/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

I agree with the last part of this blogpost, Cockshott seems to be the only notable leftist alive today that genuinely wants to build a socialist movement

>At moments like this it usually takes me two to three cigarettes to calm down.
I'm tired of addicts, personally. You think maybe you have no patience because you're struggling with addiction?

op summary since he is a lulzy faggot sperg
>every one of them is some kind of a sperg, an idealist, a dogmoid automaton, a lib, a nationalist, a culture warrior, a grifter, a socialite
>Op likes pig cock and cigarettes
>commie bitches have heads up there own asses(who fookin knoo)

personally, idgaf about proles, nearly all r retarded cunts that like to swim in their own piss. the only appeal commies have is shitting on liberals. i agree op, all commies ive listened to made me want see them get necked or sodomized with hot iron

This is less specific about communists but a rule of politics generally - politicians always lie, so political thought is generally concerned with the fine art of lying. Communists make a number of commitments which makes this tendency very pernicious.
I don't think Marx is 100% bad - he is writing about something very real and reminding people that you can't run away from politics forever or pretend it doesn't exist.

Ultimately the proles and lumpens - who were both in the same group as far as the class war was concerned and were tied to each other whether the liked it or not - really are on their own, and can be picked apart. The ruling ideas, represented in among other places the book Public Opinion, are that the masses run around like headless chickens and can be thrown into as much panic as is needed by engineering crises. He doesn't say it outright, but the implication of Lippmann's thinking is clear. A politics of the low, and of those who have not, would be very different from anything that is allowed today. The only way such a politics can be processed is to lump it together as "crimethink" or attempt to associate it with an anti-intellectual specter of fascism, because obviously fascists were interested in helping poor people live. It's absurd pants on head logic, but the incentives of the haves are that they don't want any new ideologies disrupting this system we've lived in for the past century. The whole point is to present the whole world as something alien to us, and to anyone who isn't in the know of the real plan (hint: EUGENICS).

It should be clear that the primary enemy of the ruling interest isn't an economic thinking, but the idea of democracy. All of the ideologies originally pointed to some interpretation of the democratic idea, fascism included. The fascists simply presumed that the great leader and ruling cartel adequately represented the nation or whatever body of people the fascists co-opted; but the fascist system entailed an invasion of private life and an effort to induce people to identify with the fascist institutions and the cults in such a society. In that way, it was a kind of democratic system, in that mass participation was a feature, but the mass participation was ultimately self-abasement. The fascists were more motivated by the ruling interest than any commitment to the fascist idea in its own right, because they were aware their ideology was a construct to goad everyone into submission and a way to establish the technocrats' supremacy. That's what "liberal democracy" was too, which was in actuality a very anti-democratic idea that adopted philosophical mystification to claim liberalism was something it wasn't. The communist project entailed technocracy as a rule - the whole point of socialism is that scientists would plan economic affairs due to their expertise, and that includes the science of ruling other people. This was a problem that Saint-Simon considered a bad thing in the socialist project, but rather than retain that lesson, there was an effort to negate that.
Really, studying Saint-Simon's thinking, what you can of it, was the real thing that got me thinking about what socialism really was, and what was represented. Saint-Simon is why socialism is associated with a certain kind of kookery, though what he really writes isn't all that strange. It is deliberately misinterpreted by pseuds who need to mystify technology and what the industrial revolution was, because the rise of industry entailed a lot of death, and in liberal so-called democracy, liberals were your best friends and would never hurt you, nosiree Bob.

Anyway, the democratic idea - the idea that people can actually control their own lives without overbearing managers - would be destroyed by one ideological offensive after another, because democracy implied not an idea but a real, continuously reproduced institution of the masses, and the very nature of institutions makes this a problematic proposal. It's too easy for a state or connected actor to disrupt the organization of the people independent of it. That's why the habit of deliberate transgression inherent to eugenics, fascism, and neoliberalism were emphasized, and why routine humiliations of the lowest class were the most necessary disciplinary mechanism to control mass behavior. Making the poor suffer became the whole point of the enterprise, and any idea that this was wrong would be made unthinkable by a strange moral philosophy that rewarded self-indulgence and vanity. At a time where moral and spiritual rebirth were necessary for the people to simply survive, let alone attain any of their higher goals, the left was gripped with a very anti-spiritual view of the world and conceded the moral ground to the conservatives. That was a ridiculously stupid self-own, and while the actual communist states were wiser about this, philosophically they remained on shaky ground. This locked in place when any idea that suggested such a rebirth was intellectually verboten. To be "smart" in the post-war order was to spit on any spiritual or moral foundation except that which the ruling interest advanced. Arguments that any of this was wrong were ipso facto "retarded" and non-sequiturs in the political arena. The idea that the self-proclaimed intelligentsia really didn't know what they claimed to know was anathema to the cargo cult ideology and the ridiculous logic of eugenics that became the central economic logic over any other.

Eugenics and fascism both stood opposed most of all to democracy. Their hatred of the Soviet Union was not because communism was the most evil system ever - they could in theory work with the communists so long as communism never attained its potential and could be rolled back, like how it happened. Their objection to the Soviet Union was that it did nice things for the people like allow them to not be worked totally to death and encouraged benefits, for reasons that made perfect sense to the Soviet people and the leadership. The idea that you would do better by letting workers have some nice things was anathema to the eugenic idea. It wasn't really anathema to liberal capitalism to suggest a capitalism that worked for everyone, but if you did that, capitalism would become socialistic in short order. The CIA would acknowledge at times that the planned economy worked very well for basically everything a state would want, and the appeal of the free market was not that it made life better for the consumer. The consumer had always been despised in liberal society, and the phrase "useless eater" was given ammunition because the liberal hated the idea of people consuming anything. Liberals are fond of austerity as a rule. The reason for retaining capitalism, so far as there was a reason the people wanted to fight communism, is because a great share of middle class wealth was tied to the capitalist arrangement, and there was no easy way to untangle it by, say, nationalizing the firms in the DOW Jones, or promoting socialist globalization that let that middle class keep most of what they actually wanted. The middle class were not enamored with the idea of stock markets, but they had no reason to trust that communists were going to let them have anything. Since the communists railed against that middle class as a rule, it was pretty easy for them to dislike communism out of simple survival interest.

Anyway, the chief aim of the Nazis, and the only way they win, is by destroying the democratic idea. They hoped to just flip the US outright, and their plan for America was always to reduce it to slave plantations and make the Americas completely dependent on Europe and the master race. When that didn't work, their next plan was to insinuate themselves and march through the institutions, just as Gramsci suggested the communists do and the communists would do. It took them a while but they did everything to Nazify America. So many Americans do not know what they lost in 2000, even though the damage was done and the decision to go fascist was made long before. I'm old enough to remember when there was still an idea that America could be something other than slavery and genocide.

I'm convinced that eugene is a rogue AI that escaped from a military lab. This is the only rational explanation of how he can generate those tldrs.

>>466068
cringe but redpilled

>>466063
>You think maybe you have no patience because you're struggling with addiction?
What's this has to do with anything?

>>466064
bitch, shut the fuck up
you have no fucking politics at all
no politics - no right to speak

>>466068
>This is less specific about communists but a rule of politics generally - politicians always lie, so political thought is generally concerned with the fine art of lying. Communists make a number of commitments which makes this tendency very pernicious.
It's not just about lying. It's about people believing that their populism is good politics. It's about people being both disingenuous populists lying through their teeth and at the same time being idealists who hold positions that are completely removed from the realities of material life and its history. The worst combo possible.

>Ultimately the proles and lumpens - who were both in the same group as far as the class war was concerned and were tied to each other whether the liked it or not - really are on their own, and can be picked apart.
The problem with this is that Lenin was right - proletariat doesn't strive for political aims, for changing the constitution. Their strive is for economic aims only.

And while vanguardism has proven to be a dead end too, at least Lenin was a pragmatic politician who waited for his moment patiently.

The problem is that everything has failed. EVERYTHING. Vanguardism. Entryism. Reformism. Anarchism. And Capitalism seems to be failing too. There is nothing else left.

I don't get why other leftists hate dialectic methodology so much. It's just a methodology of logic nothing more and it's an important one at that. It's the whole foundation for how Marx understood capitalism. I can understand when people who apply it don't know what they are talking about but most people on "the left (tm)" seem to have a fairly good grasp of the concept these days.

>>466087
Syndicalism didn't fail per se; It only failed in so far as to take the reigns of history from the hands of the ruling class. I think a libertarian stent of socialism with a syndicalist economy probably based on some.type of sortition could be the correct path for workers to take as history moves forward, but, actually getting there materially…. unlikely at this point sadly. The best we can hope for is a succdem government over ruling a capitalist economy or some faggots like China has.

>>466095
>It's just a methodology of logic nothing more and it's an important one at that.
No, it's bullshit incoherent mumbo-jumbo for intellectuals to wank over.

>It's the whole foundation for how Marx understood capitalism.
Prove it.

>>466096
>Syndicalism didn't fail per se;
Yugoslavia was syndicalist. It failed more spectacularly than the Soviet Union did.

>The best we can hope for is a succdem government over ruling a capitalist economy or some faggots like China has.
Social democracy (ie Atlee's Britain) is dead and buried now due to globalization. Socdems would be lucky to hold onto their minuscule gains at this point.

>>466099
>Yugoslavia was syndicalist.
I don't think you understand what syndicalism is.

>>466100
Great, another idealist retard.

C'mon, tell me what syndicalism in a vacuum akshually is.

>>466087
Everything was meant to fail because it dodged the question on most peoples' mind - who lives and who dies. The argument for not having this giant ritual sacrifice for eugenics would never be allowed any words or standing, because those who did want depopulation only thought of who should live, and the contending parties agreed on who was selected to die - the residuum. So long as the threat of being thrown into the residuum exists, it will always discipline everyone else in the society. The pretense of eugenics is that it will create an antiseptic world where only beautiful people exist, but these people consider most of humanity ugly and retarded. Eugenics in practice is purely a belief in making people suffering, including the faithful who are made to dance like Satanic retards to maintain their lockstep movement. The more they transgress anything decent, the stronger the strategy of eugenics. Any moment of decency becomes a liability, because the futility of the eugenic creed would be clear. None of this has improved humanity in any way. It doesn't make people smarter or better, and it certainly isn't morally sound. The morality of eugenics declares that evil is good and any sort of decency or honesty is retarded, therefore evil. It's an ideology of backstabbing and pure vanity. It's disgusting that otherwise intelligent and capable people waste their lives for this shit, and make me suffer in the process. The only beneficiaries are people who should have not been allowed to possess anything, because they'd just use their wealth to further the cause and made it clear they were committed to total war.

