|
Jose posted:seems excessive when you can just instantly fix the gender imbalance and all the angry horny lonely men ladyboy must be beautiful feminine figure not potbelly gamer bod
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:47 |
|
|
imho just liquidate all gamers. so simple, china!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:imho just liquidate all gamers. so simple, china! the billionaires won't be happy about that
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
alternatively do what the machines did in the matrix. turn them into batteries and let them play video games for the rest of their lives. they're gonna do that anyways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
when its the mmo billionaires turn to be rounded up but you can't black bag him because only he knows how the game works and the country will revolt if they can't play
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
when those are mass produced i won't ever have to talk with those cunts ever
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Typo posted:were bolsheviks leaders billionaires in the 1920s? there were so called NEPmen
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
these are the hollow men these are the nep men silos stuffed with grain, alas
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
this is a pretty interesting blog post about a study that was released recently on the soviet economy and inequality https://nintil.com/2017/03/14/the-soviet-union-poverty-and-inequality/ the underlying study is good too Karl Barks fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Sep 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:After all, does not class struggle still exist in the PRC? Does production for exchange still exist, nay, predominate in China? They are the very hallmarks of Capitalism, and no one would argue in good faith that China doesn't have these as much as any other country. on the first question: class struggle continues under a socialist political framework, though, until the very conditions that give rise to the bourgeoisie have faded away. this relates to the existence of the state, and its eventual fading away. the existence of a "dictatorship of the proletariat," that is the working class dominating other classes politically, definitionally implies said extant other classes. for the second, that's the whole point of the "commanding heights" thing people bring up Ruzihm posted:source your quotes "- me"
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:this is a pretty interesting blog post about a study that was released recently on the soviet economy and inequality 
Top City Homo fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Sep 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:its almost as though the USSR was in the lower stage of communism building towards higher communism 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:on the first question: class struggle continues under a socialist political framework, though, until the very conditions that give rise to the bourgeoisie have faded away. this relates to the existence of the state, and its eventual fading away. the existence of a "dictatorship of the proletariat," that is the working class dominating other classes politically, definitionally implies said extant other classes. for the second, that's the whole point of the "commanding heights" thing people bring up The dictatorship of the proletariat happens under capitalism, anyway, so to your credit, "China isn't even socialist" isn't an argument against the claim "China is not ruled by a dictatorship of the proletariat". But you might want to reconsider what you qualify as a dotp if it involves state protection of forced prison labor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:there were so called NEPmen See also Kulak
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Marx did not conceptualize communism as radically egalitarian but on the basis of the abolition of class distinctions so, no communism is not over the horizon, its rooted in material conditions and reality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Does anyone have stuff about Tito and how he treated ethnic groups in yugoslavia
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:The dictatorship of the proletariat happens under capitalism, anyway, I'm not sure where you get that from, except in the sense that it's taken broadly to come about by superseding the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. But that's a narrow, one-sided abstraction, and I would caution against that. It's of the same stock as the idea that socialist revolutions would first occur in developed capitalist countries, instead of, say, feudal and semi-feudal backwaters. That's an idea Marx himself revised in his later years, when he came to realize that the world system actively prevents a case where every country follows the same development pattern as England. Similarly, here, I would urge reading post-Marx thinkers who developed the understanding of the role of DotP (such as this), along with considerations like the diverse forms of state that participate in the internationalized class struggle (such as this). From the former, a more direct statement on the matter: State and Revolution, ch 2 posted:Further. The essence of Marx's theory of the state has been mastered only by those who realize that the dictatorship of a single class is necessary not only for every class society in general, not only for the proletariat which has overthrown the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical period which separates capitalism from "classless society", from communism. Bourgeois states are most varied in form, but their essence is the same: all these states, whatever their form, in the final analysis are inevitably the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The transition from capitalism to communism is certainly bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat. "the entire historical period which separates capitalism from 'classless society'" would be one that includes the entire "lower phases," i.e., what we presently call 'socialism.' Ruzihm posted:But you might want to reconsider what you qualify as a dotp if it involves state protection of forced prison labor. But I don't think rehabilitative labor is a priori a bad thing. It can be implemented constructively (e.g., most people are pretty okay with the concept of punitive "community service") or directed responsibly, especially as the class struggle deepens and matures in the favor of the working class. Something I do oppose unequivocally is the death penalty, which China also has. But these are questions of policy apart from the thing I was trying to discuss. It's possible for any state, even one trying to build socialism, to have policies I think are poo poo; policy is indelibly stamped by the historical and material conditions that shaped it, cultures don't change overnight, classes cannot be abolished at a stroke, etc. Making all evaluations by projecting our subjective desires upon the objective world without reference to the concrete is pretty solidly an idealist error, though, to be avoided as possible. (Of course, that doesn't mean ignoring your own convictions, either!) Aeolius fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Sep 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
