Where do you fall, lefty Sup Forums?

Where do you fall, lefty Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/zhrYY3ocQ5o
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

socially libertarian
domestically social democrat - I support a market economy, but am for more democratically run firms, and basic economic support programs including universal healthcare, temporary housing, and humane mental institutions
capitalist in economic development - socialist policies are almost completely ineffective, sometimes even damaging, in poor countries that need to move forward.
Sympathetic to left-anarchist values (particularly anarcho-syndicalism and mutualism), but not an anarchist because I don't see it as feasible
for environmental protection

appealing philosophical and political figures: Peter Kropotkin, Murray Bookchin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Martin Heidegger (in philosophy only), Dogen Zenji, Zhuangzi, William Kunstler, Friedrich Nietzsche, Max Stirner, Julian Assange (and the cypherpunk movement in general), George Orwell (see his journalistic works), Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges

Primary news sources: The Economist, Foreign Policy

Religion: non-religious, though generally supportive of Soto Zen, Quakerism, and Reform Judaism

Election: I'm sympathetic to Bernie Sanders and John McAfee. I'm not particularly sympathetic to anyone else. If/when it comes down to Clinton vs Trump vs Johnson vs Stein, I'd support Clinton over Trump for pragmatic reasons, but Stein is the only good candidate out of the four, and Johnson is also honestly preferable to Clinton.

...

/thread
Better dead than red.

this

...

That scale is absurdist. I am a liberal as are most educated people for the simple reason that an education necessarily leads you to the conclusion that there are very few questions that ever have a single, best answer. And, as a voting citizen of the United States of America, I do no work "within" the system. I am the system. It is a democratically elected Republic, and I vote with other citizens to determine who our leaders will be.

Modern Russia is not communist though. Change it to the USSR

Yeah but communism ruined it and it's a shithole aside from the military.

>Taiwan on the China pic
Delet this

Meh, save it. I only posted the image because I missed out on replying to this thread last time it was made, so I remade it.
It may be absurd, but it's not absurdist. Camus is absurdist. Absurdism is the view that we construct the meaning of our own lives, just as the existentialists say, but the absurdists go one step further and say that we'll inevitably see through any meaning we construct. Absurdism asserts that the meaning of life is in the very effort of that construction. I don't buy it, but it's a very popular philosophy among college kids.

You didn't read my post ()
I'm for a mixed economy, and am a capitalist in economic development

Huh, you're correct. Apparently, absurdist only means "pertaining to absurdity" when used as an adjective but, when used as a noun, pertains to an absurdist branch of philosophy whose adherent are absurdists.

you talking to me?

> The Economist, Foreign Policy
>topfuckinglel
i am a 17-year old intellectual starter pack
Economist did nothing but shill for neocon wars and neoliberal economics, until 2008 crisis got to big to ignore. its pretentious pabulum.

USSR was never communist. Communism implies the absence of a state

Wow poortugal and a bunch of other no name niggers tell us again how when they're card carrying party members they'll throw the proletariat around. Are you guys all in fucking highschool?

no it fucking doesnt you mong. anarchism is supposed to be ultimate stage of communism, where the state withers away.

What news sources do you prefer? Because it seems to me you're full of hot air.

Out of a helicopter ;)

...

>no true Scotsman

GAS THE MAPLEFROGS RACE WAR NOW GET READY FOR SOME ALL AMERICAN BEEF JEWDEAU
youtu.be/zhrYY3ocQ5o
TRUMP WILL FREE US FROM THE GLOBALIST RULE

Yes it does, you literally don't know what you're talking about. Marx believed in a "dictatorship of the proletariat", in which goods would be controlled by a proletariat government as a transition point to statelessness, when equality was achieved. Bakunin, a contemporary of Marx and the most significant anarchist philosophy in history, rejected the dictatorship of the proletariat phase, saying that if members of the proletariat assumed power they'd become an even more corrupt and brutal elite than the capitalist elite. THAT is the difference between the two.

I'm generally progressive in terms of economics, but I also respect the rights of the individual and ergo am libertarian at times.

I am for universal healthcare and better wages but also think that the federal government's money would be better spent on making Americans GET money by having jobs, not GIVE them money. I think that stuff like the WPA was totally awesome because instead of giving poor Americans varying amounts of cash while they sit on their lazy assess and do nothing, they instead get a job AND they work on stuff that benefits the community. Schools, pools, libraries and cemeteries. Win-win in my book.

I also believe that individual tru flat tax would help the nation since it would make it more fair and less complicated effectively reducing government spending of the IRS. If everyone had the same income tax, then they pay proportional amounts. But I also think since corporations are not people, they can be taxed differently since an exponential tax rate is a moral judgement on a citizen's wealth. The only reason why a rich guy should pay at different rates then the poor man is only if they are not human at all.

I support Bernie Sanders because he's a progressive and purely because he is more transparent than Hillary and he avidly speaks out against money and corruption in American politics.

I am pro-racial and sexual equality but reject the stance of SJWs. People have a right to disagree you know, and calling them ignorant isn't going to help. Also, I only think you are either straight, gay, or other. I refuse to support any others until proof comes up that gender identity disorder, despite years of scientific study, is not in fact a mental illness.

Pic related is my American hero

>no it fucking doesnt you mong.

At least bother yourself with reading wiki page

Nope, it's not that fallacy, simply because USSR violated literally almost every single principle of what a communist society should be

What do you think about USSR? Can it be accurately defined as a socialist nation?

...

Marxism-Leninism

Yes.

>muh every dissenting opinion is surely the guise of trolls from Reddit
>muh leave me alone in my hugbox

But isn't the main tenet of socialism the workers owning the means of production? In what way did the USSR workers owned the means of production?

What do you own? That's mine now. I just have to assert dominance over it when I wish to claim it. I'm the proprietor of all objects

Yes, IMO it definitely can, although it was an extremely dysfunctional one. Again, I'm for mixed economies like those advocated for by most social democratic parties, and those fall far to one side of the socialist spectrum. The USSR falls far on the other end. And while the USSR did implement socialist policies, it failed to attain socialism's goals (alleviating poverty, stopping a corrupt elite).

...

I'm for democratic rape. Non white men are still 3/5th of a person. Turner dindu nuffin

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

COMMIES GET OUT!!!!!!!!!

Through the state and vanguard party, which were run by workers. I accept the USSR stagnated and ossified because of the bureaucracy, but certainly the means of production were not privately owned. Surplus value was not used to hoard private profit, but instead funded infrastructure, medical care etc. for the people, everything was re-invested into the economy. Workers were extremely hard to fire, unemployment was basically non-existent for 60 years.

Not one commie in this thread so far

So you literally have nothing better to do then shit up someone else thread? Go back to some cuck thread

>Through the state and vanguard party, which were run by workers

One could easily claim that the state was run by workers merely on paper, that the state was there to satisfy the need of the party officials(replacing the borgeois).

ISn't Soviet union what i think Marx called state capitalist?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

It definitely failed in that regard, but the problem with the term socialism is that it's been expanded and become so broad. In many ways Soviet-style socialism was a funhouse-style distortion of socialism. Government controlled the means of production. In theory the body governing it should've been the workers themselves, but the Soviet system had become so corrupt that it was anything but - you had to support a massive party or face severe consequences. One of the most obvious distortions was unions - in theory those unions should've been political bodies for workers to democratically decide on the actions of firms. Instead, they were huge, thuggish, corrupt government bodies used to exploit the workers as much as possible. The Soviets were power-hungry authoritarians who used the socialist banner as a political tool to take power, then distorted every element of the socialist system to their ends. But while the Soviet government was used to almost opposite ends of socialism, it still functioned on some level as a socialist system.

Shitting in shit doesn't make it any less shit

...

You just won a free helicopter ride

>It definitely failed in that regard,

Then how can you consider USSR socialist? It's like calling something capitalism when there is no private property.

>The Soviets were power-hungry authoritarians who used the socialist banner as a political tool to take power, then distorted every element of the socialist system to their ends.

Exactly.

Why are you so obnoxious? I'm not communist, and the proxy bro isn't either. We are both still capitalists. Why are you so closed to a little discussion?

...

At least I bring an opinion based on fact and reason and not shitpost memes

Because I can't find anyone here to agree with me and I'm kind of an asshole irl too. I hardly use any services. I hunt and garden for most of my food. Im forced into paying for healthcare I never use. I drive on almost exclusively the shittiest two roads in my province. Ive never collected a cheque other than income tax which I still feel cheated on. I'm forced into buying public insurance for my car. When i worked on government projects i was foeced into a union and then forced to hire natives to get around the other union cronies that would come for 1 turn around than go back to ei for the most part. I just want family to be the only thing we have past individualism. If someone can't sustain themselves with all the help available in current year I have no doubt they would be first to go in the gulag. Anything inherently high up on an authoritarian scale isn't much different no matter who's in charge. I'm upset by all of it. As much as you might not want to admit the pestering jews were attempted to slaughter for the same reason anyone portraying bourgeois tendencies was. They go against the grain. I'd like to see no grain in the way of a politics not because I'm a libertarian, which I'm not; but because I'm tired of pandering, public debt, riots, immigrants, lack of family and faith, and a myriad of other things I see wrong. If people stopped mingling we would have far less altercations

What does "the people owning the meanings of production" even mean anyway? Who are "the people" and how do they own/operate those means?

I disagree with the state capitalist assessment, it implies the bureaucrats operated with the same motives and methods as the capitalist bourgeoisie, which was blatantly false, given the equality of wealth and communal nature of work and life in the USSR. Ironically, I would call Russia today state capitalist, where cronies siphon off all the wealth with the backing of Putin's state.

Even if the party officials replaced the bourgeoisie, they didn't have anywhere near the power or wealth that the bourgeoisie do under capitalism.

>shithole country
>commie
coincidence?

>they didn't have anywhere near the power or wealth that the bourgeoisie do under capitalism.

The same goes for all the other classes as well.

>that wall of text

Go write a blog. I don't care about you or your story

If you are fishing for attetion get a Israel proxy

>What does "the people owning the meanings of production" even mean anyway?

Exactly what it means Rui.

>Who are "the people"

The people.

>and how do they own/operate those means?

This one is hard. Unions is a start, i guess. But that question is best answered by someone who actually read socialist literature

fair enough.

...

An uneducated leftist. What a fucking novel sight. Go ahead, cite academia. I think, therfore I am offended. Jesus Christ you're a fucking idiot. That's why I'm being obnoxious. Because you won't even entertain a different idea. Like I said. Shitting in shit

I fall with HillDawg

>Exactly what it means Rui.
Which is?

>>Who are "the people"
>The people.
So everyone owns everything and are able to operate everything? Seems great.

>This one is hard. Unions is a start, i guess.
But you said it's the people. Now it's the unions?
>But that question is best answered by someone who actually read socialist literature
Don't bother asking them either, they've still not planned past the revolution phase.

>the irony

You are trying to silence dissenting opinion so you could keep on circlejerking with other tards

The thing is if Sup Forums was moderated by it's users, this kind of posts would be pruned immediately. That is why i think i would be a good janitor. I fucking hate you all with passion

Wow. Racist and sexist and fascist much?

>Marxist
>redpill

>Which is?
The workers owning the means of production

>So everyone owns everything and are able to operate everything?

No the workers control the means of production. The Steel mill workers are the ones who own the steel mill.

I'm racist. Not sexist, but i believe in traditional family. Not fascist but a little near. More of a social democrat with a huge racist undertone

It's the ultimate one.But you are too brainwashed to even entertain the thought

I do development work, which is why I am where I am. I'm American. And I'm not a communist.

>But you said it's the people. Now it's the unions?

Unions are in it's essence a body of workers.

I should add Reuters to my news sources

>sanders calls himself a communist and socialist
>put him as far from marxist as possible on a scale

ok then

>shithole country
>commie
>commie autist replies, "coincidence?"
coincidence?

Freedom reigns. Go jump off a cliff, kike slave.

>The Steel mill workers are the ones who own the steel mill.

buy stock in your company

>sanders calls himself a communist and socialist

Source? He is a social democrat, therefore still a capitalist.

where is Hitler in that pic?

R A R E
A
R
E

you should k.y.s.

there are NO good leftist countries

look at his political career

There is free speach in this place simply becasue it isn't the users moderating this place, that is alll i'm trying to say.

When they can't barely sustain their family, you are expecting him to gather a few millions of dollars, and engage in something he doesn't have a clue?

Grow up kiddo

I rest my case

>The workers owning the means of production
Everyone is a worker. Does everyone own every mean of production?

>No the workers control the means of production. The Steel mill workers are the ones who own the steel mill.
How is maximum efficiency assured?

And you didn't clarify the union part. How will the workers control the means of production if the unions control them instead?

To finish making your heads explode, I'm anti-racist but against anti-hate speech laws because I'm socially libertarian and for free speech. Also, my paternal grandparents are Jewish.

Have a nice day.

No, he's not trying to silence it, he's trying to discredit it, and banter the person. There's a massive fucking difference

>Marxism
>the ultimate redpill
>a bunch of philosophical ramblings from a man who never had a real job in his life about the labor market, almost all of which are theoretically and realistically impossible, based on "muh equality"
kek I don't think so.

kys my man
I pointed out the fascism in that "wall of text." I know. And I know leftists have ok ideas. They fail to see past idea though. Look at trudeau. Bringing in such opposing viewpoints will ruin the idea of family you have with civil wars and other means. Socialism COULD work. But today, it WON'T. Much like Trump is a stepping stone towards a stronger nation, bernie could have been to a more Nordic style nation. But he tried to go all in and please too many people. Saying it's democratic wont win anybody over if he proposes undemocratic force in the way of taxes and immigrants. He's not the superhero he's made out to be

no, you - I'm more educated than you, my political views are based on education and personal experience, I'm better traveled than you. You get your idiotic fringe political views from an image board. I'm sure you're also a forever alone who hates women for his own sexual failings, and you're probably a NEET. Have a nice life, but do consider the alternative.

>leftist
>Sup Forums
pick one
there is Nothing more politically correct than a leftard.

...

>being a communist is the ultimate redpill but being a rugged individualist means you are too brainwashed to understand goy
Literally a Zionist plot to overthrow the Russian aristocracy that got out of hand. See my previous picture for details on what you should do.

>invent something
>don't mass produce because can't own a factory
>nothing new ever gets made
communism

not even once

>my political views
are retarded

>I'm better traveled than you
>I've seen more 3rd world shitholes than you
kek okay I concede on this point

>You get your idiotic fringe political views
I tend not to hold fringe political views

>from an image board
literally none of my opinions were formed on this website

>all that other stuff
who cares you dirty commie, stop shitposting and go back to your excellent interesting life then

>Everyone is a worker.ยด

Eliminate the capitalists out of equation ( the ones living out of investments and dividends) and redistribute their earnings to the people actually creating the surplus.

>Does everyone own every mean of production?

No, you own the means in wich you work.

>How is maximum efficiency assured?
By cutting out fats. Instead of profits going to people who don't work, they go too the workers and expanding... And the workers are now working for themselves, not to the jew so he can buy a new airplane

>How will the workers control the means of production if the unions control them instead?

The unions are run by workers. Sure the current ones are corrupt as fuck, but they are corrupted by the capitalists.

>Where do you fall, lefty Sup Forums?
Hopefully from the gallows

>No, he's not trying to silence it, he's trying to discredit it, and banter the person.

He is tryiong to derail the thread. I'm not here since yeasterday

>>a bunch of philosophical ramblings from a man who never had a real job in his life

>and engage in something he doesn't have a clue?
So you've pretty much described why socialism fails without fail.
Communism has been tried, yes, it just can't be achieved on a long-term, stable plan. A truly communist land with no state and collectivized means of production would just be an incessant struggle over who can do better in that same scenario. As it always has been. In Portugal that struggle lasted for a bit over a year, for example. The only way to then end that struggle is to implement a Communist dictatorship. As it always has been.
No matter how "collectivized" you think the means of production are, there will always be people left out in detriment of personal interests. That is the major flaw of collectivism.

>millions of dollars
>for company stocks

i still say leftypol exists just to make communists look like idiots

Remember comrades, the USSR had freedom of speech just like America! In America you can go to Washington DC and yell "The capitalist system sucks!" and nothing will happen. You can stand in Red Square and yell "The capitalist system sucks!" and nothing will happen to you there either!

>Eliminate the capitalists out of equation
>eliminate all the people who coordinate the economy and just have people produce stuff kek!

ever heard of the socialist calculation debate? Nobody with an education has seriously held your opinion since the 1960s

>but they are corrupted by the capitalists
kek, just blame everything on "the capitalists". Your mom die of cancer? It was the scheming capitalists, ruining the worker's family by hiding the real cures to cancer! God damn, you commies are intellectually lazy.

They're leddit rejects from a failed board on cripplechan.

Your scale is based on beliefs on how to bring social change? That's not what signifies each of these groups.

Terrible thread

>implying Milton, Murray, or Ayn Rand were nearly as pampered or inexperienced with the real world as Marx
>implying berating other academics actually addresses the problem of Marx's dubious personal background
my point stands

>he's trying to derail the thread
that's not the same as censorship

>Look at trudeau.

Don't know the man, not his ideas.

> Socialism COULD work. But today

Totally agree with you

>Much like Trump is a stepping stone towards a stronger nation
hahahahahhahaa

>muh hugbox!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The russian jewish communist revolutionairies were atheist, and many hated the theist jews and were anti-zionist

>B-B-BUT IT'S ANOTHER JEWISH PLOT!!!!!11111!!!

Nice tinfoil

I'm pretty sure MArx adressed it. It's a doubt i have. How would new factories be built withputh capitalist investment?

...

>I'm more educated
>I'm better than you
>You are stupid sheep, accept my views as correct
>ad hominem attacks against those he disagrees with
You aren't a communist, you're a plutocrat.