Moishe Postone Thread

His explanation of how anti-Semitism is a fetishized form of anti-capitalism is really good.

I think Zizek has taken a lot of influence from Postone and his views on Israel are not that different, but Zizek is a goofy sniffle man so he doesn't get this kind of heat.

Attached: postone.jpg (452x640, 64.65K)

Attached: 5.jpg (640x559, 29.42K)

What a pathetic attempt at spiteful smearing.

The whole point of the Anti-Deutsch is to whine about anti-semitism, so of course they would refer to leftist writers who have addressed that topic. They are also "influenced" by Adorno; does that make Adorno a Zionist…?

Postone never even discussed Israel or antisemitism with the Platypus Society. The latter conducted a single interview with Postone in which he talked about crisis theory, and that's about it.

Attached: very-nice-and-gay-14890760.png (500x595, 121.08K)

Attached: nazbolallende.jpg (2275x1079, 464.57K)

The part where Postone tries his best to comfort him is really sad.

Attached: e55b4b9a789ef861d9003b3aa9d219d89aa494dcdc6b932623f3f2e55569a727.jpg (1890x1417, 160.84K)

How is this garbage even different from Zig Forumstards claiming niggers deserve what's coming to them? Fuck off.

t. booty blasted "Left" Labour Zionist

The lowkey diss on Wolff was a nice touch.

Postone doesn't imply that. He's saying that the paranoid, conspiratorial anti-Semitism of the Middle East that blames all problems on the Jews cannot simply be explained as a response to Israel's actions. It is part of the reason but it is not enough. Like I was saying Zizek makes the same basic point here: youtube.com/watch?v=SkSV4xyKkds

But Marx literally argued this. Capitalism is contingent on wage labor and the value form, not on the existence of the Bourgeoise, they're more a byproduct of Capitalism, not it's defining feature. This was Marx's central argument against Proudhon, that even without a Bourgeoise the working class could still oppress itself.

Love Postone, wish he was discussed here more often.

Just because Zionists cite Postone doesn't mean he's a Zionist. Richard Spencer likes Gramsci, does that mean Gramsci was a Fascist? Please, next time you want to post on this board exercise the absolute minimum amount of critical thinking it takes to make a coherent point.

ITT: Zig Forumsaks

I have to disagree that antisemitism is simply "anti-capitalism". If that were the case, why are the biggest Jew-haters also huge apologists for capitalism? These people hate us because they envy the success of the rich Jews in the existing system; rather than desiring the end of capitalism as a whole, they merely want to take the place of the "rich Jews" and live as the big capitalists themselves. Even quite a few of the white people who call themselves anti-Zionist aren't even all that anti-imperialist or make any attempt to understand Amerikan support for Israel as an integral part of imperialism as they love the way of life that Amerikan imperialism has given them. They only see Israel and its supporters as aliens which manipulate the United Snakes into doing evil, and assume that once the aliens have been exposed the U.S. will go back to being "good" (as if the US's entire existence isn't predicated on settler-colonialism imperialism). You can't be the richest country in the world without multiple proxy states doing your bidding.

Chaya are you allowed to have a goy as a bf

Attached: R14kkDj.png (657x527, 13.38K)

His argument against Bakunin was literally the opposite. Bakunin argued that a workers state would merely end up“oppressing” other classes simply by seizing and using the weapon of state power. Marx argued against this fetishistic view of power by pointing out that even if this were the case the proletariat would merely become bourgeois and the other classes would become proletarians. Historical evidence also speaks in favor of this point as I already mentioned.

Notice I never even claimed that the bourgeoisie was a central feature of capitalism but only that the bourgeoisie actually is an integral part of capitalism. Commodity production and the value-form would be oppressive without a bourgeoisie, true, but these things actually are not capitalism but merely parts of it left-coms intentionally misunderstand and seek to mislead others on this point.

Robert Kurz is better.

This is perhaps the weakest point in both the lexicon of contemporary Left anti-Zionism and the philo-Semitic response to Jew hatred. The United States does not control Israel— Israel is a formidable imperialist power in its own right. On the other hand it’s untrue to say that Israel controls the US; rather, both Israel and the US are best thought of as evil symbiotic twins.

Tbh given Israel’s immense influence the anti-Semitic view of a Zionist-controlled USA comes closer to the truth then the Israel-is-a-pupper-of-the-big-bad-goy meme. Both views are wrong and both are worse from a political perspective but the Chomsky-Finkelstein view about Israel is simply weak on both logical and historical grounds.