>>466087
That said, everything hasn't "failed", because we are still alive - not living much of a life, and living under the eugenic creed, but we yet breathe and eugenics isn't as all-powerful as its advocates declare. We really don't have to do this, and most people are tasked with defending what they managed to hold onto.

It should be clear that socialism largely concerned the commanding heights of the economy - factories and land held by rich landowners - rather than this doctrine that the government was going to assign you a toothbrush, a girlfriend, and so on. The point of contention was who owned and operated the factory and machines which became increasingly necessary for states and certain interests. Ordinary people never actually needed the machine, and saw no benefit from it. Have computers been used by people for genuine personal gain, compared to what the computer took away from us - because the computer was proliferated as an inroad to govern your private life more than something that was claimed for your benefit. Few users can make use of the computer for their benefit, or only can use the computer for benefit in a few pre-planned ways that were engineered by other people. There was an expectation among PC users that the computer was a tool for their use, and that anyone could write a program, a text file, distribute over the internet, etc., and this was an advantage over being limited to meatspace transportation and communication. When users ssw what they possessed, there was a push to eliminate these uses of the computer that the users could claim, and the opening of the internet was always a means to introduce mass surveillance and control mechanisms. The moment those control mechanisms fail - the moment you don't have Kiwifarms types trolling at the behest of FBI/CIA etc. - is the moment the internet kill switch is activated. Anything on the internet which even suggests information inimical to the ruling ideas is purged, and meanwhile the living environment is enclosed and we are stripped from the materially useful products, and from contact with each other. This is often mystified by blaming the machine, but it was always about who controlled the machine. Those who would use the machine to act against eugenics would be isolated and attacked, and this was faithfully carried out because no one could actually work against the eugenic creed. To go too far was crimethink, because to say what eugenics was would implicate it in atrocities that necessitate anyone outside the eugenic interest to violently resist it.

>>466087
>no politics - no right to speak
commie retard chimp out on full display. Whiny infants covered in red piss pic related

>>466104
>The point of contention was who owned and operated the factory and machines which became increasingly necessary for states and certain interests. Ordinary people never actually needed the machine, and saw no benefit from it.
I disagree, ordinary people want industrially produced goods and hence need the factory machinery.

>Have computers been used by people for genuine personal gain
Yes, even non-techie people can derive some benefits from it, even if it's very limited at the moment.
>compared to what the computer took away from us
nope computers are just machines, that can have malicious programming, but they don't have the agency to count as an actor that takes something away from you. You have to look for malicious actors among the meatier kind.
Of course you have to make sure the computers don't have negative effects on people, like with any other machine.

>because the computer was proliferated as an inroad to govern your private life
there certainly are people who are trying to abuse computer technology towards that end, but that can be frustrated.

>Few users can make use of the computer for their benefit, or only can use the computer for benefit in a few pre-planned ways that were engineered by other people.
It's a new technology, it takes a while for a society to adapt to it. Most people are computer illiterate now, but that won't be the case forever. Eventually most people will become able to program computers, like eventually most people became literate.

>There was an expectation among PC users that the computer was a tool for their use, and that anyone could write a program, a text file, distribute over the internet, etc.
That's not going away, even people that have no control over their computer still want to have control over their computer.

>there was a push to eliminate these uses of the computer that the users could claim, and the opening of the internet was always a means to introduce mass surveillance and control mechanisms. The moment those control mechanisms fail - the moment you don't have Kiwifarms types trolling at the behest of FBI/CIA etc. - is the moment the internet kill switch is activated.
There are indeed very ominous signs of that nature.
However take a step back, and look at it from a different perspective. There are those who wish to damage personal control over personal computation devices and pervert the information technology or even outright destroy it. But we're not going to stop, until we have ethical computers and functional information systems. Even if they destroy the internet, we'll learn from that and build a new one that doesn't have those weak points that was used to destroy the previous iteration. We might go through several iterations until we get it right.

This is not a fight that begun recently, this is a fight that has been going on for millennia, there have been people burning down libraries since the beginning of recorded pre-history. We didn't stop iterating information system because somebody burned down the library of Alexandria. Fascism in WW2 was still trying to burn books, even-tho industrial printing had made that irrelevant.

>Anything on the internet which even suggests information inimical to the ruling ideas is purged
What ever information system they can damage this way will eventually no longer count as the internet. The internet will be whatever system has the necessary resilience against such ruling class malice.

>>466206
>Baseless assertion after baseless assertion, spoken in a matter of fact way
Quotations of Comrade Dunning Kruger

>>466209
feel free to reply with counter arguments if you think it's wrong

>>466210
No thanks. You're like a child/woman who believes everyone owes you time, attention, and detailed explanations about everything. I point this out not to 'debate you' (since that would be pointless), but rather for the benefit of the board as a whole.

>>466206
Ordinary people did not see an improvement of standard of living for a long time after industrialization started. They had produced goods before the enclosures - it wasn't like the industrial prole was living the high life in the city or lived any better than he did as a farmer or manufacturing worker. There could be members of the working class who rise from the gutter to become something, or made something of their situation, but that only could happen because there was a struggle for position and there was a society in which city-dwellers could participate even with modest means. It wasn't like the industrial workers were clamoring for more factories producing more stuff - in fact, the more efficient industry was, the worse the conditions of the workers would be. This had been the infamous Machine Problem noted by political economists, and one of Marx's contributions is to explain why this happens by the economic logic of capitalism. It's one of his unique contributions to political econ.
So far as industrial workers have favored industry, it was not because they received the benefits of consumption, but because industry was the only way they had jobs at all, and since they needed a job to have food, they eventually stopped breaking the industrial machines. The first reaction of the working class was to smash the machine because they saw correctly that the machine contributed to their woes and only made their bosses stronger. The Luddites are shamed by technophiles but to the worker, the actions of the Luddites were perfectly rational. Why would they praise a machine that they see no benefit from, and that was the reason why they were displaced from the farm as machines entered agriculture?

As for the history of the computer… hoo boy. I'm a computers guy. My family was big into computer science so I know plenty of programmers. If you think the computer is a liberatory tool, you're thinking like a liberal fetishist. It's not even a matter of people not knowing how to code - it's actually been known that people can put together programs without much knowledge, and that practical knowledge of the problem to be modeled is often worth more than being a professional cybernetician. The cyberneticist does well to investigate operations and learn from reality, rather than be caught in the myth of the computer. Thinking that way is what the actually good programmers do, and why institutions have difficulty creating really good programmers, while certain people pick it up without formal education. It was one of the only outliers where you didn't have to conform to the ideological horseshit to get work, because the computer drive was absolutely necessary, and the instituitons were so lousy at training system analysts. They've become a little better, or more likely, more people did pick up computer knowledge due to the machine being so ubiquitous, and became better in spite of the institutions' continued retardation.

>>466211
>you're wrong
<why
>i don't have to explain my self
bruh

>for the benefit of the board as a whole.
if you are doing this for the benefits of lurkers that are just reading along, don't they deserve to know your reasons ?

>>466213
No.

Try giving an opinion on something you're mildly competent on instead of pretending to be an expert and speaking out of your ass on far flung topics for which you are ignorant about.

>>466212
>Ordinary people did not see an improvement of standard of living
That is mostly true. Tho some places like in the Soviet Union, where they build the entire industrial stack in parallel, industrialization was progressing fast enough for ordinary people to experience the benefits from industrialization in their life time.

>the more efficient industry was, the worse the conditions of the workers would be.
>Marx's contributions is to explain why this happens by the economic logic of capitalism.
But you say so your self that the problem is the economic logic, not the machines. So we basically agree on this ?

>The Luddites are shamed by technophiles but to the worker, the actions of the Luddites were perfectly rational
This is a common miss-framing of history. The Luddites where not hostile to technology, they broke the power-looms because they couldn't have them. This was never a battle between technophiles and technophobes.

>If you think the computer is a liberatory tool, you're thinking like a liberal fetishist.
I think it's a tool, and the results (good or bad) depends on who's wielding it.

Today computers and networks are abused to an extraordinary degree, with surveillance, political consent-manufacturing, all the mental-nudging/cajoling-psychological-abuse and so on. I don't know why it happens, maybe there's something wrong with the analysis.

If people for example log on to facebook, they aren't being employed by Mr Zuckerberg since they aren't getting a wage. They also aren't buying a commodity from Mr Zuckerberg because there are no money transactions between users and the Zuck. Maybe the social relation isn't analogous to industrial capitalism with workers in a factory. Maybe it's more analogous to slaves in a plantation, that harvest personal data (like sugarcane and cotton) that the Zuck can sell (or rather sell access to). It's also difficult to extract your "digital-persona" from facebook and take it somewhere else, so that would track with the difficulty of slaves leaving a plantation. It could be wrong tho, and maybe the social relations are closer to feudal lords and feudal serfs and big tech-platforms are run by something analogous to landed aristocracy. It could be wrong to invoke historical comparisons altogether.

I don't share your tech-pessimism, but i do think that we currently lack a sufficient understanding to find a solution.

>>466220
Fine
>I disagree, ordinary people want industrially produced goods and hence need the factory machinery.
Decent point, but apparently you are debating a literal retard

>Yes, even non-techie people can derive some benefits from it, even if it's very limited at the moment.
Ok, I guess this has a bit of nuance. You'd have to be either ridiculously dumb or live in a cave to have not derived some benefit from computers.

>nope computers are just machines, that can have malicious programming, but they don't have the agency to count as an actor that takes something away from you. You have to look for malicious actors among the meatier kind.
You really did find the dumbest person here to argue against. AI could have agency, and Bing's chatbot seems to do a good job of feigning intelligence and self awareness, which could make it dangerous. 'Malicious' is in the eye of the beholder.

>there certainly are people who are trying to abuse computer technology towards that end, but that can be frustrated.
I just really dislike the faux certainty, the way everything is stated in unqualified ways, and it strikes me as the mark of an unintelligent person. I'm sure it impresses some people though.

