Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Wow, that's interesting.
So, the fascist invaders that bombed an entire school of schoolgirls to death, are lying about getting their asses kicked when they fight people who aren't children?
Just like the Nazis did
Maybe Hegseth should stop bitching and actually pull up.
Oh, wait.
What a colossal waste of life.
At short term, I hope for the left to be strong enough to repeal the current fascist rise which I hope could open a window of interests for people to question capitalism and politicize toward materialism and leftism as a whole.
At long term my hope is simply the creation of a class less and state less international, intersectionnal and materialist society, something that could push us toward greatness
At long term my hope is simply the creation of a class less and state less international, intersectionnal and materialist society, something that could push us toward greatness
@Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier Blax wants to talk to you about socialism and is asking you if you can unblock him
\
We cannot let these people spread off this planet.
They are not just planetary threats, they corrupt and corrode everything they touch, and are entirely capable of fucking up entire solar systems with their disgusting ideology based on victim blaming and acting like the bullies are the real victims.
There's a reason education quality is dropping worldwide, it's because these fuckers are bombing schools full of little girls, and calling it holy, then gutting education in 1st world countries, to try to send us all back to the stone age and be their slaves.
Billionaires are a threat to all life, look at what they do to their own kids.
"The new world order, is the old world order. Bunch of old ass dorks, acting like orcs from Mordor."
We cannot let these people spread off this planet.
They are not just planetary threats, they corrupt and corrode everything they touch, and are entirely capable of fucking up entire solar systems with their disgusting ideology based on victim blaming and acting like the bullies are the real victims.
There's a reason education quality is dropping worldwide, it's because these fuckers are bombing schools full of little girls, and calling it holy, then gutting education in 1st world countries, to try to send us all back to the stone age and be their slaves.
Billionaires are a threat to all life, look at what they do to their own kids.
"The new world order, is the old world order. Bunch of old ass dorks, acting like orcs from Mordor."
Last edited:
@Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier the thing about socialism and capitalism is though
You have 3 modes of production so to say, each with their own social relations
Feudalism has feudal social relations, capitalism has capital centered social relations, and socialism has socially centered social relations
In feudalism, there's lords that own a piece of land, and do no work on it
And there's peasants that work that piece of land and produce things with it and with their tools, and their work produces value, the peasants get to keep some of that value, and the rest of the value they pay to the lord who owns that land, as tribute
In capitalism, there's capitalists, as in stock holders for example, who own a company, but do no work on it
And there's workers that work at that company and produce the products, decide where things should go, decide who to hire and fire, decide budgets, etc, workers do all the work, and their work produces value, and they get to keep some of that value, as wages, but the rest of the value is taken by the capitalists, as profit, because they own the company, the means of production, as in the means by which that profit was produced
In both feudalism and capitalism, lords and capitalists get money not by working, but owning the thing that the peasants and workers work on to produce value and to generate that money
In socialism, there is no feudal lord and no capitalist, the workers themselves own the land and they become the share holders, and they decide things together and run it democratically
But there are 2 main schools of socialist thought:
Authoritarian socialism, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Deng Xiaoping, Xi Jinping
Libertarian socialism, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Bookchin
Social democrats were originally socialists too and I'll talk about that too, but they aren't socialists anymore
The difference between these 2 schools of thoughts is that they have two different approaches to how they think socialism should be built
The authoritarian socialist approach is, you win elections or do revolutions, and use the power of the state to make socialist reforms of the economy, and the idea is that the workers are empowered by those reforms, and eventually because the workers get so empowered, the role of the state stops having a role, the state withers away, and you end up with a stateless society run by the workers' organisations
The libertarian socialist approach is, you built workers organisations today, that on their own, through strong unions and such, get more powerful, because people would be less and less reliant on the state or on trying to get capitalists to raise wages through voting on policies, but instead rely on their own organisational power, and that bit by bit, that's how you end up with a society where workers run their own workplaces
Libertarian socialists criticise authoritarians' approach, saying that the means and ends to achieve a method are inter-connected, so that if you empower the state more and more, like authoritarians do, it is impossible to end up at a stateless worker-run society, because the means the authoritarians take do not lead to that end, and they also say that the authoritarians just replace the role of the shareholder
In the USSR, a group of capitalists didn't own the company you worked for, Stalin and his government owned the company you worked for
Same thing practically, workers don't own the means of production, someone else does, and they produce the value that those owners extract a part of, just for owning it