But there was no Bourgeoise in the USSR, but (and I know this is a controversial topic on this board) Capitalism did still persist, maybe we could argue that it "wasn't quite Capitalist", but there was still wage labor and production of commodities for the creation of value, i.e. the working class did not reap the full fruits of their labor, and there didn't need to be a Bourgeois class. Unless your argument is that the Nomenklatura were the new Bourgeoise, but I've always found this to be a ridiculous argument as they never actually held the position within social relations that the Bourgeoise does in a normal Capitalist society, at most they were a somewhat privileged class, but they didn't sit around endlessly accumulating wealth without restriction, and they did not privately own the means of production. Also, I'm not a Leftcom friend.

This is a strange assertion. If there is no bourgeois class, then where are those fruits of labour not reaching the working class going exactly? Unless you mean that it went to the big evil state. Even though communism is perfectly compatible with a portion of the proceeds of labour being siphoned of to improve forces of production, to provide for common necessities like defense, and so on, it explicitly says so in the Critique of the Gotha programme.

Or do you want to posit that a whole new class came into being defined by their relation to the MOP and labour, something like managers and apparatchiks or something?

But this perfectly encapsulates the contradictory logic of reactionary thought. They rail against modernity, they rail against the Bourgeoise, they rail against Capitalism, against cosmopolitanism, against Jews, ect. ect. And yet what they offer in lieu is essentially just a more authoritarian and more alienating/atomizing version of Capitalism, not an actual break from Capitalism. To them the issue isn't really Capitalism, it's all these alien entities that have ruined Capitalism form the inside. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is how I've understood Postone's argument, when he talks about ant-semitism as a sort of false consciousness that blots out class consciousness he's referring to the way that Fascism offers a false solution to the problems of Capitalism by exacerbating the problems of Capitalism.

No, you're exactly right, but that's what Postone is getting at, I think. Note he says that anti-Semitism is a fetishized form of anti-capitalism. Capitalism meets a crisis, and instead of challenging the abstract domination of capitalism, which anti-Semites don't understand, they blame the Jews as stand-ins for it.

Capitalism's power is "abstract" because it naturalizes and objectifies the social relations between things (which are really the material relations between people) in the form of commodities, right? I don't really understand all of this, but Postone is arguing that Jews in the anti-Semitic mind take the form of a commodity.

Postone:

If one reads Marx, the issue with Capitalism isn't just that Capitalists sit on accumulated wealth, I mean that wouldn't be something unique to Capitalism, that's what Kings and Emporors did long before Capitalism, what's uniquely destructive about Capitalism is that the value produced by labor gets constantly reinvested into the means of production in order to constantly expand the means of production, and therefore also constantly necessitating more and more labor time in and endless spiral. Whether it's Capitalist markets or Soviet productivism the end result is the same.

lel, meant Emperors of course

But Marx explicitly points out this will also happen under communism in CofGP. It makes sense, it's one of the great potentialities of capitalism that you can increase the productive forces. It's good to have more productive forces, it makes shit we need and want. It's just a question of whether it will happen as a collectively and knowingly willed process (part of an central plan say), or a blind and parasitic one.

Hmmm, maybe I need to reread the Critique of the Gotha Program. I have always understood the transition from production for value to production for use as the end of that cycle of constant reinvestment of value. Or the end of "value" itself, as labor no longer produces excess value.

IIRC it's where he talks about how people will be rewarded for labour under communism, and posits that first a slice of that rewards is set aside for what we would call welfare, but also to plow into the MOP. Communism isn't inherently anti growth, though it could be if that is what the collective implements I suppose.

This highlights things very well. The critique of the Soviet model as being bound by the same growth imperatives as capitalism is particularly weak imo and is typically a line of analysis spouted by liberals. Marx did not oppose growth and the creation of new wealth, in fact he actually praised capitalism for these things, but critiqued the capitalist process on the grounds that the worker produces more and is exiled from the riches of what they produce in-turn.

Working hard to produce more wealth when it is for yourself is not a bad thing and in fact, Marx was the first to show concretely that the potential for a society where wealth grew and labor-time decreased at the same time was possible.

Finally, I find this an odd criticism when the main criticism of the Soviet socialism that one hears is that it did not produce as much wealth as quickly as the Western capitalist world–particularly the US. This isn't necessarily true, as H.W. Edwards points out the Soviet standard of living in the early 60s was close to West Germany and many others there were other intangibles like say free childcare and college education that make the Soviet standard of living difficult to calculate exactly in dollar-terms against say the US

Ah, I see what you mean, like the difference between the lowest phase, and then the highest phase when "all needs are already met", but in order to reach that higher phase growth is required. I see what you mean, but it is tricky to balance that productivism with the decidedly post-work/post-class goals of Communism, I mean a Communist society is by definition a society without a working class. I wouldn't want to hinge the entire idea of Communism solely on automation tho, because I generally think it's retarded to hinge one's bets on technologies that don't exist yet, and therefore we can't know what they'll actually look like in practice, but then again I suppose some would say we already are at a level of automation where we could have Communism, that now it's just a matter of planning.

This is the thing I find so odd about the Soviet Union. I don't have a good grasp on what exactly went wrong in the 60s that ruined the productivity growth, beyond Fukuyamaish explanations of a lack of management/leadership feedback and replacement.

Well communism doesn't mean a world without work, just one without a working class. It can be one with a lot less work if you harness growing productivity for long enough and everyone does their part, but that's all contingent on (as I see it) democratic decision making. Maybe we don't want FALC if it entails installing a Master AI, say. The point is that we all get to decide it, and porky and self-reproducing capital don't decide for us.

In communism everyone is proletarian as no one will own any means of production but they will be collectively owned. Class is abolished by forcing everyone to take the plunge into proletarian status.

Truth be told, the nature of work and its distribution will be far different than what we have today and to wit, even terms like "proletarian" and "bourgeoisie" conjure up their opposites: the haute-bourgeois and aristocracy. It will be classless in the sense that there are no longer antagonistic classes dividing humanity but it will also be the product of the absolute victory of the proletariat over all competing classes.

This I think sets Marxists apart from reactionary socialists and conservative critics of capitalism. Our end is not to restore the small-artisan or the peasant in a modern form–that would only lead back to the same problem. The secret of the existence of the proletariat, as Marx pointed out, is that it is the end of the world–at least the world as 6,000 years of civilized life that we've known

I'm reminded of Marx's comments on "universal prostitution" and how in a dialectical fashion he posited that the solution wasn't to moralize about marriage which he saw as corollary to private property but to do away with the conditions that force women to sell themselves. And in that sense, since marriage has historically revolved around property relations, marriage itself will be abolished.

Attached: nobreaks.jpg (500x393, 133.64K)

*"proletariat" and "working class"

Objectively not true. Why are you so frightened by self-critique and discussion that you can only strawman your opponents as Liberals? Whether you think it was a valiant effort or not, the USSR did fail at it's historical mission to create Communism, I think it's worth our time to figure out why this happened, and mindless dogmatism gets us nowhere.

I'm pretty sure it's Capitalism that proletarianizes the world, not Communism, Communism is universal luxury fam :^) What you're describing is literal Barracks Communism.

How so? Again, you can't critique the Soviet model on the grounds that it was too obsessed with growth and its obvious corollary, enriching society while maintaining this:

Attached: 1956leningrad.jpg (800x586, 78.42K)

*of liberal nonsense that you could hear

The abolishment of class is necessitated by (in fact, is defined by) the abolition of the distinctions of class, of both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. If you still have an actual proletariat (not in the ongoing revolutionary or post-revolution romantic sense, but in it's strict definition) then you aren't in socialism, but instead in some kind of Camatte-esc hypercapitalism where capital has escape velocited out of the confines of needing of a bourgeoisie and now operates on a "capital vs humanity" level of conflict. And that's literally genejacker territory, so best if we never got to that point.

That’s literally socialism

That babe is rocking those converse.

That makes as much sense as saying "after abolition, everyone will be a slave". The point of communism is to abolish the proletariat, not glorify it.

No it isn't you braindead marksoc. Read Marx for fuck's sake.

Market socialism is the only economically efficient type of socialism. Are you some kind of Marxist-Leninist who unironically supports central planning?

Markets are the most inefficient way to organize society. It's like all you want to do is paint capitalism red.

