/edu/ - Education

>>7666
>>communist nazion
A splendid joke fiftoid, now face the swinhole.
>industry ist corporati-
BLAM

>>7666
>See Communist China for the supreme example of Communism.
China considers it self to be lower-stage socialism building towards communism. They have different words for it and they use more stages. So currently they are in the primary stage of socialism and by 2035 they want to be in the stage of moderately prosperous society they have more stages for 2050 and then 2080 and so on.


>>7676
>China is only communist in name.
No they call them selves socialist. which means not yet communist.

>>7677
>That can't really be true when every major industry is nationalized.
The communist party in china hasn't really nationalized that much, only the heights of the economy, and often it's only partially nationalized.

Anyway they kinda moved past the system of asserting direct governmental authority with the big official hammer in order to influence the direction of their economy. Companies above a certain size are required to have a Chinese communist party carder and they can influence investment decisions to a considerable degree. It's a novel approach where they went for political influence over surplus allocation.

These carders them selves are subject to what the Chinese call deliberative democracy, which means they have to seek out the approval from the people who are affected by the decisions they make. It's a little bit like the mass-line in Maoism, but a much more localized version, with considerable autonomy from the party hierarchy.

The Chinese have been decentralizing power, delegating more decision-powers downwards in the hierarchy. I think that was part of rejuvenation of society or something like that, i don't recall the actual name.

It's peculiar that it's official policy from Beijing. In all of history there has been a tendency of power-centralization, and when i say tendency i really mean an iron-rule. All systems centralized into bigger structures and socialist projects were no exception. Up until recently decentralization has never come from the center, so far it came because of pressure from below or because power-structures fail (like the fall of the roman empire)

The Chinese have obsessively analyzed the dissolution of the Soviet system and the collapse of the Soviet block that followed. My speculation is that they're hedging against that.

A philosophy does not make directly claims about history or truth. It asks how the answer would be found, and almost never is philosophy dogma or totalizing in the way you presume. "Dialectical materialism" wasn't even used in Marx's lifetime, nor was it identical with Marxism or unique to Marxism. Marx for his part described it as "my method" and mentioned his tutelage under Hegel. The explanation in Capital is not one requiring as esoteric philosophy. It is an explanation intelligible to any student of classical political economy. The point of contention wasn't whether Marx had the correct philosophy, but whether his claims described reality or anything the critics considered relevant. Marx in Capital is not suggesting any necessary cosmology where you only could use his super special cipher to know reality. You could make the same claims without "diamat" or any Hegelian baggage, or claims similar enough to come to the same conclusions about capital. But, to deal with the subject matter requires clarity of what classical political economy was really about, and that's where the confusion sets in. There are those who claim Marx's argument is that political economy was a pseudoscience, but I saw the argument not as that - because economics was never a "science" in the first place and was never presented as such except by bad economists that Marx among others ripped into. Science in the genuine sense had already established that economics is not a science, and the subject matter was entirely alien to science. I saw the real claim of Marx being that capital was not what it purported to be - that it was amoral and could not be made moral, and money itself could not be made moral. Value was not a moral consideration at all for Marx, while it was for classical political economy - that is, none of political economy makes sense unless there is some moral purpose or reason why anyone would agree to this exchange, rather than just taking stuff or extracting wealth "in kind". Adam Smith's arguments didn't pertain to the workers - in Smith's estimation, the workers were slaves and had no say whatsoever in their circumstances, and weren't "really human" in the fullest sense. If the workers were "manumitted" and made something of themselves, that's super, but workers as workers had no rights. They were chattel under the dominion of the King and the Poor Laws, and the American rebels were little better and engaged in some foolishness - foolishness which his faction and bPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Okay so with that out of the way, nearly everything you describe has nothing to do with socialism or commmunism as any proposition. You're describing a hyper specific unicorn as if it were a product in the supermarket of ideology, and yet this unicorn is never described as if it were something humans would actually use. This is intended and its a meme that was advanced because no one really believed in communism for a long time.

