Capitalism is cancer

and must be destroyed

it isn't just Fascists who are woke about the noses

Christians used to be

Muslims are

ah yes, the Godlike Jew hypothesis rears its head again

smh

can we stop deifying the Jews? they don't run the world 😄

@Xinyue irl

...

oh man

fak u Storm

we brought the gay reddit back

ANYWAY

the whole notion that Jews are in some position to control world events is a fiction

you still haven't explained why Socialism is good @Xinyue

he never got the chance

from what I can see

talked to him befoe

i see

nevermind then

Its good for a number of reasons, depending on the perspective - some of which are mutually contradictory. But I'll give you my view on it.

Socialism is good because it allows the social totality to harmonise itself around the creative process of labour and production. It allows the power relations to be equalised in a manner which allows the emergence of a true societal consensus politics - unhampered by wealth and influence disparities. More importantly than anything else, it allows man to take part in unalienated labour - labour unalienated from

a) the *product* of the labour in question
b) the *objective* of the labour in question
c) the *society* in which the labour in question takes place
d) the *coworkers* in the labour process in question

In brief, socialism is that system which brings society and men together in a way that no other societal system can. It recognises that the place of human creative and productive agency is primary, and further it realises the social nature of men, and then synthesises these two realisations into one coherent, comprehensive socio-economic system.

Life doesn't work that way

what if life do life in that way

Life doesn't work in any one given way. Life is chaos, with near infinite number of possibilities.

Wat

yes

If I work, why would I want to decrease the amount of my paycheck I receive (the amount I can use to invest in my family and their future) in order to redistribute it towards those who don't work?

That's not what socialism is about

I know socialism is far more complicated

if im correct, socialism does away with currency

yeah capitalist currency doesn't really exist as such in socialism

at the most, socialism would have barter

and its about the workers controlling production, communications etc. infrastructure via councils, its a system which is divorced from the rationales of capitalism

My point is that welfare is bad for working men and their families.

in socialism, people as a rule work

you choose what you work on, but you do work

Why should workers control this stuff?

or as socialists put it: *socially useful labour*

I think elites should

@appalachianboy Welcome!

the infrastructure which all of us are dependent on, should be in the purview of all to decide on

Those who are experts, specializing in management and rule

That's just democracy

yes, socialism in purest terms is democracy applied to economics and production

Children shouldn't vote on their bed time

The father, who rules over his children, who owns the house, who feeds them, should decide

the problem with democracy is that 2 idiots are more powerful than 1 intellectual

The only superfluous figure in an enterprise is the capitalist management. You can remove the capitalist, and have an enterprise still function, but you cannot remove the whole staff and leave the capitalist. This is a reality of enterprises, how they are based, a reality on their character.

@Xinyue You have to explain why a "true societal consensus politics" is a good thing, your basically advocating a truer democracy i guess..

about taking part in labor unaliented by the result, i think first of all that's utopian.. second even if you had it, it sounds like hell.
Why would you try to improve yourself or conform to society maintaining the social structure if you don't fail hard or have societal checks on you?

Also, even in Socialism, there is an Aristocracy, an Intelligentsia, so there isn't this total equality, this situation can be created by other systems that have proven to be far more sustainable.

@AdorableStormtrooper I don't think I can put it forward in a way that you will find satisfying. Our ethical and ontological views are far too much apart. It relates to my views on consciousness, how consciousness relates to the natural world, and why anything at all exists. It goes into my existential views which are too bothersome and obnoxious to go into here. But I have my own philosophical views which affirm the ethical necessity of this. Similar to, and originating from, my Buddhist years.

