[ 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."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1708768985235.png ( 118 B , 1x1 , wp_ss_20240223_0001.png )

 No.479142[Last 50 Posts]

I would like to know, who is browsing this site. So I'm asking you this fundamental question. Give me your isms!
>>

 No.479144

Stalinism
>>

 No.479154

Total opposition to eugenics and nothing else. Anything else I believe is a result of that necessary defense of myself and the world against an abomination.

But, that isn't an "ideology". Ideology is for fags.
>>

 No.479156

File: 1708788052551.jpg ( Spoiler Image, 499.27 KB , 893x1308 , f04294a6820b07050be228c91a….jpg )

Marxist communism, feddo.

This
<479144
traitorous natsoc elitoid chauvinistic faggot will get the bullet soon
>>

 No.479157

>>479142
data gathering threads are suspicious

With regards to ideology i don't know how useful it is to ask people that. You are the most ideological when you don't realize that what you are doing is ideology.

When people explain their world view in explicit ideological terms that's when they are the least ideological. The parts of their world view that people don't consciously link to ideological principles, that's when they are the most ideological.

When you wear green colored glasses without realizing it and you think the world looks strange because everything has a green hue, that's how ideology works.
>>

 No.479158

No one actually "fools themselves" with ideology. They use ideology as a weapon against others - a pretext to project offensively and make others comply with something both know to be a lie. Privately, ideologues are always cynical and venal shits, and take pride in it. Their genuine knowledge and awareness is not necessary, and when they must know things, they always sort the world into a dual system that is appropriate for them.

Ideology is kayfabe, but it is kayfabe that you must go along with. The wages of sin are worse than death, and must be so for ideology to be operative. Until the 20th century, nearly no one was "ideological", and those who were did so because it was a useful tool for them, and they kept a special morality for themselves. They always do. Most people - and this may surprise shitposters - have lives and don't give a shit about politics, until politics comes for them. They know they can never win that game, and everything about ideological regimes shouts that to their face - "give up", "there is no hope", and so on. The world where we didn't do that would be very different from the society we live in, and the society we live in is set up against the world, and must claim the name of the world - to create it's own reality. Ideology is another iteration of reality control methods that have been worked on for as long as humanity could conceive of taking over the world.
>>

 No.479159

The strongest ideologues are those who uncritically believe anything can be anything, rather than those who genuinely believe this leads to truth regarding the world. Ideology is only operative when political reality - something intentionally divorced from the natural world and science in the proper sense - is compelled by a knife at the throat. Otherwise, no one would care and we would seek the thing we wanted in the first place.
>>

 No.479160

That said, you can refer to any system of knowledge as "ideology". All of our knowledge is premised on ideas that can be arrested, rather than what anything "really is" - and saying "everything is in motion" doesn't have any explanatory power. For one, if everything were truly in motion, then a "still thing" would be philosophically inconceivable, yet all of our models concern things we arrest in time and space, or which are understood as outside of those boundaries or which boundaries that aren't reliant on crude philosophical conceits about motion. The motion of anything is quite irrelevant to our language, other than an observation we can make that we wouldn't be able to speak without some sense of temporality - or more precisely, communication requires causal effects to be possible.

This is usually sobered because people exist in a world where our ideas about anything are not relevant. We do not define reality as we please, but all of our language and theories of knowledge assert that we do so, for we are and always have been alien to this world. The rulers exploited that and asserted that they are one with the world, and we exist in this abject state and can only be that. It is only possible to do this through a program of deliberate and flagrant lying at all levels of society, so that reality can be controlled at all levels in the ruling ideas. That's the only thing ideology accomplishes. For all of its efforts, it doesn't produce anything, and doesn't really "work". That's why ideology is giving way to more effective methods of reality control that were worked out in the past century.
>>

 No.479161

I wouldn't even consider the "isms" sold as fads to be ideology in that sense. When it has come to that, it has become nothing more than a fashion choice or a gang sign, which can be swapped for another without anything fundamentally changing. Most of these people don't care what "isms" mean or any history. They believe something feels socialisty, and the more they busy themselves with other peoples' lives and making us suffer, the socialister it is.
>>

 No.479162

So far as ideology had any force, it suggested modus operandi for political life that sort of worked, but the chief aim of ideology is not to win the struggle, but to eliminate all potential third parties "rising from the muck" - to assert that nothing new is possible, which they zealously enforce more than any struggle between the ideologies. It's why you see so many suspicious fascist-communist alliances and why liberals care remarkably little about any of this. Only the fascists embraced ideology as such. The liberals didn't care about it and were never "ideological", and could push their agents as they pleased. The communists very explicitly let you know ideology is a really bad idea and you're not supposed to actually believe it like a zealot.
>>

 No.479163

All of it begins by bastardizing science and reason and sense experience, to tell you that what is happening isn't actaully happening. This only "works" once the general fear is intensified, and this is only possible when the basic need of security is imperiled. This is one part a material requirement which is the work of science, and one part moral philosophy which all ideologues disdain and consider "retarded".
>>

 No.479177

File: 1708797700777.jpg ( 857.3 KB , 2400x1060 , 1708797674885.jpg )

>>479156
holy newfag learn to post. You're such a tard too, I'll bet you've never even held a gun
>>

 No.479178

>>479157
Bruh, data gathering threads are suspicious, yet you are using the internet. Curious.
>>

 No.479179

Ok friends, here is what I believe: Basically I'm kind of a nihilist. I don't believe in reason and I don't believe in objective reality. I believe in my truth and that's enough for me. Why am I on a leftist site? I think marxist and anarchist theories are fun, but I don't believe in the ideal of communism/anarchism. This is the world we are living in: The strong will eat the weak. This will never change, this is the eternal metaphysical law. Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is cool and this is how the world should be. But I stopped believing, that we can change the world. This is my final (?) message. Good bye.
>>

 No.479180

>>

 No.479181

File: 1708801334496.gif ( 2.41 MB , 500x500 , 1565055434730.gif )

I just just want to exterminate the ruling class
>>

 No.479182

>>479180
Uh ok bro, whatever.
>>

 No.479183

>>479179
For the strong to eat the weak, you have to regard there is a reality where this happens. What you propose is incoherent faggotry. Faggotry is a very common ideology.

You're not really a nihilist unless you're going to do a Kefka and destroy the world - and if you go there, you start to see that nihilism as a philosophy is fake and gay, and you instead denounce the sordid body of knowledge called philosophy altogether and all of the human conceits about the world and their gay pseudoscience.
>>

 No.479184

>>479178
>data gathering threads are suspicious
kinda
>yet you are using the internet. Curious.
implying that internet technology shouldn't be privacy respecting ?
Are you a glowy ?

Nobody is choosing to have their privacy violated just by using a technology.
Private data collection and surveillance is abuse.
>>

 No.479186

>>479183
Bruh, your entire ideology and your name revolves around Eugene Krabs, you have to try harder to attack me. Beside that, incoherence is a feature, not a bug. This is why my ideology is based and Eugenism-Krabism is cringe.
>>

 No.479189

>>479184
The internet is inherently privacy disrespecting. Noobs believe they can outsmart governments with encryption, but in the end, the corporate states control the entire technology. When was the moment, when people become aware of the NSA leaks? Too late, waaaay to late. It's over. The only people who are save, are our grandmas who never used a computer. People who never interacted with the internet in their life. Its so over.
>>

 No.479190

>>479189
Even before the Internet, your privacy is relative.

People could access public records and make fake IDs of you and get away with it.
>>

 No.479195

File: 1708823506379.png ( 25.17 KB , 300x300 , glowofficer.png )

>>479189
>Give up, you lost!
>>

 No.479215

>>479179
>This is the world we are living in: The strong will eat the weak. This will never change, this is the eternal metaphysical law
I know this is bait. However it's still worth countering.

Nobody is strong all the time. Might makes right is not a viable strategy.
>>

 No.479218

>>479189
>The internet is inherently privacy disrespecting.
Idealist nonsense, it's technology it can be configured to be privacy respecting, it's not set in stone.

>Noobs believe they can outsmart governments with encryption, but in the end, the corporate states control the entire technology

Again it's technology it can be reconfigured to give control to the individual people using their tech products.

>When was the moment, when people become aware of the NSA leaks? Too late, waaaay to late. It's over. The only people who are save, are our grandmas who never used a computer. People who never interacted with the internet in their life. Its so over.

<demoralization noises
Yeah >>479195 called it.
>>

 No.479224

>What is your ideology?
Proletarian supremacist.
>>

 No.479225

anti-elitist, genocider of vanguards
>>

 No.479226

anti-nationalist, genocider of nations
>>

 No.479227

>>479189
>The only people who are save, are our grandmas who never used a computer. People who never interacted with the internet in their life.
Obviously the internet could also be made to enhance personal privacy, so what you are really saying is that surveillance makes people unsafe.
>>

 No.479228

>>479220
Stop trying to manufacture consent for mass surveillance and personal data collection.
We're never going to accept it, it'll never be anything else than a massive privacy violation.
When the religious people told us about a all-knowing god, we became atheists because god was a privacy violation.

Stop hiding behind technology essentialism.
It's extra effort and expense to build all the creepy stalker features into computers and the internet. It doesn't have to be that way. Selling data is not the only economic model for IT.

All the clever people working for the spy-organization could be helping us to make computers and networks more secure instead, it's a matter of political will.

The tech can be changed so that it protects privacy.
The Surveillance panopticon dystopia is not an inevitable destiny.
>>

 No.479231

File: 1708884454221.png ( 91.67 KB , 768x719 , 1708884448633.png )

>>479225
>anti-elitist, genocider of va-ACK
>>

 No.479251

File: 1708917785052.png ( 296.09 KB , 598x471 , kronstadtsailors.png )

>>479231
cope and seethe vanguardoid

the only good thing that came out of vanguardism is that it discredited party as a political form IN GENERAL

I always say to my fellow proles: NEVER EVER trust a party faggot. You wanna end up like in the Soviet Union? You wanna trade a couple of parties ruling you for one party ruling you? Then go with the retarded leninoids!

you wanna freedom?! then down with the political parties! kill party functionaries! hunt them in the streets!

councils without vanguardist scum is our motto!
>>

 No.479253

File: 1708920636439.jpg ( 107.82 KB , 420x420 , Remeber_Kronstadt.jpg )

All evil that ever came our way in the 20th century - came directly from our so-called "vanguard"! Our fucking self-proclaimed Champions!

Russian soviets got coopted by fucking RSDLP - you ended up with a fucking Stalinoid and Party dictatorship! German councils got coopted by fucking SPD - you ended up with a fucking Hitler and Party dictatorship!

The History itself has proven that vanguardists are the biggest enemy of the proletariat.

