LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[United Muscovite Nations]

I don't even remember when the last time a LWDT'er posted on the RWDT.

Kowani posts often.

I would consider him more of an RWDT'er tbh since that seems to be his main thread.

[Napkizemlja]

I don't even remember when the last time a LWDT'er posted on the RWDT.

I haven't posted in the RWDT to any serious degree in nearly a year now. The cries of hypocrisy levied toward me hold no weight whatsoever.

Either way, it's extremely satisfying to see that my point's being proven simply by calling out certain behaviors. :3

Yeah I'm well known for posting on the LWDT.

[Hanafuridake]

I feel like too many people drink the Trotsky koolaid and think Stalin was a charlatan or crypto-fascist who didn't actually believe in Marxism and only desired power for himself. Stalin was an extremely complex man (not the lifeless bureaucrat Trotsky painted him as) who vacillated between warm friendliness and ruthless brutality. He believed more than anything that he was creating the basis for a new socialist society and most of his tactics were used by Lenin and Trotsky as well. I don't see how anyone could believe the Bolsheviks were "tainted" by Stalin when they murdered a whole family years before Stalin even took power. He was the logical conclusion of Bolshevik tactics in the Civil War.

[Cappuccina]

Torr.

Torr.

It kind of undermines your argument that Torra is petty when you can't even call her "Torra" out of a desire to spite her within the rules.

Isn't that reading a little too much into that?

[The East Marches II]

Yes, I’m sure you hate it when you get more people to snark at, Torr. It’s why you’re basically asking for them to come into the thread, to argue with you about a country very few people on NS care about. I’ll remember this little pity-party line the next time you start a fight in RWDT.

The RWDT just comes here to stir up trouble, no one invites them lol

Sounds like this open borders business is leading to fascist infiltration, can I interest you in a wall Genosse?

[Torrocca]

It kind of undermines your argument that Torra is petty when you can't even call her "Torra" out of a desire to spite her within the rules.

Isn't that reading a little too much into that?

Nah, a good number of RWDTers (not all of them of course, quite a good few are still incredibly fantastic despite their rather... disagreeable politics, to put it lightly) have been pulling this hilariously petty shit since I came out tbqh, though I can forgive Nap for not knowing on that one tbh.

[Napkizemlja]

Isn't that reading a little too much into that?

Nah, a good number of RWDTers (not all of them of course, quite a good few are still incredibly fantastic despite their rather... disagreeable politics, to put it lightly) have been pulling this hilariously petty shit since I came out tbqh, though I can forgive Nap for not knowing on that one tbh.

Yeah I just found out that you didn't like being called that.

[Torrocca]

Nah, a good number of RWDTers (not all of them of course, quite a good few are still incredibly fantastic despite their rather... disagreeable politics, to put it lightly) have been pulling this hilariously petty shit since I came out tbqh, though I can forgive Nap for not knowing on that one tbh.

Yeah I just found out that you didn't like being called that.

I mean, the only people who really call me that anymore are the ones with the pettiest of petty gripes toward me, so there's a perfectly valid reason to that. But no worries, you're all good :3

[Italios]

The RWDT just comes here to stir up trouble, no one invites them lol

Sounds like this open borders business is leading to fascist infiltration, can I interest you in a wall Genosse?

am i bugging or shouldn't you be dead? like seriously how are you still here in 2019

[Proctopeo]

Torr.

Torr.

It kind of undermines your argument that Torra is petty when you can't even call her "Torra" out of a desire to spite her within the rules.

It's the same as people calling me "Proct".
As in, it really doesn't matter and it's not that deep fam.

[Cappuccina]

It kind of undermines your argument that Torra is petty when you can't even call her "Torra" out of a desire to spite her within the rules.

It's the same as people calling me "Proct".
As in, it really doesn't matter and it's not that deep fam.

I mean yeah, it isn't that deep, but at the same time it's rather childish to continue to call someone a name they've requested people not use to refer to them.

[Luminesa]

Torr.

Torr.

It kind of undermines your argument that Torra is petty when you can't even call her "Torra" out of a desire to spite her within the rules.

I didn’t know Torrocca didn’t like to be called Torr. It doesn’t denote anything about gender, it’s literally their username. Some people call me Lum instead of Lumi, which sounds more feminine. They don’t call me Lum to say I’m not feminine. Geez Louise.

