[Marx] I put on my anti-coat and wizard hat

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Marx] I put on my anti-coat and wizard hat

«‹›389 »

(Thread IKs: dead gay comedy forums)

MLSM: Apr 3, 2021; by Azathoth

first try

# ? Nov 24, 2021 01:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 15:15

dead gay comedy forums: Oct 21, 2011

Mr. Lobe posted:

Though he was a belligerent hothead and wound up making the wrong enemies, he was a man of extraordinary organizational and rhetorical talent and it is likely there would not have been a successful October revolution without him. There's a reason that he was so extensively vilified by the propagandists behind the White Armies during the Civil War. I don't think it's unreasonable to have some respect for him

trotsky was one hell of a leader and fine theoretician in the 10s and 20s. unfortunately, he had too much intellectual vanity and this completely hosed him over

# ? Nov 24, 2021 02:05

Debunk: Aug 17, 2008; by Fluffdaddy

Mr. Lobe posted:

It is a very important task for a serious Marxist to learn how be likeable and communicate effectively though. If you think there's any merit to the ideas beyond just being abstractly correct, that is

# ? Nov 24, 2021 02:12

SSJ_naruto_2003: Oct 12, 2012

MLSM posted:

first try

Not an intellectual I disagree he wrote some good stuff

# ? Nov 24, 2021 03:25

MLSM: Apr 3, 2021; by Azathoth

Yeah dialectical and historical materialism alone is one of the best pieces of Marxism ever written

# ? Nov 24, 2021 03:29

lollontee: Nov 4, 2014; Can't post for 10 years!

MLSM posted:

Yeah dialectical and historical materialism alone is one of the best pieces of Marxism ever written

almost seems like a divine revelation, doesnt it?

# ? Nov 24, 2021 09:27

John Charity Spring: Nov 4, 2009; SCREEEEE

# ? Nov 24, 2021 11:12

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

there was a guy in SA who left to phone bank for Biden and defended it as the most reasonably communist thing to do, and he pointed to Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder in support of his argument. will never forget that.

# ? Nov 24, 2021 14:23

MLSM: Apr 3, 2021; by Azathoth

lollontee posted:

almost seems like a divine revelation, doesnt it?

Only when I read it decades ago

# ? Nov 24, 2021 14:33

MLSM: Apr 3, 2021; by Azathoth

mawarannahr posted:

there was a guy in SA who left to phone bank for Biden and defended it as the most reasonably communist thing to do, and he pointed to Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder in support of his argument. will never forget that.

We need to vote for copmala in 2024. It�s what Lenin would have done folks

# ? Nov 24, 2021 14:33

croup coughfield: Apr 8, 2020; Can't post for 73 days!

Boba Pearl posted:

I'm taking a more focused view on studying political theory and thought, because I've never thought critically about these concepts before. Now I'm writing a story about this stuff for fun, and the more I try to represent thoughts and ideas, the more I learn that I don't know nearly as much as I thought.

I'm really uneducated, but I want to learn. Hopefully I don't sound like an rear end in a top hat, but it's even worse because I don't know how to frame my question, so I'm gonna ramble on, and hopefully you all can help me.

I'm trying to figure out how Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism exist in the overarching fall of Capitalism, and why Socialism now seems to mean "Capitalism but we don't let people starve." That doesn't feel like it's always the case. From my understanding Socialism is an interim between Capitalism and Communism, that is to say as Capital fails, more and more social structures pop up to support the working class, because without them the world ceases to produce. We're seeing this in small parts now in America, where 60% of the worker population has died or retired, creating a work shortage, and the workers are now asking more rights and money to go back to work.

From what I'm understanding is that Capital is trying to diminish the meaning of Socialism to squash the effect it would have on billionaire's golden hoards. By changing the idea of what Socialism is, they can push back the fall of capitalism a little bit further, because they're incredibly aware of what happens when the nuclear reactor that is Capitalism goes into melt down, when they are in fact the fissile material powering it. So the common idea of what Socialism is, is in fact not Socialism or some other word.