And social democrats originally were socialists that said the way to get to socialism is to win elections and reform capitalism with good pro-worker laws, and that that way you end up at socialism
Libertarian socialists also criticise authoritarian socialists, and say that authoritarians are just edgy social democrats
Which imo is true cause both social democrats and authoritarian socialists end up with the same things in practice, capitalist economy with some pro-worker laws
But social democrats eventually distanced themselves and now they just want pro-worker laws and a capitalist economy
You have 3 modes of production so to say, each with their own social relations
Feudalism has feudal social relations, capitalism has capital centered social relations, and socialism has socially centered social relations
In feudalism, there's lords that own a piece of land, and do no work on it
And there's peasants that work that piece of land and produce things with it and with their tools, and their work produces value, the peasants get to keep some of that value, and the rest of the value they pay to the lord who owns that land, as tribute
In capitalism, there's capitalists, as in stock holders for example, who own a company, but do no work on it
And there's workers that work at that company and produce the products, decide where things should go, decide who to hire and fire, decide budgets, etc, workers do all the work, and their work produces value, and they get to keep some of that value, as wages, but the rest of the value is taken by the capitalists, as profit, because they own the company, the means of production, as in the means by which that profit was produced
In both feudalism and capitalism, lords and capitalists get money not by working, but owning the thing that the peasants and workers work on to produce value and to generate that money
In socialism, there is no feudal lord and no capitalist, the workers themselves own the land and they become the share holders, and they decide things together and run it democratically
But there are 2 main schools of socialist thought:
Authoritarian socialism, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Deng Xiaoping, Xi Jinping
Libertarian socialism, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Bookchin
Social democrats were originally socialists too and I'll talk about that too, but they aren't socialists anymore
The difference between these 2 schools of thoughts is that they have two different approaches to how they think socialism should be built
The authoritarian socialist approach is, you win elections or do revolutions, and use the power of the state to make socialist reforms of the economy, and the idea is that the workers are empowered by those reforms, and eventually because the workers get so empowered, the role of the state stops having a role, the state withers away, and you end up with a stateless society run by the workers' organisations
The libertarian socialist approach is, you built workers organisations today, that on their own, through strong unions and such, get more powerful, because people would be less and less reliant on the state or on trying to get capitalists to raise wages through voting on policies, but instead rely on their own organisational power, and that bit by bit, that's how you end up with a society where workers run their own workplaces
Libertarian socialists criticise authoritarians' approach, saying that the means and ends to achieve a method are inter-connected, so that if you empower the state more and more, like authoritarians do, it is impossible to end up at a stateless worker-run society, because the means the authoritarians take do not lead to that end, and they also say that the authoritarians just replace the role of the shareholder
In the USSR, a group of capitalists didn't own the company you worked for, Stalin and his government owned the company you worked for
Same thing practically, workers don't own the means of production, someone else does, and they produce the value that those owners extract a part of, just for owning it
And social democrats originally were socialists that said the way to get to socialism is to win elections and reform capitalism with good pro-worker laws, and that that way you end up at socialism
Libertarian socialists also criticise authoritarian socialists, and say that authoritarians are just edgy social democrats
Which imo is true cause both social democrats and authoritarian socialists end up with the same things in practice, capitalist economy with some pro-worker laws
But social democrats eventually distanced themselves and now they just want pro-worker laws and a capitalist economy
And a bunch of things happened between these three groups historically
Social democrats and the communists fought each other a lot in Germany in the 1920s or 30s and that eventually lead to Hitler being appointed as chancellor because the former prime-minister or whatever that was, thought he was the only alternative to a very divided left
And that in-fighting was Stalin's fault because he called social democracy "the right wing of fascism", and the german communists followed Stalin
The USSR also sabotaged the libertarian socialists who were fighting Franco's fascism in the spanish civil war
The USSR also was formed by Lenin's government taking over the already previously formed soviets, which were democratic workers' councils
Etc
Social democrats and the communists fought each other a lot in Germany in the 1920s or 30s and that eventually lead to Hitler being appointed as chancellor because the former prime-minister or whatever that was, thought he was the only alternative to a very divided left
And that in-fighting was Stalin's fault because he called social democracy "the right wing of fascism", and the german communists followed Stalin
The USSR also sabotaged the libertarian socialists who were fighting Franco's fascism in the spanish civil war
The USSR also was formed by Lenin's government taking over the already previously formed soviets, which were democratic workers' councils
Etc