general
Discord ID: 507035890640486411
101,748 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 19/407
| Next
Ha HA!
its entire purpose is to end up on an alt-right exposed video
we got all these screenshots of violent threats
alt right is dumb and gay
just like the rest of the right
๐
<:bait:520002653439262721>
not bait
but eternal truth
words of wisdom
<:bait:520002653439262721>
take heed or leave
alt right itself is the ultimate bait ๐
<:bait:520002653439262721>
top response
such intellectuel, much rigour
<:bait:520002653439262721>
still breddy gay from the looks of it
<:bait:520002653439262721>
fake too
๐
<:bait:520002653439262721>
its obvious that communism is the superior ideology!
long live the Vanguard of Lenin and Marx!
<:bait:520002653439262721>
utterly btfoed by a single emote
<:bait:520002653439262721>
except I'm not btfo'd in the slightest. you are allowing my accusations to go unopposed ๐
not a single counter argument was heard
not one
i reign supreme
<:bait:520002653439262721>
very gay
uh, no
more like
the best ideology
alt-right racial identitarianism is literally the most contrived ideology ever
pro-capitalist too
eww
>pro-capitalism
<:brainlet:508484031625691156>
^
most people in these parts are skeptical of capitalism @Xinyue
capitalism as a goal in and of itself is ๐ฉ
that is, most people here are opposed to the private ownership of means of production? wew, wasn't aware that I'm surrounded by literal socialists! in that case....
**ะกะฐะปัั, ัะพะฒะฐัะธัะธ!**
no, not entirely for it either. best economy is a protectionist one. meaning the private individuals of your nation come first. Taking from these private individuals and giving it off to the public sector is pretty much you flushing ur economy down a toilet. Now you're free to tax foreign companies as much as you want and get your gibs that way
so capitalism then
as I suspected
mixed rather
after all the economy is predicated there on private ownership of means of production
what you are proposing is some kind of right-wing version of social democracy
but still capitalism
the only non-capitalist movements are socialist ones, because socialists are the only people who reject private ownership of means of production. therefore yours is not in any way a movement skeptical of capitalism, merely a more mixed form of it
perhaps "moderate capitalism" would be a good term
"national capitalism" comes to mind too
ok, if the private individual behaves like utter shit and goes against the national interest, his shit can be seized
so fuck u soros
well sure, I get that this is what you want. I just maintain that this in no way escapes the sphere of capitalism. indeed, "national capitalism" should be a good term - capitalism subjected to the *raison d'etat* of the nation
its grossly inferior to socialism though
the capitalist still needs to be a socialist man and the gov't can't lean too much on the man
a capitalist cannot be a socialist; nor vice versa. I'm not sure I follow what you are saying?
I'm explaining an ideal, that's very implausible
anyway, he can't only look how to satisfy his bottom line but also to preserve the culture around him.
work has to be hard as well. otherwise people will get lazy
but this is nonsensical. the capitalists will wield the power in society, so long as capitalism is preserved. in no way will the nation as a whole have a say in how the resources are spent. this is in the final analysis only possible under socialist productive relations
he can't be preserved. he needs to wield that power for the good of the nation, sometimes maybe even against himself, he has to be a moral person and not a calculating one.
except that the people that capitalism selects are, really by necessity, the people most willing to be ruthless in business....after all, under capitalist selection, the moral ones do not, in fact, raise to the top. the altruists, those looking for the good of their nation - but rather, those who seek to benefit and advance their own egoist interest
because if the state preserves the capitalist then its capitalism
and further, so long as capitalism remains the primary mode of production, the state itself will be dependent upon the capitalist
after all,
it is the capitalist who provides service, owns infrastructure and distributes goods
the capitalist is the root of the corruption that takes hold in nations
and socialism is the cure
to an extent
a poison to cure a poison
embrace the third position
reject both
heh, no system is perfect, this much is true. but socialism beyond a shadow of a doubt serves a nation the best. its somewhat remarkable to me that so many nationalists are right-wingers, when left-nationalism would serve the nation they *claim* to love so much better
internationalism is obviously superior, but this has no bearing on the mistake that many nationalists do
tbh international capitalism can go fuck itself
China along with it as well
they are probably the best example of what ruthless capitalism can be like
ironically a communist nation
oh China is not communist in the slightest, and I literally wish them to crash and burn to ashes. I harbour nothing but contempt for that nation
and yes, agreed, international capitalism can indeed go fuck itself
the problem with capitalism, of course, is that it *must become international* because it is inherent to the laws governing the growth and evolution of capitalism that it must expand
of course, nation is a limited playground,
so eventually capitalism - to avoid collapse - must expand beyond the nation
and this is why capitalism never stays national
why it always goes global
the plan is to stop it before it does, and tell them NO, nooo... NO respect the worker
in the international trade, the nation sets the terms
but is this possible? i think that it will be very difficult to stop capitalism from expanding because to stop it from expanding means to stifle its growth rate. if you stifle the growth of capitalism - and capitalism is a system *fundamentally predicated upon ad infinitum growth* - the system comes apart
not capitalists
limit the growth
seems like a brainlet solution
I mean tbh I'd see Juche work better for nationalists than capitalism but idk
expansion seems like a good solution tho
you mean expand the purview of the nation, the state, so that capitalism would have more domestic living space? that would imply war, if you mean expansion in the state sense
any of the two is alright
I believe that the alt-right has a "marketist" perspective
In that rabid consumerism is bad and community is important
But believe market forces are the best way to determine production
And that the individual has a right to make money
markets are actually consistent with socialism, there's a whole school of thought on this - market socialism. but capitalism isn't. and yes, capitalism and markets aren't the same thing
Titoist Yugoslavia is the prime example of worker-coop based MarSoc - no capitalism there, workers run the economy, the economy is democratic and social ownership rules the land. Not a single privately owned business - all horizontal, democratic worker-coops.