We see parallels in this in the same way that no truly Communist government existed, but the idea has been tied to a bunch of governments and society that were either coup or destroyed by the powers of Capital.

The more I try to write and understand about the failings of the idea of Neo-liberal (American Neo-Liberals, Idk what it's called in other countries) Socialism, and how it will still create misery as long as it's not full Communism, the more I feel like I'm just critiquing Capitalism but less harmful Capitalism.

So my question is, I guess, What is Socialism? Is it just Capitalism with extra steps? Is it a transitional period? Is it Capital trying to push back the inevitability of Communism? Is it even possible to critique "Capitalism with Social Safety Nets" without seeming like a chud? Or is that just impossible to avoid, similar to how the Starship Troopers movie was a critique of fascism that everyone thought was a critique of war?

I also know that Communism and Socialism has a concept of public and private property, but what does that look like? Whatever system I try to think of, tends to be Capitalism but with social safety nets. I wonder if this is in part that I can't separate the concept of currency with Capitalism, and if that is part of the problem. That in the cultural zeitgeist the idea of owning something, and then selling something seems inextricable with what Capitalism is.

in very brief, because I have to go TO WORK, the "capitalism with social safety net" situation you're describing is part of an ideology called "social democracy", which is as you describe it - a bunch of freaks brainwashed to think their quality of life revolves around consumption and consumer choice and competing economies. we must retain the capitalist mode of production (private ownership of the means of production, wage labor, etc.). but they can't stomach being seen as supporting the misery that entails, so they fantasize about taming capital and extracting concessions for the common person. capital, however, cannot be tamed - its entire raison d'etre is extracting the very last dollar of profit and value from the last commodity before the lights go out forever. thats success in the capitalist model. so even if we as the working class manage to force concessions and wealth from the bourgeoisie in the service of human need, capital will always, always, immediately start clawing that money back. its just the nature of the beast, it cant do anything but that. you will spend forever locked in this cycle of struggle and immiseration because capital is implacable and insatiable. its basically a safety release valve for the contradictions of capital.

the core of the socialist project is worker ownership of the means of production. take the firm where you work, kick out the shareholders and other do-nothings who extract wealth with no work (upper management). everyone who works there has an equal share of the surplus (previously called "profits"), and everyone has an equal say. the workplace is run democratically, so things like compensation and benefits are determined by the workers themselves. i can't imagine a majority of workers, for example, voting to give upper management 2000x the salary of the average worker. the workers also determine things like how materials are sourced, conditions of work, etc. this also decentralizes power because there's a lot more and more diverse workers who now suddenly have a big say in the running of the economy, so there's no rigid, lockstep agenda of "accumulate more money and property for me". that leads to your dictatorship of the proletariat, as the political class and the state only exist to enforce one class' agenda over another.

# ? Nov 24, 2021 14:38

lollontee: Nov 4, 2014; Can't post for 10 years!

MLSM posted:

Only when I read it decades ago

read it again while realising that marxism is a prophetic religious ideology that seeks the establishment of the divine kingdom of god by the hand of man

# ? Nov 24, 2021 16:47

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

https://twitter.com/cityafreaks/status/1463340891775672324

# ? Nov 24, 2021 16:51

dead gay comedy forums: Oct 21, 2011

mawarannahr posted:

there was a guy in SA who left to phone bank for Biden and defended it as the most reasonably communist thing to do, and he pointed to Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder in support of his argument. will never forget that.

yeah, this one has been a thing there and elsewhere

I feel it comes from understanding (and agreeing with in some degree, perhaps) with that message but not doing (or even realizing the necessity of) context work. Like, taking "left-wing communism" like you mentioned as an example, because it is a lesson on the practicalities of revolution against, one can read it as "you should roll up your sleeves and do the unsavory thing", but understand it as if they were in 1900s Russia

if the political situation of the united states was remotely near that case, the situation of the democrats would be extremely volatile, which could be exploited by communists through different methods of action, justifying collaboration for those purposes. by not realizing context, they play in the hands of a liberal narrative and submit to their interests while thinking they are being pragmatic (as a moral qualifier and thus being "better persons" under liberal purview)

# ? Nov 24, 2021 16:57

Lasting Damage: Feb 26, 2006; Fallen Rib

Boba Pearl posted:

So my question is, I guess, What is Socialism? Is it just Capitalism with extra steps? Is it a transitional period? Is it Capital trying to push back the inevitability of Communism? Is it even possible to critique "Capitalism with Social Safety Nets" without seeming like a chud? Or is that just impossible to avoid, similar to how the Starship Troopers movie was a critique of fascism that everyone thought was a critique of war?

I also know that Communism and Socialism has a concept of public and private property, but what does that look like? Whatever system I try to think of, tends to be Capitalism but with social safety nets. I wonder if this is in part that I can't separate the concept of currency with Capitalism, and if that is part of the problem. That in the cultural zeitgeist the idea of owning something, and then selling something seems inextricable with what Capitalism is.

Socialism is broad and comes in lots of flavors both in terms of people's politics and its implementation in real-world societies, but here in the Marxism thread we say socialism is a stage of human social development, or organization, where the working class rules and directs the economy instead of or at the expense of the owner class (the capitalist class). The exact form this takes is strongly determined by the existing situation before the working class takes this power, most likely through revolution. Marxists argue these two classes, and their never-ending conflict, defines the capitalist system of society.

Marx called one of these classes the proletariat, which is a class of people that own very little if any property, and must exchange their labor for wages to live. The other class as he saw it was the ruling class called the bourgeoisie, which is the class of people that own capital (factories, land, commodities, machines, or anything else you need other than labor to make the economy run), and it is their ownership of these things that they live on and also are able to rule society.

Right now Marxists would describe any country that uses the capitalist method of producing things and organizing society as being a "dictatorship" of the bourgeoisie. Dictatorship in this case meaning absolute authority, so what we mean by this is that the capitalists of a society wield the ultimate power. Some plain evidence of this is how our laws are set up to protect private property above all other rights, and to facilitate markets through which commodities, and therefore capital, can flow freely.

So the goal of a socialist society by the Marxist understanding would be to topple this dominance by the owner class and replace it with a "dictatorship of the proletariat", where working people wield the ultimate authority and therefore are able to determine the form of the economy. As the working class must by definition be the overwhelming majority of any society's population, this is inherently more just. Workers must submit themselves to work even in this system, but at least they determine the conditions and relations under which it all happens.

I think the other posters have done a good job drawing a distinction between this and what "social democracy" or welfare systems are. The key here is to pay attention from where power in society flows. In some cases a truly socialist society could possibly resemble a capitalist society with welfare programs, but what distinguishes it from a capitalist society is power of the working class over capital.

I hope this doesn't read as too condescending or basic. I don't know how to answer most of your other stuff you mentioned very well, and there's a bunch of really smart people that post in this thread that probably know better. I'm sure you could find lots wrong with how I'm framing all this or what I'm skipping too, so I'll just say in advance please don't yell at me I'm stupid.

# ? Nov 25, 2021 01:30

Boba Pearl: Dec 27, 2019; by Athanatos

I feel better, because I've found these posts really easy to disseminate and I've found podcasts and literature. Knowing the difference between Social Democracy and socialism has openned my eyes to the very thing I despised, but had the wrong label for. When I think of Social Democracy, it feels like like an emergency dam then any real solution. I made the mistake of understanding socialism and social democracy as the same thing. Even Socialism as a polished ideal seems foreign to me, but I at least now can put a label on the thing I detest. I find Social Democracy a very centrist idea, the idea that we don't have to change things, but just give the workers enough basic necessities to stop them from tearing out our throats when the time comes. (Though every day that seems farther away,) this has helped with a lot of dissonance I've been having when trying to imagine and form these concepts. It's also easier to imagine what a socialist society would look like, at least compared to trying to imagine a true communist society. I wish there was some way to push back on the way that terms and ideas get locked together to form confusing scaffolding meant to capture people like the thin net of a scab. I feel like calling Social Democracy socialism is a very purposeful thing to push back the idea of progress at any cost.

