What is one fairly concise argument or point in favor of leftist ideas you wish more leftists would make to normies...

Honestly I just people knew the first fucking thing about socialism is.

Parenti is a fucking boss for rightly tearing into left-wing anti-communism. He was a big part of me reevaluating and ultimately dropping my own left-wing anti-communism.

It's probably worse than you think.
nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1
So yeah, when we say "socialism or barbarism", we mean it.

Attached: c.png (960x891, 399.78K)

socialism is in your self intrest

I'd often ask them this;

What is the difference is between the capitalist labour model (work if not = starve) or old time slavery. Of course excluding improvements as an improvement to slaves in slavery doesn't excuse slavery, hell don't even make em bring up socialism at first bring up the issue's with capitalism. I've had shown that before to a few ancaps and they couldn't respond without turning to insults.

Socialism only started doing shitty things when under threat from capitalism. Capitalism only did good things when under threat from socialism.

Socialism can have markets and capitalism can have central planning. Socialism is about ownership of the means of production and not about the resource allocation of society.

Attached: main-qimg-571d61bdeff2e8f9bc5624dce9817c11.jpg (638x359 108.96 KB, 46.35K)

Fuck off.

Economic growth is fundamentally based on creative destruction of ideas and inventions and markets handle this extremely well. Economic growth is basically evolution where less efficient corporations/cooperatives are replaced by more efficient ones.

Developed capitalism is mostly rent-based so no. Market "socialism" caused unequal development within Yugoslavia which would later play a role in its downfall. Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the USSR and the GDR had a higher HDI than Yugoslavia :)

Attached: yugofags.png (586x522 74.41 KB, 42.85K)

Nobody actually takes Yugoslavia's economy seriously here. If you want to argue market socialism, you argue for Kadarism.

Attached: 10235889.png (600x600, 268.5K)

That for Marx, socialism meant the liberation of human beings from abstract labor and the tyranny of production for the purpose of augmenting value. Socialism is the ultimate realization of human freedom and creativity, and can only be accomplished by socializing production towards the satisfaction of human need.

now put that in grug speak

Events are almost inevitably caused by structures, not by individuals, and can therefore not be solved with individual morality, consumption choices, happy thoughts, etc.

What is Kadarism?

Its the key to trans-humanist singularity.
Modern Cybersyn + equitable distribution of labor is the most efficient system. Profoundly more efficient than capitalism. Global housing healthcare and nutrition will more the global average productive output, Autism Level, efficiency, happiness etc so much that little Einsteins will be popping up literally everywhere and needs will be over met on a 10 hour workweek. Like exponential standard deviation record breaking improvements in every measurable aspect of life levels of efficiency. Like medieval peasants being the first humans in space after a few decades of deciding that would be cool levels of efficiency.

kill yourself

socialism in hungary under kadar's leadership

Hungary under Janos Kadar, which was somewhere between Dengism and Titoism (Most industry is nationalized but the rest is a mix of small scale private enterprise and co-ops).

Something like this, but realistically it is hard to explain. You can also simply point at something like the HDI because it is a concise number. Literally up to like, '95 the HDI of North Korea put it at the upper end of the mid-developed countries. The 1990 report had soviet-bloc countries like East Germany in the highly developed category, with HDIs in the .9 range. Other countries like Albania were also considered highly developed I think.

If you look down the list you'll see that countries like Brazil, or India, or Pakistan, or even a couple of petro-states like Saudi Arabia had lower HDIs than many of the communist states. It is noted that these states were still middle to low income states, but their HDIs regularly far outperformed comparatively developed countries.

Once you frame that kind of narrative, then you suggest what if we were able to sustain innovation and growth (I think it is undeniable that the 70s and the 80s saw stagnation across much of the ML states at the time) and political freedoms? Would you be willing to live in a highly developed state like East Germany with access to health, housing, food, education, arts, vacation time etc. as a political right along with whatever other rights you feel are missing from the old GDR? Like travel maybe. Or freedom to criticize the government. Or whatever it may be.

Reasons why the law of value (labor theory of value) is correct.

Frankly I think it's because not enough leftists actually read Marx, let alone capital. But, we musy codifiy the fact that labor relations under capitalism are exploitative as Marx clearly laid out.

Humans recognize value in utility and exchange in equivalency; We produce a product of utility and recive a fraction of the value we produce in monied form for work equivalent to the utiliy that we produce; which then of course in alienated from us.

Oh, another thing I think is interesting but I'm unsure of how profound it is to point this out to a random person.

I noted during the run-up to the ongoing coup in Venezuela all this rhetoric about corruption. This would often especially be in response to somebody saying something like "Chavez oversaw all these great rises in living conditions and human development" and some gusano or western lib would say "but his people stole from the state! They stole billions of dollars!" etc.

I think this gesturing at theft is also suggested to cause the crisis, like they stole so damn much that the economy couldn't handle the crash in oil prices, but it is usually left on its own as an evil. Like Chavez had people stealing from the government, and under Maduro it is even worse, so their assistance to the Venezuelan people was actually just a cover and that means any good boy points they get for helping poor people is ruined by the bad boy points of being opportunistic "populists". It renders it "paying people off" for their power.

But to me this could be considered almost indistinguishable from what a capitalist does in the firm. They pay off their cronies (upper and middle management) to run the ship for them, of course all lower employees get paid, and they're extolled as job creators and innovators. But when Chavez builds schools, access to food, to medicine etc. and supposedly enriches himself in the process, he is a corrupt dictator? Why isn't enriching yourself EXORBITANTLY as a capitalist considered corruption in production. It is inarguable a very few capitalists have offered good innovations to production, and they're often held up for this gift and allowed their riches in return. But Chavez assists in carrying a whole nation out of poverty, and the idea of him becoming rich by it is evil and authoritarian? Of course the only difference to me outside of the qualitative difference of one social role being more purely political and another being economic (though arguably Chavez is the CEO of all state enterprises, and the role of head of state can be instrumental in how production is organized across the whole economy, much like a CEO can be instrumental in how production is organized in the firm) is the inherent ideology of property rights.

Attached: bolivar_LI.jpg (450x900, 757.98K)

Yeah this. I honestly have no idea what an ideal socialist state would look like. My goal would probably be the USSR in the 1970s but more productive, efficient and "liberal" in terms of speech, culture, etc. for starters. But I can usually make some inroads by describing capitalism as alienating while also functioning like an ideological control system, and when you think about it for a few seconds, it's really fucking weird.

Like this scene from this Stuart Hall film: youtu.be/6WDR47aFX2c?t=1006

I'd steal back the red pill from The Matrix. Or like showing people the scene from They Live with the glasses.

Think about it. You go to work, but you don't feel at home when you're at work, and you feel at home when you're not at work. You feel relieved when you leave work. This is because you're alienated from your work and also other workers. This is different from being a family farmer (say) who owns the products of his labor. You do not own the products of your labor under capitalism but you sell yourself to someone else in exchange for wages.

Then the stuff you – and all of us – make is taken from us and then comes back to stare at us from store shelves with funny names and surreal, cartoon mascots; like they are alien objects from another planet. But we made all the stuff! We then buy these objects to define who we are as individuals, because we have no individuality as workers. You and me are more like batteries powering a big machine like in that scene from The Matrix with the pod people. Capital needs the working class to exist (as a class) but individual workers can be gotten rid of and replaced.

Capitalism is really freaky.

Attached: 50244810_967905296930295_7851680183130098018_n.jpg (640x640, 92.17K)

That's crazy as hell to think about.

Not only that buy you literally are doing twice the work for half thr pay.

Right? Well this is commodity fetishism or at least how I interpret that. It's one of the more complicated things in Marx just to wrap your head around because it's, as Neo in The Matrix said, very "woah."

I got an almost-violent reaction from someone once while talking about this. He was a middle-manager type who had convinced himself that he was a "capitalist." And he felt he was doing right for "my" workers. But this guy wasn't a capitalist all and didn't actually *own the company,* you know, and was just some petty-bourg middle-management type and one of his jobs was sorting applicants for various positions. Because of this he believed he was a "job creator." I explained how capitalism functions to him in pretty much the same exact matter-of-fact words as above and he got very angry.

And he got angry because what I'm saying is true, and because people are emotionally and psychologically dependent on the system, basically. In "They Live" the main character tells his friends to put on the glasses (that show reveal advertising billboards as just saying "OBEY" and "CONSUME") and his friend violently resists. If you don't buy into the system what do you really have? Or for that matter, who the hell *are* you as a person?

youtu.be/18qD9hmU9xg?t=376

how every time it has been tried, capitalists have strangled it in its cradle.
some gave those forces a run for its money regardless, but then ended far too early.

but thats wrong though. market arent more efficient or creative, and economic growth is not corporative darwinism.

Dirgisme is not a type of planned economy. Also well in might be necessary to have a markets for certain goods (e.g. art, restaurants, rental housing), full-on market socialism (i.e. where the market remains dominant over labour and commodity markets) is a complete meme.)

The deficiencies in ML planned economies were caused by internal corruption, lack of popular participation/democracy, bureaucratization, and repression of free criticism. The contradictions of the market socialist economies were endemic to the markets themselves. The USSR only collapsed because Gorbachev tried to move to a market socialist model.

Don't be fooled by the perceptions of a better Socialism in Yugoslavia. The USSR had a higher HDI. The glamour around Yugoslavia mostly comes from the fact there wasn't as much propaganda against it because it was non-aligned. Also IMF loans :)

Try reading this four part article on workers control, nationalization, and the deficiencies of Market Socialism - marxist.com/workers-control-nationalization-part1.htm?fbclid=IwAR0NBg4J-eaV6PvWm-KhkXYekKurgAeaeTFz8yZ07BMHcQd39LkNTAcrvS4