[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord

File: 1685137631742.jpg ( 30.33 KB , 1000x624 , socialism as process.jpg )


When the capitalist mode of production was beginning to emerge out off late stage feudalism it did so very incrementally but unrelentingly so. The feudal ruling class noticed what was happening and they fought the rise of the bourgeoisie tooth and nail from the very beginning. The power struggle was furious and without restraint of any kind, the barbarity and cruelty was boundless. But to no avail, even in the nascent stages the capitalist system could drain energy and resources from the feudal system, and it could feed off attacks from the feudal ruling class. The more the feudal aristocracy attacked the bourgeoisie the stronger capitalism became. Also the bourgeoisie won the battle of economics before they engaged in political struggles to re-arrange the state for their needs.

I think that socialists have to conceptualized socialism as a similar process that consumes the precursor system.

- It has to be able to be bootstrapped in extremely hostile conditions, and then grow incrementally from small beginnings.
- It has to drain energy from the system it is supposed to replace.
- It has to be able to feed off the attacks from the precursor system and gain strength from it.
- It has to be able to take over economic structures even before it engages in political struggles to re-arrange the state. (obviously this is for conditions where it's not possible to take over the state, opportunities for socialists to take over the state do sometimes arise during capitalist crisis but it's not something we should hinge our strategy on)

IMHO what socialists of all stripes tend to get wrong is how to deal with the attacks that the bourgeoisie throws against the emergence of socialism. When the bourgeoisie attacks the socialists usually resist and play defense. And the best case scenario is that the attack is deflected and no damage is done. The cause for socialism can only advance in between attacks. If the bourgeoisie attacks without pause the emergence of socialism stalls. The possibility of harvesting the attack as source of energy usually isn't even considered.

- What is the smallest "socialist economic circuit" that we can start with and then have it grow incrementally ?
- How do we make it the relentless machine that consumes everything that dares to oppose it ?
- What can the capitalists do to attack and how can all those attack vectors be harvested as fuel to power the rise of socialism?


This is not at all how it went. Your brain on narratives.

The bourgeoisie rose not so much in a constant struggle with the feudal aristocracy or alongside it, but because the feudal arrangement of society was always dogshit. The nobility by definition was parasitic on anything productive and devoid of any spiritual purpose, and didn't really manage property well. So, as productive science improved, and as new weapons displaced the old that required a supply chain and knowledge to create them, the nobility found they required alliances with the producers and what would become a scientific class, which originated from priestly functions and in universities. Specifically, empires required gunpowder, ships, cannons, artillery, all the methods to raise an army worth a damn, and realized that they would do better if they had a useful contrivance to facilitate that technology and production. That's how capitalism emerged as a situation. It made a lot of sense to rely on the growing mercantile interest that allowed all of this new technology to be funded, and the effectiveness of gunpowder armies and artillery made it a necessity. The mercantile functions had existed for a long time, and were noted in Antiquity, but the attitude of the aristocracy towards wealth and producers was universally contempt.

The bourgeoisie - literally the town-dwellers representing urban interests and economic centers that had no buy-in with the manorial arrangement - could offer themselves as scientists, courtiers, merchants, men-at-arms, explorers (and this was a big part of what made capitalism the thing, overseas expedititions), and all the things that allowed a state to be stronger. The state of feudal society was basically a glorified warlord and his court, propped up spiritually by the Church, and in this arrangement, the interests of certain of the bourgeoisie and the interests of the nobility met. Those interests were not identical and sought position in the arrangement, but they never directly attacked each other. Their mutual enemy was always the general people, the workers and peasants who had no reason whatsoever to go along with any of this, just as the workers and peasants never saw anything in this terrible arrangement that brought nothing by death, sacrifice, and terror every so often. It was, and would remain, an alliance of convenience.

The only thing that changed around the 17th century is that the bourgeoisie would become more relevant in the ruling interest, and the nobility were increasingly short on cash. There is a whole story of mercantile fuckery, intrigues, cults, secret societies, and so on which is a mess to untangle, but the great story of the liberal revolutions is that the bourgeoisie, merchants, scientists, explorers, and all of the interests that we know today, attained a majority share of the wealth. The nobility, far from wanting to destroy the bourgeoisie conceptually, wanted to co-opt it and control it, and in some way resemble it. There was no way to maintain any feudal arrangement, and at the upper tier of the nobility, this wasn't even a thing desired. The remaining buy-in with feudalism was not with the noble elite but with petty lords and interets that were holding on to their privileges and titles. An interest in the bourgeoisie saw that those titles held them back, but there were among the bourgeoisie people who bought into that system and wanted very much to protect the interests of the petty-nobles, and become themselves petty-nobles, which did happen on occasion. The real story of the revolution is not a clean narrative where one identity group supplanted another, but a story of conspiracies within both groups that saw advantage to gain. The overall effect is that a new aristocracy, and a principle for choosing that aristocracy on the basis of wealth and perceived merit, was the liberal idea. There were liberal nobles who were part of the old arrangement and were ready for something new. There were many in both camps that weren't ideological at all and simply sought to join the side that was good for them at any time. Such is how struggles among disparate interests actually go. It is never one big happy family until the cards are on the table, and obviously the first concern of every revolutionary junta is counter-revolution. The Americans rammed through the current constitution in a conspiratorial manner and tabled the counter-revolution, because there was nothing to go back to. In France, the counter-revolution won. In Britain, there was no revolution as such, and to this day hereditary aristocracy and its conceits remains a force in British thought, even as the aristocracy is full of technocrats and the usual shits who rule now. The high aristocracy in Britain by and large is not anti-technological, but at the vanguard of this concept of historical progress, and can be found among the most liberal elements in British society. They believe hardcore in eugenics, and in this idea of commanding technology and science to push the masses into submission, and that they're going to harvest science for their purposes, with no more democratic interference.

