Tfw revolution probably won't come in the 1st world in your lifetime

unions, like welfare, prop up capitalism and mask its deficiencies temporarily.

but that's not an argument, sir. please elaborate. I'm waiting.

Arguments are for people here in something at least vaguely resembling good faith.

So you have no argument. Okay.

Confirmed "The Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall" lost fragment on 0% profit rate and nukes

Attached: rop_1869-2010.JPG (1120x683 71.28 KB, 60.11K)

The reigning is a sort of aristocratic idealism with most social attitudes being crypto-religious, with the only real progress being in attempts to extend the franchise to minority races, women, LGBTQ, etc in some Western countries

The welfare state isn’t socialism and even if it was, it’s on the heavy retreat and neoliberal austerity rules the day. Also, at least in Burgerland, capitalism hasn’t functioned since the 70s and it’s only been “usury” keeping it alive.
Most countries are bourgeois dictatorships with the only difference between them being how obvious this fact is, with “equality” meaning little more than extension of the franchise to women and minority groups.

*the reigning philosophy

a better term for modern America is probably corporatist,

I live in Denmark and we have some social policies inspired by socialist ideas, that is it, the workers do not own the means of production here, part of the Danish Concept is that the workers recognize that employers control their companies and run them as they see fit, meanwhile companies recognize the right of workers to have unions and negotiate wages and work conditions, as well as the right to legally strike, and the resultant high wages means a high tax rate is accepted in the whole population at large, while production is maintained by a low corporate tax to encourage companies to retain business here. (corporate tax is lower than Americas)

Private enterprise and businesses as such remain a key component in Nordic societies and their existence is respected and encouraged, but unlike a corporatist country they are not in fact in charge of the country, meaning society as a large consider them a necessary means to an end, rather the most important aspect of society, as they would in a libertarian capitalist society.

i want off mr bezos wild ride

Attached: when the accelerationism kicks in.PNG (575x721, 270.88K)

Corporatism is merely a form of capitalism, or a way that capitalism expresses itself.

Economic power, and thus political power is still entirely within the hands of the bourgeois and, indeed, Denmark has hardly been impervious to the ravages of neoliberalism and austerity. Class collaborationism is an illusion. Denmark is just as much a bourgeois dictatorship as anywhere else.

In the early 1970'es the government of Denmark actually put forward a bill to initiate the full socialisation of Danish capital, which was to consist of a fond owned collectively by all wage-earners, where they would pay into the fond that would be democratically ruled and then gradually buy up company stock until it owned majorities of all companies. The plan was never realized though.

There are several indications that American capitalism isn't real capitalism though. The ridiculous profit margins experienced by companies right now clearly indicates a lack of competition between companies, possible because corporations have grown to a size where they just crush or absorb all budding competitors - in a successful capitalist society, profit margins would be lower and wages higher because competition is more fierce.

Protip: if someone’s definition of capitalism doesn’t mention capital, it’s probably bullshit propaganda.

Capitslism is a system founded on private ownership of the means of production and generalized commodity production where productive and distributive processes are driven by the reproduction and accumulation of capital.

hey guys i just wanted to say
CHINESE GOMMUNIZM BY 2050

...

oh look, it's bait

so you'd argue that the status-quo for the West is reactionary and not liberal, ascetic and not hedonistic, monarchic and not democratic, obsessed with matters of the spirit above economics and politics?
Because everywhere I go in the West and all the media I see them produce promotes liberal values, hedonism, materialism, progress, scientism, and champions democratic elections with every vote counting the same, their holidays are basically secular now and consumerist, 99% of the debates and arguments we observe are secular in nature, not religious or theological or even philosophical…

sorry but being a materialist or moral relativist, atheist, or egalitarian, or who thinks science can eventually rescue man or that all our problems boil down to material conditions being unfavorable is about as revolutionary as buying an Android over an iPhone these days.

You're more quicker to get backlash by being ascetic and sincerely religious these days, than by being promiscuous and saying "God is dead".

Attached: revolt-against-the-modern-world.jpg (840x840, 106.78K)

You are right, wanting to change the entire economic system is not revolutionary.
The revolutionary thing is maintaining the same system but with more churches.
You don't know what materialism is

Attached: revolt.jpg (475x658, 233.74K)

The liberal status quo promotes consumerist materialism, which is distinct from a philosophical materialism. How is that for confusing.