dead gay comedy forums posted:

yeah, this one has been a thing there and elsewhere

I feel it comes from understanding (and agreeing with in some degree, perhaps) with that message but not doing (or even realizing the necessity of) context work. Like, taking "left-wing communism" like you mentioned as an example, because it is a lesson on the practicalities of revolution against, one can read it as "you should roll up your sleeves and do the unsavory thing", but understand it as if they were in 1900s Russia

if the political situation of the united states was remotely near that case, the situation of the democrats would be extremely volatile, which could be exploited by communists through different methods of action, justifying collaboration for those purposes. by not realizing context, they play in the hands of a liberal narrative and submit to their interests while thinking they are being pragmatic (as a moral qualifier and thus being "better persons" under liberal purview)

I experience this in political conversations in my own life all the time, and I have a hard time articulating my problem with their goals and ideals. It's because of what you guys were saying. It's just not enough, it's the bare minimum scraped and fought for when there could be more. Without the abolishment of the bourgeois, we're constantly in danger of having every single thing taking from us. It makes think of FDR and things like the marginal 90% tax rate and how quickly in less then one lifetime, all those things were stripped as quickly as possible.

Then again, I don't know how any ideology incompatible with capital can survive in the American police state. The DSA feels like it's been absolutely gutted, or it's always sucked and I'm just realizing it now. It's even scarier now that armed militia are making the public news being let off for grisly and purposeful murders.

People want comfy capitalism, and don't care how many people are grind to dust in the gears to make it possible.

I don't even know who I'm talking too at this point, I'm just getting my feet on how to articulate this, though I kind of wish I learned this after Thanksgiving because I know exactly what they're gonna say now that I have a broader vocabulary to express my ideas. When I was homeless, I always felt like my very existence was a threat, not in that I was a danger to anyone, though I'm sure some saw it that way, but people saw me and saw what could be if they hosed up too poorly. The system would let me die to be another head on the pike scaring minimum wage workers to stick their hands under burning heat lamps, locked in rooms with caustic chemicals, or risk life and limb machining luxuries.

I started reading On Practice and Contradiction, in part because of my how much I loving hate land lords, and people hoarding loving real estate and making everything unlivable. No-one in this country should be able to own 3 loving homes while people sleep on the street. These rich loving pricks who buy up every goddamn house and jack the price sky high so you can make 600$ a month in California and still be sleeping in alleys while college kids in their early 20s try to piss on you. I also like The Perverts Guide to Ideology so getting an intro written by him is interesting.

# ? Nov 25, 2021 03:01

Boba Pearl: Dec 27, 2019; by Athanatos

Also I guess I'm Leon Trotsky?

# ? Nov 25, 2021 03:03

tokin opposition: Apr 8, 2021; I don't jailbreak the androids, I set them free.

WATCH MARS EXPRESS (2023)

I, too, got Trotsky. A very rude quiz

Anyway I'm going to join the police force and klan since it's what Stalin would have done

# ? Nov 25, 2021 03:06

Boba Pearl: Dec 27, 2019; by Athanatos

kill bill sirens in my head

You can change the system from the inside I believe in you!

# ? Nov 25, 2021 03:08

AnimeIsTrash: Jun 30, 2018

gradenko_2000 posted:

Guards! Seize him!

You get his legs, i'll get the ice pick.

# ? Nov 25, 2021 03:16

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

AnimeIsTrash posted:

You get his legs, i'll get the ice pick.

ice axe

wait, gently caress!

