Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
View
Sort
Coming soon
Score hidden · 20 hours ago

Who said Marx thinks it's a good thing?

see more

If that wasn't the suggestion then what was the point of your quote?

Score hidden · 10 hours ago

Sharing Marx perspective. Does it bother you? Marx’s moral arguments are sort of irrelevant.

see more
Score hidden · 7 hours ago

Marx never appealed to moral arguments.

Load more comments

Corruption in Spain is at all levels, I'm afraid...

see more

Well the state is literally inherited from the Franco dictatorship. I can't say that makes me expect a lot from the Spanish government.

With current technology, you should only have to work 10-20 hours a week for a very comfortable lifestyle.

Where's your proof of this nonsensical statement?

What do you define as a comfortable lifestyle? Does it include modern tech and medicine? Food?

see more

Ever since the invention of machine production (150+ years ago), political economists (even Smith etc.), have recognized that there will be a possibility for our society to produce a superabundance of material wealth that far exceeds that which any previous society has even been able to achieve - given that we understand how to distribute it.

They have been predicting that it's out a few decades for a very long time.

Regardless, human want is boundless, and scarcity will always exist.

see more

They have been predicting that it's out a few decades for a very long time.

Not only predicting it but it has - some of the greatest evidence of this is obviously the two world wars. The level of energy expended in those wars was immense and unlike anything the world has ever seen before. The point is not any of what creates this vast industrial wealth in society is the property of the public, therefore we have pointless suffering such as homelessness, starvation and poverty. This is what is known as the artificial scarcity in capitalism.

Regardless, human want is boundless, and scarcity will always exist.

As I said earlier, no, in capitalism scarcity is artificial. In previous societies and modes of production, for example feudalism, scarcity was often the result of natural disasters or crop failures.

Load more comments

Why yes, our states are bourgoisie states and the vast majority of the economy is in their private hands - which means that they have legal ownership over the entire production process. This means that when you are paying your tax, it's really them that are paying you to pay tax. They make the original payments in every form, therefore they are the ones who control the upkeep of the state. They do so in the purpose of mutual interest between different sections of the domestic national bourgoisie.

That's literally anarcho-capitalism

see more

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron, because capitalism can only and has ever only existed together with a state. The institution of private property is instrinsically tied to the executive aspect of a state governing body in the way it functions and enforces property rights.

I am assuming your version of socialism has personal property? Who protects personal property? Who stops people from exploiting others if there is no state?

see more

Only private property is protected by the state, this is because it is the only form of property where the productive forces are kept from the majority of the population in order to extract surplus labor value and profit from the following commodity exchange.

The state and the institution of private property coincide in historical record. Who protects personal property? That depends on what kind of communist society you are asking about, most of the Native American tribes before the arrival of the European colonists solved this problem by having a democractically elected representative democratic institution that executed rulings. However, it's not a state since there are no classes. A state is not constituted by a legislative or executive body, but rather the armed bodies of men that protect the institution of private property. As we see in socities where productive property is public, there are no classes and there is no armed body of men separated from and above the rest of society.

Load more comments

Hate speech isnt included under free speech

Yes it is, in the US anyway. And it ought to be. Hate speech is problematic because it is subjective, hence anything can be considered hate speech if the wrong people are in power, how do you think the trump administration would interprete hate speech.

see more
3 points · 1 day ago · edited 1 day ago

Yes it is, in the US anyway. And it ought to be.

Oh look, an American telling the world what hate speech is. Why am I not surprised?

how do you think the trump administration would interprete hate speech.

Well it's really up to you, and not the administration, isn't it? And exactly how much are you protesting whenever there are nazi marches? I found a post you made 2 days ago:

Hate speech doesn't exist.

Obviously you can be found at every counter-protest shouting the loudest, am I right?

This will probably be buried under a lot of other posts, but social mobility amongst the pétit-bourgeoisie doesn't show anything at all but the presence of instability in the capitalist mode of production.

be a shabby celebrity in bourgeois culture

attempt to grasp political thought

???

profit

Hey everybody, look! It’s king of the retards!

FYI they’re mostly rehab facilities for animals abandoned or orphaned at birth in the wild. They’re also one of the leading medical facilities for rare disease treatments of endangered species. Don’t believe everything you see on TV, kiddo.

Zoos aren’t like prisons. I don’t think dumbo is ever getting raped for stealing ramen noodles or trafficking oxies up his asshole for currency with the giraffes.

see more
1 point · 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago

Hey everybody, look! It’s king of the retards!

Of course, you have to intentionally demean and disrespect disabled people because you're a despicable ableist probably. Who apparently wants to proclaim how much he/she cares about animals right about here.

FYI they’re mostly rehab facilities for animals abandoned or orphaned at birth in the wild. They’re also one of the leading medical facilities for rare disease treatments of endangered species. Don’t believe everything you see on TV, kiddo.

Never stop believing in the idealist ideology of the benevolent corporation. Please, you are being so fucking naively cute right now. Zoos literally drive animals insane. Clearly us torturing someone and denying them any whatosever choice in the matter of their own life because we decided to fuck up the planet and destroy their natural habitat, or worse for that matter decided to hunt them is a pretty bad fucking solution with no whatsoever moral thought in it isn't it? What's even worse, we allow private investors to reap profits from the exhibitioning of this suffering for everyone to see and show to their kids. There's a very dark and sick truth to the reality of this operation.. You don't see how we can solve this issue in any other way? The reason I think many are downvoting people like myself is because they want to hide from themselves.

Zoos aren’t like prisons. I don’t think dumbo is ever getting raped for stealing ramen noodles or trafficking oxies up his asshole for currency with the giraffes.

I don't know where you come from, but that's not what a prison is in a civilized country. Perhaps you are from the United States, where "prisons" are actually work-camps where they kept a small portion of the slave-labor market after they decided to officially abolish the institution. I'm sitting here laughing my fucking ass off thinking about how someone who comes from a nation that authoritarian is going to tell me how much I fucking know about the morality of imprisonment.

In any case, you and most people in this sub have probably never experienced prison or being locked up for that matter first-hand. So what do you even know about it? Nothing, lol.

Why are you so angry? You should go see a therapist and find something better to do with your life and time rather than going off on a 4 paragraph mental illness fueled rant.

Like I said kid, stop believing everything you see on TV. If zoos were jails then why do you need to have a PhD to work there? Definitely not for research, right?

Good job ranting on the US, it’s the cool hip reddit hive mind thing to do. When I think of jails I think of China’s human right violations, Thailands restriction of freedom of speech and putting anyone that says anything about the king into shackles for years on end while you eat bugs to avoid starving to death.

You need help.

Edit: typo

see more
1 point · 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago

Why are you so angry?

Why aren't you upset the least about psychological torture and imprisonment, and worse in many cases?

If zoos were jails then why do you need to have a PhD to work there

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. As if having a PhD automatically makes everything you do completely ethical/moral. Do you have any independent sense of morality at all or do you adopt it from somewhere else? Also, few people working at zoos have PhD's, such a random and desperate argument to bring up in general.

Definitely not for research, right?

Oh yeah sure, the zoos are definitely not for profit. Anything but for private profit. That would reflect bad upon society, and that makes me feel uncomfortable! /s

Good job ranting on the US, it’s the cool hip reddit hive mind thing to do.

It's the favorite political pasttime of most people on the entire planet. And for a lot of very good, some unrelated, reasons.

When I think of jails I think of China’s human right violations, Thailands restriction of freedom of speech and putting anyone that says anything about the king into shackles for years on end while you eat bugs to avoid starving to death.

Yeah, because the USA obviously doesn't have the largest history of forced incarceration, and definitely does not have the largest prison population in the world. Most of whom are various cultural ethnic groups oppressed by a white hegemony.

What is even your question? You don't even make any sense therefore it's hard to answer.

Load more comments

-2 points · 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago

Its the larger 'socialism' term, which includes Social Democracy, Unions, Healthcare, and other collectives within a Capitalist society.

Like clearly no one is saying that Finland has abolished class and property rights...

Edit: Would anyone like to clarify/correct me on this? lol

see more

The issue is that while those things you mentioned relate to socialism, they only exist as the result of socialist ideological strife with liberalism over the course of the past 200 years. They are not the result of any actual socialism, which by itself is a completely different set of definitions, they are the result of socialist ideology only.

I agree with all that but couldn't we assume the ideology marker for when the Nordic model is spoken of? -_- Just feels like gate keeping imo.

see more

Well we are materialists and so calling a system (or mode) or production socialism when it clearly is not would be disingenous, and encouraging others to believe that socialism is when you have socialist ideology would encourage the formation of social-democratic states and other forms of political compromise with the bourgeoisie. We naturally would prefer it if people would understand what material realities make a socialist society and why it matters.

Calling Piers Morgan names is always good praxis, because speaking the truth is good praxis and there are few names he doesn't deserve to be called.

That said, yeah, I'm not sure about this person's "communism" given that she talks an awful lot like typical liberal preoccupied with national dignity.

Jill Stein is still gross by comparison, however.

see more

Except for the fact that had she said the same thing here on r/socialism, her post would have been autodeleted. I think what she did was great, but it wasn't nevessarily great that she felt the need to be ableist while doing it.

Agreed.

see more

I've been banned from entire subreddits for saying that eating vegan is easy, which apparently is ableist. I think the least we can do is recognize that it's far worse to call someone the I word on national TV. Fucking r/lsc mods.

What started radicalizing me was the utter shitshow of the last US election that blew the couple previous ones out completely of the water. It was obvious that large forces were beginning to set in faster motion and I recognized that the antagonisms in society was intensifying without actually having read Marxism at all. A lot of people have socialist ideological beliefs without actually having read the literature, which is why it was so mind blowing to really get into reading about communism for the first time. It all made sense in the context of my own experiences and observations.

However; the thing that really turned it around for me was a local communist newspaper that I had bought, that brought to my attention the historical event of the largest recorded strike in human history. That in India a few years ago. The fact that no established media had touched the story of such a record event made it clear that the entire apparatus is mostly unified in class war against the proletariat, and that the only people I could rely on for news relating to my own interests were from these people who refer to each other as "comrades".

[deleted]
-34 points · 3 days ago

[removed]

see more

Your argument is that he will usher in socialism, because he donates money to both bourgeois parties?

You gotta be fucking kidding me...

Basic income is not socialism, has nothing to do with it at all and if that's your case then you have no fucking clue what socialism is.

Comment deleted4 days ago
0 points · 3 days ago · edited 3 days ago

My understanding of the Finnish civil war is lacking? Oh please, you don't even bother mentioning what you've got an issue with. I probably taught you some new things about your own history, which is fucknig pathetic.

Are you saying the USSR, with its illegal occupation of the Baltic states, oppression of its citizens, Stalin's purges, and the millons dead in its workcamps etc. was a success? You're just dodging the question.

The Soviet Union spent the entire 20's and 30's tryin to build up an alliance with the UK/France against Nazi Germany without any results because the west was trying to appease Hitler. Then in order to stop the growth of Nazi Germany and their ideology of LEBENSRAUM they pre-emptively seized territory in order to prepare for a full-scale global war. It's realpolitik, and you should be grateful or else you'd be speaking German right now and forced to Nazi salute every day. Especially considering your government was influenced heavily by Nazis.

oppression of its citizens

Every state oppresses its citizens, even including your country Finland. The oppression is far worse in any bourgeois state such as your own than it is in any proletarian government.

Stalin's purges

I'm not a Stalinist just because I'm a communist

and the millons dead in its workcamps

You mean prisons? By your definition the USA has workcamps, racially motivated to incarcerate a disproportionate amount of latin americans, native americans, and black people. That's by far a more sinister system of incarceration than anything the Soviets ever devised.

Political prisoners, especially the bourgeoisie, should be sentenced to hard labor.

was a success?

yeah. if not for the Soviet Union you literally would not be able to vote. Universal Suffrage was championed by the communists, and the only reason it was allowed in the UK for example is because Lenin instituted it in the new revolutionary government and the british ruling class was afraid of an uprising at home.

