/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>482728
Unlikely.

What would be a reason not to do accelerationist voting?

>>481746
>Labour will be rigged to sweep. Who the fuck wants the Conservatives except the most soulless monsters?
The last time you had a Labour government they lied about WMDs to start an illegal war which killed 1.000.000 Iraqis. If they pick a fight with Russia this time there is no way you won't have a draft. Think of it like CoD but with no respawns. But hey, at least the billionaires who own Reddit and The Guardian won't call you a "soulless monster" for voting against their interests, that's the most important thing.

>>482776
>If they pick a fight with Russia this time there is no way you won't have a draft. Think of it like CoD but with no respawns.
Hopefully Labour stays true to their pledge for greater gender equality and drafts women into the army too. But personally I'm not too worried about the draft because I will be made exempt due to my hidden disability.

>>482776
>If they pick a fight with Russia this time there is no way you won't have a draft.
With what would the UK pick a fight with Russia ? Decades of Neo-liberalism have eroded the UK's industrial might to the point where it can't even replace the weapons they chucked into Ukraine.

The Starmer government doesn't have popular democratic support, his government evaporates if he tries to draft people for a war.

>>482779
>With what would the UK pick a fight with Russia ?
I'm sure your cousins across the pond will lend you some equipment **at interest*.

>Decades of Neo-liberalism have eroded the UK's industrial might to the point where it can't even replace the weapons they chucked into Ukraine.
You don't have industry because you let the trade unions run wild in the 70s and 80s and then jacked energy prices through the roof because of your global warming panic. You (with the help of KGB agitators) basically burned down your own industrial capacity in the hopes of provoking a soviet style revolution but then you got Thatcher instead.

>The Starmer government doesn't have popular democratic support, his government evaporates if he tries to draft people for a war.
It doesn't really matter because once war is declared nobody will go back on it.

>>482782
The US also failed to match Russian industrial out-put in war materials. So…

The fact is that the bourgeois in the UK chose to divest from the industrial sector and as a result they no longuer can generate imperial hard-power. You can't blame labor unions or the KGB for the things that the capitalist in UK did.

In general, not just for UK conditions, energy prices would be really low if there had been sufficient investment into nuclear power. That's another thing the neo-liberals fucked up, they could have kept the energy sector in public hands, where it would have been possible to invest into nuclear. Or they could have worked out a way for private investment into nuclear, but they didn't do that either.

I don't think the neocons would be capable of manufacturing a war between the UK and Russia. The Russians don't want that, and the UK population will not comply.

>>482776
>The last time you had a Labour government they lied about WMDs to start an illegal war which killed 1.000.000 Iraqis.
You say this like the Tories aren't also pro-war. They voted in favor of invasion by an even higher margin than Labour, the Lib Dems were the biggest party to vote overwhelmingly against it. Blair was Labour's turn towards Thatcherism, if anything the mistake is thinking that the conservatives and Labour are materially different in any way. Although maybe Starmer will be able to take the country to new lows - I could believe that.

>>482782
>You don't have industry because you let the trade unions run wild in the 70s and 80s and then jacked energy prices through the roof because of your global warming panic.
Pants-on-head retarded take. The UK has been neolib for 40+ years now. Unions aren't the problem, trying to undercut unions through aggressive "outsourcing" is, which is why the 4 decades of union-busting and financialization in the US wrecked the industrial sector here, too. It wasn't le ebil commies who scrapped our industries for parts, sold off our infrastructure, destroyed our public services while continuing to spend insane amounts on foreign wars, etc., but perhaps they wish they'd thought of it, because neoliberalism has done infinitely more damage to the stability of capitalism than trade unionism or Keynesianism ever could.

>>482787
>The US also failed to match Russian industrial out-put in war materials. So…
Ukraine is not lacking equipment they are lacking men. The average age on the Ukrainian front is 40-something now. All the young men has been slaughtered. If they don't accept Putin's peace terms then they will need fresh bodies to throw into the meatgrinder. That's why Zelenski is desperate to pull NATO into the war.

>The fact is that the bourgeois in the UK chose to divest from the industrial sector
No they were ""forced"" to divest because constant trade union agitation in the 60s, 70s and 80s made it completely unprofitable to run any kind of factory in the UK. And now energy prices are so high they can't come back even if they wanted to. You tried to force a socialist revolution and it failed and this is the result. You did this not the "capitalists".

>energy prices would be really low if there had been sufficient investment into nuclear power.
Pretty sure that shit if your fault too with all your global warming bullshit. Remind me was it Johnson or Corbyn who wanted to shut down all the nuclear reactors.

>neo-liberals fucked up
Pretty sure Thatcher was pro-nuclear. You've only got Blair and New Labour to blame at this point.

>>482803
>You say this like the Tories aren't also pro-war.
Please tell me which wars the Tories have started since …. *check's notes* … 1982.

>Blair was Labour's turn towards Thatcherism
Yes I know everyone you don't like is a secret Tory. That's definitely how it works. It's funny how similar this is to talking to a nazi who thinks everyone is either a jew or a jew puppet.

>The UK has been neolib for 40+ years now.
Whatever you think "neolib" means your industry started collapsing 50-60 years ago so clearly Thatcher wasn't the problem. Thatcher was just a symptom of the problem your trade unions caused in a dim witted attempt to destabilize the British economy, force a soviet style takeover with Michael Foot, Ken Livingston and Jeremy Crobyn at the head and take the UK out of the cold war (which is what the KGB infiltrators ultimately wanted). But it didn't work, you're like toddlers who destroyed his own toys in anticipation of getting better ones for xmas but now you have nothing and it's all santa's fault.

>>482813
>""forced""
How do I do bold in your fake gay vichan clone.
>No they were forced to divest because constant trade union agitation in the 60s, 70s and 80s made it completely unprofitable to run any kind of factory in the UK.

>>482813
You are correct about the huge human losses caused by the neocon proxy-war in Ukraine. However you are wrong to downplay the industrial production weakness of the west, it's so blatantly obvious that even with ideological blinders on max, it can no longer be denied.
You are correct that the best course of action is to make peace with Russia. However you are wrong that the alternative would be a NATO escalation, the alternative to seeking peace will be the Ukrainian state collapsing, and the Russian victors dictating what happens then.

You are trying to scapegoat the trade unions, the socialists, and so on. But it is a capitalist economy and the capitalists are the one's that decide where the surplus of society gets invested. Nobody but them can be responsible. The capitalists decided to de-industrialize the west to chase after low-wages in the periphery. The result of that is that the west is now de-industrialized and it's no longer possible to maintain the imperial system. The capitalist chose short term profits over long term sustainability of their system. They have nobody to blame but them selves.

The high energy prices were caused by neo-liberal economic doctrine, they could have chosen to have a public energy sector that invested into nuclear power. The cost of energy would now be to cheap to meter. I suppose that you could also blame the investors for failing to invest in nuclear power, there was nothing stopping them from doing that after-all.

BTW some of the rise in energy cost is price-hiking. They could hand over controle over the energy sector to socialists, energy costs would go down. All the industrial socialist states managed to have very cheap energy after-all.

It sounds like you are accusing me personally of having caused global warning. That's obviously nonsense.

>Pretty sure Thatcher was pro-nuclear. You've only got Blair and New Labour to blame at this point.
The fact is that investment into nuclear power plummeted during the time the neo-liberals controlled economic doctrine. Almost everywhere not just in the UK. There is a systemic problem with neo-liberalism that prevents it from making rational choices. They didn't just fuck up the energy sector, you know.

>>482730
The working class is revolting against the neoliberal capitalist world order by supporting Reform.
2029

>>482816
>you are wrong that the alternative would be a NATO escalation, the alternative to seeking peace will be the Ukrainian state collapsing, and the Russian victors dictating what happens then.
I don't see the war propaganda winding down, between the two options a NATO escalation seems more likely. Just because they won't win doesn't mean they won't do it. The U.S. has not technically won a war since the 1940s.

>You are trying to scapegoat the trade unions, the socialists, and so on.
Correct my timeline if it's wrong but "neoliberalism" started with Thatcher in 1981 but British industrial decline and the famous energy blackouts started in the 60s or 70s did it not.

