LWDT IX: Discussing the Left From All Engels

[Novus America]

I love the whole “democracy only as long as they vote how I want, otherwise crush them”.
That is not how it works.

[Cekoviu]

I love the whole “democracy only as long as they vote how I want, otherwise crush them”.
That is not how it works.

This is why we should avoid any pretense of free democracy altogether. Just makes it easier.

[Rusozak]

I love the whole “democracy only as long as they vote how I want, otherwise crush them”.
That is not how it works.

It's just to give the illusion of freedom. You're free, so long as you agree with us and do what we say. Otherwise you're a... what do they love to say? "Disloyal counter-revolutionary."

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1jDA5uWsAEJv_E.jpg

[Dominioan]

I love the whole “democracy only as long as they vote how I want, otherwise crush them”.
That is not how it works.

"You can vote for whoever you like as long as its me!"

[Byeclase]

Uhhhh, you know that passage from 18th brumaire?
Marx, um, he isn't saying that's a good thing. That's kind of central to the whole "then as farce" bit.

He's using examples of the Roman republic and then of the French (not red) bourgeois revolutionary figures to indicate that they inherit those past "spirits". It isn't bad or good, just a mere description that they inherit from the past upon doing it. Of course we don't start in a "blank state" of history too, and the bourgeois revolutionary have to serve from those old figures.

When we think about this conjuring up of the dead of world history, a salient difference reveals itself. Camille Desmoulins, Danton, Robespierre, St. Just, Napoleon, the heroes as well as the parties and the masses of the old French Revolution, performed the task of their time – that of unchaining and establishing modern bourgeois society – in Roman costumes and with Roman phrases. The first one destroyed the feudal foundation and cut off the feudal heads that had grown on it.

Now, he talks about parody and self-deception (and as you say, as a farce); of course, but they're bourgeois revolutions, not proletarian ones, and the leap is from feudalism to capitalism.

But unheroic though bourgeois society is, it nevertheless needed heroism, sacrifice, terror, civil war, and national wars to bring it into being. And in the austere classical traditions of the Roman Republic the bourgeois gladiators found the ideals and the art forms, the self-deceptions, that they needed to conceal from themselves the bourgeois-limited content of their struggles and to keep their passion on the high plane of great historic tragedy. Similarly, at another stage of development a century earlier, Cromwell and the English people had borrowed from the Old Testament the speech, emotions, and illusions for their bourgeois revolution. When the real goal had been achieved and the bourgeois transformation of English society had been accomplished, Locke supplanted Habakkuk.

The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot take its poetry from the past but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped away all superstition about the past. The former revolutions required recollections of past world history in order to smother their own content. The revolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead in order to arrive at its own content. There the phrase went beyond the content – here the content goes beyond the phrase.

Now, since the defense of revolutionary figures implies a correct scientific line, it has nothing to do with the bourgeois self-deception; even more, the other tendencies are getting bourgeois liberal concepts like "totalitarian" and they make up these myths. Yet we don't start in a blank state and we take the errors of the past and successes of the past. If socialism is achieved with the line a new culture can be born and as it advances material conditions change and with it culture too.
So that's what I wanted to indicate, that we don't start in a blank state, when we are born there's already a legacy and struggle in lines.

I love the whole “democracy only as long as they vote how I want, otherwise crush them”.
That is not how it works.

I agree, that's why I consider liberal democracy in capitalism a farce.

[Novus America]

I expected this, Stalinists are generally quite predictable.
You make the argument that just because some liberal democracies (yes they are not perfect democracies) occasionally ban certain extremist parties (but not all do) that they are not real democracies.

Which would be fine if you admitted you thought democracy as a concept is impossible or bad, but when you defend one party regimes that have even less choice as being more democratic than places that allow far more choice and ideological diversity you contradict yourself.

Whataboutism is again not a defense, but an admission of guilt.
Saying “you are bad too” actually just admits you are bad.

The flaws in Spanish elections do not make Stalinist (one party and generally one candidate) “elections” somehow better.