Yet, markets still existed
I thought you were saying markets aren't consistent with capitalism
markets are consistent with socialism and capitalism, ultimately. you can have markets in both a framework of social ownership (say, a market economy founded solely on worker-coops and their industrial federations under the purview of the socialist republic) *or* in the context of private ownership of the means of production, that is private companies under the purview of the state
for any nationalist worth their salt, if you had to choose one society with markets in them, the MarSoc is obviously better for the interests and purposes of the nation than the capitalist alternative
Yes I know
I studied Yugoslavia extensively when I was a commie scumfuck
then you know of the awe of Yugomarxist socialism and the purity of their praxis! ๐ time to come back to it m8, we'll take you back promise ๐ค
tbh Tito made lots of mistakes along the way, wtf was that guy doing with IMF
used to be a Titoist myself some time ago. for a couple of years. but ultimately I became convinced of the Soviet position, the Khrushchevite one to be exact
yugo economy was unsustainable, it was getting into debt to be lifted out of debt. the jew interest rate was never going to allow something like that to exist
and tito was a butcher but that's besides the point.
it was, ultimately, unsustainable for the ambition that it had. It should've taken a more gradual plan to develop the economy, and I'd say that there was too little direct state planning involved. I appreciate the entirely worker-centric economy that they had, in some sense a *very pure form of socialism* rarely seen in other examples (and I still love SFRY to death to be honest, glory to Tito) but the way they went about it - the tactics - were very off and ultimately doomed the country to the grim fate it experienced (although the Serbian powergrab ops towards the end of 1980s were a major factor as well)
>serb power grab
tito was explicitly anti-serb
when observing through national lense, the serb got fucked in yugoslavia
he started importing albanians ultimately to replace the serbs
> Tito was a butcher
.....mmkay. In the late 1940s, I'd say that's an apt characterisation. Yugoslavia did undergo a brief Stalinist phase, this is oft ignored by yugo enthusiast and lots of mistakes were made in that period. To be sure, you had fascist insurgencies that needed to be quelled but nothing really justifies the estimated 150K death figure. Imo. Then again, considering what the Independent State of Croatia - the fascist lackeys of the third reich - did during WW2 (killing 660K civilians), it might have been unavoidable.
dude, the full extent of the tito crime hasn't even been uncovered
just like russia, serbia keeps it locked behind a key
unmarked graves etc. its why the post balkanazation was such a mess, because they started uncovering the graves tito made
The full extent of 20th century crimes in general will never be known. 19th and 20th centuries were *fucked,* man. Absolutely fucked. There may be entire millions of people dead from both centuries who'll never be accounted for. So while that might be true, its not necessary *uncommon* for the century in question.
they tried to pin that on serbs too
yeah that's true
anyway got to go
talk later
yeah sure ttyl
@Xinyue ```the only non-capitalist movements are socialist ones, because socialists are the only people who reject private ownership of means of production. therefore yours is not in any way a movement skeptical of capitalism, merely a more mixed form of it```
I would go with Socialism if it worked better, I'm not ideological when it comes to Economics, Capitalism isn't a high value where I derive all my other Politics from...
i miss all the discussions involving xinu every time :D
Interesting. In my view, the Economic and the Politics are irrevocably intertwined - politics is economy, and vice versa. So in my own ideological terms, I cannot separate the two - so for me communism, in both its economic and political dimension, becomes an existential choice in its own right.
