unwantedplatypus posted:

Do you mean most in-depth discussion wise or most petty and factional?

gradenko_2000 posted:

double-down on central planning. this narrative of Gorbachev simply being the palliative caregiver of a Soviet Union that was already on the way to dying is, frankly, revisionism. The Kremlinologists never saw it coming, and more recent scholarship indicates that things were pretty dang stable coming out of the Brezhnev era

Fish of hemp posted:

Well how does this make workers come on time and actually produce stuff? I mean, thread hero Andropov made police force hunt down absent workers. And this leaves out agriculture and poor quality products. There is a reason why Honecker rode Volvo instead of Trabant.

Soviet Union in the 1980's was not economic power house. It was very good at producing tanks, guns, spaceships and helicopters, but sometimes people want jeans and soda.

croup coughfield posted:

imo there's no difference. i dont care what was in the man's heart, i care about what he did to his own people. whether it was because he was a big scary monster or hes a dumbass or fooled by the west or manipulated by internal factions is irrelevant when being judged by history. he not only allowed but encourage and actively assisted in his country being broke down for parts and given to pigs, ushering in decades of widespread misery among regular people. why would anyone be interested in judging that charitably?

croup coughfield posted:

happens a lot. the ideas undergirding marxist philosophy form a fairly powerful analytical toolset. but most marxist organizations suck poo poo full stop which can be very disappointing and disillusioning. it doesnt take long for someone to realize they can just take the skills they developed and go into business for themselves since capitalism usually wins anyway

Sunny Side Up posted:

you really need that “proletarian morality” (as Lenin calls it) in between knowledge and practice

vyelkin posted:

There's also a slippery slope you see sometimes (especially in older people who had better economic prospects) that goes along the lines of being a young poor marginalized person whose material interests push them towards Marxism, but then finding some kind of success in life that moves them more towards the middle classes. They buy a house, they find themself with enough savings to start some kind of investment portfolio or retirement plan that benefits from the performance of the stock market, they move into more managerial roles at work, and all of a sudden they find that their material interests no longer push them towards actually enacting any kind of socialism, even if they still intellectually believe in Marxism as an analytical tool or a theoretical ideal. There isn't necessarily a conscious choice at any moment to become exploiter instead of exploited, there are a series of practical choices like "well if I have some money sitting in the bank it might as well be in an investment that earns me a few percentage points" that build up over time to moving the person from one position to another.

dead gay comedy forums posted:

It's perfectly natural. Thing is, there's indeed a moral and practical choice involved, which is what colleagues of Engels and others like him often said: "I stand to gain under socialism", namely that the improvement of general material conditions means the improvement of social welfare: the collective gain is a much greater one in social benefit than the individual.

unwantedplatypus posted:

On the other hand, it’s easier to convince a communist to become a communist than it is to convince a liberal to become a communist.

croup coughfield posted:

double nine posted:

V. Illych L. posted:

he's also being stupid.

Danger posted:

what’s a good book on Stalin?

vyelkin posted:

imo the best example to use for fascism as a state of capitalism isn't Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany, it's Pinochet's Chile. Capital was threatened by the left winning through the institutions of bourgeois democracy, so a fascist seized power, spent two decades repressing and killing the left, solidified capital's stranglehold on political and economic power, and was then replaced by a return to bourgeois democracy with lingering institutions so sticky that they still haven't been able to get rid of them thirty years later. Fascism doesn't have to be an end-state or a failure condition or an ultimate stage of capitalism, it can serve as a temporary way for capital to accomplish goals that liberal democrats would balk at but will ultimately accept when presented as faits accomplis.

gradenko_2000 posted:

Soviet Glenn Greenwald

croup coughfield posted:

my focus when i was still active was primarily in marxist and materialist education (running classes, writing and publishing essays and pamphlets and etc.). its an uphill battle fighting against not only the propaganda industry but the fact that most americans have a junior high education.

croup coughfield posted:

people who say we dont build anything in america anymore need to familiarize themselves with our historic surplus of sad losers

AnimeIsTrash posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy8CrizjKh4&t=2s

I asked about the GDR itt a while back, I found this video while googling and it's an interview with an American defector to the Soviet Union who lived in the GDR. It's a pretty interesting video, and I just wanted to share.

croup coughfield posted:

the people who win the lottery and lose it all within five years and are back working at the call center are the most proletarian motherfuckers on earth.

In Training posted:

i picked up blackshirts and reds recently, heard nothing but high high praise. Looking forward to it

croup coughfield posted:

ive met some very serious folks who claim to be ready and willing to do real work if they only had the cash. could probably toss them some cash and see what happens as a side project

croup coughfield posted:

-- osama bin laden

PhilippAchtel posted:

It reminds me of thar old canard about how the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman.

In that case it's a kind of clever turn of phrase about how the names states give themselves aren't always representative of their true nature. It's not supposed to be serious analysis, just a kind of smug wink-wink nudge-nudge moment that liberal academics love.

Atrocious Joe posted:

https://twitter.com/plbmagazine/status/1688950554796716033?s=20

Domenico Losurdo's Stalin book is getting an official English language release finally

BillsPhoenix posted:

This thread doesn't have much movement recently outside my posts but...

Ferrinus posted:

Mk.I is a $100 machine that breaks down after stamping out ten widget, which takes it a year.. therefore, when pricing widgets for sale i should incorporate the de facto $10s of machine each widget costs me.

Mk.II is a $100 machine that breaks down after making ten widgets, but can make them in a single month. it also increases the price of each widget by $10, the same as Mk.I. so the Mk.II has an increased effect on production (increased speed over the prior model) but no change in its devaluation through production

Mk.III might be a $50 machine that can stamp out ten widgets in a week. it has an even greater effect on production, ie a distinct and generally preferable use-value, but actually adds LESS value to each widget than before

In Training posted:

I think BillsPhoenix is croups. Trolling from beyond. We live in the graveyard of failed theory threads .

Al! posted:

i put on my anti-coat and wizard hat