Realised that capitalism is not going to collapse on its own

Bernstein is based. Anybody who reads the texts of the Revisionist controversy without bias can tell how easily he BTFOs Kautsky, Rosa and Parvus

This is technically accurate, but the accumulation of capital means it will never be nearly strong enough, so it's not very meaningful. Like you said, the neolibs are doing a damn fine job of solving the labor aristocracy problem for us.

...

...

BASED ANGLOBRO GOMMIES

Attached: hecatiafish.png (400x360, 82.64K)

When is the INEVITABLE BREAKDOWN coming this time, user?

Attached: 9731bc41c10f6532da226d2fe1592acaf77c80ad3d1c28df7e6b5904ca23a643.png (1271x884, 278.71K)

who the fuck is yakoda?

Only two of those are Bolsheviks (idk who Yagoda is) and Lenin didn't even know about his Jewish ancestors

should've karen posted.

Read a book, neither of these were bolsheviks. Marx wasn't either, but lets count him for the sake of argument
Was baptized Lutheran, hated Jewish culture and wrote an entire essay on it in which he described that abolishing capitalism would remove the things associated with Judaism. (i.e. "What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.")
Single member who never had the favor of Stalin and later fell out of favor with Lenin, later removed from the party.
Had no idea he was partly Jewish, and would barely even count as a Mischling in Nazi Germany.
Purged, barely relevant

How many times do we have to play this game old man?

Attached: 864a885bf8976bccee4662d5dbb8e135de5cf2ca2c8d5fb289c80ae4b88bc42b.png (1423x2332 166.15 KB, 1.15M)

Soon. I hope your bunker is ready.

Attached: world-rate-of-profit.png (700x495 51.63 KB, 176.22K)

because they tend to be even more class conscious than the unskilled workers.

I don't know where you people get this idea than you can "prove" things by just calling them true over and over again with no academic follow-up.

If everyone agrees, its true.
Zig Forums is pomo.

I know you're banned and not even likely to read this post anyways, but fuck it.
Retards like you have already come to the conclusion of Marxism being a "jewish conspiracy" without even having any evidence for it other than pointing at the ethnic backgrounds of some of the theorists. It doesn't matter to you that a lot of Marxist theorists (Including Engels, who is JUST AS ESSENTIAL to the foundation of Marxism as Marx himself is) aren't jewish, nor have you any evidence of "jewish conspiracy" in the texts themselves. Is historical materialism "jewish", or something? Is analyzing capitalism and not liking it somehow only a "jewish" thing? Is the very concept of material analysis "jewish"? You types always go about "the facts", yet simultaneously, are really about "feels > reals" since actually analyzing why things happen would be too hard when instead you can shout "kike" at everything you don't like.
Also, not all of these people even in your list of "judeo-bolsheviks" even agreed with each other. Do you think jews are a hivemind or something? That's fucking retarded.
i don't know where i was going with this but i see this garbage all the time and it's annoying

Attached: marx and engels mummin.jpeg (647x484, 36.79K)

This video might be of interest to the people in this thread:
youtube.com/watch?v=VZ5GrE8XIi0

>>>/marx/7600
educate yourself

user. Dont ask questions like that or you'll invite their fucking evolan mystics to come rambling about how jews=nihilism and feels>reals-ing in walls of cryptic bullshit

yeah, yeah, i suppose you're right
i've never seen a logical argument from any of them though and they tend to complain about it being "degenerate"
fucking neo-boomers

Attached: scarf.png (1920x1080, 2.49M)

There is something to this. You have to be a fucking retard to think that your average retail worker is the purest segment of the working class just because they can't really afford to live "comfortably".

Failing to show they are revolutionary where other first world workers aren't most people either abandon this notion or fall back onto total Third Worldism.

What isn't explained is why class struggle was at a peak in the 60s in the West when things were much more "comfortable" than they are now. If you do calculations on the wages from the 30s you'll find the average wage isn't that far off from the minimum wage in the US today. Further evidence is that the "poverty" line is based on the experience of poverty as its formulators encountered it in the 1930s.

Why class struggle then and no class struggle now? We have plenty of people living like they are in the 1930s… and if a worker is able to do somewhat better than that are they really "comfortable" and bought off?

what texts are these?

The falling rate of profit does not mean that capitalism will definitely collapse, it just means there will always definitely be downwards wage pressure. This does create a constant problem of aggregate demand, however capitalism has shown time and again it can shoulder a financial collapse by cooking the books, juggling things up, tightening the screws and imperialist theft

Uh huh, and what happens when the rate of profit inevitably turns negative? Am I to believe that capitalism can somehow survive without profit?

...