I say - Enough is ENOUGH!
>>

 No.479255

communism
>>

 No.479256

>>479253
>All evil
starting with a categorical absolute, that doesn't bode well
and then you attempt to equate fascism and socialism, which is nothing but neo-liberal ruling ideology extremism
>>

 No.479259

>>479251
>You wanna end up like in the Soviet Union?
Funny enough most of the world envied the Soviet rise. For all their faults they had managed what nobody before them had done. They had developed fast enough to overcome the capitalist mechanisms that keep less developed countries from catching up with the advanced countries.
>>

 No.479269

>>479256
not an absolute, just a moral category

>and then you attempt to equate fascism and socialism

not my problem if reality itself equated you to fascists, vanguaroid

Ebert is called Stalin of social democracy for a reason lol
>>

 No.479271

>>479259
Nobody fucking envied that shit. Certainly not majority of proles.

Nobody wants to live in a censorshit riddled vanguardoid shithole with anal secret police and retarded vanguaroid brainwashing ritualistics.

Even your own fucking nomenklatura didn't want that shit lol.
>>

 No.479274

Ideology is stupid.
I don't hold ideology.
I would say I'm a social because I believe the means of production should be held in common but other than that no ideology is dumb.
>>

 No.479275

>>479269
>not my problem if reality itself
eating from the trashcan of ideology
the most intensely ideological people are those that think this way.

>>479271
>Nobody fucking envied that shit.
Soviet Union was envied by around 80% of the world, but i guess those people don't count.

>Nobody wants to live in a censorshit

True but the Neo-liberal censorship mechanisms have surpassed the soviet state-sensor, the range of expression we're granted is less than what the soviets got.

>>479274
>I don't hold ideology.
You can't avoid ideology, your mind can't function without a world view.
>I believe the means of production should be held in common but other than that
It's fair if you don't want to think any further, but don't attempt to erect mind-fences to keep others from thinking things through.
>>

 No.479276

>>479275
>eating from the trashcan of ideology
Zizek is a fucking bum

It is a simple FACT that party faggots coopted councils in both revolutions. It is also a simple FACT that in both cases this resulted in Party dictatorship.

Again, not my problem.

>Soviet Union was envied by around 80% of the world

lol what percent of the world envied the United States then?

>but i guess those people don't count.

you don't speak for any people vanguardoid faggot

>the range of expression we're granted is less than what the soviets got.

listen buddy, in muh Soviet Union you were forced to fucking register your typing machine in KGB

in fucking Soviet Union Strugatsky brothers were writing their best fucking novel into the so-called "table", ie without ANY prospect of ever publishing it (for this alone vanguardoids should be shot)

in fucking muh Soviet Union you had whole fucking SECTIONS in books that were written with the assumption that the reader would skip them

in fucking muh Soyviet Union you had a massive movement of samizdat

Compared to me with all the information in the NET at my fingertips in multiple languages muh soyviet citizens were prisoners in an information gulag lol!

No wonder they were dumb as fuck - imagine being on a vanguardoid informational diet for 70 years lol!
>>

 No.479285

>>479276
The Soviet government had little in common with the fascist regime that was installed in Germany. You're making a fool out of your self. Equating the Soviets and the fascists is an extreme ideological position, that requires extremely narrow ideological blinders.

When the US freed it self from the British empire, that captured the liberation spirit of many people around the world, including Lenin. When the US took over from the British empire to become the world foremost imperial power, that went away. The Soviets were viewed as the people that imperial capitalism had sought to destroy in WW2 and against the odds the Soviets triumphed by persevering, that captured the same liberation spirit.

>listen buddy

that style of browbeating isn't convincing anymore.

The soviet state censor was bad enough, but we now have a giant industrial censorship complex that is trying to establish it self as the arbiter of truth, if they succeed that will be worse, it will be a regression to the pre-enlightenment theocratic age, before separation of church and state. They're already attacking scientists, that's an error the Soviets learned to avoid after the bad episode of political interference in the field of biology almost a century ago. There can be no excuse to repeat this mistake in this century.

>all the information in the NET at my fingertips

the walls are closing in on Internet freedom as well.

Copyright has been transformed into a privatized censorship service.
They copy content they want to censor, and re-publish it with a false date claiming to predate the original.
Based on that, false authorship claims are made to trigger copy-right-violation removal systems.
A hole cottage industry has already formed around this scheme.

lets not forget the infamous """combating disinformation""" newspeak for censorship

Then there are the commercial limitations, where even George Lucas says that Soviet filmmakers had more creative freedom than he did.
https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=SWqvaMEFIdI

In the freedom debate you are loosing the moral high-ground.
>>

 No.479335

File: 1709080487612.jpg ( 481.11 KB , 1043x1402 , nice-work-lev.jpg )

>>479285
>The Soviet government had little in common with the fascist regime that was installed in Germany.
you're a broken record, faggot

I elaborated my position in the communism hate thread: both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were moving away from capitalism because of the Great Depression

at least watch Prolekult documentary on fascism or fuck off uneducated idiot

>The Soviets were viewed as the people that imperial capitalism had sought to destroy in WW2 and against the odds the Soviets triumphed by persevering, that captured the same liberation spirit.

While SU was allied to the US they both were viewed as "liberators" by the clueless war-fatigued public. But this euphoria was short-lived.

Soon you would have retarded Stalinoid calling Yugos fascists and German and Hungarian shitshow with tanks.

It is as if Robespierre was right when he made a speech against wars of """liberation""" - no one loves armed missionaries.

that RES system didn't have as much of an economic incentive for imperialist conquest doesn't mean it didn't have a political incentive lol, especially if you have someone like Stalinoid running the show who thinks he can just take shit from people and suppress discontent with tanks and secret police

>that style of browbeating isn't convincing anymore.

I don't give a fuck.

I'm not your friend, buddy. I fucking HATE you more than anyone, ore than even fucking nazis.

You are our TRUE class enemy. Enemy No. 1

>The soviet state censor was bad enough

It wasn't just "bad" lol.

It was a police state run by a conspiracy.

No capitalist society is run by a literal conspiracy retard.

>an error the Soviets learned

that's what I'm talking about - you're an idealist retard

you CAN'T just learn not to "make mistakes"

those "mistakes" were not a result of moral failure on the part of vanguardoids lol

those "mistakes" were a result of the INTERNAL LOGIC of the vanguardoid political system, irrespective of the moral characteristics of individual vanguardoids

Histmat bitch. You just DON'T have any agency not to make "mistakes" lol.

It's really simple faggot: IF there ever would be another revolutionary situation like in Russia and Germany - I would be on the side of the local equivalent of Kronstadt rebels with the same slogan "Councils without vanguardist scum!" - YOU would be on the side of some political party trying to coopt the councils (in the name of revolution or not doesn't matter)

The only resolution? One of us dies. You can be sure I will make the UTMOST effort that it would be you faggot.

Everything else is just empty words. Let the bullets speak.
>>

 No.479336

File: 1709081491774.gif ( 1.59 MB , 640x360 , that_flinch_tho.gif )

>>479335
lol ok bitch
>>

 No.479341

>>479335
The nazis were literally moving to a much more pure unrestrained form of capitalism, though.
>>

 No.479353

>>479186
wow I've never seen Eugene get destroyed like this..
>>

 No.479355

>>479335
>both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were moving away from capitalism because of the Great Depression
The Soviets did NEP, which Stalin might have called "state capitalism" at some point, tho most socialists called it lower stage socialism.
The Nazis did extremely aggressive imperialist capitalism with genocidal racist characteristics.

>While SU was allied to the US they both were viewed as "liberators" by the clueless war-fatigued public. But this euphoria was short-lived.

You are only talking about the Soviet-image in the west, which was mainly damanged by decades of cold-war propaganda.
The Soviets remained revered liberators in the eyes of the global capitalist periphery because the Soviets helped so many national liberation struggles after WW2. The Russians still are seen that way by many global south countries. The US became a global empire after WW2 and the global periphery now thinks the US is the great Satan.

>I fucking HATE you more than anyone, ore than even fucking nazis.

disagreeing with you is worse than starting WW2 and committing the holocaust ?
You lost it.
>>

 No.479356

>>479355
>The Soviets did NEP, which Stalin might have called "state capitalism" at some point
Lenin openly and explicitly recognized it as such. It was the very same state capitalism of the German Empire.
>>

 No.479357

File: 1709158840350.mp4 ( 43.09 MB , 640x360 , The nature of fascism.mp4 )

>>479341
holy shit retard WATCH THE FUCKING DOCUMENTARY

if vid related is moving towards capitalism then fucking SU was moving towards capitalism too and capitalism loses all meaning altogether

add the fucking 2 and 2 together retard: BOTH nazi gemany and soviet union received an impulse after the Great Depression that send them BOTH in the direction of the planned economy

there may be formal differences (like differences in ownership structure) but the FUNCTIONAL relationship is the same

and FUNCTIONAL relationships is what histmat really cares about

that's why I say that the nazis WERE revolutionaries

I understand that it rustles your vanguardoid jimmies (that you have no actual historical agency and your ideology doesn't matter), but who the fuck cares lol? Vanguardism in general has its own internal logic independent of the proclaimed ideology
>>

 No.479358

>>479357
The Nazis and other fascist movements were counter-revolutionary in nature. They arose in opposition to the revolutionary socialist and communist movements in their respective countries.
>>

 No.479359

>>479358
NPC fucking tier.

You take Dimitrov vanguardoid talking points against other vanguardoids at face value like a brainwashed vanguardoid useful idiot you are.

You reject histmat for cheap dogmatism.
>>

 No.479360

File: 1709161001739.png ( 113.64 KB , 256x256 , 1709048855416183.png )

>>479357
Why are you so fucking angry and upset? Take a chill pill. Touch grass, have sex, etc etc.

I don't give a shit about a documentary when the documentary is so obviously wrong. Thensoviet union wasn't "moving towards" capitalism because they had devoted Marxists at the leader ship. Even if they were corrupt at the end of the day the idea that they were not moving towards a society of social ownership of production is silly.

The Nazis on the other hand privatized many public facilities like train line and electrical plants and preached class collaboration from the get to. Nazism is just extremely authoritarian capitalism under the guise of ethnic separatism. Have sex.
>>

 No.479361

>>479360
>Thensoviet union wasn't "moving towards" capitalism
you didn't even bother to watch the video, didn't you? retarded dogmoid

I never claimed that SU was moving towards capitalism, I claimed THE FUCKING OPPOSITE RETARD.

What I claimed is that the Nazi Germany was moving AWAY FROM CAPITALISM JUST LIKE SOVIET UNION RETARD

>because they had devoted Marxists at the leader ship

unhistmat idealist position

People and their beliefs don't make history

>a society of social ownership of production

meaningless leftoid gibberish

planned economy is a better more precise term

>The Nazis on the other hand privatized many public facilities like train line and electrical plants and preached class collaboration from the get to.

IT DOESN'T MATTER.

It doesn't matter what individuals believe in. What matters is how people ACT.

