It is practical compromise.

I do not think it is practical

communism is rather fringe

The organization under authority is practical.

there can be no division in the revolution

the problem is that 99% would not want to be under communism

but would be happy for socialism somewhat

do you mean goulash communism?

Does it matter what majority wants at every time? Today they want one thing, tomorrow another.

Organization under authority works every time.

well when I say the majority

I mean the majority of those who would rebel in the first place

against this sick society

In which country?

I had the US in mind

I don't have it in mind.

which were you thinking of?

Every other?

India for example.

They would burn capitalist pigs nicely

Yes?

sure why not

I suppose that I can't really support communism

I support a purge of the executive class

but I am against centralisation etc

I do not support the purge and I'm in favor of centralization.

why not?

It is possible to take power without the purge of the whole class. It is possible to use other methods of control over it.

but certain elements must go?

It depends on a situation in the country and the country itself at every moment. Use any means necessary. Priority means is creative intelligent solution and not violence.

I support that

Lenin argued there is no bloodless revolution. But some revolutions may have very little blood or almost none. It depends. Better the governance skills of the rebels less violence is necessary.

I sure love grainy jpgs

https://prorivists.wordpress.com/source-of-opportunism/

What if – instead of ‘How Do You Make Yourself A Body WithoutOrgans?’ – one were to ask: how do you make yourself a Nazi?For this is far more strenuous than the 1980 diagnosis suggests.
1) Wherever there is impersonality and chance introduceconspiracy, lucidity. and malice. Look for enemies everywhere,ensuring that they are such that one than simultaneously envyand condemn them. Proliferate new subjectivities; racia1 subjects,national subjects, elites, secret societies, destinies.
2) Burn Freud, and take desire back to the Kantian conception ofwill. Wherever there is impulse represent it as choice, decision,the whole theatrical drama of volition. Introduce a gloomyatmosphere of oppressive responsibility by couching alldiscourses in the imperative form.
3) Revere the principle of the great individual. Personalize andmythicize historical processes. Love obedience above all things.and enthuse only for signs; the name of the leader, the symbol ofthe movement, and the icons of molar identity.
4) Foster nostalgia for what is maximally bovine, inflexible, andstagnant: a line of racially pure peasants digging the same patchof earth for eternity.
5) Above all. resent everything impetuous and irresponsible, insistupon unrelenting vigilance, crush sexuality under its reproductivefunction, rigidly enforce the domestication of women, distrust art,
classicize cities to eliminate the disorder of uncontrolled flows,and persecute all minorities exhibiting a nomadic tendency.

It's from a PDF so it probably dosn't copy paste well

lots of words get mashed together

but you get the picture

hello

Hail Posadas

Do you just understand basic economics ?

@Chaton Do u understand any economics?

No.

Do you?

@Chaton You know that the 'basic economics' you are learned is Capitalist economics and not Socialist/Communist economics, right?

No.

Proper economic theory can actually be applied to a variety of systems

It is only a failure of imagination that ties economists to capitalism or socialism

For example, i advocate a system where society is composed of co-operatives operating within the resources and regulatory context of collectives, which are in turn confederated together; this takes place on the scale of a city state. Imagine a libertariam market socialist singapore, if you will.

Within this context, i think that large-scale capital allocation (currently managed via the stock market and gov spending) can be handled in the following way:

Each collective pays in a portion (figure that out later) of each payment it gets to its collective fund. This portion goes to an alliance fund.
Once a [time period], vouchers are distributed, representing dollars in the fund on a 1-to-1 basis. Every project in every collective in the alliance gets to say why they should get your vouchers. You can give your vouchers to any project you want, as long as you are not a member of that project. These vouchers are then turned in for money from the alliance fund.

Using the usual assumptions of economics (perfect info, rational choices, ect.) you can predict that people will invest in things that maximize their utility; one of the effects of this is that the average value of everyone's transactions continuosly goes up. Further, attempts to cheat the system by not meeting your goals don't work long term, because they add in the info as to who is and isn't trustworthy, and then ceases funding for the expansion of firms controlled by bad actors.