>You are trying to scapegoat the trade unions, the socialists, and so on.
It's not "scapegoat" that's what happened. You can't have a revolution if everything is going great. You have to destabilize things to a point where people are desperate for change. Unfortunately for you the change you got was Thatcher not Corbyn.

>is a capitalist economy and the capitalists are the one's that decide where the surplus of society gets invested
Except industrial action and government policies in the 60s and 70s made it impossible for "capitalists" to turn a profit in the first place so they had nothing to invest. You can't have it both ways your whole worldview is that capitalists are parasites who are nothing without the workers, so what are they supposed to do when the workers stop working. Obviously they all fucked off and found new workers in another part of the world.

>The high energy prices were caused by neo-liberal economic doctrine, they could have chosen to have a public energy sector that invested into nuclear power.
Wasn't Thatcher a trained scientist of course she was pro-nuclear. It is the global warming cult (i.e. Leftists) who have blocked nuclear energy development everywhere in the west.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/09/26/thatchers-energy-plan-derailed-now-paying-gigantic-price/

>They could hand over controle over the energy sector to socialists, energy costs would go down.
And when has that ever worked out. Monopolies always create low quality and high prices. No exceptions. It doesn't magically become a good monopoly just because it is run by incompetent government bureaucrats.

>I suppose that you could also blame the investors for failing to invest in nuclear power, there was nothing stopping them from doing that after-all.
What planet are you living on. The reason nobody invests into nuclear is because government regulations make it such a long and painful and expensive process to build any kind of power generation with the N-word in it. Actually you can blame that on oil companies I will give you that. Most anti-nuclear propaganda and regulations was probably paid for by oil money, with groups like Extinction Rebellion just being useful idiots. Even now every post-apocalyptic TV show has a "OMG the nuclear power stations are going to blowup for no reason" episode in it.

>BTW some of the rise in energy cost is price-hiking.
Price hiking only works if government interventions artificially limit competition. If it is profitable to sell at the original price then the smallest competitor will sell at the original price and gain market share. The thing lefties often miss in these discussions is that the value of government money is constantly going down. If inflation is 40% and corporate profits are up 40% that means they did exactly as well as last year.

>>482918
>The working class is revolting against the neoliberal capitalist world order
I hate to break this to you but the world economic forum are socialists. That's Klaus Schwab with a Lenin statue in his office. They want a centrally planned economy where they are the planners. Stalin was the richest person in world history, not some capitalist.

>>482949
>I don't see the war propaganda winding down, between the two options a NATO escalation seems more likely. Just because they won't win doesn't mean they won't do it. The U.S. has not technically won a war since the 1940s.
The US ruling class appears to be loosing interest in the Ukraine war. The Russians want 4 buffer-oblasts and when they got that they'll likely stop. They will probably fuck with the Bandera-politics in the remaining West-Ukraine in some way. Probably spy-shenanigans. Europe can't send troops because that's not politically viable. I see the propaganda stuff as a means to prolong the fighting, and the intention for that is perhaps a vague hope that something unexpected shakes loose, or just to inflict some more war-expenses on Russia. A real war between Nato and Russia means a nuclear war that will collapse civilization.

>It's not "scapegoat" that's what happened.
Nope the economic system is capitalism, that means the capitalists are responsible for what it does. If the capitalists hand over the means of production to the workers than the workers will become responsible.

>Except industrial action and government policies in the 60s and 70s made it impossible for "capitalists" to turn a profit in the first place so they had nothing to invest. You can't have it both ways your whole worldview is that capitalists are parasites who are nothing without the workers, so what are they supposed to do when the workers stop working. Obviously they all fucked off and found new workers in another part of the world.
The systemic function of labor-strikes in social democracy is raising the cost of labor-power to force the capitalists to invest into labor-productivity enhancing technology. If labor is cheap it's not worth investing into new technology that raises labor productivity, because you can always buy more labor-power. However if labor-power is expensive it makes more sense to invest into technology that produces more with the same labor. Lets face it the soc-dems tried to save capitalism from it self.

>Wasn't Thatcher a trained scientist of course she was pro-nuclear.
I don't know, and it doesn't really matter, she's just one person, the neo-liberal system did neglect nuclear-power regardless and that was a huge mistake.
>It is the global warming cult (i.e. Leftists) who have blocked nuclear energy development everywhere in the west.
Nuclear power means massive amounts of low carbon energy, that would help enormously to reduce climate-relevant emissions. So if you wish to combat climate change, supporting nuclear power makes a lot of sense. The oil and gas industry are opposed to nuclear because that's a competitor.

>And when has that ever worked out. Monopolies always create low quality and high prices. No exceptions.
Seems mostly true in capitalism.
>It doesn't magically become a good monopoly just because it is run by incompetent government bureaucrats.
But energy was super-cheap in the soviet Union. Marxists define a monopoly by the ability to extract monopoly rent, i.e. fix prices. Soviet energy producers evidently weren't able to do that on account of the really cheap energy. So not a monopoly.

>What planet are you living on. The reason nobody invests into nuclear is because government regulations make it such a long and painful and expensive process to build any kind of power generation with the N-word in it. Actually you can blame that on oil companies I will give you that. Most anti-nuclear propaganda and regulations was probably paid for by oil money
We are in agreement on this. But i don't see this as an excuse that absolves investors. The military was able to keep building nuclear submarines and nuclear weapons, the latter is order of magnitudes more dangerous. If you can't build nuclear power-plants because of the anti-nuclear astro-turf. The fact remains that most products embody a huge amount of energy and if you can get that energy from a cheaper more abundant source you get a massive advantage. Nuclear is that advantage. If the ideological story of the dynamic investors always hunting to find the most efficient way to get stuff done was true, they would have repurposed the structural technology of oil-rigs and build massive nuclear reactors into international waters, and use it to power energy intensive industrial production steps for intermediate industrial commodities. Probably process-heat for metal production, maybe cement and chemical production too. Once the nuclear-ocean-rigs prove them selves, it becomes easy to bring nuclear back for electricity production on land.

>I hate to break this to you but the world economic forum are socialists. That's Klaus Schwab with a Lenin statue in his office.
Socialists strongly support personal property, as in you'll own all your personal stuff. Klaus wants the opposite of that. That Lenin-bust in his bookshelf proves nothing. For all we know he just hired an internal decorator with a sense of humor.

>They want a centrally planned economy where they are the planners.
I doubt it, a socialist planned economy has as end goal to abolish money and replace it with labor-time-vouchers and material-resource-allocation. Conceptually picture an economy where the workers doing work prints money with value fixed to time. I don't see how the asset portfolios of the WEF-guy would fit into that.
>Stalin was the richest person in world history, not some capitalist.
At the end of his life Stalin owned a few nice coats a few pipes and 900 rubles. Certainly not poor, but less than a typical soviet doctor or engineer. I don't know what you're smoking.

>>482949
>I hate to break this to you but the world economic forum are socialists.
Yeah BourgeoisCon is actually socialist man.

>>482957
>A real war between Nato and Russia means a nuclear war that will collapse civilization.
If that's your cope you need to find another one. The nazis didn't use chemical weapons even at the end when they had nothing left to lose. WW3 does not need to be nuclear.

If you think about it, given how irreversibly fucked the global economy is since covid, erasing the bottom few layers of "useless eaters" in another pointless european land war might be exactly what they are trying to do in order to "reset" the global economy.

>Nope the economic system is capitalism, that means the capitalists are responsible for what it does.
The workers are responsible for refusing to work and driving capital investment overseas. And now you're crying because they don't "invest" in you anymore.

>If the capitalists hand over the means of production to the workers than the workers will become responsible.
How many "workers" are there? If you all chip in $100 you can buy any "means of production" and run it however you want.

>The systemic function of labor-strikes in social democracy is raising the cost of labor-power to force the capitalists to invest into labor-productivity enhancing technology.
And then you cry when you get replaced by a robot. What the actual fuck are you talking about here the only thing modern trade unions do is lobby the government to inhibit labor saving technology in order to "save" obsolete jobs (and buy votes). That's the reason why china has bullet trains and the US has rusty 100 year old diesel trains. Again, this shit is your fault.

