/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>Weren't they the people who protected historic buildings and monuments?
That's what I came into this thread to ask.

More evidence that the modern system is neo-fuedal, not capitalist.

Rule by oligarchs to the end of maximizing their own control and influence, not simply maximizing profit through the private production of commodities

Most Marxists are 100 year behind the times

>>477091
>the modern system is neo-fuedal, not capitalist.
I don't know what to call it. In feudalism exploitation was very direct and clear. The peasants worked their own subsistence farming plot where they kept their harvests to sustain them selves, and then they worked a different farming plot that belonged to the feudal lord, and they didn't get to keep that harvest. That made it incredibly obvious how exploitation was happening. Maybe the purpose of the extremely heavy handed theocratic mindfuck in the dark ages was compensating for that. Anyway You can't say that today exploitation is as visible as it was in feudal times. You still have money as a veil over the economy that hides exploitation the way capitalism has always done it.

However all that being said you are absolutely correct that the structure of Ruling circles is beginning to mirror the European dark ages. And the power-struggles in the superstructure are beginning to look like that as well.

The base of the economy is mostly capitalist tho, most workers are wage laborors, doing commodity production for profit. Tho not everything is, people are not getting payed a wage for generating data, the gig workers are getting payed but it's not a hourly wage.

>Rule by oligarchs to the end of maximizing their own control and influence
Yes it seems that they are investing into means of control, instead of means of production. That's almost certainly the reason why they keep loosing so many international power-struggles.

>Most Marxists are 100 year behind the times
I'm not sure. What the western ruling class is doing now, isn't working, it's not a new mode of production replacing an old one, it's creating economic death zones (how Micheal Hudson describes it). While there certainly is the appearance that they are implementing Neo-feudalism as the new order, consider the possibility they might just be failing at capitalism.

Marx's prediction that the means of production are the key to power, remains true. China has grown a massive industrial sector and their power rose in tandem with that. The west de-industrialized and suffered a proportional power decline.

>>477092
>doing commodity production for profi
That's a stretch

Look into the difference between the production of commodities and the realization of profit

>>477093
Ok i get your point.

But the US and the west in general do have some industrial production. We could say it's a narrow base.

The base of the economy doesn't technically have to be the largest occupation. Tho It's certainly weird if it isn't.

>>477081
Their censorship is against the common folk, in line with the transhumanist globalist agenda to destroy workers and peasants. We must stand up!

>>477094
>It's weird if it ain't

Not really.

On one hand, as the SNLT to produce commodities decreases, it's natural the more labor would be allocated toward tertiary activities.

On the other hand, it was a conscious strategy of porkie in the 80s and 90s to move production to the global south while the west was meant to remain dominant through financial investment and rents on intellectual property.

As such, a modern goal of socialism shouldn't merely be for the working class to seize the means of production (espresso machines and social media apps?) – but rather to abolish those tertiary economic activities which serve the interests of capital/control yet don't really enhance the quality of life for people (for example, the entire medical insurance industry, which rests as a scammy parasite activity atop actually providing medical services).

>>477103
>On one hand, as the SNLT to produce commodities decreases, it's natural the more labor would be allocated toward tertiary activities.
This is what most economies did in the 20th century. Including the Soviet Union. But was that really the correct thing to do ?

Keeping more labor in the heavy industry would massively expand production quantities of materials. While shifting more labor into the tertiary sector increases the complexity of the economy and sophistication of goods that be produced.

I'm not sure which way is better. Maybe expanding industrial capacity to truly mind-blowing dimensions before increasing complexity and sophistication would have been better ?

>On the other hand, it was a conscious strategy of porkie in the 80s and 90s to move production to the global south while the west was meant to remain dominant through financial investment and rents on intellectual property.
Yeah they've come to regret that recently when they tried to increase artillery shell production. And the intellectual monopoly shit, that has fucked over the west like you wouldn't believe. Technological progress basically has a 20 year delay mechanism because of it. Somebody invents cool shit, then a big corporation appropriates the cool idea, puts a patent on it, and then it gets shelved for 20 years until the patent runs out, before anybody does anything with it. The only people that actually found a use for patents are corporate law-firms that wage lawfare, which creates even more friction when producing stuff. Pure madness.

>As such, a modern goal of socialism shouldn't merely be for the working class to seize the means of production (espresso machines
Lol i'm picturing the post-revolution celebration parade proudly displaying the office coffee maker. I guess you are correct, that after the revolution there probably would be a need to re-industrialize to undoo the mistakes the neo-liberals made.