/left/ General - Time to Split Edition

Greetings Comrades

This thread is for the discussion of any and all left-wing political ideology, including, but not limited to, Marxism/Socialism/Communism/Anarchism/Syndicalism/etc.

>Socialism is an economic and social system defined by social ownership of the means of production. (Workers democratically own and operate the places in which they work, as opposed to private power aka capitalism)

>The means of production are non-human inputs the create economic value, such as factories, workplaces, industrial machinery, etc. Socialists refer to the means of production as capital, or private property. Private property in the socialist context shouldn't be confused with personal property, such as your home, car, computer, and other possessions.

>In a capitalist society the means of production are owned and controlled privately, by those that can afford them (the capitalist aka those with capital). Production is carried out to benefit the capitalist (production for profit). Workers are paid a wage, and receive that amount regardless of how much value they produce.

>Communism is the highest developed stage of socialism wherein there is no state, no money, no class system. The means of production are owned by all and provide for everyone's needs.

Resources:

ABC's of Socialism: s3.jacobinmag.com/issues/jacobin-abcs.pdf

Introduction to Marxism by Professor Richard D. Wolff: youtube.com/watch?v=T9Whccunka4

Selections of Left-wing Literature:
Anarchist:
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread

Libertarian:
Mikhail Bakunin - God and the State (short read)
Thomas Paine - Agrarian Justice
Noam Chomsky - Notes on Anarchism
Anton Pannekoek - Worker's Councils

Marxist-Leninist:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/sw/

How does he keep getting away with it?

A

>You do some labour, which creates goods/services. These have value. Therefore your labour has value.
>You are paid some wages; the value of these wages is significantly less than the value of what you created or did.
>Someone else pockets the difference.
What exactly is your objection, capitalcucks?

>Be free communist in a capitalist society
>Seize the means of production
>Give everything to new revolutionary ruler
>Die a communist slave
>Success

Do communists actually believe this?

REMINDER THESE ARE RAIDS THREADS

Holy fuck. Last thread hit bump limit fast.

SLIDE THREAD

Where have I heard that before

In response to a post in the previous thread:

Anarcho-communism differs mainly in the strategy to achieve a communist society. It is believed that a stateless, classless society cannot be achieved by statist and authoritarian means. Only libertarian approaches can work.

Is this the new cringe thread?

...

...

...

...

gas yourself kike

Ah looks like we both made the thread. Well I'll let mine die then. Keep up the work comrades, the revolution draws near.

>What exactly is your objection, capitalcucks?
The objection is that the system in which the laborer labors is created by the capitalist.

The factory requires resources to build. It's risky to build it. It may not be profitable. The worker shares none of this risk. The capitalist bears all responsibility for the failure of the business, thus he bears all responsibility for its success as well.

The laborers wage is rightly determined by a contract between free individuals.

Maybe this place deserves to become a commie hellhole. Half of our userbase doesn't know when or how to sage.

...

Anarchism can't be leftwing

>posting a Sup Forums false flag

No one on /leftypol/ uses "bluepill."

Bump yours so that you can recycle it.

WRONG

I'm in favor of gradualism, through social democracy first, and I expect automation should push the goal of communism forward, but many communists aren't satisfied by just that. Maybe I'm not the best to answer this.

Isn't blue pilling supposed to be a bad thing? They would consider their ideology the redpill.

We're going to free you capitalists from your corrupt elite class, and replace them with our own corrupt elite class!

Yeah, communism is a dream.

God damn Irish Jewish fucking nwo fucks

>Give everything to new revolutionary ruler
Do capitalist actually believe this?

We need the Swede back. Spamming these retarded threads works just as much as saging.

did someone say banana man thread?

thanks for the bumps and (You)s btw lads

juden

Name me a time it didn't happen

This.
Also large scale general strikes to shut down the country.

because unfortunately porky will try desperately hold on to his wealth and the world he created so in the interim period there will be the need for a dictatorship of the proletariat. a revolution requires blood and sacrifice. people will die, it is unavoidable but they will die knowing they cracked some porky skulls and that will be enough.

Good idea.

No, we're not replacing them, we're handing the means of production to the workers, so there is no state or elite class

Posting everything I got lol.

...

see

Look up Yuri Bezmenov.

Zapatistas in Mexico.

"Democratic socialism is a mirage because the changes, dislocations, and sufferings
which could not be avoided during the first stage of a transition from individualism to socialism would inevitably cause defeat at the polls if democratic methods were maintained and would very probably plunge the country into civil war."