I don't know if you know this, but capitalism and liberalism, which you probably like, did not allow universal suffrage by default. It's a system created to serve the rich and wealthy and exploit everyone else, and for the longest time it held voting rights inclusive to propertied citizens only. what has happened now is that despite universal suffrage you control the state through capital. Your right to vote was brought to you by socialist and communist revolutionaries. You're so privileged you don't even know your own history.

Comment deleted3 days ago

What you're saying is basically "Finland being capitalist is literally as oppressive as a government that will execute or work you to death for saying anything against it and its ideology".

really?

You're wrong about pretty much everything, plain and simple.

Should have deleted this pointless sentence, waste of time

And you even try to justify USSR occupying and massacring the populations of the Baltic States.

They didn't massacre anyone, what the fuck are you even talking about. They sentenced political opponents to penal labor

And "work camps" for the "bourgeoisie"?

Yeah. That's because our society today is a work camp for us, for the profit of the bourgeoisie. It's only logical that they work for us in our state of order.

Frankly, you're one of the most dangerously deluded people I have ever come across this subreddit.

You don't even know that the history of your own nation is a history of the poor and exploited Finns being massacred and oppressed by the wealthy landowners and capitalists, many of whom are the descendants of Swedish colonizers (aristocracy).

Load more comments

I bet you are wearing an Adidas tracksuit and listening to hardbass!

see more

Nope. I'm an American-European communist. Legitimate critics exist, and in fact most of us are. Y'all are just so hurt after losing to an orange buffoon that you resurrected McCarthy to defend your pathetic selves.

Crazy!! I'm a Trump supporter who had enough of his lies and fascism. He is destroying America with his kid jails and Twitter meltdowns!!

see more

America is founded on slavery, genocide and imperialist menacing throughout the entire world. Especially attacks targeting organized labor in the entire globe.

You've got the wrong idea about the USA my friend. It never deserved anyones respect. It was founded by another class, for the purpose of serving a class you're not a member of. The American revolution was a bourgeois revolution, and you're not the bourgeoisie.

Load more comments

A two state solution is the only logical answer though. What is your plan, drive out all Isreaelis who have now lived there for almost 2 generations or in some cases far longer? That's absurd.

see more

A one state solution? Why did you even leave that out? The Jews don't have to be chased out - their bourgoeis masters do.

The South Korean Government is (historically) far more fascistic than the DPRK.

see more

You get downvotes yet the SK state is literally inherited from the Japanese colonial administration, lol.

2 points · 5 days ago · edited 5 days ago

You can help lead the proletariat to minor victories inside bourgeois politics while they are at present not ready for a complete overthrow of the ruling order.

However, it is important that while you do so you educate the proletariat in marxist ideology - this is something that reformists will never do thus they will never be able to lead the proletariat to complete the liberation movement.

Homage to Catalonia, too.

see more

Reading this at the moment. I highly recommend,

I like to stare into snipers who are scoping and block them for a few seconds before I run off... ok maybe sometimes like 10 seconds... awkward confrontations like that always make me giggle

Original Poster1 point · 6 days ago

"No. You don't seem to know what use-value is"

explain to me the use of art. explain to me the use of a painting. explain to me the use of the Mona Lisa besides being something to look at. what use does art provide that betters anyone's life? please explain the use of art besides a creative outlet and something to look at (which isn't useful whatsoever besides to that person). what do people use paintings for? to cook? to clean?

"Right, but only you would think it's worthwhile art."

sometimes, you don't know that to be the case 100%. anybody can look at anything and call it "art". anyone can look at absolutely anything and say "I like that". you never know what person would look at a cup in a bowl and say "hey this is nice art, I like it". just like you never know if anybody will like a piece of art until they do

"It has no use-value to anybody else, therefore is not social labor. "

no piece of art does. explain to me the use of a painting and explain to me what would be the difference between the use of a painting and the use of a piece of shit art like a cup in a bowl. they have the exact same use and the exact same value until someone decides they like it. you need to understand how art works

"The only value you think exists is exchange-value, however, exchange-value is based on use-value."

sure. and the question is about the abolition of capital, meaning exchange value. I don't believe exchange value is the only value, but I'll let you say that and go with it for the sake of argument. exchange value is based on use value, sure (how much would the Mona Lisa sell for and what use does it have?). explain to me please the use of art besides being something to look at

"No. Material wealth can have intrinsic use-value, which can be expended because of deterioration or consumption for example."

explain the use of art besides being something to look at

["if someone creates a piece of art and no one else likes it, then they haven't done anything and just made something that has no use"] - "Wow, it seems you've just discovered use-value, but you still are refusing to adopt that concept into your ideological thinking. That's hilarious"

and you refused to address the point I made and instead said this. explain to me the use of art besides being something to look at. please

["I think communism would defeat creativity and innovation because it advocates for producing based on what is needed"] - "Do you even realize how ridiculous this sentence sounds?"

it doesn't. if things are produced based on need, you would hardly see the technological advances we see because they wouldn't be needed. after the phone is invented, one might say "I like this invention. but it's stationary inside my house and I would like to talk to people while I'm on the go". then someone invents the cellphone. now that you have a cellphone and you can call people wherever you are as opposed to just in your house, what more do you need? hell, even making the cellphone in this scenario wouldn't be based on need, but based on want and ease. after you have the cellphone invented, there's no need to keep updating it and making into a smartphone or a touch screen phone. these upgrades are weren't needed, they were made for convenience and creativity

"In socialism the society is free to organize work and activities for artists and culture however they want. It's not hard. You have executive committees that organize for these things in your own city right now"

and I'll just let this sit here as just before you typed this, I specifically talked about "communism". yet you bring up socialism? funny, now who is confusing and conflating communism and socialism (which aren't exactly the same thing). how about let's talk about the same thing here and not strawman yeah?

see more

explain to me the use of art. explain to me the use of a painting. explain to me the use of the Mona Lisa besides being something to look at.

You use art by enjoying it, smartass. Or for decoration, which is really the same thing. You don't stare at a painting for longer than 10 minutes because that's about as much use-value as it has to the average person.

what use does art provide that betters anyone's life?

What a horrible question. Are you seriously asking what value there is to art in life? Are you a complete fool or just trolling here?

please explain the use of art besides a creative outlet and something to look at (which isn't useful whatsoever besides to that person).

You're asking me what is the use of art, and then telling me that it's useful to look at. You're a fool if you ask me.

I'm seriously so disappointed in your lack of effort and completely useless perspective and questioning, that I'm not going to even read or answer the rest of your post. If you want to ask worthless rhetorical questions, and make terrible and thoughtless suggestions such as trying to portray art as something meaningless to society then you're going to have to head over and have a great time at r/socialism_101. Good riddance.

I specifically talked about "communism". yet you bring up socialism?

Karl Marx used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably, and they still to this day very often mean or are used to describe the same thing. You're the one who clearly haven't opened a book in a while. So therefore I suggest you go study because you don't have anything to do here. A basic level of understanding of socialism is expected of people to post here, so please help yourself out and go visit r/socialism_101.

it's funny how every single person who comes here and wants to debate or criticize socialism has no idea what it is, have not studied it at all and still thinks they know everything there is to know. That for me is the epitomy of foolishness and ignorance.

Original Poster1 point · 5 days ago

"You use art by enjoying it, smartass"

HA, exactly. you have nothing.

"Or for decoration, which is really the same thing. You don't stare at a painting for longer than 10 minutes because that's about as much use-value as it has to the average person."

ironically, you prove my point exactly. you have demonstrated no use besides something to peer at. meaning it is absolutely useless

I look at stars in the sky from thousands of light years away and are most likely dead already. I look at them and they provide no use to me. precisely the same as art. I know they aren't the same and there isn't a person that makes stars, but the point is about the use-value, right. and I'm even an artist. I draw and paint very well, I love art. it just does not have a use besides something to look at, which is no use at all. the same as a car that doesn't run and is only sitting there to be something to look at

"What a horrible question. Are you seriously asking what value there is to art in life? Are you a complete fool or just trolling here?"

I'm asking how is art specifically and physically bettering anyone's life. communism is based on providing what is needed. a hammer is something that is needed and even betters a person's life (definitely more than art). a wheel is something that is "needed" and betters a person's life through its convenience. how is this the same for art? what use does it provide to better anyone's life? mostly, what use does it provide to better a person's life as opposed to literally anything else like drugs. at least drugs actually DO something.

art just sits there and whoever looks at it decides whether or not they like it. it doesn't better anyone's life AS A PRODUCT FOR USE. compared to a hammer or a wheel. I understand that art is a creative outlet, just like books or poetry. but physical art does literally nothing. art being a creative outlet does help to better people's lives, but the question is about the abolition of capital. this means that art as a creative outlet is one thing that I'm not referring to, you can create whatever you want and keep it at home and it gives the exact same use as a painting to be put in a gallery as a creative outlet. but as a PRODUCT, as something that is created for use and based on need as in a communist society. you're framing this as if I'm asking "what is the use of art right now, in our current society", rather than what the use of art would be in a communist society as my question actually is. with the abolition of capital, there is no use to art besides being something to look at or a creative outlet, which isn't the same as use based on need like hammers or wheels or whatever else would be produced in a communist society

"You're asking me what is the use of art, and then telling me that it's useful to look at. You're a fool if you ask me."

because that is not a "use". a physical, essential "use". like a hammer. both a hammer and a painting are created by someone. one can be used afterwards to put things together, take things things apart, even as a weapon for self defense. art, just something to look at and provides no use besides that. I suppose I mean "use" to the community or to society. a wheel is created then later used to put onto machines for more efficient, easier transportation. this helps society. art, does not.

Marx saw communism as the end goal and socialism as the post-capitalist immediate change that would occur. Marx believed that socialism would eventually evolve into communism

"it's funny how every single person who comes here and wants to debate or criticize socialism has no idea what it is, have not studied it at all and still thinks they know everything there is to know. That for me is the epitomy of foolishness and ignorance"

not here to criticize socialism. if you bothered to read or understand the opponent's position, you would have seen that I consider myself a social democrat. I am on the fence of becoming a Marxist.

my question is literally how would this system actually work if capital was abolished. not here to criticize socialism, instead I'm asking for a clearer explanation of how a communist system would actually function if the idea of capital and profit is abolished for a better understanding. but believe what you wish

see more
1 point · 5 days ago · edited 5 days ago

Marx saw communism as the end goal and socialism as the post-capitalist immediate change that would occur.

That was Lenin.

HA, exactly. you have nothing.

You're delusional.

art, just something to look at and provides no use besides that.

looking and appreciating art is using it. After you've enjoyed it and don't like it that much you've spent the use-value it has for you. Not very hard to grasp.

a physical, essential "use". like a hammer.

Watching and appreciating art is a physical act. You enjoying it is causes chemical activity inside your brain, quite literally. You're not outside physical reality even if you think you are or want to be.

Him - "Give me a number"

Her - "I honestly don't know, why don't you tell me"

Him - "Just give me a number"

  • "Give me a number"

  • "Just give me a number"

  • "Can you give me a number"

Holy moly was that cringe behaviour from a 50 year old.

see more

Morgan is more like that random dude at a night out that asks for a womans number again after already being rejected.

"But you didn't protest when that other guy asked, and I'm a nice guy, so why the hell are you protesting now? Lmao owned double standards"

/s

4 points · 6 days ago

Even the SPD of 1918 was more radical than today's Socialist International, which is basically just liberal.

see more

So liberal in fact that they allow a pro-occupation party to be a member of their internationale PogChamp.

Comment deleted6 days ago

It's racist to say that white folk might be ok with slavery or wage-labor? It's not even far from the truth. I'd even add to that statement and say that still to this day most white people are racists.

u/hero123123123
Karma
8,138
Cake day
July 23, 2016
Trophy Case (1)
One-Year Club

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.