ITT: explain why your special snowflake ideology is the correct path for your country and / or the world

Nigga dressed to good and instead of getting customers he got coochie

Attached: BitingLipEmoji.jpg (500x500, 15.46K)

M-L is Literally the only form of socialist societal organization that has not imploded in the (Historical equivalent of) five minutes (Anarchists) and / or isnt also Porky backed / COINTELPRO (Bookchinites / Trots etc)

You're a cool guy Jim.

Ideology: Wait for germany to go commie and then go commie ourselves. Also, cybernetic communism.
Why: We rely on trade for a lot of our products. Our agriculture is the best in the world but we dont have many other things. Our entire country in its entire history even to roman times has been "the supply line into europe" rather than something an sich.

Attached: 8ad20933c64115c0c4a19d45f62afc5890fe898067c7b0aee8076dfa23c838e1.jpg (5714x6599, 2.36M)

Was milk a common thing to dedicate a whole store to back in the 1800's? Seems like a weird business plan, especially before refrigeration.

Attached: without any milk.png (446x333, 160.75K)

Because it destroys human suffering, diesease, psychological problems, it is egalitarian, gender equality is prominent, organized violence is absent, leisure time is significant. It destroys alienation, removes the inhumane and unauthentic feelings invoked by art, makes the individual experience everything by himself, with his own original feeling, without language, number, or art.

Attached: BF38FEAE-04BD-4602-B03A-773C2B9BA979.jpeg (1600x1032, 121.45K)

one barber listens to customers' requests and styles their hair as they want it done, another just chops everything off ignoring any protest. objectively they both cut hair and can do it for the same time but people are going to like one over the other.
the arts are an even better example, though. how do you objectively evaluate the better visual design between two chairs?

Ideology: Commie
Why: Because I want more stuff and I think loads of other people deserve so much better than what they currently have

You are falaciously comparing just two individuals out of a massive group.
Even if barber A is a moron and barber B is amazing, there are hundreds of barbers like A and hundreds of barbers like B, and people can train to be as good as B, and so the service that barber B provides is interchangeable with that of other barbers like him and thus completely subject to the regular workings of the commodity form and LTV.

Subjective theory is value is retarded. All things that can be produced can be produced to equal quality by many people. There are no "great men" who create supreme excellency nor would those things of great excellency ever be something used in large enough quantities that it would fall under regular employment.

Also, designs are not commodities since their value is zero. They are made once and then freely, without cost, copied and used. This is nothing like a haircut, which is done one at the time.

so how do you objectively differentiate between barber group A and barber group B, if not by subjective evaluation?
I'm not arguing for marginal theory or anything, I just think that competition is a useful mechanic to use in certain situations.
but the commodities utilising these designs are commodities, and people will pick the ones they prefer, thus making a design nobody wants shitty and a popular design good, after controlling for things like ease and cost of manufacturing.

Your stupid argument has been debunked many times yet subjectivists continue to use it to try and undermine the LTV
It does not matter if I can give you an "objective" quality judgement between two randomly picked cases. There are thousands, millions of people doing those jobs, producing those services. They are interchangeable with the workers delivering comparable services, and thus they are subject to the LTV.
Just like a slow worker and a fast worker do not invalidate the LTV, so too does someone making slightly worse services vs someone making slightly better ones invalidate it.

That doesnt make them commodities. The design of something is next to nothing compared to the overall cost of manufacturing of that product over the lifetime of its manufacturing.

Pluralist multi-party syndicalism (like in KR) where MLs, anarchists and whoever else can work together and get into bitter arguments to better the cause of socialism.
It's the best cause for left-unity and anti-sectarianism and is the ideal middle point for most tendencies.

you are absolutely correct; the individual does disappear and the quality of work averages out on a systemic level
If I had made that argument to disprove LTV in favour of a subjectivist theory of value you'd have destroyed me, IF. I don't know where your passionate defence of LTV came from honestly.
There needs to be a mechanism that favours good quality and discriminates on poor quality, and in the case of something that isn't so easy to objectively measure in numbers it becomes a question of subjective decision by a large number of people. Even if the gap between good and bad performance can be closed by training, the training methods themselves should go through the same system of evaluation to find more efficent ways of training people.

maybe not, but you still need to decide between competing designs before committing to one for mass production. or had to at least, by the time these questions become practically relevant even capitalism will have products built on-demand for a person's individual wants and needs.

Because unions are the basis of revolution, and decentralization is the best for human rights but you still need some central authority because anarchism is gay

he was ahead of is time, predicted starbucks and comfy hipster coffee shops

Starving in caves and dying of a flu is true Socialism my boys.

Attached: images-27.jpeg (300x168, 7.41K)

Was it because he drank all the milk by himself?

Attached: download-18.jpeg (202x249, 9.86K)

So they sell two different products. Of course these two different products will have different values.