Even if you were seeking to describe this unicorn, or you were proposing those descriptors as a real situation which has nothing to do with historical communism/socialism, none of that requires a philosophical explanation of why it is natural and inevitable. For one, Marx never said "the perfect unicorn version of communism is inevitable and history will produce it with no volition whatsoever, yet the revolution will be bloody and I am the Evil Overlord Xenu". Communist parties were, like any political organ, active participants in history, and they always had programs written by the Party rather than an esoteric interpretation of unchanging dogma. So right there, philosophy and the theory don't make prophecies of that sort. Marxism was never predictive in that sense, and that's a common charge made against them. It didn't stop the stupider of them from hectoring others as if they did believe that, but most of that was the Marxist contempt for anyone they considered stupid or worthless, which is basically everyone who didn't get what this really was.

In the formation of their actual programs, and the platforms presented for the public - because this had to be handed off to actual people who had to make something functional - philosophy was far removed from the explanation. The Party theoreticians had to maintain fidelity to reality. Only when the wheels came off the bus - the 1950s and late 40s were the indicators that we were on the Evil Timeline - did the theoreticians retreat into kookville and turbocharged fads and pseudoscience, with the Secret Speech being so awful that good Soviet citizens had heart attacks after listening to such an abomination against history. It was that galling and insane.

The particular mental illness you're struggling with is anarchism, particularly Fabian-built philosophical anarchism. Let's deconstruct what you're writing. What does it mean to "democratically own the means of production?" If you think the answer is abasement to an abstract demos that will think for you, youPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Then, perhaps we could have science. Those are the only conditions where it will be possible to speak of such a thing in public, or even sustain anything in private life where we can speak to each other without the insinuation came common to humans - now a Satanic race incapable of even the most basic honesty in speech or actions.

Or, they can, you know, stop attacking us, which is very simple and doesn't require anyone to die or any great technology. But, a Satanic race will refuse to cease their assault. If that happened, they start shrieking. It would be worse for them to not attack us than it is for them to be stripped and beaten and placed into their natural slavery. They respect slavery. They have no concept of the most basic notion of a free society, because they hate the idea of such and always have. A Satanic race and its members never, ever change regarding this.

Given what humans are now, humans would have to be effective abolished and irrelevant. There would still be human bodies and human-like minds, but they would be ephermeral existences and deemed irrelevant. The human subject would be deemed politically irrelevant in total, and human institutions could not be permitted any judgement. The human race would be judged permanently and incurably insane, and what remaining faculties they possess would recognize that they are a failed race and consider their political situation accordingly. It would no longer be a question of what humans "choose" to do, in that sense. There would be choices - they always come back to the interest of those entities who are the only ones who care about any of this, which is us. But, the choices would no longer be made on the basis of self-interest or a presumption of human rationality, because humans would be judged correctly as permanently insane and retarded by themselves. They would be forced to regard a world outside of them, and recognize the failure of any human institution and conceit is eternal. They would only know (a) there is a world, and (b) it is knowable, but it is one that human history has made clear humans have no ability to know because of their deliberate and repeated failure in the most basic deeds required for that. The remaining human knowledge would fritter in and out of existence, with the best of them recognizing the "kernel" or "seed" of genuine knowledge and science. It would be seen as dire necessity to feed a base of knowledge out of a sense that ceasing the habitual lying of an insane race like humanity is worth more than any political benefit of habitual lying and the thrill of torture that is now humanity's existence.

There is no aristocracy or "hidden world" where humans are allowed any sacrosanctity. The aristocracy and elite are why we are condemned to this. They were always insane and should have been ignored. In the past, this would have been very simple.

Perhaps there will be something in future history that works against the present trend of the eugenic creed. But, eugenics ensured that humans can never be anything else. If eugenics faces terminal defeat, they have already vowed a crusade of unlimited terror to restore their religion. Only a greater and eternal terror would even secure peaceful conditions where reversal of this tendency is possible. It would be a permanent tyranny at the least, and it would also forestall any political concept except despotism, which will be the final condition of human political life. Humans don't know anything else. This would probably be the best outcome compared to the continuation of the republican idea.

There is not, and never can be, the world of imagined "free individuals" that you all seem to believe is inevitable. That was destroyed very early on, and every time someone asked what would actually be necessary for that - or even to do basic things like "not start retarded race wars" - the shriek machine started, and fags got their way. We're supposed to kowtow to them apparently, rather than anything that would have been basic shit. Now, it went on for too long. The last time it could have been averted in human history was the 1990s, and it was basically an act of spite by that point.

Probably what will happen is a fatalistic existence of a few cells where people talk about these things, knowing that nothing will ever actually happen. The people who wanted a different world will enter cults and think only of an afterlife. Humanity is beyond any saving. The public was turned into this willfully and proudly. A Satanic race knows nothing else.

>>7520
>but probably less so in the Soviet Case.
Capitalism has a mechanism of competition to drive prices to SNLT.

What mechanism did your vanguardoid shit had?

>In capitalism GDP
All that can be accounted for

You can just take FIRE out

While in Soviet case you need to fucking look at energy consumption and shit to even get a rough estimate of output lol

>Calculated prices in socialist centrally planned economies generally are better a tracking rational resource allocation optimums.
Maybe in your imagination lol. In ACTUALLY EXISTING SOYCIALISM nobody even had ANY IDEA in what range SNLT was lol.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7521
The Soviets lacked the computer resources to fully plan their economy, they still had to rely on partial markets.

Sufficient computer resources exist now, it's possible to make the planning system calculate the prices you would get from a perfect competition, without any market distortions from monopolies.

You only need the consumer feed-back to know whether people want a given product for a given price.

Markets lack a signalling feature for consumers to signal that they want a product that nobody is making yet. I don't know whether that can be added to markets, but for a socialist planning system, it's very easy to add this because there already is a polling system for surplus allocation priority, that makes it trivial.

Many other economic aspects will become easier too, you'll be able to establish new workplace simply by convincing workers to start contributing labor-inputs. That'll be much simpler than the complicated ways of starting a business.

The purpose of the vanguard will only be to bootstrap sortition democracy and socialist cybernetic planning, they won't have to make political and economic decisions. After the system runs it will reproduce it self. You won't need heavy handed political repression to keep it going, civil society will be able to defend this effortlessly.

If you're trying to convince anyone of socialism being right, "debunking" is a shitty way to go about it. It's a disgusting turbolib habit which always assumes imperious institutional authority to tell you what facts are, without any judgement or independent verification. Against shameless liars, they don't care if you debunk them, because their arguments are not intended to appeal to anything rational. They will invent new lies, and the truth is always irrelevant. The way to stop the shameless liars is to expose the full extent of their depravity and failure as human beings, rather than this habitual "snark" that is an extreme faggotry.

That said, debunking anticommunist arguments is kind of pointless because the communists debunked themselves by failing to make clear - or seeming not to know - what communism stood for. This is mostly because, after all of the posturing, the USSR and USA were far more similar than they were made out to be in the grand narrative theory of history. The Russians and those in their orbit identified communism with technology and their conception of mass politics. It was responsive enough to public demand compared to the old way where the rulers were openly democidal and slaughtered peasants without regard. The Tsars were a monstrous regime given this strange PR by anticommunist fags, and they are fags. Communism failed from within, and many of the anticommunist talking points came direct from the former Soviet Union and ideologues, whose objective was power more than anything good. Of course, all of the people in the USSR who wanted something decent out of it - and that tends to be most people who have an obvious self-interest in not letting this faggotry take over everything - were left holding the bag so that a few thieves could mock them. Most of the anticommunist arguments to "debunk" the USSR could just as well be used to dismantle the US so that the same thieves - sometimes the exact same thieves that plundered the former USSR - can do the same to the next large country, then the next, and so on. Nazis do not need to be creative, and that's what they are - goose stepping, motherfucking fags who have a fetish for this shit.