And yea yea stormfag, I bet u do
๐
You say that because you're a Materialist, you see Socialism and Capitalism both as ideologies are Materialistic.. this is why I'm not ideological regarding either, i don't want to preserve a pure free market or try to work out Socialism for the sake of Socialism itself..
Economics to me is a means to a goal, not a goal in and of itself, economics is supposed to support a People, but when you get ideological about it, you just throw people at your favorite purest Ideology
well, Communism in the Marxian sense is *necessarily ontologically materialist,* whereas various other socialist and capitalist schools of thought *might be* such but aren't necessarily. But beyond that, the economy - in a sense - *is the people* and their activities in a very real and direct, intimate sense. Economy is the collection of the creative, productive and servicing activities of the whole people and in this respect economy can't be really separated from the notion of the People. So any ideological approach to the people must in the final analysis have a firm stance on economics.
I think there's far more to *a People* than Economics
and the stance on economics, while it can assume millions of forms, ultimately flow from the very foundational duality of whether or not
a) private ownership of means of production, *or*
b) social ownership of means of production
is pursued as primary. The group A of solutions define the right-wing, whereas the group B of solutions define the left-wing.
A Nation can be Richer whilst being comparatively Poor in terms of how much money and resources it has
well sure, I don't mean that you can *reduce* the People to the Economics, but that nevertheless the economics is directly, intimately and immediately connected to the being of the People
maybe, but i think you guys overemphasize it
well, you say that,
but we put great emphasis on economics because economics is the *creative, productive activity of men* and we view labour as an ontologically important, near-divine (though it would be perhaps inappropriate to use that term) attribute of man
that is sexist
bro
> sexist
kys
that is an interesting pov, i don't have the energy to think about it rn
i will later
got an exam tomorrow ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ
oh shit
december exam
should be illegal tbh
we always have it in December
should have in late november imo ๐
last exam, 24 December ๐
....dude woot ๐
Both commies and ancaps reduce all human interaction to market forces
....we literally don't
Entire manifesto was about how to one up the capitalist
@Xinyue do you think more the money/resources people have the better?
The entire theory of labor is that it equivalently translates into value
Which it doesn't
@AdorableStormtrooper I don't think it can be reduced like that. I think that the more resources people have (money I wouldn't even factor into this question, lets assume access to material resources as well as means of production), the better *chances* the people have to prosper. But there are other things that go into having good society such as virtue ethics, and Marxists have their own sense of virtue ethics - the proletarian virtue ethic which derives its value from creative, productive, socially useful labour at its most basic
> Entire manifesto was about how to one up the capitalist
if you have formed your view on communism/marxism based on the Manifesto alone, I'm afraid you have a lot more reading to do.
1) Capital (Marx, Engels)
2) Civil War in France (Marx, Engels)
3) Critique of the Gotha Programme (Marx)
4) Grundrisse (Marx)
5) Contribution to Critique of Political Economy (Marx)
6) German Ideology (Marx, Engels)
7) Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (Marx)
8) Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (Engels)
9) Anti-Dรผhring (Engels)
10) Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man (Engels)
here are just ten essential works of Marxism that go *well beyond* just the confines of "le gommunist manibesto" and are, arguably, more important - these by themselves are thousands of pages in total page count. And these aren't even the total sum of Engels' and Marx's works. Then beyond these await hundreds of works of Marxian philosophers since Marx and Engels.
Yes. Some liberties should be sacrificed if it's for the sake of the safety and security of the nation.
Also, hi
Capital be 3000 pages tho... @Xinyue
Grundrisse is similar length I think too
I did read critique of the gotha program and the manifesto but das kapital was too much
<:rip:521380737765867521>
I think that *Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism* (1960) from the Khrushchev era USSR condenses a lot of the theory quite nicely in just 750 pages!
so that's one option
its probably the best summary imo
but obviously quite a bit is lost in the condensation
Yeah i might check that out, i'm currently reading through imperialism:the highest stage of capitalism
ah yes, some Lenin there
Thanks for the recommendation and the list of book titles you posted
yeah no probs, doing AgitProp is no chore for me ๐
what does *prosper* mean?