>If labor is cheap it's not worth investing into new technology that raises labor productivity
Capitalism always rewards cutting costs. The reason why slave societies didn't have an industrial revolution was because labor was free and you can't get cheaper than free. You're trying to copy and paste this argument over to capitalism but it doesn't work.

>Lets face it the soc-dems tried to save capitalism from it self.
The arguments you've laid out do not support this conclusion at all.

>she's just one person, the neo-liberal system did
Wasn't Thatcher queen of the neo-liberals? Maybe it's time to give a concrete definition because it's starting to sound like "neo-liberal" is just everybody you don't like.

>But energy was super-cheap in the soviet Union.
And so it was in the united states.

>i don't see this as an excuse that absolves investors.
Government policy makes it impossible to profit from nuclear energy so why should investors invest?

>Socialists strongly support personal property, as in you'll own all your personal stuff
I'm pretty sure the goal of socialism is to get to communism and the goal of communism is to abolish property.

>Conceptually picture an economy where the workers doing work prints money with value fixed to time.
>I don't see how the asset portfolios of the WEF-guy would fit into that.
Because somebody needs to decide how many "work" vouchers does a cleaner get vs a doctor. Somebody needs to decide what resources need to be allocated where. Whoever has that job will be the ruling class of your socialist utopia. The WEF guys obviously want it to be them.

>asset portfolios
These people are rich because they control the money printers. But the fiat money scam is heading for a cliff edge. They need more control over the economy to secure their positions in the future. Capitalism is about distributed free market competition. Socialism is about centralized economic planning. They want to be planers in the latter rather than competitors in the former.

>>483112
>pic related
Personal property is indeed human instinct.

Other forms of property however are not, private property doesn't come about until the late feudal period. There's other forms of property as well, like public property or the commons. There might be corporate property that technically isn't the same as private property and so on. Private property and corporate property is being enforced with copious amounts of state violence and sometimes mercenary violence.

The nazis didn't use chemical weapons even at the end when they had nothing left to lose. WW3 does not need to be nuclear.
The fuck ? of course the Nazis used chemical weapons, they even used it in their extermination camps, they killed millions of people with it.
I don't see how a direct war between nuclear super-powers doesn't turn nuclear, you can't expect desperate people to not use all the weapons they have. Even a rogue state like Israel using it's nukes could set of a nuclear escalation chain. You can't calibrate the intensity of large wars, it's something you can't controle.

>If you think about it, given how irreversibly fucked the global economy is since covid,
The economy was already fucked before covid and not all parts of the global economy is fucked.
>another pointless european land war might be exactly what they are trying to do in order to "reset" the global economy.
who is they ?
After ww2 Europe was smashed and most of it got rebuild by the US and some of it by the USSR (which was partly smashed too). That's part of what turned the US into a global hegemon. If Europe is smashed once more, China would be in the position to rebuild it. They would become the worlds greatest power the same way.
You're not wrong about the capitalist system trying to restore profitability through war. However ww3 might be so destructive that it might collapse civilization.
The other thing is that if war were to force China to do a war-economy, that will likely end market based economics. Institutional momentum will likely convert the war-economy into a civilian command economy after the war. And with them being the most powerful economy on the planet by a large margin, that will likely have a effect on the rest of the world. It would be ironic if capitalists trying to restore profitability, set of a war that ends up creating the conditions for socialist command economy taking over the world. I think socialists might have initially gotten the idea for planned command economies from capitalist war-economies.

>The workers are responsible for
Let me interject:
The workers are not responsible for anything that happens under capitalism. Capitalism is ruled by capitalists and they're responsible for it.

>capital investment overseas.
The capitalists made a choice to offshore industrial production to the periphery, they chose to seek out medium-term imperial super profits from cheap labor, over long term strategical consideration. They alone are to blame, nobody else. If controle over the economy had been given to workers that wouldn't have happened.
>they don't "invest"
Yes and that failure is the cause for 3/4 of our economic problems.

>How many "workers" are there? If you all chip in $100 you can buy any "means of production" and run it however you want.
Technically it might be possible for the workers to play the game and over time buy up all the means of production. But realistically, do you honestly believe the entrenched ruling interests would honor the deal ? And just sit idly by a let it happen, because the workers played the game fair and square and won ? You can't be that naive.

>And then you cry when you get replaced by a robot. What the actual fuck are you talking about here the only thing modern trade unions do is lobby the government to inhibit labor saving technology in order to "save" obsolete jobs (and buy votes). That's the reason why china has bullet trains and the US has rusty 100 year old diesel trains.
Again, stop scapegoating labor, they do not controle the means of production, that excludes them from responsibility. China has bullet trains because the Chinese government invested in infrastructure, the US and many other western countries have not invested into infrastructure and that's the reason it's now degraded.
The medium term goal of automation isn't to replace workers, the point is to enhance worker productivity. If you simply replace workers, and deny them employment, you just make the economy stutter, because you disrupt economic circuits. Eventually all work can be automated, however that cannot happen under capitalism. Profits come from exploiting labor, if you automate the entire economy, there would be no more profits too, the system would self-destruct before you got to that point.

>Capitalism always rewards cutting costs.
Not always. Hint Monopolies.
>The reason why slave societies didn't have an industrial revolution was because labor was free and you can't get cheaper than free.
You're over-simplifying Slave societies. Slave societies were dominated by slave owners and slave merchants, who didn't have an interest in competing against industrial production. However slave societies were also really inefficient at allocating labor, and could never hope to compete against a wage-labor economy. Industrial capitalists saw in slavery a system that locked away labor-power, making it unavailable for hiring, they opposed it for that reason. Also slaves-populations usually have very low fertility and do not replace them selves.
>You're trying to copy and paste this argument over to capitalism but it doesn't work.
It doesn't entirely apply to slave-societies, but it does apply to capitalism. If labor is cheap, investment into productivity enhancing technology is more difficult than if labor is expensive. You could think of it like this, if technology saves you labor-power, the technology is only worth it, if it's cheaper than the labor that it saves.

<Lets face it the soc-dems tried to save capitalism from it self.
>The arguments you've laid out do not support this conclusion at all.
The socdems tried to
force capitalists to invest more into productivity-boost technology,
force them to do the up-keep for good infrastructure and
make them invest into growing the economic pie, instead of just taking a bigger share of the existing economic pie.
That shit required a sizeable public sector to work, and the capitalists really didn't like that.
The turn to neoliberalism is what created the conditions the decline of the west.

>Wasn't Thatcher queen of the neo-liberals?
Idk. The most popular neo-liberal theorist was Milton Friedman

>Maybe it's time to give a concrete definition
Well the neo-libs aren't consistent, but i'll try
they want low-wage deskilled labor over skilled high wage labor
they want the state to bail out big capital
they favor finance and services over commodity producing industry
they favor quick imperial super-profits over long term developmental returns
they talk freedom but they always try to use the state to violate every-bodies civil liberties
they talk free market but only uphold it as long as they like the results
they loot the public sector by privatization
they kill a lot of people with wealth inequality
they neglect infrastructure
take this as a preliminary attempt, I'm not sure i've defined it correctly.

>Government policy makes it impossible to profit from nuclear energy
The hydrocarbon monopolists lobbied for that.
>so why should investors invest?
The capitalists are the ones responsible for figuring out their business models. I'm just pointing out nuclear power is objectively the rational technology to invest in.

If I was tasked with solving the anti-nuclear lobby-blockade i would try to build huge (60+ gigawatt) offshore nuclear power reactors, in the ocean in international waters. And then tag on energy intensive industrial processes onto it. Make profits of the price differential of industrial inputs because the industrial inputs that have more energy embodied in them have a higher price. Once that takes off, use it as jumping off point to get into electricity production.

>I'm pretty sure the goal of socialism is to get to communism and the goal of communism is to abolish property.
Capitalism tries to expropriate personal property and public property and convert everything into private/corporate property.
Socialism favors personal property, public property and worker cooperative held property
Communism retains personal property while everything else dissolves into a logic of adaptive matter allocation, where ownership doesn't really make sense because it's not static enough for that. So you'll own your stuff and likely get stronger rights, but the economy will become a torrent of moving matter and energy, where people decide priorities and favored outcomes.

