international
Discord ID: 308950154222895104
752,937 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev |
Page 2011/7530
| Next
take lessons from the DPRK
What
/s
The main difference between the socialist mode of production and communism is distribution of economic output
It might be helpful to know
Hmm, okay.
Marx originally made no distinction between socialism and communism, he just referred to it as "lower stage" and "higher stage" communism
But later in the 20th century, the term socialism assumed the lower stage communism
yeah its all words anyway and that doesnt matter
Anyways, the socialist mode of production is a historical phase in which production is solely for use and there is no law of value
To each according to his contribution
via labor credit
A system based on merit.
If you believe that labor is merit, then yes
People are reciprocated based upon their labor time
is the LTV outdated tbh?
Honestly, I think that's a very fair way to do things. I assume the state runs the labor credit distribution?
Now, obviously there is a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism
yes
olev can you help me understand trots, if you hate beroucracy arent you basically anarchist?
@Deleted User I believe so
@Trve Metalist ๐ค
are trots anti state?
Anyways, labor credit, or labor vouchers
They are not money as they do not circulate
or they just think a state is only not corrupt when other trots rule it
how do you stop the state to selling to revisionism and the west
permanent rev is sick btw
Wouldn't an issue with labor credits be inflation due to former "low wage" long hour jobs draining the labor credits.
Trotskyists don't support a one party state
generally
How would there be inflation
They are representative of labor time
so you support a socialist state with multiple left wing parties?
Yes @Trve Metalist
I support a multi-party soviet democracy
the dprk has 2 other parties lol
So while the party that leads a revolution may be trotskyist, a workers state wouldn't be trotskyist
or stalinist
labor checks 1) only show the amount of labor-time done and 2) are not accumulative in the same sense as money
honestly i like that idea but what if people vote for the party that wants to make capitalist reforms
Only socialist parties are legal
No bourgeois parties
ok last question
gulags?
I mean gulags are no different than prison
is that something we're actually considering lol
Though in the USSR the gulags were in poor condition
the USA prisons are basically gulags
and often abusive
@Deleted User are you a commie
gulags where working prisons dedleg
Anyways
and they stopped operating in the 50's
There's this guy called Paul Cockshott @Deleted User
back when every other country stopped labor camps
He wrote a good modern day thing about why social democracy is not good
almost all countries but the USA JAJ
I'm still reading, I know I'm a socialist but I don't have a specific tendency or anything
Do you have it easily availible?
A couple paragraphs
I can copy and paste it
dedleg read bordiga
I am
actually
lmao
LOL
```Social democracy has traditionally stood for a โmixed economyโ, for the mitigation
of the inequalities of capitalism by means of a system of progressive
taxation and social benefits, for parliamentary democracy and civil liberties.
At their most successful, social democratic parties have certainly succeeded in
improving the conditions of the working classes, compared to a situation of unregulated
capitalism; in Britain the National Health Service remains the most
enduring monument to this sort of amelioration. Nonetheless very substantial
problems remain.```
```First, capitalist economic mechanisms tend to generate gross inequalities of
income, wealth and โlife-chancesโ (as discussed in chapter 1), and social democracy
has had little real impact on these inequalities, which have indeed worsened
over the last decade or so. Only a radical change in the mode of distribution
of personal incomes, such as that advocated in chapter 2, offers a real prospect
of eliminating gross inequality. Secondly, the โmixed economyโ is problematic
in two important ways. In the mixed economies that have existed to date, the
socialist elements have remained subordinated to the capitalist elements. That
is, the commodity and wage forms have remained the primary forms of organisation
of production and payment of labour respectively. โSocialistโ activities
have had to be financed out of tax revenue extracted from the capitalist sector,
which has meant that the opportunities for expansion of โwelfareโ measures and
the โfreeโ distribution of basic services have been dependent on the health of
the capitalist sector and the strength of the tax base. Only when the capitalist
sector has been growing strongly have social democratic governments been able
to โdeliver the goodsโ. In this way, the capacity of social democratic governments
to reshape the class structure of society has been inherently self-limiting:
attempts at radical redistribution always threaten to destroy the engine of capitalist
wealth-creation on which those governments ultimately depend.```
```Linked to the foregoing, if the mixed economy is a mixture of capitalist and
socialist elements, there has been little serious attempt to define the principles of
operation of the socialist sector. This leaves the whole idea of a mixed economy
vulnerable, in a world context where the planned economies are disintegrating.
Advocates of the unfettered market can argue, in effect, that if planning is
being rejected in its heartlands, why should it be tolerated in the West, even as
a subordinate element of the system? Insofar as Western social democrats have
no coherent idea of what planned and non-commodity forms of production are
ultimately about, and how their efficiency can be assessed, they are ill-placed to
defend their favoured โmixtureโ, except in a rather vague and moralising manner.
From this point of view, our attempt to define the principles of a socialist
economic mechanism might be seen as providing the socialist backbone which
is conspicuously lacking in contemporary social democracy: even those who
disagree with our advocacy of a fully planned economy might find some value
in our arguments, insofar as they illuminate the undeveloped component in the
mixed economyโs โmixโ.```
-Paul Cockshott, *Towards a New Socialism*
@Deleted User Just don't fall for the stalin/dprk/assad apology please
Ait!
stalin did nothing wrong tho
read Unruhe
I def wont. I went tankie for a bit last year
LOL
Why did you stop
@Deleted User There's plenty of reading material on why social democracy falls in comparison to marxism
dedleg marxism leninism is the only socialism that proved to work and its the only that can lead us to victory
I was just larping and had a fetish for soviet aesthetic
I think the soviet aesthetic is cool aswell but like
it's gay
you can not like stalin and wathever the point of marxism leninism isnt to praise stalin and assad
Oh it's very nice
@Deleted User Good luck finding any revolutionary uprising that isn't "Stalinist".
Ah and this faggot comes back
```If you disagree with Stalin, you disagree with Lenin. If you disagree with Lenin, you disagree with Marx. If you don't like stalinism you're not a marxist```
@olev Nice insult you xenophobic, butthurt little bitch. Go read your anachronistic horseshit and leave the theorizing to actual Marxists. Menshevik cunt.
im just goin nazbol
Damn
You really hurt my feelings
๐ญ
olev is a fucking trot they dont have feelings
Don't you mean homophobic
not xenophobic
you are both faggot
You're xenophobic.
752,937 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev |
Page 2011/7530
| Next