There is a spectrum haunting C-SPAM. I, on the contrary,

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > There is a spectrum haunting C-SPAM. I, on the contrary,

«‹›1217 »

Top City Homo: Oct 15, 2014; Ramrod XTreme

# ? Feb 27, 2016 23:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 00:51

Enjoy: Apr 18, 2009

Yeah black people were involved in liberation struggles. Problem?

# ? Feb 27, 2016 23:40

Top City Homo: Oct 15, 2014; Ramrod XTreme

Enjoy posted:

Yeah black people were involved in liberation struggles. Problem?

that's a chinaman in blackface

# ? Feb 27, 2016 23:48

Scrree: Jan 16, 2008; the history of all dead generations,

Top City Phrenologist

# ? Feb 27, 2016 23:59

Top City Homo: Oct 15, 2014; Ramrod XTreme

Scrree posted:

Top City Phrenologist

dude is straining to keep his eyes open so he super exaggerates

face is funny

# ? Feb 28, 2016 00:21

Peel: Dec 3, 2007

speaking of 社会主义好, does anyone defend the great leap forward. a change of pace from stalin.

Peel posted:

speaking of 社会主义好, does anyone defend the great leap forward. a change of pace from stalin.

you do know black people have more than one possible face right

impossibru

# ? Feb 28, 2016 01:10

Enjoy: Apr 18, 2009

goatse.cx posted:

I've been thinking, maybe the leninist vanguard party is just not suited for the kind of society we're in now. I mean in late tsarist russia where authority has basically crumbled and reactionary forces were getting ready to pounce it makes sense to have a small cadre of revolutionary shock troops with iron discipline to lead the working class radicalized by years of war. But in modern day west where most people are (too some degree) content with the arrangement and thinks 'radical=crazy', and where authority is strong and in control, the model seems hopeless and doomed to irrelevancy. Lenin's bolsheviks ballooned from a thousand people to a quarter million within a year by chanting 'bread, peace, and land for the farmers' while modern western communist parties remain microsects with 30 people and 10 of those are undercover FBI.

I just don't know, if there's a better marxist posting here please call me an opportunist piece of poo poo and tell me what alternative there is to collaborationism before the next crisis rolls around

I don't know how a non-vanguard party is ever going to be capable of breaking that though. Like obviously, absolutely zero of the socialist/communist parties today are anything more than glorified book clubs, but you can't expect anything else to trump the ability to project force. The alt-right is plenty crazy and violent, yet they're still here. They obviously get massive favors from the police, by virtue of not actually threatening the ruling class that much, so far right militant groups get as much surveillance as trot newspaper/student mills, but that's just the reality that's never going away, no matter how 'non-radical' you say you are (To put it another way - you don't get to define what the media will consider 'non-radical', the owners of the media will).

# ? Feb 28, 2016 09:40

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

rudatron posted:

Well there's certainly a valid argument about the 'meaning of words', and normally I'd be all on the side of purely descriptive w.r.t to use - if a word is used by the majority of people to mean one thing, but it historically meant something different, I'd go with the current meaning every time. Problem is, the word socialism only changed definition because of a political program meant to explicitly link welfare programs to a non-capitalist economies. The fact that this has kind of back-fired means I am in absolutely no rush to invent new words, or change definitions. I say keep using the word socialism, for strategic reasons. But of course it's important to talk to people in the ways they understand. Starting from a foundation of 'democratic economics' , labor creating value, I think these words translate the correct message.

Best part about this is since Americans have basically no connection to any kind of hard left politics starting Socialism from government run programs and mass collective action gives Americans a fresh slate to work with. You don't have the baggage of people thinking socialism can only be done one way and you completely bypass all the dumb anarchist/socialist/communist infighting that plagues the rest of the world.

I'm cool with it Capitalism changed what it was, Fascism is changing what it is (Trump) and well gotta keep up.

# ? Feb 28, 2016 10:23

crabcakes66: May 24, 2012; by exmarx

I don't think rebranding communism is going to work boys. If the underlying policy remains a childish fantasy you will probably not get far.

