|
I'll copy-paste a few former posts I've made for some basic definitionsquote:For those who keep getting confused about different meanings of communism here's a simple explanation: in marxbook, communism is theorized to be a stage of economic development predominant in the world after capitalism, in the historic procession of primitive communism->feudalism->capitalism->communism->????. any chance of communism's success is based on the gains from modern industry that sprang from capitalistic production being socialized so that instead of going to only a few owners of capital. that means you have to actually have amounts of capitalization in your country in order to get to a modern communism that works right quote:Economic liberalism is a belief that the best organization of companies through free markets, freedom of labor/opportunity, free trade, private property and representative democracy is the best way to go. Live and let live, laissez faire. It's underpinned by enlightenment ideals and adam smith. Everyone is given, in theory, an equal chance to succeed based on merit. (In practice, like in all systems, those who luck out in being born in certain positions have obvious advantages. For instance, in liberalism, one born with enough money to just buy a bunch of machines that they pay other people to temporarily work with to make stuff--private property--can keep their money without doing as much labor of their own. Personal property is something different--poo poo you own for your own use and not for making a profit) Anyone smarter feel free to correct any of this. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Feb 9, 2016 |
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
As for the other main side of leftism, anarchism: Anarcho- is a prefix describing what the role of the nation-state should be in regards to a government, often followed by an economic system. Specifically, anarchism calls for a limited or non-existent role of the nation-state. There was a big split between leftists over this in the Hague Congress of the First International, with Communists  (this was 1872 so no lenin) maintaining that the nation should be the unit by which economic matters are governed and that political change should be carried out through the nation's efforts. Leftist anarchists (led by mikhail bakunin  ) broke from the party after Marx expelled bakunin for Bak's fears that a nation enacting revolution and taking control over the means of production would result in something as bad as the things it replaced. Instead of the top-down approach that other socialists take, anarchists work on a local scale, with power coming from the bottom up. They propose that any group/union/village/microstate/tribal affiliation that wants to work together should be its own autonomous entity, and it can enter into relations with other entities whenever without being bound by firm political boundaries. Often, if anarchists work with Communists in a political struggle, when both of them win, communists go back on promises to anarchists in forming a new government because Communists have a more centralized military to back them up (see mao going back on promises of self-determination to stateless nations in china after the revolution) Some flavors of anarchism: anarcho-syndicalism: "syndicates" are trade unions. The main economic production is done by trade unions, in which to which everyone has a vote. The IWW (International Workers of the World) kinda relevant here, maybe anarcho-communism: society is organized into communes without an overaching nation-state. this, and the previous are often compared with "libertarian socialism" which is very similar (the use of libertarian here predates libertarian conservatism) anarcho-capitalism: ancaps, or libertarian conservatives. Not leftist, since left/right describes economic policy, not social policy (there are plenty of leftists with illiberal social views, after all ). This is what you think of what you hear of libertarians nowadays. Kill you're parents. anarcho-primitivism: society should revert to a deindustrialized setting. would probably require the death of 99% of the world's population to happen. pol pot wished for society to revert to an agrarian setting (though pol pot wasn't an anarcho-primitivist) and look what happened there. some Greens might be this, if they want to "get back to nature" and if you hear them talking about natural cures while rejecting vaccines. There are others that might be worth noting but someone else can do that. besides it's long and confusing enough already. e: One last thing to mention: all of these above-listed leftist groups either secretly or openly hate each other, and wish to destroy one another highlander style to become the One True Leftist. thank you have a nice day Rodatose fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Quick question: What do you hope to get out of this thread, that you couldn't by simply reading online sources like Wikipedia or whatever? Do you want a really short primer, or are you trying to gauge the diversity of actual opinions on DnD, or what? I remember first starting out reading about leftist things and clicking on Wikipedia and being daunted by the sheer number of new topics thrown at you at once, and there wasn't a single definitive starting point since a lot of the topics had similar sounding page headings. It's not organized very well for someone starting out.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