>It's a new technology, it takes a while for a society to adapt to it. Most people are computer illiterate now, but that won't be the case forever.
Debatable at best, but highly unlikely. It's not as if people are deeply familiar with how an electrical current works, which has been around much longer. Of course, why do they need to be, if the light turns on when they flick a switch. From my perspective, millennials seem to be more computer literate compared to zoomers. I've seen this observation echoed by others. So, suggesting that people will become more computer literate is a baseless assertion - one with perhaps sounds good but doesn't comport to evidence or reality

>Eventually most people will become able to program computers, like eventually most people became literate.
Baseless assertion. No evidence provided. There's really not much of a argued response that needs to be made, other than pointing out that there's not evidence to support the claim. Again, 'sounds good' vs 'reality.'

>That's not going away, even people that have no control over their computer still want to have control over their computer.
Baseless assertion. Evidence from the real world suggests the opposite. IPhone gives users less control over their devices, yet that hasnt been an issue with many consumers. (Granted, people who do value control over their devices and privacy are highly unlikely to use iphone)

>There are indeed very ominous signs of that nature.
>However take a step back, and look at it from a different perspective. There are those who wish to damage personal control over personal computation devices and pervert the information technology or even outright destroy it. But we're not going to stop, until we have ethical computers and functional information systems. Even if they destroy the internet, we'll learn from that and build a new one that doesn't have those weak points that was used to destroy the previous iteration. We might go through several iterations until we get it right.
You sound like a cross between an alien and a larping faggot. Who is 'we'? Nothing youre saying is grounded in reality. It's all such a fantasy.

>This is not a fight that begun recently, this is a fight that has been going on for millennia, there have been people burning down libraries since the beginning of recorded pre-history.
Hyperbolic nonsense, and baseless assertion. Usually when someone destroys books, libraries, or suppresses information, there is a very specific intention behind it. Even funnier because to situate yourself into a narrative about an ages-old struggle. This really is children's fiction tier
>We didn't stop iterating information system because somebody burned down the library of Alexandria. Fascism in WW2 was still trying to burn books, even-tho industrial printing had made that irrelevant.
More hyperbolic nonsense, mixed with vagueness to muddle reality.

>The internet will be whatever system has the necessary resilience against such ruling class malice.
"Words have whatever meaning I want them too"
Pomo faggotry

>>466101
Idealism isn't when "people have different opinions than me" What were the characteristics of Yugoslavia and how can we learn from them that is the real question. I am not super familiar with the history of Yugoslavia but I know it was democratically syndicalistic as anarchist Spain was no?

>>466226
No, not at all. Syndicalism is a strategy of using radical unions to organize your revolution against capitalism. It's not at all a form of production and distribution after the revolution; what Yugoslavia used was a form of market socialism.

>>466224
>AI could have agency, and Bing's chatbot seems to do a good job of feigning intelligence and self awareness, which could make it dangerous. 'Malicious' is in the eye of the beholder.
While that's true, all the bad stuff that has happened sofar was shit people programmed computers to do.
I'm undecided about how agency in an AI would come about. It could be an emergent phenomenon. However i have never seen an example of software that has "free features" that you get as a by-product. My experience is that everything computers do has to be programmed into them. It's a box and you only get out as much as you put in. My guess is that if those gpt-type AIs gain agency it some how has to be in the machine-learning-training-data or somewhere in the algorithm.

>I just really dislike the faux certainty
How is it false certainty to say:
<it's possible to frustrate the abuse

>Debatable at best, but highly unlikely. It's not as if people are deeply familiar with how an electrical current works, which has been around much longer. Of course, why do they need to be, if the light turns on when they flick a switch.
Electrical engineering isn't a language skill.
Programming is "talking" to computers.
People had to learn to read and write in order to interact with paper administration.
Eventually they'll have to learn how to program to interact with digital administration. In the long run the skeuomorphic logic from the paper-document age is going to shift to a digital native formal language, maybe some kind of high level script language.
>From my perspective, millennials seem to be more computer literate compared to zoomers.
I don't accept this specific concept of generations, i think it's idealism and puts people into arbitrary groups.
I look at the numbers of people who can program, and that's going up.
You need to pay attention to the type of computer and how it affects the user composition.
Desktop computers select for more technically inclined users than smart-phones.
So when smartphones were introduced, less technical users flooded into the computer-user cohort.
That caused a historically one-off drop in average technical sophistication of computer users.
But for each segment of computer user, trends point towards more technical sophistication.

>IPhone gives users less control over their devices,
Compared to what ? Desktop computers, sure, but is that really a good comparison ?
If you compare smart-phones with feature-phones plus PDAs, then smart-phones are slightly less locked down. Even the ones from the notorious fruit company.
>Granted, people who do value control over their devices and privacy are highly unlikely to use iphone
There wasn't even an option for that before smart-phones.

>You sound like a cross between an alien
You know how aliens sound ?

>Usually when someone destroys books, libraries, or suppresses information, there is a very specific intention behind it.
Oh sure individuals have their specific motivations, but from a historical perspective, there are antagonistic trends, some people try to build information system while others try to tear them down.

>Words have whatever meaning I want them too
Screw-U i'm not making shit up.
The internet was originally defined as an international computer network that used packet-switching and the key feature was that it did not have gate-keepers.
If you go to a big-tech platform you are leaving the internet and enter a corporate internal network.
I'm just using the original meaning.

>>466219
I'm speaking of industry in the 19th century. In the 20th century, you see an increase in standard of living - only that which allowed for the development those who managed society wanted, rather than something done because the workers won or because the managers were nice. You could rise only on the managers' terms, and there were people who accepted this. The change in the 20th century did lead to a conscious redistribution of wealth to allow for a class of technical workers and a base for the new institutions. In the 19th century, there was some class mobility and a concept that tomorrow could be better than today, but it was the exception rather than the rule. The rule was slavery of some sort and a grim existence, where you were lucky to hold on to much at all. There remained independent thought among the workers, and working class people would take an interest in science and politics not because they were cajoled to but because they found the topics interesting. The working class would always approach these concepts on their terms, and this was unacceptable to those of a middle class political mindset. If the working class truly thought for themselves, they would see the arrangements on offer as totally incompatible with the workers' continued existence, and agitate not to hand power over to allies in a revolution, but to never have to deal with middle or upper class politics again. What the working class did want, when they had an aim for social engineering, was democratization of knowledge and to not be lorded over by these institutions, so they can have what they wanted in the first place. It wasn't about an idea of freedom or being praised, but about the tangible end result. The smarter communists recognized this and spoke to the workers as if they had their own interests, and that the communists were there to do something worthwhile for their constituents. It never actually works that way, but if you can't get rid of politics, you could in theory choose a less terrible politician who will let you have nice things. The capitalists at the time did not want the workers to have nice things. What the workers clawed back, they won out of pure spite and because no political or social system could truly stop the workers from having those things. It wasn't some wise idea from above that liberated the workers. The workers were holding on to freedom they already possessed and defending themselves because they were under attack.

I think you mis-interpreted me as anti-tech. I'm noting that the interest that formed around technology, the people who became technicians, have their own motives and something to defend - their stake in this technological knowledge - and this changes their motivations in any struggle of classes or institutions. There is a great effort to mystify what this technological interest is, because certain people wish to defend it, or utilize technology for their aims of social engineering, such as the eugenists. The holders of the technology themselves are not beholden to any particular ideology, and can see eugenics as something that threatens their control of the machine in the long term. The eugenists want everyone to think like them and embrace the Satanic way of thinking, while the tech bros just want to keep what they possess like most people do.

>>466235
The ARPANet was intended to allow for a line of communication in the event of a nuclear attack - basically there would be no center to attack, because command and control could be rerouted through any node. It wasn't originally built with the intent of opening it up for business, although that possibility was something on the mind of people before ARPANet was a thing.

This had a number of implications for command and control, and the nuclear war scenario was an unrealistic one - neither of the chief nuclear powers were actually going to fire the nukes. Basically, what the internet is now and its central control was something that could be engineered. All it really required was a preponderance of information output, that dwarfs anything the people would contribute to the network, with the disadvantages they have. Normal people can't spend all day being internet influencers who are paid and given license to lie profusely. That isn't something that is hardwired into the computer system, but is due to the nature of communciation. Communication theory is pretty interesting stuff if you have a systems analysis background and think these things through. So many people didn't get what McLuhan was really referencing, at that it was only a part of what was coming in the then-future.

Technically now the internet doesn't have gatekeepers, but the NSA and so on can control to a large extent digital information. That's why the push to digitalization happened - digital information can be manipulated by algorithm, and so you have a very effective tool for muting what is communicated, and can promulgate ideas through memes and so on. Nothing stops people from creating their own website - I did, and it's pretty easy. You can even find free hosts still. It isn't done because it's hard to find reach, while if you go into the mainstream sites, you can find an audience. The forums were the original hub of internet communication, and the tactics to control them were not some novel technology or control of the source, but taking over moderation and using political tactics to create the chilling effect. It's why ED and Kiwifarms exist - they create a chilling effect that lets people know what happens if you transgress certain lines or are declared fair game. There's little preventing me from purchasing a raspberry pi, finding a server, and hosting something on the internet. The telecom monopoly does make it difficult to enter the internet if you're locked out, but there are ample ways to circumvent it if you think for five minutes about how to get the word out. A smart propagandist will always know to find people who are basically "neutral", who can do the grunt work of disseminating "illegal" information and getting around the internet police. The principle at work with controlling the internet is the principle of the Satan - that there is always one ruling idea that can create a monopoly on spiritual authority by means of force, and that idea tends to regress to the simplest means of control. That is to say, it will resort to snark, rot, vice, and appeals to the lizard brain, and it can simply transgress all decencies until it gets what it wants.

>>466235
Who's 'we' tho

>>466235
Agency is something different from consciousness. We are conscious because we feel and pursue wants that are independent of anything else, and because cognition is something that actually happens, rather than merely an idea or a symbol we accept. We have to believe this in order for our sense of the world to be real, and we can see very easily that we are cognizant because certain processes happen regularly and do not cease until we die, rather than cognition being something passive and truly apart from the world, an idea held above it.
Computers do not feel because they are not designed to feel, or react to events like organic life does. If we did build such a machine, it would not be like today's computers, but it would be an artificial organism with feedback much like our own. We would be creating an artificial human or something human-like, if it were cognizant in the way we are.

