/social/ - Socialism

INTERNET AGITATE MACHINE


New Reply
Name
×
Subject
Message
Files Max 5 files20MB total
Tegaki
Password
Don't Bump
[New Reply]


Read the Rules and FAQ
Got suggestions or complaints? Join the poster union for meta discussion!


dense.png
(420.5KB, 680x499)
post stupid shit said by stupid people.
gunshow.png
(275.7KB, 498x339)
Socialism is when taxes are used to pay for public things, and communism is when 100% of income is taxed.

You can't make this shit up... well, obviously someone did but then a whole bunch of people believed it.
Replies: >>38 >>83
>>37
By the way, that person also said highways are the biggest proof that socialism works.
You may not like it, but highways are what peak socialism look like...
god save the queen
8fc001869297ad98cb49aa8d78944dc1ee4685f3c18e879cc4f386950ad9c0f9.jpg
(459.1KB, 1440x1424)
"Fascism is capitalism in decay"
It's a neat simple line, but it's confusing and false.

Fascism is not an intrinsic part of capitalism nor an inherent result of capitalist economy in crisis. Most times capitalist systems have been threatened, it hasn't decayed into fascism. That's historical fact.
Fascism was a specific ideology (or group of ideologies), it's not when the government does stuff. It's not when reactionaries do stuff. But, even if we ignore that and do take the unhelpful colloquial definition of fascism as an anti-democratic, state-controlled capitalist economy, then it's still just wrong. It's just one of many reforms.
Fascism is no more a part of liberal capitalist decay than communist ideologies are. They're both competing political movements that seize the opportunity, with the caveat that anti-communism historically led the middle and upper classes to sponsor fascists as the preferred successor.

Even if we take the most useless definition of 'fascism', that it's just illiberalism, then that's just what effectively every state does when truly threatened, if it doesn't just surrender immediately. It's got nothing to do with capitalism.
Replies: >>44 >>402
>>41
i'd maybe push back on this a little, to say that there is basically a dialectical relationship between fascism and capitalism, just as there is between capitalism and socialism, as you sort of almost get to when you say 

"fascism is no more a part of liberal capitalist decay than communist ideologies are" 

except that socialism is actually the progression of capitalism, and fascism is its regressive. So socialism is capitalism evolved, whereas fascism is capitalism in decay. 

What we have seen historically with fascism has never been the dispensation of capitalism, and when I say regression I don't mean a return to feudalism or something, rather what fascism is is the concentration of capital into fewer hands, to be controlled by an elite, rather than socialised as under socialism, where it comes under the control of more and more hands, until those hands can abolish it.  

When you talk about fascism just being illiberalism, there is sort of an inherent assumption that "liberalism" is liberalism. But it isn't and never has been. The old canards about authoritarian nationalism can also be applied to ever "liberal" state.
Replies: >>47
>>44
In that dialectical relationship with [liberal] capitalism, fascism is arbitrary, it just as easily could be replaced with neoliberalism, another conglomerating/regressive system we've seen arising from capitalism's contradictions. Or theocracy, as we have many cases of Islamic theocracy arising to challenge the exploitation by capitalist powers. Why isn't lolbert-fantasy open corporatocracy, like BnL in WALL-E, capitalism in decay? Why fascism in particular? It's actually a pretty niche outcome.

Many things arise from the contradictions of liberal capitalism to supplant it, and many of them are regressive. And I assert, different ones will arise depending on material conditions. There is no one result of 'capitalism in decay'. And there might not be only one possible form of 'capitalism in evolution' either. I think this oversimplification, this linearizing of history, gives people tunnel-vision and hinders analysis of threats.

>When you talk about fascism just being illiberalism, there is sort of an inherent assumption that "liberalism" is liberalism. But it isn't and never has been.
Of course. I just mean to say that some people will call any a lack of a freedom 'fascism' (like making people wear masks to enter a shop, that's fascist!11!!). A liberty was deprived from them. I couldn't think of a better word.
Replies: >>51
>>47
>fascism is arbitrary, it just as easily could be replaced with neoliberalism
Neoliberalism is basically just fascism with political theatre instead of an outright one party state though.