# ? Feb 28, 2016 10:36

Top City Homo: Oct 15, 2014; Ramrod XTreme

GunnerJ posted:

This communicates something very different now than what Haywood intended.

what does it communicate?

Also the writings of R.H. Tawney are really good.

He makes a great point that the power of religion can instill values inimical to greed and for social equality.

# ? Feb 28, 2016 16:58

HorseLord: Aug 26, 2014

Dreddout posted:

Marxist socialism essentially dead in the water

Non minority in first world country spotted

# ? Feb 28, 2016 17:29

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

GunnerJ posted:

Like, at this point, it's basically a Republican Party talking point against all welfare. Probably the most basic formulation of "lazy (probably black) moochers getting my money" idea.

That's why it has to be connected to the labor source of all wealth theory against capital

As long as wealth is connected to marginalist rhetoric labor is negotiating on terms intrinsically hostile to it

# ? Feb 28, 2016 18:50

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

HorseLord posted:

Non minority in first world country spotted

Truth hurts, doesnt it? From the beginning I have limited my query to the First world, because I have lived their most of my life. Whether you admit it or not Marxist ideology means gently caress all if Marxists can't spread their ideas in the First World. The first world has all the power, and if you can't convice the average first world non-minority prole that Marxism is in his best interest than all your fancy 20 dollar words mean nothing.

Also for what its worth I come from a Hispanic family, and your're frankly insulting me by assuming that my view on Modern Marxism means that I must be in some privileged group. My entire family is working class, and 4/5 of them will be voting for Bernie Sanders this coming Tuesday. Sanders has conviced us that he will serve our collective interests better than all other candidates currently running. If that makes us Reformists than so be it.

Dreddout fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Feb 28, 2016

# ? Feb 28, 2016 20:40

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO: May 8, 2006

Dreddout posted:

It seems to me that after decades of red scare propaganda, and Marxist socialism essentially dead in the water that socialism could do with a bit of a re-branding. Because the word socialism doesn't mean what it used to. If you are advocating for workers control of the means of production calling yourself a socialist doesn't register with Joe Sixpack. He will just think your after his guns and property. (Call it false consciousness if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Socialism has an image problem.)

People have been searching for 100 years for some sort of formula on messaging and organization that, if you only follow it, the working class will suddenly hear you. Unfortunately, I don't think that's really how politics works. Material circumstances have to be favorable; a seed won't grow unless it's in the right soil.

Since the 70s, the right wing was ascendant in the West for a variety of reasons. The welfare society (like the one Sanders advocates at the present time) was only ever a transitional state; it's not a sustainable political formation. It will always slide back into capitalism or forward into socialism. But the combination of political forces that have ruled the earth since then are coming apart at the seams; the viability of Sanders and the ascendancy of Trump is a sure sign of this disintegration.

So why not sit back and relax so "when the Revolution comes, we'll be round the pub?" Unfortunately there are other political formations that will try to exploit the senescence of capitalism. Trump represents what you might describe as the NeoRX take on fascism, presented for public consumption through the gloss of reality television and pro wrestling. His biggest constituency is people who recognize and affirm that they benefit from racial hierarchies and want nothing more than to enshrine ethnonationalism into law - as a way to protect themselves from capitalist muppets like Rubio, Cruz, and Bush. So unfortunately, socialism isn't inevitable, but it can contend with barbarism and so we owe it to ourselves to keep trying.

# ? Feb 28, 2016 21:33

Dreddout: Oct 1, 2015; You must stay drunk on writing so reality cannot destroy you.

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:

People have been searching for 100 years for some sort of formula on messaging and organization that, if you only follow it, the working class will suddenly hear you. Unfortunately, I don't think that's really how politics works. Material circumstances have to be favorable; a seed won't grow unless it's in the right soil.

I agree with this line of reasoning completely.

quote:

The welfare society (like the one Sanders advocates at the present time) was only ever a transitional state; it's not a sustainable political formation.It will always slide back into capitalism or forward into socialism.