It would be hard to call this system capitalist in the least, but it is still amenable to analysis by "capitalist" economics

@Chaton @Poet the Bush @BoleslawBierutLover

I for one like a good left-wing market cooperative. If as a staging operation from whence the mindset of the people as a whole can become accustomed to the idea of it. In my experience most people falter at the idea of communally or collectively owned industries because they believe the people as a whole would not be capable in the "complex" problems of managing regular payrole.

That's stupid. Payroll is really, really easy. You just all take your shares of the profit every [time period]

Plus, co-ops are awesome, having all the upsides (constant innovations) of markets with none of the downsides of capitalism (no need for constant growth, no one is acting as a servant to a master, ect)

It's what most people seem to not understand, fundamentally paperwork isn't the most complex thing in the world to do ever. Maybe buisiness finance is a lot harder than home finance, but if you're all having trouble then someone could be appointed by the whole to do it, or like most of them do; have independent accountants do the numbers.

I mean shit, if the company Gore can run on this very idea with over 9,000 paid employees then why can't the rest of us?

Is it really even that hard? It seems really easy for a firm of about a dozen people, which is what most co-ops would be

What's Gore?

Gore is a company here in the States that makes special fire-resistent fabrics for cars, fire-fighters, and the US Army; recently they branched into computer parts. They have some 9,000 employees, none of which are superior to the other and even the founder carries the same title as everyone; associate. They're structured completely horizontally and found that in order to surmount the challenges of having a totally horizontal company with such a large pool of members it's to continually split their factories/shops. Every time one shop goes above 150 people ("We start seeing cars park in the grass" as I've heard someone put it) they go to build or establish an entirely new autonomous plant for another 150 people.

Huh

They've been rated one of the best companies to work for for awhile now. The idea is based on what their founder learned working at DuPont where small autonomous groups would be formed if only to form as-needed problem solving units, and they worked so well the guy figured, "Why not all the time?"

...wait, it's not even ideologically motivated?

More off of personal experience, so no. It's not like the guy read Proudhon and thought, "I like this guy. Let's do Proudhon."

He did it, they worked out the kinks as the organization grew, and it is as it is.

Huh

How do the factories interact with eachother?

I'm not sure. I tried to look into that myself. But I'm sure they have some people going between to figure out what each other are doing. There has to be some level of inter-shop management. But all I've read stresses the horizontal-ness of it and some of the criticsm leveled against going that route (ie: some critics like to talk about how it's easy for people to hide their unproductivity in this manner of organization).

But if it's gotten as big as it had, it's worth looking into some more and consideration. I know there's a few other companies I link to when people complain about how a lack of hierarchy is bad to underline how you can have an effective large company without supervisors or managers; Mondragon in Spain is another I use too.

Mondragon doesn't have managers?

I thought mondragon had managers

Last I checked they're a bike manufacturing co-op.

Or so they're called on de webz

Who?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Yeah

They don't just make bikes

I thought they made bikes, must have been looking at something else.

Ohwell.jpeg

Fair enough

Do you know of any good discords? I'm looking for anything anti-capitalist but pro-market

@AaronMk

No, not off-hand.

Do you know any good communist discord?

I know of an anarchist discord

Uhuh

^^^

anarchists, marxists are all degenerates, nazbol is the way to go

Are you russian?

Only nazbols worth having discussions with are russians, other nazbols are just memers

CYKA BLYAT

no

im not russian

hey niggers

I'm from Uncensored Politics

nigga have fun getting paid the same

😉

cause lol capitalism causes unemployment.
```
get a job ;)
```

tfw no one cares

@xTom >When you try a form of communism that has never even been touched by your gods marx and lenin and you think it will actually work

@MLM (TW) fuck you degenerate

@MLM (TW) you little cunt

I'll stamp on you

Ah oh, questioning someones sexuality as an argument tactic. Look out internet.

this comrade guy is very frustrated

Funny how he says other people do nothing but whine yet all i've ever seen him do is complain and cuss out other people

sad!

calm down

there he goes deleting every post of his

classic comrade turnip

@Deleted User lenin is no god, national boslhevism is the only way, and the nazbol have no allegiance

Can you summarise the difference between Nazbol and Leninism?

@Deleted User Yes, everything remotely significant

Isn't NazBolism a mix of corporate fascism and Leninism?

I honestly don't know anything about it.

@Deleted User Nazbol is a meme.