# ? Nov 25, 2021 03:25

F Stop Fitzgerald: Dec 12, 2010

tokin opposition posted:

I, too, got Trotsky. A very rude quiz

Anyway I'm going to join the police force and klan since it's what Stalin would have done

stalin was an ethnic minority

# ? Nov 25, 2021 03:29

tokin opposition: Apr 8, 2021; I don't jailbreak the androids, I set them free.

WATCH MARS EXPRESS (2023)

F Stop Fitzgerald posted:

stalin was an ethnic minority

Stalin was well known for his bipartisanship

# ? Nov 25, 2021 04:00

In Training: Jun 28, 2008

Boba Pearl posted:

I feel better, because I've found these posts really easy to disseminate and I've found podcasts and literature. Knowing the difference between Social Democracy and socialism has openned my eyes to the very thing I despised, but had the wrong label for. When I think of Social Democracy, it feels like like an emergency dam then any real solution. I made the mistake of understanding socialism and social democracy as the same thing. Even Socialism as a polished ideal seems foreign to me, but I at least now can put a label on the thing I detest. I find Social Democracy a very centrist idea, the idea that we don't have to change things, but just give the workers enough basic necessities to stop them from tearing out our throats when the time comes. (Though every day that seems farther away,) this has helped with a lot of dissonance I've been having when trying to imagine and form these concepts. It's also easier to imagine what a socialist society would look like, at least compared to trying to imagine a true communist society. I wish there was some way to push back on the way that terms and ideas get locked together to form confusing scaffolding meant to capture people like the thin net of a scab. I feel like calling Social Democracy socialism is a very purposeful thing to push back the idea of progress at any cost.

I experience this in political conversations in my own life all the time, and I have a hard time articulating my problem with their goals and ideals. It's because of what you guys were saying. It's just not enough, it's the bare minimum scraped and fought for when there could be more. Without the abolishment of the bourgeois, we're constantly in danger of having every single thing taking from us. It makes think of FDR and things like the marginal 90% tax rate and how quickly in less then one lifetime, all those things were stripped as quickly as possible.

Then again, I don't know how any ideology incompatible with capital can survive in the American police state. The DSA feels like it's been absolutely gutted, or it's always sucked and I'm just realizing it now. It's even scarier now that armed militia are making the public news being let off for grisly and purposeful murders.

People want comfy capitalism, and don't care how many people are grind to dust in the gears to make it possible.

I don't even know who I'm talking too at this point, I'm just getting my feet on how to articulate this, though I kind of wish I learned this after Thanksgiving because I know exactly what they're gonna say now that I have a broader vocabulary to express my ideas. When I was homeless, I always felt like my very existence was a threat, not in that I was a danger to anyone, though I'm sure some saw it that way, but people saw me and saw what could be if they hosed up too poorly. The system would let me die to be another head on the pike scaring minimum wage workers to stick their hands under burning heat lamps, locked in rooms with caustic chemicals, or risk life and limb machining luxuries.

I started reading On Practice and Contradiction, in part because of my how much I loving hate land lords, and people hoarding loving real estate and making everything unlivable. No-one in this country should be able to own 3 loving homes while people sleep on the street. These rich loving pricks who buy up every goddamn house and jack the price sky high so you can make 600$ a month in California and still be sleeping in alleys while college kids in their early 20s try to piss on you. I also like The Perverts Guide to Ideology so getting an intro written by him is interesting.

DSA has DemSoc right on the tin, it's always sucked but it's also the most popular org for American people interested in trying to understand socialism so it will either be forced by the rank and file to become something more radical than it is now or it will perish under the flood of history

# ? Nov 25, 2021 04:07

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

In Training posted:

DSA has DemSoc right on the tin, it's always sucked but it's also the most popular org for American people interested in trying to understand socialism so it will either be forced by the rank and file to become something more radical than it is now or it will perish under the flood of history

not to defend the DSA as not-sucking, but "Democratic Socialism" is different from "Social Democracy"

Democratic socialism does intend (at least theoretically) to overturn capitalism, it "just" aims to do so via the ballot box

whether or not you think this is a feasible plan of attack, or whether you think the DSA in practice is even trying to do this is arguable, but it's a distinction that's relevant if we're getting into the nitty-gritty

# ? Nov 25, 2021 05:17

chairface: Oct 28, 2007; No matter what you believe, I don't believe in you.