I have heard this line of reasoning a lot, but you are going to have to back this idea up for me. What makes a welfare state unsustainable? Ultimately all societies will eventually fall apart. So what makes Social Democracy more volatile in the short term? Please try to explain using language a non marxist would understand.

quote:

But the combination of political forces that have ruled the earth since then are coming apart at the seams;the viability of Sanders and the ascendancy of Trump is a sure sign of this disintegration.

Again, the burden of proof lies on you. From my (admittedly narrow) point of view the Status Quo [The status quo being modern capitalism of any flavor.] seems pretty stable, and I wouldn't be suprised if neither Fascism or Socialism arise from this political turmoil.

# ? Feb 28, 2016 22:33

Dreddout: Oct 1, 2015; You must stay drunk on writing so reality cannot destroy you.

crabcakes66 posted:

I don't think rebranding communism is going to work boys. If the underlying policy remains a childish fantasy you will probably not get far.

How is democratic control of the means of production a childish fantasy?

# ? Feb 28, 2016 22:38

Baku: Aug 20, 2005; by Fluffdaddy

I wouldn't have used the word "childish", but given that the United States is on the verge of electing Donald Trump, a lifelong member of the elite and reality television star with no meaningful political experience whose last name is virtually synonymous in our culture with opulence, greed, and capitalist excess, to our highest executive office - and that the most consistent and concrete part of his platform is vowing to do something about the tide of unskilled migrant workers who are apparently the real reason Americans are broke, in debt, and underemployed - I understand why someone might call it a "fantasy".

# ? Feb 28, 2016 23:56

goatse.cx: Nov 21, 2013

Dreddout posted:

I have heard this line of reasoning a lot, but you are going to have to back this idea up for me. What makes a welfare state unsustainable? Ultimately all societies will eventually fall apart. So what makes Social Democracy more volatile in the short term? Please try to explain using language a non marxist would understand.

Pretty much all post-war social democracies have been dismantled (US, Britain) or are in the process of being dismantled (Scandinavia). If you're asking why then the standard Marxist answer is that a reformist capitalist system leaves ownership to the means of production, the real instrument of power, in capitalists' hand, who will then only have to wait for the working class to become demobilized to leverage their money and resources against the welfare state system.

Third-worldist marxists also object to social democracy because it is only sustainable through expropriating surplus value from third world countries, the value which is then partly redistributed to first world workers as welfare and cheap goods, though I'm not well-read in this line of thinking.

goatse.cx fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Feb 29, 2016

# ? Feb 29, 2016 01:30

Dreddout: Oct 1, 2015; You must stay drunk on writing so reality cannot destroy you.

goatse.cx posted:

Pretty much all post-war social democracies have been dismantled (US, Britain) or are in the process of being dismantled (Scandinavia). If you're asking why then the standard Marxist answer is that a reformist capitalist system leaves ownership to the means of production, the real instrument of power, in capitalists' hand, who will then only have to wait for the working class to become demobilized to leverage their money and resources against the welfare state system.

Third-worldist marxists also object to social democracy because it is only sustainable through expropriating surplus value from third world countries, the value which is then partly redistributed to first world workers as welfare and cheap goods, though I'm not well-read in this line of thinking.

And what does Socialism offer me, a first world worker, in return? Because you can also say that all actually existing socialisms have failed their stated goal of communism (USSR, PRC, DPRK) much less actually achieving a socialist society. Or they are in dire straights of being destroyed by outside influence. (EZLN, YPG)

As a Utilitarian I couldn't care less if my boss is a Technocratic Corporate Overlord, or a Democratic Syndicate Foreman. If the Overlord provides me with a stable, secure high standard of living than gently caress it! If my loved ones are secure healthy and happy then I am content with my lot in life. I'm not going to risk house and home for a revolution that, historicaly, hasn't worked out well for people like me!

In this world might makes right, and all the talk of liberty, equality, fraternity goes out the window if you can't protect those ideas.

So why shouldn't I go with the capitalist who will give me the best deal, instead of the socialist who will sell me a pipe dream in the form of merchandise?