In fact the method of the western status-quo ideology is rooted in philosophical idealism, often noted by their approach to economics. Models and principles take priority before observations and reality. While true scientist cannot afford to make such mistake, the propagandists have no interest in science, they are the priest of the capitalist economic religion.

hedonistic materialism follows naturally from philosophical materialism. Once the philosophy is accepted all problems and questions will be reduced to problems of material conditions, likewise all hopes and dreams will be limited to material concerns.

the economic system is one centered around turning man into something profane, something secular, merely an instrument of economic production and economic reward.
The revolution you seek is another side of the same coin, your grand idea is that man should get X reward instead of Y, and then harmony and peace and equality will somehow appear because man is rewarded more appropriately for his labor?
Meanwhile every other dimension of human life, the qualitative is ignored and minimized and degraded, just like under Capitalism. Because both "views" see life strictly in terms of input/output, reward/cost, in short in terms of material expense and material reward.

You're just strawmanning socialism and philosophical materialism, because you refuse to let go of religious spooks. And because you do not understand dialectical materialism.

While your criticism of capitalism is headed in right direction, you either are religious, or under influence of anti-communist McCarthyist propaganda.

With communism in the end, the concept of reward for labour would be a thing of past, since labour will be a way of life in the same way it was in primitive communism. Any labour a paleolithic man or woman do, are they rewarded? No, they reap the fruits of labour directly. And even with the primitive division of labour, there is direct distribution and socialization of the fruits of labour.

Read David Graeber's Debt to see how the "barter" myth is load of crap.

To continue post, that is why you are swayed by ideas and ideologies which are not coherent with the material interests of the working class, even though they present themselves to be.

Read him years ago. Good guy, good analysis on some topics, but my views have evolved in a different angle now.

I don't see how I'm doing any of that or misrepresenting materialism.

How is the life of a doctor, soldier or janitor different under communism than under capitalism?

Attached: chairman-xi-jinping-my-daddy-my-hero-17483017.png (500x397, 77.6K)

Because you make the leap from theory of the atoms to hedonistic consumerism, where people who engage in this are not even aware that things consist of atoms, or that patterns emerge in nature as life from chaotically scattered building blocks.

How the hell does knowing how life spontaneously emerges over time in suitable environment lead to hedonistic consumerism and promiscuity. The assertion is ridiculous. That philosophical materialism leads to consumerist materialism. This is utter crap.

If you don't want to believe in materialism, fine, use the theories of vital essence of life, the prime mover known as god and the theory that it is ideas that gives rise to world around us.

I like how you left out farmer and factory worker on purpose. Their work is easily quantified in physical output. While the output of doctor, soldier and janitor can be only quantified in labour time. Or in impractical metrics that nobody would bother measuring with.

The key point is physical surplus and surplus extraction and how it applies to professions that do not actually produce anything tangible.
People still need to be healed no matter what economic system, and floors cleaned. The point is how it fits in the context of broad production in the entire economy.
Two latest Cockshott's videos expand on it far better than I could here.

Not really. There are large conservative religious groups everywhere

y'all need to read capital, the contradictions are getting unreal yo

Attached: 42215694_1854430637926354_5253033839558656000_n.jpg (500x375, 39.27K)

There's a thread at the top of this board that has resources and reading material for people who are new to or don't understand Leftism. I suggest you go browse and read some of that material

Attached: eyeroll.jpg (640x628, 37.92K)

this is literally the most brainlet post i've ever seen on this board, oh my fucking god this supersedes "hitler wanted to save everyone from racism"
You don't understand materialism at all. Even if the status-quo was "materialist", it's not based on dialectical materialism. It'd likely be the mechanical materialism that came out of capitalism's development. Also, liberal's aren't really "progressive", unless you count "progressiveness" by pretending to not be racist or something. I really wanna know where atheism is the ruling value in the west right now. I'm a burger, so we're full of religious fervor, but I don't think Yurop is completely atheist or something.
How many times do we have to explain to you fucking brainlets that welfare states are not socialism? It's still capitalism. These are all capitalism.
We all techincally have equal rights, but the mask falls once you realize those with more capital have way more power in politics. Imagine that! If you ever looked into anything beyond the surface level, you'd realize this shit pretty easily.
Ah yes, the capitalist dictatorship is "revolutionary".
I know you're probably banned by now but if you're reading this, please off yourself.