We, market socialists, generally know how to deal with market failures such as information assymetries, principal-agent problems, negative externalities, non-excludability of certain goods and so on. But how are you, non-market socialists, going to deal with problems which will inevitably arise in a command economy? Take, for example:
1. Encouragement of black-market activity due to fixed resource allocation
2. Neglect of consumer preferences due to lack of price signals
3. Inability of planners to predict things like weather, trade, and technological advancement
4. Poor quality of products resulting from the tendency to delay the fulfillment of the production target until the end of a planning period (in the USSR, this was known as “shturmovshchina”)

1.Take into account what their wants and needs are during production
2. Same as 1, we have smartphones and shit you know. I just ordered mcdonalds through a phone and had it delivered in 20 minutes
3.AI would be able to take care of variables like those better than any human could ever dream of
4.Seems like a 1940's problem not a 2018 problem

Wether you like it or not you advocate for generalized market exchange, something that never existed in any other system but capitalism and would cause all the problems for your system that it causes for capitalism.

How would you solve the falling rate of profit?

I oppose capitalism for the same reason I support free market. Both capitalist and command economies are based on hierarchical control and centralized management which inhibits the use of dispersed information. Only market socialism gives workers direct control over allocation of resources as well as their workplace. In contrast, Soviet-type “socialism” gives control over allocation of resources to government officials who are no better than capitalist entrepreneurs.

There is no empirical evidence that suggests that there is a tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

Chaya is a practicing Jew, m8.

Also, this term is becoming a boggyman. Is loving Jews really any worse than being a Chinaboo?

Who, aside from the Palestinians and African refugees, does Israel oppress that the United Snakes doesn't? You can't say black South Africans, because supporting apartheid South Africa was already American policy. You can't say Central Americqns, because those RWDS the IDF trains all work for Amerikan companies (and your average Amerikan benefits way more than your average Yerushalmi family).

No one denies Israel has its own interests, but the idea that we Jews hold a constant desire to lord over people is ridiculous.

Just take a look at the majority of garbage that gets posted on sites like Mobdoweiss: it's all by hardcore Amerikan patriots who love the U.S. and capitalism and who simply want that $2 billion in military aid to go to them. That's the reason why they're so eager to divorce US support for Israel from capitalism and scapegoat the AIPAC Lobby, "Jewish choseness", or some other crap. It has nothing to do with anti-imperialism or anti-capitalism as much as it has to do with wanting to be porkies in their own right.

This makes more sense.

I might also add that, in terms of Arab culture there is a very big "muh bootstraps" mentality. Like Jews, they tend to be very obligation-oriented, and if they can't pull themselves up they feel an overarching amount of shame.

Are you denying that AIPAC has an enormous influence on American foreign policy?

lmgtfy.com/?q=Tendancy of the rate of profit to fall empirical studies

bfy.tw/2mlY

If AIPAC didn't exist, the Amerikan Empire would just have created it. You honestly believe a small group of "rich Jews" would outweigh and entire array of capitalists? Please. Show me the evidence AIPAC has a bigger influence on foreign policy than Microsoft, Exxon, GE, Lockheed…

Also:
No one except Jews supports Israel because they love Jews. Even Xtian Zionists see us as defective because we won't accept their cuck zealot as moshiach.

Call it "efficient" or "God's way" if you want, just don't call it socialist when it clearly isn't. Socialism isn't just about the workers owning the means of production, that's not sufficient.

Attached: laughing monster girls54.png (597x316, 37.04K)

Markets are not only inefficient, but markets literally can't be socialism.

Why not?

tfw Israelis shoot children, force families from their houses, empower Hamas and then claim victimhood when people criticize them for taking a land and doing apartheid because some jews inhabited thousands of years ago.

Attached: Flamenco What?.gif (650x366, 235.37K)

This is literally the argument Zig Forums makes in favor of South African apartheid or Rhodesian colonialism - "hurr durr dumb nogs are killing whites just cuz dey mad about losing their ancestral lands".

How does this describe all Israelis, let alone all Jews?

Jewish Voice for Peace wouldn't be a thing if Jews were all inherently evil. There are even Israeli Jews who attack the apartheid system.

Moishe Postone is probably one of the dankest Marxists alive right now, listen to his lectures. There is some hard to grasp shit but if you have some understanding of "Capital" you can get a lot out of it.

Attached: adadasdasdasdasdasd.jpg (625x672, 149.09K)

The question might easily be framed as “who does China/Russia oppress that America doesn’t” or “who does Germany oppress that America doesn’t”

When your the global super-power you pretty much exploit almost every neo-colonial country in the world and America arguably exploits its own allies as well but that’s another topic.

The fact that you identify Jews everywhere in general with Israel says a lot. I’m not one to deny that it is a Jewish entity but most Jews in the world probably have rather little to do with it even if many are complicit or vitrilolic supporters

It’s an imperialist power like any other and it’s aim is to expand its power, wealth, influence and do exactly what you described “lord over people”

I would be curious to hear your explanation for multiple Israeli invasions of Lebanon. It’s not exactly as if the US Empire or the average American stood to benefit a whole lot from an Israeli victory there. There’s not much oil there but there were Israeli interests that Israel sought to protect.

In fact, most of the states that Israel has went to war with (Egypt, Jordan, Syria etc.) don’t have very much oil in them at all. On the other hand Israel hasn’t lifted a finger to fight in Iraq for instance when its lobbyists and intelligence agents played a key role in pressing the US for war and propagandizing the US public. Yes, obviously, there were other non-Jewish elements of the American establishment that wanted war but that is not the point.

When was the last time that the US actually slammed down a major Israeli decision? The Suez Canal invasion of 1956? Arguably they were more opposed to the British-French attempt to preserve their sphere of influence than the Israeli role in the action.

Israel is in many ways a net-loss for the American Empire but since there isn’t a way to put a genie back in the bottle and rich American Jews love Israel the US keeps a close relationship with this small but very powerful imperialist power

Market socialism is the only real socialism, you are just state capitalists in denial. We want workers to control allocation of goods and services. You, on the other hand, want the state to control it. Why would a system where workers are told what to produce by the government be any better than a system where workers a told what to produce by the bourgeoisie?

Certainly more efficient than central planning.

Germany, Russia, and China weren't created for the sole purpose of establishing a permanent western entity in the ME, dumbass.

LOL it's not even about oil. It's about preventing states with the potential to break from imperialism from doing just that.

Israel's biggest supporters are Evangelical Christians.

America benefits way more from a destabilized MENA than Israel.

Do you agree with Soygon that states go to war over ego? Because that's what you sound like.

Israel is literally the only country that benefits from destabilized MENA whatsoever

How many layers of irony are you on? Market relations is what define capitalism.
So do I.
Why the fuck did you assume I'm a ML? I'm a LeftCom, I don't support so-called state socialism or Soviet-style central planning.

You need facts to make your case, user.

Nice Hasbara, but in what way is it relevant to the overall point that Chaya made and my counterpoint?

It has a something to do with it, no? Prior to the financial-tech boom of the 80/90s the most powerful faction of the US capitalist class was the oil industry. It re-emerged in a big way in the 2000s with high oil prices and the later surge in production.In relation to oil, US middle eastern policy has been concerned with:
1. keeping the oil flowing to America's capitalist allies
2. keeping the price of oil in a goldilocks area where it neither impairs American industry, nor drops so low that it sends the American oil industry into the poorhouse
3.Making sure that Arab countries use their oil surpluses to buy American weapons, use American industrial contractors to build their cities, provide their industrial goods and technical assistance, and reinvest their leftover holdings in the US

And yet they were all states threatening Israeli imperialist interests most of all, considered high security threats by the Israeli establishment most of all, and conveniently located on Israel's border where she could easily deploy force against them at minimum cost. It's not like Israeli troops travelled to Vietnam to fight for American interests, but we would expect something like that if Israel was a puppet of the United States–which she is not.

Likewise, Israel had territorial disputes with nearly all of them and Zionist leaders have long held that large chunks of their territory would become part of Greater Israel. As Israel Shahak explained Zionist leaders have never renounced the Greater Israel project in words but their mouthpieces are quick to denounce anyone who attributes expansionism to them as conspiracy theorists

I'm not that user but it is rather quite simple, Israel wants to expand both territorially and in terms of influence in the region. So, a destabilized MENA region allows Israel greater room to expand physically and to install more pliable client regimes. For decades, Israel has singled out secular Arab nationalist leaders as its greatest threat and quite conveniently the vast majority of them have met their end at the same time that their major geopolitical rival, Russia, has largely retreated post-Soviet collapse.

A destabilized MENA region threatens to undo both US and especially Russian spheres of influences but its quite beneficial to Israel who emerges as a sort of last-man-standing in the Middle East. The fact that they have hundreds of nuclear weapons and more fighter aircraft than any European power puts them at a decisive military advantage over any other regionally based power in the region.

Attached: Georgieboy.jpg (1368x1026, 80.22K)

*their (meaning Israel) major geopolitical rival

If neither the state nor the market will control allocation of resources, than what will?

Market relations have existed for thousands of years, capitalism has existed only for a couple of centuries.

His story checks out.

Attached: 69bd1a0994bf19b958bd037e355042fd789490bf224b0a6c5be5e172dad4c004.jpg (1218x1015, 212.15K)

Why use a state in the MENA to fight all the way over in East Asia? That would be a tremendous waste of resources. Even when Israel is involved in Latin America, it doesn't do so directly.

Those Arab leaders were also enemies of the US.

Israel is incredibly weak without US support. It's the South Korea of the MENA. No way it could be the last man standing without help from at least one major superpower.

Claiming AIPAC pushes the US to war assumes the Sargon argument about states going to war over ego, and seems to assume all US politicians are unbelievably stupid to the point where they'd let a single lobby group dupe them.

What the fuck do you think define capitalism, shit for brains?

Capitalist relations. Bourgeoisie owning the MOP, and the labourers selling them their labour power for a wage.

You're leaving out the laws of motion of capitalism to focus exclusively on direct class domination. "Capitalist relations" do not consist solely of surplus extraction, and you could even theoretically have capitalism without a specific, separate class doing the extracting. You can get rid of the bourgeoisie and in certain aspects it might be beneficial, but that doesn't mean you've gotten rid of capitalism.

According to you, just like it was described in Endnotes, "the 'solution' to capitalism is seen as workers, via the state or other means, shifting that distribution in their favour" because you believe that "if exploitation is a matter of the deduction of a portion of the social product by a parasitic ruling class then socialism does not have to substantially alter the form of commodity production; but may simply take it over, eliminate the parasitic class, and distribute the product equitably."

don't pin this retards idiocy on us, he's litter ally the furthest one can stray from the light

t. never read Marx

This should be good. Lay it out.

Why did the Turks fight on the American side in the Korean War? In addition to many other countries that seemed to have rather little direct interest in propping up a US-puppet regime. It would have been in America's interest should the country with the fourth most powerful army in the Cold War had stepped in to relieve some of the burden of the Vietnam War.

Today, Israel is ranked number 8 in global power:
haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-is-eighth-most-powerful-country-in-the-world-survey-says-1.5450650

Usually, puppets aren't that powerful, certainly as a dutiful puppet of the US it should have no qualms about getting directly involved in America's war on terror. I think the fact that it hasn't yields more support to my thesis that Israel actually is an independent imperialist power with its own interests.

Right, because it isn't in Israeli interests to send troops to fight and die to protect US imperial interests, which is what I've been saying all along. But is in Israel's interest to sell weapons to right-wing Latin American regimes, to bring them to power so that they might support Israel diplomatically and in other ways, and to stop the advance of national liberation and communism in the region since it might have an effect on their own turf and in their own spheres of influence.

Israel is more dependent on the "military-industrial complex" economically then any other country and hence it welcomes any opportunity to sell its weapons and expertise.
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=47795EE74794D588505C1876880626F4
ipk-bonn.de/downloads/israels-worldwide-role-in-repression.pdf

This was never my claim–only that Israel did push for and support the US War on Iraq but did not lift a finger to help the US in the War they propagandized for. The US wanted the war for their own reasons but parts of the elite were split on it and so Israel's support for it did help smooth the process along somewhat. I just don't understand what's up with Hasbara shills and reading comprehension.

They were more hostile to Israel than the US and US support for Israel was not a small cause of their hostility.

Sure, its a demographic midget, even if its military-economic giant in relative terms. This is why they have been courting India and China in recent years.

In fact, they've even turned down demands from Washington in favor of rival Chinese demands regarding a recent court-case involving terrorism:
youtube.com/watch?v=ytqQACDzKNI

Think about it this way, Switzerland is also an imperialist power but could Switzerland survive without Britain, the US, France, Germany etc. throwing their weight around in the world? Probably not but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its own interests; Switzerland isn't a puppet of the United States.

Israel is far more powerful than Switzerland by many measures and is only looking to expand its power, especially in the area where it has both the most tied up and the ability to exert power directly.

Attached: KoreanWar.png (158x412, 36.08K)

Private ownership of the means of production.

This is liberal posting on Trump's Twitter account-tier.

This is not sufficient. Private property predates capitalism.

I remember watching that video when it came out and finding it absolutely mundane. Not my kind of guy, I guess. Also,

this.

You literally can't, especially on the long run. Just think it through, holy shit.

S H O C K I NG

Explain why.

Well I mean hes not wrong.

just read the thread,
Sorry, I though you where the Market Socialist