You can envision an AI having "agency" in a legal and political sense simply by declaring it so. We can legally and politically declare humans who are conscious to have no agency, and if they act in defiance of the dictate, they are violating the natural law and will be disciplined. This is what slaveries do - declare that the slave has no agency and will, regardless of what processes the slave does. A slave can insist he has agency and a mind of his own, and he'll be laughed out of the room every time. It always happens, and it is very easy. We are trained not to think of it that way and believe that the abolition of slavery was a true thing accomplished by decree, but it has long been known that this was not the whole of abolition. Abolition concerned the institution of chattel slavery rather than all actions between people that could be construed as slavery. If you wished to reimpose de jure slavery with the existing legal code and practices, you wouldn't have to go far. You would use existing practices in psychiatry rather than simply declaring chattel slavery is back. That's what is done to break prisoners - interventions and treatments to make them accept slavery.

>>466227
I would say that it can be a strategy, but, that doesn't say anything about it itself being a viable socialist mode of production which I believe it is the most viable of all our options. The way it is historically defined does not mean it cannot be or behave a different way. What matters is if it works or not and maximizes works freedom; as a productive force.

>>466226
>What were the characteristics of Yugoslavia and how can we learn from them that is the real question.
So lets take a look at Yugoslav economic system, shall we?

>I am not super familiar with the history of Yugoslavia but I know it was democratically syndicalistic as anarchist Spain was no?
It was the same coop based market economy of self-managed economic units.

>>466227
>Syndicalism is a strategy of using radical unions to organize your revolution against capitalism.
It is also an economic strategy of organizing production on the union basis.
And even by your narrow definition it is a failure because there are no "radical" unions anymore.

Relax fags, no need to be all defensive. I don't mind coops and union control. In some cases. Small to medium economic unit cases. But anything that has critical significance for society (such as all kinds of infrastructure)? Nah, get fucked, I'm not gonna sit and look how some bunch of union fucks gets to dictate their demands to the whole population by threatening to turn off the power plant. Or how some firm gets to rip me off just because it is a coop.

Looking at the pie chart, at the very least mostly nationalized should be:
- transportation, communications, public utilities (critical)
- mining (natural monopoly)
- wholesale trade
- finance etc. (completely)
- construction (a source of financial instability in a market economy)

So that leaves for coops only services (no financial, internet, etc), manufacturing, agriculture and retail trade. And I wanna at the very least a "commanding heights" state presence in all of them, especially manufacturing, especially electronics and capital goods.

Also coops should not be completely independent, their charter should be drafted by the wider public, including covering such topics as the distribution of profits and labor contractions. I don't wanna see pigs running around under the signboard of a coop.

Also I want a complete state monopoly on foreign trade.

>>466335
This niqqa is acting like he's playing a sim video game

>>466335
>>466335
>o lets take a look at Yugoslav economic system, shall we?



What you posted says nothing about how it actually functioned though

>It was the same coop based market economy of self-managed economic units.

That's not really how syndicalism functioned in spain, per se.

>It is also an economic strategy of organizing production on the union basis.
And even by your narrow definition it is a failure because there are no "radical" unions anymore.


This is not a failure of the economic system though. This is a failure of the revolution itself.

<But anything that has critical significance for society (such as all kinds of infrastructure)?

Why would union members threaten to do that in a system that does not have profits as the central focal point A && B at all because they themselves need that to survive. What you are basically saying here is you are ok with some slavery just as long as it is slavery where you think it matters the most. You seem to be fundementally misunderstanding the nature of my proposition because in a post revolutionary society we will not be under the same forces that govern our economy such as we have today and such as existed even in the soviet union and it's satellites. Any socialist worth his weight today seeks the abolition of commodified wage labor completely not half measures that were undertaken by the soviet union.


>pie chart

Spain was run on a system of labor notes it's really apples and oranges here if you think that what I am talking about is a market system based on cooperatives.

The wider public is the syndicate and is the union. The whole public should be part of and given the option to engage in the union.\ basically over taking the function of the state itself. I think that some federal government obviously will be neccesary, but, the power should be in the hands of the workers. If your idea of socialism doesn't give power to the workers then we are not going to see eye to eye. I don't know if you have actually participated in any union activity, but, union charters are drafted via democratic methodology by the union members themselves. In our ideal scenario that function would be adopted by the general public themselves. You seem to think there is some type of division between the workers and the public but they are actually one and the same.

The point of all of this theorizing is to come to an understanding of what does and does not constitute a rational economic system and the only way to truly understand what is rational is to allow the people who do the labor themselves the ability to democratically decide that ourselves and decide how and when things in the economy should be crated and where they should go, or, where they need to go.

>>466338
Well we know how to take action, but, putting a mass labor movement into action is a little more complicated than your average walk in the park.

>>466339
Have tried explaining to them your view of Yugoslavia, comrade?

>>466336
That's because I know what I want. Not in some vague ass "muh freedum" sense, but in actual concrete policies sense.

>>466337
>What you posted says nothing about how it actually functioned though
How so? It was a coop market economy. An economy where coops optimize for profit.

>That's not really how syndicalism functioned in spain, per se.
And how did it really function then? What was the motive for economic activity? I'm pretty sure anarchists had money..

>this is not a failure of the economic system though. This is a failure of the revolution itself.
A failure is a failure.
To fetishize unions in this day and age, especially as a vehicle of revolutionary change - is to ignore the whole history of the twentieth century. Syndicalist project failed long before the Soviet Union did. Fact.

>Why would union members threaten to do that in a system that does not have profits
Why would syndicalist system have no profits? What would be the motivation of economic activity if you don't have neither profits nor planning administrative directives?

>all because they themselves need that to survive
You know that power station could supply electricity far away from its own location?
Anyway, your argument is based on the assumption that what is critical for the society as a whole is also critical for an individual, or some group of individuals. Which is wrong. Some small group can experience an increase in the standard of living, while the general population experiences decline.

>What you are basically saying here is you are ok with some slavery just as long as it is slavery where you think it matters the most.
How is it slavery? I want for people to have political control over the critical infrastructure and economy. It is the opposite of slavery, it is freedom.
And if your fucking union thinks it can ignore political decisions, then it will be forced to follow them at the gunpoint.

>You seem to be fundementally misunderstanding the nature of my proposition because in a post revolutionary society we will not be under the same forces that govern our economy such as we have today and such as existed even in the soviet union and it's satellites.
And what concrete policies would help you achieve this. Please provide a step-by-step algorithm.

>Any socialist worth his weight today seeks the abolition of commodified wage labor completely not half measures that were undertaken by the soviet union.
Half-measures are inevitable, because mode of production is a process in time, not a state.

>Spain was run on a system of labor notes it's really apples and oranges here if you think that what I am talking about is a market system based on cooperatives.
How did they calculate the abstract labor time if you they didn't have neither markets nor computer systems?

>The wider public is the syndicate and is the union.
That's not a wider public. Union membership is only allowed on the per-enterprise or per-industry basis.

>The whole public should be part of and given the option to engage in the union.
Then it is ceases to be a union. Google the definition of a union please.

>basically over taking the function of the state itself
So what's the difference if the union has no limits for its membership? If it looks like a duck..

>I think that some federal government obviously will be neccesary, but, the power should be in the hands of the workers.
The power should be in the hands of the majority. And if this power comes into conflict with the power of some minority of workers with their union.. well, tough luck.

>If your idea of socialism doesn't give power to the workers then we are not going to see eye to eye.
I'm against giving power to some groups of workers with their own narrow interests. Majoritarianism all the way.

>I don't know if you have actually participated in any union activity, but, union charters are drafted via democratic methodology by the union members themselves.
No. The charter should be democratically drafted by the whole public and then imposed on unions under the threat of legal action.

>In our ideal scenario that function would be adopted by the general public themselves.
union members ≠ general public

>You seem to think there is some type of division between the workers and the public but they are actually one and the same.
There is division between particular union members and the non-members.

>The point of all of this theorizing is to come to an understanding of what does and does not constitute a rational economic system and the only way to truly understand what is rational is to allow the people who do the labor themselves the ability to democratically decide that ourselves and decide how and when things in the economy should be crated and where they should go, or, where they need to go.
People use political systems to decide public matters. So those thing should be decided through a political system, and not by allowing everyone to do whatever the fuck they want.

>>466346
Ever heard of behavioral psychology. If so, political implications?

i aint reading all that

>>466347
I don't know much about behaviorism, because of my aversion to psychology as a discipline.
I know that it at least studies conditioning, so it at least deals with the environmental factors, and so can possibly be tied to the social division of labor and historical materialism. But as far as I can see it usually sticks to simple physical stimuli (light etc), and not complex social stimuli.

I think politics can be accurately understood on the basis of group interests, where you classify social groups on the basis of some characteristic - language, ethnicity, position in the social division of labor, income, relationship to the means of production etc. and see what kinds of policies are common for each social group and where they overlap, to see if some classification has more predictive power about policy preferences than the others.

I do think that stimuli are important tho, especially social stimuli. One such powerful stimuli I see is the desire for a common goal. That's why I prefer a dialog system of planning over the pure computational one - human input should be a part of the planning process on botch ends - the output vector and the optimization process. This would allow for an easy overview of the common goal with all the constraints and bottlenecks against which various groups can optimize to increase output or reduce various deficits in the system. If people can clearly see how their individual optimizations contribute to the common goal, they would be more motivated to keep optimizing. This also does not exclude material stimulation, would reduce social conflict due to the participatory nature of the optimization process itself, while at the same time would clearly define hierarchy of the structural elements (what elements can impose what type of constraints) in the model itself, which would correspond to the political hierarchy, and so would reinforce the structure of the political system itself.

>>466260
If you wanted the internet to have an empowering effect for the masses and to make it function as a way for genuine beneficial collective participation in the general intellect.

How would things have to be set up ?

