Blebleh (Discord ID: 300502606999191552), page 1

2,025 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/9 | Next


Almost all

the theory of value is 5% false

in a study of 2010

then, the thing about nations and how to achieve power

anarchist critiques

Communism conceived about post-scarcity would have to be raised in a lot of years yet

he didn't know about the developments of today like cybernetics for doing socialism

Liberals and socdems claim that marxism doesn't have inside other issues; but Marx already talked about ecology

And marxism was already the first doing intersectional analysis before the liberals and socdems thought that they were discovering something new

Marxism, unlike liberals and socdems, doesn't ignore the centrality of class struggle for the total liberation of ecology and for the equality of genres; this can't be done in the other systems, as well as the dependence for the family

How a society would be like, the problems of Mises and Hayek solved, here: It's a model for a socialist society with central planning in real time

I think it could be positive discrimination if something

The focus on the oppressed doesn't mean hating that people

to make a balance

*a third worldist whines because they have better conditions*

love me


Workers don't exploit anyone

They aren't extracting surplus value from other workers, they don't own the business

If something they could receive wages from other workers, passed from the bourgeoisie; that's called the labour aristocracy

probably labour aristocracy

but speculation?

Some marxist economists consider it another for of exploitation

but they aren't owning other workers


Other person would do otherwise

a society can't be changed voluntarily by studying this or not


but there are labour aristocracy analysis, and maoist third worldists

The argument of neolibs isn't democratizing countries, more like stealing resources

Communists could agree that they'd need to push capitalism first before socialism to develop the country, from a transition from feudalism to capitalism for example


but from capitalism to socialism always

otherwise is revisionist (Deng Xiaoping)

there's a letter from a trot organization that says Marx didn't have a dogmatic view of the stages; but some people talk about stages

It wouldn't be a central planned economy in real time from the beginning, since it needs cybernetics

It's a chart from an old page, a competition between authors who took an inspiration from marxism

It's modified showing Hoxha as the winner

This was the original one


It led to the restoration of capitalism in the USSR

while keeping the image, it's social imperialism

Revisionists who pushed capitalism

who disarmed the USSR?

and what about the perestroika of Gorbachev?

at that point the enemy was inside already

revisionism after stalin

denounced even by mao

khruschev making fake the cult of personality, disarming the people, peaceful coexistence

and Gorbachov restorating capitalism with the perestroika

intentional or not it is

with the new policies

they made the monopolist capitalism arise

depending on a bourgeois oligarchy

now just a national bourgeoisie more like China

Capitalists don't make communism arise, they make their own gravediggers, the proletariat

going a step backward when the planned economy is already built is treason

But people need class consciousness first

and political organization

that doesn't matter; it lead to the restoration

no matter how he felt before

it isn't related to how he wasn't revisionist

a socdem can have a good heart

yes, and why are you telling me that it's easy to criticize?

that revisionism pulled imperialism

no, if the party kept the socialist line

they wouldn't have been imperialist

Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism

the policies from the party pulled monopolist capitalism

it doesn't matter if they had good heart... imperialism depends on the economy

Hoxha also denounced the cubans

and also the maoists after a period of time

I didn't understand the penultimate phrase

It is forced with the state

imperialism isn't a program alone as let's invade countries

it emerges from the conditions of capitalism, it requires a monopolist capitalism which was restored with Khruschev, and therefore he had to obey that kind of economy

no matter how much he tried to be good

like reforming capitalism in social democracy, it's limited

I could agree

but most socialism now is welfare state

still capitalism

even some people criticize stalin as capitalist

because he couldn't remove the capitalist relations of production (for this we would need world socialism)

but if there's no bourgeoisie... it seems leftcom to me

A country being imperialist or not doesn't depend on idiocy or intentions

You could say that the party restored capitalism with good heart

and call them idiots

but still imperialism

China and Russia today can defend Syria

but it's still an imperialist bloc, just one with interests against the national bourgeoisie of the US and Europe

yes, so I say, every try to help other nations is for the national bourgeoisie not for socialism

it obeys the logic of capital not proletarian internationalism

Stalin denounced the cult of personality

if something it was permitted

we have to know the melting point of the policies and they have heads

human suffering isn't any fuel

in the USSR the life expectancy skyrocketed and the GDP growed, as well as the limitation of the labours of work

but I disagree with a tenet of leninism

I think banning factions breeds revisionism because it removes the accountability and the culture of revision with the ones who are in charge

Trotskyists say that it was temporal

and pro-Stalin advocates say it wasn't

I doubt that even in a temporal ban you could restore it again as you wanted

but what they discuss more is the thing of permanent revolution

and pro-Stalin people think that in this case, it isn't leninist and that it would kill the revolution

and then we have council communists

and bordigists

*bordiga gets offended* πŸ˜›

The party has a clear theoretical line

an in an anarchist case we could use a platform and unions

blanquism isn't leninism


but today, we have bourgeois economy in the university, the mainstream economy

neoclassical-keynesian and even austrian

in socialism this is easier once we can educate the people

the media isn't owned privately for profit as now

it doesn't mean it has to be managed by the party, it could be self-managed by different workers

