[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 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."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1693244706026.jpg ( 772.33 KB , 4096x3078 , 20230828_030622.jpg )

 No.472837

<Rate this statement

I'm an oldfag. I was talking to an ancientfag. he said something that made me think: capitalism is best when it has robust social programs, education, and safety nets, and communism is best when it has markets and multiparty elections.

What do you guys think about that claim
>>

 No.472839

File: 1693248936608.gif ( 125.87 KB , 500x382 , 1691009528770782.gif )

This statement is incorrect and idealistic. Capital inherently functions by shifting resources (capital) upward into the hands of fewer and fewer people through the centralization of profits.
It is impossible for this to be true because some one must always be getting exploited under capitalism for some.one to benifit.
If you give the first world social programs and systems like UBI it will only decrease the exploitation of the first world in exchange for the exploitation of the third world where labor is cheap and organizing impossible.
>>

 No.472840

>>472837
>capitalism is best when it has robust social programs, education, and safety nets, and communism is best when it has markets
>What do you guys think about that claim

It ignores change.

Social democracy has a tendency to eventually get rolled back, unless you can find soc-dems that are willing to ruthlessly repress Neo-liberalism.

China has relatively free markets (in the classical sense of markets freed from monopoly rent). They might even intent to carry some market-aspects into full communism, but if for example the neocons manage to cause a Taiwan-war and force China into a war-economy. It's most likely that china would continue with a command economy after the war, because of institutional momentum.

>multiparty elections.

Maybe we could give sortitian a try.
>>

 No.472842

>>472840
>They might even intent to carry some market-aspects into full communism
gommunism fairytale died with Khruschev's failed reforms

in the SU nobody believed in that dumb shit afterwards, nevermind fucking current capitalist China lol

>muh neocons

are you literally an AI-bot?

>>472837
>capitalism is best when it has robust social programs, education, and safety nets
which requires high profit margins, organized militant labor movement, natural resources, being a core country, soyviets on your doorsteps, and I'm sure plenty of other shit I forgot lol

good luck with implementing your capitalism with a human face, I'd sooner believe in implementing gommunism lol

>and communism is best when it has markets and multiparty elections

depends on what you mean by markets

markets without a dominant planned public sector would reproduce unemployment and organized bourgeoisie

if you have a dominating planned public sector that doesn't work according to profit then I think markets can be managed and nascent bourgeoisie kept disorganized

as to multiparty anything - this is just retarded

parliamentarism doesn't work for proles, it works only for bourgs

proles would need a political system that doesn't reproduce political parties at all, which would require experimenting with random sampling and shit
>>

 No.472844

>>472837
also, is that a car lighter?
>>

 No.472845

File: 1693257937137.png ( 32.92 KB , 600x600 , wth.png )

>>472842
>USSR bad
>China bad
>Neocons good
>if you don't believe the imperial narrative you're not human.
Too much mainstream media is filling your brain with ruling ideology.

>if you have a dominating planned public sector that doesn't work according to profit then I think markets can be managed and nascent bourgeoisie kept disorganized

But that's more or less what the Chinese system is. I know technically Chinese SEOs do money calculation like private companies but in practice surplus allocation is decided politically. The money-accounting side of things has to comply to that. The Chinese planning system isn't using material balances or cyber-soc labor-time calculation, but it's still a planning system. The nascent Chinese bourgeoisie tried to establish a bourgeois dictator ship in 2015 iirc with the aim of causing a neo-liberal shock-doctrine. And it failed miserably, Xi Jinping came to power and China's economy shifted to the left. Not to mention that if China was a capitalist country they couldn't have succeeded in rapid industrial development or the eradication of extreme poverty, and China would look more like India.
>>

 No.472872

File: 1693274320177.jpg ( 190.96 KB , 500x816 , 20.jpg )

>>472845
>muh bad
better than thinking everything under the heavens is gommunism kek

>Neocons..

exist only in your conspiratard rightoid feverish mind lol

it's just capitalists, politicians, clerks doing their usual things

not Masons, not Jewish Cabral, and not Neocons

>But that's more or less what the Chinese system is.

