Is there any reason, outside cold war era propaganda or Liberty Prime quotes...

None of us actually say that you gaslighting troll. Mao never claimed there were no proletariat in the first world. It is a question of how much revolutionary potential different groups of proletariat in different countries have.

bye bye poc

PoC will live in zoos

𝙾𝚘𝖮𝗈Oo
Here you go, baboon away.

The difference between third world countries and america is that people in third world countries are used to it.
People in america are pretty pissed off.

Yeah, they're gonna vote Democrat in the midterms and really stick it to those meddling Russkis.

I don't know man, they're already forming militias, shooting up places, doing protest on the streets.
They're giving the political process a chance to get its act straight before people stop participating in the government altogether and start forming their own political structures separate from the government.

Most Americans and Europeans are petty-bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy, and would be forced to give up their investments, privileges, property, decadence, and exploitation under communism. Perhaps you can argue that things would be better for them overall or in the long run, but really they are already fairly happy and successful under capitalism at the moment and have no reason to support a communist revolution.

Historically they're more likely to pull off an overthrow of the government.

If the Americans get angry enough, all the government needs to do is raise the minimum wage a little and expand health care coverage and everyone's satisfied. Or they can distract everyone with another war.

So basically what, the last 20+ years?

This stinks of projection.

More like 50

I'm not sure you have a firm grasp on what constitutes "socialism". Communist ideas were rejected (i.e. argued against) by many before on the ground of compatibility because those ideas necessitated pretty hardcore organization of society. However, modern First World is already heavily organized: economy no longer consists of independent entrepreneurs permitted to operate freely - it is immense corporations that dominate the economy and there is a fuckton of regulations production follows (or we'd objectively kill ourselves with all the hi-tech running loose). Basically, Capitalism already implemented all the scary reforms that were supposed to make Communism impossible. Now, only upper ranks of society need to be changed - and I'm pretty sure there is no inherent loyalty Americans and Europeans feel towards them.

In this sense, America and Europe are the most socialist-compatible on the planet (well, First World; as there is Japan/Australia/New Zealand/etc.).

NB: I'm ignoring the retarded drivel about "labour aristocracy" from larpers.

Wouldn't Syndicalist be the best way?

Basically an economic system where many large co-operative trade unions control the means of production on a per industry basis democratically and the central government serves as a regulatory body to ensure that the unions do not become autocratic and disrupt trade. The best part of the system is that most countries already have large corporations that can serve as the framework for such institutions and it would possess a technocratic element that would ensure a certain level of idiot proofing. It would also serve as an excellent way to fight globalism; no work force is going to vote to send their own jobs to Mexico. It wouldn't destroy the existing market structure that exists within the world, but would rather serve as a new way to produce products in a more equitable fashion.

The main hurdle in such achieving such a system is getting a national government to transfer ownership from stockholders and private hands to a worker owned corporation; despite the vast majority of the population benefiting from ownership inclusion in their workplaces, the small minority of people benefiting the most from the current arrangement, around 250,000 in the U.S., possess almost of the political influence in most countries. Furthermore, a significant portion of the population is either too stupid or too lazy to be trusted with a vote in how the individual cooperatives operate and you'd end up with a two tier system at the work place where a number of workers won't be permitted the right to vote until they've proven themselves knowledgeable enough to be trusted to make informed decisions. I do not foresee wages rising too drastically for many low skill workers (Pedro still gets 7.25 an hour for picking tomatoes), but I would expect that the companies would probably provide onsite housing or other amenities to meet certain state living condition requirements (kind of like the factory schools of the early 19th century).

Ultimately, any socialist system will suffer from the main problem of democracy. People are incredibly stupid and easy to mislead and until you've created an almost universally educated and intelligent population it's extremely dangerous to allow everyone to have an equal say in how things get done. Contrary to what many would posit, human nature is not that of greed and skepticism but generosity and blind faith. This makes it very likely that most people will not be able to discern the corrupt politicians and union leaders from the upright ones. Just look at how CNN and the rest of the media managed to turn a real estate developer into a president if you need an example.

Projection of what? I'm stating facts, based on economic data. It's especially bad in America, where more than half of all Americans invest in the stock market and more than 2/3rds own their own home. They aren't proletarians. People like that have just as much to lose as they do to gain from a revolution.

See, there are no 1st World Proles. Deal with it.

The former is due mainly to retirement accounts; a home one and one's family uses isn't usually considered private property by Marxists. What Sakaists consider to be private property, perhaps only the CIA knows

Owning your home doesn't make you a bourg and you are gay

There very obviously are. After all, a little more than half invest in the stock market, but obviously that also means a little less than half are too poor to do so. More than 2/3rds own their own home, but less than 1/3rd do not. They're just a minority, which means they don't have the mass power to fight a revolution.

The proletariat either works until death, or relies on other working family members to take care of them. The proletariat doesn't have enough income to invest or save for the future. Retirement is bourgeoisie.

Fortunately for you, in America the elderly also often need to work until death or rely on family members to take care of them.

Oh, I see you're just trolling. Admittedly, it's difficult to tell a Sakaist from someone only pretending to be a retard.

Most don't. The ones that do are proletarians. The ones that don't, aren't. This isn't fucking difficult. Read some fucking theory.

Attached: porky2.png (576x566, 412.67K)

Property which is worth many of thousands of dollars and which INCREASES IN VALUE OVER TIME DUE TO EXPLOITATION is not "personal property".

It presents an interesting question, though. At what point does a personal home have enough value to be taken over, at least in some capacity, by the state? It's probably hard to say in many cases. Were there suburbs in the Soviet Union similar to the ones in the US today?

JEREMY CORBYN IS BORGORSY!!

...

If it increases in value over time, it needs to be taken over. Not just because it presents a way for individuals to accumulate wealth, but because the economic conditions which cause housing values to increase are inherently exploitative. After all, housing only increases in value if people are in need of homes. If everyone's housing needs were provided, property values would grow much more slowly. Capitalism turns all houses into capital. Hence

JIRMY GORBY IS BORGOSY

OWN HOSE IN LINDON SUPERB!!!!!!

BASED MARXIST GRAMPA GONNA OVERTHROW CABIDALISM

The best thing about Settlers is how it rattles the racists.

"Bourgeois" means "retirement" is not a theory I'm familiar with. I'm more familiar with the one that says it's a specific relation to the means of production within capitalism.

Personal property as being mutually exclusive with appreciability is another very odd theory. If you make the definition of "exploitation" wide enough, I suppose you can toss just about anything into it.

Most people in the US are buying a house to live in and view it as a purchase for themselves and their family rather than a vehicle for investment and wealth accumulation. One has to wonder if you've ever spoken to normal human beings who purchase houses.

Sakaists apparently have a kind of naive reverence for a strict demand-centered supply-and-demand model. This I did not know.

Follow the conversation. Investment is bourgeoisie (because of its relation to the means of production within capitalism), the only way to retire under capitalism is to invest, so therefore retirement is bourgeoisie.
Accumulation of wealth is mutually exclusive with socialism. Exploiting other's lack of housing to increase the value of your own holdings is exploitative. This is not complicated.
A lie. Most are buying a house as an investment vehicle for another, bigger house.
Okay, how does housing increase in value except by exploiting other's need for housing? Explain the mechanism that causes it.

It is, hence why if you are White and a Communist you literally want to kill yourself.

The type of investment done for retirement accounts cannot in any real sense be termed "ownership of capital." No individual retirement accounts are controlling the direction of the corporation or its capital.

This isn't what's occurring except in the vaguest sense of "exploitation," i.e. simply having what others want.

They're buying the houses to live in them for at least the time being, not buying them as mere investment vehicles. I don't believe you've actually spoken to many people purchasing homes, if any. At best a future larger or "better" home may be a distant wish, not a calculation of future profit from the house just purchased.

Supposing need has some quantitative sense in your formulation, any number of things can increase the value of housing: the price of materials, the price of electricians, plumbers, etc. The original need for housing per se can remain constant throughout all of this yet the price of housing will rise.

Supposing you're only saying qualitatively that "insofar as others need housing and this need causes it to increase in price, having housing is exploitation," one can say that about apartments equally or, really, a great many needs. "Exploitation" remains so poorly defined that having virtually anything desirable to others can be termed "exploitative" in some furtive manner.

Oh, so you're only bourgeoisie if you have a controlling percentage of shares in a company? I'm not familiar with this theory. I suppose day traders and career investors and other people who live entirely off of investments are proletarians then?
Having what others NEED, and then using that need as a way to exploit them to accumulate wealth. It's no different than exploiting people's need for food or medicine.
Bullshit. Homeowners are always crowing about property values and calculating the value of their holdings and eyeing their next upgrade. Perhaps not all of them do, and I'll admit that lumping all home-owners into the same class isn't entirely accurate, but a majority of them see houses as an investment.
Except the cost of labor and materials always falls as technology advances. Unless there was a plague that caused a shortage of electricians and plumbers, or unless there was a disruption to the supply lines of materials, housing values should always FALL because building a house always becomes cheaper. And yet, values rise. Why?
Except you do not own an apartment, do you? And you do not benefit from your apartment becoming more expensive, do you? Exploitation is not merely having what others need. It is exploiting other's needs for your own gain. That is exactly what home owners do when they buy a house and then sell it at a profit. The exploitation is very clear. You're just being willfully ignorant, because you do not want to admit that there is a MATERIAL BASIS for anti-communism in America and Europe.

If you in any real sense can be said to live off "ownership of capital." The funds in retirement accounts are difficult to access and heavily penalized prior to retirement (thus they very rarely are), and by the point of retirement most retirement accounts are not composed mainly of investments in stocks but rather bonds and other financial instruments.

Exploitation meaning "to exploit" is more a joke than a definition.

By your incoherent idea of "exploitation," even having food or medicine for your own use is equivalent to "exploiting" people's needs because I could potentially be using them for the sake of accumulation at some undetermined future point.

Disregarding the sloppiness of the overall formulation, most homeowners in the US are not "always" talking about this or eyeing their next home. Even supposing they were wanting another home, if they were wanting it to live in (that is, they intend to sell the previous one, as most homeowners do), this would still be personal property.

All else being equal, and this also depends on the labor and materials being the exact same in all circumstances.

You hardly need a plague; you only need demand for those technical skills outside housing. Similarly for materials: you only need demand for materials outside of housing. As I mentioned, this demand-centered view of housing is very odd. It isn't Marxist and it only has a vague resemblance to even neoclassical economics.

Even omitting the above factors, speculation by financial institutions and the like in housing can also cause a rise in price.

You can benefit from apartments becoming more expensive, as others will be willing to buy your lease, as in the case of rent-controlled apartments in many cities.

There is, but there's a material basis for anti-communism in every country, namely the existence of the bourgeoisie and ideology.