My fellow trotskys I suggest we make awesome war trains

# ? Nov 25, 2021 05:35

Lasting Damage: Feb 26, 2006; Fallen Rib

gradenko_2000 posted:

not to defend the DSA as not-sucking, but "Democratic Socialism" is different from "Social Democracy"

Democratic socialism does intend (at least theoretically) to overturn capitalism, it "just" aims to do so via the ballot box

whether or not you think this is a feasible plan of attack, or whether you think the DSA in practice is even trying to do this is arguable, but it's a distinction that's relevant if we're getting into the nitty-gritty

succdem, demsucc, it hardly matters if they continue to reject the immortal science

# ? Nov 25, 2021 07:09

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Boba Pearl posted:

Also I guess I'm Leon Trotsky?

tokin opposition posted:

I, too, got Trotsky. A very rude quiz

Anyway I'm going to join the police force and klan since it's what Stalin would have done

I think there�s something more immediately appealing about Trotsky to a lot of people growing up in the west, or who are anglophones at least. I�m not sure if it�s a lifetime of anti-Soviet propaganda or because the ideas sound pretty good on the surface � why, socialism all over the world would be way better than socialism in one country, right? � but it can take a good deal of reading and reasoning about history to see how and why things panned out as they did, why its successes have been rather limited , and why it�s more popular in England and America. still, respect for the important work he did do with the trains and all.

# ? Nov 25, 2021 08:10

tokin opposition: Apr 8, 2021; I don't jailbreak the androids, I set them free.

WATCH MARS EXPRESS (2023)

I will never respect wartrains, they are a peaceful machine and should only ever be used for civilian purposes

# ? Nov 25, 2021 08:50

Peggotty: May 9, 2014

gradenko_2000 posted:

not to defend the DSA as not-sucking, but "Democratic Socialism" is different from "Social Democracy"

Democratic socialism does intend (at least theoretically) to overturn capitalism, it "just" aims to do so via the ballot box

They used to be interchangeable terms for the same thing. "Social Democratic" parties just transitioned harder to the right than "democratic socialist" ones.

# ? Nov 25, 2021 09:24

SSJ_naruto_2003: Oct 12, 2012

Peggotty posted:

They used to be interchangeable terms for the same thing. "Social Democratic" parties just transitioned harder to the right than "democratic socialist" ones.

Sorry when is 'used to be' ? Thought we were talking 2021

# ? Nov 25, 2021 09:37

Peggotty: May 9, 2014

We are, that�s why I wrote �used to be� to clarify that this statement is about the past. I don�t see the problem? In this case, used to be is until maybe the mid 1950s or so.

# ? Nov 25, 2021 09:52

crepeface: Nov 5, 2004; r*p*f*c*

Boba Pearl posted:

I'm taking a more focused view on studying political theory and thought, because I've never thought critically about these concepts before. Now I'm writing a story about this stuff for fun, and the more I try to represent thoughts and ideas, the more I learn that I don't know nearly as much as I thought.

I'm really uneducated, but I want to learn. Hopefully I don't sound like an rear end in a top hat, but it's even worse because I don't know how to frame my question, so I'm gonna ramble on, and hopefully you all can help me.

I'm trying to figure out how Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism exist in the overarching fall of Capitalism, and why Socialism now seems to mean "Capitalism but we don't let people starve." That doesn't feel like it's always the case. From my understanding Socialism is an interim between Capitalism and Communism, that is to say as Capital fails, more and more social structures pop up to support the working class, because without them the world ceases to produce. We're seeing this in small parts now in America, where 60% of the worker population has died or retired, creating a work shortage, and the workers are now asking more rights and money to go back to work.