Retard moment lol.

>I know technically Chinese SEOs do money calculation like private companies but in practice surplus allocation is decided politically.

In not-capitalism Surplus is PLANNED, not allocated. The difference is system determining.

>The Chinese planning system isn't using material balances or cyber-soc labor-time calculation, but it's still a planning system.

It plans for profit maximization. This is not """still""". Every big corporations is doing this.

>The nascent Chinese bourgeoisie tried to establish a bourgeois dictator ship in 2015 iirc with the aim of causing a neo-liberal shock-doctrine.

multipolaroid incoherent ramblings

Your dumbfuck nazoid ass doesn't even understand what a Shock Doctrine is and why it happened where it happened.

It capitalist socdem countires it was used to crush the militant labor movement.

In the SU it was used to break through the inertia of the planning system by any means necessary.

China has a strong united capitalist class that is in competition with western corporations all across the globe. You couldn't do shock doctrine there even if Milton himself rose from the grave lol.

you're just a dumbfuck nazoid that grasps for any reason to polish that national bourg dick kek

>And it failed miserably, Xi Jinping came to power and China's economy shifted to the left.

and now you have completely went into your nazoid la-la land kek

Earth to Nazoid! Do you copy?

>Not to mention that if China was a capitalist country they couldn't have succeeded in rapid industrial development or the eradication of extreme poverty, and China would look more like India.

*sigh*
here we go again..

maybe you should read about what Marx said about capitalism of his day in England

or maybe you should look at the German Miracle, Japanese Miracle, and other so-called "miracles" lol

or maybe you should just SHUT THE FUCK UP AND STOP TALKING TO ME

also India is actually industrializing pretty fast now just as China is slowing down

chinaboos on suicide watch kek, guess it will be soycialism with cofucian legalist characteristics by 20500 kek
>>

 No.472894

>>472837
>capitalism is best when it has robust social programs, education, and safety nets, and communism is best when it has markets and multiparty elections, and communism is best when it has markets and multiparty elections.

First statement: yes, absolutely.
Also, present-day capitalism produces enough that it could have robust social programs, capitalists just put a bunch of effort into scrapping them and crushing labor power. We would not be any more exploitative if we brought welfare back or had better public healthcare in America, workers in America would just be better off and the richest guys would have a little less in their treasure hoards. There is not a moral reward for American workers getting fucked over, we're just worse off than we need to be so a few capitalists can be richer than they already were. Capitalism is generally best with robust social programs, education, and safety nets - although I think you could one-up the previous-best by going after rentseeking.

Second statement: I'm nitpicking, but I don't think communism-with-markets-and-multi-party-elections has existed. Yugoslavia under Tito sounded very impressive, and I think it's a decent case for state market socialism, but I wouldn't call it communist personally.

>>472872
>exist only in your conspiratard rightoid feverish mind lol

Are you literally insane?
Not that anon, but what fucking universe are you from where neo-conservatism never happened? Are you posting from the 1950s?

Where the fuck does this site find these posters?
>>

 No.472903

File: 1693310307914.jpeg ( 42.92 KB , 526x521 , 2g3he2snpl071-1607408203.jpeg )

>>472894
>Are you literally insane?
Great, another dumbfuck leftoid is here to give his very important opinion lol

>muh rentseeking

lol

OF COURSE nazoid would obsess over some Big Other section of the bourgeoisie that is ruining everything in makret wonderland kek

funny little piece of historical trivia: one of the main arguments against Jews was that they were "rentseekers" too kek

I's like they make you in a lab or something lmao

>Yugoslavia under Tito sounded very impressive

Yes, very impressive with bending for dem IMF loans kek. Very impressive with unemployment in double digits even as a big part of your working population are migrating to the western Eurup.

Such Utopia, very impressive indeed. Shame it immediately collapsed into an ethnic bloodbath as soon as the strongman dies kek. At least the SU survived Stalin for another forty years. Just sayin kek.