Hitler basically invented the neoliberal model, as opposed to early capitalism, where the capitalists basically just ran amock often in self defeating ways, under fascism, or neoliberalism, the state is used to basically maximise the general capital output, the state is used to defend capital itself, rather than individual capitalists grouped together. Its only a slight change, but it only ever was a slight change. 

 Islamic theocracies have also all stopped short of abolishing capital or even attempting to, its basically just Islamic neoliberalism, or Islamic Social Democracy, and as we know, social democracy, is the left wing of fascism.
Replies: >>58
>>51
>Neoliberalism is basically just fascism with political theatre instead of an outright one party state though.
Fascism is a distinct movement. In fact, if we want a model of politics that is useful for prediction and not just slogans for libs, I would even go as far as defining fascism as fundamentally distinct from Nazism and neo-Nazism, which (as you know) is basically just edginess and retardation whose entire economic policy might as well be 'get rid of da joos and da commies', it's super easy to spot for the drivel it is and couldn't possibly subvert socialists, unlike how classical fascism did. But I'll just use 'fascism' to mean Nazism, because that's what you're talking about and it is a good point, neo-liberalism is related to Nazism.

To be clear, I'm not necessarily against making slogans saying that neoliberalism and soccdem is basically fascism. It's effective rhetoric that makes a real point. But let's not fool ourselves. They're not fascism. They're a conservative liberal capitalism, which is terrifying, militant and murderous. And yes, it's kind of all the same result so again I'm not against conflating them in slogans, but for political study, they are different in how they form and how they act, and therefore the most effective ways to combat them.

Looking at effects rather than the causes isn't the best practice (leads straight to the 'M-L is redfash' fallacy), but I think it's enough to show the differences in this case:
Like you said, there are the obvious similarities: privatization, anti-socialism, anti-unionism, social conservativism/trad. I think it's also fair to say neo-liberalism also has elements of anti-liberalism and anti-democracy.
But, there are also many stark differences. Fascism is fundamentally nationalist, as opposed to the free-market's urge for globalism. It derives from the military and (generally) middle classes, not from the upper-bourgeoisie. It's more of a state that tries to control capital, than capital subverting the state (yes, I realize they both ended up being capital directing the state, but it's much more powerful under neo-liberalism). Fascism has far more of an emphasis on social and national ('spiritual') reform, as opposed to neo-liberalism's focus on economic reform which guides many of its social positions.

If anything, fascism at least thinks it cares about you, so long as you're the in-group. They're forced to submit to capital to keep power. Neo-liberalism is pure porky infiltration of liberalism, late stage capitalism.

>social democracy, is the left wing of fascism
That's another catchy slogan that just kind of doesn't makes sense. Social democracy is the left wing of liberalism. I guess it just doesn't have the same sloganistic ring to it because most people don't understand capitalist liberalism is as horrible as fascism, except instead of systematically genociding minority groups within its borders it systematically decimates everyone locally and globally.
Anything to do with 'human nature', the idea that instinct can't be overcome or shouldn't be resisted.
Mathematical study isn't innate 'human nature'. Engineering isn't human nature. These are all overcoming human weaknesses to become more productive and successful in our goals.
What about things like greed? You can't have fair distribution because greed is human nature, right? Well, that's why civilizations develop laws and mores. To overcome anti-social behaviours. That's why we develop these social constructs in order for societies to survive and thrive.
Replies: >>551
surrounded by idiots.jpg
(72.4KB, 640x480)
A couple of weeks ago I overheard, at a wedding of all places, someone saying "All the journalists in this country are left-wing communists."
I also overheard their friend calling a generally conservative relative a "leftie commie bastard".
They're just detached, even for the conservatives and nationalists in my country. It's so strange to see people outside of the US being Trump fanatics in real life, until you realise there are common global media influences, like FOX and Sky News, not to mention online echo-chambers like YouTube and social media.
Replies: >>80
>>79
In those situations, I'm slightly tempted to play 'describe communism without sounding like what they think a leftist sounds like', but I know for a fact those two are social-darwinists who think petit-booj  are self-made and being held back by social healthcare. Hence how far they are down the pighole.
>>37
I don't know if there's a word for this, I find it interesting how there has been a semantic shift in broader (at least Amerisphere) society, where ideas like socialism and fascism have become so detached from their academic forms, that an anti-socialist appears ridiculously villainoid, while a principled communist may pass under the radar with ease.
"China is living in the future",
or formerly, " Japan is futuristic".