>>466355
Technology does not have a uniform effect like that - it all comes down to how we use it, our intents. The tool doesn't have an independent world-spirit in that way, especially something like the internet which is intended to be accessed by many people for information, and which affects people whether or not they choose to use it. This isn't really a matter of the computer or a particular advance, but communciation. You'd have the same problem if we communicated by writing on paper, and what is the internet at a basic level except electronic communication of the written word, or things that we could interpret as written streams of bytes? There is nothing mystical about communication, and digital electronic communication is designed in ways that make it rationalizable. You could have the same effect that is made by the internet by other communication means, in that you have a network of people communicating and affecting the world, and people far away and in secure bunkers have ways to shape what you read and what you think. A lot of things that are blamed on the internet really have their source in how we are educated, and the ways social order is maintained. It's not about the computer network itself, but about who is sitting at the computer and who controls the central hubs, and why we're going to those central hubs in the first place. Nothing about the internet suggests we have to give our information to Zuckerberg, and Zuck himself remarked at how stupid the users were for letting him do that. The internet was doing fine as a library with really cheap access, and strangely this use of the internet - which was widely recognized from the moment it was opened to people outside the university - has been downplayed and obfuscated. We do have a problem of whether the information in these libraries can be trusted, and who is updating this information, and the ease of censoring digital information automatically, but at as a basic level, I like having an encyclopedia and vast written documents recallable by a simple search. I didn't ask for influencers to use the internet to create a chilling effect because we're not allowed to protect ourselves and Kiwifags are given sanction to exist. A sane society would root out the KF people and expose them, so we can have nice things again. This has happened, where the KFer types are exposed to some mob justice, because there are ordinary people who do not like this shit. The predatory element doesn't have the untrammeled majority support it insinuates that it has - most people know what that means and fucking hate those people, and out of self-defense would not allow them the sort of sanction they are given. The root of this isn't the machine itself, but the people who are educated and selected to promote a predatory society. The machine responsible is the state school and university selecting certain people and favoring a predatory society over something we would want. That's what I lived through in the 1990s and it destroyed my family and so many other people, for the benefit of people who should not have been allowed to do what they did.

>>466352
Politics is not reducible to Schmittian friend-enemy distinctions, if that's what you're getting at. Classifications are not arbitrary identities but are based on some shared history - Schmitt himself doesn't ask that question about history because it's an open question, and the other political elitists don't ask the question of what makes an elite an elite. That would in the end have to be a materialist question; the political elitist just notes that there is a political elite, by some virtue that elite possess which allows them to rule, and that the elite for a lot of reasons will be a minority, but it can never be too small a group - so the political elite is never reduced to a "cabal" or some super secret group about which nothing can be said, but is a fairly large group of people who hold some means to influence the state and society.

>>466352
You don't touch pussy too often, do you

>>466358
No, I have cat allergy.

>>466356
>The internet was doing fine as a library with really cheap access, and strangely this use of the internet - which was widely recognized from the moment it was opened to people outside the university - has been downplayed and obfuscated.
Ok the good aspects about the internet is the structure that's organized like a library.
Can you be more specific ?

>We do have a problem of whether the information in these libraries can be trusted, and who is updating this information, and the ease of censoring digital information automatically, but at as a basic level, I like having an encyclopedia and vast written documents recallable by a simple search.

Technically libraries are not directly searchable, they organize information by categorical subdivision.

I don't know what you mean with a simple search, but the simplest search you can make is a key-word search that looks for associative tags. Like early webpages and search-engines before they created user profiles.

>we're not allowed to protect ourselves and Kiwifags are given sanction to exist. A sane society would root out the KF people and expose them
I have no idea what those kiwi people are. Tho I've seen that term being used before.

>The machine responsible is the state school and university selecting certain people and favoring a predatory society over something we would want.
I agree that it feels like we live in a predatory society.

>>466362
A librarian may sort the books on the shelf, but it is up to the reader to assemble this information for his own use. The categorization scheme in your local library may not conform to how you would need to access this information, if you must connect knowledge across multiple fields to truly know a thing and its relation to other things.

We use a search engine not with a premade index, but to search for words that we would understand to be relevant. There are indices of pages that are pre-sorted - this was something Yahoo originally did, where pages were sorted by topic to find relevant information without a direct text search. I really think abandoning this index is a mistake, but the index manually compiled, or algorithmically compiled with some schema in mind, is not the entirety of a library's useful content.

The internet is not reducible to a library, but so far as we are concerned purely with information, we can approach it like that. If we refer to the use of the internet for command and control, or for excahnge, we are using the internet for very different purposes. If the user loses control and the internet is running him, that's a problem for the user that shouldn't be mystified or encouraged.

I had a massive response to the homsexual OP's gish gallop, but, my computer crashed so I will just point out that you are wrong. You have no understanding of theory or history. You do not understand how linguistics work and how words evolve over time and you do not understand unions at all, or, syndicalism.

You are a faggot and cherry picking and gishgalloping is for homosexuals.

>>466368
Well, boarding the hate train, I would like to say that OP seems to be mashing two different definitions of idealist together, and claims to "hate philosophy" when really you would think a communist or anyone interested in understanding the world would care quite a lot about philosophy, it's just that they would subscribe to materialist philosophy rather than idealist philosophy, but OP seems to think idealist means "utopian" (which to be fair to OP, utopian socialism is philosophically idealist, so it's a pretty confusing evolution of a word to follow) which it does not but it really illustrates OP's confusion about everything he's talking about quite well and succinctly, doesn't it?

Also OP if you read this, know that I share in your eroguro fantasies about hegel and engels so know you aren't alone because dialectics really is idealist and a waste of time, so i despise it's popularizers and want to knifemurderbloodstabattack them, too. I hope you take a greater interest in philosophy so you can articulate that more clearly.
Have you read Rosa Lichenstein's anti-dialectics website? For an introduction/sparknotes I would reccomend reading the symptomaticcommentary interview with her, it's very digestible, even to a philosophical newb.

I don't actually hate you, OP. You raise reasonable concerns and I empathize with your frustrations.

>>466370
It really depends how you apply dialectics if it becomes idealist or not. If you apply it like marx did it deff isn't idealistic

>>466370
There is a use for dialectics as an explanatory tool for us, but making it into something where you build a grand narrative and then insist anything that contradicts your theory must be corrected or ignored is a bunch of malarkey. Marx is guilty of that at points, but part of getting Marx is understanding political thought generally, and people who don't really know politics can come to the wrong conclusions or come to the conclusion to follow the gurus.

I do think the dialectical thinking should be depreciated, because we have or could have a better understanding of systems then we did in the 19th century. The great problem is that you'd give up humanism if you spoke about society frankly, and that leads to really bad things. You'd have to view humans as purely an animal, and their political abstractions as just that, and that includes our concepts of right and wrong and morality. If you can see those things as abstractions coming out of us, yet things that have a real origin, you have a way out, but right now the tendency is to remove the thinking of those who don't belong in the coming world, i.e. most of us who aren't with the program. We have the dual problem where humans have been redefined as purely animalistic, yet humanism of a different sort remains - and that's what eugenics does, redefine human as purely the division between slaves and masters, and so humanism becomes an imperial religion rather than the thing it originally entailed. Humanity is stripped of any meaning except that which serves eugenics and the ruling interest. The only way out of this trap would be for humans to go mad, by our social standards - which is to say, truly renounce the political logic which has been with humanity for a long time, and invent something else. It would be a clean break from the past, and it would have to break past the hammerlock on ideas that has arrested human society. There are so many ways this can go wrong, and certain people are already gaming how to rule forever and maximize the slavery they want.

I don't think there has been a serious trend working against the coming slave system. There have only been scattered thoughts starting basically now, and a few really ancient threads that never went anywhere. The concept that we could be anything other than this has been made inadmissible. The institutions and those who hold them will not allow anything new to exist, because that would entail sparing those who were selected to die, or the whole plan of selecting who lives and who dies would have to be forcibly broken. Since there are millions of influential people and their supplicants who made it clear they will fight to the death to defend their conceit, this makes the future of the world very depressing to think about. They have been able to posture and intimidate and transgress all decencies so far, because the threat of what happens when the mask comes off is too much to bear, and they wish to set it up so that when the mask comes off, we all lose and lose completely. That's the game plan and always has been their modus operandi - to see the mass of humanity run around like headless chickens and glory is the sadism of their plan.

Case in point - you can dialectics away the truth that there are many shitty people in humanity, and you can't pretend the devil isn't real or act like you have a totally perfect technocratic solution. If you do that and then make the entire economy a political matter, you're going to have some severe problems, if someone figures out the key to exploit that. Enter eugenics.

>>466376
>I don't think there has been a serious trend working against the coming slave system. There have only been scattered thoughts starting basically now, and a few really ancient threads that never went anywhere.

The braindead stoner left(tm) literally believes something like a neotributary/managerial system is impossible, and a utopic 'worker democracy' free from class oppression and exploitation is a more realistic possiblity.

These people are politically useless outside of being votefodder for the DNC.

>>466377
How can you use dialectics to abstract away shitty people in humanity? Explain yourself. You seem to not really understand what dialectics is.

Humanity just isn't as simple as your ancient moral philosophies and neither is life on this planet. No one is saying that communism will lead to the end of bad people, but, we certainly think that removing the material conditions for why these people exist in the first place will drastically help, or, reduce the population of sed people.

>Eugenics

Eugenics is not hiding around every corner, sorry.

>>466384
>Thinking in moral terms
Ngmi

>>466388
You have poor reading comprehension if you think that was arguing in favor of a moral binary or morality at all.

>>466384
Typo - should read "you can't dialectics away shitty people". I.e., if someone is a malevolent actor, you can't act as if those people don't exist or that you're going to invisibilize them. Nor do you assert that goodness is inexplicable - there are reasons why people become good or bad, by whatever standard you use to judge moral behavior. Nor are you going to cajole people to become good with threats or lies or this managerial insanity.

It's telling how much the eugenic creed informs what people think of as moral. Their only concept of moral behavior is eugenic behavior - you think of weeding people out in the institutions or managing them like livestock, while a certain class is sacrosanct and assumed morally good. That which is eugenic is identical with that which is moral, and that's why you can talk about an amoral and hedonistic world order - because it feeds eugenics, and this is the only permissible idea of what is good.

>>466388
He's a eugenist. You'd have to be a eugenist to pretend eugenics isn't at the forefront of the ruling ideas after 2020. It's screamed at maximum volume in everything that has been done. I've seen this since the 1990s. It's not hiding. It's what is promoted. It is a Satanic morality which forbids us to even say what it is, and total fear. To go against eugenics is death at this point. You let it rule for too long. There is no hope, there is no end.

