Left-Wing Discussion Thread

[The New Sea Territory]

No, it's oppressive and exploitative

Okay, whats stopping a group of workers from forming their own business with no employer? Nothing.

It doesn't happen, because it doesn't work.

No, it doesn't happen because workers can't afford to start their own businesses....that's why they are workers.

[Sanctissima]

Okay, whats stopping a group of workers from forming their own business with no employer? Nothing.

It doesn't happen, because it doesn't work.

No, it doesn't happen because workers can't afford to start their own businesses....that's why they are workers.

Syndicates and trade unions do exist y'know.

I mean, they aren't exactly commonplace, but they aren't rare or non-existent either.

[Pandeeria]

No, it doesn't happen because workers can't afford to start their own businesses....that's why they are workers.

Syndicates and trade unions do exist y'know.

I mean, they aren't exactly commonplace, but they aren't rare or non-existent either.

I think it would be bette for the workers themselves to own the means of production, rather than a mass of worker unions.

[Sanctissima]

Syndicates and trade unions do exist y'know.

I mean, they aren't exactly commonplace, but they aren't rare or non-existent either.

I think it would be bette for the workers themselves to own the means of production, rather than a mass of worker unions.

If you're a Communist, then ideologically, sure.

Pragmatically though, you do need something in the meantime.

[Pandeeria]

I think it would be bette for the workers themselves to own the means of production, rather than a mass of worker unions.

If you're a Communist, then ideologically, sure.

Pragmatically though, you do need something in the meantime.

We need something to make the transition to total Socialism smooth, yes.

However, that isn't going to happen under a strictly capitalist bourgeois democracy.

[Daburuetchi]

I think it would be bette for the workers themselves to own the means of production, rather than a mass of worker unions.

If you're a Communist, then ideologically, sure.

Pragmatically though, you do need something in the meantime.

You sure as hell aren't going to get anywhere if you supplant party building with trade unionism though.

[Sanctissima]

If you're a Communist, then ideologically, sure.

Pragmatically though, you do need something in the meantime.

We need something to make the transition to total Socialism smooth, yes.

However, that isn't going to happen under a strictly capitalist bourgeois democracy.

No, but syndicates and trade unions can function as a kind of leaping platform.

You do have to start somewhere.

If you're a Communist, then ideologically, sure.

Pragmatically though, you do need something in the meantime.

You sure as hell aren't going to get anywhere if you supplant party building with trade unionism though.

And outside of the Third world, where have such parties gotten the Communist cause, exactly?

Like it or not, Social Democracy (which is part and parcel with trade unions) has been the most effective at integrating Socialist policies outside of countries where living conditions were so poor that revolutions were inevitable. Otherwise, Third Worldism is your only option.

[Daburuetchi]

And outside of the Third world, where have such parties gotten the Communist cause, exactly?

>implying that the state-capitalist dictatorships cloaked in communist garb was a gain for communism.

The "actually existing socialist movement" meme is a classic debate tactic of Stalinist anyhow.

Like it or not, Social Democracy (which is part and parcel with trade unions) has been the most effective at integrating Socialist policies outside of countries where living conditions were so poor that revolutions were inevitable. Otherwise, Third Worldism is your only option.

Lol. When in bourgeois democracy brought us closer to worker ownership of the means of production and an abolition of the wage system? The truth is as Rudolf Rocker said "participation in the politics of bourgeois states has not brought the labour movement a hair's-breadth nearer to socialism...it destroyed the belief in the necessity of socialist constructive activity"

The welfare state was created by Otto Von Bismark precisely to keep the lower classes down and it doesn't work in an age of globalized capitalism.

[Sanctissima]

And outside of the Third world, where have such parties gotten the Communist cause, exactly?

>implying that the state-capitalist dictatorships cloaked in communist garb was a gain for communism.

The "actually existing socialist movement" meme is a classic debate tactic of Stalinist anyhow.

Like it or not, Social Democracy (which is part and parcel with trade unions) has been the most effective at integrating Socialist policies outside of countries where living conditions were so poor that revolutions were inevitable. Otherwise, Third Worldism is your only option.

Lol. When in bourgeois democracy brought us closer to worker ownership of the means of production and an abolition of the wage system? The truth is as Rudolf Rocker said "participation in the politics of bourgeois states has not brought the labour movement a hair's-breadth nearer to socialism...it destroyed the belief in the necessity of socialist constructive activity"

The welfare state was created by Otto Von Bismark precisely to keep the lower classes down and it doesn't work in an age of globalized capitalism.

Yes, it's all part of the bourgeois conspiracy. You've discovered Bismarck's secret plot to pacify the proletariat, whatever shall we do now.