Relations of ownership are formal juridical relationships. It doesn't matter if it says on paper that electrical plant belongs to a capitalist IF DE FACTO IT OPERATES ACCORDING TO STATE PLAN.

Basic fucking histmat.

Mission impossible: vanguardoids not being idealist lol.

>Take a chill pill.

I'm chill as fuck, vanguardoid faggot, tf you talking about lol
>>

 No.479362

In conclusion: vanguardoids just can't be historical materialists.

Histmat goes against whole vanguardoid idealist ideology lol.
>>

 No.479368

>>479361
Have sex

Again, no. Nazi Germany was moving towards an extremely authoritarian form of capitalism. You keep repeating the opposite which is retarded, untrue, and completely unsupported by ay evidence at all.

How do you define capitalism? The only way you could conclude this is if you take the retarded libertarian definition of capitalism at face value which is retarded.
Take your meds, touch grass, and hug your mother.
>>

 No.479369

>>479368
lol why so upset fag? take a chill pill, wash your penis, clean your room etc etc lol

>Again, no.

Again, yes.

As expected, no arguments, only screeching.

Cling to your idealism vanguardoid, I don't give a fuck , just don't claim you're a historical materialist.

>How do you define capitalism?

Society of generalized (in statistical terms) market exchange.

Now piss off brainlet.
>>

 No.479370

dogmoids just can't argue lol

vanguardoid retard loses it lol
>>

 No.479372

>>479369
This is a dumb way to define capitalism.

Capitalism is an economic system based upon private ownership of production in the form of a market economy based on wage labor.
Nothing about Nazi Germany runs in contradiction to this.

I made plenty of arguments you're just to stupid to understand I'm afraid. Have sex.
>>

 No.479374

>>479369
>Society of generalized (in statistical terms) market exchange.
According to this laughably imprecise definition, capitalism is not the economic system that displaced feudalism in the 17th century, it's actually an immortal economic system that's been with us since the beginning of civilization.

>>479372
On the other hand, this definition is also inconsistent. Private vs state-owned does not distinguish one economic system from the other. There were plenty of state-owned slaves during slavery economic systems and they didn't stop being slavery, and of course feudal peasants or serfs pledged their loyalty to a lord (the state) whose land they worked for part of the year while they worked their own common or private land the rest of the year. Whether the state does something or not does not define how people relate to the commodities that are produced in society.
>>

 No.479383

File: 1709182507716.gif ( 965.85 KB , 500x345 , heh.gif )

lmao I see our resident brainlet brigade is in full force

>>479372
>Capitalism is an economic system based upon private ownership of production in the form of a market economy based on wage labor.
>Nothing about Nazi Germany runs in contradiction to this.
How about you finally watch the video retard and stop spewing your uneducated takes? Nazis had mandatory labor and planned production at least in the capital intensive sectors.

>>479374
>According to this laughably imprecise definition, capitalism is not the economic system that displaced feudalism in the 17th century, it's actually an immortal economic system that's been with us since the beginning of civilization.
I didn't know you had a generalized labor and capital goods market in feudalism retard lol.

For brainlets: generalized means EVERYTHING becomes a commodity, including labor.

>There were plenty of state-owned slaves during slavery economic systems and they didn't stop being slavery

Except there is an argument to be made that the so-called slave mode of production is actually a capitalist mode of production at a lower technological level.

I know at least a couple of marxists who think that ancient Rome was capitalist (Cockshott is one of them, another thinks we're in cyclical loop of periodically returning to capitalism).

Private-state is still a useful characteristic if it actually maps into different relations of production (for example imperatorial slaves vs private slave-colons).
>>

 No.479384

File: 1709183493716.gif ( 934.21 KB , 218x161 , share the load.gif )

>>479383
>Except there is an argument to be made that the so-called slave mode of production is actually a capitalist mode of production at a lower technological level.
>>

 No.479386

>>479384
Obvious parallels between American slave plantations in the pre-industrial modern capitalism era and Ancient slave latifundias and manufactures.

In general observation that ancient slavery was closely tied to production for the market, at least in the Mediterranean region. Observation that you get a decline of the ancient slavery with the decline of the ancient market economy (or vice versa) and subsequent rise of the colonate and the beginning of feudalism. Observation that there was a developed monetary economy with financial capital.

You know, really obvious stuff if you study history..
>>

 No.479387

>>479386
Oh okay, so you're retarded then.
>>

 No.479388

>>479387
Oh okay, so brainlet has no arguments then.
>>

 No.479389

>>479386
>Obvious parallels between American slave plantations in the pre-industrial modern capitalism era and Ancient slave latifundias and manufactures.
Oh, and I would also add Russian grain producing slave based pomestia oriented on the burgeoning european market.
>>

 No.479390

File: 1709191347736.jpg ( 1.54 MB , 4032x3024 , pondering-frodo.jpg )

>>479383
>another thinks we're in cyclical loop of periodically returning to capitalism
that dude is actually very interesting - basically he thinks there are only two modes of production: capitalism and feudalism, that get reproduced on different technological basis at various points in time - that's the "cyclical" part of his theory

he says the purpose of socialism is to finally break this endless cycle - that's what freedom means for humanity
>>

 No.479393

>>479390
>he says the purpose of socialism is to finally break this endless cycle - that's what freedom means for humanity
tho socialism obviously doesn't follow from his cyclical theory

he also ignores primitive hunter-gatherer communism

plus "feudalism" on different technological basis basically means different mode of production anyway

there's obviously a cyclical element to history, but it is more of a spiral than a circle
>>

 No.479397

File: 1709206159670.gif ( 1.19 MB , 350x215 , VaPABBCZehuEv0O3P4vRug.gif )

>>479142
Anarcho-marxism-posadism-stirnerism with full communism characteristics.
>>

 No.480038

>>479357
Fuck the soviet union, but what you're pointing out as signs of anti-capitalism in nazi germany are largely features of a war economy. There's a reason why the Strasserites were purged from the party as soon as Hitler became chancellor.
>>

 No.480041

File: 1711612230860-0.png ( 237.8 KB , 1785x602 , kronstadt1.PNG )

File: 1711612230860-1.png ( 273.71 KB , 1791x697 , kronstadt2.PNG )

>>479251
>>479253
Here's your true and authentic "revolution", anarchobro
>>

 No.480043

>>479390
>>479393
the idea of an economic pendulum swinging between feudal and capitalist modes of production is interesting It certainly could describe a period of protracted struggle between the feudal and capitalist mode of productions, that may still be ongoing.

But perhaps not all of economic history, the obvious one is that in primitive societies all work was directly social and couldn't have been either. Socialism in the 20th century also does not fit.
>>

 No.480224

None. I don't really care too much about politics outside of a few things. I like freedom of speech, I dislike how people on both the left and the right are slipping towards totalitarianism. I want things to be cheaper.
t.ourist
>>

 No.480226

>>480224
Define "totalitarian-ism".
>>

 No.480227

>>480224
>I like freedom of speech
I think we need to correct our political perspective, we have to assume that abuse of power that violates civil liberties is the default-state. A inspection of history shows that abuse of power is the norm and upheld rights are the exception. So our current default assumption that civil liberties are not being violated unless something out of the ordinary happens, that is not realistic.

So in order to say that freedom of speech is upheld, you have to make all forms of organized power prove that they are not violating it. Like for example organized power has to prove that it does not possess any mechanisms that could be abused for censorship.

You have to specify the censorship mechanisms too. The obvious censorship mechanism is the ability to make information inaccessible. But there are many others like the ability to intimidate people for their speech, hence why organized power cannot have the ability to figure out who their critics are, and prove that it is incapable of doing so. There are more subtle forms of censorship like the ability to steer attention, the ability to drown out information, the ability to smear people, the ability to undermine the economic viability of opposing opinions and many more.

Of course organized power will try to rename censorship into something else or hide censorship capabilities, so you have to account for unrecognized means of censorship. Hence why means of communications will be required to have a high degree of inherent censorship resistance build into the technical design.

But there isn't just the legal and technical side. The organic factors play a role as well. The societal benefit of free speech are only harnessed when the means of debates are reasoned arguments, it can't be a big collective shouting match where people insult each other and inflict emotional pain. So free speech also requires a cultural technique. You have to convince people that the battle of words is a game where clever arguments beat nasty slander.
>>

 No.480228

Politically I'm an Anarchist of the Council Communist variety.

In my private belief I'm a perennialist that practices christianity of the calvinist variety (it helps me cope with the soullessness of capitalism while we wait for the coming communist eschaton of revolution).
>>

 No.480230

>>480226
Supporting stalinism in the case of leftists and supporting fascism in the case of right wingers. Don't really want to get into the whole horseshoe thing but you have to admit, they're basically the same, stalinists just hate brown people less.
>>480227
Not reading all of that
>>

 No.480232

>>480041
I'm not an anarchist and neither were Kronstadt rebels, "bro". Kronstadt always had a strong "non-party" sentiment, and if any "party" had a prolonged influence, it were anti-party SR-Maximalists lol.

Anyway, those screencaps are bullshit propaganda, that vanguardoids keep spewing from the very beginning of the rebellion. As Israel Gezler aptly put it, repeating those same points became almost a test of loyalty to every vanguardoid, irrespective of their particular sectarian tendency.

And if you want primary sources, I can redirect you to "Kronstadt 2021. Documents" that were published on the wave of Yeltsyn's rehabilitation campaign (inb4 this proves the rebels were conspiring whitoids!!11 lol)

The whole event at this point is pretty well documented in numerous books and monographs, so you better update your talking points.

And I'm not even idealizing Kronstadt rebellion. It was a spontaneous reaction to a historical process. Nothing more, nothing less.

In general looking at the events of the two revolutions (Russian and German), we can see a clear pattern: breakdown of the old state, spontaneous emergence of the direct democratic institutions in the form of the councils, cooption of those direct democratic institutions by some political party (bolsheviks in Russia, social democrats in Germany). Kronstad was a direct democratic reaction against this process.
>>

 No.480234

>>480230
"Stalinisnism" is a fake propaganda narrative, it doesn't exist in reality and it never did. Fascism is capitalism in decay, there is no connection to socialism. The Soviets defeated fascism in WW2, saying they're the same is pure insanity. Only a fringe group of neo-liberal extremists, engaging in self-projection try to push this false equivalence.

Do you actually want to talk about censorship ? Or is this just about pushing ideology ?

>Not reading

You want us to draw pictures instead ?
>>

 No.480235

>>480038
>what you're pointing out as signs of anti-capitalism in nazi germany are largely features of a war economy
the same can be said of the SU, they both emerged with war economies out of the ww1 lol

>There's a reason why the Strasserites were purged from the party as soon as Hitler became chancellor.

That's not a histmat argument. Political labels don't matter.

