Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, cyanobacteria said:

why are you getting any notifications? you shouldnt get any unless you followed the thread or someones replying to you which they havent recently

Agreed yeah - I’m wondering if the function is borked. Btw post wasn’t intended as a shot at you guys it’s just not a topic I’m interested in (I have nothing to offer here lol) so I was hoping it wouldn’t appear so much in my feed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 764
  • 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

exploiting the loletariat

Posted Images

DO NOT touch the ignore feature.  Whatever thread you ascribe it to will interrupt your everyday life with notifications you never would have received if you had just let it be.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, usagi said:

seize the means of producing big cummies

communists be like

2140904898_2021-05-3109_47_31-Window.jpg.6dd5dfcef5bf14d021938fad9ec8e809.jpg

Edited by iococoi
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, iococoi said:

communists be like

 

I think you mean "cummunists".

  • Big Brain 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2021 at 11:52 PM, Hugh Mughnus said:

@JoyrexI have this thread on ignore, any idea why I still get 239 notifications a day on it? lol

There's a needed update for the add-in but the developer won't be applying that until version 4.6 of the forum is out, which is due soon.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

note, this guy is a bit biased towards worker coops and it shows, but he's great

 

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

 

assuming what he's saying is true (which is arguable), it's still using economic growth/wealth as the measure, which to me screams of capitalist thinking. the well-being and happiness and sustainability of its inhabitants is all that should matter (and idk, maybe the collapse in '91 or whenever was maybe in some small way a sign that the people weren't happy?). GDP/whatever is a factor in the equation, but any country allowing it to dominate at the expense of huge swathes of the population is failing. and any country that must invade and impose its rule on others (USSR) is failing as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, auxien said:

assuming what he's saying is true (which is arguable), it's still using economic growth/wealth as the measure, which to me screams of capitalist thinking. the well-being and happiness and sustainability of its inhabitants is all that should matter (and idk, maybe the collapse in '91 or whenever was maybe in some small way a sign that the people weren't happy?). GDP/whatever is a factor in the equation, but any country allowing it to dominate at the expense of huge swathes of the population is failing. and any country that must invade and impose its rule on others (USSR) is failing as well. 

failing is relative.  is it failing in comparison to what it would have been like if it had been a liberal revolution? we will never know.  but to claim it's failing in absolute terms is not meaningful.  by this logic just about all the most "successful" capitalist countries are also absolutely failing which I would agree, hence the need for socialism.  russia went from a backwater monarchy to a world class communist-led nation and raised the quality of life of its people far beyond what they had before, without the need to resort to the type and degree of imperialist behaviors exhibited by the competing capitalist powers of the time.  this constant rejection of the USSR's massive success is ahistorical

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

but to claim it's failing in absolute terms is not meaningful.

i mean the country's government literally collapsed so i'd say to 'claim it failed' is simply being able to acknowledge reality? starting from the basis of fact and reality is pretty meaningful my dude.

1 hour ago, cyanobacteria said:

by this logic just about all the most "successful" capitalist countries are also absolutely failing which I would agree

yeah

and

so did the USSR

saying capitalism is bad doesn't mean you have to suck the cock of a failed nation. current capitalism is bad in many ways, also the USSR failed. not mutually exclusive.

1 hour ago, cyanobacteria said:

russia went from a backwater monarchy to a world class communist-led nation and raised the quality of life of its people far beyond what they had before

raised quality of life of some of its population. see my link in the initial post. and basically every nation that chose to industrialize and trade with the outside world prospered over the same time period. there were plenty of 'backwater monarchies' ...and i'm no history buff but i think most of them transitioned out of that around the same time, if not before. but i guarantee that most of them were not in possession of one of the hugest land masses in the world (relatively rich in natural resources i seem to remember? could be mistaken there) as well. Russia did middling to okay for the most part, and they definitely had some outstanding aspects, but overall? not anything to be envied really, especially when you take into account the many, many, many missteps. 