Edit: Well, I see they added it to their sig. I guess it’s a big deal then? Does that mean Torr is a deadname? But it’s still a shortening of Torrocca. I’m so confused.

[Cekoviu]

It kind of undermines your argument that Torra is petty when you can't even call her "Torra" out of a desire to spite her within the rules.

It's the same as people calling me "Proct".
As in, it really doesn't matter and it's not that deep fam.

You also don't say in brightly-colored letters thst you want to be called Procta.

[Luminesa]

It's the same as people calling me "Proct".
As in, it really doesn't matter and it's not that deep fam.

You also don't say in brightly-colored letters thst you want to be called Procta.

Well sure, but Torrocca even after coming-out has never lashed-out about being called Torr. I guess I can do it if it’s going to keep this thread from derailing into the “Please Pay Attention to Torrocca” thread.

[Cappuccina]

It's the same as people calling me "Proct".
As in, it really doesn't matter and it's not that deep fam.

You also don't say in brightly-colored letters thst you want to be called Procta.

Both ways it's pretty ridiculous, imo. Yeah, the people using "Torr" would be annoying, but the fact it seemingly bothers her so much is also kinda thin skinned. It's a single letter difference......

[Torrocca]

You also don't say in brightly-colored letters thst you want to be called Procta.

Both ways it's pretty ridiculous, imo. Yeah, the people using "Torr" would be annoying, but the fact it seemingly bothers her so much is also kinda thin skinned. It's a single letter difference......

I mean, I put it there, like, right as I came out. Then everyone had no problem with it for at least a little bit, then some certain people decided to be ridiculously petty because I got under their skins for being ideologically opposed to them.

[Cappuccina]

Both ways it's pretty ridiculous, imo. Yeah, the people using "Torr" would be annoying, but the fact it seemingly bothers her so much is also kinda thin skinned. It's a single letter difference......

I mean, I put it there, like, right as I came out. Then everyone had no problem with it for at least a little bit, then some certain people decided to be ridiculously petty because I got under their skins for being ideologically opposed to them.

That's people in a nutshell, pettiness and ignorance in abundance. Users put to much stock in their internet squabbling.

Anyway, can we please change the topic. Let's say, talk about actual leftist things like idk, socialism?

I tend to agree with Hana's earlier post about Stalin and the other Marxist-Leninist figures. I think that they honestly did think they were doing right by socialism, but of course theory differs from what works in reality.

[Torrocca]

I mean, I put it there, like, right as I came out. Then everyone had no problem with it for at least a little bit, then some certain people decided to be ridiculously petty because I got under their skins for being ideologically opposed to them.

That's people in a nutshell, pettiness and ignorance in abundance. Users put to much stock in their internet squabbling.

Like, if you wanna get a scale of just how outrageously petty this shit actually is, some of these people deliberately went from calling me Torr, which, y'know, people on NSG defaulted to for a long while, to referring to me as Tor (as in the fucking internet browser lmao) shortly after I came out and put simple preferences in my signature, and then some even said they respected me while they were doing that (and of course I got bombarded with a multi-page shitflinging contest when I questioned those statements). And that last bit's kinda why I don't even fucking try to talk about how stupidly petty this shit is tbqh, because I'm tired of getting dogpiled by right-wingers for the mere crime of existing.

But, meh, it's whatever. This thread's not about me or whatever, so this can be dropped, I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anyway, can we please change the topic. Let's say, talk about actual leftist things like idk, socialism?

I tend to agree with Hana's earlier post about Stalin and the other Marxist-Leninist figures. I think that they honestly did think they were doing right by socialism, but of course theory differs from what works in reality.

That shit's the reason I tend to denounce their movements wholesale tbqh. Yeah, sure, they may very well have been truly believing in a Socialist cause, maybe, as much as I personally doubt it, but their actions speak far louder than their thoughts.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

You could infer as much from what I said. The problem consists in considering the circumstances I described as the end goal rather than as a means to an end.

Fair. Four years of a Bernie presidency is not Socialism, and I don't really think anyone who is remotely informed/honest would disagree.

Also, you probably already explained this to me, but what does "true Socialism" entail? You've told me in the past that Socialism is the negation Capitalism, but what is the definition of Capitalism, what exactly is Socialism a negation of? Private property? Trade? The profit motive? The value form? (I don't even know what the value form means, please help).

You are asking several things of me at once, so I will do it piece-wise, to the best of my own ability.

1) As an object that satisfies a human need or want. Looking at it this way is through its physical, tangible, or otherwise observable form, as regards how it can be consumed or used by people for some end. This the natural form of the commodity. For example a chair: it is (often) made of wood, you can use it to sit on, to rest, etc. We may call this a "use-value", expressing its function or utility for human beings.

2) As an object of symbolic and socially-constructed "economic value", i.e. "what it's worth" or "what you can get for it". This part is not directly observable, but expressed relatively through comparing and relating with other goods (what was the amount of labor required to make it, how much are people willing to trade for it, etc.). As Wikipedia succinctly puts it: "the social form of a tradeable thing as a symbol of value". Additionally, Marx refers to the money-form as "[the] fully developed shape [of the value-form]".

So, as far as my own understanding goes, the "form of value", or value-form, refers to that aspect of a good's worth that comes from its social character (as a thing to be traded). Value is, in Marx' analysis, expressed through what he calls "exchange value" - i.e. what amount of commodity "B" can a commodity "A" be traded for. Strictly speaking money need not be involved, although as you no doubt understand, the usefulness of money comes from its character as a medium of exchange (enabling more indirect forms of exchange). The value-form is not equivalent to exchange-value, but is expressed through it.

So if that is the value form, and Socialism is the abolition of the value form, is Socialism the abolition of any social constructed value, or is it only the abolution of Capitalist style exchange based value?

Well, the capitalist mode of production (way of producing) is in the shortest form expressed as generalized (or universalized) commodity production. Under capitalism, commodities are produced for their exchange value, for being sold; this means the primacy of the value-form discussed earlier. This universality of commodification is central. Indeed, Marx refers to the commodity as "the economic cell-form of bourgeois society", and we may say that it is this condition which binds the other criteria together.

Under capitalism the means of production are owned and controlled by the capitalist class, either as atomized individuals and smaller collectives (stock ownership), or a state acting as the universal capitalist, undertaking the same functions as a huge nationwide corporation. This means the vast non-owning class, the proletariat, must sell their labor power to the capitalist in order to earn a living. Thus, under capitalism, labor power is commodified too, and most people engage in wage labour.

The overall aim of capitalist production is the maximization of profits, capital accumulation (making money, reinvesting it to make more money). In short, the profit motive. It is through the sale of commodities that the capitalist becomes able to appropriate the surplus value produced by the workers he employs. This ties into the idea of exploitation; the laborer is able to produce above and beyond what is necessary to sustain his own living and reproduction. Said differently, the worker can produce more value than what his own wage and upkeep amounts to on the part of the capitalist. Imagine being hired for $15 an hour; each hour you produce some good or service which amounts to $100. The capitalist appropriates this difference, the surplus value, for his own gain. Obviously, some of it spent on maintenance, upkeep, insurance (in response to accidents, depreciation of assets; a necessity to enable continued production). In any case, the capitalist has accumulated capital through the extraction of the surplus value which you, and other employees, have produced.

You can also conceive of what is said in the above paragraph on a macro-scale, where the totality of society is able to produce more than what is necessary to sustain its continued existence, enabling a surplus (under capitalism, surplus value). Under capitalism a large part of this surplus is privately appropriated; taxes, redistribution of wealth, etc. are thus a way of redistributing and reinvesting some of this surplus back into the society which produced it, without changing the fundamental mechanism at play.

There are other facets of capitalism, other things to describe, but this should hopefully capture the very essence of the system.

I sort of understand that. But what determines who is the "capitalist class" and who isn't if both the state and atomized individuals can be the capitalist class?

And if capitalism is defined by commodities being produced for their exchange value, and the capitalist value form is exchange value, is that the reason that Socialism requires the abolition of the value form?

Socialism, then, is the abolition of the value-form and the system of commodity production built around it, the abolition of production for profit, the abolition of the class system dividing people into capitalists, workers and the other lesser classes. It is the classless system of production for use, where the means of production and distribution have been brought under common ownership and management. The means of production no longer dominates the producer as an alien power to which they are but the servant, instead it becomes the natural extension of their own self. Production for use entails production carried out, not for exchange, not for sale on the market, but according to a common plan to directly allocate products based on their use-value; in short, production is carried out to directly serve societal needs, human needs.

Doesn't all production require profit? Because all sustainable production requires you to get more out than what you put in. That is what I understood profit to mean in essence. Unless, it is the abolition of production for exchange value profit?

Apologies for the time taken to respond, but I have many things to attend to these days. Studying is demanding.

Don't worry. Sorry for taking so long to respond, myself. I don't really have an excuse other than laziness and lack of focus to be honest.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I feel like too many people drink the Trotsky koolaid and think Stalin was a charlatan or crypto-fascist who didn't actually believe in Marxism and only desired power for himself. Stalin was an extremely complex man (not the lifeless bureaucrat Trotsky painted him as) who vacillated between warm friendliness and ruthless brutality. He believed more than anything that he was creating the basis for a new socialist society and most of his tactics were used by Lenin and Trotsky as well. I don't see how anyone could believe the Bolsheviks were "tainted" by Stalin when they murdered a whole family years before Stalin even took power. He was the logical conclusion of Bolshevik tactics in the Civil War.

If I recall correctly, Stalin was seen by many other members of the Bolsheviks as brutish and unprincipled, he was appointed as a bureaucrat after the revolution and used that position to advantage himself, on his death bed Lenin said that Trotsky was to be the next leader and Stalin was to be demoted or fired, but Stalin used his position to suppress that order and make Trotsky look bad, and eventually as leader Stalin killed almost all of the original Bolshevik party members. I don't know how much of that is accurate or how much is just Troskyite propaganda or what have you, but if it's true, Stalin is a pretty big Charlatan, imo.

[Torrocca]

Hey, so, holy shit, I only just learned this BUT, the Zapatista movement grew even larger in August this year, expanding into eleven new territories, with the blessings of President Obrador! This shit's genuinely awesome, and I'm legitimately glad to see that the currently left-leaning Mexican government is actually being supportive of such a movement. This is exciting news, all in all. :3

Now's an awesome time to celebrate with songs from the Zapatistas o/

[Cappuccina]

That's people in a nutshell, pettiness and ignorance in abundance. Users put to much stock in their internet squabbling.

Like, if you wanna get a scale of just how outrageously petty this shit actually is, some of these people deliberately went from calling me Torr, which, y'know, people on NSG defaulted to for a long while, to referring to me as Tor (as in the fucking internet browser lmao) shortly after I came out and put simple preferences in my signature, and then some even said they respected me while they were doing that (and of course I got bombarded with a multi-page shitflinging contest when I questioned those statements). And that last bit's kinda why I don't even fucking try to talk about how stupidly petty this shit is tbqh, because I'm tired of getting dogpiled by right-wingers for the mere crime of existing.

But, meh, it's whatever. This thread's not about me or whatever, so this can be dropped, I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anyway, can we please change the topic. Let's say, talk about actual leftist things like idk, socialism?

I tend to agree with Hana's earlier post about Stalin and the other Marxist-Leninist figures. I think that they honestly did think they were doing right by socialism, but of course theory differs from what works in reality.

That shit's the reason I tend to denounce their movements wholesale tbqh. Yeah, sure, they may very well have been truly believing in a Socialist cause, maybe, as much as I personally doubt it, but their actions speak far louder than their thoughts.

I strongly disagree with many aspects of their policy decisions, but to say they didn't believe their choices were either preserving the cause or progression to communism, is rather presumptive. Nonetheless, I do view their regimes to have been terrible, because they failed to realize the ineffectiveness of their path.

[Luminesa]

Both ways it's pretty ridiculous, imo. Yeah, the people using "Torr" would be annoying, but the fact it seemingly bothers her so much is also kinda thin skinned. It's a single letter difference......

I mean, I put it there, like, right as I came out. Then everyone had no problem with it for at least a little bit, then some certain people decided to be ridiculously petty because I got under their skins for being ideologically opposed to them.

I honestly did it out of habit. I don’t have a problem calling you Torra. I think Procto and Nap did it out of habit as well.

[Genivaria]

I mean it goes both ways fam.

I don't even remember when the last time a LWDT'er posted on the RWDT.

I post there all the time.

[Luminesa]

Yes, I’m sure you hate it when you get more people to snark at, Torr. It’s why you’re basically asking for them to come into the thread, to argue with you about a country very few people on NS care about. I’ll remember this little pity-party line the next time you start a fight in RWDT.

The RWDT just comes here to stir up trouble, no one invites them lol

No one really invites anyone to either thread. There’s been fights between left and right-wingers in both of them.