All of this is to say that you have no fucking idea how this works, if you actually believe history conforms to these clean narratives. You sound like Wilhelm II chirping about how he will win the battle between Christianity and Buddhism, as if any of these nobles were spiritual creatures. It's a fucking joke.


The short of it is that aristocracy, in all of its forms, is a terrible system of government and never works.


Nothing you said contradicted OP. Blow it out your ass.


File: 1685177762996.jpg ( 217.91 KB , 1198x854 , f1f0e879f6461d51dbd1b5c232….jpg )

there probably was crisis of feudalism too

late monarchist states were shitholes despite some technical progress

ppl looked for alternative

and now capitalism is somewhat the same, its not seen as perfect system that will guarantee some sort of dignity

last generation we had with this is maybe boomers (in more developed cunts)
only the extention it had for now is that you can call deindustrialization
while it had interesting properties as of today it doesn't generate 'growth'


i think the problem of classic places with socialism or 'socialism' is that they're too closed

who knows what happen on cuba

how you can cooperate with something you don't know much about


<Cuba is too closed
The American empire closed it with an embargo.


I agree with that.
But do you have any suggestions how to bootstrap socialism to make it eat late stage capitalism ?


hard to say because currently you're labeled 'terrorist' for any activity that isn't 'normal'

just like you would be burned by omnipotent catholic church for saying earth ins't flat not so long ago


cuba for instance needed de-cononisation actions to fuck spanish empire (which was 'catholic stronghold' too)

and now spain isn't much

spain just got owned from historical perspective, only its legacy is that people speak spanish


File: 1685275035579.jpg ( 105.75 KB , 1696x1080 , fear is the mindkilller.jpg )

>hard to say because currently you're labeled 'terrorist' for any activity that isn't 'normal'
>just like you would be burned by omnipotent catholic church for saying earth ins't flat not so long ago
I guess this is about fear, don't let fear become the mind killer.
First precisely analyze the material effect, and second figure out how it can be turned into a power-source or a resource.

For the medieval example if the church tries to burn people at the stake, that could be turned into a source of free fire wood. The task would be to device a system where at first a bunch of actors make the noises that causes the church to flip out and to produce a bunch of wood for burning the "heathens". Once that's done the second task is to figure out how to harvest the wood before they are able to burn anybody. If you can perfect that process then theocratic terror can be converted into something innocuous that makes free wood. Once you can harvest the medieval barbarism as a resource it will wither away.

As a thought experiment, lets try to re-imagine the soviet defense against the Nazis from the perspective of harvesting metal from nazitanks, how would you try to configure a military, as in unit-types, it's strategy and tactics to maximize the metal production and minimize the loss of life. You can harvest Nazi supply trucks as is you don't have to melt those down. You can harvest Nazi uniforms too, once the Nazi symbols are removed, you can wash out the ugly brown with bleach and re-dye those in more appealing colors. If you can attach a big parachute onto a Nazi bomber to make it stall in the air and gently glide to the ground you could harvest those too. If you can do that at scale you might be able to convert the explosives from the bombs into low-grade fuel that can be burned in stoves for heating. If you can perfect this type of "battle-matter-reclamation" operation Barbarossa withers away.

I made up those scenarios to convey the mode of thought, so please don't nitpick the details. The point is to get you to think in terms of "There are people doing evil shit, lets treat it as a physical process to be drained for energy and resources", instead of "how do we defeat the evil by resisting it while burning our own energy and resources"


File: 1685618008341.jpg ( 44.71 KB , 780x439 , EoXC3XIVgAIC_vU.jpg )

this is overly positivist (idealist) in practice

imagine if all red army soldiers were fearless they would be killed more easily

this is western mindset i recommend looking something more eastern


After the soviet war-production was fully spun up, the Soviet military was anything but timid, it might best be described as a raging torrent of angry metal rolling over Nazi forces like a force of nature. If anything they probably were a little bit too assertive.

But that's not the point.

Imagine a video game about military strategy. Imagine that you could build a unit that was in effect a mobile battle-factory. Rolling over the battle field and instead of simply destroying enemy forces it would consume them for energy and resources and use it to build more of your own forces. The more attacking units your opponent sends against it, the stronger your forces would become.


>Imagine a video game about military strategy. Imagine that you could build a unit that was in effect a mobile battle-factory. Rolling over the battle field and instead of simply destroying enemy forces it would consume them for energy and resources and use it to build more of your own forces. The more attacking units your opponent sends against it, the stronger your forces would become.

thats idealism. who says its even works ?
even if so what stops the enemy from changing tactics ?
it really isn't black and white


hitler particularly lost because it was unwinnable war with his oil resources

and they couldn't secure more

not because of soviet troops and war machine 'bravery' and dedication (altho that is also important)

and alot of other factors like having only light tanks at the beginning of war but also too heavy and too even slow for the battle heavier tanks later that they couldn't even produce anymore or that were costly and unfinished and not very good either (or in small numbers)

basically again idealism doesn't work, its more complex than that (and even that isn't the reason, without america joining they probably could win in europe)


wars in general hard to predict


As long as the method of attack is using matter and energy it's possible to find a way to harvest and convert it into something useful.

Unique IPs: 11

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]