Yes. Get some Sup Forumstards involved. They'll spam these threads out of existence. That fucking banana will actually come in handy for once.

it's a mix of people shitting on these new generals for being spawned from raids, general memeing, and genuine leftists

i kind of like these threads now, but theyre not going to change my view any time soon. this place could use opposing viewpoints so we can have interesting debates.

broadening our base a little means more people to redpill and share funny memes with.

...

>die knowing they cracked some porky skulls and that will be enough.

Nigger tier destroyer philosophy. No society will satisfy barbarians like you.

hey guys i hate lefties but i'm setting up a commie account on gab to break the echo chamber and have some keks

i'm making my way through the communist manifesto now, help with my rhetoric? profile pic? bio? anything like that

Half of Sup Forums is Bernout retarded scum.

...

>The factory requires resources to build. It's risky to build it. It may not be profitable.
Resources extracted by labor.

>The worker shares none of this risk. The capitalist bears all responsibility for the failure of the business
In America, most corporations get tax write-offs for risky business. Corporate risk is HEAVILY socialized, and that's without going into subsidies and bailouts. A corporation has almost innumerably more ways to declare a tax writeoff than an individual. If the worker is paying taxes, and he works at some established corporation, chances are he's footing the bill of some tax subsidy granted as an "economic incentive" by the state government to the corporation.

This.
Good job not letting the thread die or at the very least arguing with leftists to prove to the posterity of this Taiwanese Basketweaving Forum that you won fair and square with screencaps.

>social ownership of the means of production.

So you support Trump?

(pic related)

Sup /leftypol/

The last time I was on your shit board (before you banned me, again) you were claiming starbucks baristas were the same as steelworkers as part of the working class, despite one producing overpriced garbage and the other producing steel.

Care to comment?

Yeah, this is the thing I don't understand about communism. It benefits everyone better in theory, but it's also way more susceptible to corruption, which is just evident from human nature, and the past examples of communist/socialist states.

In capitalism, the highest corruption possible is a subversion of market value, because if your product isn't valuable nobody will buy it, especially if you devalue it by being corrupt and greedy.

Diamonds are an example of capitalist corruption, because they're vastly overpriced and have been manipulated value-wise to have an artificially high value, but you don't even have to buy them. If communism fails, you and your family get sent to a gulag.

First off, thanks for actually having a disagreement instead of just spamming shite like the Swede.

>the system in which the laborer labors is created by the capitalist
In what way? He didn't build the factory - construction workers did. The resources he used to pay them were almost certainly acquired from a) the profit of a previous labour-driven business or b) loans or inheritance from other capitalists, who in turn acquired them from labour-driven businesses.

>The laborers wage is rightly determined by a contract between free individuals.
It can't be a "free" contract when refusing the terms set by the capitalists (who control virtually all employment) will result in impoverishment, homelessness, starvation, etc. The much-vaunted "invisible hand" is holding a gun to your head.

And how do you plan on having a stateless society when there is always the incentive to form ever bigger collectives in order to seize power?

Sage and hide all commie threads. They're like the interracial porn spam from CTR. I just click the minus box without thinking anymore.

sage

you're retarded if you dont understand, stupid nazi

Marx would probably support Trump tbqh

He thought that the capitalists would never willingly support change, but was proven wrong just years after his death when Bismarck pushed for social welfare within the German Empire

No one ever contested that the value you created isn't subject to market rules - labour times are presented in prices of production. The price of production is the least amount you can sell a commodity for in a market economy, otherwise you will go bankrupt and fail. Marginalism is not incompatible with Marxian economics, we are well aware that you need to value the good more than you value your money, otherwise you will not trade. You're just restating the obvious - next are you going to tell me that man acts?

Revolutionaries like you are one of the first people who get lined up, shot and thrown in a mass grave to be forgotten about.

There is no room for revolutionaries in the new communist society.

>The laborers wage is rightly determined by a contract between free individuals.
The government directly intervenes in the labor market to quash unions with right-to-work laws and illegal strikes. A truly free market would be without these things, but then businesses would be uncomfortable with that.

sage.

sorry user but every revolution against oppressors has been caked in blood. the revolution of the proletariat will be no exception. it's not a matter of 'if' its a matter of but a matter of 'when'. throughout history any group that is placed beneath another eventually grabs some pitchforks and shoves it up some upper-class anus.

>All four collapsed when the majority of the world ganged up on them to stop their shenanigans

Meanwhile it takes just a few decades for leftism to fall on its ass from the inside.