[Byeclase]

I expected this, Stalinists are generally quite predictable.
You make the argument that just because some liberal democracies (yes they are not perfect democracies) occasionally ban certain extremist parties (but not all do) that they are not real democracies.

Which would be fine if you admitted you thought democracy as a concept is impossible or bad, but when you defend one party regimes that have even less choice as being more democratic than places that allow far more choice and ideological diversity you contradict yourself.

Whataboutism is again not a defense, but an admission of guilt.
Saying “you are bad too” actually just admits you are bad.

The flaws in Spanish elections do not make Stalinist (one party and generally one candidate) “elections” somehow better.

I didn't. I say soviet democracy is democratic, it's not whataboutism. They have elections and one party was a natural development of socialist society getting rid of terrorists, the unity in the civil war and against bourgeois remnants, not something which is to be imposed as ideal.

In capitalist liberal democracies:
1. The people don't have time to educate themselves politically, mass exploitation and sick hours of work.
2. They're deceived by the mass media controlled by bourgeois who have business interests against socialism.
3. Far-left formations which threat the order are repressed, even secretly and with farces. They let those which aren't harmful and serve for their democratic mask of legitimacy.
4. The bourgeoisie can make parties rise and fall down with their money.
5. Academia is infected with liberal, trot. and rightist lies.
6. Ideological diversity is a farce when you can choose capitalism A or capitalism B.

There's is dictatorship of capital or there is dictatorship of the proletariat. And if you choose the second we have to overthrow this system, elections just serve as a voice for the ideas so more people can achieve consciousness, nothing more. The bourgeoisie has always retaliated and supported the reaction against upcoming socialists with violence. Although it's true a bourgeoisie may displace another one more reactionary (like Castroism and some struggles for national liberation).

[Novus America]

I expected this, Stalinists are generally quite predictable.
You make the argument that just because some liberal democracies (yes they are not perfect democracies) occasionally ban certain extremist parties (but not all do) that they are not real democracies.

Which would be fine if you admitted you thought democracy as a concept is impossible or bad, but when you defend one party regimes that have even less choice as being more democratic than places that allow far more choice and ideological diversity you contradict yourself.

Whataboutism is again not a defense, but an admission of guilt.
Saying “you are bad too” actually just admits you are bad.

The flaws in Spanish elections do not make Stalinist (one party and generally one candidate) “elections” somehow better.

I didn't. I say soviet democracy is democratic, it's not whataboutism. They have elections and one party was a natural development of socialist society getting rid of terrorists, the unity in the civil war and against bourgeois remnants, not something which is to be imposed as ideal.

In capitalist liberal democracies:
1. The people don't have time to educate themselves politically, mass exploitation and sick hours of work.
2. They're deceived by the mass media controlled by bourgeois who have business interests against socialism.
3. Far-left formations which threat the order are repressed, even secretly and with farces. They let those which aren't harmful and serve for their democratic mask of legitimacy.
4. The bourgeoisie can make parties rise and fall down with their money.
5. Academia is infected with liberal, trot. and rightist lies.
6. Ideological diversity is a farce when you can choose capitalism A or capitalism B.

There's is dictatorship of capital or there is dictatorship of the proletariat. And if you choose the second we have to overthrow this system, elections just serve as a voice for the ideas so more people can achieve consciousness, nothing more. The bourgeoisie has always retaliated and supported the reaction against upcoming socialists with violence. Although it's true a bourgeoisie may displace another one more reactionary (like Castroism and some struggles for national liberation).

One party, one candidate elections are not remotely democratic. It is simply vote as I tell you to vote. All the cliches you dumped in do not change that.
Only allowing people to vote when they vote how you want is not democracy.

Also heard of the Stakhanovite movement? Very Long hours of work were common on the Soviet system. Though I guess that is not a “problem” from the perspective of not being able to vote from an educated standpoint, as the workers in the Soviets system has very little say, only the upper level party members did (who where not workers).

But you just repeat you point, you only think people who agree with you should be allowed to vote.

[Byeclase]

One party, one candidate elections are not remotely democratic. It is simply vote as I tell you to vote. All the cliches you dumped in do not change that.
Only allowing people to vote when they vote how you want is not democracy.

