Neoliberalism can lead to socialism

The experiences of the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, etc prove that "socialism in one country" does not work. Capitalism is a global system and the drive for profit will penetrate any "socialist" nation eventually.

The only way to achieve socialism and end capitalism is through the dissolution of the nation-state and borders. Competition among workers of the world promoted by neoliberalism via opening up of borders ensures the creation of a global proletariat.

As neoliberalism would continue to open up all parts of the world for exploitation, zero tariffs and easy flow of goods would become necessary to keep up profits. Therefore neoliberalism if continued, would both unite workers throughout the world and keep them in tighter chains through increased exploitation.

Once the nation-state system dissolves under neoliberalism, the bourgeoise would not be able to retreat to social democracy or fascism in order to escape crisis. A globalized proletariat, once bound together by rank and file unions led by a vanguard party, would then be able to completely dismantle the capitalist system and move towards communism.

Neoliberalism is a necessary evil.

Attached: 1_qvxrf6ZMRt0xtCUyssCRew.jpg (1600x851, 436.07K)

all that will lead to is global apocalyptic ra.ce war

The only way to achieve socialism is to end society and the human race.

Maybe yours is bait but I always thought that nationalism is truly the greatest threat to communism. The problem with neoliberalism is exactly that it does not really reject nationalism. The term itself "internationalism", often said by neolibs, is itself tainted with the concept of nations that associate, more than the end of nationalism.
An example of the failure of the concept of "internationalism" is the USSR itself, perverted by it chauvinist interest of power politics. Or how the european socialist all aligned with their respective nation state governments at the beginning of WWI, (outside Italy and the bolsheviks and few else) breaking the 2nd international.
78 years after the end of WWII and the supposed victory against the authoritarian, nationalist and statalist project of the axis (which amusingly was an "internationalist" project too, the New Order was already accepted by most nations of the axis althought the supremacy of Germany was clear even when they thought they would have won) by liberal capitalism nations along "communists", the liberal nations some decades later would adopt "globalism" in a corporative vision of the world.
But then USSR fell, and with it "communism" which represented the "real" anti nationalism for neolibs (but only in their minds) and after that they not only kept and reinforced the concepts and essence of nation states but they failed to resolve the classic conflicts between nations, today manifested between usa (the main global force) and russia & china (not as massive as the us of a but still "superpowers" that the usa wouldn't charge head on for sure but that have conflicts of interests with).
Capitalism NEEDS nationalism and neoliberalism still falls in the trap of reinforcing nation states, adopting a vision a la Mazzini in which nations "made of free individuals" cooperate for a better society. This because as all nationalist visions neoliberism cannot abandon the current recognition of sphere of influence of established agents of capital such as businessmen or bank owners or whatever.

Attached: Smileybonepicture.jpg (489x535, 75.8K)

"neoliberalism" is just what berniecrats and other retards call late stage capitalism so yes, it is part of the historical process

Stopped reading there. Internationalism means between nations, not the end of nations.


Literally incorrect on all fronts

Okay, maybe not "means", that was incorrect. Yet I don't believe it makes any sense to advocate for the disbandment of nations. Think of it, nations are a social progress, they are relatively recent historical creations, from the 19th century actually. The idea of a common destiny between people of a same place really wasn't a thing when people just thought of themselves as inhabitants of some town or subjects of a monarch.
Nations are a good thing, they allow the constitution of political groups with their own interests and identity.
Thinking mankind can exist as some kind of formless mass of humans scattered around the globe is delusion. Smaller nations though, that's a laudable goal. But the end of nation-states? No.

Or just general catastrophic political & environmental failure. Why do you think the only way out of neoliberalism is the upper way? Society can and certainly could devolve into endless pessimism, nihilism, individualism and political apathy. This post reeks of idealism.

It is better for the people of the world to identify with a singular class identity that a class identity and nation identity. Also, nations are a part of the commodification of culture and are often used as an extension of imperialism, and a lot of their mechanisms will do nothing but harm the workers unless we want to hollow them out into nothing but shells, in which case we may as well go through with the final effort and be done with them regardless.

Whether it's better is irrelevant. Of course it would be better, but I don't think it's going to happen, everything in the neoliberal ideology is geared to prevent people from operating class-based analysis. Individualism, making workers feel like they can be entrepreneurs and general identification with the wealth class (see temporarily-embarrassed-millionaires libertarians) makes it highly unlikely to happen. Class-oppressed people in the US would rather identify with their race than with the class they actually belong to.
Nations are a mean to an end. Nationalists think the nation is the end-goal and in this they're both nearsighted and wrong. Nations is what can give us things like socialized healthcare or free education, they're a tool. Of course when that tool is wielded by porky, it becomes a weapon of oppression and crime.

Nationalism is not communist because it's anti materialist and divides class. It's anti materfialist because of the failure of the nationalists to define the very essence of the nation project, the nation being more of an "imagined community", based on feelz more than realz.
It also divides the working class by creating groups amd odrganization outside a system of real global cooperation, there is always a degree of selfishness for the groups you identy with, let aloe groups that monopolize violence. Let's not forget that the first internationale all agreed upon the publications against Mazzini

i mean, if all people of the world just united and stuff, then it would be more united instead of there being like war and shit. so if we just open those borders than culture will become uncommodified again like when america was great and we listened to ac/dc instead of kanye.

Attached: karltural school.mp4 (640x360, 1.69M)

Right, but neoliberal analysis is being discredited by continuous economic failures and a general trust of the general establishment, with movements on both the left and right beginning to move away from neoliberal thought and towards different modes of analysis of the societies they live in (reactionary thinking on the right and more towards socdem on the left).
The thing about all non-materialist analysis is that inevitably people will have to confront the material reality of their situation and have to come to an understanding of how this inequality has come into place. Of course some will scapegoat vulnerable people, but we can use this opening to get actual leftist thought into the door and start a propagation of the identification of a class identity in the common consciousness.
Not because it was a conscious choice, but because it was what they were conditioned to do by an inherently racist and unequal system in capitalism which is upheld by the political status quo, which most black people realize that last part. They are told that the only way to change things is adhering to the status quo with incremental change to the political and social systems without ever addressing the economic inequalities in any meaningful way. We can show them that there is another way to enact change, by eliminating the economic inequality that is the root of all other inequalities they face.

Indeed they are a tool, but we should recognize when a tool has outlived it's usefulness. just as we replaced knitting needles with looms.

You seem to have a delusion that culture and borders are in any way related. As the Kurds could tell you, that is not the case, as much as T*rks wished it was. The commodification of culture is based around capitalism, which is promoted around nationalism and nations in general as a way to propagate one's culture to other people as a commodity, when it is always a shallow copy without the meaning or soul of the original, without any of the cultural context for it to boot. Of course I am not espousing the complete halt of cultural interchange, instead it should be an equitable and non-profitable exchange between individuals and communities rather than hijacking by capitalists.

It almost seems like the marxist truth of class being by its very nature, the essential distinction, is wrong. That is precisely how deviously neoliberal ideology operates, it has created an entire world that resolves around obscuring the actual truths of marxism, ironically, by doing this they only prove marxism correct, for marx had already predicted that the capitalists would do everything in their power to obscure the truths of marxism.

Are you fucking shitting me? The only place on the world were people can travel freely is the EU. The rest of the world has tight borders. Any form of capitalism can lead to socialism.

I'm still scratching my head over it, but I have found correlations between national borders and language borders that suggest that they might be in some way related to each other.
When did we have original culture, when did it become commodified and how was it possible to develop it in the first place if it requires communism for its authenticity?
Cultural exchange of what? Crack cocaine use? Seventh Day Adventism? Drive-thru restaurants? Haggling on the market?

Which is an excellent example of neoliberalism. Projects like the EU should be expanded worldwide to do away with nationalist tendencies.

Yes, but not because those borders were created around linguistics, but because the linguistics of the nation were enforced onto all within the border itself.
It does not require communism for it's authenticity, it authentically exists while capitalism still does. It is commodified and sold by capitalism, but that does not destroy the original honest and legitimate culture. But cultural commodification mostly came about during the early 1900's with the invention of mass media.
Don't be daft, there is all kinds of things cultures regularly exchange without commodification like stories, songs, drama, writings, art, so on.

Attached: Kurdish singing.mp4 (1280x720, 6.37M)

While I do agree that our honest and legitimate culture was perverted by the forces of international finance, their lying press and those producers of commodities that they dare to call artists -in mockery of our true and honest legitimate art- there are some reports of missing people from a previous attempt at restoring lost authenticity.
Why do such discussions always reduce culture to the easy stuff; foreign dishes, foreign films, foreign songs.. as if there are no cultural differences, except different themes in food and pop-culture. It's like you actually believe that cultural differences are nothing but consumer choices, and that the only problem is that we could get so much more of them from different peoples and places.

The death of languages is a bad thing.
Categorizing all artists as servants to the materialist mindset that denigrates culture is extreme, but a lot of art does only exist for material benefit, I agree.
We "reduce" cultures to these because they are the most common mediums for sharing history, emotions, myths, stories, love, and all other things we can communicate towards each other by these mediums in humanity. Literally every culture has all of these for a reason, because they are simply the best for us to communicate cultural nuance between each other.

Attached: 06ef054b91de29c6f5c208d98c7e3ef9ca4f4552a1a98d899e66637ac9a7dbf.jpg (800x927, 174.45K)

So doing the opposite reduces the rate of profits which means capitalism dies quicker. All Neoliberalism does is prolong capitalism.

No. Doing the opposite will inevitably lead to war because social democracy and fascism requires nationalism to exist. Nationalism inevitably leads to war as nation-states compete over limited resources. War will lead to major destruction, and destruction of capital goods will prolong capitalism because that would lead to a reset of the rate of profit.

Neoliberalism will eventually lead to a "world government" which will not be able to fall back on nationalism because it would have erased the nation-state framework.

The USSR fell apart and the working class got cucked by capitalism. Cuba is adopting market reforms and privatization. China and Vietnam have fully embraced capitalism.

Socialism, the means of production being owned by the working class, does not exist anywhere in the world. It has failed.

Class isn’t an identity

All nationalism is, is “the belief in a nation” This by it’s self is meaningless. A nation a group of people with a similar culture and language. Nationalism is a political fiction based around the concept of a nation, there are other political fictions for example like religion. Nationalism became the dominate political fiction when x area underwent industrialization, this is because industrialization breaks down politicalized religion and replaces it with secularism. Not all areas are idustrialized or underwhent industrialization though, so there are places where religion is the dominate political fiction instead of nationalism. Saudi Arabia for example passed through industrialization and when directly from an agrarian economy into a post industrial economy. Subsaharan Africa is still in an agrarian economy. Nationalism isn’t an ideology as so much as a political fiction. THis is how both the PKK and the NSDAP groups with polar opposite ideologies end up both being nationalist. Because nationalism isn’t an ideology, but a political fiction. As such nationalism isn’t inherently reactionary or progressive, but that depends on what material conditions people who support this political fiction are in. As such being pro or anti nationalism is meaningless. Internationalism is sometimes considered the opposite of nationalism, but again this is not the case. Internationalism is when people of different nations work together on a common goal. The first, second, and third Internationals where Workers of various nations working together to promote there common interests. Globalization and Free Trade is Bourgeois of various nations working together to increase there rates of profits. Co-operation doesn’t negate any political fiction the participants have so long as there political fictions don’t take precedent over the goals there working on. As such it isn’t fair to call internationalism anti-natioanlist. OP is saying we should promote internationalism of the Bourgeois for the sake of internationalism. This is stupid, Communist internationalism, isn’t internationalism, for the sake of internationalism, but internationalism in order to advance the material goals of worker’s at large. Internationalism is just a tactic, and one that works, because of this we shouldn’t be in favor of our enemies using it.

Why would globalization prevent this?

That is extremely easy to answer. Either 1) the said state conquered all the areas with similar language intentionally or unintentionally or 2) universal education within the boundaries of the state imposed a standardized language upon it's inhabitants at the expense of others. The second case has been the most common. Nobody spoke a singular french or spanish or italian language universally in france, spain or italy until the 20th century. Italy didn't truly spread a national language till the 1950s with the spread of radio.

Same reason as to why in moments of crisis there is no longer a reaction towards the establishment of feudalism or monarchy. The dissolution of the nation state by advanced neoliberalism will have eroded the structures that make the reaction possible

But the problem is exactly that the nation is precisely not a total political fiction. While it is for the ideological part, nationalism is the foundation for the defence of bourg interests which are born from the nation state and reside in it. This is why bourgs will always defend the nation even under the form of meek patriotism, if the nationstate order was to be changed this would mean huge losses of capital. I think there is a reason the first international was founded as an explicitly anti mazzinian organ. Mazzini at the time was very famous and was a messiah of nations still under foreign rule, and his promotion of "free nations cooperating for the benefit of humanity" and revolutionary democratic republicanism were seen through in their fallacies very clearly by those intellectuals

True. Close ties are not one big country.

The only way in which neoliberalism will lead to socialism is to the workers to be so fucking pissed off of being fucked in the ass daily by private owners that they start a revolution, everything else i predict will be some orwellian shit

Attached: 2000px-Anchor_pictogram.svg.png (2000x2422, 62.71K)

This will only lead to nationalism or even fascism.

do you believe that we should push for regualtion & reform of capitalism?

Pokies only support capitalist nation-states. The nation-states of the Eastern Block were directly attacked by capitalism. And again capital has, can and will operate in countries that aren’t nation-states. A place being a nation state has no effect on the rate of profit of capital, or the mechanisms of imperialism. The Gulf states are proof of this. So while nation states shouldn’t be supported, attacking them as an institution is of no benefit to the socialist movement, and just a waste of time.

Yes because unlike neoliberalism, social democracy causes the rate of profit to fall quicker than normal. Neoliberalism does the opposite.

Who's capitalism?

Is it not ikea, that had factories using convict labour in the DDR?

Over feudal power and localism of peasantry? Yes, but neither exists anymore, which is why nations are nothing but a mild inconvenience at best and obstacles to abolishing commodity production at worst.

Nations existed sense hunter gather times, what is recent is the politicalization of nations.

Cite your source for this claim.

Are you illiterate?

Neoliberalism also killed more people than Marxist-Leninism and Marxist-Leninism-Maoism combined. Are you really brave or just stupid or somewhere in between?

Literacy is borgeious.


No. You need to learn what the definition of a nation is.

Why would anyone in an even semi-successful country want that to happen?

I don't see why the falling apart of the USSR means that socialism (in one country) is always doomed to ultimately fail. I don't want future socialism to be an exact replica of the Soviet model but I have my doubts about how realistic the advent of global socialism is.
Don't be an idealist; considering how isolated its conditions are, a country like Cuba needs to liberalize to a certain extent to survive. I have some faith the government is still aiming at socialism, and as long as a full bourgeoisie doesn't develop I don't think the legalization of private property will pose serious problems to reverting to socialism when the time is ripe. Cuba still adheres to a large number of socialist policies.

If they switch from socialism to capitalism, and their standard of living improves, why exactly would anyone want to switch back?