This is the coping mechnicism when someone realises the West isn't on the cutting edge of technology anymore. Oh, it must be the future!
No.
It's now. If anything, we're stuck in the past, anchored for whatever reasons, be it outdated rich industries like cars and petrol desperately preserving their conditions of success, the destructive competition of our markets and artificial scarcity, or maybe just not wasting it all on war.
Oh, did someone take photo at night time with tall buildings covered in lights?  Woah that's so cyb3rpunk! (You know, that art movement we invented 50 years ago) Oh wow that new train station is clean and bright! iPods are the future comrade! Are those phone chargers on public transport??? They've electrified the nation!
Yes, you're right, it's excitng and better than any city in my country, but this isn't 'futuristic'. It's here, it's yesterday, and it's embarrassing that we don't have similar public infrastructure.
Replies: >>124 >>191 >>495
>>110
I have to admit I am guilty of this. Every time you try to do simple shit involving public infrastructure in the UK is  stark reminder that we are living out of whack with even the rest of europe... the fucking trains...
Replies: >>126 >>193 >>495
>>124
The London metro is just spaghetti. I wonder what the materialist explanation is for Anglo countires hating fast trains.
Pulled Pork.jpg
(85.3KB, 1200x600)
"Fitness is fascist", or "Self-improvement is fascist".

I'm not talking about people pointing out real issues with right-wing ideologies pervading fitness communities, or neo-fascists utilizing self-improvement pipelines. Sure, those exist and deserve discussion.
I'm talking about the few but ever-present people who post about how (quote) 'self-improvement is inherently fascistic', using gyms is fascist, or how personal fitness isn't important because assault rifles exist.
Even if there are valid points to be made about gyms encouraging atomisation compared to group sports, or how that 'community improvement' is better than self-improvement, even keeping those in mind, it's still a deranged take to call them anti-socialist, let alone fascist.
Replies: >>154
>>146
This one is interesting because it's not merely a dumb take, it's a harmful take which could lead to material damage to socialism, if it ever became more than a weird fringe.
Replies: >>158 >>182
>>154
>if it ever became more than a weird fringe
It is only a weird small fringe, but it's also just strange how widespread it is.
It sounds like the kind of view only a dozen radlibs in a Tumblr clique ever believed.
Where do you work out? At the library.webp
(54.7KB, 750x653)
>>154
Fortunately it's just a dumb take. What are they going to do, boycott red gyms?
Last edited by discomrade
We have plenty of lib take and rare internet takes. How about some dumb org takes?
There are two Trot orgs in my area both talking about 'why isn't [communist-led union] not just calling [illegal] strike action??' when they're clearly not in an advantageous position to strike yet. 'They and all the socialist orgs supporting them (including demsocs, M–Ls and fellow Trots) are just pseudo-left. Join us, the one true left org!'
Their buddy Lenin had a few interesting things to say about left-communism.
Replies: >>194
>>110
I wonder if this Asian future rhetoric is, in return, influenced by the historical role of Japan and Hong Kong as inspirations within the cyberpunk genre. A kind of priming in pop media, to see mainland Chinese cities the same way.
>The economic and technological state of Japan is a regular theme in the cyberpunk literature of the 1980s. Of Japan's influence on the genre, [author of the early work Necromancer] William Gibson said, "Modern Japan simply was cyberpunk."
>The cityscapes of Hong Kong has had major influences [...]. Ridley Scott envisioned the landscape of cyberpunk Los Angeles in Blade Runner to be "Hong Kong on a very bad day".

