Hey

@battlegoth5 <#587115763106840576>

Now that's just disrespectful

I think Communism is a horrible system that's only aim is to mix together all the people under it's control, and to destroy the enemy of the Jews. If I were Lenin, Stalin or any other (likely Jewish) Communist leader, I would dismantle it all. I also think it is obvious that Communism is on the rise again, even tho it's the most shittiest kind of Communism, but I remain calm in the fact that when Communism rises, so does Fascism and National Socialism.

That made me hard.

lol

The problem with communism is materialist conception of history as class struggle, it’s reduction of man to just an economic status and the fact that throughout history all it has done is destroy cultures in the same way capitalism does. Communism is not the correct alternative to communism because it does not correct the primary disfunction of capitalism, it’s materialism.

@WΣIRD NΣTWØRK ϟϟ communism is not “on the rise” that’s ridiculous. China is the furthest thing from communism, and most of the “communists” today especially in the US are just liberals dressing up in red. The few that actually are communist are more worried about not misgendering each other than actually starting a working class revolution and aren’t taken seriously by the majority of the working class. The threat is global capitalism and neo-liberalism. Stop buying into old Cold War propaganda

Yes, but you're not seeing the threats on rise. US Liberals are the new Communists, as well as Antifa and all the other Ancoms. The threat isn't their ability to actually organize anything serious, it's the fact of their rampant violence against any who even slightly disagree with them. I agree the global capitalism and neo-liberalism are both threats, but I believe that they are possibly even threats to modern Communism.

US liberals are not "the new communists." America as a country is literally built of liberalism and the values it espouses. Either you misunderstand what communism is or you misunderstand what liberalism is. "Antifa and all other Ancoms" are again, not taken seriously by the majority of the working class, literally the people they are trying to appeal to. As well as this all they end up doing in reality is re-enforcing the status quo. They are incapable of brining real fundamental change

We are no longer in the cold war. You need to understand this if you want to evoke actual change and rid the world of materialist disease and the systems that stem from it

Reminder that the American Antifa branch occupied the New York subway yesterday to make public transport free and to suspend cops from the subways

antifa is racist

Anybody who calls himself a socialist in the United States is most likely what Sorel called parliamentary socialist

Ie a libtard soc dem or anarchist sperg

I have more respect for state socialist however their ideology is a complete paradox. They take the position of Marx which is based on individualistic ontology like liberalism because it argues the individual is pre-existing state and the point of the theory is to destroy the state internationally because it holds “capitalist relations”. Obviously putting communes or worker councils with state oversight means the state bureaucrats are going to eventually run the economic sector and then you end up with something like modern China a corporate technocratic system, which is insanely superior to liberal free markets.

The fundamental problem with socialism in its current form is liberal ontology. If you get rid of liberal ontology and materialism you will end up with something more analogous to mercantilism or Guilds.

Possession is the act of possessing. Property is the act of ownership as recognized by law.

Law is administered and is a function of a judiciary and legal system maintained by a political organisation. Custom is collectively acknowledged conduct in accordance with authority (implicitly or explicitly.)

But why would these concepts be conflated so much by all modern political theory from the 1600s to the present? Again, Hodgson notes the connection between such opposites as Marx and Mises on page 105 and page 106:

“Consider the Austrian school economist Ludwig Von Mises. He argued that legal concepts could be largely relegated from economics and sociology…

Hence for Von Mises, ownership was natural and ahistorical rather than legal or institutional. A physical rather than a social relationship, it was deemed independent of law or any other social institution. Von Mises downgraded the institutions required for the protection and enforcement of the capacity to have and neglected the social aspects of ownership and consumption, which may signal identity, power, or status. Contrary to Mises, the law does not simply add a normative justification for having something: it also reinforces the de facto ability to use and hold onto the asset.

The resemblance to Marx’s dismissal of law is uncanny: both Marx and Von Mises concentrated on raw physical power over objects rather than legal rights. Marx’s numerous discussions of “property” had little to say about legal rights, and he conflated property with possession. Hence Marx (1975,351) in 1844 addressed ” private property” and argued that “an object is only ours when we have it-…when we directly possess, eat, drink, wear, inhabit it, etc.,-in short, when we use it.” With both Marx and Von Mises, effective power over something is conflated with a de facto right. Legal and moral aspects of property are overshadowed.”

Of course they both would. They are both trying to define away the state in the issue of property. This is the key issue. All modern theory is fundamentally anarchist, it just varies in how delusional it is on this point.If all property is really possession, then we have to try to explain how and why people stay together – Hobbes. At which point the state is really a kind of alien entity which is called in as an umpire, or a stationary bandit that enforces these peer to peer agreements between property holders/ possession holders. When the likes of Adam Smith then talk about governance and sovereignty whilst holding the labor theory of value, he makes no sense. No one does.

Just one of the small things I’m willing to explain that shows that Marxism is literally just another formation of liberal autism

@Eno @WΣIRD NΣTWØRK ϟϟ @Small Man @Jamin @Koninos

Lennon and McCartney are better for the world than Lenin & Stalin. There was another prominent member of the red October. He fled to Mexico, was gunned down there... Anyone remember his name?

Trotsky

@Zoltanous State Socialism ❤️

**QOTD 🔖 **
*Has the neoliberal revolution in the 70s and 80s helped or hurt us?*

@everyone

Both

Kinda fucked us on a few big things

Hurt

No debate

I think it was kinda like pissing on the corpse at that point.

But at the same time

Hurt

It did lead to a situation where nationalism is on the rise

Eh

The only reason nationalism is on the rise is because neoliberalism shredded the coherent nation-state

More like

kys