Left-Wing Discussion Thread II: Behind 700,000 Bunkers

[Serkia]

Trotsky was the first neocon.

[Trotskylvania]

what the heck is higher phase communism

Communism that is no longer marked with vestiges of capitalism.

Goods are distributed by free access or need. Money and private property are abolished. The rule of men has given way to the administration of things.

[Post-Party Depression]

what the heck is higher phase communism

Communism that is no longer marked with vestiges of capitalism.

Goods are distributed by free access or need. Money and private property are abolished. The rule of men has given way to the administration of things.

ah, right. thank you.

[Sriker]

I'm writing a book called The red drums beat it is about a alternate history scenario we're the Paris commune took all of France can you guys give me some ideas thanks

[Taihei Tengoku]

what the heck is higher phase communism

Communism that is no longer marked with vestiges of capitalism.

Goods are distributed by free access or need. Money and private property are abolished. The rule of men has given way to the administration of things.

I never got this about communism. For all its esoteric language and hairsplitting particularism they just want to replace a money economy with a slightly worse money economy (but don't call it money)

[Mattopilos II]

Communism that is no longer marked with vestiges of capitalism.

Goods are distributed by free access or need. Money and private property are abolished. The rule of men has given way to the administration of things.

I never got this about communism. For all its esoteric language and hairsplitting particularism they just want to replace a money economy with a slightly worse money economy (but don't call it money)

Nothing in the above statement described use of money or commodification.

[Taihei Tengoku]

I never got this about communism. For all its esoteric language and hairsplitting particularism they just want to replace a money economy with a slightly worse money economy (but don't call it money)

Nothing in the above statement described use of money or commodification.

Money is the emergent solution to the problem of resource rationing according to need. In STEMlord, the price system is a neural network that incorporates information from its various nodes (buyers + sellers) and determines the marginal value of various goods in various circumstances

To go moneyless would mean a barter economy (which will last about a week before people re-invent money) or just a central strongman confiscating everything only to allocate it out again

[Sanctissima]

Communism that is no longer marked with vestiges of capitalism.

Goods are distributed by free access or need. Money and private property are abolished. The rule of men has given way to the administration of things.

I never got this about communism. For all its esoteric language and hairsplitting particularism they just want to replace a money economy with a slightly worse money economy (but don't call it money)

It's because at the end of the day Communism is more focused on destroying the established order than it is concerned about replacing it with something else. Hell, it's basically anti-establishmentarianism with a makeshift ideological paintjob.

Frankly, that's the main reason why post-revolution Communist countries are such shitholes. They're run by economic illiterates with a hate-boner against civilization who lose their raison d'être the moment they no longer have a big evil Capitalist boogeyman to rebel against. Probably why the USSR and PRC were so obsessed with "exporting the revolution abroad" back in the Cold War.

[Mattopilos II]

Nothing in the above statement described use of money or commodification.

Money is the emergent solution to the problem of resource rationing according to need. In STEMlord, the price system is a neural network that incorporates information from its various nodes (buyers + sellers) and determines the marginal value of various goods in various circumstances

To go moneyless would mean a barter economy (which will last about a week before people re-invent money) or just a central strongman confiscating everything only to allocate it out again

Well, it is clear you are just being silly now, given how ludicrous you are being. Money is not for that reason, at least not alone. And for a system based on 'rationing according to need', it kinda... sucks at its job. Also I have no idea what that is, so that is falling on deaf ears.

Barter economies implies commodification.

It's because at the end of the day Communism is more focused on destroying the established order than it is concerned about replacing it with something else. Hell, it's basically anti-establishmentarianism with a makeshift ideological paintjob.

Frankly, that's the main reason why post-revolution Communist countries are such shitholes. They're run by economic illiterates with a hate-boner against civilization who lose their raison d'être the moment they no longer have a big evil Capitalist boogeyman to rebel against. Probably why the USSR and PRC were so obsessed with "exporting the revolution abroad" back in the Cold War.

I love the fact that the lack of nuance makes you look like the idiot here. WHICH communists? Tankies? Anarchists? People you don't like? That country that says it is 'reaching communism' but never does because it is a corrupt shithole? You aren't really saying much here.

And no, that isn't why post-revolution 'communist' countries are shitholes. It is because they are corrupt top-down centralized states, that claim that the system will simply 'wither away' or 'dissolve' via the DotP. At least, that is the issue I have with Marxist theory, and what many communists cling to.
And that was more about ideological warfare. Stalin was very much a 'communism in one state' kinda guy. Not much better, if just plain worse, mind you.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Money is the emergent solution to the problem of resource rationing according to need. In STEMlord, the price system is a neural network that incorporates information from its various nodes (buyers + sellers) and determines the marginal value of various goods in various circumstances

To go moneyless would mean a barter economy (which will last about a week before people re-invent money) or just a central strongman confiscating everything only to allocate it out again

Well, it is clear you are just being silly now, given how ludicrous you are being. Money is not for that reason, at least not alone. And for a system based on 'rationing according to need', it kinda... sucks at its job. Also I have no idea what that is, so that is falling on deaf ears.

Barter economies implies commodification.

Which part of my statement is false? Money arose independently in many cultures across the world because it is hard to keep track of what exchanges for what (and when they need to happen). Whether it's conch shells or Euros the principle remains the same.

[Proctopeo]

what the heck is higher phase communism

Communism that is no longer marked with vestiges of capitalism.

Goods are distributed by free access or need. Money and private property are abolished. The rule of men has given way to the administration of things.

[bureaucracy intensifies]

[The Grene Knyght]

Communism that is no longer marked with vestiges of capitalism.

Goods are distributed by free access or need. Money and private property are abolished. The rule of men has given way to the administration of things.

[bureaucracy intensifies]

Shouldn't higher phase communism implement the opposite change for it to be considered such?

[Proctopeo]

[bureaucracy intensifies]

Shouldn't higher phase communism implement the opposite change for it to be considered such?

Generally, administration leads to bureaucracy. Even if just a little.

[Trotskylvania]

Well, it is clear you are just being silly now, given how ludicrous you are being. Money is not for that reason, at least not alone. And for a system based on 'rationing according to need', it kinda... sucks at its job. Also I have no idea what that is, so that is falling on deaf ears.

Barter economies implies commodification.

Which part of my statement is false? Money arose independently in many cultures across the world because it is hard to keep track of what exchanges for what (and when they need to happen). Whether it's conch shells or Euros the principle remains the same.

Money arose from the breakdown of the centralized "palace economies" typical of the Bronze age, which saw the system of ration tokens created by these states metamorphose into a medium of exchange.

And until the generalization of commodity production (and thus the rise of capitalism), money held very little importance in the day-to-day lives of most people. Money and exchange could only ever have a peripheral importance in epochs where commodity production was a minor part of productive activity.

I made my terms abundantly clear. You can pretend to claim some high ground by claiming to read between the lines of my post all you like. But it's either disingenuous or completely ignorant. Free access means exactly that. There is no exchanging of values to obtain goods. There is no bartering one kind of good for another. Goods are made available for use without gatekeeping, unless they are highly complex or resource intensive, in which case they would be rationed according to need.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Which part of my statement is false? Money arose independently in many cultures across the world because it is hard to keep track of what exchanges for what (and when they need to happen). Whether it's conch shells or Euros the principle remains the same.

Money arose from the breakdown of the centralized "palace economies" typical of the Bronze age, which saw the system of ration tokens created by these states metamorphose into a medium of exchange.

Which is completely false, people used cattle as a store of value since the Neolithic and the use of shells as a crude currency predate agriculture

And until the generalization of commodity production (and thus the rise of capitalism), money held very little importance in the day-to-day lives of most people. Money and exchange could only ever have a peripheral importance in epochs where commodity production was a minor part of productive activity.

I made my terms abundantly clear. You can pretend to claim some high ground by claiming to read between the lines of my post all you like. But it's either disingenuous or completely ignorant. Free access means exactly that. There is no exchanging of values to obtain goods. There is no bartering one kind of good for another. Goods are made available for use without gatekeeping, unless they are highly complex or resource intensive, in which case they would be rationed according to need.

So it is general confiscation followed by rationing, but the Soviet Union wasn't true communism or something like that

[Trotskylvania]

Money arose from the breakdown of the centralized "palace economies" typical of the Bronze age, which saw the system of ration tokens created by these states metamorphose into a medium of exchange.

Which is completely false, people used cattle as a store of value since the Neolithic and the use of shells as a crude currency predate agriculture

You are confusing earlier concepts of disaccumulation and gift economy for exchange, a common misunderstanding that anthropologists have been fighting against for decades.

So it is general confiscation followed by rationing, but the Soviet Union wasn't true communism or something like that

I'm not sure whether you can't understand, or you just refuse to.

Private property, generalized commodity production, wage-labor, exploitation and alienation persisted in the Soviet Union, not merely in spite of the efforts of the Soviet authorities, but because of it.

Somehow, in whatever convoluted logic you conjured up, you managed to deliberately misunderstand the voluntary free association of producers for violent state capitalism. This is pretty much the general pattern with you. You don't understand, and refuse to actually understand. And you know what the worst part of this is? You're not even good at sophistry. No, I'd even go so far as to say you're pretty terrible at it.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Which is completely false, people used cattle as a store of value since the Neolithic and the use of shells as a crude currency predate agriculture

You are confusing earlier concepts of disaccumulation and gift economy for exchange, a common misunderstanding that anthropologists have been fighting against for decades.

So it is general confiscation followed by rationing, but the Soviet Union wasn't true communism or something like that

I'm not sure whether you can't understand, or you just refuse to.

Private property, generalized commodity production, wage-labor, exploitation and alienation persisted in the Soviet Union, not merely in spite of the efforts of the Soviet authorities, but because of it.

Somehow, in whatever convoluted logic you conjured up, you managed to deliberately misunderstand the voluntary free association of producers for violent state capitalism. This is pretty much the general pattern with you. You don't understand, and refuse to actually understand. And you know what the worst part of this is? You're not even good at sophistry. No, I'd even go so far as to say you're pretty terrible at it.

There's nothing to understand in Marxism b/c in its most benign form it is obscurantism and in its malignant form a famine engine.

How do you suppose a system where production is abundant because it is production for exchange gets to "free access?" In all attempts it is general confiscation and redistribution.

[Mattopilos II]

Well, it is clear you are just being silly now, given how ludicrous you are being. Money is not for that reason, at least not alone. And for a system based on 'rationing according to need', it kinda... sucks at its job. Also I have no idea what that is, so that is falling on deaf ears.

Barter economies implies commodification.

Which part of my statement is false? Money arose independently in many cultures across the world because it is hard to keep track of what exchanges for what (and when they need to happen). Whether it's conch shells or Euros the principle remains the same.

It wasn't due to 'resource rationing according to need' by what you are saying, then. The better word here would be 'convenient'.

... Are you Ashkera?

[MERIZoC]

Nothing in the above statement described use of money or commodification.

Money is the emergent solution to the problem of resource rationing according to need. In STEMlord, the price system is a neural network that incorporates information from its various nodes (buyers + sellers) and determines the marginal value of various goods in various circumstances

To go moneyless would mean a barter economy (which will last about a week before people re-invent money) or just a central strongman confiscating everything only to allocate it out again

this is the anthropology police. you are under arrest for bad anthropology

[Oil exporting People]

I'm writing a book called The red drums beat it is about a alternate history scenario we're the Paris commune took all of France can you guys give me some ideas thanks

The Prussians crush it shortly thereafter.

[Serkia]

When Titoists say that they're anti DPRK

[Improved werpland]

Money is the emergent solution to the problem of resource rationing according to need. In STEMlord, the price system is a neural network that incorporates information from its various nodes (buyers + sellers) and determines the marginal value of various goods in various circumstances

To go moneyless would mean a barter economy (which will last about a week before people re-invent money) or just a central strongman confiscating everything only to allocate it out again

this is the anthropology police. you are under arrest for bad anthropology

Anthropology has a left wing bias.

[TrustMe]

this is the anthropology police. you are under arrest for bad anthropology

Anthropology has a left wing bias.

University professors in general are heavily biased towards liberalism and cultural Marxism

[Northern Davincia]

this is the anthropology police. you are under arrest for bad anthropology

Anthropology has a left wing bias.

wrong
[rôNG]

ADJECTIVE
not correct or true:
"that is the wrong answer"

[Sanctissima]

I love the fact that the lack of nuance makes you look like the idiot here. WHICH communists? Tankies? Anarchists? People you don't like? That country that says it is 'reaching communism' but never does because it is a corrupt shithole? You aren't really saying much here.

And no, that isn't why post-revolution 'communist' countries are shitholes. It is because they are corrupt top-down centralized states, that claim that the system will simply 'wither away' or 'dissolve' via the DotP. At least, that is the issue I have with Marxist theory, and what many communists cling to.
And that was more about ideological warfare. Stalin was very much a 'communism in one state' kinda guy. Not much better, if just plain worse, mind you.

All of the above. :^)

Whether it be Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Anarchists, run-of-the-mill Socialists or any other Far-Left ideology, it doesn't really matter. They're all just variations of the same thing. And not one, not a single damn one, has managed to establish a functioning country.

And it's not like that's due to lack of opportunity or effort either. Your lot has spread its filth globally, from the easternmost tip of Eurasia to the cape of Africa and even across the Atlantic. Everywhere you go you sow chaos, plant your seed and destroy civilizations from within. You did it in China when Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalists, after having fended off the Japanese, were too weak to deal with your treachery. You promised the peasants land, wealth and prosperity, and what did you give them? Famine, persecution and a death toll in the millions, so high that no man-made war or disaster has managed to exceed it.

You did it to Africa, when the Organisation of African Unity, later the African Union, was overrun with your ilk and taking full advantage of the disintegration of the European empires to prop up new Socialist states from the ashes of what were, for the most part, well-functioning colonies. Not a single one of your governments actually managed to establish a successful state, and the infrastructure built in those countries by the previous colonial administrations promptly decayed and fell into disuse. Poverty levels rose, and famine tore the continent apart. And what did you do when all of this occurred? Did you attempt to fix it and recognize the error of your ways? No, you set your eyes South and promptly supported guerrilla warfare in Rhodesia, the most economically prosperous country in Africa. It managed to survive against your ilk for nearly two decades, but in the end it fell after you poisoned the rest of the world against it and embargoed the country to all hell. But did you nurture this precious African flower? Did you even attempt to at least maintain the bread basket of Africa? No, you let a genocidal madman gain power who promptly turned Africa's greatest success story into a fucking poverty and famine-stricken slum where the inflation level is so high it makes post-war Weimar Germany look like an economic paradise.

I could go on about the dozens of other countries you've screwed over. But I believe I've made my point.

Your kind is all the same. It doesn't matter what particular ideological bend you share, because at the end of the day you're all just angry little shits with a blind hatred for authority. You build nothing, you create nothing. You just bitch and complain about society's woes and promptly make them astronomically worse the moment you gain power. So don't talk to me about the importance of nuance when discussing the many sins of the Far-Left. You don't deserve any nuance. Your kind is the lecherous refuse of society, and making any distinction amongst those of your ilk is like distinguishing a malaria-carrying mosquito from a lime disease-carrying tick. Both are blood-sucking, disease-spreading parasites that ought to be eradicated.