Apparently corporations are willing to pay their executives significantly more than a low level employee.

```The only superfluous figure in an enterprise is the capitalist management. You can remove the capitalist, and have an enterprise still function, but you cannot remove the whole staff and leave the capitalist. This is a reality of enterprises, how they are based, a reality on their character.```


there were man made Famines in Soviet Ukraine based on this delusion, just remove the most competitive leadership among you that has arisen and everything will be fine, no better! it wasn't

Why would that be? According to you the low level employees are essential and the executive is completely superfluous

It seems like the corporations value executives significantly more, which is why they pay them so much more.

Just free market capitalist economy with social policies and be done with it jeez

@Nikitis so

Worker-cooperatives function well without any capitalist. The workers elect their own managers via democratic vote, and manage the operation and functions of their production, plans, goals, etc. via councils. This has existed for a long time as a model for enterprise.

basically canada

and what bernie wants

Europe in a nutshell

welfare capitalism is the ultimate gay

SHADDAP

JUST

SHADDAPP

why dont you sit down and have some

delicious

b e e f

A corporation is concerned only with profits. It will pay executives higher than low level employees because it concludes that this will increase profits.

The entirety of Yugoslav economy was founded upon this kind of worker-cooperative organisation; the Mondragon Cooperative Federation has functioned as such for half a century and is Spain's 12th largest enterprise - it weathered, for example, the great Spanish depression and economic crisis where many capitalist enterprises faltered

Lmao

so that's strong evidence to the contrary

Worker Coops are legal rn

They exist in capitalist economies

and they should form the sole basis of economic activity alongside the state and municipal sectors

its all very much possible

nothing suggest it isn't

Im part of a Credit Union myself

if it was feasible, it would take over as the best form of organization

I think it is reasonable that if indeed executives were completely worthless that some company would get the bright idea to pay them less or make the position an internship or simply abolish it. After all they'd save money

it has its benefits, but it isn't gonna take over

Yet the norm is the opposite

as for some info pointers about Mondragon, here you can have some. As you see, it is a viable operation which functions on the principles of worker management or self-government. It is an imperfect form, in my view, but it is strong evidence that a viable alternative to capitalist management is possible - which contains in itself the promise of socialism.

And that's not even going into the socialist countries which have existed in 20th century.

You haven't answered my question

I didn't see it sorry

what was it?

you are free to try this out in the free market m8, nobody stops you

Why do greedy corporations who only care about increasing profits pay their executives so much money compared to low level workers?

@AdorableStormtrooper that's not the point, there are a great number of arguments against free market and capitalism which I hold and which remain unaddressed by "try muh free marguds"

You claim executives are completely superfluous

@Deleted User because penny pinching

They are superfluous. If they weren't, worker-cooperatives would be impossible. Capitalist executives are indeed completely superfluous. Management itself is not superfluous, but management is a feature of socialism as well.

Then answer my question

worker coops are uncompetitive in comparison in many fields

Why do greedy corporations who only care about increasing profits pay their executives so much money compared to low level workers?

If the job was superfluous why pay them so much?

Because corporations are literally geared towards the maximizing of the profits, which go into the shareholders and management's pockets? And paying the workers by equal amount wouldn't increase the profits of the shareholders?

You're completely missing the point

...because they are part of the ownership class, obviously. And certainly the pay rates of the corporate execs does not in fact correlate with the value of their work, considering the rate of their personal profit.

Why hire 20 people for manager positions and pay them substantially more than their workers? Why not pay then the same low wage or hire less or none?

^ if that earned investors higher profits, wouldn't they do that?

The answer is simple and it doesn't require an elaborate conspiracy. The corporation is greedy, it wants to increase its profits, and hiring managers who have a higher pay increases long term profits

How can an economic model be homosexual

In other words, management is valuable

I'm not privy to the internal rationale and social dynamics of the elite classes. But we know from the existence of major worker-cooperatives like Mondragon that they *aren't needed.* So why they do it is less of a point than the fact that major operations which do not make use of capitalists exist. It could simply also be the belief that their work is valuable, and whether or not this belief is substantiated is irrelevant so long as people believe it.

Socialism is based on free sex in public domain anywhere at anytime

🤔

With random strangers