Btw, was just wondering why you have krushchev as your profile pic ?I've seen a lot of marxist-leninists blaming him for straying away from true Marxist leninism by introducing markets reform
@Punished Elรญas youre everywhere
i like how people say lenin said Fascism is capitalism in decay when the real quote was imperialism
Hello newcomers, @RealBullWhip @Deleted User @The_Don_73 @Punished Elรญas . Be sure to check <#507040801860091914> and <#521916756852342784> , as suggested by the Emperor
by people i mean reddit
he says markets are part of Socialism in his understanding
i wonder if commies are aware of Mussolini's Supercapitalism theory
fok iz dat
Pizza man begone @PunishedMuskovy
the late stage of capitalism
"Supercapitalism was a concept that developed in Italian Fascism.[1] Italy's Fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, claimed that at the stage of supercapitalism, "a capitalist enterprise, when difficulties arise, throws itself like a dead weight into the state's arms. It is then that state intervention begins and becomes more necessary. It is then that those who once ignored the state now seek it out anxiously."[2]"
At this stage, supercapitalism finds its inspiration and its justification in a utopia: the utopia of unlimited consumption. Supercapitalism's ideal is the standardization of the human race from the cradle to the grave. Supercapitalism wants all babies to be born exactly the same length so that the cradles can be standardized and all children persuaded to like the same toys. It wants all men to don the very same uniform, to read the same book, to have the same tastes in films, and to desire the same so-called labor-saving devices. This is not the result of caprice. It inheres in the logic of events, for only thus can supercapitalism make its plans.[6]
@Khat Emperor Yeah those are lies manufactured by Mao, who was the arch-revisionist himself. In actual fact, Khrushchev did not introduce a single market reform. Social property was enforced and the way the planned economy functioned was merely re-structured - away from the central state and to the local economic soviets, or *Sovnarkhozy,* which would have considerable autonomy in how to go about executing the plan. If anything, Khrushchev era USSR came much closer towards the actual decentralised federal communism than the other periods of USSR history or, indeed, many other socialist experiments.
Stalinists and Maoists just resent him because he spoke mean words of Stalin who for them is some kind of glorified daddy figure
crony capitalism
Supercapitalism wants all babies to be born exactly the same length so that the cradles can be standardized and all children persuaded to like the same toys. It wants all men to don the very same uniform, to read the same book, to have the same tastes in films, and to desire the same so-called labor-saving devices.
If there's one Socialist Dictator I'd love to kill, it'd be Mao
Mao was fucking garbage
that fat fuck
do you think PRC would've collapsed without him? @Xinyue
ching chong! dem sparrows must be to blame for food shortages! kill them all!
wtf why is the famine getting worse
and actually he barely qualifies as a Marxist. do you know what the stars in Chinese flag stand for?
a) proletariat
b) peasantry
c) petit bourgeoisie
d) national bourgeoisie
unified under the main star - the party
Maoism literally was class collaborationist, and didn't abolish national bourgeoisie. and they dared to call Khrushchev revisionist ๐ oh my god
I've read about how Communists in China damaged even the oldest and most remotely located temples in China
oh yeah
the loss of culture was immense and arguably irrepairable
Mao never brushed his teeth, because of tigers
they broke museums, paintings, sculptures and burnt books because it's "old thinking"
wel tigurs dun brush der teeth an dey r fine
I've often visited Taiwan and I saw some of that impeccable Chinese art preserved in the National Palace Museum
gives you a taste of what was lost
1970-80 China is the Progressive Utopia
it was an utter failure
and Khrushchev in his memoirs pretty savagely tears it apart as being "idiotic"
why's it idiotic?
oh, for many many reasons but the number one reason is that they had no fucking idea what they were doing
the way they tried to make the great leap happen
was totally unrealistic
it was never going to work
they were blown away in a haze of communistic fervor
@PunishedMuskovy the only other server you share with me is Pispians lol
seriously tho, why's what they did a bad thing??
jus liek how cummunism wil nevr wurk
as if poor quality personal steel melter facilities were going to jumpstart the fucking economy. the Soviet accounts on this were hilarious, you can see them constantly be like "wtf are you guys doing no not like this" ๐
made by r/the_donald gang
@Punished Elรญas werent you in traditionalist christian
USSR had state Atheism, China had it's way of enforcing it, getting rid of Old Thinking and Habits right
why's that bad?
what I *do* have to give Mao is the following:
a) doubled the population
b) increased the living expectancy
c) brought education to masses
d) got China nukes
e) got China space program
f) got China satellites
but overall, as a *national program* from the POV of the *public interest,* the Mao era was a failure
because it in the end led to the deaths of millions
in a remarkably quick timeframe
i thought commies were against population rise?
oh no no, not really
he did the one child policy didn't he
abortion was prohibited in most communist countries
including USSR
not in china tho
peoples republic of bulgaria also banned porn
they forced Abortions
they implemented it because they couldn't cope with the population anymore, but that's just bad planning on their part imo
like really abysmal planning
USSR always was superior to PRC imo
ignore what the Maoists say
Stalin would be a good leader only if he wasn't Socialist :D
....
101,748 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 19/407
| Next