>le fixed pie economy
>pre tax pre transfer non-household size adjusted without accounting for fringe benefits

Go back to whatever marxist libtard brainwashing college you came from.

...

Right-"libertarianism" is a contradiction.

GAS THE KIKES, RACE WAR NOW

>set up an account
>on gab.ai

nigga.

that site is a blatant honeypot. people have known since it opened up it has shit code thats pretty much designed to get your info stolen. and the name? a gabai is a member of a synagouge who corrects the reading of the torah during prayer, sound familiar? and there's only a few thousand people on at all. unless twitter crashes it's not going to be growing much at all.

lol sage

Well one is labouring to provide a good or service, and the other one is labouring to provide a good or service, so hopefully you can draw your own conclusion

Yes, actually. Posted it before but: Trump is a more proletarian choice since capitalist elites of both parties (Soros, Koch) despise him while his supporters are largely working-class. Also Steve Bannon, who's been relentlessly targeted by media elites, used to go around describing himself as a "Leninist".

kek. Do you take yourself seriously? How old are you?

how are niggers who cant farm starving to death capitalism's fault?

Not to mention the fact that if a company has been incorporated it is considered a legal entity in and of itself so if it fails the corporation is liable for unpaid debts not the capitalist. That is why it is call a Limited Liability Corporation

If you sell your labour for money your a worker.

If you use money to buy labour in order to profit you are bourgie

pretty simple senpai

...

kill yourself OP

then get used to sucking porky dick for eternity while shitposting on a right-wing website hoping for a miracle

GAS THE KIKES RACE WAR NOW
I HAVE FOOLED THE FUCKING COMMIES

THIS WAS A COUNTER SHILL THREAD

FUCK COMMIES

>Resources extracted by labor.
This does nothing to attack my argument. The logic for the capitalist having claim on the profits was the same in that case as it is in this case.

>Corporate risk is HEAVILY socialized, and that's without going into subsidies and bailouts.
We agree, then, that too much socialism is bad.

Your argument is against socialist policies, not against capitalism.
You're sidestepping the basic issue which is the fact that there is risk in starting a business. Somebody has to bear the burden of the risk. That means somebody has to put up their property as leverage in order to create it knowing that it might disappear tomorrow.

Workers can do this. They can buy a business together. They don't because they don't want to risk their property and their future.

>post up in a place where you're not wanted
>get repeatedly slapped in the face by a revolving door of shitposters
really wondering what you guys are still doing here

...

HABEDING


you should perhaps read the post I was responding to in the dead thread.

the kolkhozy were effectively controlled by the state and the sovhozy were literally controlled by the state. your collectivization is a fucking scam, a neo-feudalism to enslave the peasants under a new bureaucrat ruling class - your beloved vanguard. These people never had any say in their lives or in the way their labor was allocated. They were serfs. They didn't even have the right to move into the cities to escape their serfdom unlike Russian peasants in the late Tsardom.

Communism is fine in theory, but it's always just an excuse to be exploited by a new aristocracy in disguise.

Under your system they'll probably not be safe considering the incompetency of fascism

OP JUST FOOLED THE COMMIES
SEE HOW EASY IT IS TO INFILTRATE THEM\

are venezuela and north korea the best modern examples of socialism/communism done right?

>sounds like a good idea, let's get star- oh sorry I fucked up again and ten million people starved to death

Fuck commie scum. This is a Natsoc board.

>labor means I'm entitled to something

You're entitled to wages and nothing more. In the modern society the government provides you with services which make up for what your wages can't buy. Marxism as you conceive (free shit) is based on 19th century poverty, it has no relevance to the 21st century. We need a new system, not your rehashed bullshit.

it's all for keks, i'm not using any real personal info or shit like that, it's just fun fucking with people

the honeypot thing is interesting, regardless, i'll look more into that

GILF

>without thinking
Well there's your problem.

This is also a good point; collective bargaining has been all but eliminated in the past 20 years or so (both by GOP and Clintonite Dems, before someone accuses me of partisanship)

Why would Marx support a literal capitalist for president?

Yeah, and when the State was weak enough the companies would hire private armies to murder union members.

You're actually accurate that wages haven't dressed. The Marxian economist Andrew Kliman outlines this in his book "The Failure of Capitalist Production". Though you can't deny the inequality we're seeing in terms of wealth distribution.

>two people with roughly the same ideology have conflicting opinions on philosophical matters that are inconsequential to their support for the ideology
>this implicates the entire libertarian ideology as contradictory
leftist "logic", ladies and gentlemen...