There are far more parallels than differences between Stalinist SU and Nazi Germany.
>>

 No.480236

>>480043
>But perhaps not all of economic history, the obvious one is that in primitive societies all work was directly social and couldn't have been either.
well, his argument is that those weren't societies in the proper sense, ie for him society starts with the beginning of settled life

I disagree with that point, since it reduces society to civilization.

>Socialism in the 20th century also does not fit.

You know my opinion lol. I think it was an asiatic mode.
>>

 No.480237

>>480235
The Soviet Union was a worker state, the fascist regime that occupied Germany was a tool of the most reactionary imperialist capitalism. They could not have been any more different. Even their respective war-economies were polar-opposites, the Soviets went for rational industrial mass production of simple but effective weapons, while the Nazis chased after retarded impractical super-weapons.

>mad mental gymnastics to compare the Soviet Union to capitalism in fascist decay

People began criticizing the rising censorship in the west and now, you're trying to mobilize the fake propaganda narrative of "Stalinism" as a diversion ? Is that it ?
>>

 No.480239

>>480237
>The Soviet Union was a worker state
It was a party dictatorship. There were no workers in politburo.

>Even their respective war-economies were polar-opposites, the Soviets went for rational industrial mass production of simple but effective weapons, while the Nazis chased after retarded impractical super-weapons.

Bitch, you seriously claim nazis had no mass production?

>People began criticizing the rising censorship in the west and now, you're trying to mobilize the fake propaganda narrative of "Stalinism" as a diversion ? Is that it ?

take your meds lol
>>

 No.480241

>>480236
>well, his argument is that those weren't societies in the proper sense, ie for him society starts with the beginning of settled life
Yeah seems like lots of misconceptions. Primitive societies co-existed both as nomadic and settled for a very long time. In the early phase there were very egalitarian and peaceful agricultural farming collectives that would qualify as settled too, yet had very little in common with war-like societies that came later. And there were a few nasty war-like nomadic empires too.

>I disagree with that point, since it reduces society to civilization.

Yeah i don't know what you mean with civilization, usually it means that surplus is extracted for technological advances, but there have been very uncivilized society with technology too.

>You know my opinion lol. I think it was an asiatic mode.

Asiatic mode of production is not a real thing. It's just feudalism, seen through racist glasses. The Soviets were not feudal.
>>

 No.480242

>>480241
>Yeah i don't know what you mean with civilization
By civilization I mean class societies based on surplus appropriation by the ruling class.

>Asiatic mode of production is not a real thing. It's just feudalism, seen through racist glasses.

Racist? Seriously uygha?

Asiatic mode of production was not feudalism, at least in the classical "european feudalism" sense. There were enough differences to consider them different modes of production.

I fucking dare you to claim that Incas had the same mode of production as France at the time of Crusades.
>>

 No.480244

>>480239
You're making shit up, the Soviets had political quotas for people with "proletarian background"

>Bitch, you seriously claim nazis had no mass production?

Pre-fascist Germany was industrialized, and the Nazis used existing industrial stuff, but what the Nazis added, wasn't. The nazis did incoherent shit, their tank production was almost artisanal, they lacked key industrial innovations like interchangeable parts. They had people in barns producing tank chains with simple hand tools. The Slave labor in the concentration camps certainly weren't industrial wage workers. Compared to the Soviets, the Nazis definitely were not doing a proper industrial society.

>take your

Just comment on the rising censorship in the west, doesn't have to be groundbreaking new insights or anything.
>>

 No.480245

>>480244
>You're making shit up, the Soviets had political quotas for people with "proletarian background"
doesn't mean shit, soviets had no real power and even then all candidates needed to be approved by party committees at all levels

and anyway, "proletarian background" doesn't mean shit if you're not a proletarian anymore, and even then no "proletarian quotas" in politburo or central committee where all the real political power was

only 100% nomenclatura quota lol

>the Nazis used existing industrial stuff, but what the Nazis added, wasn't

so you claim that 4-year military rearmament plans didn't build any industry? so you claim that all the new military tech was built in "barns" lol?

they didn't have Panzers and Messerschmitts in ww1, guess they built them in barns lol

>Compared to the Soviets, the Nazis definitely were not doing a proper industrial society.

Absolutely retarded.

>Just comment on the rising censorship in the west

How is censorship in the west relevant to this discussion lol?

Censorship is rising everywhere because we're approaching a new world war retard.
>>

 No.480249

File: 1712425938374.png ( 12.87 KB , 815x455 , stochastric materialism mo….png )

>>480242
>By civilization I mean class societies based on surplus appropriation by the ruling class.
What about socialist societies where surplus allocation is decided democratically, does that not count as civilization anymore ?

>Racist? Seriously uygha?

"Asiatic" how could it not be racist.

>Asiatic mode of production was not feudalism, at least in the classical "european feudalism" sense. There were enough differences to consider them different modes of production.

Fine describe the functional differences

>I fucking dare you to claim that Incas had the same mode of production as France at the time of Crusades.

I have not investigated the Incas enough to comment, they seem rather based from what i remember.

See pic for how i look at modes of production.
>>

 No.480250

>>480249
That's one retarded image.
>>

 No.480251

>>480249
>What about socialist societies where surplus allocation is decided democratically, does that not count as civilization anymore ?
Yes. That would be post-civilization.

>"Asiatic" how could it not be racist.

You gotta be fucking kidding me. It called "asiatic" because it first emerged in fucking Asia retard.

>Fine describe the functional differences

Basic unit of surplus production is a peasant commune, versus individual peasant family. Surplus appropriated by the state administration versus individual landowners. Centralization of surplus in big city-states versus decentralization of surplus in individual castles.

>I have not investigated the Incas enough to comment, they seem rather based from what i remember.

They seem rather based to you because they had an asicatic mode of production. You know, the same that SU had.

>See pic for how i look at modes of production.

I don't agree with that classification.

Slave and Capitalist economies should be merged, or there should be an arrow from Slave to Capitalist. Peasant should be renamed to Feudal, Socialist to Asiatic.
>>

 No.480253

Also Slave should be renamed to Ancient to stay consistent with Asiatic and Feudal.
>>

 No.480255

>>480245
Soviet style leadership democracy is not the most democratic, but it definitely was a worker state.

>so you claim that 4-year military rearmament plans didn't build any industry?

>so you claim that all the new military tech was built in "barns" lol?
Nazis had fancy weapon-designs, but they did not build a coherent industrial system like the Soviets. Nazi-economics was shit that didn't work and ended in hyper inflation. There's a myth of "competent but evil" Nazis, in reality they were just evil.

>Censorship is rising everywhere because we're approaching a new world war retard.

if it's for warmongering that's All the more reason to shit on it at every opportunity.
>>

 No.480256

>>480250
This graphic is from Cockshott, his argument for this is that modes of production are not a linear progression through history, but that societies can also suffer regressions and fall back to less advanced modes of production.
>>

 No.480257

>>480251
>Yes. That would be post-civilization.
OK but I would prefer to call the ruling-class surplus extraction model pre-civilisation, and once it's socialist it's civilization proper. So that it's consistent with pre-history (when class societies), history proper (when classless)

>It called "asiatic" because it first emerged in fucking Asia

Why don't we call all the other modes of production based on where they first emerged ?

>Basic unit of surplus production is a peasant commune, versus individual peasant family. Surplus appropriated by the state administration versus individual landowners. Centralization of surplus in big city-states versus decentralization of surplus in individual castles.

Got it, you make a good point, but we're gonna call it state-feudalism.

>They seem rather based to you because they had an asicatic mode of production. You know, the same that SU had.

So the Incas, the Soviet Union, and whatever China did for thousands of years, that's all the same mode of production ?
I want to call the Soviet system state-socialism, they clearly prioritized the interests of the proles.

>Slave and Capitalist economies should be merged, or there should be an arrow from Slave to Capitalist. Peasant should be renamed to Feudal, Socialist to Asiatic.

>Also Slave should be renamed to Ancient to stay consistent with Asiatic and Feudal.
I'm considering what you said, but I gotta think about the ramifications for the model for a while.
>>

 No.480258

>>480255
>it definitely was a worker state.
how can it be a worker state where worker was not the main beneficiary?

the main beneficiary as a class was nomenclatura

>Nazis had fancy weapon-designs, but they did not build a coherent industrial system like the Soviets.

dude at least open wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II

you don't build tens of thousands of tanks in a fucking barn

>if it's for warmongering that's All the more reason to shit on it at every opportunity.

no, that's not a reason to derail at every opportunity
>>

 No.480260

>>480257
>OK but I would prefer to call the ruling-class surplus extraction model pre-civilisation, and once it's socialist it's civilization proper.
the term civilization already has an established conventional meaning, ie class based settled societies, and I see no reason why it should be changed

>So that it's consistent with pre-history (when class societies), history proper (when classless)

I do not make such distinctions. I see all of history as a history of physical matter.

>Why don't we call all the other modes of production based on where they first emerged ?

well, I prefer to call capitalism an Ancient mode of production based on where it first emerged (Ancient Greco-Roman world). I'm not calling it a European mode because feudalism also emerged in Europe.

>but we're gonna call it state-feudalism.

I don't like state-anything in my classifications. State exists in every class society.

>So the Incas, the Soviet Union, and whatever China did for thousands of years, that's all the same mode of production ?

Well, they are the same to the extent that Roman Empire and USA are the same.

You definitely could further differentiate between Ancient and Capitalist, and Asiatic and Socialist, but those terms would have a different meaning than in orthodox marxism.

>I want to call the Soviet system state-socialism, they clearly prioritized the interests of the proles.

Again, I don't like state-anything. Also they clearly prioritized the interests of nomenclatura.
>>

 No.480261

>>480258
The Soviets failed to fully solve the problem with stratification, but they got a lot closer than other systems. It was a worker state, all be it one with flaws.

>dude at least open wikipedia

Wikipedia is hit or miss, some articles glow others are good. I tend to avoid using Wikipedia for political stuff.

>you don't build tens of thousands of tanks in a fucking barn

The Soviets build 200k tanks, that's a lot more.
I'm not giving credit to the Nazis for using the industrial system that Germany already had. I'm only looking at the new structures they build by them selves. It's not very impressive. The Soviet system was extremely optimized by comparison.
>>

 No.480289

>>480261
>The Soviets failed to fully solve the problem with stratification, but they got a lot closer than other systems. It was a worker state, all be it one with flaws.
No, it was not a worker state, and they couldn't solve those problems precisely because it was a class society.

To claim they could solve those problems is peak idealism and has nothing to do with histmat.

>Wikipedia is hit or miss, some articles glow others are good.

You could at least look up production figures.

>The Soviets build 200k tanks, that's a lot more.

Mode of production is not defined by how many tanks you can build lol.

>I'm not giving credit to the Nazis for using the industrial system that Germany already had.

Germany was already industrialized when the nazis took over, WTF do you want from them? You think bolsheviks could've done better?

SU also had low growth after initial industrialization for fuck's sake.
>>

 No.480290

My point is that even from the surface analysis you can't deny there is a big similarity in superstructure between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union.

