Jump to content

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, zkom said:

You mean like the former Soviet Union and current Russia Federation that has 30 times the population and with who we have a 1340km long border? The Soviet Union that fell a part late last century?

not sure how you think I know how you live.  after all, you claim to be nomadic on your ava.  and what matters is economic ties moreso than geographic proximity. if you live in a former soviet state then most likely the quality of life decreased significantly after the USSR was illegal dismantled through a capitalist coup

  • Facepalm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 722
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

not 100% sure why i thought of this thread when i saw this video  

Marxism is an attractive idea to teenagers who think they're overflowing with compassion for every living being, but sadly they don't have enough experience of the nature of the human. They are p

jfc why do I keep reading.

Posted Images

Just now, cyanobacteria said:

not sure how you think I know how you live.  after all, you claim to be nomadic on your ava.  and what matters is economic ties moreso than geographic proximity. if you live in a former soviet state then most likely the quality of life decreased significantly after the USSR was illegal dismantled through a capitalist coup

Luckily I don't live in a former Soviet Union state. We had two wars about that and remained independent with much better quality of life than across the border in Soviet Union.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zkom said:

Luckily I don't live in a former Soviet Union state. We had two wars about that and remained independent with much better quality of life than across the border in Soviet Union.

then my point stands.  let's see how your quality of life would be affected if all colonial resource extraction was immediately stopped by your most closely economically tied ally

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

then my point stands.  let's see how your quality of life would be affected if all colonial resource extraction was immediately stopped by your most closely economically tied ally

I'll be holding my breath and waiting here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's stick together! Let's not let the elites divide us on the basis of race or gender or religion or nationality. We're all working stiffs, so let's work together to improve our horrible conditions!

Working-class solidarity! No borders! No nations! One big happy family of workers!

And yes, I understand that this is probably a hopelessly idealistic view. Maybe Marx was right when he said that the "working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." Maybe he was right about all that "proletarian socialism" stuff. So maybe we should just forget this whole idea of working-class unity and go join one of those Maoist uprisings in Nepal or something like that?
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

*stoner in a hemp sweater on a beat up old couch in a garage playing wario ware on his gameboy advance sp in 2004 voice* man, what if, like, they did authoritarianism but instead of bein dicks they just, like, told everybody to fuckin chill?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dingformung said:

So let's stick together! Let's not let the elites divide us on the basis of race or gender or religion or nationality. We're all working stiffs, so let's work together to improve our horrible conditions!

Working-class solidarity! No borders! No nations! One big happy family of workers!

And yes, I understand that this is probably a hopelessly idealistic view. Maybe Marx was right when he said that the "working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." Maybe he was right about all that "proletarian socialism" stuff. So maybe we should just forget this whole idea of working-class unity and go join one of those Maoist uprisings in Nepal or something like that?
 

We have two tiny communist parties in Finland, the Communist Worker's Party and the Communist Party of Finland and they have been basically mortal enemies with each other much more than any right wing party. Mostly just arguing about Marxism-Leninism, scientific socialism and revisionism. It's all very Judean People's Front vs. People's Front of Judea.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Cryptowen said:

i kinda like the idea of a state maintaining firm clamps on the media & potential agitators if life within that state is generally good

  Hide contents

that last part is the kicker tho

 

i think i get your point, but the problem is when there is a separation between 'state' and all within that state (which, at the populations of nations we're all speaking of, is almost necessary). denying particular inciteful/outrageous speech and possibly the speakers is necessary in any known (and perhaps any possible) society. doing so quickly and with the correct restraint/moderation that does not severely degrade the rights of the offenders but still represents the will of the vast majority within that society is where the problems lie (edit: and the inability to do so with populations of hundreds of thousands, millions, hundreds of millions, billions of people? seems unlikely)

Edited by auxien
  • Like 2
  • Big Brain 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, auxien said:

i think i get your point, but the problem is when there is a separation between 'state' and all within that state (which, at the populations of nations we're all speaking of, is almost necessary). denying particular inciteful/outrageous speech and possibly the speakers is necessary in any known (and perhaps any possible) society. doing so quickly and with the correct restraint/moderation that does not severely degrade the rights of the offenders but still represents the will of the vast majority within that society is where the problems lie (edit: and the inability to do so with populations of hundreds of thousands, millions, hundreds of millions, billions of people? seems unlikely)

for me its pretty simple

speech attempting to push political change that keeps poor people from having healthcare? you get put in jail for attempted indirect manslaughter

speech attempting to push financial policies that cause millions of people to become homeless? you get put in jail for attempted indirect manslaughter and bodily harm

these are basic cases not covered in capitalist countries

3 hours ago, zkom said:

We have two tiny communist parties in Finland, the Communist Worker's Party and the Communist Party of Finland and they have been basically mortal enemies with each other much more than any right wing party. Mostly just arguing about Marxism-Leninism, scientific socialism and revisionism. It's all very Judean People's Front vs. People's Front of Judea.