I've not read S&R yet but just a skim makes it seem like Lenin does not consider the lower-phase of communism to be communism (stateless and classless) at all, which was not my understanding of Marx, who seems to describe the lower-phase as stateless & classless (it is a communist society) but with the birthmark of labor vouchers. I'll have to do some more reading on that. Thanks for the reading suggestions. And yea I might object to whatever penal codes a place might have, but forced "service" no matter what you call it is still the exploitation of labor, and is just material incentive for the ruling class to put as many people into that servitude as they can. The best you can do until value is abolished is to restrict whatever forced labor to be non-productive activity such as digging holes and filling them back in or something. At least that way you don't have a material incentive to reproduce whatever forced labor you have when you started.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:I've not read S&R yet but just a skim makes it seem like Lenin does not consider the lower-phase of communism to be communism (stateless and classless) at all, which was not my understanding of Marx, who seems to describe the lower-phase as stateless & classless (it is a communist society) but with the birthmark of labor vouchers. I'll have to do some more reading on that. Thanks for the reading suggestions. that's absolute 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
Algund Eenboom posted:Does anyone have stuff about Tito and how he treated ethnic groups in yugoslavia I don't, but I do have encyclopedic knowledge of Tactics Ogre, a videogame inspired by the ethnic conflict that followed his death. Gaming is just as good as real knowledge, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:considering every public release by the cpc or state council affirms its commitment to socialism i'd call this a mite disingenuous yes, i should put statements above praxis 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 10:33
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:And yea I might object to whatever penal codes a place might have, but forced "service" no matter what you call it is still the exploitation of labor, and is just material incentive for the ruling class to put as many people into that servitude as they can. The best you can do until value is abolished is to restrict whatever forced labor to be non-productive activity such as digging holes and filling them back in or something. At least that way you don't have a material incentive to reproduce whatever forced labor you have when you started. i have no idea what prison wages are in china, if any exist, but in the ussr the average pay for penal laborers was something like half the country's average salary. by the end of the war period that grew to around two-thirds. this was combined with incentives like reduced sentences or clemency for model prisoners that model seems perfectly fine to me
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 10:33
|
|
|
Algund Eenboom posted:Does anyone have stuff about Tito and how he treated ethnic groups in yugoslavia There are posters from former Yugoslavia in the Eastern Europe thread in DnD who are knowledgeable if you ask there
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 10:34
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:that's absolute https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFbEWL3kaK8
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 10:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 11:09
|
|
|
the_complete_opposite_of_reality.vid
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 11:27
|
|
|
the proud tradition of left communism continues to this day, with such luminaries as
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:the proud tradition of left communism continues to this day, with such luminaries as Me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/profdavidharvey/status/913768828479426560
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:I've not read S&R yet but just a skim makes it seem like Lenin does not consider the lower-phase of communism to be communism (stateless and classless) at all, which was not my understanding of Marx, who seems to describe the lower-phase as stateless & classless (it is a communist society) but with the birthmark of labor vouchers. I see where you're coming from. The Critique of the Gotha Program bit about birthmarks: "a communist society ... as it emerges from capitalist society ... is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped" etc etc. Labor vouchers — or, more generally, shifting to a means of circulation that makes it harder for capital to take root — is only one of the many elements of this, and even then it was a suggestion geared toward a socialism that grew out of the developed world. Since we've never seen that case, all socialist development so far has had to make starker concessions to press on from a disadvantaged position, without a mature capitalist base to draw upon. Even the "higher/lower" communism distinction itself should be thought about in as concrete terms as possible; I don't think Marx was laying out an absolute and necessary binary so much as giving broad generality: you need to walk before you can run, you need to have a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat before you can have a society that remunerates according to labor performed, and that before one that remunerates according to need, and probably that before one where people are no longer shackled by the vicissitudes of the division of labor, etc. He wasn't terribly clear about precisely where class ceases to exist in there, hence Lenin's attempt to clarify and further develop the concepts. And there's more than ample evidence to conclude Lenin was employing Marx's method correctly. (For example, see this paper by Lucia Pradella that I think I linked in the "reading Capital" thread; one of its points is Marx's thinking on imperialism, while still unpolished, was developing very much in the same direction as Lenin's eventual opus on it, illustrated by then-unpublished documents to which the latter would not have even had access.) Ruzihm posted:And yea I might object to whatever penal codes a place might have, but forced "service" no matter what you call it is still the exploitation of labor, and is just material incentive for the ruling class to put as many people into that servitude as they can. The best you can do until value is abolished is to restrict whatever forced labor to be non-productive activity such as digging holes and filling them back in or something. At least that way you don't have a material incentive to reproduce whatever forced labor you have when you started. I agree, generally speaking. Moreover I tend to think the whole world needs to revisit the question of incarceration in general and how/whether or in what cases it truly serves the cause of justice, and how this also can change via the material dialectic. But in the immediate case, I'd just be happy to hear that a rehabilitive/reeducative labor regime creates a sense of investment in the community it serves, and offers a smooth pathway to reentry into said community. I don't think the abolition of capitalism is sufficient to ensure this bare minimum, but I do believe it necessary, especially if it's to happen at world scale.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
the boomer generation got Noam Chomsky and my generation gets Russy-wussy Brandy-wandy this is bullshit
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
who the gently caress is that guy and is he homeless
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Typo posted:who the gently caress is that guy and is he homeless Which one
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Waffle House posted:Which one left
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:I see where you're coming from. The Critique of the Gotha Program bit about birthmarks: "a communist society ... as it emerges from capitalist society ... is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped" etc etc. Labor vouchers — or, more generally, shifting to a means of circulation that makes it harder for capital to take root — is only one of the many elements of this, and even then it was a suggestion geared toward a socialism that grew out of the developed world. Since we've never seen that case, all socialist development so far has had to make starker concessions to press on from a disadvantaged position, without a mature capitalist base to draw upon. Aeolius posted:Even the "higher/lower" communism distinction itself should be thought about in as concrete terms as possible; I don't think Marx was laying out an absolute and necessary binary so much as giving broad generality: you need to walk before you can run, you need to have a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat before you can have a society that remunerates according to labor performed, and that before one that remunerates according to need, and probably that before one where people are no longer shackled by the vicissitudes of the division of labor, etc. He wasn't terribly clear about precisely where class ceases to exist in there, hence Lenin's attempt to clarify and further develop the concepts. And there's more than ample evidence to conclude Lenin was employing Marx's method correctly. (For example, see this paper by Lucia Pradella that I think I linked in the "reading Capital" thread; one of its points is Marx's thinking on imperialism, while still unpolished, was developing very much in the same direction as Lenin's eventual opus on it, illustrated by then-unpublished documents to which the latter would not have even had access.) Yeah that makes sense. Would you say that Marx simplified things in Gothacritik for the sake of discussion in only describing the transformation of society in the abstract, not going into the minutiae of what a dictatorship of the proletariat entails when the transformation of society is heterogenous? Aeolius posted:I agree, generally speaking. Moreover I tend to think the whole world needs to revisit the question of incarceration in general and how/whether or in what cases it truly serves the cause of justice, and how this also can change via the material dialectic. But in the immediate case, I'd just be happy to hear that a rehabilitive/reeducative labor regime creates a sense of investment in the community it serves, and offers a smooth pathway to reentry into said community. I don't think the abolition of capitalism is sufficient to ensure this bare minimum, but I do believe it necessary, especially if it's to happen at world scale. Yeah I mean that doesn't sound bad personally, especially in the short term but I've been rightly criticized for considering co-ops to be a long term solution. As long as there are markets, there will be material benefits to squeeze as much labor from those who earn wages as possible. That's why I'm wary about "responsible" productive labor penalties being systematically protected. I also want to caution against "voluntary" productive labor, as it would just be a loophole to making anything but labor unbearable. Of course some level of punishment & rehabilitation are necessary for any society who wishes to engender & enforce norms upon its population. I think the total prohibition of productive labor can in itself be a punishment, as we know humans tend to take pleasure in reproducing their society. I think you may be on to something about how production can foster a sense of belonging, and I think any useful penal system needs to do that. I just think we should be very critical about the ways in which that is done, especially with how those ways will be impacted by the falling rate of profit. sidenote I really appreciate the effort you're putting into this conversation with a newbie like me. thanks for that. Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Sep 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I dunno about any Chinese studies, but the Princeton study pretty definitively demonstrated that the interests of working classes are almost never served by congress - no matter how loyal a voter you are. The problem you seem to have here is that having people from proletarian backgrounds organizing and representing a party doesn't count for anything, but it does.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Typo posted:left I estimate yes, but you're never really truly homeless as a burner
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
the latest from the big brains on twitter is that PSL's people's congress of resistance is a CIA psy op because they use nation builder to build their website https://twitter.com/_red_hampton/status/912757507482951686
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Checks out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:47 |
|
|
Karl Barks posted:the proud tradition of left communism continues to this day, with such luminaries as Don't erase Rosa you fuckin' opportunist
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 23:21
|
|