>somebody needs to decide how many "work" vouchers does a cleaner get vs a doctor.
Everybody gets payed by labor-time. Types of work that are difficult, stress-full, carry a health-risk get a extra bonus payment for incentives, to make sure to get enough applicants

>Somebody needs to decide what resources need to be allocated where
>Whoever has that job will be the ruling class of your socialist utopia.
You can ask people what products and services they want, as well as how much work they are willing to give, and then everything else becomes a calculation that targets the optimal balance between the desired outcomes and the available labor.

>The WEF guys
>are rich because they control the money printers. But the fiat money scam is heading for a cliff edge. They need more control over the economy to secure their positions in the future.
I still don't understand how you could possibly confuse these guys with socialists. One of the long term goals of socialism is a money-less society.

>Capitalism is about distributed free market competition.
I think you want capitalism to be that, but it's not in reality.

>Socialism is about centralized economic planning.
I would say partially true. It's certainly possible to do distributed economic planning, and Socialists also can do markets.

>They want to be planers in the latter rather than competitors in the former.
Capitalists also plan, so this is a false dichotomy.

>>483112
That pic is stupid. Humans don't have any instinct requiring property at all, let alone property of a particular sort. Collective ownership has long been understood - that's what the commons is. Fags cannot comprehend "not shitting where you sleep" or "don't put your penis in the poopy", and shriek whenever they're told not to do that. It's basic manners and sense that is beyond a fag, and their defense is to say that if you oppose them, you must be retarded. They are retarded.

I don't even know what faggotry this post is trying to suggest. If there is a third world war, it is global and does not conform to this sweet little plan war narrative the eugenists write after it's done. The two world wars they instigated did not go according to plan. They wanted 1914 to never end and play on repeat. A Satanic race knows nothing else. Hate. HATE.

Anyway, no one is actually convinced the NATO-Russia war is winnable. US could on paper commit its military directly to the conflict and push back Russia. Why would the Empire want to dismember its best vassal, though? Putin could win the war if he were actually there to "win" anything, instead of clear the way for Klaus Schwab's horrorshow. You dumb fags promote this Germanic faggotry so much because we know what side of the war you're on. It's a bullshit Kraut war for Kraut purposes. They have arranged it so poor people are killed, just as their filthy race always does and stands for. You're idiots for wanting to drag more lives into it, but eugenics knows no other way. Fags. FAGS.

A Germanic retard doesn't understand the concept of freedom, so of course they're going to insist everyone has to be ground down to their retarded level and that this is the most glorious culture ever. I don't look down on retards, but when retards are told they're special and empowered to create this much damage to the world, we have to say what it is.

The US (or rather, ZOG) isn't winning anything. This is about them bringing in the new thing - full eugenism, without nations in the proper sense, the remaining nation-state functioning as a holding pen for Geramnized fags can run the world into the ground, before being disposed themselves. They're too Satanic to see anything else, get hyped up for the purest faggotry as is the nature of their excreable race.

If US is joining WW3, where is the mobilization? They can't do what they did to us in the 1990s and win - but it was never about the US. The people doing this to us during the 1990s bragged that they hate Americans more than anything in the world, just as they hated anyone in the Soviet Union who was honest and decent, just as they hate anyone in the world who didn't ask for eugenist slavery and tried to fight it in what way they could.

>>483121
As it turns out, most property historically is held jointly, rather than in the person. Estates are passed down by family and in the wife is among the property of the family in patriarchal society. The only other way a family is operative is if the husband is the property of the matriarch, which is where we are heading. It doesn't work on an egalitarian basis, "separate but equal", and all of the efforts to make husband and wife a unity sublated into each other are horrible failures as anyone would predict. That whole thing only exists as part of the long-run project of the state to take the children - to raise them as slaves of the firm. Most of the world does not allow romantic love to do the damage it did as a great lie of lie.

Anyway, corporations and firms are indicative of what property always was - held jointly and by conspiracy of the board of directors, rather than "mine". Fags cannot comprehend this.

At no point was the family "personal property" in the crass sense. The patriarch/matriarch only holds the family because the state encourages this or tolerates it as an expedient, and the family exists because other such units see such an institution as desirable. The family has no natural basis that requires us to abide it - children need only be nursed by mothers in early childhood at an early age, and by nature, human beings will adapt if the mother is not there to nurse the child. The infant looking for something to suckle will have to. It is the aim of Germanic pedagogy and eugenism to shout exultantly "DIE!" from cradle to grave, to naturalize their filth religion and race. It doesn't actually work that way. Most humans don't look at a child and think "yay death death death!" They think "oh, how cute, a miniature and cute human who can grow up and join us some day!" Usually there are people who are happy to add a member to their family, or at least value a child as slave labor or some sort of asset. Throwing away life like this is how eugenists think, because they are pure fags.

So naturally, someone will eventually figure out "oh wait, I'm not going to live forever, and even if I did, that in of itself is not something to live for". Fags do not comprehend this. They're trained to shriek like retards, and respond as programmed to fear. That is why faggotry has been promoted so much in this society - to make humanity a Satanic race, a natural slave race, as aristocracy always requires.

>>483121
>That pic is stupid. Humans don't have any instinct requiring property at all, let alone property of a particular sort. Collective ownership has long been understood - that's what the commons is.
You are mostly right, but people clearly do have an instinct to want to own their personal possessions. The collective toothbrush meme isn't real.

>If there is a third world war, it is global and does not conform to this sweet little plan war narrative
that is correct.

>Anyway, no one is actually convinced the NATO-Russia war is winnable.
Mostly true, there's always a few "true-believers" no matter how implausible.
>US could on paper commit its military directly to the conflict and push back Russia.
No, 2 reasons.
Numba one
If both sides decide to make Ukraine their hill to die on, that means Ukraine gets nuked every-time anybody tries to deploy a sizeable number of troops. Ukraine becomes a radioactive wasteland. That would still serve as a buffer for Russia, while it becomes useless for Nato expansion. So the Russian win the strategic tug, in a max-military force projection scenario.
Numba two
No nukes (may not be entirely realistic) but max conventional forces. The US-military is not configured for a land-war while the Russian military is. While total US military-might exceeds that of Russia by a fair margin in general, it does not in this particular war-theater. The US Air-force can defeat the Russian one but Russian AA systems will decimate it in the process. The US has the naval power to hammer the Russian navy, but the Russians have the anti-ship weapons to sink most of it in return. Both sides can deep-strike each others war production. Long story short it would be a exhausting pounding match that ends in a bloodied draw. The US looses a military and an empire, while the Russians only loose a military, since it doesn't have an empire.

>Putin could win the war if he were actually there to "win" anything, instead of clear the way for Klaus Schwab's horrorshow.
What makes you say the Russians aren't trying to win ? Are you implying they should bomb every major city in Ukraine to rubble like the Zionists do in Gaza ? I don't think that's how conflicts are won anymore. I also do not think the Russians are doing the bidding of the world economic forum gang. They have their own St-petersbourg economic forum thing (don't quote me on that i might have gotten the name wrong)

>>483118
>Other forms of property however are not, private property doesn't come about until the late feudal period.
When humans were hunter gatherers they had no use for any kind of property they couldn't pick up and take with them. That was many many generations of natural selection ago.

>Private property and corporate property is being enforced with copious amounts of state violence and sometimes mercenary violence.
If there was no police or "mercenaries" people would still defend their own property i.e. the product of their labor. It's so funny how under "capitalism" the "surplus value" is being "stolen" from workers and at the same time you're saying that under communism the workers don't have any claim at all on the product of their labor.

>of course the Nazis used chemical weapons
Nazis had all the opportunity and incentive to drop mustand gas on london or the advancing red army but they didn't. Even your left-wing ministry of truth agrees.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/hitler-chemical-weapons/
>The Nazis manufactured and stockpiled thousands of tons of chemical munitions.
>Hitler never employed them in battle
And obviously the nazis are the worst people that have ever existed besides trump. So if they didn't use the strongest weapons available to them it's not a given that any modern country will.