Attached: no, I'm almost enjoying my anger.jpg (245x204, 41.05K)

actually you know what, i just remembered
society right now is super idealist, with it's metaphysical bullshit on race and absolute ignorance of material realities such as class conflict

Because materialism has implications and presuppositions that will effect how people behave and what they value.

It's not surprising that if you teach people to believe all there is is matter and all they are is matter that they will begin to approach all their worldly problems as problems of material arrangement. Likewise, they will begin to see all their pleasures and goals and sources of happiness as functions of material arrangement, material acquisition, material consumption, why wouldn't they? What else is there for them? Nothing, you've lobotomized them from every other internal and external dimension they might seek consolation, progress and answers in.

And if they believe they only have one life to live a time limit appears on the amount of pleasure they can consume. So naturally they will be inclined to act rather than to think, to consume rather than to abstain, and be less interested in asceticism or postponing pleasure in general. Next add moral relativism to the mix and you'll get even more hedonism, justifiably so, for they don't even accept that there is anything good to pursue or be held responsible to, but only their interests and whims and egoism will drive them.
It's not necessary that they behave like this, there will be exceptions, you could be materialist and stoic I guess, but those will be few and far between.
The vast mass of humanity will become hedonistic once they fall under the spell of materialism, it's quite rational to be a self-centered, pleasure seeking egoist if materialism was actually true.

I have a feeling a lot of factory work will be automated long before Communism might happen.

Attached: B04B93F9-1730-434B-926E-535CBEBF246B.jpeg (212x236, 16.71K)

They already do that since the dawn of time before they even discovered that there is matter.

In your paragraph against hedonism, a big control group is a counterexample. The entire eastern bloc had in its education based on philosophical materialism. Religion was shunned as applied idealist philosophy that only confuses people and prevents them from reaching their true potential.

When you ask the person in eastern bloc what is the world made of, the answer would be atoms. And who created it? The answer would be it emerged in big bang, or that we do not know precisely. And yet these people did not collapse into one big drug-induced hedonistic orgy, occasionally interrupted with bouts of gluttonous consumption.

This is how I know your conceptions are a testament to the failure of U.S. education system. You being brainlet is a result of class war that the ruling class wages on the working class. How the hell can you deny science?

Attached: 88ff18681e9f6cf7b11d11ef3891e80205ce0f7217f68072d19631da3380e8b3.png (640x552, 288.77K)

contrary to popular belief medieval peasants worked less than we do, had more free time, and less fragmented/atomized lives with less mental illness.

economist Juliet Shor found that during periods of particularly high wages, such as 14th-century England, peasants might put in no more than 150 days a year of work, the rest of the year was free and leisurely.

fuck off

And they were also illiterate, had an average lifespan of 30 give or take and their main activity was rolling shit into soil to grow wheat and barley.

That you don’t do this is thanks to the Enlightenment.

That you might work longer than them even though we’re now much wealthier is thanks to capitalism and its generalized commodity production, specifically the wage labor system.

Marx and Engels talk about how under capitalism life for the workers is more difficult than for slaves or for peasants in feudalism. But that's why they argue in favor of resolving the matter dialectically through moving to the next phase of society wherein the State and private property become irrelevant.

From the Principles of Communism by Engels:

From Socialism: Utopian or Scientific:

Attached: f3999795795e910dcfd02c52d1c5e2a76ae9b30a23f256210a6d315d374865f2.jpg (2100x1477, 438.85K)

again this is a misconception. They had high rates of infant mortality, which reduced the average of their total life expectancy. But if they made it past childhood they would live regular human lives, 60, 70, 90 years..etc.

lack of a printing press had something to do with that, no?
Plus literacy rates are extremely hard to measure in ancient times, some say 40% illiterate, some say 80%, some 90%…who knows? They could still be educated verbally and highly skilled, the ancient world produced a lot of magnificent things.

so capitalism is valid and objective progress to medieval times in your view?

I've been posting all day, for hours, and still not banned! I have no idea what's wrong with your mods, sorry. Normally I get banned after one or two posts.
Please forgive me.

no shit

Yeah, maybe the fucking nobility, but I’m talking about the fucking peasants, who lived short, hard lives.

Now, I’m not sure about this, but I’m pretty sure illiteracy was pretty fucking high due to there being no fucking public schools.

And, yes, capitalism at least played a progressive role in developing the productive forces of society.

testing.

ok, thats surprising.

It wouldn't be if you actually read Marx and Engels lad.

Read what I quoted from engels here: