally planned but ur really talking about exploiter nations that imported basically stolen goods for centuries youre acting like these things exist in a vacuum with no other history influencing it cant make this shit up
  7. you think imperialism and foreign policy designed to maintain global capitalism are not economic
  8. look at US death tole bombing entire cities and countries, genociding people by poisoning their farmland, enforcing "intellectual property" (always somehow the property of some company rather than the workers who invented that shit) to prevent other countries from getting access to ag/med tech, look at the domestic US death tole of over 1m preventable deaths due to covid, and youre going to complain about early 19th century post-colonial decolonial movement mistakes? what about US deaths due to weapons exports and funding genocidal states like israel? ur just gona come say "great leap forward" and u think that refutes socialism? ur rhetoric borders on cia level disinfo
  9. you really think these are equivalent comparisons? they started with nothing and were undergoing civil wars, threat of nazi genocide, etc look at capitalism's death tole in india and stolen trillions you wanna make these comparisons i guess but you never take it all the way
  10. failures in comparison to what? capitalism which centuries after its dominance still cant even solve homelessness and feed people and give them healthcare in the wealthiest nation in human history? that capitalism?
  11. please yes, imagine all the bank$$$$$$$$ the bobtechre triplets would get just please dont let them come here
  12. can you like not be thoughtful and refute your statements here? im always surprised what im reading you think carpenters cant become software engineers? i think you overvalue how hard software engineering is. its gatekept anyway and tech is held back on purpose to make it hard, with new frameworks constantly and shit you think you cant have central, even decentralized, economic planning understanding X and Y and what processes need them? its very viable and in fact necessary for the human species-being and the human spirit to allow people to change forms of work. why are you advocating this hyper-specialization being fixed in place after being chosen? u really gonna just say "people have to stick to one job for life, just look at the great leap forward" lol
  13. bartering N bananas for M apples will naturally result in a highly liquid and fungible commodity emerging as money, read capital section on money who makes the plan? people, workers. you really think free associated labor and reduction of strict division of labor means some random guy is going to be asked by some other random person to "whip something up in python"? no, clearly he is referring to free associated labor and his dream that you can work as a fisherman one day, farmer the next, and something else the next, which is actually very viable and simply involves more investment into human education as you even quoted
  14. theres no price without money, you think price and the existence of money are discussable seperately? you arent properly differentiating a) "proposed idea for moving towards communism" b) "states which were led by communists attempting to achieve communism" c) "the communist mode of production" i am talking about C you are talking about when Marx once talked about A but saying he was talking about C
  15. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ in order of short to very long
  16. chengod: "This is the literal definition of communism according to Marx" Marx: "no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today"
  17. this time isnt a matter of not seeing eye to eye, its a matter of you not even reading marx's own words and misinterpreting what he said entirely he put forward policy proposals for a time and place which he later said are antiquated, find the quote where that list of proposals you quoted are equated by Marx, not by you, with BEING communism, you are equating those proposals to literally BEING communism. dont care what your ideology is, thats not an honest read of the text you quoted lmao abolition of money is one of the most fundamental aspects of communism lol along with private property, fact you dont know this makes me have to say, why are you even discussing this if you havent done the reading? "and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today" you going to ignore this quote entirely ? this isnt your opinion vs mine its your explanation of marx's words, vs marx's own words where he contradicts you sorry to all others? ya, sorry they had to read ur bs where u cant even read 1 paragraph i quoted before replying, youre more interested in arguing against me than getting it right
  18. u cant just quote the communist manifesto like doctrine unless u have more info surrounding to back up these ideas, Marx himself refuted these specific quotes from the manifesto as nothing more than a proposal for a specific place and time here*. furthermore, he never said "this is communism" he literally says, if you read, that these are policy proposals for a path to attempt to achieve it. i thot u knew this stuff https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm *However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.” (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’ s Association, 1871, where this point is further developed.) Further, it is self-evident that the criticism of socialist literature is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section IV), although, in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated. But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no longer any right to alter. A subsequent edition may perhaps appear with an introduction bridging the gap from 1847 to the present day; but this reprint was too unexpected to leave us time for that.
  19. why would personal property not be more important than private property. isnt the goal of this private propertys existence under market socialism merely to be a vehicle for the accumulation of personal property? why doesnt it has concepts of communal property which paired with expanded personal property can eliminate the need for private property? not even seeing the point of private property. why do you need it rather than just worker coops communism is not govt set prices and production quotas its literally the abolition of money, something only conceivable under mature socialism anyway
  20. ur already falsely equating a bunch of stuff. "not living in one location permanently" = "rental properties required" how about, freedom of movement and free access to housing? if someone moves that housing just becomes available. how does renting (paying rent and having landlords) become necessary? u already know fixed house/apartment/condo with longterm freedom of ownership and modification is personal property not private property and has no reason to be abolished. how does that imply landlords? now ur saying u want market socialism? how is "nicer capitalism" = "market socialism" lol, i think youre confusing social democracy + welfare net with market socialism, because thats about as nice as capitalism can possibly get. and yet it does not solve more complex issues like unequal exchange with the third world, and the ecological crisis inherent to profit motive
  21. y use so many words when u can just say "abolish landlords" "abolish private property" and all this stuff is solved? why the half measures im serious tho i just dont get it for real all these pages and not one alternative to capitalism presented except "nicer capitalism hopefully"
  22. its about the notes and the beats as well as whats in between however in a way a note is just a fast beat... so its really ONLY about beats
  23. you think china manufactures just about everything for the rest of the world out of the goodness of their heart? no it's a strategy they were forced into to avoid being destroyed by the US like the USSR was.
  24. no quotes how surprising ur really attacking chinas renewable development and energy usage when they primarily export? they were forced into this kind of position by capitalist nations
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.