# ? Feb 29, 2016 03:21

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

I think that kind of skepticism is healthy, as is the purely utilitarian outlook. There's a lot of real free-market fundamentalist types that will harp on about how welfare is bad, because capitalism is inherently ethical. So if you starve under a free market, you deserved to starve or whatever. I've got little sympathy for that kind of thinking, results matter. Nor can past failures simply be ignored, to do otherwise shows a lack of critical thinking. I do not believe, however, that past failures necessarily indict all kinds of centrally planned economies, and I think there's a lot of variations that can be tried and improved upon. There was a very real fundamental lack of accountability in the soviet model, so obviously that kind of thing is essential. Starting from the foundation of democratic control, and going from there, will obviously create a categorically different type of planned economy, that should at least be tried.

Now, as with all change, there's risk involved. There is, however, something to note. Inequality is getting worse. The lives of people like you have decreased in standard of living, and there's no sign of that slowing. We're also approaching a number of crisis points, in terms of things like climate change, that give lie to the idea that the free market solves all (it in fact has a terrible problem when it comes to anything that invovles the commons, which are incredibly important - we need clean air to breath, after all). This isn't because the corporatist overlords are Evil People, it's just what the system has a tendency to do. Eventually, pipe dreams are going to look a lot more 'realistic', as it the actual-economic-reality becomes increasingly broken, and more obviously so. It's at these points that a revolution occurs. That doesn't mean its pointless to fight for reform, it's what you should always do anyway, but don't rule out everything else yet.

# ? Feb 29, 2016 08:13

Jewel Repetition: Dec 24, 2012; Ask me about Briar Rose and Chicken Chaser.

What does welfare even have to do with whether a market is free or not

# ? Feb 29, 2016 08:20

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

It's a 'perversion' of the purely capitalist exchange, it's funded by taxes and therefore bad and statist, it keeps 'lazy' people alive, it's one more step on the road to serfdom because you're not an alienated individual but part of a community, take your pick.

# ? Feb 29, 2016 08:26

Dreddout: Oct 1, 2015; You must stay drunk on writing so reality cannot destroy you.

First off, thanks for being civil. My tone came off as a bit argumentative, but keep in mind that I care about this topic. Or else I wouldn't have bothered.

rudatron posted:

I think that kind of skepticism is healthy, as is the purely utilitarian outlook. There's a lot of real free-market fundamentalist types that will harp on about how welfare is bad, because capitalism is inherently ethical. So if you starve under a free market, you deserved to starve or whatever. I've got little sympathy for that kind of thinking, results matter.

Agreed.

quote:

Nor can past failures simply be ignored, to do otherwise shows a lack of critical thinking. I do not believe, however, that past failures necessarily indict all kinds of centrally planned economies, and I think there's a lot of variations that can be tried and improved upon. There was a very real fundamental lack of accountability in the soviet model, so obviously that kind of thing is essential. Starting from the foundation of democratic control, and going from there, will obviously create a categorically different type of planned economy, that should at least be tried.

I can see the reason behind this line of thinking, and I would honestly not hate living in a planned economy that worked as intended. However you seem to be a bit too focused on the classical view of socialism as a centralized plan economy. What about Mutualism and Market Socialism? If we define Socialism as democratic control of the means of production then we do not have to limit ourselves to relying on the central planning model. In fact my ideal economy is mixed. With government controlling the sectors that have proven to work best under them, and a market sector run by co-ops and small businesses. With the understanding that individual business's would be beholden to public good, and control to prevent them from growing to large. I concede that I am biased as I have reservations against centrally planned society, and disdain for Laissez-faire economics.

quote:

Now, as with all change, there's risk involved. There is, however, something to note. Inequality is getting worse. The lives of people like you have decreased in standard of living, and there's no sign of that slowing. We're also approaching a number of crisis points, in terms of things like climate change, that give lie to the idea that the free market solves all (it in fact has a terrible problem when it comes to anything that invovles the commons, which are incredibly important - we need clean air to breath, after all). This isn't because the corporatist overlords are Evil People, it's just what the system has a tendency to do. Eventually, pipe dreams are going to look a lot more 'realistic', as it the actual-economic-reality becomes increasingly broken, and more obviously so. It's at these points that a revolution occurs. That doesn't mean its pointless to fight for reform, it's what you should always do anyway, but don't rule out everything else yet.

