Yeah and in actual fact the markets didn't ever really recover from 2008

not in any substantial way

mhm

The Neoliberal age draws near to its end, but its unclear what emerges from the other side of the capitalist paradigm. There are a few possibilities and most of them are not pleasant

Yeah

Unless the Neoliberals try to double down and go full 1984

Well that is one possibility. I think that, if things continue as they do, the capitalist class will eventually have sufficient degree of automation and AI to provide them with self-sufficiency in production and industry, meaning that they will largely become independent of society at large and society at large (that is, including the state) become completely dependent on them.

In this case the capitalist himself dissolves capitalism, and becomes almost a new feudal lord in this techno-feudal dystopia that would emerge on the basis of the current productive relations and their clash with emerging technologies.

yep

then the ex neoliberals, now economic serfs can have their v for vendetta

Time to start working on those homemade EMP Grenades <:lol:521377935672737792>

This is the reason why there's no future without socialism. You need socialism as instrumental part of whatever future paradigm you choose. Now, there's very broad scope of socialist options available, but you *need* joint ownership of the means of production at the direction of the whole people as a *necessary ingredient* in any worthwhile future society plan.

nah

Its also the ongoing technological shift which provides Marxians and the communists the necessary tools to win this century. It will be hard but the case is very easily presentable. Lamentably enough our window of opportunity was really 20th century, that was the golden moment with USSR and all.

>why did stalin have to die, he was about to achieve global communism

Eh, the hope was lost in 1980s

not when Stalin died

What about Fascism? Communism isn't really appealing to the right wing

Fascism is wholly insufficient in addressing any of the pressing needs that must be addressed. Only Socialism or Communism, *by the virtue of how society is fundamentally organised in these systems,* can address the problems of our time.

tbh I'd rather kym before advocating for collectivising the means of production. it's like asking more deaths and more suffering

Right, and how do you get communism to appeal to the right wing?

Whether you like it or not most right wingers will take Fascism or Communism if they're forced to make a choice

and communism is really bad at dealing with the neoliberal countries, expect no trade unless you go the route of China capitalist strategy

The reason for why this is, is that Fascism fundamentally does not address the Control Problem - who controls the means of production? The State, which imposes itself upon the people, is the fascist's answer. The answer of the Socialist and the Communist is the People, who impose themselves upon the State via the framework of public self-government and Proletarian Republic.

fascism is fine with the private individual controling some means of production and the individual is part of the people

National Syndicalism exists

It becomes blatantly obvious to all that the framework of workers' councils which manage all aspects of production and distribution in accordance to the Union-wide plan is, in fact, the superior way to organise the economy in the benefit of the People, of which corporatism is just a pale and embarrassing imitation without its empowering and democratic content.

you're just creating another bourgeoisie with unions

this is what I don't get

There's no bourgeoisie - no class employing others in service of their own profit, with the sub-class deprived control of the means of production. To use that term to describe socialism and communism means you don't understand class.

u just say that but obviously there is

There in actual fact is not

the unions decide what happens with regular peasantry

The unions? Peasantry? No, in socialism and communism, everyone's a worker. Nobody is a capitalist; all own the means of production together in which the central administration is the democratic facilitator.

I've read Fascist literature, I've read of Mosley, Mussolini and Falangists

all of them are unimpressive, none of them have the interest of the people at heart. Mosley comes across as the person who cares about the people the most, but even he falls short

because ur criteria for "caring" is absurd, it's to give them the means of production. to really care is to hand over the material

The fascists *claim* they love their "people" but this love is nothing but a pretense for power, there's nothing behind it. They don't want to empower their "volk" even so much as to trust them the means of production for national self-determination. Its bizarre to be honest.

And people fall for it in droves

Boggles the mind to be honest

At most there's this bizarre vague, undefinable dream of the nation "being together", which is a lot of oratorial wankery that gives the impression its talking about something meaningful while in reality its the same shit repackaged in new form and language.

Its like "Stronger Together", but with totalitarianism lmao