Then again, it might just be people evaluating the tech as foreign and years ahead on its own merit.
>>124
>Every time you try to do simple shit involving public infrastructure in the UK is a stark reminder that we are living out of whack with even the rest of europe... the fucking trains...
I'm only (half) familiar with the tube, how bad is the rest of UK? I thought my local was slow and mediocre but some Londoner visitors I talked to recently said they were impressed by it
Interestingly, only England has high-speed rail in the UK.
>>190
Well that's exactly why I, and most other socialists I've seen giving advice online, say to just find the group that's actually getting shit done, feet on the ground and foots in the doors. Not necessarily the one with the most members or the biggest conference. Cancerous growth for the sake of growth only matters if the members are doing something important, and unfortunately the biggest one where I am is mostly just recruiting non-workers and trying to bite off members from other orgs, and they've just alienated themselves from pragmatic actions by being selfish ultra twats.
Screenshot_20231214-220856_Fennec.png
(223.2KB, 1065x1080)
Screenshot_20231214-221300_Fennec.png
(46.2KB, 1060x383)
Screenshot_20231214-211137_Fennec.png
(277.8KB, 1069x1475)
I have plenty of these sadly
Replies: >>324
>>318
There's a notorious China fanatic over there making those posts, you can pick them out easily from their absolute detachment. They're also very easy to poke fun at, and you might as well because logic won't get you anywhere with them.
A comrade in my org is on university exchange from Shanghai, and they were amazed to see Western Maoists cheering for present China.
Replies: >>327
>>324 
>A comrade in my org is on university exchange from Shanghai, and they were amazed to see Western Maoists cheering for present China.
Tbf it's incorrect to call those people "western Maoists", their position exclaims Chinese-oriented modern revisionism (a revisionism that explicitly utilizes a pacified, purely rhetorical and aesthetic "support" of 'Mao Zedong Thought', of which a majority of the content is ejected or deliberately distorted).
Replies: >>328
>>327
Oh for sure, they definitely meant 'so-called western Maoists'. We also noted the irony of China selling military equipment to the Philippines to fight their Maoists.
hello fellow losers.webp
(8.8KB, 593x241)
Like most takes ITT this idiot was unanimously btfo for it, but you gotta laugh when someone self-owns by saying "I'm sure everyone else on this site is a worthless non-worker loner". Absolutely pathetic, if not bad-faith saboshit.

And with that said, I'm glad users on this site are doing the opposite and pointing out times they've been charged for assaulting nazis and lying on factory supply roads. Solidarity, comrades.
Replies: >>362
>>361
>if not bad-faith saboshit
It's always sad to see people online normalizing inaction, theory illiteracy and other failures. I don't know if it comes from dissatisfaction with dumb takes, projection of personal experience or (and I doubt it) bad actors attacking morale, but it's a harmful culture.
Replies: >>363
>>362
>it's a harmful culture
and one we should make an active effort to stamp out. Projects like /read/ over in >>>/praxis/36 and the org thread at >>3 are a good start, but it would be good for us to make a conscious attempt to normalize actually bringing about socialism.
The_Scientific_Method.svg.png
(23.5KB, 520x494)
Revisions of Marx (that's not a critique; the concept of scientific socialism implies revision and adaptation) calling other variants 'revisionist'.

I know what they mean, they're (hopefully) talking about a specific form of revision – retreating towards a reformist position, and that should be criticised ruthlessly. It's just weird and honestly comedy when a revision of a revision of a revision like MLM uses the term 'revision' as a pejorative, it's an unfortunate choice of words which may mislead people into being taught that revising itself is bad.
Just say the specific issue in the situation, such as reformism, liberalism or class collaboration.
Replies: >>370
90f42056ef8204701b1192b54bf158294f036c1533fd54b370450bdc21001742.webp
(7.1KB, 680x680)
Every semantic 'gotcha' argument.
There's a famous screencap from 8ch /leftypol/ where someone analyses the Harry Potter series in the frame of it exemplifying the liberal mindset of its author, and then compares that worldview to US progressive-liberals and media focusing on technicalities and semantics, as if Donald Trump would be defeated if they just discovered the right contradiction, or the right legal argument, or if that word they used originally meant something different.
Every time a socialist parrots this idealist crap, call it out.

>>368
Heh, if we're counting all the poorly-chosen terms, we could fill this thread in a day.
Replies: >>429 >>455
>>41
Not the same but related is the good ol' liberalism = fascism.
I'd say the false equivalence comes from the logical failure of thinking two concepts that share enough similarities are the same. But it ends up as silly as saying 'cats = dogs', sure they're both mammals, have four legs and a tail, eat meat, are common pets around the world, so many similarities but to consider them the same is a blatant analytical failure. Yes, social liberalism and fascism share many shocking similarities and their link must be understood, but to conflate them is laughable.
I disagree with a few specifics here, but this short recent CPUSA article summarizes some of the evident differences even on the surface level: https://cpusa.org/article/the-united-states-is-not-a-fascist-country/

I will say that those inspired by classical fascism (as opposed to Nazism) and we socialists share a common advantage: the mainstream is so politically ignorant that they don't recognize us, even if they're told to fear us. So while we need to take advantage of this, we also need to learn to spot the progressive neo-fascists and understand why they are a false path. Anyone can spot a Nazi and a White nationalist, but more orthodox fascists will easily pass as a patriotic progressive, with popular policies to the left of Labour and Democrats. Mussolini in all likelihood considered themself a non-Marxist socialist, even saying so in their last testament before their execution, not just when building populist support.
Replies: >>419
>>402
>Mussolini in all likelihood considered themself a non-Marxist socialist
That was Hitler.
Replies: >>422
>>419
It may have been Hitler, and it was certainly Mussolini.

Extracts from the Last Testament of Benito Mussolini
<The following texts are Benito Mussolini's testament and final thoughts. They were written on April 27, 1945 — the day in which Mussolini was captured by Communist Partisans. On the following day he was executed
>[..] Labourers are infinitely superior to all false prophets who pretend to represent them. These false prophets have an easy time of it due to the insensitivity of those who have the sacrosanct duty of taking care of labourers. It is for this reason that I was, and am, a socialist.

>The accusation of inconsistency is without foundation. My behaviour has always been consistent in the sense of looking to the substance, not the appearance of things. I have adapted myself, socialistically, to reality. As the natural development of society proved more and more of Marx's predictions to be wrong, true socialism retreated from the possible to the probable. The only feasible socialism that can be truly implemented is Corporativism—a merging point, a place of equilibrium and justice, with respect for collective interests.
20330.webp
(156.3KB, 822x588)
>>370
>There's a famous screencap from 8ch /leftypol/
Found it using leftybooru.
Replies: >>454 >>458 >>557
>>429
Leftybooru is a blessing. Glad that discomrade is helping migrate it now that booru.org is being abandoned.
Replies: >>455
>>370
>semantic 'gotcha' argument
You mean something like 'invading Palestine is antisemetic because ackchyually Arabs are semites too'?

>>454
Yeah, on one hand it sucks that it's going down, but the new software is infinitely better and no porn ads so I'm happy it happened. I just hope the other boorus get out fine.
Replies: >>457
Someone I know voted for the opposition party just because their favorite party had been in government a couple of times in a row and 'needed a change'.
I know vooting doesn't matter and it's pretty funny rationale, but it's also dumb.

>>455
Oh the new software is a dream compared to the old one which is essentially over 15 years outdated.
>>429
classic post
north africa.jpg
(67.6KB, 700x400)
again.jpg
(507.2KB, 2040x1359)
Al_Boraq_Vitesse.jpg
(9KB, 203x139)
>>110
>>124
I'd like to see a nice collection of quality infrastructure in countries a normal Westerner might assume is a outdated backwater.
Did you know Morocco have had high-speed rail running for five years now?
Replies: >>501
the guard looks at you with a troubled, uncomfortable glare, like that of a man who must explain to his paraplegic daughter that her dreams of becoming a ballerina will never come true.gif
(10.9KB, 600x450)
I just saw someone write "capitalism is always fascism".

It's as if words don't mean things.
clipboard.webp
(5.6KB, 543x153)
#liberal #anticapitalism
Ibrahim_Traoré_-_2023_(cropped).webp
(5.9KB, 220x269)
>>495
I assume Africa is the next sleeping giant, and China may be a partner to it much like the USSR was to China (hopefully without a split), albeit with a more precarious connection due to distance.
I haven't really looked into India and why they haven't yet accelerated into superpower by 2020, despite the land and population that could be utilized.
>ive heard this site is garbage but how bad can it be
>open post about china
>someone calls the Russian Federation under Putin "communist Russia"
>a reply says 'wtf do you mean by this'
>they double down
>close tab
someone shilling a niche retarded 'ultra-left' ideology.webp
(11.5KB, 415x125)
First, I didn't know they existed.
Now, I laugh at them.
Tomorrow, we'll forget they existed.
>It's as if words don't mean things.
Let's be honest - 'fascist' and 'socialist' are basically meaningless words, at least until you build up a specific context.
Replies: >>559
ClipboardImage.png
(5.5KB, 376x41)
fork.webp
(43.5KB, 720x720)
I don't use the site but someone linked a thread which /pol/ kids raided and I just had to look
>fascists were an answer to anti-fascist action
ok maybe I didn't have to look
>"[...] the attitude of the Neo Nazis represents 96% of the population.
From an attempted comment section brigade by the Groomerwaffen SS, referring to age of consent and child marriage.

I've seen the old 'silent majority' routine, but this is just fucking funny.
Replies: >>550
>>533
Sometimes I really do wonder if they seriously believe this junk or they're just trying to 'win' an online disagreement.
>>67
Even just the appeal to nature at all.
It makes no sense.
>>429
This post, when I originally saw it, made me start noticing the whole technicality mindset, where people insist a smart loophole will somehow solve their problem.
The SovCit movement is the textbook case, believing that citing pseudolaw to a police officer or claiming non-consent will stop them getting their car window shattered. That there's some legal loophole in the *checks notes* Magna Carta or maritime law that the state will decide to respect and relinquish all authority. It puts Harry Potter to shame.
Idealism is a hell of a drug.
>>505
Yeah, it almost feels like cheating to post misuse of those words.
Same with any political compass junk.
>I’m not a leftist [anymore] because the left is also full of fascists that provide (un)critical support to any country deemed AES
never voot.webp
(15.3KB, 285x396)
Saw posters like this printed in a country with preferential voting.

If you want to talk about how voting is not adequate participation, great.
If you want to talk about how electoral politicians cannot solve our most critical problems, wonderful.
But if you think abstaining is praxis, come on now. Even if there was somehow low participation like 50%, they'd still count up those ballots and declare it just as legitimate as if it were 99% participation, and the lack of participation wouldn't be chalked up to anti-electoral attitudes alone. Abstaining is a political statement and no-one is listening. Might as well progress the worker's movement instead, even if you reject the electoral system.
headline.webp
(7.4KB, 712x109)
>satire work looks at a problem in society and comments on it
>problem continues to become worse and more obvious
<they predicted the future!
Honey, it's time for your hourly clickbait 🍀news🍀 article template.
Replies: >>674
ClipboardImage.png
(78.2KB, 500x400)
>>570
This is also a dumb take because capitalists are actively copying dystopian science fiction because they think it's cool.
I've seen people (online) arguing that owning any stocks makes one bourgeois. Like a one-drop version of class. I really hope they were joking.
This is especially interesting because some countries force employers to pay a substantial pension to an employee's nominated investment fund. This would effectively be the mandated universal bourgeoisification of the proletariat, given that person's bizarre framework.
Replies: >>685
>>682
It's really ultimately a question of whether you have to support yourself by selling your labor power. You might supplement that with owning stocks, but on the whole the stock market tends to take money away from commoners losing bets. If you reach a point where you own enough stock to not have to work, living off the investments, you could say that person is bourgeois.

The part about retirement funds being based on stock ownership (like an IRA) does have implications for material interests if not class status. Take those people who are living off their stock investments as retirees, collecting dividends and slowly draining their investment portfolio. I think the question of whether or not they are bourgeois is less important than the question of their relationship to class dynamics. Because their wealth responds to market trends and general profits, they have an interest in class struggle, but aligned with bourgeois interests. If they vote for anti-labor policies (which won't hurt them since they're retired), they can reap additional benefits in their portfolio when profits increase. They only own the means of production is a diffuse and abstract way (they don't sit on the board or make executive decisions or anything), but by owning enough stock that you can live off your investments, your material interests do become aligned with those of the bourgeoisie.

This is different from your  retirement being supported by social security or otherwise public funds (or even just personal savings). In those cases, your personal wealth is not tied to the performance of "the market," but to the social safety net or interest rates. In those cases there isn't that incentive to betray the working class for personal benefit.
Replies: >>686 >>687
>>685
>It's really ultimately a question of whether you have to support yourself by selling your labor power. [...] If you reach a point where you own enough stock to not have to work, living off the investments, you could say that person is bourgeois.
Exactly, the way one primarily generates income is going to guide their political/economic interests and therefore determine their economic class. If someone owns a house and rents out a room or a duplex half but makes far more of their income through wage labour, they're ultimately bound to their primary interests as a worker despite any income they make from capital. And a shop owner who takes up an occasional casual job on the side is bound by their primary interests as a petit-owner.
>I think the question of whether or not they are bourgeois is less important than the question of their relationship to class dynamics.
Sure, the basic bourgeois/proletarian model can be a little simplistic when it comes to edge cases, it paints in broad general strokes. We can add exceptions like lumpenproletariat, class traitors and non-legal/non-executive owners, but at the end of the day 'bourgeois' and 'proletariat' are broad helpful classifications, not physical attributes. Their real relationship to class dynamics matters infinitely more than the label we give them. A police officer may technically be a wage worker, but their class interests hardly align with other workers. A store owner may work for the socialist cause despite it antagonizing their economic interests. No simple model will cover all of those exceptions.

>This is different from your retirement being supported by social security or otherwise public funds (or even just personal savings). In those cases, your personal wealth is not tied to the performance of "the market," but to the social safety net or interest rates. In those cases there isn't that incentive to betray the working class for personal benefit.
That's an interesting point I hadn't given much thought to. Many of the activists I see are students (some admitting to being unemployed) or retired. People with much more spare time to dedicate. So if they are bourgeoisified by stock ownership, they will have some economic pressure to antagonize the worker movement.
Replies: >>688
>>685
It does.
I send mine to a union slush fund.
>>686
>Exactly, the way one primarily generates income is going to guide their political/economic interests and therefore determine their economic class.
i think this reverses the order of operations. how one generates income is a primary constituative element of one's class. one's class is in turn determinative of one's interest. 'interest' is interesting because it's ambiguous. on the one hand, we have the common use where it's a synonym of paying attention to or caring about something. "x is one of y's interests". on the other, we have it in the sense of that which is or would be beneficial to obtain or actualize. "x is in y's interest". this ambiguity is important because the notion of interest is vital to class analysis. it is related to what we understand as the subjective and objective conditions for revolution. socialism may be objectively in the interest of the proletariat, but they will not organize to that end unless and until it becomes subjectively interesting for them.

so there are two possible readings of the assertion that one's interests are determined by one's class relation to the mode of production, both of which are true: 
a) one's objective socio-economic interests reflect the structural antagonisms of their class society and their position within it, and;
b) one's subjective psychological interests reflect the norms, attitudes, and experiences one is exposed to, and different classes will be differently exposed.

a wage worker with a house and a mortgage has an objective interest in the abolition of the wage system, but also an objective interest in value of their property rising. the latter is a tangible and imminent regularity of an inflationary consumer market society, whereas the former is a dream foreign to the average liberal subject. there's less resistance for this kind of person to take subjetive interest in the immediate and short term benefits afforded them by bourgeois policy, even as they are objectively not themselves bourgeois.
Replies: >>691 >>698
>>688
Well-stated. Someone's material relation to the economy defines their economic class.
>>688
The wage earning homeowner is a much better example because it also highlights the distinction in objective and subjective interests.
lebanon, levant, what's the difference?.webp
(46.8KB, 1179x327)
>>418
>>482
Maybe some people just want to sound smart. I really can't empathize with this sort of thing.
wut.png
(13.3KB, 1318x88)
wutt.png
(10.7KB, 991x127)
meanwhile on /prc/ !
Replies: >>740
>>739
>/prc/
uh oh!

The first line of pic1 is interesting. The first sentence is literally correct, the second is debatable, but ultimately fascism (including classical fascism) comes to power with the permission and broad support of the haute and petite bourgeoisie respectively, while the Marxist revolution's states did not. Whether the state control over the bourgeois-class and capital was notably different between NEP and class-collaborationist Fascist Italy, I'm not sure enough to argue either way, but NEP ultimately was stopped by the state while fascism's 'class collaboration' and appeasement of the bourgeois did not, hinting at whether the state or the bourgeois was truly dominant.
The second line, however, is odd. I think by 'Classical Stalinism' they just mean 'Stalinism', and NEP was proposed by Lenin, abolished by Stalin, so that sentence is coming out like Frankenstein's monster.

>pic2
Now this is stupid shit said by stupid people.
If classical fascism actually worked as theorized, it could be syndicalist - national syndicalism was a major inspiration. But anyone with a Mao flag saying that's socialism is ridiculous. No interpretation of Marxist schools of thought would accept that as socialist or socialism. Fascism, despite its insistence, was never any more a socialist ideology than capitalist social democracy was.
Replies: >>741 >>743
>>740 *
>If classical fascism actually worked as theorized, it could be syndicalist - national syndicalism was a major inspiration
Scrap that, the class collaborationist pillar of fascism contradicts any revolutionary aspects of syndicalism so I'm not even going to say 'in theory'. There were anti-industrialists and post-syndicalists in the fascist movement but it was silly of me to suggest the ideology could be truly syndicalist, even in its idealist theory.
>>740
didn't stalin abolish the NEP immediately and started liquidating the NEPmen as well as the richer peasants ?
Replies: >>744
6761 - deaths famine food joseph_stalin kulak lazy_town pipe soviet_famine_of_1932_to_33 soviet_union ukraine.jpg
(414KB, 1412x2417)
>>743
>immediately
I'm not well-read on Stalin's rise to power and am seeing contradictory sources on whether they dislike or supported NEP prior to 1928, but I would say yes.
It also appears that Stalin was (despite official Soviet policy) pro-liquidization of the kulaks before 1930, when the party policy was changed.
So if anything, Stalinism should be considered aggressively anti-NEP, anti-kulak and pro-collectivization.
[New Reply]
69 replies | 29 files
Connecting...
Show Post Actions

Actions:

- news - rules - faq - privacy - stats -
fusion 1.7.0