>I don't see how a direct war between nuclear super-powers doesn't turn nuclear
As long as the war stays between the borders of Russia and France, nobody with nukes will care enough to use them. Face it mate if your new commie prime minister doesn't end this Ukraine situation you're probably getting drafted within the next few years.

>Capitalism is ruled by capitalists and they're responsible for it.
If the "capitalists" were in charge you wouldn't have minimum wage or statutory holidays or sick pay or unions or employment tribunals or notice periods or "unfair dismissal" or any of the other shit you take for granted. The mustache swirling robber baron factory owner that Marx wrote about 150 years ago has given up and left your shitty island a long time ago. Whatever is happening to your economy now is not "capitalism".

I don't have time to read the rest. Write shorter posts.

>>483128
Possession is not property or even an instinct "fundamental" in the way you think. What does it mean to really possess something? If you can't really use it, it's not yours. If the tool is given to you by massa to corrupt you, you don't possess anything - it possesses you. The German ideology loves that one - the mystification of basic things to justify what they did to us.

It comes out that this isn't a "basic, unknowable instinct" that is just there and must be regarded. There is a reason why we wanted to possess anything, other than "me wantee" faggotry. I want to choose the tools I possess, not just have stuff because it looks pretty. That is a key difference, and most people can understand it. It is managers who are trained to be the most crass fags they can be. If it's a tool that isn't doing anything for me, or makes my life worse, I don't want to possess it. Possession is not a blind instinct. In a different world, we could possess very little and see that the promises of "nice stuff" are a gaudy lie, not even a convincing one. Do I want to live in a world of endless Elonslop? Of course not. But, that's what we're told we're supposed to love, while we actually own nothing and are very unhappy.
People are not happy with feel-good tickets. They want wealth because wealth brings security, and it is the security people really want, rather than a belief that they are entitled to parcels of land just because. If we lived in a society that didn't attack us so brazenly, we would think very differently about property.

Like I said, the commons was understood for a long time, and fags cannot comprehend it, precisely because they insert "me wantee" and do not ask why they wanted to possess anything in the first place. It's a key distinction. There are people who are ready to relinquish everything and give up on the world for whatever reason they have, but among them is that no one wants to live in a world where they see nothing but this parade of faggotry. I know I don't, but I have the freedom yet to say what it is, in spite of Satanic fags who want to keep pressing this nerve and abase themselves to it.

>Ukraine becomes a radioactive wasteland.
They do not care about that. Radiation isn't the magical substance you have been trained to think it is. The depopulation nuclear war would bring is already happening - mass evacuation, destruction of the old. It's Germanic "creative destruction", the faggotry of a sick and disgusting race that dragged the world into its stupidity.

See, this is what your stupid and retarded pants-on-head thinking leads to. You act like people are motivated by blind avarice and transpose that onto the rulers, who have made it clear that they do not care about your life and do not need you. The powerful have bunkers and estates that will not be nuked or face anything, and are happy to make the world unlivable for you - just long enough to make it into what they want. That's why they romanticize "radiation" and made it into their thing to sell pure eugenic creed. Fucking Germanic!

>but the Russians have the anti-ship weapons to sink most of it in return
I don't think you understand what Real War would mean, if the US committed to it. It never goes according to plan. Idiots think that wars correspond to narratives. The wargame scenario for such a conflict is very different from what you believe, that wars are decided by tech platforms you read about in magazines.
Of course this begs a question - why would the US actually want to fight Russia? They created a Plan War to Nazify Europe and got it. Krauts will always be Krauts. It's a damn shame Kraut-lovers shit up the US for decades and the only idea fags have is to keep stealing everyone's shit, just like they did with the Soviet Union.

>>483131
He doesn't understand what private property is, either. It's been around since Roman times, not a super special invention of legal experts. What changed in modernity isn't that evil capitalists invented private property by sorcerous means, but that the concept of a commonwealth - the kind of thing Wealth of Nations described - made abolition of private property a potential within the law. In some sense, the capitalist system entails everything being owned by the state in the final analysis, and this had always been an expedient since Roman times. No one here was committed to "individual private property" of the Germanic sort which is rooted in faggotry alone. Property only ever really exists because there are laws or something amounting to it to recognize it. The Babylonians certainly had a concept of property, referenced in Hammurabi's code. A more primitive society would have understood the man's claim to his tools as property that could be adjudicated and was subject to the customs of that society. For example, the custom for a woman to divorce a man in Iroquois society was to tell him to get his tools and get the fuck out. By "me wantee", the woman would connive to take everything from him, and this custom would not happen, and that's the world fags want - a world of Sodomite behavior that obligates everyone to keep enabling their open theft.

The point I make isn't that "property isn't real" but that property isn't rooted in "instinct" in that way. It's always institutionalized in some way because that was useful for people or regarded as the status quo or the way things were done. A pastoral nomad society had property - the herd of the drover - that was understood to be the first substantial wealth human society knew of. Everyone in the 18th and 19th century wrote about this and accepted it, and it was never contradicted by anyone. Really, Marx puts assumptions in the words of Adam Smith that Adam Smith never actually made, and that Ricardo specifically denied in his formulation of the labor theory. It is Ricardo that Marx is attempting to discredit more than Smith, which is pretty important to remember.

The claim to surplus value isn't a moral claim of the worker. It's a consideration of the capitalist - basically, that the capitalist always has options to increase his surplus value by paying workers less - as little as he can get away with - and this would be preferable over advances in technology or motivating workers to make more for the same wages, and in the end the thing the capitalist is incentivized to do. The capitalist does not exist to advance technology or make nice things. Both of those wind up hurting capital for a variety of reasons, so any capitalist who "breaks the rules" is eliminated. This accelerated after Marx's time, in part because the capitalists understood well what their real imperatives were.

>>483131
>When humans were hunter gatherers
their personal possessions was stuff
>pick up and take with them.
So personal property probably is innate to humans.

>If there was no police or "mercenaries" people would still defend their own property i.e. the product of their labor.
Probably yes. Defining personal property probably depends on the circumstance, in the middle ages, subsistence farmers probably considered everything up to their plot for subsistence farming as personal property too.

>It's so funny how under "capitalism" the "surplus value" is being "stolen" from workers and at the same time you're saying that under communism the workers don't have any claim at all on the product of their labor.
I didn't tho.

>Nazis had all the opportunity and incentive to drop mustand gas on london or the advancing red army but they didn't.
Mustard gas stopped being effective after ww1. Gas-masks had been manufactured in vast quantities and were readily available. It would have been little more than a nuisance. By the way they did use chemical weapons to kill millions of people in the extermination camps.
>Even your left-wing ministry of truth agrees.
My what ? Please stop associating me with this, i oppose the industrial censorship complex.
>And obviously the nazis are the worst people that have ever existed.
Hard to quantify, given how little we know of human history, tho the Nazis were pretty terrible.
>So if they didn't use the strongest weapons available to them
Stop trying to rehabilitate Hitler and Nazis. They didn't show restraint. If the Nazis had managed to build a nuke they'd have used it, they did try, but couldn't hack it. And again chemical weapons kinda sucked from a military perspective, shit gets blown about by the wind, gets your own troops caught in it.
>As long as the war stays between the borders of Russia and France, nobody with nukes will care enough to use them. Face it mate if your new commie prime minister doesn't end this Ukraine situation you're probably getting drafted within the next few years.
Oh i get it, this is misdirection. You're not really interested in a argument about nukes, you're trying to sneak in the premise that the Russians would try to invade central Europe. That's a retarded notion, the Russians care about having a buffer that keeps Nato at arms-length. They're gonna snatch up those 4 oblasts and garrison the fuck out of them. That's how this conflict ends. After that there might be a spy-war in west-ukraine.