Its fucking hilarious how the fascists simultaneously think that Jews are money-grubbing world controlling geniuses intent on racial extermination through uh, non fascists getting hotter girls?, but also subhuman goblins that aren't fit for manual labor or life in general that also invented anti-capitalism

These contradictions are how you know fascism is an ideology for sociopaths and complete drooling retards, though

its also a tendency not a constant, it accelerates and decelerates

Okay, but aside from blind cynicism you have no reason to believe that this is sustainable for any length of time. The global rate of profit has never truly been negative. Even during times of crisis, the rate of profit doesn't actually turn negative. We're talking about a historically unique event, one which we can't look to past crises to predict. Cooking the books, juggling things up, tightening the screws, and imperialist theft can only slow the rate that profit falls. Once we're at that point, we're in totally uncharted waters.

Now, don't mistake this for me believing that socialism is inevitable. It's not. Capitalism could collapse into post-apocalyptic feudalism with the world carved up into fresh water fiefdoms for all we know. I just can not envision capitalism surviving the limits to growth.

Sure, and for all we know we're about to see another huge spike in the rate of profit that prolongs the fall, but in the long term the end is clear. The fall accelerates or decelerates, but it never really stops.

Thx for this post.

Okay but aside from blind optimism you have no reason to believe that the collapse is any time soon.

There is still massive room for imperial expansion across the globe, even the most recent crop of expansions in the middle east are nowhere near complete, although heavily exploited there is still much more room for the gutting of previous imperial projects in south america and east asia, this coupled with the massive proliferation of surveillance and other subversion technologies which allow a far more effective subversion of the workforce, coupled with the automation of industry reducing the effectiveness of strike action considerably, i would say capitalism has every chance of sustaining itself right up until the point of collapse, which is looking to be environmental rather than economic, at which point we are as you say either all doomed or post apocalypse feudalism. If it is an economic collapse before this point, the far right is in a position to "save" capitalism in their usual fashion

We need a revolution NOW.

and for all we know it won't.

It's not optimism! The collapse of capitalism is not an inherently good thing. There needs to be a revolution to build socialism after its collapse, because if capitalism collapses and there ISN'T a revolution we're going to be far worse off than we were under capitalism.

Take oil for example. We've extracted most of the light crude, so all that's left is heavy crude, deep sea oil, shale, and oil sands. This crude is extremely energy and labor intensive, and requires massive infrastructure investment just to FIND let along extract, transport, and refine. If we reach a point where the rate of profit for oil extraction turns negative, the oil industry will go into crisis. After that, we either have to mass transition to a less effective source of fuel or we'd have to prop up the oil industry by looting other sectors of the economy while operating at a loss. In any other historical context, capitalism could adapt to these conditions.

But if this were happening at the same time the rest of the economy had reached the limits to growth, things get really bad really fast. There's nothing less effective to transition to because the sectors of the economy responsible for those sources of fuel are ALSO in crisis. There's no other sectors of the economy to loot because everyone is operating at a loss. Instead, the gas pumps just go dry. And then people start dying.

And that's just from oil. That doesn't touch on top soil depletion and environmental degradation, peak production in other industries, or the fact that when the knives come out countries are going to start fucking nuking each other.

If we don't manage a revolution BEFORE capitalism's collapse, we might as well just pray for the aliens to come and save us.

Tbh probably the best succdem that ever lived. I think there's something to be said about the fact that near every popular social democratic movement abandoned his program in favor of Keynes and eventually neoliberalism, tho. Tbh I'm more in line with Cockshott's take that in terms of statistical probability bourgeois individuals and their allies will tend to rise to the top of parliamentary/republican systems no matter the party. That makes it difficult or near impossible to make the allocation of surplus a social decision unless you formally abolish the political and legal mechanisms of the bourgeois republic.

Exactly. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills a lot of the time because of how many staunch reformists there are in the American left. I've only been to my local Democrat Cops of America before, but I can guarantee from the social media presence that every branch is basically filled with self-identified communists, marxists, anarchists, and socialists. Few MLs because they usually get drawn to the groups that put a greater emphasis on reading. But anyways, these people have all come together in this social democrat organisation like a zombified mass. I accept the validity of what the Democrat Cops of America advocates for as a means of alleviating the burden on working people, and it is absolutely possible to get "Medicare for all" and all of these things, but there is no theory how to get past that wall. They all idealize the post-war years and invoke the image of FDR, but that died. It died everywhere, every country is either already at the bottom of an austerity well or in the process of getting dragged down there. Even the '68 movement was contemplating what the fuck happened, although they failed to get out of it. It doesn't seem like we are contemplating what happened, the budding left is just holding onto the hope that if we just do it BETTER this time, if we just believe in it REALLY HARD, it will work.