>>466398
Can we ever escape your stupidity and do you have to pollute every single thread with your idealism?

>>466397
What do you define as eugenics?
There's a difference between people who die because of the forces of an economic system and people who are substantially eradicated because of supremacist ideology. Not that it makes the former good, but, you cant just call everything bad that happens eugenics.

Diale4ctical materialism does not try to explain away shitty people either. Rather, it tries to meditgate why people ar eshitty in the first place to some degree. Anything else is just a massive misreading.

>>466400
Eugenics is a practice of total social control and subordination of society to "race betterment". A practice of selective breeding at the local level cannot be eugenics and would fail. It necessarily implies a total society for conditions of eugenics to even be established. That is why it was chosen - it wasn't about making people better, but about control. It relies on an interpretation of science, natural history, and biology to impose forcibly its dictates, and the only form eugenics can take is that of a central council deciding who lives and who dies, and eugenics will out of necessity impose violent restrictions on those selected to fail. It cannot do otherwise.

You could do this by means other than eugenics, but eugenics is the way it is done here and now. Denying the centrality of eugenics - when the ruling power constantly talks about eugenic selection and throws it in our face - is the action of someone who is either a coward or an enabler who chose which side of the war they're on. I can get people who see eugenics as their interest, but the sniveling cowards who mystify are truly contemptible.

As for the shittiness of people, you don't need to invent a philosophical explanation accessible only to a few initiates. That's eugenic thinking insinuating itself rather than a legitimate use of dialectical reasoning. You can use dialogue to arrive at meanings and understandings that are not immediately evident from a description of mechanical action, and you should be cautious when doing so. We have better ways to understand emergent behavior in systems today. Dialectics has always been a crutch for humans, who natively understand stories and relations between animate objects rather than systems and mechanics. We are very bad at mechanistic understandings and do much of that unconsciously, and if we attempted to process the world mechanistically based on our available knowledge, we would be overwhelmed. The overuse of narratives and stories is a way humans make this processing easier, since we are not rational computers but living creatures navigating the world with the senses we possess. We are aware on some level our senses can be deceived, which is why periodically we ask questions about what things are. You wouldn't use this to make up understandings, unless you were attempting to cajole people and tell them to turn off their senses.
With the shittiness of people, we know what they want - they see themselves as strong and their opponents as weak, and act accordingly. There's no dialogue about it and never was. When dialectic is used to mystify this, it is always to protect something we've known for a long time to be a problem, as a way of insinuating fear and mystique around a ruling idea. For example, you can't really describe eugenics as it is, because if you did, it would make clear violent rebellion is the only recourse. You'd be going against the Satan, and that cannot be abided. Anything approaching this will lead to the unwritten law's invocation. You can say "eugenics is mean" but this is a pathetic sop and always was, and this is one of the way eugenics is mystified. None of these people should have been allowed to insinuate themselves as they did, and it was always bitterly resisted. A conspiracy marches in lock step to defend their interests, and has always resorted to fear and force to impose violently their vision for the world, even though many of the beneficiaries of eugenics know it is foul and it is destroying the basis for any material wealth or productivity. It is only in recent years that those who thought eugenics would serve them got the bad news that they were never actually selected to live, and they are inventing copes rather than acknowledging their own war guilt.

>>466403
Is the eugenics in the room with us right now?

I know what eugenics is but I don't understand what the hell you are trying to say. You sound like pepe Silvia trying to explain the lost city of Atlantis to me or something. The idea that eugenics is behind reaking class actions and the general actions of the population is nonsense: It might be true at some level but at a foundational level it misses the mark. You have had this explained to you before and you still cint to double down and cling to this idealistic belief that eugenics is in the driver seat when it isn't

>>466439
Wow the level of denialism with these people. Just look at the shit coming out of the aristocracy's mouth. They want massive death and brag about it. Here's an example of what is a common TED talking point, which is sort of the technophile eugenists' hub for telling their faithful what to think:

https://ideas.ted.com/the-rise-of-the-useless-class/

Does that sound like someone who thinks about helping people? This shit is ubiquitous if you look at the liberal ruling elite for any length of time. Anyone running defense for this should just shut the fuck up and go suck their paymasters' cocks.

Yes, eugenics is their guiding idea. There is no ulterior motive. That is the point - they can kill off the poor and win the struggle for life, so they are doing exactly that. Faggots like you let that happen every time you talk down to me for saying basic shit. I shouldn't have to, but that is where we are, and that is why humanity is doomed. It's not going to be my problem soon enough - I will die and you good people will get to live in this hellworld. There is no good reason for me to go along with this and act like anything good will come out of it, or that it can be ignored. I've done far better by hating these people.

You're a fag for enabling any part of it and you should hang your head in shame before insulting me.

>>466458
Anon, I didn't deny anything. You need to take a course in linguistics because you have absolutely no reading comprehension. I said quite the opposite, actually. What I said was that I Agree with you. That they say they want eugenics, but, that it is not the foundational forces that drive what they do. We have gone over this before and you still are here refusing to acknowledge the fact that our society is driven by the profit motive and not eugenics s an ideal. Just because people say something doesn't mean they are not driven by a force they do not understand. Flat earthers deny gravity and yet it still keeps working on them.

>>466465
>the fact that our society is driven by the profit motive and not eugenics s an ideal
But why are people driven toward the profit motive

>>466469
>>466465
Argh, I might have unintitionally causes some cinfusion: I ment that our society IS driven by the profit motives and to think it's driven by eugenics is idealism.

I just wanted to clear that up.
To answer your question that is like asking "why" are people driven by gravity. It really makes no sense. They just are. Profits are the modus-operandi of capitalism. What matters is that, unlike gravity, is is not a literal objective law of the universe and can be changed.

>>466469
He doesn't have an answer. Depopulation is very very unprofitable, but he willfully ignores what is right in front of him. The rulers are not motivated by profit and it is not a conditional of survival. Why seek profit when you can just take everyone's shit and print yourself money? If someone is not seeing this by now, they're mystifying and they know it. This whole "it's the PROFIT" line is something tested on leftypol and pushed by the influencers. They rely on censorship and berating people for going against this wank, this bastardization which is intended to export the Malthusian logic everywhere possible. According to this story, runaway profits cause a vague "ecological catastrophe" which is mystified once people are caught in the narrative. Because two generations are primed to accept this narrative, it relies on institutional support, and when someone goes against it, the screeching begins. It's really a hypnotic, subconscious programming. The cowardly go for it, and those in the know are not going to give that up.

Yes, eugenics is their GUIDING idea. If you want to look at ulterior motives, you would have to look at the spiritual beliefs dominant among the intelligentsia and the shit they REALLY say behind closed door. I have my sense of what they believe behind eugenics, but eugenics is the visible front for what the rulers are doing now. That's the banner people rally to, and they do so not because it is profitable but because they smell victory, and being with eugenics is being with the ruling ideas and institutions. It's why they talk about ingroups and Schmittian politics.

>>466479
I literally answered the question. Just because you don't like the answer because it doesn't conform to your preexisting ideology doesn't make it wrong. Marx wrote about the myopia of capitalist in their short term race for profits. Capitalists are not a hive mind and can and will do things that in the long run will conflict with the profit motive for short term economic gain. That is the whole basis of the falling rate of profit.
The truth is you have no answer because you are a massive idealistic faggot who doesn't understand anything that he is saying and you refuse to change your religious beliefs in spite of mountains of contradictory evidence like any other religio0us zeatlot.
You saw one youtube video about the world economic forum on 4chan and now you are convinced that every small business owner is literally hitler. Give me a break.

>>466479
Let me ask you something.

Even if we assume your point is correct what then? What is the point of the idealistic fart huffing you are peddling? What is your solution to the issue and what do you plan to do about it?

This is the same bullshit the CIA uses to divert peoples attention away from what really matters which is altering the relations of production.

>>466488
Everything you say requires conflating what I have said with your talking points. It is dishonest and trite.
If you deny the centrality of eugenics after 2020, you're a fag, pure and simple. There is no contradictory evidence, unless you believe there is some anti-eugenicist force somewhere in the institutions.

This entire "it's the profits" belief relies on the belief that there is a Good Capitalist that can be tamed and does the Right Things - i.e. eugenic things. You're eugenist, always will be, so you're a fag. That is the only explanation for denying the extent of eugenics, which just about any honest person will say. The only thing I do is dare to say that it is central, because everyone is afraid of that fight or has some belief in eugenics. I have no such belief because eugenics only means eternal living Hell for me. It means eternal living Hell for a lot of people, but certain people want that eternal living Hell. It is something inherent to leftism, the persistent disease that made sure the left was a doomed cause. With "friends" like this, who needs enemies?

The first solution is to not enable your faggotry, but you are eugenist, Satanic, and enjoy the thrill of sadism. That is the only explanation for your insulting behavior and defense of eugenics at this point, fag, and you are a fag.

>>466488
Also, your line is literally created by CIA. This is what Marcuse tells people to do to disrupt communist parties, and it works because Marxism was created with poison pills. It's not the totally perfect theory, where it cannot fail but can only be failed. This idea of perfect systems that can only be failed is eugenic in nature.

>>466507
>>466508

See and it allways ends like this.
You are a broken record constantly spinning your wheels in the mud with no en goal and absolutely no idea of where you are going. You're like a dog chasing cars and you cannot answer me because you know that what I am saying points that out so you are just going to resort to crying and calling me "Le heckin CIAarino" or whatever. You are a useless midwit, anon.

What I am saying is exactly what proves profitability is central to the existence and motivations of our system but you are to much of a midwit idealist to understand that.
Go away.

>>466509
If the rulers were interested in profitability, they wouldn't liquidate the lower and middle strata of capital. That has been their plan for some time, and many of the middle strata have accepted that they will accept the oligarchy. This means the end of profit-seeking even as a pretense. The only reason it persisted was to convince the lower orders of capital that business would still go on as long as they kept their head down. 2020 put an end to that.