And if we adhere to histmat determinism then it follows that each particular superstructure necessarily MUST correspond to a particular economic base. And my study of the Nazi economy only further confirms this basic histmat principle.
>>

 No.480291

Tho I'm not saying that Nazi Germany had the exact same economic base as the SU. It was a society stuck in transition, but that was enough to bring about a similar superstructure.
>>

 No.480292

>>480289
>No, it was not a worker state
It depends on your level of ideological purity. The Soviet Union was the worker state you were going to get while having to smash fascism and make up a century of industrial development in a decade.

>You could at least look up production figures.

>Mode of production is not defined by how many tanks you can build lol.
>Germany was already industrialized when the nazis took over,
I did investigate the economics and war production of fascist Germany. It was a disorganized shit show. The Nazis sold out the public sector via privatization, and that wrecked their economic efficiency. The only thing the Nazis were good at was propaganda. They inherited the industrial capacity of Germany and once that was used up, everything broke down.
>WTF do you want from them?
Nothing, the Nazis are dust. I want you to stop perpetuating the myth that the Nazis were competent.

>You think bolsheviks could've done better?

I know for a fact that the bolsheviks did better, the Soviet Union became an industrial super-power in both military and economic terms. They did that while they almost doubled the life span of their population. Every societal metric dramatically improved. They had a more difficult starting point too. Russia had less industrial development than Germany, they had to solve many bootstrapping problems while under constant attack. If the communists had prevailed in Germany and been able to start off with an industrial system as fully developed as the one in Germany, we'd be living under world communism right now.

The Nazis managed to take Germany which was a huge and very advanced industrial power and completely wreck it within less than 2 decades. You'd be hard pressed to find worse leadership, even if we ignored all the evil genocidal mass murdering Bullshit.

>SU also had low growth after initial industrialization for fuck's sake.

When growth slowed to 3% in the 80s, the soviets considered it unbearable stagnation. In capitalism 3% growth is a euphoric boom economy. You are correct that the Soviet economy did not perpetually maintain the initial growth rates between 10-20%. If you apply these standards of "low growth" to capitalism, than pretty much all of capitalism sucked.
>>

 No.480293

>>480290
I don't understand why you would ever consider comparing the fascist regimes to the SU.

Looking at the material conditions of workers: In the Soviet system wages for workers rose, living conditions rocketed upwards, while in the Axis powers wages for workers fell and living conditions took a nose dive. The Soviets build a efficient dynamic public sector, while the Fascists just sold off the public sector to fund their imperialist war against half the world. I can't find any similarities.

From a hismat and flow of matter perspective these 2 systems did pretty much the opposite. I don't know where you're getting confused. Maybe avoid static comparisons, look at what the systems do, where matter and energy flows.

One could make the argument that fascism is a mechanism of Imperial mega capital, sacrificing entire countries for advancing their imperial designs. In that sense Fascism is national suicide.
>>

 No.480305

>>480291
>Tho I'm not saying that Nazi Germany had the exact same economic base as the SU. It was a society stuck in transition, but that was enough to bring about a similar superstructure.
Political organization and power in the Soviet Union was rooted in the worker councils, which were called "Soviets". The Fascists had nothing like that. That's a pretty big difference.
>>

 No.480306

>>480290
So I guess this is the gay thread where you all try to figure out what lines work on the fools now? It's over for you all. Ideology is for the slaves, and the people never really were "ideological", despite the efforts to shill for it. Ideology has always had a narrow appeal to the middle class. The proprietors don't give a shit about ideology except for what excuse they need to bullbait others into accepting property claims. The aristocracy laugh that they've been able to play this game for so long and enough of you assholes continue buying this ideology project that never really worked.

Ideology is a product of institutions which are presently failing - they're choking the world and doing incredible damage as they fail, and because they have made any alternative impossible, the institutions will continue to destroy the world and make us miserable. But, after all of the lies, most of humanity is done with the institutions. It's not a matter of "new institutions". Humanity is just done with the concept altogether, and if there are new institutions, they are local and stand oppose to the ruling institutions, which will continue to march in lockstep. Eugenics cannot fail - it can only be failed.

>>479368
This is full of a lot of weasel words to make an ideological veneer atop what Nazi Germany - and Germany as a project going back to the foundation of the German nation-state - always was. The Germans always were about smash and grab plunder scams, then insisting that everyone is supposed to respect some fake and gay "right of conquest" by insisting everyone else secretly wants to be Krauts. We are nothing like them and never will be, and they are always an epic fail. The Nazis are merely the most egregious and absolute example of a pure plunder and exploit economy, that cannibalized Germany itself as the Nazis got all of the money bags and all of the gold and pissed off to a giant diaspora, so they can shit up America and fully Germanize the place.

Nothing about the Nazis was especially "authoritarian" compared to the other states of the time. This talking point has always been something fascist ideologues use, to assert that any expression of strength is ipso facto fascist and that democracy is always impotent and gay. It's a giant cope to pretend that the Red Army didn't show these fucking Satanic retards what authority really looks like and beat the shit out of them, without the showy atrocities and posturing that Nazi always behave like squealing fags to create more of.

As for "ideological capitalism", I don't think you understand where that comes from. Capitalism is not an ideological tenet or something you get to choose to do because it feels good. Capital as a proposition refers to something very real and relevant to what humans do with technology and labor. The business interests in Germany did not need "Nazism" or particularly care what ideology ruled. If they could, they would reconcile with socialism of some form and think nothing of it, so long as their position above the masses is maintained. The primary enemy of the Nazis, stated repeatedly by them, was democracy more than "communism". Communism was despised because it was seen as democratic and foreign, and it was the democratic part that was foreign to the entire German project more than anything else. The charges of "democratic Judaism" were a way to conflate democracy with corruption, vice, and imperial intrigues, and the Bolsheviks were portrayed as liars and tools of the British in all of the Nazi agitprop during and after the war. The only way this is credible is if it is presumed "human nature is against sharing", not because communism was this bizarre unicorn but because Nazis hate the idea of poor people having anything whatsoever and love to see us suffer, because they're complete and unmitigated fags. No one at the time believed communism was an "ideology" - as far as the communists cared, they believed their approach was a perfectly viable way to build a country, which is exactly what the Communists in the Soviet Union advertised their goal as, rather than some idea that they existed to impose a fantastical world against "reality" as asserted by insidious influencers. There were many in the USSR that didn't believe "socialism" in the proper sense was anywhere near realization, and that all that Stalin did was make the Party into the leading capitalist and the entity which all business in Russia had to pass through. That's essentially what the USSR did, by its own admission. But, the USSR had an interest in elevating at least some of the people and a sense that this was a shared project, rather than the Nazi faggotry where everyone must be as Satanic as them.

>>479386
Capital proper referred not to simply wealth, but a concept of productivity in the abstract guided by human intelligence - that is, capital is technology. The technology of Antiquity is simple and never really considered "the point", and the idea that it was an imperative for "capital" to expand vertically, through an idea of inexorable technological and historical advance, was not a thing anyone in Antiquity believed. Roman technology changed very little over the centuries, and their concept of what economic wealth was changed not at all from the moment currency became standard. The one deviation is that the Dominate had to do away with money for a time because the money was no longer any good, and this was always an ad hoc measure.

What is confirmed is that estates had to engage in market activity and plan their affairs meticulously if they were to survive. Economic competition, economic interests, wealth, banks, finance, and the levers of finance, all existed in Antiquity much as they do now. The Empire was very conscious of trade and the flow of wealth, and landholders and nascent industries were aware of their bottom line. The formation of the "capitalist" as such never happened because such a creature would have been seen as highly disruptive to the imperial order and the interests that did hold the wealth, just as capitalists were seen as intruders when the asserted power in the 18th century, and just as capitalists were rejected in the old empires because the capitalist strategy was not freely reproducible. "Capitalism" as a fully worked out concept arises out of the trading companies who imposed it purely as a way to organize the British Empire, to take over the world by intrigues and dealing drugs. What is capitalism? It is opium, prostitution, and all of the vice of the East India Company and more. That's all it truly was spiritually - it is a drive to the bottom that makes capitalism "capitalism", and all technology and product we have made is in service to this demonic beast.
>>

 No.480307

Now you might say "But Eugene, didn't capitalism build hitherto unknown wonders of the world?" I say - nuts to that. "Capitalism" as a way of thinking didn't build shit. It is always those who work and actually have to advance technology who build anything, and they do not build things because they actually believe the dollar signs are the point. Money is always a tool - this is what a proper understanding of money will always tell you. VALUE in an economic sense may be seen as a social relation, but when you actually look at what a "social relation" is, you see that the relevant relations are all subsumed in a concept of technology which is not a mere "fetish" or "symbol". The technology of the 19th century meant many things would be different moving forward. Sailboats were displaced with oil, battleships, and these overpriced weapons platforms. Technology almost always advanced as an anti-democratic force, with vast funding spent to build technology not out of a blind impulse, but with the explicit aim of suppressing technological advance once it served this purpose of enslaving the world. That is what is happening presently - the institutions of capitalism and what was called "socialism" are now choking the life out of humanity. Communism was in the main animated by a force of humanity saying they did not want to do that, but the communist parties adopted a political thought that was more in line with the middle class and aristocracy, and an imagined alliance of intelligence, science, and technology which excluded everyone else and locked up all of the property. That is now the only idea anyone "up there" believes in.
>>

 No.480309

>>480307
>It is always those who work and actually have to advance technology who build anything, and they do not build things because they actually believe the dollar signs are the point. Money is always a tool - this is what a proper understanding of money will always tell you.
You are echoing Marx, who thought that there was going to be a power struggle between bank capital and industrial capital. Marx thought that industrial capital would win, and like you said money would become a tool to build technology, not an end. Arguably this is the case in China, but in the west it clearly is not.

There are companies in that the west start out that way, who see building technology as the end, but over time they turn into the neo-liberal line go up model, and then all the technical prowess filters out as technical people are driven out.
>>

 No.480310

>>480306
>don't give a shit about ideology except for what excuse they need to bullbait others
Ideology definitely gets used for deception
>never really were "ideological"
however "non-ideological" definitely is another ideology.

You can't rid your self of ideology, without that turning into your new ideology, you can't have a reasoning mind without a world-view.
>>

 No.480316

>>480309
Industrial capital is still a tool rather than "true value" or "use value". The uses of anything are potentials of an object, rather than things imbued and fixed in that object - that is, it is entirely possible for some fixed thing to be used in a novel manner, because someone thinks of another way this tool could be used that was hitherto unknown in human society, or because other advances make possible the use of something that was previously useless. For example, petroleum was a nearly useless product that was obtained as a byproduct of other industrial or prospecting operations, so easy to find that not only could the necessary oil be surface mined for basically nothing, but it was easy for someone to set up a way to offload this unwanted product en masse and corner the market. A brilliant guy figured out that this stuff could be used for motors, had the good sense to corner the existing market and figured out how to drill for more of it, then control the shipping of that oil - and it was the shipping that really made him the money rather than the oil himself.