Really, if you're fine with the whole armchair Communist schtick, go for it. By all means, criticize the only people who have actually managed to implement any of your ideology's policies in the Western world. I don't mind, since Communists bickering amongst themselves has certainly done its part to keep your ideology from ever flourishing in the long term. Marx would be ever so proud.

[Pandeeria]

>implying that the state-capitalist dictatorships cloaked in communist garb was a gain for communism.

The "actually existing socialist movement" meme is a classic debate tactic of Stalinist anyhow.



Lol. When in bourgeois democracy brought us closer to worker ownership of the means of production and an abolition of the wage system? The truth is as Rudolf Rocker said "participation in the politics of bourgeois states has not brought the labour movement a hair's-breadth nearer to socialism...it destroyed the belief in the necessity of socialist constructive activity"

The welfare state was created by Otto Von Bismark precisely to keep the lower classes down and it doesn't work in an age of globalized capitalism.

Yes, it's all part of the bourgeois conspiracy. You've discovered Bismarck's secret plot to pacify the proletariat, whatever shall we do now.

Really, if you're fine with the whole armchair Communist schtick, go for it. By all means, criticize the only people who have actually managed to implement any of your ideology's policies in the Western world. I don't mind, since Communists bickering amongst themselves has certainly done its part to keep your ideology from ever flourishing in the long term. Marx would be ever so proud.

You know Socialism is the workers owning the means of production, right? It's not fucking universal healthcare or free college.

[The United States of the South Pole]

What does LWDT think of Syndicalism? I don't fully support nor understand it, but so far it seems like a pretty good compromise between Right Populists and Progressive Socialists.
-Constitutional
-Low as hell taxes
-Abolishment of Corrupt Crony Capitalism
-Guaranteed Economic Nationalism and Green Economics
-Reasonable Worker's rights decided by the workers collectively
-Socially Libertarian, You're your own person outside of work
-Direct Democracy in Trade Unions at worst leads to getting fired, While Direct Democracy in government leads to getting gulaged.

[Sanctissima]

Yes, it's all part of the bourgeois conspiracy. You've discovered Bismarck's secret plot to pacify the proletariat, whatever shall we do now.

Really, if you're fine with the whole armchair Communist schtick, go for it. By all means, criticize the only people who have actually managed to implement any of your ideology's policies in the Western world. I don't mind, since Communists bickering amongst themselves has certainly done its part to keep your ideology from ever flourishing in the long term. Marx would be ever so proud.

You know Socialism is the workers owning the means of production, right? It's not fucking universal healthcare or free college.

That's not the end-all-be-all of Socialism, it's only part of it. The ideology itself is meant as an intermediary way to Communism. Sure, Social Democracy isn't quite the same thing, but even Marx made it quite clear you need some kind of capitalist system to make transitioning to Communism possible.

[Pandeeria]

You know Socialism is the workers owning the means of production, right? It's not fucking universal healthcare or free college.

That's not the end-all-be-all of Socialism, it's only part of it. The ideology itself is meant as an intermediary way to Communism. Sure, Social Democracy isn't quite the same thing, but even Marx made it quite clear you need some kind of capitalist system to make transitioning to Communism possible.

The closet to capitalist you can come is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Capitalism is to be smashed, transitioning over is not on the agenda.

[Daburuetchi]

Yes, it's all part of the bourgeois conspiracy. You've discovered Bismarck's secret plot to pacify the proletariat, whatever shall we do now.

A great way to take away from the fact that even Paul Krugman acknowledges the purpose of the welfare state

Really, if you're fine with the whole armchair Communist schtick, go for it. By all means, criticize the only people who have actually managed to implement any of your ideology's policies in the Western world. I don't mind, since Communists bickering amongst themselves has certainly done its part to keep your ideology from ever flourishing in the long term. Marx would be ever so proud.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bfclQIrqC68/U ... plague.png

Also I seem to remember Karl Marx stating "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." So you should bloviate about him being an armchairist.

[Sanctissima]

That's not the end-all-be-all of Socialism, it's only part of it. The ideology itself is meant as an intermediary way to Communism. Sure, Social Democracy isn't quite the same thing, but even Marx made it quite clear you need some kind of capitalist system to make transitioning to Communism possible.

The closet to capitalist you can come is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Capitalism is to be smashed, transitioning over is not on the agenda.

Then you're evidently not a Marxist.

[Daburuetchi]

What does LWDT think of Syndicalism? I don't fully support nor understand it, but so far it seems like a pretty good compromise between Right Populists and Progressive Socialists.
-Constitutional
-Low as hell taxes
-Abolishment of Corrupt Crony Capitalism
-Guaranteed Economic Nationalism and Green Economics
-Reasonable Worker's rights decided by the workers collectively
-Socially Libertarian, You're your own person outside of work
-Direct Democracy in Trade Unions at worst leads to getting fired, While Direct Democracy in government leads to getting gulaged.

It's literally trade union fetishism. It's no secret that trade unions are made up of a labor elite that tend to back the bourgeois establishment.

[Sanctissima]

Yes, it's all part of the bourgeois conspiracy. You've discovered Bismarck's secret plot to pacify the proletariat, whatever shall we do now.

A great way to take away from the fact that even Paul Krugman acknowledges the purpose of the welfare state

Really, if you're fine with the whole armchair Communist schtick, go for it. By all means, criticize the only people who have actually managed to implement any of your ideology's policies in the Western world. I don't mind, since Communists bickering amongst themselves has certainly done its part to keep your ideology from ever flourishing in the long term. Marx would be ever so proud.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bfclQIrqC68/U ... plague.png

Also I seem to remember Karl Marx stating "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." So you should bloviate about him being an armchairist.

Well, considering how most of his life was spent mooching off of Engels...

[Daburuetchi]

Well, considering how most of his life was spent mooching off of Engels...

K E K
E
K

I'd like to see you co-found a new field of study (sociology).

[Pandeeria]

The closet to capitalist you can come is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Capitalism is to be smashed, transitioning over is not on the agenda.

Then you're evidently not a Marxist.

Clearly not then, who would've guessed?

[Pandeeria]

Well, considering how most of his life was spent mooching off of Engels...

That's not the end-all-be-all of Socialism, it's only part of it.

Go post in r/shitliberalssay

They'd love you there. Well not you, but the shit you say.

[Daburuetchi]

Well, considering how most of his life was spent mooching off of Engels...

That's not the end-all-be-all of Socialism, it's only part of it.

Go post in r/shitliberalssay

They'd love you there. Well not you, but the shit you say.

Eck. You unironically visit that tankie subreddit?

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

That's not the end-all-be-all of Socialism, it's only part of it. The ideology itself is meant as an intermediary way to Communism. Sure, Social Democracy isn't quite the same thing, but even Marx made it quite clear you need some kind of capitalist system to make transitioning to Communism possible.

Marx was more talking about economic development, not the integration of capitalism into the ideology. Socialism is difficult to foster in an agrarian mode of living, for example, because such systems tend to be dominated by smallholder farmers that live on subsistence agriculture, and with a class of large landowners on top of that. Capitalist modes of production were necessary since they moved workers together into factories, providing the conditions for the collectivization of the means of production.

[Pandeeria]

Go post in r/shitliberalssay

They'd love you there. Well not you, but the shit you say.

Eck. You unironically visit that tankie subreddit?

It's probably one of the greatest subreddits ever. Now if you want to talk about tankie subreddits, go to the shit stain formally known as r/Communism

It makes me puke a little every time I go there to see how horribly the Revolution has been betrayed.

[The Dragon Realms Empire]

You know Socialism is the workers owning the means of production, right? It's not fucking universal healthcare or free college.

That's not the end-all-be-all of Socialism, it's only part of it. The ideology itself is meant as an intermediary way to Communism. Sure, Social Democracy isn't quite the same thing, but even Marx made it quite clear you need some kind of capitalist system to make transitioning to Communism possible.

Marx didn't "invent" socialism, just made a new interpretation of it, the term predates him.

What counts as socialism and what doesn't should be divided into five categories
1. Potential forms of socialism
2. Possible forms of socialism (Debatable)
3. Movements related to but not actually socialism
4. Movements not related to socialism but get mistaken for socialism
5. Movements not related to socialism that are obviously not socialist.]

I'd like to see someone make a list of ideologies/systems/theories based on those five categories.

[Mattopilos]

That's not the end-all-be-all of Socialism, it's only part of it. The ideology itself is meant as an intermediary way to Communism. Sure, Social Democracy isn't quite the same thing, but even Marx made it quite clear you need some kind of capitalist system to make transitioning to Communism possible.

Marx didn't "invent" socialism, just made a new interpretation of it, the term predates him.

What counts as socialism and what doesn't should be divided into five categories
1. Potential forms of socialism
2. Possible forms of socialism (Debatable)
3. Movements related to but not actually socialism
4. Movements not related to socialism but get mistaken for socialism
5. Movements not related to socialism that are obviously not socialist.]

I'd like to see someone make a list of ideologies/systems/theories based on those five categories.

1: Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, Anarcho-communism etc. (these could also be placed in 2., since the groups are quite similar).
3. Stalinism, Maoism (Don't have all components of socialism). Democratic socialism is this or 2.
4. National Socialism, Social Democracy
5. Not too sure here. Maybe when people compare communism to Fascism?