|
majorian here with the extremely enlightened "everything was stalin, even when it wasn't and couldn't have been" line of reasoning peasant fitted up by a corrupt police official? stalin longtime family friend mistakenly arrested and personally rescued by stalin when he found out? stalin collectivisation implemented badly in a village 500 miles away from moscow, with no method of communication taking less than a month between them? stalin tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it? stalin
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 13:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
HorseLord posted:longtime family friend mistakenly arrested and personally rescued by stalin when he found out? stalin uh yeah obviously??
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:majorian here with the extremely enlightened "everything was stalin, even when it wasn't and couldn't have been" line of reasoning His signatures are literally on the death warrants, this is not an winnable fight for u dog
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:majorian here with the extremely enlightened "everything was stalin, even when it wasn't and couldn't have been" line of reasoning nah, i actually said it was one factor among multiple ones. you're very bad at reading.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:majorian here with the extremely enlightened "everything was stalin, even when it wasn't and couldn't have been" line of reasoning This is a list of people to be executed in 1937 or so  Stalin's signature is the topmost one Comrade horselord had a very good chance of being on this list if he lived in 1930s ussr
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:Al: i think the moon is actually a paper plate and the night sky is a big sheet of plywood with lights in
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
no longer content with an alternate and more convenient version of history, the stalinists now create alternate and more convenient versions of their critics
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:no longer content with an alternate and more convenient version of history, the stalinists now create alternate and more convenient versions of their critics Pot/kettle
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
i'm sorry, but can't we all agree that capitalism is wrong??!?!?!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
Mayor Dave posted:i'm sorry, but can't we all agree that capitalism is wrong??!?!?! Define your terms. Capitalism means what, a laissez faire system? Any market/non-command economy whatsoever? Something in between?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
Private, commodified ownership of the means of production. It's not that hard to define, my friend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
I wonder what this thread about a Marxist-Leninist party thinks capitalism is defined as?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 11:03
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I wonder what this thread about a Marxist-Leninist party thinks capitalism is defined as? Marxism? What the heck does that mean? I thought this thread was about Chico, Harpo, and Groucho.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:collectivisation implemented badly in a village There are no good implementations of collectivisation, comerade. Otherwise, I shall be requiring all of your assets, for the public good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
OWLS! posted:There are no good implementations of collectivisation, comerade. There are lots of state industries that function effectively and even more efficiently than in the private sector, like hospitals in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
OWLS! posted:There are no good implementations of collectivisation, comerade. going around saying "the Bolsheviks are going to collectivise your wives and make everybody in the village share one giant blanket" didn't work in 1930 and it won't work in 2016
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Blankets are a bourgeois affectation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Private, commodified ownership of the means of production. It's not that hard to define, my friend. You're missing my point, which is that the commonly-held definition of "capitalism" in the West is "not Communism" - and that's kind of where the definition ends. That's why "we can't all agree that capitalism is bad." ("we" meaning folks in the U.S., Western Europe, etc)
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:going around saying "the Bolsheviks are going to collectivise your wives and make everybody in the village share one giant blanket" didn't work in 1930 It didn't? Seems to me that it scared a few generations of Westerners away from anything that could be broadly described as "socialism" pretty effectively.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You're missing my point, which is that the commonly-held definition of "capitalism" in the West is "not Communism" - and that's kind of where the definition ends. That's why "we can't all agree that capitalism is bad." ("we" meaning folks in the U.S., Western Europe, etc) wow majorian are you trying to tell me that everybody in "the U.S., western Europe etc." does not in fact agree that capitalism is wrong??