 

ah finland, among the most privileged capitalist countries in the world.  no wonder you oppose socialism.  you've got yours, so screw everyone else right

Edited by cyanobacteria
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Freak of the week said:

The mix was so shit on this. But I was on headphones I think the entire time. Lost the original years ago when I accidentally reformatted a hard drive, so no chance of redoing it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cyanobacteria said:

speech attempting to push political change that keeps poor people from having healthcare? you get put in jail for attempted indirect manslaughter

speech attempting to push financial policies that cause millions of people to become homeless? you get put in jail for attempted indirect manslaughter and bodily harm

these are basic cases not covered in capitalist countries

i'd be okay with some version of that^ (well, maybe not jail outright for just 'speech' but that's splitting hairs. but punishment for trying to deny basic humanity care services...) well there are some 'capitalist' countries that are closer to socialism (you mention Finland specifically after this) than the US, right? or at least closer in the ways you're referring to in the quoted area above, closer to universal basic health care, closer to eliminating homelessness? what got those countries to where they are today, at least closer to the goalposts of basic care being an integral right of a nation (even if some fall short in some respects or another)? i'm honestly asking, as i'm not sure if i could find a good summary anywhere for this answer (admittedly i also haven't looked lol).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, auxien said:

i'd be okay with some version of that^ (well, maybe not jail outright for just 'speech' but that's splitting hairs. but punishment for trying to deny basic humanity care services...) well there are some 'capitalist' countries that are closer to socialism (you mention Finland specifically after this) than the US, right? or at least closer in the ways you're referring to in the quoted area above, closer to universal basic health care, closer to eliminating homelessness? what got those countries to where they are today, at least closer to the goalposts of basic care being an integral right of a nation (even if some fall short in some respects or another)? i'm honestly asking, as i'm not sure if i could find a good summary anywhere for this answer (admittedly i also haven't looked lol).

finland is social democratic in other words social fascist because of its fraternizing with imperialist capitalist nations.  social democratic is superficially closer to socialism but not in reality, if anything it locks the workers of that nation into a non-revolutionary state and is a local maxima rather than the global maxima of communism. 

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/09/20.htm

Quote

Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that “pacifism” signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, “pacifism” is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront.

 

Edited by cyanobacteria
  • Facepalm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism can be productive, it can redistribute wealth and it can protect our environment. It is good for people, animals and the planet. It is sustainable.

Socialism, on the other hand, can never be a consistent theory. There is no such thing as a pure socialist system. Even in its most prevalent form – communism – it has always been modified by other political systems, like democracy or nationalism. It is anti-human because it puts the whole before the individual. It's no wonder it has failed to produce a successful economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

finland is social democratic in other words social fascist because of its fraternizing with imperialist capitalist nations.  social democratic is superficially closer to socialism but not in reality, if anything it locks the workers of that nation into a non-revolutionary state and is a local maxima rather than the global maxima of communism. 

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/09/20.htm

so correct me if i'm wrong, but what you're saying (even tho it's about twenty steps past the points i was poking at) is 'fuck socialism or anything socialism-adjacent that incorporates any aspects of capitalism because capitalism=fascism 100% no difference between them', right? and because even tho socialism or socialist-adjacent countries are far nearer than the US or many other places to having all the good qualities of communism you like, they're just a false substitute and so damn them all to hell?

Edited by auxien
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dingformung said:

It is anti-human because it puts the whole before the individual. It's no wonder it has failed to produce a successful economy.

Zeff stated (non-ironically i think) that insects living in eusocial structures like ant nests and beehives are the pinnacle of evolution or implied it, so i think Zeff would agree

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, dingformung said:

Capitalism can be productive, it can redistribute wealth and it can protect our environment. It is good for people, animals and the planet. It is sustainable.

