WAKE ME UP

Daniel Ward
Daniel Ward

Will I survive a semester of economics in a Burger college? Time will tell. PS I paid $200 for this schlock

Definitions related

Attached: EBAE996B-3034-49D4-9113-61EF8C5982F4.jpeg (737.22 KB, 1241x1536)

All urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Charles King
Charles King

Survive, yes. Enjoy, probably not. When I took my first course in conventional economics way back in undergrad, I had a professor who was part of the market transition team for Albania and Yugoslavia and that was a fucking ordeal. Just the professor, some of the russian students whose family were with the White Russians, and the Chinese exchange students tag teaming to suckle the teat of capitalism at all possible opportunities. They'll go on to flourish in a college of economics, but the best work done is always by physicists, computer scientists, mathematicians, and political economists.

Dominic Ward
Dominic Ward

IDK that textbook seems mostly correct to me.

Connor Green
Connor Green

if that's what the definition of capitalism is, then capitalism has never existed once in history.

Daniel Cooper
Daniel Cooper

dictatorship of the proletariat will never exist/socialism is when the government dictates everything
Fuck off.

Easton Taylor
Easton Taylor

They have socialism listed as “significant government control over the economy” and communism as “total government control”. That’s not what Marxists talk about at all. They could have at least given a shitty definition along the lines of
an economic system where the workers themselves democratically control the means of production, typically, but not always with economic planning and seen as the lower stage of the communist mode of production
I’m sure someone more well-read could critique that definition but its better than “muh gubmint control”

Liam Nguyen
Liam Nguyen

the only thing the textbook really leaves out is that it's a worker's government

Camden Russell
Camden Russell

But isn't that one of the fundamental differences between Leninism and Marxism? That Marxism believes the workers control the production whereas Leninism knows there needs to be a centralized ruling body that allocates production?

Isaac Sanchez
Isaac Sanchez

The thing is, Marx used socialism and communism synonymously. So to him they meant the same thing. The best short definition for communism would probably be
A mode of production in which the means of production are owned and operated by society as as a whole. Such a society would be classless, stateless, and moneyless. In Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx discusses a lower stage of communism in which distribution is determined by labor time, but in the higher stage of communism distribution is solely based on need.

As you can see, the definition given in the book is completely wrong. The most hilarious part is the sentence where it says "In a communist society, the profit that it [capital] generates goes to a government authority". How stupid is this author, to believe that capital will continue to exist in a communist society? That misses the whole point!

John Morales
John Morales

should i take an econ course here? eek

Attached: Screenshot-from-2019-01-10-20-58-31.png (262.25 KB, 1020x445)

Isaiah Anderson
Isaiah Anderson

(Marxism)-Leninism is just, as Stalin put it best in his book The Foundations of Leninism, "is Marxism in the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular."

On the topic of production you could debate on worker-control and stuff like that but Marx, Engels and Lenin were in agreement about the need for the proletariat to seize the means of production and convert them into state-property.

Engels:
The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

Marx:
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Cameron Young
Cameron Young

lol Bolsonaro at this point is just reading off the script that all the School of Americas guys get.

Attached: satania04958403.png (726.52 KB, 782x720)

Alexander Bell
Alexander Bell

University of Chicago

FUCKING MONETARISTS REEEEEEEEEEE

KEYNES WOULD KILL THEM ALL WITH HIS BARE HANDS

Luke Ward
Luke Ward

Okay, but what is the difference between the state and its rulers and the bourgeoisie? What stops the people in power from being selfish with that power? This is my greatest conflict with communism in general. It sounds like monarchy where you have the best form of government with a benevolent dictator, but the worst form of government under a tyrannical asshole, e.g. Stalin.

Colton Sullivan
Colton Sullivan

paying for books
what kind of a retard does that?

Daniel Turner
Daniel Turner

What stops the people in power from being selfish with that power?
A proper constitution that does not allow revisionism. Every citizen must have a copy of this constitution, and it must be one very objective and not open to interpretatioin. If those leaders break it, then any citizen should be allowed to confront him, and what comes next is said leader being kicked out, or at worst, getting sent to the wall.

Jaxon Phillips
Jaxon Phillips

My view is that the solution is a far more participatory democratic system. The people themselves would take a larger part in basic decision-making, the electing of officials, making all officials subject to recall by their constituents, things like referendums and other methods such as sortition or possibly e-democracy. While many of the 20th century socialist states obviously had democratic elements I think the workers themselves should have had much more power and decision-making ability. The people need to be masters of the state, and not the other way around.

Cooper Peterson
Cooper Peterson

Okay, but what is the difference between the state and its rulers and the bourgeoisie?
porkies exploit people, the DOTP provably does not.

What stops the people in power from being selfish with that power?
The revolution. What do you want? God to come in and intervene against anyone who seems opportunistic? The only thing that ever stops anyone from doing selfish things is social organization.

Jack Morris
Jack Morris

You probably will not survive, but you can try

Sebastian Watson
Sebastian Watson

Quoting Marx directly:
Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it
The example Marx gives to illustrate what such a state would look like is the Paris Commune.
The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.
Instead of continuing to be the agent of the Central Government, the police was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workman’s wage. The vested interests and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves. Public functions ceased to be the private property of the tools of the Central Government. Not only municipal administration, but the whole initiative hitherto exercised by the state was laid into the hands of the Commune.
In a rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service. The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents. The few but important functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally misstated, but were to be discharged by Communal and thereafter responsible agents.
The unity of the nation was not to be broken, but, on the contrary, to be organized by Communal Constitution, and to become a reality by the destruction of the state power which claimed to be the embodiment of that unity independent of, and superior to, the nation itself, from which it was but a parasitic excresence.
While the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority usurping pre-eminence over society itself, and restored to the responsible agents of society. Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people, constituted in Communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for the workmen and managers in his business. And it is well-known that companies, like individuals, in matters of real business generally know how to put the right man in the right place, and, if they for once make a mistake, to redress it promptly. On the other hand, nothing could be more foreign to the spirit of the Commune than to supercede universal suffrage by hierarchical investiture.

Attached: vendome.jpg (266.19 KB, 768x512)

Sebastian Parker
Sebastian Parker

I'm sure this will work better than the last 50 times it was tried

Caleb Cruz
Caleb Cruz

what are you majoring in? do you have to take an economics course? why can't you just learn it on your own?

Nathan Robinson
Nathan Robinson

You need to alienate yourself from your assignments. Not like something you do, but a chore you have to satisfy to stay in the game. This skill will be most useful in the adult life.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit