Being friends is communism
Other urls found in this thread:
I want a cute friend to share things with uwu
Friends are great but l'appel isn't.
How many close friends do you have, Zig Forums? I have four. Not much, but I am obviously not counting all the acquaintances that I don't count as friends.
I pity the people who do not have a tight close friend circle, but 20-30 loose friends. I've also met people who are friend circle hopping, who have a new group of friends every two months. It's clear that they just look for appreciation. Personally, I have no interest in meeting other human beings to form a close friendship as long as my friends that I have right now don't abandon me or die or whatever.
I moved 10000km away from my close friends. Now I have 20-30 loose friends and I feel so lonely all the time.
Friendship is Magic.
I'm a neet who abandon friends after high school. I barely have any loose friends.
Maybe I would consider making friends on the internet if my internet wasn't so tight.
What do worlds mean in this context?
All my close friends moved away, died, or I couldn't hang out with anymore for various reasons. I don't currently have any friends so much as people I know but am not close too. My job keeps me isolated and I don't meet interesting and fun people for whatever reason. I'm lonely as shit and wish we could put the social back in socialism.
A castle, and the entire path that you take to reach that castle, which your princess may or may not be in.
What's wrong with it? I though it was a nice read.
Communism is when everybody get rewarded the whole fruit of their labor. That's it.
It isn't friendship.
It isn't being nice.
It isn't homosexuality acceptance.
It isn't appreciation.
It isn't appreciation.
It isn't your anime soy utopia.
It isn't rainbows and unicorns.
Read a book, nigger.
Hmm… This fits with something that has been concerning me.
Who's the author behind this worlds thesis? I'd like to read more about it.
Communism is not love. Communism is the hammer in which we use to crush our enemies.
Utopian socialism can not work
Don't you know user, commodity fetishism, reification, alienation and every prediction the LTV makes are just going to disappear if only you and your fellow blue collar worker can vote every day on who has to clean the toilet tomorrow. True words spoken from our AnNihil comrade who has never worked in a cooperative but shitposts on a Polynesian staff dancing board.
You know when right-wingers say: "Why don't you commies just start your own cooperative??" - this unironcially is correct when you deal with these Proudhonists.
Oh, it's this post again.
I mean, even if we want to use the politically charged term "leftists" for communists, can we at least agree that "left" should mean anti-capitalism? I never said to do nothing, but cooperatives - in the current system - do absolutely fucking nothing. In fact, I'd rather work as a wage slave for a Fordian company that grants me benefits and where I am comfortably alienated without sharing any risks, than to be a wage slave for a cooperative where I have to be bothered to vote for the most mundane shit and are uncomfortably alienated because I need to vote for my own exploitation.
Cooperatives in socialism can be a good thing, but we don't have socialism and giving workers equal shares certainly won't bring about socialism. This is why people like Wolff are absolutely damaging to our movement, because they do nothing to actually abolish our predicament, mixed in with rantings about the supposed bureaucratic "class" in the USSR. To overcome capitalism, you can't rely on small-scale local action, capitalism is political on a scale that is manifested on the dominating form of social organization, the nation-state. Leninists reject both utopians who go too far and want an immediate world revolution, but also utopians who want to keep everything local and never attack the dominating power structure. Proudhon's concept might have had merit in his lifetime, but to a modern worker, especially in Western countries, you need to explain as why he wants the company he works in to hand out equal shares, and why he would benefit from that.
…and this is exactly why I DON'T advocate "left" unity, fellow FBI informant.
Congratulations for understanding absolutely nothing. You are a lukewarm liberal who sneaks in some anarchist rethoric about muh masters.
Wow what an argument!
read this, Lassalle
I have zero.
Nobody advocates for that.
In a co-op you get paid an amount proportional to what you've contributed with your work and nobody profits on the backs of others just because they have a piece of paper granting them the ownership rights of the MoP even if he/she just sat on a chair under the AC the whole day doing nothing.
Yeah, because it worked like a charm in the USSR.
I was obviously talking about how there would be no parasites exploiting the workers in socialism/communism.
All the crap you've written only applies when you are under a capitalist system and it's obvious that just co-ops alone aren't socialism.
…as long as you wall the MLs.
How do you calculate that? What about the share that you need to pay to accumulate the capital you have? Do you distinguish between skilled and unskilled labor? What about taxes you need to pay for welfare, insurance and pensions in your society? Aren't you also worried that you are gonna push other cooperatives out of business which forces you to lower your own wage?
This is a really infantile depiction of your average capitalist. While this might be true for the top 15 shareholders in the West, most capitalists work hard. The managerial labour conducted by the capitalist would just be transfered to hired managers but nothing else would change. If you think about the personal profits of the capitalists, in the grand scheme of things, they are really not that important. If all capitalists would yield their personal profits to their employees, the world wouldn't fundamentally that different other than the government introducing 1$ more minimum wage, achieving the same result. Utopians seem to focus overly on distribution and moral, which makes them closer to Lolberts and AnCaps (who advocate with the same argument, just for a different distribution of property) than to actual Marxists.
Primitivists get out. There will always be surplus. Didn't even Cockshott make a video about this?
I like to think my repeated shilling has paid off. But to be sure, they hate most 'friendship' and say 'all friendship is now political'. Instead of consuming commodities together, conspire ('complotisme') and create new complicities which can become solidarities. "Friendship means three things, you know. Kinship in luckless plight, Equality before the foe, Freedom in death's sight" (Nietzsche)
I'm pretty sure it's from Heidegger and it's something he kept with all his life but it begins with Being and Time.
No you fucking weren't. The exchange went like this:
(You) "Communism is when everybody get rewarded the whole fruit of their labor. That's it."
">communism is fair trade capitalism"
(You) saying nuh-uh, it's not capitalism when you just remove the boss
(Me) pointing out what drives accumulation and subverts planning
(This post, you) trying to retcon your argument
He did, but he's wrong. There's a difference between a surplus extracted by another entity and the workers themselves allocating the resources they produce. What he's describing could be better called state capitalism, red fascism, or total monopoly capitalism. It's structurally the same as if Google or Amazon "won" the game of Monopoly and owned everything, including privatizing the state.
I been trying to look it up but seems it's a minor subject on his work but still it seems Heidegger had been trying to get into my reading list in one way or another.
It's a pretty big deal for him, at least in his earlier years 20's and 30's before he moved on to the poetry and language stuff. Honestly just start with Being and Time. Fucking amazing text. World is something metaphysical, the way something exists AS something, for us. For instance a forest exists as something ready-to-hand, like an object, but it can be ancestral or sacred land, or it can be so much timber depending on your world. Notice how the ZADists in France talk about being against the airport and its world. Very proto-pomo concept that is a general component of his hermeneutics (which is like a fancy word for narrative).
Ah, yes. Nothing like a CEO extracting surplus from the workers they command by force, but… with red paint!
You shitbag NazCaps don't belong here.
You are confusing surplus and surplus value. I don't know what "allocating themselves" concretely means in this context. Surely you already have workers allocating surplus physicially themselves in capitalism already.
Come the fuck on.
Did you take your medication?
I found it was mostly romanticism and passive-agressive lyrical jerking off. Also by saying the revolution is always coming is how it never comes.
I don't blame them
So you just didn't like the style
I think you have who's arguing what backward or something.
Maybe. Can you elaborate on the difference then?
It means that the workers (or the people) are the ones making the decisions about how much goes to surplus and how to allocate that. The dispute about the USSR and ML states generally is that having bureaucrats from The Party who are acting totally in the interest of the workers (pinky promise) isn't good enough. Either the workers in a given industry would have to have direct say in the matter or the same for the citizenry at large. The anarchist critique specifically is that states fundamentally can't be democratic because they rely on a monopoly of violence to enforce their laws over the people.
In co-ops do you mean? Because in a normal capitalist firm what happens is the product is sold (closest thing to the physical surplus being allocated), then the value is redeemed by the firm and the surplus value goes to the firm/capitalist class while the wages are paid to the workers. In a socialist system the workers allocating surplus would have to be at least the dominant mode of production.
Fascism as in merging corporate power with state power (i.e. a total state monopoly) and using political power to enforce the will of the state on the people is a pretty accurate description of what happened. As for the "red" part, it just goes to show that socialism is so good that even doing it half-assed will have good consequences.
Why did you pick the side, and what did you say to them exactly?
That's just capitalism.
GamerGate was a petty little controversy, I'm more than happy to admit it; yet the extreme bile and wagon circling in response to something so utterly petty, I believe, shows how angry and extreme much of the "internet left" (or "Vampire's Castle" to borrow a better term) has gotten.
I picked a side because admittedly its in my nature to pick sides, though I also like to think its in part because I don't like seeing bullies–whoever or however they are–rule over and abuse people.
I was there when it started, what drew me to the controversy was how many sites censored discussion of it with the exception of the escapist (which I had posted on and visited some time before that)
The gaming press was always trash, everyone knew that, GG was not new in that regard, but it was in many ways the penultimate conflict between the hobby enthusiasts and the hobby press, which had skirmished some time in the past with things like attempting to shame critics of the new DmC and the like as well as lying to get a "progressive" game (Gone Home) more accolades and attention than it deserved.
When it came time to read Eric Gjoni's Zoe Post, I came away from it deeply sympathetic to the man, it was obvious to me that he escaped from an abusive relationship, then earlier evidence came to light that the supposed "harassment" that Zoe Quinn experienced from Wizard Chan may have been faked and instead directed a hate mob towards a group of suicidal depressed men.
It honestly broke my heart, I don't care if we're always supposed to assume that men are the abusers and women the abused, or that InCels are "disgusting", when I see people hurt, it hurts me, and when their abusers have the gall to try and portray themselves as victims to direct sympathy away from their victims, it makes me angry.
So I told my friends that I thought Eric Gjoni was abused, I felt that Zoe Quinn had the hallmarks of a manipulative sociopath, and that people should be free to question the gaming press as to why they were so intent on attacking gamers/censoring this discussion.
In return I was told, "sympathetically" at first, that I just hated women but was unwilling to admit it to myself, that even if I had good intentions I was part of a "hate group" now, before finally being told that I and those like me were scum who had no place in a just new world.
Surplus under capitalism has a two-folded character, such as commodities and labour. When a medieval peasant harvests a surplus, he will store it in his barn and keep it for bad times. He created a surplus and managed it himself. When now the landlord or the church come, and demands their tithe, they will approprite a part of the surplus, but notice that they demand it in-kind, it's not a monetary tax. In capitalism, surplus retains its utility, but also develops a value-character, that is depended on labour cost, constant captial, etc. - if your cooperative still calculates surplus value like that within their book-keeping, it can't be socialism because the fundamental laws of capitalism, arising from the labour theory of value, still operate.
And there is my problem with the anarchist argument, even if you have a society that allocates surplus in-kind (and most socialist states have been doing that, I recommend watching this part of a documentary about the DPRK youtube.com
That's not such a good definition, because then the US, the EU, South Korea etc. would all be fascism as the corporate sector is pretty much merged with the state. Also, no fascist state had a state monopoly.
That is not at all what happened and ironically what right-wingers think happened in the USSR.
In capitalism corporate and state power are usually separate to some extent. Fascism involves nationalizing businesses historically. Similar things are happening with internet companies today, like FB and Google who work directly with the alphabet soup.
Sounds familiar. Respecting Women is a pretty powerful sedative and is probably a big reason why feminism has ended up reifying so many problems with gender roles instead of fixing them. IMO it's better to just accept that nobody will agree with you about everything and with some people you just can't talk about certain topics.
Well I'm not a mutualist. Maybe you're confusing me with that other user using this flag who always uses reddit spacing. I'm in the leftcom-anarchy zone. I would only support co-ops as a transitional measure, a way to raise class consciousness, a way to organize, etc. not as an end in themselves. I agree with you on mutualism.
I don't really see the relationship between the surplus/surplus value confusion and the general anarchist disagreement with state socialism. It seems like two separate arguments: capitalism-as-class vs capitalism-as-commodity-production and state good vs state bad. I agree with your assessment of the common confusion, but I think you were incorrectly assuming that I had made that error. I may have been sloppy with the phrasing though.
We can get into the weeds about that if you like, but it's pretty bold to just dismiss the entire political topic of legitimate representation. For now I'll just speak to the specific cases you give here and give a broad response. There's really no legitimate claim to representation if the bureaucrat was elected by a group other than the people they're supposed to represent (a committee of the Party). If that group was elected by constituents then there's some connection, but each step removed makes the representation less direct, i.e. more open to subversion of public will by the system, i.e. less legitimate. If a manager is elected directly by the people that's a lot better, but it's still mere democracy. You still have hierarchy because there's a rule by majority.
There are all sorts of structures proposed (a minority have been tested IRL) to maximize accountability to the people and so on. Syndicalism gets pretty technical about that. The main narcho argument is against states per se. If the Party's committee or the elected manager is backed by state power and accountable to the state rather than the people, then no kind of election process will make them a legitimate representative of the people, since that's basically pageantry.
There isn't one really. It's too broad and vague as far as I can reckon.
My point there was that they're proto-fascist in structural terms. They're headed for exactly the kind of totalitarian nightmare people were afraid of in the 20th century.
Well not if you exclude red fascists. ::DDD
Eh, depends on the time period but yeah the USSR did enforce the will of the state on people at points. I mean that's not exactly unusual for a state anyway. The will of the people isn't some abstract metaphysical force the Party can tap into or whatever. Saying the party is obeying the will of the people is different from doing it or from merely trying to act in their interests for that matter.