I think democracy can bring about socialism, but it's as you said. There needs to be a huge change in either the mechanism of democracy, or there needs to be a massive change in the distribution of power which can precede a change in the state. Either way is theoretically possible, but where is the conscious strategy to get there?

we put the dialectics in motion

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (500x446, 221.95K)

What about the professional-managerial class? People who do not need to own the means of production in order to maintain their class position; they may or may not own stocks, bonds, other securities; but who receive a wage/salary premium and a degree of creative/personal freedom above other workers because of their willingness to internalize the logic of capital and act in the interests of profit even if it means harming, disciplining, controlling/disempowering other workers.

Supervisors, attorneys, management consultants, priests/preachers, and doctors are the best examples, but many technical workers also receive relative job autonomy and high pay in exchange for assigning their own personal creativity toward institutional needs instead of personal/class needs–think systems administrators, accountants, software developers, architects, etc. Creative workers also have a similar class role: writers, actors, artists, etc.

The traditional proletariat just has to do their assigned work. The work is so alienating precise because they have no power over the productive process as a whole, and often don't even have knowledge of how everything fits together. They just clock in and do what they are told. They are forced to obey. It is a demeaning slavish existence, but at least you can go home and be your own person.

The professional, on the other hand, is expected to really believe in the interests of the business and to, without direct supervision, come up with novel ways of optimizing exploitation. This is pretty much impossible to do unless you internalize the logic of capital despite not necessarily having skin in the ownership game. Higher education and the media are mainly directed at indoctrinating the professional-managerial class, and MBA, PE, PhD, MD, JD, etc qualifications are evidence that one has demonstrated the support for hierarchy and intellectual discipline to become a member of the professional class.

You're confusing self employed professionals, "creative" jobs, and managers. A self employed lawyer, a doctor, an architect, some artists - these people own what little means of production they need, mostly immaterial in the form of a stable of clientele.

A Consultant, meanwhile, is typically part of a consultancy firm, and could likely not be employed outside such a corporate structure. This kind of employment also encroaches on the realm of traditionally free professions. A lawyer who works for a firm and could not sustain himself independently is a worker.

Professional private practices persist to some degree, but they also exist among prole positions like landscaping, small scale construction, asphault maintenance, basically anything that isn't all that capital intensive compared to something like a factory. Some proles are self-employed too. It would be pretty silly to call a poor day laborer petite-bourgeois because he owns a few garden tools. If anything they are in a position below the wage worker.

Most professionals, like most proles, are employed by investor owned firms. The overall trend is for a greater share of the workforce to be employed by firms and not be self-employed. This is being hidden by legal mis-classifications of workers as "independent contractors" for tax purposes even though they are subject to employer discipline and managerial control.

Now, there might be good reasons to separate the "manager" from the non-managerial "professional" because of the manager's power to hire and fire, and the fact that bosses always sit opposite labor when collective bargaining. However, the developer or administrator who designs processes or systems to determine hiring and firing decisions on a mass scale often has greater power over workers than the low level boss who only hires or fires a few people every few years. The union-busting consultant is objectively a more powerful force against organized labor than a relatively powerless low-level supervisor.

The important distinguishing factor between professional and non-professional workers isn't about self-employment vs employment by a firm. It's about ones job autonomy. Even US labor law recognizes this distinction. Salaried professionals, whether technically paid hourly or a fixed salary, are exempt from overtime pay, but they must have advanced degrees or managerial power, expense accounts or control over spending, some flexibility in work hours, some freedom from direct supervision, etc. However wage workers are entitled to time and half pay over 40 hours a week, but are subject to direct managerial oversight and are alienated labor, whether they are skilled or unskilled.

It could still collapse on its own, but it's better if it didn't.

in what ways are the entitled (though usually not lazy) blacks/latinos NOT coming for their pensions? All these taxes that pay for social benefits affect the poor and middle classes more than the rich.

My question is how do you appeal to this middle class that you call boomers? t. zoomer

Attached: who stands to gain.gif (701x470, 2.92M)

It literally never works

China has the most developed productive forces on the planet.

Cuba has resisted imperialism for over 50 years and life there is better in many respects than in many, many capitalist countries.

Rojava is shaping up nicely.

The only thing that doesn't work is revisionism

Cuba is your only model and they are isolated as fuck, though that's not exactly their fault.

did not expect this

They only have large amounts of sway in imperialist countries. Imperialism is the key. First worlders tend to ignore this of course.

What? What? What on earth are youj on about

It’s a question of convincing them what socialism actually means (ie as workers they aren’t our target). There’s also the process of re-proletarization, which is actually being pushed by neoliberalism. Declining or stagnant standards of living is enough to push anybody to the left.