From what I'm understanding is that Capital is trying to diminish the meaning of Socialism to squash the effect it would have on billionaire's golden hoards. By changing the idea of what Socialism is, they can push back the fall of capitalism a little bit further, because they're incredibly aware of what happens when the nuclear reactor that is Capitalism goes into melt down, when they are in fact the fissile material powering it. So the common idea of what Socialism is, is in fact not Socialism or some other word.

We see parallels in this in the same way that no truly Communist government existed, but the idea has been tied to a bunch of governments and society that were either coup or destroyed by the powers of Capital.

The more I try to write and understand about the failings of the idea of Neo-liberal (American Neo-Liberals, Idk what it's called in other countries) Socialism, and how it will still create misery as long as it's not full Communism, the more I feel like I'm just critiquing Capitalism but less harmful Capitalism.

So my question is, I guess, What is Socialism? Is it just Capitalism with extra steps? Is it a transitional period? Is it Capital trying to push back the inevitability of Communism? Is it even possible to critique "Capitalism with Social Safety Nets" without seeming like a chud? Or is that just impossible to avoid, similar to how the Starship Troopers movie was a critique of fascism that everyone thought was a critique of war?

I also know that Communism and Socialism has a concept of public and private property, but what does that look like? Whatever system I try to think of, tends to be Capitalism but with social safety nets. I wonder if this is in part that I can't separate the concept of currency with Capitalism, and if that is part of the problem. That in the cultural zeitgeist the idea of owning something, and then selling something seems inextricable with what Capitalism is.

im not sure if this recent video 100% right on its definitions, but dick wolff seems to think that state capitalism can be a transitional step to full communism. his view is that the workers can control a party, which controls the state, which controls the capitalists. he thinks the final state is full democratic control of workplaces. he fkn loves co-ops tho.

he uses examples from ussr to china to scandinavia to USA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q5VsEew0ZM&t=190s

imo, if you wanted to avoid only critiquing less bad versions of capitalism, you should focus on its inevitable transition into the super bad versions ---the seeds of evil are tied to the structure of accumulation or something like that.

# ? Nov 25, 2021 10:03

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

chairface posted:

My fellow trotskys I suggest we make awesome war trains

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7R3kZ8dDag

# ? Nov 25, 2021 10:54

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

social-democracy also used to be the electoral arm of the socialist movements. being too pedantic about the precise meaning of these terms is a good way to confuse yourself imo

# ? Nov 25, 2021 11:05

MLSM: Apr 3, 2021; by Azathoth

Lasting Damage posted:

succdem, demsucc, it hardly matters if they continue to reject the immortal science

# ? Nov 25, 2021 14:05

Catgirl Al Capone: Dec 15, 2007

to be fair global south anti-imperial democratic socialism looks a lot different than it does up here, material conditions and all

# ? Nov 25, 2021 14:35

Southpaugh: May 26, 2007; Smokey Bacon

V. Illych L. posted:

social-democracy also used to be the electoral arm of the socialist movements. being too pedantic about the precise meaning of these terms is a good way to confuse yourself imo

The pedantry is valuable for contextualising it, the clusterfuck of re-used terms we get in english is confusing.

# ? Nov 25, 2021 15:45

F Stop Fitzgerald: Dec 12, 2010

CYBEReris posted:

to be fair global south anti-imperial democratic socialism looks a lot different than it does up here, material conditions and all

yeah it largely comes down to americans watering these terms down. the DSA isn't building a base of power the way MAS or PSUV did, they just rebranded their worthless socdem mewling with a slightly more radical name.

# ? Nov 25, 2021 15:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 15:15

In Training: Jun 28, 2008

F Stop Fitzgerald posted:

yeah it largely comes down to americans watering these terms down. the DSA isn't building a base of power the way MAS or PSUV did, they just rebranded their worthless socdem mewling with a slightly more radical name.

this is a good point, ty

# ? Nov 25, 2021 15:55

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Marx] I put on my anti-coat and wizard hat

«‹›389 »