This argument is what makes me consider Socialism. Understand that I am only human, and my loyalty lies with my family and friends, not some political ideology. Ensuring their well being and happiness is my primary concern, this is why all the talk of revolution scares me, and why I would prefer any change to be as peaceful and smooth as possible.

# ? Feb 29, 2016 09:00

Wheeee: Mar 11, 2001; When a tree grows, it is soft and pliable. But when it's dry and hard, it dies.

Hardness and strength are death's companions. Flexibility and softness are the embodiment of life.

That which has become hard shall not triumph.

Whole lot of people don't get that Capitalism has become as much a religion as an abstract economic system and that it will not be brought down by anything so pedestrian as education

# ? Feb 29, 2016 09:09

goatse.cx: Nov 21, 2013

Rudatron put it much better than I could but I will also add that the marxist argument for the need for socialism is very much rooted in the self-interest of the working class, not highfalutin principles or preachy moralism.

# ? Feb 29, 2016 09:09

Dreddout: Oct 1, 2015; You must stay drunk on writing so reality cannot destroy you.

Wheeee posted:

Whole lot of people don't get that Capitalism has become as much a religion as an abstract economic system and that it will not be brought down by anything so pedestrian as education

I know that it's troubling when the snake oil salesman believes their own lies, but couldn't the same be said of Socialism? At the end of the day we are still Savannah apes, we just lucked out and had enough brain power to get to where we are today. So I am hesitant to pathologist capitalists with a smug dismissal of "Well you just don't understand how the world works. :smugbert:

".

I'm not trying to dismiss your point, but you can say that all human ideology is hooting at tribal fetishes. Neither you or me are exempt from this.

goatse.cx posted:

Rudatron put it much better than I could but I will also add that the marxist argument for the need for socialism is very much rooted in the self-interest of the working class, not highfalutin principles or preachy moralism.

I am aware of this, but you need to realize that much of the modern First world Marxist movement is confined in Universities, something that won't endear you to much of the working class. Especially when you have abrasive assholes like horselord prepared to die on hills that frankly don't matter.

# ? Feb 29, 2016 09:28

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Well I care about this topic too, so that's something we have in common. My issues with market socialism is that it retains production-for-exchange (which is necessary for a market), which means its going to be perpetuating many of the same problems, like the disregard of the commons. Any production-for-exchange involves compensation for that exchange (directly tied to that exchange), the externalization of as much cost as possible, and discrete 'firms' incentivized to maximize their exchange-potential, however that is accounted. That is to say, market socialism retains private ownership of the means of production, and cannot be regarded as socialism. Since I'm skeptical of anarchism and anarchist arguments in general, this means I regard a planned economy as a necessity for socialism.

I disagree with others that Marxism doesn't have a moral component - Marx may have said it does not, but he lied. Even if you agree with his theory, there's no reason to not then argue that humans should go back to feudalism, or whatever, unless you see it as part of a project of human history, with specific goals. Certainly, there's a lot of intersection with 'self-interest' - were the whites fighting for slavery not acting in their 'self-interest'? Isn't false consciousness a kind of self-interested stance? It is, the trick is that the issue of 'morality' is hidden in what is considered part of the 'proper' or 'true' community. So if we're being honest about this, internationalism is a moral stance. It's the right moral stance, and one that I'll fight for, but it is what it is.

Which is were we come to your the question of where your loyalty lies. I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here, in fairly strong terms. You're in the majority, I know, both historically and currently, but my loyalty does not lie with my tribe, whatever that is, but with humanity. What you feel is 'natural' and expected, but not something I think is good. I'm not trying to moralize to you here, it's just something I find depressing. From your standpoint, your fear of revolution is somewhat justified, but fears and hopes do not a future make, unfortunately. I think something is inevitable, I just want it to look like something good & hopeful, not ugly and full of hate. At some point, you might have to make a choice. If not you, then your descendants.