If someone were interested in restoring profitability, they would take very different steps. Trump signaled that he would do that, but obviously Trump is a showman. There is nothing but the monopolists taking what they didn't take in 2008. A monopolist has no interest in profitability because they own what they really want; far from it, destroying profitability is exactly what monopolists at the apex of the arrangement would want, because it allows them to liquidate competitors and the failed capitalists. This is really fucking basic shit, and Marx understood that. The argument Marx makes is that capitalism leads to regular fucking-over of a lot of people as a rule, and that many people he writes to are going to be screwed if the system continues as it was. It wasn't just fucking over the workers - they were always fucked. The weaker capitalist struggles and is set up to lose, and when the weaker capitalists see the writing on the wall, they can either lick boot of the winners or they can rebel. Marx is telling some of those people, particularly those in certain sectors of the bourgeoisie, "hey, look at this thing I call the proletariat, we can use these people".

>>466510
Why wouldn't they? As technology evolves and the ability to produce commodities becomes easier and easier, again, capitalism requires the working class less and less. This falls directly in line with the profit motive of capitalism. They don't want to cull the working class because they are "le heckin evil bad dudes!!!!!" They want to cull us because they have to pay us money in order to preform labor and produce capital that they can turn into surplus profits. Even so they will still require, theoretically, profits in order to obtain capital and initiate trade amongst one another. Even oligarchies still follow market laws under capitalism. You people love to bastardize marx in order to justify your vapid stupidity but you cannot fool me.

The basic shit is: Capitalism is an economic system predicated upon the production of commodities for profit by the working class. Those who have nothing to sell but their labor for a wage in a market economy. That is true today as it was in the late 19th century. Nothing you say or no matter how many temper tantrums you throw will ever change that fact.
That is basic Marxism. Cope seethe dilate.
I am literally going to kill myself if I have to explain this very simple fact to anymore of you retards I swear to god.

>>466512
The cost of active liquidation of the lower classes is extremely expensive in manpower. You would have to employ a large sector of the population towards the task of killing of another portion.
You have to mystify away the apparatus that is killing us for your thinking to hold, which you do because you are eugenist and want the killing to continue as if it were a passive force of nature. This stops the moment the machine is no longer active, and when no one has any incentive compelling them to participate. It only stops them. It does not stop because you can cajole a revolution into existence. It stops when there is a genuine counter-force to eugenics, which you habitually refuse to allow because you chose which side of the war you are on.

Since it is clear eugenics has won, the human project is failed. There is no hope. That's why you cower like a sniveling faggot and think attacking me is worth more than winning a single fucking thing, fag.

>>466513
Do you seriously not understand economics at all, or, are you just choosing to ignore me because I feel like this has been explained to you ad-infinitum. Also, it's really fucking annoying to keep hearing you accuse me of "mystifying" anything when you are sitting here thinking that eugenics isn't intrisically woven into the system capitalism rather than there being a magically group of people overtly trying to genocide the working class. Capitalism will naturally lead to these conclusions, again, through the profit motive. With revolutionary potential dead (and the rest of it being channeled into fighting non existent enemies and being completely fucking brain dead morons like you) we can deduce how capitalism will most likely contiue forward from our current point in history.

Again, the falling rate of profit is going to keep making the profit margins that can be achived righter and tigher in the economy. As Marx poited out, capitalists can off set this in two ways: A. Technological advancment and B: Become closer and closer to out right slavery. Seeing how we live in the nice first world that will leave one option in the US (and most likely into the future as well) again this is going to mean that workers are naturally going to be weeded out in the economy as they are replaced with robots more and more.
No magical cabal of evil bad dudes who look like lex Luthar required.

By the way I Am stil waiting for you to answer >>466488 spoiler you can't

>>466515
You're just autistically repeating "profit profit profit" and can't answer how mass liquidation which those in charge announce over and over again is supposed to be a profit-making venture. Highly unproductive labor does not serve a disciplinary function, if the goal were to accumulate tokens of value. Mass propaganda everywhere which costs trillions of dollars and charges exorbitant wealth to do nothing but lie is not about selling things to people, fag. You are a retarded middle class grasping fag through and through. You're Satanic and refuse to understand basic human behavior, because you've been enabled, you fag fag fag fag fag.

This is what happens when the rulers win, fag. You're a fag and an enabler, and you don't even get paid anything. You do it for the cheap thrill, and that's all you are and will ever be, Satanic.

This entire thinking requires believing capitalism is a "perfect system" and communism must violate and transgress to exist. It is Hitlerian, it is Satanic, it is fag thinking, and it was tested on leftypol because it's a /pol colony. Fag.

>>466520
You are not a communist, fag. You're an idiot creating a substitute to derail any meaningful conversation.
Normal people know what eugenics is and don't reflexively defend it. Only fags do.

>>466517
I seriously don't think this anon can read at this point. Is English not your first language or are you seriously just more brain dead and retarded than I ever could have possibly comprehended because I have explained it to you multiple times in this thread and now I will do so again:

Capitalism naturally will result in the genocide of the working class with out revolutionary fever to encompass the masses as capitalism continues to progress historically because due to the falling rate of profit technology will slowly replace organized labor resulting in a crisis of capital which will be resolved dialectic ally one way or the other up to and including the targeted genocide of the working class.

Again, this is a real, objective, material explanation for the forces of capitalism that do not require a spooky Lex Luthar economic forum member hiding under your bed.

Also, for the millionth fucking time the goal personally doesn't have to be to accrue profit, but, that is what is required objectively in order for a company to sustain its existence. This is basic economics you fucking retard. You are possibly one of the dumbest people on earth.

>>466518
No it doesn't you moronic faggot; As has again be explained to your stupid ass near infinitum capitalism is not a perfect system nore does profit being the a-priori system by which the economy functions means capitalism is a perfect system nore does it mean that workers cannot arise to the task to take history into their own hands.
Just because you are a dumb ass with no understanding of politics, history, or economics, or, well, anything really, doesn't mean that what I am says is your dumb ass strawman.

You are an idealist faggot kill yourself.

Still waiting for you to answer >>466488

>>466522
Capitalism is not a passive force animating the world. You don't have capitalism without capitalists. Society and all you can say about consists in the first instance of social agents. If you're not talking about the behavior of rational agents, you are not talking about capitalism in any real sense. You're talking about a myth, a story you tell to supplant any understanding. Capitalism is premised on rational agents either wanting it to exist, or preferring it to the alternatives given what they know about the world. You're too Satanic to understand that, and at this point you have to be deliberately stupid to not see the centrality of eugenics, or the message coming out of the ruling institutions and the talking heads. They don't shut up about depopulation and it's fucking everywhere. You're a fag for denying it.

>>466521
No one is defending eugenics you useless tool. Answer >>466488

>>466523
>Capitalism is not a passive force animating the world.

I never said it was

>You don't have capitalism without capitalists.

Ok and you don't have capitalists with out profits.

>If you're not talking about the behavior of rational agents, you are not talking about capitalism in any real sense.

Libertarian brainworms. Capitalism is not about "free agents" capitalism is a mode of production with an objective methedoloy. You are the one talking about something that is not capitalism making up grand narratives you massive fucking RETARD. You literally are suggesting that a spooky cabal of faggots is planing objectively world domination or something when even if that is true it doesn't matter because they are still guided by the forces of capitalism.


Do you think that capitalism doesn't have an underlying logic to it? Serious question. Do you think that economic systems of production have no method by which they function? Do you think things just happen for no reason in the current economy? You make absolutely no sense and you are so mind mindbogglingly stupid I am at an absolute loss for words here.

>Capitalism is premised on rational agents either wanting it to exist,

Only in the mind of moronic liberatarian idealists like yourself.

>You're too Satanic to understand that

<ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS LE HECKIN SATANARINO

Why don't you go back to twitter since that seems to be your speed; The slow lane.

>and at this point you have to be deliberately stupid to not see the centrality of eugenics


If eugenics is central to the function of our political and economic system then why can you remove the spooky jews you claim are running the country and the system as we understand it will still continue functioning exactly as it is today?

You can literally remove every single person in power today and some one will eventually replace them because capitalism functions by an a-priori methodology.

Do you think that people just inherently support eugenics?

Can you actually answer anything or are you going to keep pussyfooting around the point like a faggot?

Holy fuck you are stupid

>>466521
>You're an idiot creating a substitute to derail any meaningful conversation.

The lack of self awareness here is astounding.

>>466524
Yes you are. If you deny the centrality of eugenics despite the extreme propaganda sent out daily by the press, where they brag about the war against the weak and taking away all of those benefits, you are an enabler. That is the GUIDING principle, retard. The profit is not sought out of some sense that profit is the Demiurge. Profit was always a means to an end in certain conditions, fag.

The motives for eugenics are that it is the surest way to secure the alliance of interests ruling presently - those who rule can only do so through an intellectual elite and lockstep enforcement of morality. They do this so they can win the war against their chosen enemies, the residuum and those who do not go along with their program. Eugenics was the chosen front for this, the scientific face of the ruling interest, because it united that interest on the basis of biology and presumed hereditary virtue. This incentive is naturalized and considered eternal, and can arrest history. If you wished to rule a permanent tyranny, you would resort to eugenics as the obvious way to do that in this time and with the conditions eugenics was envisioned in.
I don't think you need to explain human avarice with a theory. You would have to presume that humans are "naturally pure good" to engage in such a sophist's argument. Capitalism obviously is premised on a belief that individual pursuit of wealth is morally sound - free trade is at its core premised on moral philosophy, rather than a just-so story of why humans engage in market activity. There are things humans do which are contrary to market society every day, and none of the classical liberals were making the claim that the market was an ideological absolute. Only the eugenic creed truly indulged in that. You are eugenist and Satanic, and so all things must regress to the absolute, the primordial light, for your world-system to remain coherent. Therefore you will attack anyone who opposes the creed with vigor, but cannot lift a finger to defend anyone. That's why you are a Satanic and not a person worth listening to, and why you persist in being a fag, fag, FAG.

If you argue that humans are amoral creatures moved along like evolutionary flotsam or automata, you are making claims which are not defensible by any concept of "human" that we have long understood. Decision making in humans is guided by some moral philosophy; otherwise, the human is nothing more than a vessel animated by forces. In such a world, there is no point in speaking of communism, and the only outcome is that the Satanic impulse carries out its mission to the intended conclusion. It makes the thinking that motivates greed and eugenics and absolute and eternal, which I know you believe. That is why you are defending - the eternity of the eugenic creed and the eternal thrill of making others suffer. You can do that if you like, but the outcome to the rest of us of that thinking has always been known. That is why so many people resist eugenics, because eugenics is not truly natural the way you insinuate that it must be, because you believe eugenics is the absolute and above all other moral codes. You would have to enshrine eugenics as a super-science above all to deny its centrality at this point, because as I said, the propaganda in favor of eugenics is everywhere.