>neo-conservatism never happened?

yes lol

neo-conservatism is a product of the confused right-leftoid mind lol

neo-conservatism just describes capitalist political sentiment post Soviet collapse, it's not a "political movement" kek


>Where the fuck does this site find these posters?

also an ogre.. combo lol

Ahhh… another day - another dumbfuck leftoid BTFOd and humiliated..
>>

 No.472904

>>472903
>Omg the phrases you use can be twisted to sound like the phrases other people use
Midwit
>>

 No.472905

>>472904

That's being extremely generous.
>>

 No.472906

File: 1693327594699-0.png ( 87.68 KB , 807x354 , adhom.png )

File: 1693327594699-2.png ( 78.12 KB , 1281x1054 , china-billionair-shrinkage.png )

File: 1693327594699-3.jpg ( 77.87 KB , 909x832 , China land becomes public.jpg )

>>472872
>muh bad
>nothing can build gommunism
You are wrong to adopt the boogie-man mentality from the media mainstream.
And nobody is claiming that countries like China achieved socialism, they consider them selves in the lower stages of building socialism.

>conspiratard

Conspiracies do happen all the time, how do you think ruling classes gain power and keep it. They conspire to make the institutions of society favor their class interests, push their agendas, spread their ideology and so on.

>Neocons

>it's just capitalists
Sure, they represent imperial capital, but it's still worth having that label, because the neocon flavor of imperialism has it's distinctive particularities that sets it apart from other flavors of imperialism. Compare the Neocons with the Victorians of the British empire for example. The former prefers to use covert military tactics, like arming terrorist groups or reactionary ethno nationalists. They go for indirect attack vectors like messing with economic flows. The latter was very different, the Victorians used very overt military tactics that could be described as bursting through the front door. They didn't bother much with indirect methods when it came to economics, they just installed occupation governments that forcefully changed economics matter by imperial dictates. Ideologically there is a big difference as well, the neocons have a justification-myth about democracy freedom and neoliberal social values. The Victorians pretended to be the """advanced civilizers""" that were uplifting """less evolved species of hominids""". Maybe that inspired the Prime Directive in Star Trek

>Ramblings about China

You seem to make 3 points.
<1 China's system has a historic precedent in Japan and Germany
I think this is wrong, the Chinese system represents something genuinely new. Their system doesn't follow the development of anything that came before. For example during all the history of imperial capitalism, no other capitalist country managed to develop and reach technological parity with the hegemon. China has done that, they are able to rival the technological abilities of the US. They managed to improve material conditions of Chinese workers during capitalist crisis, the only other country that managed to do that was the Soviet Union. The scale and speed of poverty reduction in China is also unprecedented in the capitalist world.
<2 China's rise is over
China doesn't follow in the foot steps of neo-liberalization, they don't have bourgeois dominated politics, they are able to continue developing the productive forces. The Slow down you see now in China is the result of China adapting to the US's trade war. China isn't lying down like Japan in the 80s when they signed the Plaza Accord, nor is it getting wrecked by war-reperations like postww1-Germany. This trade war has inflicted much more damage to the US than it did to China. We are now witnessing China "pivoting" to use Obama's favorite word its international economic relations towards Bricks, where it will become the source of industrial development for an absolutely huge trade-network. While you can complain that Chinese Marxism is a bit eclectic, they have taken Marx's warning about not becoming a fetter on development of the productive forces to heart.

<3 India will surpass China

India isn't even catching up with China. Econ-statistic can be tricky. When you look at the rate of adding industrial capacity and raising technological productivity, China is gaining ground against India. The legacy cast system in India is a major developmental blocker that prevents India from accessing the human potential in it's vast population. China had communist modernization where that kind of backwardness was eliminated.

>If I make insulting personal attacks, your arguments don't count

This is something you have in common with the neocons, they also try to smear and slander their critics. To be fair to you, you do offer at least some arguments, in the mids of all that swearing and cussing.

Tho we do lack a catchy word to describe the ad-hominen fallacy user. You know something to throw back at the neocons rampage of "everybody who disagrees with me is a Chyna-rusky-untermench-jungle-ork"

Unique IPs: 8

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