# ? Feb 29, 2016 09:48

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

You obviously also have a point about tribalism/confirmation bias, and that's especially true for anyone who is ideological. Most people aren't ideological, like yourself, but when you have an ideology, any, it kind of reorders the world into how you want it to look. The past becomes this museum-esque set of exhibits, leading to the current day, and then a mysterious jump into ~the wonderful world of the future~. So when people talk about horseshoe theory, this is what they're referring to, but the implication that that necessitates some kind of ideological similarity isn't true. It's just that the personality that leads someone to becoming strongly ideological exists across the spectrum.

edit: So I guess I should mention that I myself am strongly ideological, for the sake of full disclosure, so take that as you will. The thing you need to remember though, is that anyone promising you anything who says they're not ideological, is lying through their teeth. Anyone with a 'mission' is absolutely nothing like you, and any attempt to convince you otherwise is 100% acting, because if you're not ideological, you're just not interested in politics.

The usual way this is framed is 'well most people are just lazy/don't they know a real democracy needs politically aware citizens?!', but I'm not terribly convinced that's anything but elitist trash, or whether or not the ideologically committed are 'better' people than anyone else. Maybe it's a kind of psychosis, and the 'politically-ignorant' are the mentally healthy. I don't know.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Feb 29, 2016

# ? Feb 29, 2016 12:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 00:51

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO: May 8, 2006

Dreddout posted:

And what does Socialism offer me, a first world worker, in return? Because you can also say that all actually existing socialisms have failed their stated goal of communism (USSR, PRC, DPRK) much less actually achieving a socialist society. Or they are in dire straights of being destroyed by outside influence. (EZLN, YPG)

As a Utilitarian I couldn't care less if my boss is a Technocratic Corporate Overlord, or a Democratic Syndicate Foreman. If the Overlord provides me with a stable, secure high standard of living than gently caress it! If my loved ones are secure healthy and happy then I am content with my lot in life. I'm not going to risk house and home for a revolution that, historicaly, hasn't worked out well for people like me!

In this world might makes right, and all the talk of liberty, equality, fraternity goes out the window if you can't protect those ideas.

So why shouldn't I go with the capitalist who will give me the best deal, instead of the socialist who will sell me a pipe dream in the form of merchandise?

Basically, the capitalist cannot give you the best deal. Hard to believe, maybe! But it's absolutely true. Capitalism, economically, tends inevitably towards crisis, disaster, and impoverishment for the vast majority. In fact, the conditions predicted by Marx keep coming true, and even mainstream, non-Marxist economists like Krugman and Piketty are constantly coming to the same conclusions on an independent basis. While those mainstream economists are able to effectively diagnose a problem (stagnating or falling standards of living in the face of enormous prosperity), their solutions fall far short.

But I would absolutely dispute the idea that you, unless you are a very lucky person, actually have a standard of living that is both high and stable. I don't know anything about you! But I suspect that your personal economic situation is actually quite precarious - dominated by debt, fear of unemployment, healthcare/housing costs, etc. You'd have to be quite a rare individual to not have to worry about such things a little more every day.

# ? Feb 29, 2016 15:32

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > There is a spectrum haunting C-SPAM. I, on the contrary,

«‹›1217 »

Enjoy posted:

Scrree posted:

Top City Homo posted:

Peel posted:

Top City Homo posted:

goatse.cx posted:

Top City Homo posted:

rudatron posted:

GunnerJ posted:

Dreddout posted:

Top City Homo posted:

GunnerJ posted:

Top City Homo posted:

HorseLord posted:

Dreddout posted:

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:

quote:

quote:

crabcakes66 posted:

Dreddout posted:

goatse.cx posted:

rudatron posted:

quote:

quote:

Wheeee posted:

goatse.cx posted:

Dreddout posted: