@Xinyue ```the only non-capitalist movements are socialist ones, because socialists are the only people who reject private ownership of means of production. therefore yours is not in any way a movement skeptical of capitalism, merely a more mixed form of it```


I would go with Socialism if it worked better, I'm not ideological when it comes to Economics, Capitalism isn't a high value where I derive all my other Politics from...

i miss all the discussions involving xinu every time :D

Interesting. In my view, the Economic and the Politics are irrevocably intertwined - politics is economy, and vice versa. So in my own ideological terms, I cannot separate the two - so for me communism, in both its economic and political dimension, becomes an existential choice in its own right.

And yea yea stormfag, I bet u do

😁

You say that because you're a Materialist, you see Socialism and Capitalism both as ideologies are Materialistic.. this is why I'm not ideological regarding either, i don't want to preserve a pure free market or try to work out Socialism for the sake of Socialism itself..
Economics to me is a means to a goal, not a goal in and of itself, economics is supposed to support a People, but when you get ideological about it, you just throw people at your favorite purest Ideology

well, Communism in the Marxian sense is *necessarily ontologically materialist,* whereas various other socialist and capitalist schools of thought *might be* such but aren't necessarily. But beyond that, the economy - in a sense - *is the people* and their activities in a very real and direct, intimate sense. Economy is the collection of the creative, productive and servicing activities of the whole people and in this respect economy can't be really separated from the notion of the People. So any ideological approach to the people must in the final analysis have a firm stance on economics.

I think there's far more to *a People* than Economics

and the stance on economics, while it can assume millions of forms, ultimately flow from the very foundational duality of whether or not

a) private ownership of means of production, *or*
b) social ownership of means of production

is pursued as primary. The group A of solutions define the right-wing, whereas the group B of solutions define the left-wing.

A Nation can be Richer whilst being comparatively Poor in terms of how much money and resources it has

well sure, I don't mean that you can *reduce* the People to the Economics, but that nevertheless the economics is directly, intimately and immediately connected to the being of the People

maybe, but i think you guys overemphasize it

well, you say that,

but we put great emphasis on economics because economics is the *creative, productive activity of men* and we view labour as an ontologically important, near-divine (though it would be perhaps inappropriate to use that term) attribute of man

that is sexist

bro

> sexist

kys

that is an interesting pov, i don't have the energy to think about it rn

i will later

got an exam tomorrow 😩😩😩

oh shit

december exam

should be illegal tbh

we always have it in December

should have in late november imo 😁

last exam, 24 December 👍

....dude woot 😄

Both commies and ancaps reduce all human interaction to market forces

....we literally don't

Entire manifesto was about how to one up the capitalist

@Xinyue do you think more the money/resources people have the better?

The entire theory of labor is that it equivalently translates into value

Which it doesn't

@AdorableStormtrooper I don't think it can be reduced like that. I think that the more resources people have (money I wouldn't even factor into this question, lets assume access to material resources as well as means of production), the better *chances* the people have to prosper. But there are other things that go into having good society such as virtue ethics, and Marxists have their own sense of virtue ethics - the proletarian virtue ethic which derives its value from creative, productive, socially useful labour at its most basic

> Entire manifesto was about how to one up the capitalist

if you have formed your view on communism/marxism based on the Manifesto alone, I'm afraid you have a lot more reading to do.

1) Capital (Marx, Engels)
2) Civil War in France (Marx, Engels)
3) Critique of the Gotha Programme (Marx)
4) Grundrisse (Marx)
5) Contribution to Critique of Political Economy (Marx)
6) German Ideology (Marx, Engels)
7) Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (Marx)
8) Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (Engels)
9) Anti-Dühring (Engels)
10) Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man (Engels)

here are just ten essential works of Marxism that go *well beyond* just the confines of "le gommunist manibesto" and are, arguably, more important - these by themselves are thousands of pages in total page count. And these aren't even the total sum of Engels' and Marx's works. Then beyond these await hundreds of works of Marxian philosophers since Marx and Engels.

Yes. Some liberties should be sacrificed if it's for the sake of the safety and security of the nation.

Also, hi