Way I've interpreted Nazbol is, "Gee, Stalin was a good leader except he didn't have enough Hitler."

Economically National Capitalist, Socially Falangist or some other kind of clergical Fascism (not necessarily Nazi but pretty close in all honesty), and politically Stalinist. Its an interesting ideology, but yes it is basically a meme.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OaToU2Zobs

👍

Only the concept of classes been there before Marx.

He just agreed with common knowledge.

>Communists strike when you least expect them to bc dialectics

Reee

Fucking commie dialectic

Classes are known to be as old as written history, worked pretty well for the most part

>worked well

except it was the cause for the most important revolutions

also what do you mean worked well? classes aren't something you implement

Yeah but things were stable until then werent they?

>Implying anything ever has been stable

>Except for all sorts of peasant revolutions

and slave revolts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts#Chronological_list

I dont know maybe? For the better than slaves at least it was okaaaay for the time
And you do implement a class system i thought, doesnt india with the castes?

Implying that's been entirely stable either, or not being slowly liquidated as the country modernizes.

last time humanity was without classes was tribal societies, you don't have anything to compare class socities to

only eachother

which is the right thing to do

Caste and class exists as a means to protect the property of a small minority of individuals who claim spiritual or military supremecy of something. So long as material power invests itself into a small population and more have greater than the whole then there will be class conflict.

So long as the means by which further material property is made, if not reforms and reorganization of the way property is treated this process will forever persist.

The anti-aristocratic class reforms of the American and French revolutions were find for their time; when a single individual could only hold a piece of a market in proportion to his physical capability. But the owning of automation puts these ratios far out of whack.

To return to India: there has been Dalit uprisings, mostly after the 18th century. But the Greeks recorded a far taller class structure. Further, the Buddha was considerably critical of the caste system and Buddhism teaches against caste differences.

This small group of individuals who claim spiritual or military supremacy do so because they are capable of doing so, and if you are incapable of defending what you own, you don't deserve it anyway - this is the true nature of the world - not just for people, but for animals as well. Even if you took away everything today, and everyone had uniform resources - most would waste what they are given, some would save their portion, but there will always be those chosen few who will seize the resources others would have wasted.

You can only prevent this by having some of overwhelming state apparatus to hold back the flow of human nature - temporarily - until some future even breaks the levies and overwhelms the state.

Look at india - the lower caste shits in the streets even when they have the choice of toilets. In other words - they don't shit in the streets because they are disenfranchised - quite the opposite - they are disenfranchised because they shit in the streets. They were born trash, their children will be trash, and so will their line. This is the essence of the caste. The Ancients knew this - and yet we pretend that everyone is the same.

Human nature changes over time, and humanity, being a rational being, ought to control his own nature for the better. A strong state is the perfect apparatus for this, and in doing so would create a future human far in advance of naturalist who falsely assume it so be static or otherwise sacred in some way. Indeed Socialism is the perfected of man because only this kind of apparatus is objective about the best parts of the human condition, and not subject to primitive ideals like ethnocentrism or bias in group preferances.

The state is not the path to salvation, the individual is

"The individual himself is still the most recent invention.
For many generations, being separated from the herd was a punishment and guilt was acting not in accord with its interests."
(Friedrich Nietzsche)

https://books.google.it/books?id=lM3ECwAAQBAJ&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false

Also I’m neither British nor American. This is just the most serious canal for discussions, so far.

EAT ASS

The future is too important to be left to individualism.

hi

Chopin it's time to establish a revolutionary base in Australia

I think the real challenge we face today is to combine individuality (not individualism) and the collective needs. We just can't return to the supremacy of the herd.

False dichotomy. The two are the same.

https://www.marxist.com/what-is-dialectical-materialism.htm

Only two genders

Deleuze seems more radically anarchist than stirner

Only two classes.

😄

The bourgeois scum and the working class

I think you nailed it

what do you do when the gulag is too far away?

execution van

I like it. We could turn the company down the street that makes tanks into an execution bus company

>we
I follow a consistent insecurity amongst libertarians that s afraid of *not* being apart of the dominant crowd. Don't worry be have a solution to your problem. The end of class conflict is called Communism. But you have to read about it first. Knee-jerk is not tolerated. This is a community which runs on literacy.