Also heard of the Stakhanovite movement? Very Long hours of work were common on the Soviet system. Though I guess that is not a “problem” from the perspective of not being able to vote from an educated standpoint, as the workers in the Soviets system has very little say, only the upper level party members did (who where not workers).

But you just repeat you point, you only think people who agree with you should be allowed to vote.

I've heard of it, it was already mentioned in previous pages. A nice movement to boost productivity and industrialize the country, very good to arm the Soviet Union in WW2. And all this was voluntary, not forced, and they paid a lot more with extra hours, so nice false equivalence.
The rest of the post, just keep making up stuff again like always, it shows how honest you are here.

[Novus America]

One party, one candidate elections are not remotely democratic. It is simply vote as I tell you to vote. All the cliches you dumped in do not change that.
Only allowing people to vote when they vote how you want is not democracy.

Also heard of the Stakhanovite movement? Very Long hours of work were common on the Soviet system. Though I guess that is not a “problem” from the perspective of not being able to vote from an educated standpoint, as the workers in the Soviets system has very little say, only the upper level party members did (who where not workers).

But you just repeat you point, you only think people who agree with you should be allowed to vote.

I've heard of it, it was already mentioned in previous pages. A nice movement to boost productivity and industrialize the country, very good to arm the Soviet Union in WW2. And all this was voluntary, not forced, and they paid a lot more with extra hours, so nice false equivalence.
The rest of the post, just keep making up stuff again like always, it shows how honest you are here.

Productivity is value produced/man hours. Increasing hours worked does not increase productivity.
It usually actually DECREASES productivity.
And how voluntary it was (given not working hard enough was an offense and the lack of legal protections) is very questionable.
Point is the average worker in the Soviet Union would not necessarily have more time to study the political issues, not that their vote mattered anyways.

And it is not a lie. Answer. Should “Trots” and “capitalists” be allowed to freely vote?
If no you are saying they should not be allowed to vote because you disagree with their politics.
Period.

Explaining why you think their politics bad is irrelevant.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've heard of it, it was already mentioned in previous pages. A nice movement to boost productivity and industrialize the country, very good to arm the Soviet Union in WW2. And all this was voluntary, not forced, and they paid a lot more with extra hours, so nice false equivalence.
The rest of the post, just keep making up stuff again like always, it shows how honest you are here.

Productivity is value produced/man hours. Increasing hours worked does not increase productivity.
It usually actually DECREASES productivity.
And how voluntary it was (given not working hard enough was an offense and the lack of legal protections) is very questionable.
Point is the average worker in the Soviet Union would not necessarily have more time to study the political issues, not that their vote mattered anyways.

And it is not a lie. Answer. Should “Trots” and “capitalists” be allowed to freely vote?
If no you are saying they should not be allowed to vote because you disagree with their politics.
Period.

Explaining why you think their politics bad is irrelevant.

I'm not so sure they did ban people from voting in the soviet union. They banned them from running for office.

Also, Soviet democracy was often people voting for one candidate, or declining to vote for them. Superficially pointless, but it did allow the state to gauge satisfaction ratings and potential problems on the horizon, as the votes were also public (not secret) and so if someone is willing to openly vote against the communist candidate, they might be willing to revolt. It's worth noting that this was not some rare thing either, some areas consistently had relatively high levels of voting against the candidate and it was indeed used to focus resources into finding out why and even redressing problems. Sometimes this was even used as propaganda, like "This region used to only support communism by 60%, now it does so by 96% after we've listened to their material concerns and addressed them. Communism works!".

Sometimes, where it was related to the candidate specifically (He's an obnoxious, abusive, embezzler), it would lead to the state de-selecting them. Sometimes, where it was related to local grievances ("We need more housing and he hasn't done anything"), it would likewise see resolution which is why people put up with this system.

But yes. Where it was ideological "Oh, I don't like communism", that would be tolerated on an individual level. But when a town has like 30% of people replying that way, suddenly, it's gulag time and the town is the centre of a conspiracy, let's round up a bunch of people.

So there's a bit more complexity than banning them from voting.

From the soviet perspective, they're allowing a range of "Legitimate" political discussion, up to and including material concerns. But they're disallowing the "Counter-factual" use of ideologies to analyze those concerns.

A town is perfectly able to shoot down a communist candidate for material reasons. They're not allowed to analyze those reasons with anything except a communist lens though.

"We don't have enough houses." <- cool

"We don't have enough houses because of state control of that resource." <- Alarm bells. Because from the communist perspective, that's akin to "We don't have enough houses because of Jewish control over our government", or "We don't have enough houses because the king hasn't gotten god to bless him". It's not a legitimate opinion, but a warped viewpoint on a real issue that prevents it being solved.

For what its worth, Germany also practices a limited view of this, in that they have in their constitution a ban on organizations that aim to overturn democracy, because they insist all problems be viewed through a democratic lens. The USSR did the same, but for communism.

The issue being, Communism is a more thorough and prescriptive ideology than Democracy which is a more vague system for determining things, so insisting all problems be viewed through it is a more restricting thing. Sort of like the difference between "Well, you gotta be some sort of religious bro" and "You have to obey the literalist interpretation of the Quran".

Both would be unseemly to me, but it's very clear one is substantially worse.

Nonetheless, an argument can be made that they are effectively the same if there are a lot of people in Germany who legitimately think the solution to problems is to abolish democracy. Suddenly German police would be kicking down doors and so on. That doesn't happen frequently because it's normalized that all problems must be solved by democratic means. That's what happened in the USSR too, communism became normalized as a way of discussing problems to the point that the alternatives had no ability to organize and effect peoples opinions, and so kicking down doors became less and less necessary.

[Byeclase]

Productivity is value produced/man hours. Increasing hours worked does not increase productivity.
It usually actually DECREASES productivity.
And how voluntary it was (given not working hard enough was an offense and the lack of legal protections) is very questionable.
Point is the average worker in the Soviet Union would not necessarily have more time to study the political issues, not that their vote mattered anyways.

And it is not a lie. Answer. Should “Trots” and “capitalists” be allowed to freely vote?
If no you are saying they should not be allowed to vote because you disagree with their politics.
Period.

Explaining why you think their politics bad is irrelevant.

This is not capitalism where working more hours enriches your parasite boss. This is socialism where when you work you can be motivated to work for all the people. In there: 8 hours of work, which is better than the previous 10-12 hours of pre-revolution and those of capitalist countries. So increasing hours of work, if you do it voluntarily, yes, it increases productivity. They also gave them medals and glorified them as an example to folllow not only paid them more.

Capitalists have to be abolished, the dictatorship of the proletariat rules over the bourgeoisie, and they did. But this question doesn't even matter, same with trots, because they prompted terrorist movements and conspirations, which any capitalist country would ban like the USSR.

[Novus America]

Productivity is value produced/man hours. Increasing hours worked does not increase productivity.
It usually actually DECREASES productivity.
And how voluntary it was (given not working hard enough was an offense and the lack of legal protections) is very questionable.
Point is the average worker in the Soviet Union would not necessarily have more time to study the political issues, not that their vote mattered anyways.

And it is not a lie. Answer. Should “Trots” and “capitalists” be allowed to freely vote?
If no you are saying they should not be allowed to vote because you disagree with their politics.
Period.

Explaining why you think their politics bad is irrelevant.

This is not capitalism where working more hours enriches your parasite boss. This is socialism where when you work you can be motivated to work for all the people. In there: 8 hours of work, which is better than the previous 10-12 hours of pre-revolution and those of capitalist countries. So increasing hours of work, if you do it voluntarily, yes, it increases productivity. They also gave them medals and glorified them as an example to folllow not only paid them more.

Capitalists have to be abolished, the dictatorship of the proletariat rules over the bourgeoisie, and they did. But this question doesn't even matter, same with trots, because they prompted terrorist movements and conspirations, which any capitalist country would ban like the USSR.

Dude, it is basic math. Increasing the denominator is not how you increase the output of the equation. The goal of productivity is to REDUCE the man hours required per unit of output.
Tired people are less productive so longer hours leads to diminishing returns.