The point here is that technology does not hold any "intrinsic value" in that sense, and in all cases, technology - by definition - is a tool whose use is ultimately in the hands of those who hold them. The command of both coin - whether it's a literal money bin or entries on an electronic ledger that you can make it - and technology are limited things, not things that are boundless in a world with theoretically infinite firms. Every actor in the market acts as if all conditions he operates in pertain to a finite world, and has to do so. If they believe that there's an infinite wellspring of anything, they're not conducting any sort of genuine business. This is what Malthus exploits to suggest something about "fundamental human nature" due to our finite existence, and it was always a hatchet job, but it appealed to a lot of people because it was expedient for what they wanted - and ideas, ideology, the institutions which monopolized knowledge and rule are themselves tools like any other, as is the body and intelligence of the human beings.
>>

 No.480317

So Marx is partially cognizant of this - and really he gets the ball rolling on what would have happened next, though it was not pertinent to what Marx did or Marx's method of taking a giant wrecking ball to everything. What Marx lacked is a genuine systems thought which would have been necessary to truly verify claims about sociology and the models we proposed. While you could prove to a reasonable extent Marx's claims without this, before there was a genuine systems thought, the institutions already circumvented this and imposed a monopoly on reality itself - this is what the imperialists and Popper's filth "philosophy" did. The only reason we had systems thought is because this reality control is so obviously ruinous and ineffectively that 20th century general systems thought was necessary to make any of the machinery that mind controls us today functional, and it's still commandeered by people who only know how to push the torture button, because that's all they ever had to do. That's what capitalism at its moral core is - pushing the torture button to get more labor basically for free. Eventually, as Thatcher said, they run out of other peoples' money, but that is no consequence to them because "more blood for the blood god".
>>

 No.480318

File: 1712690698501.jpg ( 1.04 MB , 4288x2848 , meds.jpg )

>>

 No.480319

>>

 No.480320

Seriously, you need to ban and exterminate the person who keeps posting the "meds" photos. It is pure Satanism, and this is all people like that will ever be. Satanic race. Failed race. Kill them all, before it's too late - I am very serious. Why do you faggots kowtow to any of it? Root them out ffs. Exterminating obvious and malignant Satanics should be a basic condition to say you're going to change anything. It's not enough to marginalize them, because they make it clear they will never stop with the chilling effects until they're put down like dogs in the open. That, after all, is the world they openly intend to create for us. Play Satanic games, win Satanic prizes.

Is this a death threat? Frankly, after repeated death threats - because this is what the "meds" posts are, a chilling effect backed by repeated violence - I don't see where the law has any say, since the law has very clearly been weaponized to protect, aid, and abet these people. Unlike me, these people actively kill and they kill for the maximal thrill of doing so. That is the basis of their strength - that they have insinuated, because of a defective concept of justice, that they and they alone hold impunity, and we are not allowed to acknowledge a thing these Satanics have done to the world. I remind you all, they have no reason other than creating a chilling effect with the stated and open intention, which they act on, to maximize torture openly and bring open sacrifice pits to the world, for the thrill of their god's adulation. That is the only want to interpret this familiar snark, and it is Satanic. It's well known the mods here have Satanists on board. That's what they are.

To deny the atrocities of the Satanic is to shirk any concept that you are serious about anything. If we cannot hang Satanics or even suggest that such things are necessary, due to the repeat intransigence of those who allowed the world to become that, then what are we doing here? Sooner or later, I'll be dead anyway, and they've already done worse to me than any threat some rando Satanic is likely to create. I am under no obligation to avert any action which leads to the death of a Satanic, and the worst that could happen is from fear of the law and a prison system staffed with their fellow Satanics. You would need a mass extermination project to even begin rectifying this situation to a point where life is livable again. Fortunately, Satanics out themselves regularly, and we need only mark them down and send holy death squads to those marked for extermination. Nothing would be lost, and there's really nothing stopping us from doing this. They can only hide in Air Force Bases and military intel sites for so long.

They really should consider the consequences of making the race a truly Satanic race, for most of us have no reason to ever go along with such a thing. The Satanists always rely on destroying the decencies and exploiting them, because their filth race has never known anything else. A few dead Satanics - find the 09A members and hunt them like animals and publicize their membership - would put the world of piggers on notice. These Satanics really are fearful, as their fag religion requires them to be. It's pure Randroid autism, and I know those fags all too well. So, what are you all waiting for? Why are you kowtowing to any of this or letting them continue shitting up discussion? I say this not for my own sake, since I know this won't change anything, but I ask you all - why are we extending decency to any Satanic or anyone posting Satanic snark in this day and age? It should be universal to mark down such people and shoot them dead for insolence, and I shouldn't have to be the crazy person for saying what basic self-defense would require. No sanction for Satanics under circumstances can be tolerated.
>>

 No.480321

One other thing about my "death threat" - thanks to the repeat intransigence and destruction of all decencies allowing law, there will come a time where the law and police apparatus is no longer terribly effective at suppressing these threats. The people who goad me to attack have already made it clear they intend to kill me as soon as their fag party wins power again, as they intend to kill anyone in an open purge. Satanic races do not care about justice or anything someone actually did, and they made that clear to me since I was a child. If we stopped them then, or at least did something substantial to mitigate this instead of allowed failed ideologies to "jump in front", our condition now would be much better. It wasn't for lack of trying. Heaven knows how many people would form something, were begging for someone to come forward with something that spoke to them at all. Yet, where is the "resistance", the "peoples' movement?" They're still stuck on abortion and this idea that they need to reduce population to get people desperate and afraid enough to follow communists like sheep, because their political theory doesn't allow them to acknowledge that most people have no reason to go along with anything a few middle class intellectuals and opportunists want. It happens too many times to be a mistake, so I assign to the left broadly this war guilt of aiding and abetting an obvious danger. Unlike everyone else, they actually believed they were the opposition and didn't get a single thing for it. They didn't even get bribes to take a fall. They did it for free, because they're shameless cuckolds - in fact, many of them went into debt to have the privilege to sell us out, and then were told "oopsie" as their lives were cut short, ruined in service to the creed. Idiots. But, humans never had anything else in them. They'd rather aid and abet Satanics then do a simple thing to clean up a cesspit.

Fortunately, conversations still happen here, and I'll never stop calling these people fags. I hope someone finds the "meds" poster and boils that Satanic alive.
>>

 No.480323

>>480292
>It depends on your level of ideological purity.
It's not about ideological purity. It's about class analysis.

>The Soviet Union was the worker state you were going to get while having to smash fascism and make up a century of industrial development in a decade.

It did smash fascism and bring about industrial development. But it still wasn't a worker state.

>I did investigate the economics and war production of fascist Germany. It was a disorganized shit show.

War in general is a disorganized shit show. Soviet evacuation of industry was pure chaos too.

>The Nazis sold out the public sector via privatization, and that wrecked their economic efficiency.

Doesn't mean much when it comes to war economies. Even liberal United States had MOD running the fucking war economy.

>Nothing, the Nazis are dust.

You sure about that? They are as dust as the fucking communists.

>I want you to stop perpetuating the myth that the Nazis were competent.

They objectively were competent retard. You can't wage world war for five years without being at least somewhat competent.

They conquered continental Europe and then almost BTFOd your retarded ass. You may have produced more tanks, but their tanks were BETTER for the majority of war.

>I know for a fact that the bolsheviks did better, the Soviet Union became an industrial super-power in both military and economic terms.

It did not. It became in military terms, but not in economic terms.

>They did that while they almost doubled the life span of their population. Every societal metric dramatically improved.

IT WAS A FUCKING FEUDAL SHITHOLE RETARD. EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE "DRAMATICALLY" IMPROVES AFTER INDUSTRIALIZATION RETARD. PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS RETARD AND LEARN SOME BASIC HISTMAT RETARD.

Germany - already industrialized when the nazis took over.
Russia - a feudal agrarian shithole when the bolsheviks took over.

It's called growth from a low level retard.

>They had a more difficult starting point too.

Russia literally had a shitton of natural resources to be self sufficient. It was a perfect fucking starting point for forced industrialization.

>If the communists had prevailed in Germany and been able to start off with an industrial system as fully developed as the one in Germany, we'd be living under world communism right now.

Ahistorical BULLSHIT.

Ifs, buts.. SHUT THE FUCK UP RETARD.

>The Nazis managed to take Germany which was a huge and very advanced industrial power and completely wreck it within less than 2 decades.

HOLY SHIT you are SO FUCKING RETARDED.

Germany emerged out of the ww1 with a FUCKING REVOLUTION. Its economy screeched to a halt, it got reparations up its ass, then fucking Great Depression hit for good measure.

That economy was completely wrecked before nazis even got to sniff a whiff of power.

>When growth slowed to 3% in the 80s, the soviets considered it unbearable stagnation.

Official Soviet figures were shit. If you genuinely studied how Soviet economy worked you would know this. Hell, even fucking Keeran and Kenny in "Socialism Betrayed" knew this.

The simple facts ARE: after industrialization economic growth slowed to such levels that it led to a MASSIVE crisis in the superstructure that resulted in a COMPLETE COLLAPSE of the whole system.

It doesn't matter what growth figures capitalism has. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT MODE OF PRODUCTION HERE, and clearly official 3% were not enough for it.
>>

 No.480328

>>480293
>I don't understand why you would ever consider comparing the fascist regimes to the SU.
It's because you can't read.

I laid out my deductive reasoning from basic histmat axioms:

1. SU post industrialization had a different mode of production.
2. Different mode of production comes about not due to voluntarism of particular vanguardoids, but due to HARD ECONOMIC DETERMINISM.
3. Pre Great Depression SU had a capitalist mode of production equivalent to current day capitalist China.
4. Post Great Depression SU had a new mode of production.
5. Ergo Great Depression was a breaking point in all accordance with HARD ECONOMIC DETERMINISM.
6. Great Depression was a global economic event.
7. Ergo it should've affected some other societies similarly EVEN IF THEY WERE FOLLOWING A DIFFERENT IDEOLOGY.
8. Nazis had similar superstructure.
9. Nazis had similar militarizing economy.
10. Nazis came to power right after the Great Depression.
11. Ergo Nazis were moving in the same direction due to HARD ECONOMIC DETERMINISM.

>Looking at the material conditions of workers: In the Soviet system wages for workers rose, living conditions rocketed upwards, while in the Axis powers wages for workers fell and living conditions took a nose dive.

You don't know shit retard.

At the time of industrialization living conditions fell massively compared to NEP times. They reached NEP levels only when Khrushchev came to power.

>The Soviets build a efficient dynamic public sector

Now you're just spewing retarded propaganda. It was anything but dynamic lol.