site posted:- Thanks for the definitions and the rundown on the anarchism Yeah, Marx was a revolutionary socialist, though near the end of their life they conceded that it would be possible for England to peacefully enact a transition to socialism and then to communism, which had a developed and organized working class from having capitalism long enough. Still, Marx was insistent on the necessity of the state, while anarchists decried its illegitimacy and undemocratic nature. Since they were affiliated with the Communist party, and they're probably most known for the Communist Manifesto (which I frankly think is not very substantive), they and most who follow offshoots of their doctrine are most widely known as a Communist. For Democratic Socialists, you could simply have a popular vote on it and if whatever existing body of lawmakers/rulers agreed to implement the changes and relinquish power, then a new constituion could be drawn up with new rights or what have you. There are plenty of other "hows" that individual authors cane up with. Marx derisively refereed to those authors for "writing recipes for the kitchens of the future" so Marx never gave a detailed how-to and was deliberately vague on details of what is to be, something that has been exploited by many future revolutionaries when they wish to claim their own sect as the true one. One particular author who got famous for their proposal of a "how it will be" socialist programme was Edward Bellamy, for their utopian novel Looking Backward (2000-1887). It's about someone who falls asleep in 1887 and wakes up in a utopian socialist boston, where there is full employment, no hunger, plenty of leisure time to work on arts, a national "industrial army" (jobs corp), debit cards which pay your work credits for consumer goods, and near instant home delivery of goods. The book got popular irl and "bellamy clubs" were formed for how to implement its ideas. quote:Could you, or anyone, tell me about Lenin or the Russian Revolution? The same with Mao, and China. I'm hugely lacking on both those things. I'd appreciate any good book recommends here  The only book i've read on Mao concentrated more on the meeting between nixon and mao, which was a part of China trying to form a coalition against their new rivals, the USSR. The USSR wanted their model of Communism to be the one adopted across the world with power flowing from Moscow; China obviously did not want this especially with the rise of chinese nationalism from a hundred or so years of being subject to foreign rule and divisions of China divided into client states. Both sides accused each other of being ~revisionists~ (revising the historical truths marx supposedly laid out for their own regimes) and tensions were mounting. As was mentioned upthread, Mao had done rural guerilla warfare from some hilly/mountainous region, and when coming to power their favoritism for small-scale agrarian folks, which may have influenced projects like putting iron kilns in backyards and planting corn and potatoes on hillsides. These projects were failures; small scale kilns didn't produce high-quality iron, and cultivating hillsides in rural regions contributed to massive river flooding. That's a problem of having someone in charge who has no accountability and complete power to implement ideas; you don't need to test anything and no one is willing to step in and offer criticism when it's known you have a habit of shooting associates who you are suspicious of. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Some more about capital accumulation Why does capital accumulate and concentrate into decreasingly fewer hands? Because of two things: the nature of machinery/capital (fixed capital) itself needing to be replaced over time, and competition between fellow capitalists to produce at ever-cheaper rates. These two things are linked with the fact that technology of the machinery is constantly improving. A capitalist buys a output-increasing, labor-saving machine to replace a few workers (who are also called variable capital) and therefore save money on wages per unit produced over time. Buying these machines allows individual capitalists to sell their raw goods at a cheaper price on the market, which gives them an edge on other capitalists. In the short term, those able to cut the most labor costs (by buying the most fixed capital (or those who are able to pay their variable capital the least) will be able to out-compete other capitalists. However, that advantage is only in the short-term, because machines go through wear and tear (depreciate) and therefore must be replaced eventually if the capitalist wishes to stay in business. And as time goes on, technology for machines improve and new types of labor-reducing machines are invented. So the guy who bought the Auto-welder X9400 who could replace 2 of their workers and shaved 2 cents off their final product eventually ends up seeing their profit disappear as the rest of the market gets X9400s, and then is later outcompeted by those who buy the new Auto-welder X9800 (which allows you to replace 3 workers!) There are two ways our capitalist can continue to compete, First, they can work their laborers harder and skimp on safety standards, quality