>If the "capitalists" were in charge you wouldn't have minimum wage or statutory holidays or sick pay or unions or employment tribunals or notice periods or "unfair dismissal" or any of the other shit you take for granted.
If you mistreat people they perform a lot worse. Improving living/working conditions of workers is not born out of sentimentalism.
>The mustache swirling robber baron
kek funky typo
the capitalists can't be that anymore, because that causes revolutions

>>483132
>Possession is not property or even an instinct "fundamental" in the way you think.
Personal possessions is species being, that neo-liberal fever dream where people rent everything from corporations, that really does go against "human nature". The backlash would be titanic. If they really try to erase personal property, it'll likely get extended to include all the things needed to assert controle over your stuff, if the only way to controle your personal property is through the corporate server, you'll own that too.
>What does it mean to really possess something? If you can't really use it, it's not yours. If the tool is given to you by massa to corrupt you, you don't possess anything
Massa ?
Anyway i agree with you on that front that, if you can't controle your thing, you've been expropriated. And yes Louis Rossmann is correct, that praxis where corporations fuck with your stuff post purchase has to be stamped out.

>I don't think you understand what Real War would mean
I know what it means. If the US tries to directly engage Russian forces in Ukraine, the Russians will throw everything they've got at it. The subsequent hot war between the US and Russia ends organized human civilization.
The only reason why I replied with the game-theory moves and counter-moves crap is because you were making imperial exceptionalism noises.

>>483139
There is no such thing as "species being" and now you're just retreating into a delusional Marxbot script. Hilariously you don't see how your belief in "human nature" in this regard is the same as what Klaus is invoking when he says you will own nothing and you VILL be happy. Talk about not listening to a single thing and retreating into delusion.

>that praxis where corporations fuck with your stuff post purchase has to be stamped out
This just proves my point - possession as an idea or conceit doesn't mean anything if you can't use your tool, can't repair it. This used to not be controversial - once you bought something, it was yours to take apart and no law or policy could stop you or insist you couldn't use the thing that was "yours". You have to ask how that was possible, how this much invasion of private life could go on. Then you see that abolition of private property means you lose your own right to repair and use tools, unless you make very clear what you want property to be in the future. That is never a given that you can leave blank until someone else does it for you. There is a reason private property makes sense to a lot of people. I don't want to surrender my house for nothing and abase myself further. I've already suffered enough.

"Intellectual property" is eugenism, always has been intended for that purpose.

>The subsequent hot war between the US and Russia ends organized human civilization.
Jesus you bought that tripe hook line and sinker. On one hand wars are always waged by the best and brightest who are in total control, and the next, "chaos rules", seeming out of nowhere. You're brainwashed, my friend. It's insidious how that shit works when it is stuck in the brain.

Real War means the mask comes off. It won't be "US vs. Russia" or this struggle of nation-state essences. It will be the masses against eugenics - and eugenics is making sure eugenics will win and crush us. Only way they can do it if they can't make us love eugenics.

Makes me using the eugenics-inspired Commander Data ironic, no? But, that was the meme for instant deprogramming…

>>483143
I think brains can link objects to people. Maybe it's got something to do with holding on to certain objects aids survival or something, idk. I'm assuming it's innate, or species-being if you wish, because otherwise it would be insanely hard to get anybody to understand this conceptually. Like it would require very abstract reasoning (trying to understand quantum physics level of un-intuitive) to consider a person and a object to remain linked the moment they let go and become physically separated.

On its own that object-to-person-link "brain-feature" sort of generates personal possessions, but nothing more. I think private property has a dependency on that too. Like all the private property enforcement in the world wouldn't work if people don't grasp what the enforcement is for.

So while you can have only personal property, you can't have only private property. Private property has a hard dependency on personal property, but not the other way around.

So that neo-liberal vision where personal property vanishes and only private property held by corporations remains, isn't viable. If you could somehow change people to make them let go of personal property, you'll be removing the object-to-person-link in their brains and then nobody will be able to intuitively grasp any concept of property. You'll tell somebody they aren't allowed to enter corporate property, they will nod in agreement. But the moment you go away, they'll ignore what you said because the moment you left, everything in sight became un-attached stuff that is part of the environment. You'll be able to make rules about objects, and people will follow those rules but only as long as you are physically connected to said objects. The moment you separate the physical connection, it will become inconceivable why those rules would still apply. You could try to use lots of violence, but would only convince people you're a monster.

I know this is hard to wrap one's head around, but that WEF slogan should be.
<You'll own nothing, and then everybody forgets what property is and capitalism unravels.
If i was a capitalist i would let people controle their stuff. I don't know if this is fixed or not. If it is, attacking personal property is bashing your head against a immovable object. If it's not fixed you'd be removing the thread that holds capitalism together

Btw the basis for the commons is one object linked to many people. My guess is that was evolutionary useful to share the same water-source.

>Hilariously you don't see how your belief in "human nature" in this regard is the same as what Klaus is invoking when he says you will own nothing and you VILL be happy.
Maybe i hate the concept of hooman naitshure as much as you do and maybe i'm just trying to get rid of it by wearing out the term.

>>483146
So you're inserting possession and property into the most basic associations we make? Your brain on ideology. Jesus F. Christ. It tells you just how deep this shit invades the brain and makes it useless. The final enclosure, indeed. It's already underway.

>>483147
>So you're inserting possession and property into the most basic associations we make?
No, sort of the opposite.
Your interpretation puzzles me.

>>483148
When you say "brain links objects to people" and jump immediately to "therefore possession" you're making a leap about nature itself. The brain links objects without asserting "mine mine mine" very easily. Possession and property are only relevant in society, or in a world where the command of tools is necessary for particular aims. We don't use everything in the world as our tools as if we are the decider of everything - it's not physically or mentally possible. You really insert a lot of assumptions about what "should" be. (This is where I would say it's a Satanic ethos - literally, this is boilerplate naive Satanism, no pejorative associations necessary. You'd fit in with the Church of Satan faggots.)

>>483150
Nearly all possession in society is not the direct possession of tools, which requires constantly holding said tools with only two hands, two legs, limited brain power and sense of the world… or a machine exchanging information, which society can be interpreted as. But, we're not lords of society in master-slave dyads. That's Germanism - literal Satanist ethos regarding human relations, really. Hegel is very clearly invoking a Satanic image with the master-slave dialectic. In the German ideology you are supposed to see past it - not that many Hegeloids care beyond "me wantee" and fantastic racism.

It's things like that which your thinking is stunted with. I pray, inshallah, you return to some sanity regarding the world. It is a terrible thing to be caught in that mind virus.

Basically, what you're describing is the mindset of total, overbearing managerialism in every aspect of society. This is a terrible way to do cybernetics if that is your angle. Of all of the tasks to automate, management of information is the easiest of all, and entirely a wasteful energy expenditure. The entire purpose of cybernetic regulation is to have less management, not imagine the universe as non-stop "contradictions in nature".

>>483150
>When you say "brain links objects to people" and jump immediately to "therefore possession" you're making a leap about nature itself.
Not skipping the in-between steps means 20 pages of text.

You haven't even begun to grasp how far down the rabbit hole ruling ideology went with regards to private property. It looks at a hydrogen atom and concludes that the proton owns an electron. Chemical reactions is atomic nuclei buying and selling valance electrons. My pointing out basic mental dependencies that is required for conceptualizing property, is already radically subversive to ruling ideology, because it limits how far down ideology can go.

I also only said that object associations give rise to innate personal possessions. Which is not the same as private property. You may want to stop conflating the too. You owning your personal stuff is something that capitalism wants to eliminate. Lets face it personal property is slowly becoming a radical proposition.

What corporations do where they try to turn the stuff people bought into a weapon against them. That's psychotic behavior. We should be advertising that socialism always upheld personal property.

>>483136
>Defining personal property probably depends on the circumstance
Your property is your body and the product of your labor. People who talk about "personal property" and "private property" and "public property" and "corporate property" are just trying to scam somebody out of something without working for it. The whole point of socialism is to get free stuff through political channels instead of working for it so of course the whole concept of property and people keeping what they work for is anathema to you.

>I didn't tho.
Why do marxists spend all their time sperging about employers taking muh surplus value and don't say a word about taxation?

>Mustard gas stopped being effective after ww1.
Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran as recently as the 1980s.

>By the way they did use chemical weapons to kill millions of people in the extermination camps.
That's not what we're talking about. Nazis had weapons of mass destruction and didn't use them. And nazies are the worst people that ever lived (according to your programming). So your argument that people who are not worse than nazis will definitely use weapons of mass destruction is not defensible.

