Hello

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

http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/308/2/20101200_cockshott_nitzan_bichler_testing_the_ltv_exchange_web.htm

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 https://monthlyreview.org/2015/12/01/marxism-and-ecology/

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

http://revolutionarysocialism.tumblr.com/post/58187691338/what-is-intersectionality

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

https://libcom.org/library/i-am-woman-human-marxist-feminist-critique-intersectionality-theory-eve-mitchell

How a society would be like, the problems of Mises and Hayek solved, here: http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf 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

*kisses*

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

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/o.htm

No

Other person would do otherwise

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

yes

but there are labour aristocracy analysis, and maoist third worldists

@★ Commissar Regi ★ http://www.siliconafrica.com/france-colonial-tax/

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

(Mao)

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

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol01/no04/marx.htm

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

Also, who asked before... George Lucas or Gyorgy Lukacs? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lucas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gy%C3%B6rgy_Luk%C3%A1cs

Why?

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