And still if the are “voluntarily” in a coal mine all waking hours they obviously are not studying politics.

And so you just repeat yourself. People who disagree with your politics get “abolished”. We know that. No way of sugar coating changes the fact that that is anti democratic.

[Byeclase]

This is not capitalism where working more hours enriches your parasite boss. This is socialism where when you work you can be motivated to work for all the people. In there: 8 hours of work, which is better than the previous 10-12 hours of pre-revolution and those of capitalist countries. So increasing hours of work, if you do it voluntarily, yes, it increases productivity. They also gave them medals and glorified them as an example to folllow not only paid them more.

Capitalists have to be abolished, the dictatorship of the proletariat rules over the bourgeoisie, and they did. But this question doesn't even matter, same with trots, because they prompted terrorist movements and conspirations, which any capitalist country would ban like the USSR.

Dude, it is basic math. Increasing the denominator is not how you increase the output of the equation. The goal of productivity is to REDUCE the man hours required per unit of output.
Tired people are less productive so longer hours leads to diminishing returns.

And still if the are “voluntarily” in a coal mine all waking hours they obviously are not studying politics.

And so you just repeat yourself. People who disagree with your politics get “abolished”. We know that. No way of sugar coating changes the fact that that is anti democratic.

Of course, the hero of the people Ramón Mercader was a barman.
They don't get abolished, they wither away like the state (now a little joke). When communists are in power they don't even need to "make them disappear", they start committing terrorist acts and they get judged, nothing strange here, just classes protecting their privileges from their reactionary stance.

I wouldn't be so ashamed of slacking off working for a capitalist corporation when I see my money is spent in their personal luxuries, but I'd feel bad in socialism and try to work as hard as possible. Neoclassical economics don't apply here, as said, 8 hours isn't "make them work as much as possible to profit me" like 12 hours of capitalism where you not only are tired, but don't have your healthcare needs covered. There are still hours in which some people can have the strength and do it for the country, like Alexey Stakhanov did, and it worked, so you're already proven wrong empirically.

[Novus America]

Dude, it is basic math. Increasing the denominator is not how you increase the output of the equation. The goal of productivity is to REDUCE the man hours required per unit of output.
Tired people are less productive so longer hours leads to diminishing returns.

And still if the are “voluntarily” in a coal mine all waking hours they obviously are not studying politics.

And so you just repeat yourself. People who disagree with your politics get “abolished”. We know that. No way of sugar coating changes the fact that that is anti democratic.

Of course, the hero of the people Ramón Mercader was a barman.
They don't get abolished, they wither away like the state (now a little joke). When communists are in power they don't even need to "make them disappear", they start committing terrorist acts and they get judged, nothing strange here, just classes protecting their privileges from their reactionary stance.

I wouldn't be so ashamed of slacking off working for a capitalist corporation when I see my money is spent in their personal luxuries, but I'd feel bad in socialism and try to work as hard as possible. Neoclassical economics don't apply here, as said, 8 hours isn't "make them work as much as possible to profit me" like 12 hours of capitalism where you not only are tired, but don't have your healthcare needs covered. There are still hours in which some people can have the strength and do it for the country, like Alexey Stakhanov did, and it worked, so you're already proven wrong empirically.

Dude math is math. No amount of cliche hand waving changes that.
You still get tired, and it still is not they way to increase the equations output, raising the denominator is not how you do it.

And you just contradicted yourself. You said they “have to be abolished”.
And pint is you do not let them have a real say.
But this is pointless, this is boring, you just keep trotting our almost word for word the same ridiculous preset talking points.

I can write a more interesting computer algorithm.

[Byeclase]

Dude math is math. No amount of cliche hand waving changes that.
You still get tired, and it still is not they way to increase the equations output, raising the denominator is not how you do it.

And you just contradicted yourself. You said they “have to be abolished”.
And pint is you do not let them have a real say.
But this is pointless, this is boring, you just keep trotting our almost word for word the same ridiculous preset talking points.