wtf I love socialism

Unified sex union

They aren't needed. I never claimed that. I claimed that management is VALUABLE

Else they wouldn't pay them so much

I can trust a greedy capitalist to care about profit

Management is valuable yes. Its also a feature of socialism, so I'm not sure what the point is. The point is that *capitalist management isn't required, the boss - a capitalist owner - isn't required,* the manager can just as well be an elected worker, serving a term.

He wouldn't do it if he could save money by adopting a socialist strategy

Adopting a socialist strategy would mean that money isn't a goal.

Look let's not get lost in the weeds talking about money

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/opinion/why-women-had-better-sex-under-socialism.html

Its kind of important when discussing economic systems that we account for whether or not moneyed interest is a factor or not though

@Nikitis because

its gay

If the CEO of a corporation believed having his workers vote and elect their management would increase the corporation's profits, why on Earth wouldn't he?

@Xinyue what is the goal

The answer is he knows it wouldn't increase profits.

It wouldn't raise the profits, because socialism isn't about rising profits. So of course he wouldn't, and because the two systems are so divorced, you can't judge one on the basis that the management of the other wouldn't go for it. *Of course they wouldn't,* it violates their economic rationale.

Why wouldn't I want more profits? 🤔

I want to get stronger, smarter, healthier, happier and of course, richer.

It's completely healthy and good to have this impulse

Because there are things far more important than some increase in abstract money-value. Such as the shared popular control over the direction of society, that my labor is meaningful and that I'm not alienated from its product, or, indeed, from my coworkers and the object of my labour. Socialism, in the end, is all about *control,* shared control over the productive forces. It isn't about profits, never was and I hope to god never will be though Cortez and Sanders do their best to dilute the meaning of socialism.

"the shared popular control over the direction of society"?

the goal is eliminating competition and promoting mediocrity from what i read

I have no interest in that whatsoever

@Deleted User Yes. We determine what we used our powerful technology for, how and on what grounds. You may have no interest in that whatsoever, but those who are powerful do and will make the decision for you if you don't. Just look at AI development and the kind of elite classes involved in that particular exercise. If you aren't terrified, you aren't paying attention.

I know my labor is meaningful because people pay me for it and I can use the money to buy things and invest in my family's future

AI is a complete non sequitur

The old society and its various rationales for life is dying. And it will die whether or not we like it, and what is left to do is to determine what will arise from the ashes

Not socialism

Fate willing, socialism and communism indeed

those are actually very interesting points about about labor feeling meaningful, not being divorced from the product and co workers

Right now I have a vote in the direction of my society, one of tens of thousands of voters. My vote has almost no impact on anything at all

if you could explain them further m8 @Xinyue

Storm, that has been quite important in the history of Marxian philosophy. The aspect of alienation. If you like, I can forward to you some of Marx's works on the subject later, or indeed those of Soviet and Yugoslav philosophers. They can explain it better than I ever could

a complete dumb fuck who votes on which party has a more beautiful symbol or which leader is hotter has the same say on things, as you and me

I don't want a vote, nor do I want to feel like the people decided on the dumbass policies I am forced to live under. I want GOOD policies. I don't care how they come to pass.

USSR was poor always

While huge territory

Your vote has no impact because you live in a bourgois democracy

Hey captains

it is undermined at every turn

being relatively poor isn't always a negative

the only way to achieve true power or meaning for your vote is socialism

having more material wealth isn't always positive

Socialism has bourgeois too

The socialist party

That rules the state

No, my vote has no impact because I'm one person and there are tens of thousands of voters

which, of course, expands democracy and the power of the electorate into a system that runs through society in a multi-tiered fashion

One voter is worthless

Democracy empowers the masses against individuals

one voter in a worker-cooperative is a crucial element, or, indeed, in the commune

The masses want liberalism, feminism, and demographic replacement so the rest of us must live with it.

And fascism empowers the state against the masses, capitalism empowers the capitalist against the workers, etc. Its not like the other alternatives are that much better. True liberty and sovereignty can only be realised in the working masses which exercise their sovereign power via the workers' councils.

@Xinyue is there a Nation in your system?

Democracy is just a tool for enacting policy. Nothing more

Nations do exist, yes, but they are realised as autonomous republics within a greater international federation. They could have their own laws, national guards, parliaments, etc. As we see with many federations today @AdorableStormtrooper

