Please help me embrace leftism

alright, so I'm from Argentina, I've hated capitalism ever since I was a child, started with the most retarded details, like how football broadcasts are full of advertisements, making me feel like I was the product they were selling to the advertisers, and I was fucking paying for it (not really me, my family, I was a child, but still).
also the fact that people couldn't name brands on TV and other retarded shit made me mad, it's ridiculous.
when I was like 10 I learned about wage labour by accident, and as a fucking 10 years old I could understand how a worker was being robbed by his employer, I'm not trying to say I'm smart, I'm saying that wage labour is so obviously evil that a 10 years old could comprehend it.

anyway, my point is that there's no real left here, there are a shitload of parties that call themselves "socialist" but neither of them want to abolish capitalism, they're social democrats, something that I hate since I consider it to be bread and circuses, this is slightly infuriating.

in any case, I have never been exposed to proper leftism, since the few political parties that are actually leftist are fucking insiginificant, and I still have a shitload of doubts about how a socialist economy would work, and even about all the different kinds of socialism.

everytime I take a "political compass test" I get that I'm an anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist, I know that they're not THAT precise but I hate reading so I never looked it up, I think it'd be better if I had a conversation with someone that could explain it to me.
like
how would it work, how would a business even come to exist?
how would you define what people get paid?
how would you enforce anarchy with no state?
and how do I not die of depression in a country in which it looks like socialism would never come to be, and I'll always be a wage labour slave?

I probably have a shitload more questions

Attached: 800px-Flag_of_Argentina.svg.png (800x500, 28.49K)

Other urls found in this thread:

ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf
youtube.com/channel/UCVBfIU1_zO-P_R9keEGdDHQ
youtube.com/user/democracyatwrk
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/index.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-philosophical-reactionaries
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/stirner-the-wise-guy
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

also, why is this place so difficult to find?
I couldn't google it, I'm not even sure how I found it to be honest.
fuck that.

these are the "political compasses" that I was talking about.

Attached: download (1).png (800x1200 105.63 KB, 206.95K)

read this

What's up with Zanon these days, if you ever heard of it?

God why is this "read stirner XD" meme not dead yet

yeah, not an individualist m8, I'll have to pass on that one


I only know it exists, never heard of it in the regular media (not gonna call it mainstream).

honestly this book should answer at least a few of your questions.
wage labour and capital by Marx and principles of Communism by Engels are also good reads.
Sorry, I know "nigga just read lmao" is not the best answer, but I don't I'm intelligent enough to accurately describe all of this in a single post.

because google hates both Zig Forums and radical leftism. They intentionaly block us from search results

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (318x411, 31.58K)

The whole dichotomy between "libertarian" and "authoriarian" which these tests presuppose is flawed because there is no real way to draw a line. A revolution is always authoritarian when imposed upon the people resisting it, whether it be an anarchist or a Leninist revolution. So to escape that dilemma these tests base "libertarian vs authoritarian" on how much of an asshole someone is. The most hard-line Jucheists would get a "libertarian leaning" on these tests because they don't wanna throw gays into the gulag. Anarchism and Marxism is not that different, both want to erect a dictatorship of the proletariat, with Anarchists wanting to abolish the state directly while Marxists view this as idealist, as a state always ensures the rule of one class over another, and as long as capitalism exists the state must exist too.

People would communally make a decision. The same way a state makes the decision to build a railroad etc. - the whole concept of a business (as in, run for profit) would not exist in socialism because value-indicators would not be the primary incentive to do things. Check out Paul Cockshott, he's written a book about cybernetic planning, it's quite popular here:
ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf

I've made a basic MLM reading list here:
>>>Zig Forums82540
(It's quite a bit)


Zig Forums is filled to brink with Nazis and pedophiles, that's why it won't show up. While it certainly hurts the traffic it keeps 4chan idiots or redditors from walking in here.

Also check out Paul Cockshott's YouTube channel, he has a lot of introductory videos as well about economics, philosophy, communism etc.

Check out FinnishBolshevik, Comrade Hakim and Tovarishch Endymion if you are interested in debunking historical myths of socialist states if you are interested in that sort of thing.

Since you’re Argentinian, you should look up J Posadas.

It will work like a global firm:
- which owns everything;
- which, as a consequence, sells nothing (it still produces though);
- of which everyone is an equal shareholder;
- of which everyone is a employee;
- in which shareholders pay the employees in kind.

It won't. There'll be one big "business". It doesn't mean people in this business won't have some degree of autonomy though (like in any business).

That's the beauty of it: we will actually decide about that, rather than suffer the consequences of a "blindly operating law of nature inherent in things and relations, and independent of the will or actions of the producers".

What do you call "enforce anarchy"?

Spend time with fellow proletarians who feel the same way. You're not alone.

You should read basic but serious texts; the "Communist Manifesto" and "the German Ideology" by Marx, and "the State & Revolution" and "Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism" by Lenin. Then read Marx's Capital; go to >>/marx/7739 to ask questions if you need help. DON'T read meme writers like Stirner when you're starting out, I think that kind of thing is worth reading eventually once you have a good grasp of theory, but if you start with that it will just fry your brain.

he's not ready for that.

We must expose people to the truth. They must know of it. We have too little time and too much necessary praxis left.

alright, I guess I'll read then.


I understood virtually none of those bulletpoints.
goblal firm? shareholders? sells nothing?
I don't know many, it's confusing.
I know, I asked how though
what's stopping someone from creating a capitalist business if there's no state?
what's stopping a foreign state from conquering an anarchist society segmented in syndicates, one by one? sounds really easy.

yes, but nobody I know hates capitalism as much as I do, they don't mock me for doing it, but I can tell that as soon as I mention it they think it's tiresome or something, and the fact that I haven't studied about it doesn't help my way of talking about it.

man*

Really? You don't know these words?

If you don't like reading you should check out these two channels
youtube.com/channel/UCVBfIU1_zO-P_R9keEGdDHQ
youtube.com/user/democracyatwrk

I know those words, but how would that work in a communist economical system?
a global firm? how's that achievable?
who would be the shareholders?
what do you mean nothing is sold but it's still produced? how would people get those things then? who gets priority for products?

Google Bookchin

Attached: 14264105_143302916123882_728993539593802303_n.jpg (960x960, 101.27K)

Attached: d1b7e84c5981e1fe0aa6c00067a31e615d60815b.png (780x1200, 760.06K)

It wouldn't "work in a communist economical system": it is the communist system.

Through a global revolution, that is global expropriation of all property.

I told you exactly who: everyone will be an equal shareholder.

I mean exactly what is written. This "global firm" will produce stuff, bit not sell it (no one could pay, since the firm owns everything).

It will be procured to them, like any firm procures stuff to its employees (tools, desk, corporate car, house, meals, etc.).

Whoever the shareholders decide.

lol. im trying to find the one webm/yt vid where some girl searches up bookchin and finds some weird shit and says she never wants to go on Zig Forums again

Wtf, I new it was bad after reading "Listen Marxist" but this is just terrible

There's bascially two different phases in Bookchin's social ecologist life. The first is his anarchist phase, which ends around the 90s. The second is his non-anarchist Communalist phase, which is from the 90s to his death. In his latter phase, he bemoaned the loss of "The Left that Was", and moved markedly closer to Marxism in his analysis than anarchism. Listen, Marxist is from his anarchist phase, as was Bookchin's embarassing flirtations with the libertarian right.

Attached: 16195665_10211209559216178_4473272241896815752_n.jpg (960x960, 94.1K)

And they were both awful, I guess that's the unity of opposites.

Well if you're still here I'd recommend you skip that Cockshitt garbage and read some Marx. Maybe start out with zur kritik. I felt like that one was what really made sense of a lot for me. Gothakritik and Theses on Feuerbach are short so its easier not to get lost in em if you're a beginner but worth reading very carefully.