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I wonder what this thread about a Marxist-Leninist party thinks capitalism is defined as? How does the party view hybrid systems like China and Vietnam, with private ownership existing in parallel with state and worker ownership? Are these capitalist countries? Or is there some threshold of private ownership that distinguishes them from European social democracies with large state sectors in transportation and human services?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:How does the party view hybrid systems like China and Vietnam, with private ownership existing in parallel with state and worker ownership? Are these capitalist countries? Or is there some threshold of private ownership that distinguishes them from European social democracies with large state sectors in transportation and human services? They are state capitalist countries, yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:How does the party view hybrid systems like China and Vietnam, with private ownership existing in parallel with state and worker ownership? Are these capitalist countries? Or is there some threshold of private ownership that distinguishes them from European social democracies with large state sectors in transportation and human services? I'm not aware of any party line on China and Vietnam, since that's not really what the PSL cares about as an American political party. IMO China and Vietnam are much more thoroughly mixed economies than the typical European social democracy. It's not enough to just control infrastructure and a social safety net - the commanding heights of the economy like heavy industries also need to be owned and controlled by workers or the state. The percentage of the public sector as a share of the economy isn't as relevant as how the economy as a whole is structured.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Bryter posted:wow majorian are you trying to tell me that everybody in "the U.S., western Europe etc." does not in fact agree that capitalism is wrong?? More that your terminology doesn't match with theirs, which is part of why the going assumption is that capitalism is not wrong. Marxists need to update their language a bit. e: or, more accurately, make it precise. "Capitalism" today isn't the same thing as it was in the 19th century, and Marxists do themselves a disservice by not updating their lexicon. Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Majorian posted:More that your terminology doesn't match with theirs, which is part of why the going assumption is that capitalism is not wrong. Marxists need to update their language a bit. is your purpose in this thread to repeat every bad take ever made by people who don't understand marxism or something
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:is your purpose in this thread to repeat every bad take ever made by people who don't understand marxism or something well, we can't all have arguments as convincing as "stalin didn't actually kill that many people  "
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Majorian posted:More that your terminology doesn't match with theirs, which is part of why the going assumption is that capitalism is not wrong. Marxists need to update their language a bit. Really, it looks to me like you're just desperate to accuse Marxists of something, you feel there's something wrong, and gosh darn it if you aren't going to just make up excuses, to rationalize that feeling you already have!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
rudatron posted:What? Marxist terminology is very precise, and 'Capitalism' as it exists now may be different than the 'Capitalism' in the 19 Century, but they are both still 'Capitalism', ie not socialism or feudalism. In fact, there are a lot of similarities with the capitalism today and the capitalism of the 19 Century, the real differences being stuff like central banks and some rather more elaborate finance mechanics - but fundamentally they're quite similar. Someone asked why people couldn't all agree that capitalism is bad. I was explaining one of the reasons why. The major difference between 19th century interpretations of capitalism, and 21st century ones, is that there was a long Cold War in the intervening century. One in which the lines were crudely drawn between the "Capitalist" side, and the "Communist" side. During that period, the definition of "Capitalist" was broadened to encompass pretty much everybody who wasn't in the Warsaw Pact or China. We're still living under those oversimplified definitions today, to some extent: in the West, "capitalist" doesn't mean "private ownership of the means of production"; it means "not Communist," full stop. That's a big part of why there's not as much agreement as we'd like that capitalism is bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
OWLS! posted:There are no good implementations of collectivisation, comerade. part 2 of your post is very dumb but part 1 is straight up ahistorical and wrong. collectivization in the eastern bloc countries, the ddr and the dprk after their respective wars went very smoothly
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:We're still living under those oversimplified definitions today, to some extent: in the West, "capitalist" doesn't mean "private ownership of the means of production"; it means "not Communist," full stop. That's a big part of why there's not as much agreement as we'd like that capitalism is bad. literally nobody thinks this but you and other morons like you
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:literally nobody thinks this but you and other morons like you  you should try getting out more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:We're still living under those oversimplified definitions today, to some extent: in the West, "capitalist" doesn't mean "private ownership of the means of production"; it means "not Communist," full stop. That's a big part of why there's not as much agreement as we'd like that capitalism is bad. Was ancient rome capitalist then?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
"marxist conception of capitalism is wrong because, like, everything is capitalist maaaaaaan"
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
resar posted:Was ancient rome capitalist then? From my perspective, no. From a lot of Americans' perspective, probably. HorseLord posted:"marxist conception of capitalism is wrong because, like, everything is capitalist maaaaaaan" A lot of people think so, yeah. They're wrong, but they're the people you need to convince that "capitalist" means more than just "not a dirty Kremlin-sympathizing Red" or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
resar posted:Was ancient rome capitalist then? I dunno, but I would love if our currency had an rear end conversion rate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:"marxist conception of capitalism is wrong because, like, everything is capitalist maaaaaaan" The real capitalism was in our hearts all along. Majorian posted:From my perspective, no. From a lot of Americans' perspective, probably. So most americans are idiots?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
resar posted:So most americans are idiots? Do I even have to answer that question?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:part 2 of your post is very dumb but part 1 is straight up ahistorical and wrong. collectivization in the eastern bloc countries, the ddr and the dprk after their respective wars went very smoothly Bro Dad fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:Yeah nothing says success like East Germany and North Korea east germany did better economically than the UK for quite a while, shoutout to english slum clearance programs lasting until the 21st century
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
Basically Majorian, you're wasting all of our time by feigning concern for what the ignorant plebe believes capitalism is, in a thread about the PSL. This thread isn't a propaganda outlet, or an official party mouthpiece - it's the de facto socialist and communist thread in C-SPAM. Asking what the meaning of capitalism is - is the least interesting and productive discussion we could possibly have, and that's after dozens of pages of dumb libs recycling the same three jokes about communism over and over again. Do a lot of people think "capitalism" means any system that uses money? Well that's dumb and wrong, who the gently caress cares? This thread isn't going to reach the great unwashed masses, it's nestled in the rear end crack of a subforum on an irrelevant comedy site.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:48
|
|