>Hard to quantify, given how little we know of human history, tho the Nazis were pretty terrible.
By any objective measure Stalin and Mao and communism in general was responsible for orders of magnitude more death and suffering that Hitler and national socialists. You can't admit that though because what kind of monster would still support communism after admitting that.

>Stop trying to rehabilitate Hitler and Nazis.
Because there are only 2 political positions: yours and nazi. Let me be clear I condemn all forms of socialism including national socialism.

>you're trying to sneak in the premise that the Russians would try to invade central Europe.
>That's a retarded notion
It's your strawman buddy that makes you the retard.

>the Russians care about having a buffer that keeps Nato at arms-length.
The conflict being constrained to Ukraine doesn't contradict what I said. Ukraine is outside the borders of Russia and France. More likely the fighting would spread across the Balkans though.

>If you mistreat people they perform a lot worse. Improving living/working conditions of workers is not born out of sentimentalism.
And what's the working conditions like in chinese factories?

>the capitalists can't be that anymore, because that causes revolutions
>Capitalism is ruled by capitalists and they're responsible for it.
Pick one. You can't have both.

>>483154
Those 20 pages of text are not "fluff" - they entail all of the things I keep mentioning - that possession serves a purpose, and concepts of possession are not purely "personal property". Most of what is possessed or property is, as I said, held jointly in some way - either outright sharing the claim, or the claim of a person is reliant on agreement of others in society that this is at all valid. If you're ideologically committed to your view and locked in, it doesn't respond to reasoning. You can recapitulate "me wantee" ad infinitum. It doesn't change the realistic prospects of possessing anything.

So many operate under this mistaken belief that capitalism is premised on "me wantee" or even "mine". It is very much the opposite - free trade, capitalism as we know it, relies on the existence of the commonwealth as a concept. The very construct of Adam Smith's pin factory entails cooperative labor, without necessary reference to any "boss" of the factory. The workers already knew what was to be done - the factory was just a place where this manufacturing took place, and Adam Smith didn't invent factories as if humans were too stupid to make things. Such assembly work was known in ancient times, was known in imperial China (and shut down because it disrupted the peasant corvee the emperors wanted). What changed to allow the industrial factory was not that humans were too stupid to do this, but that technology to centralize this was viable, and it was possible through enclosure to make the new "proletarian" work in these factories. India had such factories already, which is one source for Adam Smith copying the idea for Britain and asking if it were possible to grind down the subjects of the English to that condition. It sounds monstrous and pejorative because it is, and Smith doesn't pretend this is enlightened or good. Moral philosophy is a funny thing like that.

Anyway, the point I keep trying to make is that "individualism" itself has no natural basis, and that was never the claim of anyone until German idiocy brayed about "the Unique" and other Satanic faggotry. The purpose of free trade was commanded labor - and this implied management, but it had always been understood that the manager as a profession was a waste of space, and the best government of the workers would be self-government. This didn't work out so well because of perverse incentives, but the manager adds nothing whatsoever. It is an intriguer - the greatest vice of the commons as an interest or class in humanity. The petty-manager is the road to serfdom, which is why the German ideology catered to their worst faggotry and eliminated any sense of virtue or a world outside of themselves in the managers.

>>483159
>property is your body and the product of your labor.
that's the economic system socialists try to build, but it's not like that now.
>The whole point of socialism is to get free stuff through political channels
you mean like the bail-outs for wallstreet ? Those were capitalists not socialists
>trying to scam somebody
you're projecting
>"personal property"
Considering that you put that in scare-quotes, i take it you don't want personal property to be protected ?

>Why do marxists
talk about
>surplus value
Can't have a working theory of economics without that

>Nazis had weapons of mass destruction and didn't use them.
The Nazis destroyed masses of people, so that's patently untrue. Why on earth are you trying to rehabilitate these fucks ? Chemical weapons are ineffective against an organized military, the Nazis don't get a cookie for realizing that, it's been pretty obvious since the end of ww1.
>Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran as recently as the 1980s.
If that's true, So what ? I bet you could find an example of somebody using a board with a nail as a weapon somewhere.

>By any objective measure Stalin and Mao and communism in general was responsible for orders of magnitude more death and suffering that Hitler and national socialists.
You ticked all the ruling ideology talking points, and are objectively wrong on all accounts.
You can't blame Stalin for ww2, the Nazis started it.
You can't blame Mao for the consequences of a century of colonial subjugation of China.
The Nazis weren't socialists, never mind the deceptive name.

>The conflict being constrained to Ukraine doesn't contradict what I said. Ukraine is outside the borders of Russia and France.
Sure technically correct, but not what you implied.
>More likely the fighting would spread across the Balkans though.
I don't know, the neocons certainly would like to sacrifice some more countries in order to fuck some more with the Russians, but i doubt that after the bloodletting in Ukraine, they'll get anybody to sign up for that.

>And what's the working conditions like in chinese factories?
This is out of date, working conditions in China have massively improved, wages went up too. China is a very different place now then what it was 20 years ago.

<the capitalists can't be that anymore, because that causes revolutions
<Capitalism is ruled by capitalists and they're responsible for it.
>Pick one. You can't have both.
Both are true.
If you are trying to make an argument that a ruling class doesn't rule unless they have absolute and unconditional power, please don't. That's just an impractical definition.

>>483159
Once you produce something, it ceases to be yours. That is the way the world made it - nowhere in nature is the name of anything stamped on any product.
Really though, my point has been that property and possession are not about justice or right, nor are they inherently good. Property serves the purpose of security and an interest we would possess as living things, and that is all it does. Otherwise, we wouldn't care if our property left us and were reclaimed again. If we thought in this "propertarian" way, anything that is not jealously lorded over is lost to us the moment we part from it. We could only maintain it with constant feedback and reassurances that it remains "ours". When a whole society is built around subverting that expectation, and teaching children to be natural slaves from cradle to grave, you see where this came from. The connection of the body to its parts is not "property" in that sense. It is what the body does to live, and likewise, all of the property and possessions of people are in service to life and its higher products. They do not exist "for their own sake" in that way, without inserting this jealous and insane approach to existence which is contrary to life or anything we would actually want. If we didn't face constant threat of death and fear of the worst thing that can possibly happen in this world, property would not mean what it has come to mean. Very likely, we would ask ourselves if this property is actually useful, rationalize the claims to something we can actually work with, instead of making property obtuse and setting up a Satanic race and Satanic society that exists purely so thieves can keep stealing that which did not need to be disputed. But, that's not what humans are. Humans are a Satanic race, a failed race, and this is the result. I don't know what they think they're getting out of this, but since when did Satanics ever have to think? As long as they have someone to kick down, it's all hunky dory.

>Why do marxists spend all their time sperging about employers taking muh surplus value
Talk about being too retarded to understand basic economic shit. This is a Kraut mental illness since a Kraut apparently cannot do math.
Someone has already explained surplus value to you in this thread as best as he can - that someone being myself. I don't know how else to explain to you, but you're caught up on "me wantee". You're as faggy or faggier than the other guy, and fags feed off each other.

Anyway, most people on leftypol do not understand surplus value. Anyone who actually understood Marx and the context he wrote in - people who aren't dumb college snots - would understand surplus value as something that followed from the Ricardian political economic understanding. Whether you agree with it is another matter, but the Germanic cope - since they're too retarded to do math or logic and built a wholly irrational "logic" in Hegelism - is to lie about what is even being discussed. Marxists do it too because they can't defend Marx's economic theory against a serious opponent. Serious opponents have torn down Marx's system back and forth, but that understanding was edited out of history and replaced with this Satanic economic ordering of the Fabian fags.

Basically the real arguments against surplus value come back to the law of value, and Marx using it to make claims about labor that weren't substantiated by the facts. Ricardo is quite clear that in any complex society, it doesn't actually work that way, where labor = value - there are already considerations which aren't reducible to any economic currency, that are the wealth or property to be defended, among other things human beings would value. Everything about political economy presumed that wise men wouldn't destroy the thing that feeds them brazenly and for stupid reasons, and the regulatory power was with the intellectuals rather than capital as such. If you look at what free trade really was, who dominated? Banks, trading companies, and associations of conspiracy were far greater in their collective influence than any industrial capitalist, and "finance capital" is something different from the oligarchic and state banks that were a necessary condition of free trade and capital in the first place. Everyone involved understood this was the situation, rather than an imagined "perfect system with perfect information" involving an infinite number of firms. That was a Germanic retardation and corruption of common sense, based on insinuation and their habitual lying.

>>482813
>Please tell me which wars the Tories have started since …. *check's notes* … 1982.
I did tell you. They were more totally on board with the Iraq war than Blair's own party was.

>Yes I know everyone you don't like is a secret Tory. That's definitely how it works. It's funny how similar this is to talking to a nazi who thinks everyone is either a jew or a jew puppet.
See picrel.

>Whatever you think "neolib" means
Corporate deregulation, outsourcing, union busting, financialization, cuts to public services, all things which continued under Blair and continue to this day whether it's Tories or Labour in power.

>>483162
>that's the economic system socialists try to build
No it's not. Under socialism the product of my labor doesn't belong to me it belongs to Bob because Bob "needs" it more than me. It's a good deal if you're Bob which is why socialism only attracts losers who want to leech from others.

>but it's not like that now
It's not like that now because of taxes. If you are self employed then all the product of your labor belongs to you except what the state steals.

>you mean like the bail-outs for wallstreet
Yes. Free stuff at the top to keep the rich rich and free stuff at the bottom to keep the plebs voting and the middle class has to pay for it all. It's not your ideal version of socialism but it is a type of socialism.

>Those were capitalists not socialists
Nope. The government is the one giving the bailouts and when the government does stuff that's socialism. In a free market when banks go broke they go broke and if the CEOs owes money to the people then we throw they/them out of a helicopter.

>Can't have a working theory of economics without that
You are deliberately evading the question
Why is it only bad when the worker makes a voluntary contract with an employer?
Why is not not bad when the state steals it from workers at literal gunpoint?

>The Nazis destroyed masses of people, so that's patently untrue.
>Why on earth are you trying to rehabilitate these fucks ?
You completely ignored my last post so I will copy and paste it
That's not what we're talking about. Nazis had weapons of mass destruction and didn't use them. And nazies are the worst people that ever lived (according to your programming). So your argument that people who are not worse than nazis will definitely use weapons of mass destruction is not defensible.

>If that's true, So what ?
You said chemical weapons are ineffective since WW1. Iraq using them in the 1980s proves you wrong.

>You can't blame Stalin for ww2, the Nazis started it.
I don't blame Stalin for ww2 I blame Stalin for deliberately staving millions of Ukrainians before ww2 even started.

>You can't blame Mao for the consequences of a century of colonial subjugation of China.
I blame Mao for the great leap forward which killed even more people than Stalin. The fact that China became an industrial powerhouse the moment they embraced property rights and markets is proof that muh colonial subjugation had nothing to do with it.

Like I said
You can't admit that though because what kind of monster would still support communism after admitting that.

>i doubt that after the bloodletting in Ukraine, they'll get anybody to sign up for that
That's why there will be a draft.
>inb4 muh resistance
What do you think you're going to do, you're so oversocialized you didn't resist masks or dangerous experimental vaccines or any of the covid tyranny that was so blatantly just corporate profiteering. You're just going to roll up your sleeve again.

>If you are trying to make an argument that a ruling class doesn't rule unless they have absolute and unconditional power, please don't.
I already told you my argument
>workers had some fun in the 60s and 70s playing socialist and going on strike
>business owners and investors couldn't make any money so they took their capital overseas
>now you've got no industry and a failing economy
>somehow it is still the "capitalists" fault because they're "in charge" or whatever
Do you not see how dumb and childish that is.

What do you expect the "capitalists" to do in this situation?

>>483170
>See picrel.
I distinctly remember Blair abolishing hereditary peers, stuffing the house of lords with his own people and gratuitously banning fox hunting just to wind up the Tories but sure everyone you don't like is a secret Tory.

>Corporate deregulation
You're saying there are fewer regulations now than 40 years ago? Calling a big old bullshit on that one. The point of regulations is for corporations to use the government to screw over competitors so of course they are only going to pile up.

>outsourcing
<refuse to work
<cry when jobs move overseas
Also this has nothing to do with government policy.

>union busting
Unions are the ones who destroyed your economy in the first place but ok.
Unions only exist because the government protects them anyway.
>go on strike
>company hires scabs
>you starve
That's what strikes look like without the state helping you in exchange for votes obviously because lol democracy

>financialization
In 1971 money became completely imaginary and banks started printing it out of thin air and giving it to themselves on an endless loop causing the massive inflation we're seen since then. Marxists don't like to talk about money and banking for some reason though. It's not like monopolizing the entire financial system under a central bank is part of the communist manifesto or something.

>cuts to public services
I have to play the lol democracy card again. The only reason a government would burn votes like this is because they are broke not because they're evil and hate poor people or whatever your dumb propaganda told you.

>all things which continued under Blair and continue to this day whether it's Tories or Labour in power.
Thank you for being honest at the end at least. Neo-liberalism is just everything you don't like.

>>483179
Work in a primitive society, like ancient hunter gatherers, work is directly social, all the work is for survival. In a more complex society that has better tools, not all of the work goes into survival, that is what becomes surplus. In capitalism this surplus is mostly captured by capitalists as profits. The state also gets some of the surplus via taxes or state-run enterprises. A big chunk of the surplus that the states gets flows to capitalists, like with wall-street bailouts and arms spending. Only a small part is going into public well-fare. And keep in mind that most well-fare recipients only need it because capitalism denies employment to a section of society, because they want to have a reserve army of labor on stand-by. So try not to be a worm that kicks down.

You're right that socialism isn't 100% efficient either, it'll have overhead as well, but you'll get a much bigger part of your surplus back than in capitalism. Btw socialism isn't synonymous with when the government does stuff

The relations in capitalism aren't really voluntary because You can't choose another economic system.

Given how much damage the financial crash caused, you're idea with aviation based disciplinary measures, is understandable. However I would like an economic system where the accounting and transactions system is stable and doesn't operate like a casino.

Nazis used gas as a weapon of mass destruction in the extermination camps. They didn't use it on the battle field against advanced military because it was obsolete. That is not a display of morality it's just basic grasp of military tactics. The use of chemical weapons in later wars was just stupid, it doesn't prove effectiveness.

The Soviets failed to ensure food security and that led to starvation, the narrative that it was done on purpose, was propaganda by the Nazis that was later re-used in the cold-war. It's wrong please stop repeating this.

Some of Mao's polices were indeed retarded and backfired catastrophically, however China did industrialize under Mao. Live expectancy doubled. And yes most of China's early woes can be attributed to the decade of colonial subjugation, the Communists inherited a huge mess. China's introduction of market elements into it's economy are indeed responsible for a chunk of China's economic rise. However you also have to account for the fact that many other countries had a market economy and they did not see a meteoric economic rise similar to china.

You tried to rehabilitate the Nazis, so you're accusation that communism is monstrous carries very little weight.

People will resist the draft because they don't want to be shipped off to some forsaken battle-front where they die in a pointless war. Many people did not resist wearing face-masks because that was nothing but a minor nuisance. I don't know how you imagine drafting a population that is fundamentally opposed to going to war is supposed to work. You basically kidnapped people against their will, they will be furious about that and then you're going to give them weapons. How do you think that ends ?

You have the rise of neo-liberalism all backwards.

In the 70s the big capitalists saw an opportunity to exploit low-wage labor in the periphery and that's why they out-sourced production. It was a short-sighted decision, that in the end cost the big capitalists their global empire. The workers can't be blamed for this, because workers did not have a say in this decision. And it bears repeating, they were opposed to it.

Imagining an alternative history is difficult. I suppose the social democrats could have transferred technology to the periphery, to enable them to catch up on development and prevent neo-liberalism from outsourcing. It's hard to guess.

>>483182
>outsourcing
<refuse to pay decent wages
<cry when the low wage periphery uses the outsourced industrial power to dismantles your empire

>The only reason a government would burn votes like this is because they are broke
They're broke because they blew it on pointless militaristic schemes.