Don't fuck with me

I've got the power of God AND anime on my side

You've lost sight of what matters. What matters is not feeling like you have a voice or that you're equal or that everyone is a team. What matters is the survival and prosperity of you and your kind.

@Xinyue So there are National Elections not just Coop elections then... Snakes point holds then on Democracy

If democracy results in worse policies, it's bad.

Democratic power in and of itself is not valuble

yes, the results actually do matter, not just the philosophy sounding good in the abstract

Yes, there would be national elections, elections in coops, elections in coop federations, etc. All voluntary of course. It would be a multi-tiered democratic system, and one could choose work at a level that they think is most meaningful for them. I think coop elections would become most popular personally.

Voluntary? Give me a break. None of this is voluntary

Voting would be voluntary

You're not allowed to own private property

not sure why you posit this is not so

Yes, you wouldn't be allowed to own private property. But this has no bearing on voting

is syndicalism a heresy to you

odd point

I cant sell another guy who wants something and is willing to pay me what he wants

And there would be social property so its not like property ceases to exist

WHAT IF compulsory voting was put into place

what is thats gay

Boom

compulsory voting is gay

It's actually really good

@Xinyue oh man we agreed

Blank votes are actually gay

I rebel against this system by casting a blank vote

lol

Or not voting at all

such rebellion, much vicious

If my son is sick and the public health system provided by the socialist state is unable to treat him better than a private group, but that group charges a fee for their quality medicine/care, if I can afford it, I should be able to buy the care.

Compulsory voting is the solution to all our problems

no it isn't

Templar wtf

Finally we'll have some real political showdowns then

go away

😄

Wow.

smile

So called socialist

Egalitarian

I am now in a situation where the socialist state is telling me that I can't buy better care for my son

@Nikitis shut up and eat your beef

*eats beef*

gud boi

Why? Because it's not FAIR

You wouldn't find yourself from a situation where you'd be buying anything in a socialist state, unless its MarSoc @Deleted User

Socialism for America. Fuck yeah.

Exactly I said "I can't buy"

Socialism for America. Yes. Compulsory voting for America? No.

Let in the black blocs into the white house.

@Xinyue how would work be more meaningful in co op?

At that moment, I would curse socialism and wish I was in another country where I could buy that care

It will cost me my son, my own flesh and blood, even though I could have paid for it

So what about the gay agenda that's obviously been going on, homosexuals in the government tons of em

Sounds pretty gay

Is it still bad to do gay stuff if it is gathering intelligence for a country

So tell me, why can't a father and a private organization make a deal that would save the father's sick son?

@AdorableStormtrooper you would be, first of all, an equal owner of the social property that is the coop. Secondly, that equal ownership would make you a co-owner with your coworkers - the first stage of alienation from the coworker demolished. Thirdly, you'd have the power to vote on the policy of the coop, what to produce, what projects and partnerships to pursue, etc. etc. alongside your coworkers. Not only does this represent the second and complete stage of demolishing the alienation from the coworker, but it also represents the demolition of the alienation from the objective of labour. And finally, you will equally share in the prosperity that was jointly created, meaning that you also get to demolish the alienation from the fruits of your labour.

You and your coworkers cease to be cogs in a machine not under your own control, and transform into an organic unit of unalienated, creative and productive labour. A self-contained, constructive unit of society, imbued with its own consensus-based collective will among equals.

It seems pretty meaningful to me.

The US was socialist in the beginning

It didn't work

/thread

@Xinyue why can't the man do business with the private organization? He wants the service, they want something in exchange, like money or something valuble, like a car.

Because socialism goes above all else

Both parties are willing to trade and want to

It's not allowed snake

We don't do that shit in a socialist society

Just get in line

Because the state says my son should die for socialism

And wait for your turn

Everyone is equal

In a socialist society

Don't think you're special

Bullshit is everybody equal

The people at the top will always get more than the people at the bottom

Ssshh

You're not supposed to say that

We have to keep the workers dream alive

lol

@Deleted User Because we are entering an age where private enterprise is neither necessary anymore, and more importantly not desirable. Why would you do business on the premise of private capital, when you could expand social property to encompass all of society and make it accessible on an equal basis? Let human creativity and productivity truly flourish. Cut away the obstructions that hold back human potential. Not everyone will reach the peak, but those who can will reach further than ever before.

@Xinyue Will Islam be the dominant state religion in your socialist society

no

fuck islam