Isn't libertarian just another word for Nazi?

synonymous with "western degenerate"

Being a part of a group of people is different from a government

I don't think being libertarian means you're refusing to be part of a dominant group, just that that group shouldn't to an extreme extent impose its will on you, as I feel the current government has or in on the road towards

plus i'm not particularly against there being different classes, if the possibility is there for you to progress towards a higher class it's good.

And there's where I and socialists differ, how do you get as many people into the higher classes

>end of class struggle

lmao

People do not become happy because they have a lot of wealth, they become happy when there is upwards mobility.
Good grounds on to not spoil your children when they're young, it handicaps them in a way I think

I agree just don't think communism would fix it

neither do all forms of socialism because foreigners fuck that up every time

Then again, any form of government can work if it's authoritarian enough. libertarianism is worst.

guys

get in the discord

im bored

as fuck

get in marxist talks

ye little nigres

authoritarian and totalitarian however

A welfare state with open borders is the dumbest idea of all, it always attracts the least productive immigrants, and who can blame them?

Immigration was very good for countries when the social safety net was limited, because it meant they came with one reason only: to work their way to the middle or top

Yep, but them programs thoooo

oh yeah massively successful in decreasing poverty(not)

Read up on what a success the war on poverty was

Hol up lemme take a guess

not at all

As with most social policies

Now I'm not against a safety net, but not as much as they are now

How about a state that pays for certain utilities

Which utilities?

such as water and heating

I'm not for privatizing such common and essential goods

The environment is a crucial issue most libertarians gloss over

how about electric heating?

Less so, i'm more for subsidizing people to create their own green energy and reduce what my country has now, the subsidizing to make it affordable

We had a program which subsidized solar panels, don't mind that really

solar panels are quite impractical

geothermal is niche

they're getting better and better

And everyone has a roof basically

yes, but they are expensive and there is limited graphite

it's almost a waste of money

solar panels were a great idea, but the output just isn't enough for what it's worth

They also get less expensive, that's why I was against doing it 10 years ago, the technology was not great and you hardly made a profit, especially if you bought one 3 years ago, you saved good money

Now there's always the question when do you decide to get them, maybe they'll be even better 5 years later but from what I know they can get a lot of energy right now

solar panels are not a practical means to solve the energy problem because they don't pay for themselves quick enough, and that there isn't nearly enough materials to manufacture them on this planet to suit the needs of the masses

I have nothing against research into green energy, but solar panels are not the answer

Oh i know there's an issue where they might cause a whole lot of damage when just making them

but it's clear it's economically viable now

viable if you want to make a poor investment

Depends where you live obviously but it's not a stupid investment

lol

For europeans maybe more so, we have to deal with Russia threatening to shut the gas pipes, maybe not a devastating measure but it will run your bill up

...you should be more worried about Iran if you want to talk oil

in either case, both of them should "shut the pipes", perhaps the western governments will frantically fund research into alternative energy sources and discover something.

Yeah, I don't like to be reliant on those type of regimes, and generating your own will give you more freedom

i get sick when I see my ''leaders'' buddying up with Saudi Arabia

lol. Saudis are powerless.

they only have power because the West chooses to buy from them.

Power still though

they are a one trick pony though

once the barrel sinks, so do they.

They get to run ravage on Yemen, not a peep from my government

Iran could cut off the strait of hormuz and cause oil prices to skyrocket in just two days

this alone would destroy SA

that strait sees more than 50% of the world's oil traffic passing through it btw

More reason to become energy independent, I don't want to fund them

this is why the Saudis are funding wars against the Yemenis

they want control of their strait.

interestingly as well, the Chinese government is fighting Vietnam over oil in the South China Sea.

a dirty business

You are not thinking big enough. The first goal of Communism will be the creation of a Dyson Sphere.

@WhitakerWhitman NIGGER WTF

what did he post?

a tranny op

We should try and use fusion, ASAP. For now, all we've got in that department is fission, but that's not bad.

what do you know about it?

because I don't know anything about that

Basically? Think nuclear power, but more efficient and safer. Only problem: We haven't quite gotten it *working* yet, but from what I understand, this isn't because the *physics* rules it out, but because we haven't figured out how to do it right yet.