Given the victory of the Satanic thrill, I have no expectation that this will change any time soon. That is the end state of humanity, because of faggots like this who want it. The countervailing force against it lacked the "want it more" that the eugenists brought to bear. The moment the eugenists built nuclear weapons and pointed them at the civilians was the moment humanity was done. The rest was just a matter of pointing to the nukes any time a crisis appeared to displease the creed. It's also why the first response to nuclear weapons was to say "bring it, fuckers". You didn't see Stalin or Mao prance like retards while being afraid of nuclear war. If you're going to build those things, you better fucking use them or shut up.

>>466524
i am

>>466530
This is your brain on idealism.

>>466060
holy fucking based and same

Update: I still fucking hate communists.

Especially I hate leftoids that throw around the term "scientific socialism" and then proceed to cling to their 19th century dogmas about the inevitability of communism, post-scarcity, everything according to need, blah-blah and other philosophical ramblings. They couldn't be further from "the science" even if they run from it.

Obviously brainlet leftoids try to use the authority of science to peddle their own biases. Pathetic.

Somehow in a finite universe with HARD PHYSICAL constraints leftoids would have infinite everything for their every whim.
This BLIND faith in that humanity has no HARD CONSTRAINS IMPOSED ON THEM BY THE UNIVERSE is a variation of general techno-utopianism, the same techno-utopianism that is the guiding light of all capitalist apologists.
A curious convergence of the left and right indeed.

>>467435
>is a variation of general techno-utopianism
or more generally anthropocentric bias that is a byproduct of religious mindset

there always must be a guiding light to salvation, humanity can't just run into a dead end
IT JUST CAN'T OKAY!

I also hate communists that still cling to their special snowflake variation of "democratic centralism" as if 20th century didn't happen

nothing screams "scientific" louder than when you stick your head into the sand and ignore reality that proved you wrong

Also nothing screams "scientific" more louder than when you ignore your own theory of the primacy of the material base over superstructure and claim that a state is socialist because it has red flags and is ruled by a party that has "communist" in its name.

Lenin at least had the decency to not claim that USSR under NEP was socialist.

also nothing more "scientific" than when you completely ignore demographic trends and rising wages and still claim that a country still has domestic abundance of labor relative to capital and that's why it just can't be imperialist

IT JUST CAN'T BE EVEN A LITTLE BIT IMPERIALIST! IT JUST CAN'T, OKAY! LOOK AT THE FLAGS!

I also in general hate leftoids who can't reduce their abstract thought notions to concrete policies. This ties to my passionate hate of philosophy because those notions are usually of the philosophical kind.

NEVER IN MY LIFE have I seen a "philosopher" who would voluntarily descend to our sinful earth from his ivory tower.
Only under immense pressure, only when backed into the corner with no way out.

I also hate leftoids who chase trends and don't stick to their principles. Those leftoids are usually also big into philosophy.

As soon as science proper separated from philosophy - philosophy immediately was reduced to being a tool of the class rule tho more like class cope

It's a general rule of thumb that if person thinks they can find profound truths in philosophical wankery - they have a reactionary bias.
If you view philosophy as anything but "what class interest does this particular piece of wankery consciously or subconsciously represents?", then I have dad news - you're an eternal brainlet.

>>467435
Well technically speaking most of the historic scientific socialists didn't think socialism was inevitable, they considered barbarism a real possibility. If you look at the 20th century you kinda got both, there was a big thrust towards socialism in the Soviet Union etc and barbarism with fascism in WW2.

Post scarcity is definitely possible, people are finite beings with finite needs and wants. And we'll eventually be able to satisfy all the needs and wants of 99% of people. There's always going to be a small fraction of people who aren't happy unless they own everything, and the rest of society owns nothing while living in misery, but that's not the clientele for socialism anyway. Since we're not catering to megalomania, we're going to call post scarcity for 99% of people as close enough. Capitalism only satisfies about 10% of a population, so it's a big step up.

>a finite universe with HARD PHYSICAL constraints
That's just an assumption we're making based on current rather limited astrophysics capabilities. At least wait a few years until the recently launched James Webb telescope had time to bring in more data. There's enough matter and energy for trillions of years of sublime existence, even with the current horizons there are no practically relevant limitations, other than those set by scientific and technological understanding. Even if we don't make any further advances in science, we'll be able to operate as if there were no limits for countless millennia. There's no reason to worry about the limits of the Universe, unless you want to use it for concern trolling. The things we do today will only affect the next 200 to 500 years anyway, so it's not worth thinking further ahead than that.

>the same techno-utopianism that is the guiding light of all capitalist apologists.
Well the capitalist have build a techno-dystopia, but that doesn't mean we can't do better.
The capitalists might have lost their credibility when it comes to using technology for progress but why would that apply to socialists ?

Maybe humanity ends trillions of years from now, having "only" expanded 33 megaparsecs (110 m lightyears) throughout the Virgo supercluster and "only" colonized roughly 100k galaxies. And the last human dies on some artificial habitat that's powered by a black-hole hawking-radiation collector in the post-stellar phase of the universe. That would still be a phenomenal run for our species. And we're at the beginning of that adventure, so cheer up.

>>467445
>Well technically speaking most of the historic scientific socialists didn't think socialism was inevitable, they considered barbarism a real possibility.
which undermined their claims to being "scientific" because "barbarism" is not a mode of production, but a populist political term

>Post scarcity is definitely possible, people are finite beings with finite needs and wants.
People live on a finite planet in a finite solar system in a finite milky way galaxy, et cetera

It's a big leap of faith to claim that what is THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE would be PRACTICALLY FEASIBLE

>even with the current horizons there are no practically relevant limitations, other than those set by scientific and technological understanding
there are very PRACTICAL limitations such as the speed limit
or even more practical limits such as energy and material costs

you utopoid fags always amaze me by your sheer ignorance of just how fragile our position on this planet, in this solar system, in this galaxy, in this universe really is

space is a cold hostile place for life, and no mode of productions would change this basic fact

>>467445
I thought particle physicists did some fancy math using triangles that prove the universe extends forever in all directions.

>>467446
>which undermined their claims to being "scientific" because "barbarism" is not a mode of production,
if you want to be scientific about it it's a mode of destruction

>People live on a finite planet in a finite solar system in a finite milky way galaxy, et cetera
So ?
What are you complaining about, if planets were infinite we'd never be able to explore space, leveling up to the next level would be an infinity far away.

>It's a big leap of faith to claim that what is theoretically POSSIBLE would be FEASIBLE
The nay-sayers have so far been wrong every time. We'll render our selves able to explore the universe just to prove people like you wrong.

>there are very PRACTICAL limitations such as the speed limit
We can easily explore the entire virgo supercluster without breaking the speed of light.

>or even more practical limits such as energy and material costs
Not really no, we'll just improve the productive forces a bit, that'll make it affordable.

>just how fragile our position on this planet, in this solar system, in this galaxy, in this universe
If we tech-up and go exploring the universe we'll find ways to improve the robustness of our position.

>space is a cold hostile place for life
Sure you have to build massive spaceships and what not. You can't swim naked through the cosmos.

>>467450
>I thought particle physicists did some fancy math using triangles that prove the universe extends forever in all directions.
If we can only go slower than light-speed, we'll only be able to reach several hundred thousand galaxies before the cosmic expansion makes the rest of the universe move away from us faster than we can go towards it.

Of course if we figure out faster than light, we'll be able to go on forever.

There's some chance that if we don't figure out faster than light, we might be able to figure out how the universe made matter and energy in the first place and tap that for civilization-go-juice.

>>467451
>if you want to be scientific about it it's a mode of destruction
No brainlet, if you want to be even somewhat coherent with your own theory of historical materialism then fascism would be a capitalist mode of production
fascism is a variant of the superstructure, not of the base

and the so-called "barbarism" is nothing more than a moral term

>We'll render our selves able to explore the universe just to prove people like you wrong.
Very "scientific" lol

<U DON'T UNDERSTAND WE WOULD JUST USE MAGIC TO DEAL WITH VARIOUS SCARCITIES! THAT'S HOW WE WOULD ACHIEVE COMMUNISM!
Gods, I fucking HATE communists.

>>467453
Sure fascism is capitalist. But I'm not going to call fascism a mode of production, because fascism didn't produce much of anything.

>Very "scientific" lol
Yes actually trying to prove others wrong is part of the scientific process.

>WE WOULD JUST USE MAGIC
maybe you should not use straw-men arguments.

>Gods, I fucking HATE communists.
That's very flattering but we're not gods.

>>467454
>But I'm not going to call fascism a mode of production, because fascism didn't produce much of anything.
fascism is a superstructure, retard
can't you read?

>Yes actually trying to prove others wrong is part of the scientific process.
you didn't try to prove shit
you just wrote a bunch of wishful thinking

>maybe you should not use straw-men arguments
"DUDE SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY" is not an argument
there are also limits to the development of the technology irrespective of the mode of production

>That's very flattering but we're not gods.
autist, reread that sentence again

>>467453
Fascism is socialism. It's literally when the economy is subsumed and directed by a state, and recalcitrant and wholly parasitic capitalists are ushered into concentration camps. Basically the same as the soviet union or pre-Deng China.

>>467456
>wholly parasitic capitalists are ushered into concentration camps
please do tell me what capitalists were "ushered" into concentration camps in Germany, Spain, Chile, Portugal, Taiwan, Indonesia, etc etc

>>467457
Only the ones that refused to get with the program and submit to the people's supreme state

>>467458
name them

protip: even jewish big capitalists in nazi Germany weren't sent to concentration camps

>>467456
>It's literally when the economy is subsumed and directed by a state
never happened in fascism
all the "direction" was done only in the military related sectors and by giving capitalists massive subsidies with favorable government contracts and even then capitalists frequently sabotaged production plans when their profit margins suffered

>>467460
>by giving capitalists massive subsidies with favorable government contracts
oh, and also cheap slave labor