1 hour ago, cyanobacteria said:

this constant rejection of the USSR's massive success is ahistorical

claiming the USSR. a failed nation, was a 'massive success' is a fucking troll move if i ever saw one. thought you were being earnest but that's a joke mate.

you can claim the USSR had some successes, sure, obvious. but the doofus you posted in the video seemed to have his head even more twisted than you man, check what people are saying with some logic man, that's all my point is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, auxien said:

i mean the country's government literally collapsed so i'd say to 'claim it failed' is simply being able to acknowledge reality? starting from the basis of fact and reality is pretty meaningful my dude.

yeah

and

so did the USSR

saying capitalism is bad doesn't mean you have to suck the cock of a failed nation. current capitalism is bad in many ways, also the USSR failed. not mutually exclusive.

raised quality of life of some of its population. see my link in the initial post. and basically every nation that chose to industrialize and trade with the outside world prospered over the same time period. there were plenty of 'backwater monarchies' ...and i'm no history buff but i think most of them transitioned out of that around the same time, if not before. but i guarantee that most of them were not in possession of one of the hugest land masses in the world (relatively rich in natural resources i seem to remember? could be mistaken there) as well. Russia did middling to okay for the most part, and they definitely had some outstanding aspects, but overall? not anything to be envied really, especially when you take into account the many, many, many missteps. 

claiming the USSR. a failed nation, was a 'massive success' is a fucking troll move if i ever saw one. thought you were being earnest but that's a joke mate.

you can claim the USSR had some successes, sure, obvious. but the doofus you posted in the video seemed to have his head even more twisted than you man, check what people are saying with some logic man, that's all my point is. 

yes the USSR was a massive failure, that's why it took the US decades to eradicate their leftist influence from the world through mass murder and coups

  • Burger 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

i reckon marx would have called idm bourgeois decadance but also he would have been pretty into gabber

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Much of Breaking Things at Work is devoted to a compelling examination of the ancestors of today’s accelerationists — the techno-utopians haunting the corridors of the history of the socialist movement. Far from a 21st-century curiosity, Mueller argues, the fantasy that socialists could simply grab hold of the productive apparatus of capitalism and transfer it into the hands of the working class lurked behind the strategic failures of the left throughout the 20th century.

As Mueller acknowledges, this attitude has antecedents in the work of Karl Marx himself. Marx felt that it was a good thing that the labor movement in Britain eventually seemed to outgrow the “crude” tactics of the Luddites, learning to “distinguish between machinery and its employment by capital, and therefore to transfer their attacks from the material instruments of production to the form of society which uses those instruments.” In a famous passage from the Grundrisse, the preparatory manuscripts for Capital, Marx speculated that the development of capitalism was pushing towards “an automatic system of machinery.” Since this mode of production would not rest on the exploitation of living laborers, it could be made the foundation of a socialized economy where workers acted only as “supervisors” of machinery — no longer grist for the satanic mills of capitalism.

Marx’s view of technology was highly ambivalent, however, and it evolved significantly over time. In the first volume of Capital, for instance, he remarked that “it would be possible to write a whole history of the inventions made since 1830 for the sole purpose of providing capital with weapons against working-class revolt.” Innovation under capitalism did not just aim to improve efficiency but to enhance employers’ control over unruly workers.

These complexities were smoothed over during the consolidation of so-called “Orthodox Marxism” in the late 19th century, the version of Marxist thought that dominated the Second International after Marx’s death in 1883. The German writer and activist Karl Kautsky, often referred to half-jokingly as the “Pope of Marxism” for his role in consolidating the new orthodoxy, saw the steady, politically neutral development of the “forces of production” as the throughline of history. For a long time, capitalism had served to enhance the power and technological sophistication of these forces; but a period of crisis loomed on the horizon, a moment at which a workers’ revolution could take over the machinery of production and restart its progressive development under socialized control.

Emergency Breaks: Gavin Mueller’s Breaking Things at Work explores the failures and mistakes of the technophilic left (Real Life)

 

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...