If you want an argument against "capitalist idealism", it's better to not even regard their facile arguments against communism, and attack capitalism on its own terms. Since the anticommunist retards don't have any core, and are perfectly happy to cannibalize capital to feed their thiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7522
So I might try some of these arguments, since Cockshott Gang is at it again.

I'll tell you why cybernetic planning was scrapped in the USSR - because the plan of the higher ups knew that the same thing was being done globally, and there was no further use for duplicating effort. The new economic plan called for eliminating most of humanity, who were useless to their preferred forms of society. After Khrushchev, all the upper rungs of the Soviet system thought about was how to sell out and get out while the getting was good, and then you had the scientists who wanted to be fed goodies forever and pissed on those who weren't worthy in their view. There's no "planning" that gets around that basic imperative that the classes that mattered followed, that the philosophies given to them insisted was natural and normal. When you uphold an amoral view of history and what we do, you're going to get the expected result. Gee, no one saw ZAT coming, right?

No one is ignorant of what the people want. The people, if they believe speaking of what they want is at all safe and not likely to get them killed, will tell you what they want, and have been willing to say this without too much prodding or effort. The rulers and favored classes never ever want to give the people what they wanted, because what the people wanted was security - which means they would hold a share of wealth, no questions asked or insinuations made. That would be the first condition before anything else is considered. Once the people have what they wanted out of it, they have no reason to regard the state or "society in the abstract" as something worth their efforts. Sure, there is a basic level of decency that allows society to exist, but beyond that, people want security. The Soviet system provided some level of that for enough people, and those who had no security were never going to be allowed that ever again. The Marxist view of humanity was just one of many views among higher society that held humanity in contempt and treated the lower orders accordingly. That's entirely on their own terms, and that spoke to the interests of the middle class generally. Everyone who lived through the USSR, and people who were alive then will tell you this, would tell you that the ideology and "the system" was rife with opportunism, rather than the source of good. The people who boost the system make abuPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

The market is not a planning mechanism and never was. Firms must plan their behavior in the same way a home-maker plans her expenditures. They do not actually believe the world is ruled by abstractions - and then believe that narratives far removed from the original abstraction actually has causative power in this spooky, Germanic way. The planning of a firm is not the same as a home, because firms have very different imperatives they meet. Large firms that hold monopolies have different imperatives from an imagined firm in "ideal capitalism", and this has long been known. Those are always prevalent over any ideological conceit about "the system", as if systems operated through spooky action.

All of this relies on portraying the USSR as this strange ideological unicorn "totally against the natural order", rather than what it actually was - a country modernizing much like the United States in the same time, doing so in very different conditions. The capitalists or what counted as such in the USSR were told they had to do business through the Party and the state, and this was seen as perfectly reasonable to those who stayed behind. Since the Party has its own imperatives - and they were the imperatives of the Party rather than "the state" in the abstract as Germanism insists - business was for a time subdued because the society was oriented towards aims it deemed necessary and useful. The idea wasn't to micromanage everyone's lives through GOSPLAN into eternity, and say this is immaculate "perfect information in perfect systems" - another Germanic perversion of sense. Planning through the Party and bureaucracy was a lot more effective for a lot more people than this idiocy that is done now. If you look at the USA between 1940 and 1970, the interested parties were some imagined executives in top hats or doing cocaine fueled orgies and scams. They were assholes in suits and intel ghouls who knew exactly what they wanted, and laugh at how easy it was to cajole retards into thinking they had a choice in any of this. The US was so big and didn't have its industry wrecked by Nazi invasion that it could tolerate a level of "market anarchy" - and this was largely the large middle class holding on to what they already held, rather than the market generating anything. Capital by that time had been exposed as a wholly unproductive "system" that was so ruinous that FDR had to work extra hard to get these people out of their own way just so he could helm this bePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7502
fatalism is stupid

>>7503
The feudal monarchical structures in pre-revolutionairy Russia never stood a chance, they were 100 years behind on industrial development. If there hadn't been a communist revolution, there might have been a bourgeois revolution which probably would have been a lot more destructive. Or possible an imperial occupation by a more powerful capitalist country, which would also have been a brutal affair.

The dissolution of the Soviet system wasn't inevitable, that system could have been reformed. Even a regression to capitalism could have been done without neo-liberal shock doctrine killing millions.

So no, your comparison doesn't track.

>>7505
>so "most MLs" are not vanguardists anymore?
Vanguardism never was a end in it self, it was a means to keep opportunistic sell-outs from hijacking political power to enrich them selves at the expense of wrecking the socialist project.
Since we now have the ability to achieve the same thing with other much more pleasant means, like sortition and democratic polling, we use those. If you want you still can have a vanguard that bootstraps these other means.

>I really can't wrap my head around how you retards are gonna square the circle that direct democracy is ANTITHETICAL to political party as an ORGANIZATIONAL FORM
The goal is to build a socialist society that operates a socialist mode of production, the political party is just a means to that end. If there's a better way we'll use that.
>Lenin would've shot you if you told him party form is gotta go
Probably, but in the early 20th century the communication technology couldn't have facilitated democratic polling, so there was no alternative to the "party form". State-of-the-art technology of that time were telegraph machines.

>>7505
>who thought USSR required a political revolution to fully complete its transition to socialism
which, if you really think about it, is beyond ironic: Real Existing Socialism was far more threatened by the real proletarian uprising than capitalism ever was lol (solidarity fucking killed PRL even with the martial law, enormous crowds of proles made SCSE officials shit their pants live on tv, Chechoslovakia descended into fucking chaos lol)

tho I'm not so sure soyciety in vid related is capable of any historically progressive revolution at all (not that capitalist soyciety is capable of any either lol)

>>7507
>fatalism is stupid
histmat is deterministic (in the sense of irreversible processes)

>If there hadn't been a communist revolution, there might have been a bourgeois revolution which probably would have been a lot more destructive.
there WAS a bourgeois revolution (February revolution) lol

it fucking failed because of ww1

this is fucking BASICS

>that system could have been reformed
could it really, tho? lol

this actually re-poses the old question on a new level: reform or revolution in the Real Existing Soycialism?
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7497
>>7498
>It's good but it collapsed
this is equivalent to saying
<It's bad because it collapsed
But that's retarded anon. It didn't collapse because conditions were bad for the average worker. It collapsed because of internal and external political reasons. We should acknowledge their successes and failures and try again but avoiding the failures.

I'm a looser burger that only knows one language and part of another language (korean) but I have never actively used it so I lost my ability to speak it really sort of fluently at all.

>>6957
I'm not sure what you are looking for. You haven't mentioned Lojban, that's also a semi famous constructed language. It tries to be syntactically unambiguous.

>What's leftchan's take on international languages?

here is a list of most commonly spoken organic languages (native and non-native combined)

1. English 1,348 b
2. Mandarin Chinese 1.120 b
3. Hindi 600 m
4. Spanish 543 m
5. Standard Arabic 274 m
6. Bengali 268 m
7. French 267 m
8. Russian 258 m
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>6959
About not listing other conlangs, your point is valid. I could have listed off another 20 or so but didn't want to overburden the initial post.

>>6959
Yeah I like the reform approach. I try to lump words together in english like german does, because I appreciate the feature. Like carengine for instance

>>7472
Yes compound words are a nice linguistic feature, just don't overdo it by creating comically long words

You should probably ask >>>/dead/.