In any case to answer your questions
Businesses would not come to exist. Associated producers holding the means of production (the things we use to produce goods) in common would produce and allocate goods according to a common plan. Most likely there will be some local autonomy in determining how particular parts of this plan are worked out although within the limits set by coordination between all local bodies. Beyond that I couldn't tell you much.
This might be a bit hard to think about at first. If it is you should start paying attention to the variety of production/distribution relations people engage in every day. The way that a family holds things in common and allocates labor, for example. Or the way certain implements in an office are held in common. Even look back to certain pre-capitalist modes of production: A slave may have held possessions which were in some sense his/hers but such a slave would have never been able to hold this product for ransom in exchange for higher pay as an individual on the market does today. There are certain positions of power and subjection in determining what gets produced and by whom in each of the relations I have highlighted too and you should think about how these are established in each case and how they relate to distribution of goods/allocation of labor. A lot of marx's work (zur kritik especially) focusses on questions like these. The interrelation of allocation of labor, allocation of goods, and control over the production process in various historically existing modes of production and that's really all you need if you want to get how communism "works."
they wouldn't really. like there would be an allocation of goods for individuals within direct association but payment is the wrong word in the same way that we wouldn't call those possessions allocated to a family member by a family "payment" or a serf's own product which he consumes himself "payment" etc. etc. This allocation of goods to producers takes the form of "payment" for a wage laborer in a capitalist society, but that's one of the things we're trying to get rid of.
anarchy's a joke. anyways the state, as an armed body and parts connected to that armed body, separates itself off from society in different ways and to varying degrees in all prior societies because all prior societies were class societies. The enforcement of some degree of public peace and justice by some sort of armed group will probably occur to some extent in a communist society (though it will probably not be very necessary). You can look at the way certain small american indigenous societies keep internal peace for a rough idea. They enforce justice but no armed body which people recognize as distinct from that community itself forms.
just get really religious, homie. leftists will get mad at you for it but it's fun anyways

zur kritik:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/index.htm
gothakritik:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/
(if my comments on how communism works are unclear just read this carefully cause that's basically what a lot of this is about)
Theses on feuerbach:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
not related to most of your questions directly but it's p central to getting marx imo. a lot of people reduce the 11th thesis to some inspirational platitude but it's probably the most concise statement of a marxist position you can get

also: from Capital Ch1

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-08-22 at 7.22.44 PM.png (1783x997, 1.09M)

my answer on the state is kind of badly worded I now realize. sorry about that

Tambien soy de argentina, leete a ⛏️rotsky capo, la mayoría de comunistas aca son trotskistas, se aplica mucho mejor su teoría a las condiciones sociales de nuestro país que las de otros comunistas

Attached: República_Socialista_Argentina.png (1280x800, 124.41K)

lurk here and read fam

Attached: leftypol_me.png (284x292, 77.05K)

Ew, no. Either turn into a Guevarist or a Cockshottist, but not this shit OP

Shut up faggot, guevarism doesn't work in a country where farmer guerrillas can't exist. And

Op, read Marx, then Lenin and finish with his rightful successor, ⛏️rotsky.

Then you gotta have ⛏️rotsky’s true successor, comrade Juan Posadas. But you also gotta have Cockshott.

Attached: C3B643CC-1F70-4218-B055-5A5D43ECDADA.jpeg (1024x711, 270.9K)

I never read him, it sounds so… Autistic. Is there something to save from his books or it's just alien memes like they say?

Attached: a7a4312c6f1fbb4a1641f4b4f12d00b27fb69c3bc1d5e8dd71bbd5362f7588c4.png (3238x1156, 381.53K)

You don't help your case.

What is the world coming to? Good job though.

On the contrary Stirner debunked Marx. Marx was a humanist, then Stirner released TEaIO which BTFO Marx, he got butthurt and wrote The German Ideology, came back, then Stirner released Stirner's Critics and BTFO him again. Then Stirner mocked him some more in a few essays.
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-philosophical-reactionaries
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/stirner-the-wise-guy
Fun Fact: Stirner was the only person other than Bakunin to make Marx butthurt.

First lesson op: never listen to ⛏️rotskyists

Attached: Towards a New Socialism.png (701x909, 522.82K)

>>>/gnussr/551

Fucking mobile posting >>>/gnussr/545

Wapo, honestamente si quieres entender sobre ideologias izquierdistas necesitas leer, que nosotros te convenzemos no es nada si no podes defenderte, estaras simplemente repitiendo lo que te dicen, y aunque si es bueno pedir ayuda, no te podemos educar. Tu solo puedes hacer eso.

Como estudiante de Historia? Te recomendaria que leas Das Kapital y que te busques un historiador Materialista. Ahi podrias entonces entender la condicion de Argentina y lo que se necesite hacer para salvarla. Es mucho aprender, no te quedes hueco por vagancia u ocio.

No point, you'll be following a secular religion. Read Stirner, the new translation.

lmao
I've started reading Marx, finished the communist manifesto (again, just to refresh concepts), and I've read Wage Labour and Capital.
I've started reading Capital but it's quite dense, it's going to take me a while.

thanks everyone for all the answers.

still figuring out a way to not kill myself as I watch my country crumble yet again under fucking capitalism and there's still no socialism in sight.

Cockshott has videos on economics on youtube in case you don't feel like reading. Watch him when you can't force yourself to read.

bookshit does not deserve the title of intellectual