etc to make up for their equipment's inferior production capabilities. Small owners who don't have that much money saved up try to do this, but run up against labor regulations created due to the previous efforts of organized labor. So smaller producers either have to resort to corruption with regulatory officials or else they will go out of business. The other way the capitalist can continue to compete is by replacing their machinery with ever-increasing amounts of machinery. Over time, we're not just talking one or two updated machines-that are replaced, but nearly every single facet of production replaced with automated machinery. We're talking a whole factory here. And an independent steel rod producer doesn't have the spare money to buy a factory. Only those producers who've previously been had large-enough scale operations which they've gained enough profit from to have spare money can afford this periodic replacement. As industries become old enough that inventions have been made to cover all the various processes involved in production, and these inventions are regularly employed, the barrier to entry in the field increases and more technology is required to compete. Smaller producers go out of business or are absorbed by larger ones, and capital concentrates in ever fewer owners' hands. This is partly what was meant earlier when referring to how the capitalist class is its own gravedigger - capital concentration means that more bourgeois owners are losing their small holdings and being into the ranks of the proletariat, forced to sell their labor (sweat for a living) as time goes on. And the worst part of this is that under this setup, the individual producer must exploit their workers for enough profit to replace their machinery. If they don't, they won't be part of the industry anymore and the rest of producers will take their place. It's survival of the most exploitative; capital concentrates under those who have been able to con the most out of labor and amass enough "productive weaponry" to outcompete others. Only bastard bosses survive, because the company that offered a full health plan can't afford constant expansion with its lower profit margins. So in short, an industry, as time goes on, becomes top-heavy. Many small independent producers get replaced by a few large, capital intensive ones, who have to keep making a profit because they need to constantly update and replace their capital. e:(This leads to a structural problem on the consumer side: with fewer people making a profit and real wages not rising relative to costs, there isn't enough of a consumer base to afford all of the things that are made under the ever-increasing production. Supply is too high and and consumer demand too low for something to be sold at a profit, so producers just stop producing for less necessary things, with a lot more people getting laid off. Credit can be offered to consumers, but eventually, debt bubbles pop and financiers decide to just not lend because they don't expect to be paid back. So you get things like too much food being produced that it goes to waste while simultaneously, people starve because the sellers have to make a profit. From this overproduction + underconsumption combo, you get a crisis/crash. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Feb 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:Does anyone else see how this makes no sense? Perhaps all trade doesn't happen under a single set of conditions; instead, the trade partners you're discussing have widely differing levels of capitalization and organization. Say something like sanctions against Iran for oil refining equipment are devastating because without the outside financial and productive capital, that state cannot take advantage of its resources. Meanwhile, with free trade between capitalists from rich countries and third world countries, one possible motive for the capitalist to go overseas instead of staying at home is that there is less labor organization, regulation and a lesser level of capitalization, so they can exploit that other population more easily enough to make up for transportation costs. This is a bad thing differing from the first example because more likely than not, the capitalist's motive isn't actually improving the productive capabilities or standard of living of that foreign country; they probably won't care about putting their profits back into the community. In fact, it could be counterproductive to do so, as building a middle class in that country could result in competitors or a more organized workforce; it's better to instead be the only game in town. The capital moved there will still not allow the people who live there to control and take advantage of those resources In short: sanctions to isolate a country seek to prevent movements of capital into a country that have a developmentalist intention of strengthening that country's economy/production capabilities - something that's politically unfavorable to the countries leveling sanctions. Movement of capital into poorer countries who don't have an developmentalist/nationalizing force in opposition to capitalists don't have the intention of developing those areas - they have an extractivist one. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 04:30 on May 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 04:28
|
|