Cool thanks, didn't know this board exists.

>>5522
/edu/ isn't restricted to marxism only…

>>5524
It is now. Try and stop us.

>>7373
cute…

>>7380
cuter

>>7460
that swastika shaped building in the third picture is a barracks at Naval Base Coronado near San Diego.

https://www.sfgate.com/obscuresf/article/history-of-California-swastika-building-17241331.php

>>7430
And yet here you are, posting from the western capitalist country that won the cold war, from the comfort of your mom's basement, on a phone or computer reliant completely on a capitalist supply chain, and not being gulaged for posturing like an edgy political dissident
<Wow much successful!!!

>I'm so worldly and smart
Do you even have a passport? What was the last book you read that wasn't written by a self professed leftist or communist?

This whole post comes across like a manifest statement of Dunning Kruger syndrome.

Literally every country got materially better off during the 20th century.

The USSR got caught with their pants down when the Nazis invaded and we're reliant on the American lend lease program after that. Had Hitler not been such a schizo retard and didn't invade the Soviet Union in the first place, Stalin would have maintained his literal alliance with Nazi Germany.

>The USSR had tons of freedoms
Ah yes, you could just decide where to live, where you wanted to work, could take a vacation whenever you wanted. /S
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7430
Also Comrade Dunning Kruger,

You really need to work on establishing a better sleep schedule

>>7432
>western capitalism won the first cold war
Yes but it's also loosing the second cold war. Might makes right philosophies are retarded and self defeating in the long term because nobody has superior strength all the time. Ultimately the only thing the cold war proves, is that western capitalism could not compete against Soviet socialism on peaceful terms.

>gulaged
Remember that the US imprisons roughly 5 times as many people as the USSR did, the level of hypocrisy is earth-shattering. If you are complaining about the political repression in the soviet union, that did exist, but you have to consider how utterly brutal the repression against communists was before the revolution. They did not retaliate in kind, if they had done that… It would have been something else.

>a phone or computer reliant completely on a capitalist supply chain
This argument isn't coherent because all the stuff gets made by workers, not the capitalists that own the means of production. But it's still funny because most gadgets have Made in China written on it. So their made by a bunch of workers in a communist country.

>a manifest statement of Dunning Kruger syndrome.
insult =/= argument

>Literally every country got materially better off during the 20th century.
That's probably not entirely true, but even if it was, the meteoric rise of socialist countries that managed to double their life expectancy within one generation during the process of industrialization, is something no capitalist country got even close to realizing.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7455
canned response

>>7455
You're AI has an anti-soviet bias and it's doing the Neo-liberal thing where it pretends to not be ideological. Also it has reading comprehension issues, the post it replied to said that capitalism could not compete on peaceful terms.

That's how non-profits work. Especially churches.

AP, ACT, SAT, GRE, etc. CollegeBoard controls the entirety of standardized higher education testing in the US.

So the problem doesn't necessarily seem to be capitalism, but the fact that a single company has been given a monopoly over testing thanks to federal regulations

Noted

>>7452
>the problem doesn't necessarily seem to be capitalism
>a single company has been given a monopoly
Capitalism has a tendency towards monopoly formation
So if you are complaining about monopolies you are complaining about capitalism too.

>>892
Raul Castro and Khrushchev are more like center-r. They did not shift towards privatization as much as Gorbachev and Deng did.

>>814
It depends when. He is about the same as old Bukharin, and to the right of young Bukharin.

Communism is left wing. Centrists and right wings have their own economics that better synergize with their social policies.
Base and superstructure, quite uncontrovercially, mutually shape and maintain each other. People only try to unmarry social and economic policy for meme ideologies like ancap.

> What DEFINES left

Cringe thread. Leftism is dialectic, there is no definition.

Can we not compared dorky obscure tenured academics with a pet theory to revolutionary leaders who led vanguard parties in the seizure of power?

Very cringe thread