>From a hismat and flow of matter perspective these 2 systems did pretty much the opposite.

They did the opposite to you because you don't know even basic histmat.

Either address my deductive reasoning or fuck off retardoid.
>>

 No.480329

>>480305
>Political organization and power in the Soviet Union was rooted in the worker councils, which were called "Soviets". The Fascists had nothing like that. That's a pretty big difference.
Soviets became a purely decorative institution in the course of Civil War. Soviet membership was completely controlled by party committees (gorkoms, obkoms, etc). Those committees mirrored Soviets at every level of the hierarchy of the Soviet Government, and they were the real centers of political power.

Soviet Constitution circa 36 had nothing to do with the really existing Soviet Union, because the real government of the Soviet Union was its Communist Party.
>>

 No.480335

>>480323
Lol the Nazis were a joke that rolled up the first time someone told the faggots "no, we won't be doing that". Every other country the Nazis conquered, they were practically invited in by traitor generals and aristocrats. Hitler bragged about doing this.

We should break one myth - that wars are ever fought "competently" or for their stated aims, let alone the grand fantastical narratives that are given in propaganda. After all is done, foreign policy is not conducted by retards who actually believe what is said on the shows. They can be realists or institutionalists or some other type of foreign relations approach, but never do they believe they're actually fighting for ideology or a "struggle of essences" or "struggle of systems". There is a version of history where the Nazis don't go full retard, and frankly I see the full retards of Germany being Nazi aristocracy more than Hitler. Hitler based on what I've read tried to tell the retard aristocrats "hey, dumbfucks, you need oil to have tanks and any of our modern tactics, so go capture some oil fields for fuck's sake". For this, Hitler is blamed for "interfering with the best and brightest", and when these talking points obviously point to the interest of the post-war technocrats that took over the United States, you know it's the same shitty revisionist history.

But seriously, the Nazis had no business thinking they were going to win any protracted war, and the Nazis did not think this. Everything about the Nazis was premised on the belief that the world would let them continue taking countries unopposed, and Poland was the last straw to get the British and Americans to stop pretending coexistence was possible. This ultimately came about because the Nazis only ever existed for eugenics and conducting the social engineering the Empire wanted, and the Nazis and their fellow travelers thought they could use German victory in Poland to push out the democratic facade and Nazify America then and there. The Nazis were most invested in creating a coup in the United States and relitigating the same Germanic racism they always believed in, and the belief that the wrong side won 1914. The same fellow travelers pushed the Nazis to attack the Soviet Union, because for the fellow travelers, the Nazis were only tools for the "great Jehad", to be used and abused. That's how Satanics always think, and how they continued to operate after the war. The only thing a eugenist believes in is this maximal betrayal, because no one will ever tell them no. No one will ever boil alive these fucking Satanics as we should have done when Hitler's faggots began yapping. In all of this, there is no "ideology" that blinds anyone. The Nazis were the party of eugenics and its base really, really wanted eugenics. There is no other version of what eugenics does - it would always create Nazism and suggest the Nazi MO, including its efforts to contest the empire. For the Soviet Union, they too were in an effort to both contest their position in the Empire, with fellow travelers around the world, and they faced a three-way internal battle. One faction in the Soviet Union were always Germanic and eugenist at heart, one faction was "Socialism in One Country", and another just wanted to sell out as fast as possible to the Americans and abandon the whole communism thing. The latter failed pretty early on but periodically sprung up, and that was sort of what Trotsky represented but what he was really about was something looking further ahead - long run goal was always for the United States to "mask off" and become something very different, and FDR/Eisenhower/Nixon were all quite aware that their function was to facilitate this and acted accordingly. Basically, a lot of the fears of "globalists" are based on a real plan that was hatched then, if not planned before 1914 as "the way" to unify the world through war, fear, depopulation, and social psychology. But, that project is ongoing, and if you say too much about what that really is, that's when the screeching really begins. You can't say what la-li-lu-le-lo is, you know. You can only have weird postmodern video games to announce their next plan every so often.

You can piece together parts of this history, especially from our present vantage point where so much must have moved to make 2020 happen, but it is also clear that whatever the original plan was, this is a deviation, because that plan was a terrible, shitty, and dumb idea based on one pseudoscientific fad after another. This is what you get when the commons think they're actually going to become not just aristocratic permanent elites, but living gods through technology and Harry Potter business. Yes, up there, this is what they actually believe. It's worse than Scientology, with Scientology being a branch / early experiment in what they wanted to make the world into. Some people try, but as a "grand narrative" it would become so big, convoluted, and contain moving parts that make the Marxian habit of mashed-up history not just counter-productive but a thing such a system would promote long past its sell-by date. (To be fair, I don't think if people did Marxism correctly, they would make these grand theories and assert passionately that they describe a total reality you can't challenge. Proper history and knowledge is not created by endless critique and insinuation. That's some low grade Masonic shit, the pablum they say to hoodwink and insult the rubes.)

Anyway this comparison of the Nazis and Soviets as "toy models" is exactly indicative of so many problems in the flawed historical theories and a completely insane view of reality, that has been reproduced deliberately. This psyop could only begin after 1945. At the time, no one was convinced this was about ideology or a "war of systems", or that there was really any good reason for the war to happen at all. It was, just like the last go around and most wars, a bunch of bullshit to kill poor people and show off new technology to oppress them after it's over. The whole thing is faggotry that would have ended early if Satanics were put down. After 1945, humanity did not outright abandon this shit and could not bring themselves to part with the lies, and so, humanity has been doomed to its present course, for no good reason other than the thrill of torture being maximized. That's all they have now - eugenics and torture. Failed race.
>>

 No.480336

The difference with the Soviet Union is that they were an actual country and not a plunder and cash grab scam like the Nazis. Every anticommunist propaganda piece needs to assert that the Nazis and their fellow travelers had any interest in any sort of country a reasonable person would see as peaceful, and every time they advance this retarded ideology, it's to tell the poor that we must stay in this eternal war so that a bunch of sniveling retards and faggots can keep stealing everyone's shit. That's all it was ever for.

So, is fagposter going to try to silence this with more snark? That's all they ever have to say for themselves, because they know what they really are.
>>

 No.480345

>>480323
You are erroneously insinuating that the Soviet Union was a class society. While they had stratification in society and that ought to be avoided, there really wasn't a class formation until the neo-liberal shock-doctrine period after the dissolution.

Comparing the level of organization of the soviet system against the fascist system, it clearly shows that the Soviet System started out in disarray and became increasingly organized over time, while Germany started out very organized it became increasingly chaotic under Fascism. This trend overall continues with living conditions as well, it improved in the Soviet system while it deteriorated under fascism. The Soviet system started out from a lower level of development, but that was no advantage, The socialist mode of production is intended to come after the capitalist mode of production, not the feudal mode of production.

The Soviets definitely became an economic super power too, not just a military power they reached the number 2 spot right behind the US. Since the USSR didn't have finances that can be compared to a capitalist system, comparisons are based on what can be directly compared like industrial output and so on.

With regards too who's dust, the closest thing to a Nazi-type state with ethno supremacy is Israel, and they've gone off the rails and will fall apart before the end of this decade. The remaining communist power of the 20th century is still going strong. Granted China had to make compromises to global capitalism, but they kinda beat the capitalists at their own game.

If the communist revolution in Germany had succeeded then the communist block would have started with both the advanced industry in Germany and as you pointed out the vast resources in Russia. That would have been the geopolitical high ground to influence world affairs. WW2 and fascism would have been a marginal conflict because the rest of the Axis powers would have been to weak to set the world on fire.

You make a valid point that Germany was suffering under WW1 reparations, however that does not function as an excuse. The Nazis liquidated the public sector to pay for militarism. That's not fixing anything, its just setting up society for another hard failure.
>>

 No.480346

>>480329
I agree with you the worker councils did not have enough power, but the Soviet system clearly prioritized the economic interests of workers a lot more than comparable capitalist societies. That could not happen unless workers had power too.
>>

 No.480348

>>480345
>You are erroneously insinuating that the Soviet Union was a class society.
I think the problem here is you have a confused definition of class. Class isn't about about disparities, it's about competing power relations. And in the Soviet Union, because they did not follow through with democratizing work, they retained one class that created the surplus and one class that appropriated the surplus and decided what to do with it. And it was precisely the conflict between these two classes that ultimately overthrew the system. It was none other than members of the bureaucratic class who became the wealthy post-Soviet oligarchs by profiting off the sale of state infrastructure.
>>

 No.480349

>>480345
>You are erroneously insinuating that the Soviet Union was a class society.
I'm not insinuating anything. I'm deducing it from histmat.

To claim that SU had no classes is to claim that asiatic mode of production had no classes. It is equivalent to claiming that Bronze Age societies had no classes retard.

>Comparing the level of organization of the soviet system against the fascist system, it clearly shows that the Soviet System started out in disarray and became increasingly organized over time

Again speaking out of your ass. The system got more disorganized as the time went on due to all the economic reforms and the growing black market.

>The Soviets definitely became an economic super power too

They did not.

>they reached the number 2 spot right behind the US

number 2 in what? fucking cast iron production lol?

Soviets had some areas where they were leading, but overall performance was not that of an economic powerhouse. Agriculture was especially shit.

>Since the USSR didn't have finances that can be compared to a capitalist system, comparisons are based on what can be directly compared like industrial output and so on.

Then compare industrial output lol. And then compare labor productivity and resource utilization for good measure kek.

Soviet Union was a military rival to the US, but it was never an economic rival, no matter how far you bend yourself into a pretzel lol.

>The remaining communist power of the 20th century is still going strong.

China is capitalist, just like SU was in the NEP period.

The only "communist" countries left (ie with the asiatic-industrial mode of production) are NK and maybe Cuba.

This is anything but "going strong" lol.

>If the communist revolution in Germany had succeeded then the communist block would have started with both the advanced industry in Germany and as you pointed out the vast resources in Russia.

Doesn't mean shit leftoid. This is not how economic determinism works.

The results would've been the same even if retarded vanguardoids seized state power in the fucking US of A lol.

>You make a valid point that Germany was suffering under WW1 reparations, however that does not function as an excuse.

I'm not making any excuses. I'm just telling you you're fucking retarded if you expect Soviet industrialization growth rates from fucking industrialized post-war Germany.

>The Nazis liquidated the public sector to pay for militarism.

THE NAZIS MILITARIZED THE FUCKING ECONOMY YOU FUCKING RETARD.

>That's not fixing anything, its just setting up society for another hard failure.

YOU CAN'T FIX ANYTHING RETARD. HUMANS DON'T HAVE THE HISTORICAL AGENCY TO FIX ANYTHING. SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Individual gas particles can't fix how the the gas is distributed retard.

HOLY SHIT you piss me off!
>>

 No.480350

>>480346
>I agree with you the worker councils did not have enough power
They had no power at all.