Socialism, on the other hand, can never be a consistent theory. There is no such thing as a pure socialist system. Even in its most prevalent form – communism – it has always been modified by other political systems, like democracy or nationalism. It is anti-human because it puts the whole before the individual. It's no wonder it has failed to produce a successful economy.

labor is productive not capitalism.  capitalism redistributes wealth to those who have it.  it destroys our environment and is bad for people, animals, and the planet. 

how is worker control of the means of production for the benefit of all people and live on earth not a "consistent theory"?  "pure socialist system" what does this mean? communism is modified by democracy or nationalism?  this attack applies more to capitalist bourgeois democracies.  anti-human because it puts the whole before the individual? no, capitalism is anti-human because it puts the individual's private property rights before the other individual's right to live a dignified life.

failed to produce a successful economy? what does that even mean? it has never been achieved, so how can it be said to have failed. being externally destroyed by more dominant powers indicates weakness only in a brute combative way. judging socialism by how well it can compete with a globally dominant capitalist dictatorship is unscientific and ahistorical. 

Edited by cyanobacteria
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, auxien said:

i'd be okay with some version of that^ (well, maybe not jail outright for just 'speech' but that's splitting hairs. but punishment for trying to deny basic humanity care services...) well there are some 'capitalist' countries that are closer to socialism (you mention Finland specifically after this) than the US, right? or at least closer in the ways you're referring to in the quoted area above, closer to universal basic health care, closer to eliminating homelessness? what got those countries to where they are today, at least closer to the goalposts of basic care being an integral right of a nation (even if some fall short in some respects or another)? i'm honestly asking, as i'm not sure if i could find a good summary anywhere for this answer (admittedly i also haven't looked lol).

Finland specific: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/12/finland-socialism-capitalism-welfare-state

Sweden: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/01/ocasio-cortez-taxes-rich-sweden

Social democracy in Scandinavia:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/12/hygge-holidays-design-denmark-social-democracy-solidarity
 

So you don’t have to read Stalin and pretend he had the interests of anything except staying in power.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, auxien said:

Zeff stated (non-ironically i think) that insects living in eusocial structures like ant nests and beehives are the pinnacle of evolution or implied it, so i think Zeff would agree

i did not say they are the pinnacle of evolution or imply it, if you reread the post you would see i merely drew comparisons between ant colonies' achievement of eusociality through stygmergic semiotic social systems related to what i perceived as beaudrillards claims that marx's inverted hegelian idealism doesn't go as far as beaudrillard's suggested analysis of not merely material production but  the semiotic structures generated by the bourgeoisie's appropriated labor value.  merely as a comparison or analogy for comprehension purposes on my part.  very different to your characterization

5 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Finland specific: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/12/finland-socialism-capitalism-welfare-state

Sweden: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/01/ocasio-cortez-taxes-rich-sweden

Social democracy in Scandinavia:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/12/hygge-holidays-design-denmark-social-democracy-solidarity
 

So you don’t have to read Stalin and pretend he had the interests of anything except staying in power.

 

 

JaCIAbin is not a valid source of socialist analysis

 

Edited by cyanobacteria
Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently there are 45 living direct descendents of Karl Marx. So with a projected growth rate of 45x every 150 years, we should be on track to have a truly Marxist state population 184,528,125 by the year 2620. With another 300 years of growth we would have a Marx population approx 50 times greater than current population of Earth

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol that Ben Norton guy is in league with Max Blumenthal, so yeah, hard pass. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dingformung said:

It is anti-human because it puts the whole before the individual. 

yep. if the human emotion known as desire didn't exist, then maybe you could get everyone to buy into a successful collectivist / socialist / communist society. but as long as that grass stays greener on the other side of the fence, then it will never work for humans. sounds like it's working well for ants though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, zero said:

yep. if the human emotion known as desire didn't exist, then maybe you could get everyone to buy into a successful collectivist / socialist / communist society. but as long as that grass stays greener on the other side of the fence, then it will never work for humans. sounds like it's working well for ants though.

capitalism is sure meeting the desires of the poor right.  let's use their desire against them to force us to work for low wages, much lower than the wealth we generate, in order to be allowed to eat.  that's the only way anything will get done right? otherwise we'd all be sitting on couches.

these bourgeois fallacies of human nature are inhuman and disgusting in fact

Edited by cyanobacteria
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...