Math isn't math. The math is built around ideal models and hypotheses that aren't in the real world, specially in a socialist world. Like the aim of achieving perfect competition.

How did I contradict myself?

They don't get abolished, they wither away like the state (now a little joke). When communists are in power they don't even need to "make them disappear", they start committing terrorist acts and they get judged, nothing strange here, just classes protecting their privileges from their reactionary stance.

As said, the first phrase is a little joke. What I was referring in the previous post is that capitalists are abolished as a class, not as in people disappearing or in massacres; if they're willing to get their hands out of their means of production they're welcome in the socialist system.

And of course, the terrorist leader Trotsky in a foreign country, got icepicked. Nothing weird here, it's our Osama Bin Laden pretending to be communist if you understand.

[Rojava Free State]

I love the whole “democracy only as long as they vote how I want, otherwise crush them”.
That is not how it works.

Who suggested that? What the hell?

[Rojava Free State]

I love the whole “democracy only as long as they vote how I want, otherwise crush them”.
That is not how it works.

"You can vote for whoever you like as long as its me!"

You can have the model T in any color as long as it's black.

[Novus America]

Dude math is math. No amount of cliche hand waving changes that.
You still get tired, and it still is not they way to increase the equations output, raising the denominator is not how you do it.

And you just contradicted yourself. You said they “have to be abolished”.
And pint is you do not let them have a real say.
But this is pointless, this is boring, you just keep trotting our almost word for word the same ridiculous preset talking points.

Math isn't math. The math is built around ideal models and hypotheses that aren't in the real world, specially in a socialist world. Like the aim of achieving perfect competition.

How did I contradict myself?

They don't get abolished, they wither away like the state (now a little joke). When communists are in power they don't even need to "make them disappear", they start committing terrorist acts and they get judged, nothing strange here, just classes protecting their privileges from their reactionary stance.

As said, the first phrase is a little joke. What I was referring in the previous post is that capitalists are abolished as a class, not as in people disappearing or in massacres; if they're willing to get their hands out of their means of production they're welcome in the socialist system.

And of course, the terrorist leader Trotsky in a foreign country, got icepicked. Nothing weird here, it's our Osama Bin Laden pretending to be communist if you understand.

The umm no, productivity is a simple formula that works in the real world as it does not claim to perfect anything. It is simply a unit of measure. Saying “a meter is not 100 centimeters” is just silly. Changing the unit of measurement is not using that measurement. It is something different.
And no the law of diminishing returns is real and occurs even in state controlled economies. People get tired. The human mind and body cannot maintain peak performance over too long a period, or with too little rest regardless.

You said “Capitalists have to be abolished“.
Also killing people off claiming they are terrorists is yes, abolishing them.

And Trotsky was not blowing up buildings. Just banging Mexican artists.
But yes it is fair that any society, even more democratic ones can abuse accusations of terrorism.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Dude math is math. No amount of cliche hand waving changes that.
You still get tired, and it still is not they way to increase the equations output, raising the denominator is not how you do it.

And you just contradicted yourself. You said they “have to be abolished”.
And pint is you do not let them have a real say.
But this is pointless, this is boring, you just keep trotting our almost word for word the same ridiculous preset talking points.

Math isn't math. The math is built around ideal models and hypotheses that aren't in the real world, specially in a socialist world. Like the aim of achieving perfect competition.

How did I contradict myself?

They don't get abolished, they wither away like the state (now a little joke). When communists are in power they don't even need to "make them disappear", they start committing terrorist acts and they get judged, nothing strange here, just classes protecting their privileges from their reactionary stance.

As said, the first phrase is a little joke. What I was referring in the previous post is that capitalists are abolished as a class, not as in people disappearing or in massacres; if they're willing to get their hands out of their means of production they're welcome in the socialist system.

And of course, the terrorist leader Trotsky in a foreign country, got icepicked. Nothing weird here, it's our Osama Bin Laden pretending to be communist if you understand.

Math is the only truth in the universe.All lies and mistakes are reflected in numbers.Both socialism and capitalism have related equations. If there's something wrong, either the equation is wrong and a new is needed, or you find a big problem.

[Novus America]

I love the whole “democracy only as long as they vote how I want, otherwise crush them”.
That is not how it works.

Who suggested that? What the hell?

The guy above this. Byeclase.
If people disagree they are terrorists and will be “abolished” or “whither away” as they get executed/murdered.

[Rojava Free State]

Who suggested that? What the hell?

The guy above this. Byeclase.
If people disagree they are terrorists and will be “abolished” or “whither away” as they get executed/murdered.

That is never okay. No one is a terrorist just because they have a different idea of what a perfect society looks like.

[Byeclase]

The umm no, productivity is a simple formula that works in the real world as it does not claim to perfect anything. It is simply a unit of measure. Saying “a meter is not 100 centimeters” is just silly. Changing the unit of measurement is not using that measurement. It is something different.
And no the law of diminishing returns is real and occurs even in state controlled economies. People get tired. The human mind and body cannot maintain peak performance over too long a period, or with too little rest regardless.

You said “Capitalists have to be abolished“.
Also killing people off claiming they are terrorists is yes, abolishing them.

And Trotsky was not blowing up buildings. Just banging Mexican artists.
But yes it is fair that any society, even more democratic ones can abuse accusations of terrorism.

If I want to work more for my country and I have energy I can do that, this isn't so hard to understand. Productivity may diminish after 8 hours or not, I have to make 8 hours minimum, but I can do voluntarily some more. And I repeat the same the next day, having to make 8 hours as well as minimum. Productivity rises if the worker doesn't work softer in the hours of the next days. I'm pointing out this criticism makes less sense here because the mandatory hours of work are even fewer than in capitalism and workers can still produce instead of choosing going home.

Neoclassical economy simply divides the economy between producers and consumers and ignores classes. There's an aim to achieve perfect competition in the market as ideal model (with mathematics), it assumes the rationality of the people and the ceteris paribus. It analyzes parts of the economy as little pieces instead of as a whole, and this is a big problem. It's obvious that if you get people into work and as time passes they can get more tired. But a person may work the minimal hours (8) and then some more if the person wants, and raise productivity, and then the person rests and has energy for a new day.

And Trotsky was not blowing up buildings. Just banging Mexican artists.
But yes it is fair that any society, even more democratic ones can abuse accusations of terrorism.

Yes, his followers were sabotaging and blowing up and he as founder of the counterrevolutionary ideology was supporting them and aiding them.

You said “Capitalists have to be abolished“.
Also killing people off claiming they are terrorists is yes, abolishing them.

Yes, they have to be abolished as a class. Killing them is not the only way, they can simply cease to be capitalists without being killed, as class is not intrinsically bound to the physical person, but it's a sociological category of a position that the person has.

Math is the only truth in the universe.All lies and mistakes are reflected in numbers.Both socialism and capitalism have related equations. If there's something wrong, either the equation is wrong and a new is needed, or you find a big problem.

But don't forget socialism and capitalism don't build mathematical models around the same paradigms and philosophies.

The guy above this. Byeclase.
If people disagree they are terrorists and will be “abolished” or “whither away” as they get executed/murdered.

Never said that. Thank you for showing your manipulation.

[Novus America]

Again working more hours does not actually increase productivity and likely decreases it.
It is not hard to understand.
All the other fluff is just fluff.

And saying people have to stop supporting politics you oppose or be eliminated by force is not any better. It is still targeting people for their politics. Abusing labels like “terrorist” or “counter revolutionary does not make it better.

It is quite simple, just be honest. The Stalinist doublespeak is fooling no one.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Math is the only truth in the universe.All lies and mistakes are reflected in numbers.Both socialism and capitalism have related equations. If there's something wrong, either the equation is wrong and a new is needed, or you find a big problem.

But don't forget socialism and capitalism don't build mathematical models around the same paradigms and philosophies.

The guy above this. Byeclase.
If people disagree they are terrorists and will be “abolished” or “whither away” as they get executed/murdered.

Never said that. Thank you for showing your manipulation.

Economically, the equations of socialism and capitalism are the same.
I think If people disagree they should be called Heresy or Pagan.