>but the Soviet system clearly prioritized the economic interests of workers a lot more than comparable capitalist societies

doesn't mean that it wasn't a class society retard

every class society treats its exploited class differently, duh

first and foremost it prioritized the interests of the nomenklatura to the extent that the mode of production allowed it

>That could not happen unless workers had power too.

lrn to logic lol
>>

 No.480352

>>480348
>Class isn't about about disparities, it's about competing power relations.
Great, another retard.

Class is defined by its relationship to the production process.

Nomenklatura was no less of a class than capitalists in this regard.
>>

 No.480353

Real shit, my frustration with juice-sipping sandal-wearing leftoids-vanguardoids of various kind stems from them simply NOT BEING MARXISTS.

To be a marxist is to be a hard determinist, period. And idealistic leftoids simply can't stomach hard determinism as can be seen throughout history.

Their daddy Leninoid is a perfect example of it - blanquist narodnik idealist faggot with a marxist veneer.
>>

 No.480355

>>480352
Now you're just being pedantic.
>>

 No.480356

>>480355
I'm not. Relationship to production is objective, while "muh power dynamics" is abstraction in your fucking head.
>>

 No.480357

>>480356
Nope, pure pedantry, verging on sophistry actually.
>>

 No.480358

>>480357
Tell me how "power relations" are external to your mind, brainlet.

Politics is literally a part of superstructure with its corresponding "power relations".

Fucking leftoid retards.
>>

 No.480359

The dude also has a good video on the Soviets.

Remember kids, if vanguardoid opens his mouth - he is lying (to himself first and foremost).
>>

 No.480360

This thread is sponsored by the CIA
>>

 No.480364

>>480359
It's really funny that you seem to think someone who believes the Soviet Union had classes is a Leninist.
>>

 No.480368

>>480364
wat? I think SU had classes and I'm not a Leninist lol

obviously the author of the video is not a Leninist either
>>

 No.480372

>>480348
>Class isn't about about disparities, it's about competing power relations.
Power relations are difficult to measure. What's easier to measure is on whose behalf the surplus is spend, and in the Soviet Union, the bureaucrats, party members, and so on, didn't get much more than workers.
>And in the Soviet Union, because they did not follow through with democratizing work, they retained one class
The Soviet Union did have stratification between workers and a type of intelligentsia (for lack of a better term). But stratification is not the same as class division.
>And it was precisely the conflict between these two
>that ultimately overthrew the system.
In the Soviet system the strata of intelligentsia wasn't able to get the same kind of luxuries and privileges that their counter-parts in capitalism got. That's why this faction pushed to restore capitalism. While that does indeed show lacking democratization, it also shows that the Soviets did not have class divisions, otherwise, there wouldn't have been any drive to revert to capitalism.
>>

 No.480373

File: 1712864681763.jpg ( 270.61 KB , 1639x774 , feudalism.jpg )

>>480372
>But stratification is not the same as class division.
Good thing I said nothing about stratification in my post then. Class is about independent, non-overlapping interests and divergent power between groups. If you have this (and the Soviet Union undeniably did), you have classes. This idea that the surplus value appropriators will simply act out of the benevolent goodness of their hearts in the interests of surplus value producers is anti-materialist. And at its core, it's the same ideology used to justify the hierarchies of slave masters, feudal lords, and capitalists.
>>

 No.480374

>>480372
>What's easier to measure is on whose behalf the surplus is spend, and in the Soviet Union, the bureaucrats, party members, and so on, didn't get much more than workers.
They did get much more surplus than workers. Not as much as capitalists, but this is completely irrelevant, because this was a different mode of production.

Why can't you evaluate a separate mode of production on its own terms? Why do you always need to compare it to capitalism?

You don't analyze capitalism by making constant references to feudalism, do you?
>>

 No.480375

>>480374
Why shouldn't we make constant references to feudalism? Capitalism is the unfinished revolution against feudalism.
>>

 No.480378

>>480375
Because it's a different self-contained mode of production, a self-reproducing economic organism that can be studied in isolation.

Capitalist revolution was finished, I dunno what you're talking about.
>>

 No.480379

>>480378
>Capitalist revolution was finished
Adam Smith disagreed.
>>

 No.480380

>>480379
well, he can disagree all he wants in his grave

I define capitalism as universal market in all the factors of production
>>

 No.480382

>>480374
Well at least you agree that the soviets had a different mode of production. Surplus allocation is universal tho, every mode of production has it. The Soviet Union always gets compared to capitalism because it was an attempt to overcome capitalism. Marx compared capitalism to feudalism a lot, because in the 1800s capitalism was still fighting against feudal systems. Feudalism still is in the economic discourse, today. Some economists see feudal aspects in Wall-street or big-tech.

>>480378
>self-contained mode of production, a self-reproducing economic organism that can be studied in isolation.
Quadruple NO on that.

Capitalism is not self contained, it has a fucktonne of externalities
It is being reproduced by brutal political imposition
It is not analogous to an organism
Nothing can be studied out of context
>>

 No.480391

>>480382
>Surplus allocation is universal tho, every mode of production has it.
Yes, but surplus distribution is relevant for analyzing class composition too.

>The Soviet Union always gets compared to capitalism because it was an attempt to overcome capitalism.

It gets compared because it was a rival mode of production. Still doesn't mean it was a classless mode of production.

>Marx compared capitalism to feudalism a lot

He didn't compare it to anything in his main most mature work. He analyzed it in the abstract.

>Some economists see feudal aspects in Wall-street or big-tech.

Varoufakis is just a grifter that doesn't even mention surplus in his analysis.

>Capitalism is not self contained, it has a fucktonne of externalities

This is some outdated Rosa Luxemburg take. Global capitalism for all intends and purposes is a self-contained self-reproducing system. Externalities don't affect its internal logic, they are the result of it.

>It is being reproduced by brutal political imposition

Superstructure is part of the mode of production. "brutal political imposition" is part of the mode of production in every class society lol.

>It is not analogous to an organism

It is. Histmat is literally evolutionism but applied to human societies.

>Nothing can be studied out of context

Nothing is studied out of context. Because every established mode of production is self-contained, just like every organism is self-contained, even if its constantly interacting with its environment.
>>

 No.480392

>>480391
>Because every established mode of production is self-contained, just like every organism is self-contained, even if its constantly interacting with its environment.
ie, I like to use the concept of homeostasis when analyzing modes of production

analogy with the biological world is justified on methodological grounds because every kind of evolutionism is ultimately based on thermodynamics
>>

 No.480394

>>480391
>surplus distribution is relevant for analyzing class composition too.
Sure.
>It gets compared because it was a rival mode of production. Still doesn't mean it was a classless mode of production.
The economic relations in the Soviet Union had some left over feudal and capitalist relations, and the dominant mode of production was lower stage socialism. Which did not produce class divisions. However it can be criticized for producing stratification.

>He didn't compare it to anything in his main most mature work. He analyzed it in the abstract.

Nope, Marx did compare capitalism and feudalism a lot, you can't cherry pick some of his texts where he didn't and pretend the other stuff doesn't exist.

>Global capitalism for all intends and purposes is a self-contained self-reproducing system.

So capitalism is a perpetuum mobile ? You serious ?
>Externalities don't affect its internal logic, they are the result of it.
Wow talk about circular logic.

>"brutal political imposition" is part of the mode of production in every class society

So you agree it's not a self-reproducing organism. Because organisms have none of that, no imposed superstructure and no classes.

>Nothing is studied out of context. Because every established mode of production is self-contained.

<LALALA i'll just ignore context
>every organism is self-contained, even if its constantly interacting with its environment.
Lol you are contradicting your self in the same sentence now.

>I like to use the concept of homeostasis when analyzing modes of production

Marx proved capitalism has internal contradictions therefore it can't achieve stasis

>analogy with the biological world is justified on methodological grounds because every kind of evolutionism is ultimately based on thermodynamics

Biology has to obey thermodynamics
Modes of production have to obey thermodynamics
It doesn't follow that therefore modes of production behave like biological systems, it just proves that both are part of the same reality.
>>

 No.480396

>>480394
>The economic relations in the Soviet Union had some left over feudal and capitalist relations, and the dominant mode of production was lower stage socialism.
I don't believe in lower stages, communism, and other shit that doesn't logically follow from histmat.

We have empirical (ie historical) data only about two industrial modes of production: ancient-industrial and asicatic-industrial. That's it.

So your appeals to pulled out of the ass future stages means nothing to me.

>Which did not produce class divisions.

It did.

Class composition of the SU was extensively analyzed by Voslensky in his "Nomenklatura" from marxist positions.

It took a person ACTUALLY LIVING under that mode of production to actually analyze its class character. Duh.

>Nope, Marx did compare capitalism and feudalism a lot, you can't cherry pick some of his texts where he didn't and pretend the other stuff doesn't exist.

Shut the fuck up, I can do whatever the fuck I want.

Capital is the main book where Marx analyzes capital as a mode of production proper, ie self-reproducing self-contained abstract economic organism.

I don't give a fuck about his earlier political-philosophical ramblings.

>So capitalism is a perpetuum mobile ?

Is biological organism a perpetuum mobile, retard?

>Wow talk about circular logic.

What circular logic bitch? Capitalism as any organism transforms environment around it, ie it transforms climate, which is an externality to the mode of production in this particular instance, because this particular climate change FOLLOWS from the mode of production, not the other way around.

>So you agree it's not a self-reproducing organism. Because organisms have none of that, no imposed superstructure and no classes.

Holy shit you're literally too subIQ to understand me.

MODE OF PRODUCTION CAN BE VIEWED AS ANALOGOUS TO A BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM, BECAUSE IT'S A CONSEQUENCE OF THE SAME FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS ON A HIGHER, SOCIETAL, LEVEL

It doesn't mean that they are structurally the same holy shit. IT MEANS THE EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE BECAUSE THEY ARE ON A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF ORGANIZATION OF MATTER. One is biological, the other is social.

>LALALA i'll just ignore context

Holy shit shut the fuck up cringelord

>Lol you are contradicting your self in the same sentence now.

Do organisms have homeostasis or not, you dumb bitch?

>Marx proved capitalism has internal contradictions therefore it can't achieve stasis

You're so fucking dumb it's unbelievable.

First, Marx didn't "prove" anything, he provided a theoretical framework.

Second, biological organisms have muh """contradictions""" too bitch, and they STILL have homeostasis

>Biology has to obey thermodynamics

>Modes of production have to obey thermodynamics
>It doesn't follow that therefore modes of production behave like biological systems, it just proves that both are part of the same reality.
What do you think "being part of the same reality" means bitch?

Laws of thermodynamics are FUNDAMENTAL laws that govern ANY evolutionary system, AT ANY LEVEL OF ORGANIZATION.

As opposed to your fucking dialectical mumbo-jumbo bullshit.

Unique IPs: 41

[Return][Catalog][Top][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 ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome