|
Is Communism good? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
375 | 66.25% |
| No |
|
191 | 33.75% |
| Total: | 523 votes | ||
|
asdf32 posted:Except not at all. Walmart's shareholds could order stores painted pink and stocked with nothing but Anime which is power, but they'd be out of business in a year after customers stopped shopping there. That's power too. A shepherd that would starve its flock would also starve himself. Does it mean the sheep have power over him?
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:Sheep are pretty dumb but, say, my 1 year old daughter exerts huge amounts of power over me with nothing other than pointing and crying. It's not law but getting people to pay attention to you and do things you want (that they don't want to do) is as real as power gets. The customers can't point at anything and get it. They can point at some of the limited merchandise the corporation offers on the grounds of being profitable, and influence the corporation to order more of it. It is not exercising influence over the business, it is making it more efficient in getting your money. However, in a supply dominated economy businesses can also largely shove the products they find most profitable down the public's throat by giving them more prominent position, reducing choice, making other options less convenient to obtain, etc., thus making the call of what they are going to purchase preemptively for a massive amount of population that can't afford choosing alternatives. Manufacturers will also crowd towards the optimal point of the cost vs demand equation based on aggregate public decision, further eliminating layers of choice available to the average consumer - you can choose whatever you want, as long as it is what everybody else picks as well. "Oh, look, I asked if I can preorder something from their sortiment, and they said yes, we also accept payments in advance. Empowerment!" THe Soviet economy was a travesty, but that doesn't mean the current model is the consumers' dream. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 09:56
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Commies remind me of sovereign citizens or gold buggers or something. The made up concept of "capital". Who has ever seen capital?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Some people have power over others? What sort of moon language are you speaking, I understand nothing of this gibberish!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
After decades of legislative and private pushes to erase any political power of labor and protect capital with measures that place it above even human life in the current state framework, how can anybody conclude that capital isn't the fundamental operating principle of the current state system of power that methodically usurps all power when given the opportunity (such as when alternative attempts to wrest power e.g. organized labor are defeated) and eliminates all competing factors from positions of access to the government.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:They've had an easy time of it because they get to be on the right side of a debate that shouldn't even happen, a debate between them and communists. What, nobody is arguing against marxists in position of power. The battle is against moderate center-left ideas, because even those can be rolled back - in absence of a concerted and dedicated opposition - in the obvious pursuit of the ultimate goal of any recent government, which is the elevation of capital to a position beyond reproach and beyond social responsibility.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Laughing at everyone seriously engaging with a concern troll in this thread Boredom.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
It says that an atomized society is a dysfunctional, diseased society. Is that controversial?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
The transformation is simply the recognition of one's unfulfilled potential and the structures preventing its realization. It is a major step as a social phenomenon, but not some transcendental jump as far as the individual is concerned.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Employees do not get portion of revenue, they get portion of rent from production factors they sink into value creation. Unlike employers and owners who get the full rent of their factors AND the remaining portion of the employees' rent.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:wow, it's enraging how dishonest you are. He describes exactly the thought process when "utility has become human, that is social, utility.". The "return of man out of religion, family, state etc. into is human, ie. SOCIAL being." is a substantial change in the human condition in that "the eye has become a human eye WHEN its object has become a social, human object". As soon as this occurs, humans act completely different. Their utility, in four steps, derives through social action. Both society and man are defined through the conditions of the system. Marx could NOT be more specific on this: It is the HUMAN that changes in communism. I don't see how this is some unsurmountable problem that you make it to be. A critical social change of the same magnitude happened in the transition from feudalism to industrial society, and nobody bats an eye at that. The transformation comes from realization of the latent human aspects, not from the creation of some additional faculties currently lacking in humans.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:Wages come from revenue, its one of the main costs subtracted from revenue in order to arrive at profit. This is basic addition/subtraction. If your only point of reference is merchant arithmetic, then yes. But in that case you should be taking your theories to a thread about accounting, not about political economy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:What does this mean? Trolling
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
My opinion is that we dont need ideology, people should just do what is right and good.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:It's the title of a book... Hm, the liberal approach which states that people should be nice to each other because of their deep appreciation of abstract scenarios with shroud of uncertainty and other bullshit. What a rock solid foundation for a society.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
How about asking former Soviet satellites about no longer being sucked dry by the Soviet imperial parasite?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Lol, sure thing, buddy, I'm mad I never had the opportunity to wait in line for the last roll of toilet paper or bribe a bunch of guys just to get a plumber scheduled to fix the sink. Or that I will never get to see the majestic sights of tree-melting acid rains from all the progressive Communist industry.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Fiction posted:I'm not saying they liked Soviet-style collapse better. Unfortunately, that collapse was shortly followed by another catastrophe when we finished the job of picking the bones clean. For most Communist countries the economic collapse happened before the revolution, with recovery after it. The Soviet Union was an exception.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Do people who claim Marx is a prophet of the radical left not realize that during his lifetime, Marx was only one of many competing socialist theorists and activists, engaged in a perpetual struggle to defend himself against intellectual opposition on the left as well as finding it hard to make any headway with leftist politicians of his day?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Nice retard edge, let me try as well Jews would sooner choose to starve to death than donate their golden teeth to the national war effort, gently caress them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
If those Jews are not going to let loose of their hoarded private property for the benefit of the people, there needs to be some solution to the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
If you are not willing to contribute your labor to the state in the gulag, you need to give up your privileges.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Fiction posted:you have a tenuous grasp of history At least I don't believe petty farmers are enemies of the people for trying to hold onto the things keeping them alive (and for good reasons, as the famines prove).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Hm, but as the champion of the workers I believe we must launch a wholesale slaughter of those feeding the entire nation while suffering the most hardship of all classes. It's me, the bourgie intellectual cum stalinist
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Stalin was actually a humanitarian, as proved by the fact that his death toll is lower than Hitler's.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Fiction posted:yea that's why i tried to clarify. stalin killed a ton of people he didn't have to because he was paranoid as gently caress and also wanted to consolidate all political power around himself. same with mao. Nice backpedaling, bro.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:They aren't free markets. Guess we don't have the right blood quantum to understand your posts, though! Free market isn't supposed to be present on an intracorporation level, you idiot.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
So if I follow the line of conversation here, 1990s economic reform in the former USSR was awful, which retroactively justifies Stalin's atrocities, also Putin is good and not an imperialist. The mental processes of idle bougie quasi-intellectuals are hell of a drug.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
White Rock posted:More like for all the glory of capitalistic reform the state of Russia still has major issues, and authoritarian power stays in control. Capitalism is not inherently democratic, nor is communism. While there's no utopic society, it doesn't create a categorical equivalence between all imperfect states in terms of their behavior, and neither does it justify any particular action of any particular individual or state. What I care about is Russia continuing its imperialistic streak, and shitheels justifying it with banal whataboutism, which is about as infuriating and despicable as Conservatives making up apologies for the War on Terror.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:They cribbed that from genocidal communism too Ten million? You must be skipping over some chapters of the Black Book, you must be more diligent in working with your Red Scare pamphlets if you are going to prove that Communism is worse than Nazism.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:There were some Nazis who considered the mass murder of functionaries, professionals and intellectuals 'too bolshevik' but sadly didnt win the argument. Right, that would have dealt with the one flaw of an otherwise untarnished ideology.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:But you're making these accusations wildly instead of reading people's posts, as if someone who was pro-Stalin would necessarily be in favor of Putin's reactionary authoritarianism because after all, they're both oppressive governments. It's inane. It is a wild and rambling tangent on my part, but some people upthread somehow got from Soviet Russia to economic collapse to Putin to imperialism. I giess I overreacted, I have a hair trigger for whenever somebody hints at lionizing Putin as a foil to western degeneracy, on account of being surrounded by people who love to do that. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
The difference, hakimashou, is that Nazism takes genocide as its foundational principle, and proceeds from there. It can't exist without genocide. With Communism mass violence is an original addition by some divergent strains to the ideological basis, but objectively not a necessary one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 11:06
|
|
|
If seizing the means of production is genocide, then anybody complicit in the currently sanctioned model of their ownership is partaking on an ongoing genocide. A good opinion, I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Making strict assumptions about how humans will behave in certain situations is a human nature argument. In marx's case TRPF depends on capitalists behaving exactly one way and depends on that behavior (destructive competition) being inevitable and impossible to restrain or reform. Interesting you should say that, seeing as it has been radical capitalist apologists who tend to make most confident judgments about human nature (while opposing empiricism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#Fundamental_tenets), while non-authoritarian socialism trends towards an uncertain vision of society that is progressively managed in a deliberative fashion rather than set in stone based on a grand theory of the individual human nature.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:See, you're a sociopath and a prick, so you won't get this, Effetronica. Socialization is a means to teach children not to be sociopaths. Part of this involves teaching them to share voluntarily. Because you are a sociopath, you don't understand this, and think it must be mandated. So how to deal with sociopathic heirs to massive fortunes who do not want to share under any circumstances, as well as public corporations that can't share due to their very nature? If voluntary sharing is not an option, but sharing is good?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Even assuming ultimately destructive competition is indeed logical it takes an assumption in human nature to believe capitalists must necesarily persue that behavior rather than any other path which doesn't meet the same end. No, it takes assumption about the system. Individual capitalists can give up the cycle, but in the aggregate they will be replaced by others because the mechanics of the system promote actors following one pattern of behavior to positions of power.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Heavy, heavy inheritance tax. Aka mandated sharing. Which is evil.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:What if they don't for cultural reasons? Where have cultural factors changed the functioning of capitalism? Capitalism is pervasive throughout all societies, a corporation from Paraguay can start trading in Thailand and find little to no obstacles in doing so. If the equilibrium of optimal economic choices is displaced by regulations, businesses will flock to a new equilibrium. THat is not rocket science. We are still talking about aggregate behavior, not about individual character traits.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
Yeah, it's marxism, and not the crippling, oppressive centrist attitude of you cant change anything, leave thinking to your betters and occupy yourselves with being good consumers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 22:06
|
|