In socialism

Today in capitalism the big business owners control the big media, you can look how they're connected, they're hierarchic and they have the same interests, they all support a capitalist ideology

We're in a control system now, and the academia has the neoclassical pseudoscientifc model; debunked by marxists economists like Cockshott

haha no

not even the mild ones, like Venezuela who aren't even socialists

in my country there's a socdem party emerging

and they manipulate them accusing them of uspporting Venezuela, even a minimal reform, they start manipulating

a few nationalizations aren't socialism

I speak Spanish

I can get the sources

well, the CIA financed the opposition elections against the Socialist Party of Chile for example

And a lot more

The US has military bases all over the world

What are you @OF-8 to tell me the tolerance for leftism?

politicians have to follow the interests of the economy, otherwise they screw it up

the dictatorship of the capital

your tribe can't be free until world socialism

as it keeps the capitalist relations of production

capitalism isn't a model in a vacuum

it becomes distorted, the market distortion is a dynamic which is inevitable

only for copyrights, to reward or not reward the innovation, is enough to push for corporations

how do they have an interest in socialism when socialism would remove all their profits?

are you part of the bourgeoisie?

oh jews...

yes, tell me how removing the big capitalists (nazis say they're jews) would change the base of the economy

you have to change all or new big capitalists would emerge again

that is, with socialism

also criticism for market socialists

again the market distortion is present and it leads to a big enterprise sooner or later depending on the economy, business to big to fail

since there's no planning


aaah you believed the judeo-bolshevik-international-communist conspiracy of the nazis

it is

the economic theory of socialism has nothing to do with judaism

in fact, Marx say about religion that it is the opium of the people

and Hoxha achieved the first atheist state

removing Islam as possible, which was reactionary

against women rights

nazis were supported by capitalists like Henry Ford

islam isn't a branch of socialism

you didn't read marx

neither utopic socialists

I read about catholicism

ex catholic


I was educated in catholicism

but I guess there are different sects

and what has islam to do with marxism?

@OF-8 You're reading Marx from the enemies of socialism

if you're a worker they're putting an ideology against your own interests

Marx says that religion is the opium of the people, when people are in misery

They search for Gods

to comfort themselves

and not act

So Lenin in Marxism and religion says that we need to be patient for objective economic conditions, then I'll get away; but religion doesn't have to influence the party

The Constitution of the USSR allowed religion but not against the aims of socialism, against women rights, that is, against socialist and progressive values

there are easier books that aren't capital

that can be read in one day to understand it

You didn't read the "garbage"

And why do you say it is garbage, what's wrong?

Mein Kampf has pseudoscientific racism and mason conspiracy inside it

Marx discovered labour exploitation

forced freedom?

and why do you seizing the means of production is garbage

the nazis didn't do that

no, but from liberalism

private education is the problem, here public education is a treasure

you probably misunderstood marxism

you say the ideological underpinnings

what's the problem then?

No, Marx studied a lot, just check the biography

as well as Lenin, Stalin and others

they have plenty of volumes

rtfm, like mao

you're the lazy here

go read from what you don't know instead of believing the capitalist propaganda and bourgeois economy

we answered all your questions

principles of communism

then, the communist manifesto, and capital is the definitive one

liberals manipulate a lot about the labour theory of value

in the critique of gotha's programme he says that labour isn't the source of all value

the theory is 95% true from analysis of the marxist economist Paul Cockshott

Principles of communism is very short

that too

@OF-8 Are you a worker?

you sell your labour force to a capitalist right?

to a business owner?


do you have a business?

I agree Stalin and Mao are easy

Stalin wrote for the common people

But it's more to understand leninism

I just see in my family

There's a worker in my family working for someone else, a business owner

and he tries to win as much as possible, making that worker work as much as possible, with less salary as possible

this workers earns just a bit in form of salary

the other "value" goes for the business owner

in socialism we can plan this in a form that the workers receive what they work

wagecuck? like most workers


Do you think that all workers can have them?

That's distributism, an utopic doctrine

How is exploiting being exceptional?

capitalism is always distorted

yes, capitalists are a minority

no, capitalists are people who have other people working for them

and they profit from them

if I sell my shoe to someone face to face I don't have anyone working for me

Being capitalist or not doesn't depend on the belief of economic value

I didn't make the shoe, I bought it before

In that case I didn't have workers working for me

I just bought a shoe with my money

and then sold it


I'm putting a case in which I'm no capitalist

I just buy from a shop and sell the shoe

with no people working for me

I'm just trading

now, if I had an enterprise and I had workers doing the shoes; I'd profit and pay the workers a wage

in that case I'd be a capitalist

2,025 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/9 | Next