International Juche. Kim Il Sung corrected the errors of all previous Marxist thinkers with his superior ideology which will bring about worldwide communism due to its ability to adapt to every national condition.

Attached: hideri_render_a__blend_s__by_thekarmaking-dbwtvnl.png (700x700, 525.35K)

...

the reason it failed was because he was too well dressed & the milk shop looked to uppity up. It intimidated most customers which felt that they were too poor to be drinking milk from there.

Seriously lmao read it. So basically ironically spooks in the mind of other uniques are what shitted his life. Such is life, it sucks most are trapped disencouraged by a spook, by status, whatever that may be. Stirner died happy tho, read his bio.

His book spread like he wanted & died with his smug smile that represented him so much. In reality he was a very humble shy but sly person in a spooked world.

Attached: 0e09e4a07aa934429c0348774a8828acd4fbb2c6366a1d8e728cb220d992bf77.jpg (1440x1472, 607.82K)

nah man.

It's mine & only mine. Anime avatars are for the socially retarded tho.

Attached: implying.jpg (594x395, 75.57K)

except it's not socialist & it practices State Capitalism for 80 years instead only giving bad reputation to the word socialism furthering the idea that the world is just better like it is now, rather than before.

Historical lessons learned.

Attached: 36688560_2192565664307255_8202617593752715264_n.png (550x550 64.27 KB, 35.78K)

False the Soviet NEP lasted only a decade and was followed by a transition to a socialist economy
M-L states do not "Give socialism a bad name" LeftComs Anarchists Trots and Liberals give it a bad name by constantly conceding literally every piece of reactionary propaganda and slander against these countries

classes = not socialist.

Attached: communism.png (1366x395, 33.01K)

anyway really who cares your ideology is dead, that history concluded humanity learned it's lesson. It's time for this wave of the new left, which is more akin to it's roots to what the word socialism/communism means. Good. People like real freedom & hate authority.

Direct Democracy will become the status quo one day.

Attached: fre.png (1017x400, 491.12K)

The USSR did not have a plurality of classes it was a DoP of Proletarians in a socialist planned economy AKA "A single class state"
Obvious im talking post NEP and Pre Capitalist restoration (89-91)

The USSR never claimed to be a "Communist state" or even having a Communist economy
Its economy was described as "lower stage Communism" AKA Socialism

...

Meant to be pic related

Attached: 4221112121212.jpg (1023x731, 135.5K)

...

see. I knew you don't read.

Even Marx used these 2 words interchangeably.

All people who read socialist literature of the 1800s or OG socialist literature post French Revolution know this. The new left has the correct idea to the meaning of socialism. It's a completely classless word.

The USSR usage of socialism is dead, rightfully so. History developed, people moved away from what was a wrong use of socialist ideas. Which is why also Marx uses the Paris Commune as the only good historical example & even then he didn't call that socialism just something akin like what is being tried this days with the new left.

Time is a full circle, the roots were re-discovered & we're applying them in this new freer world where autonomy from any ruling class or party is easier due to technology. But those who don't read history are condemned to repeat it's mistakes luckily the USSR miskae was so big that it ain't happening ever again lmao

Attached: Leo.jpg (480x400, 25.56K)

The mental gymnastics of tankies never cease to amaze me.

yeah.. thats why they're a dead ideology tbh. No coming back from there.

I mean they had 80 years to get it correct, maybe autonomize the general population y'know. Give them the means to not be ruled forever, ever again. In 80 years that is easily possible but they just didn't care.

"we're getting there guys I swear! just wait!"
*hits his bong & prepares to have a fancy dinner with the other members of the people's party"

I could have achieved communism at least for 1/4 of the total poorest Russian population in 10 years. Give them wells, land to cultivate, shelter, free power generating sources, free military training (regardless of how they look long hair, tattoos, etc) there you go. Next poor family. It's just about creating a self-destructing goverment that doesn't really gives a shit about losing all it's political power someday simple as that.

Attached: All according to plan.gif (800x800, 53.63K)

M-L's Define "lower stage Communism" as a Mode of Production serving as a transitional stage to higher stage communism (Literally communism) examples of this can be seen in the economies of USSR / Cuba / WP-States / DPRK / Albania / China etc

thats literally the M-L socialist economy is

Yeah ok me and the tens of (if not hundreds) Millions of other M-L's world wide will just wait till you and the ten guys in your union of egoists facebook group change the world Bookchinite direct democracy or wtf ever

And once it fails we will point out why
And we ultimately know you will not listen as Anarchists never learn

Then MLs defnine socialism completely wrong. Thats it.

Read real OG socialist literature or shut up about a topic you have not a single idea about get your words fucking right lmao

M-L's can't logic: confirmed.

...

nah man you're just butthurt trying to justify a ded ideology, sit next to the nazis. Adieu.

just remember: classes = not socialism. Start with Henri Saint-Simon you have a lot of reading to do from start to finish. In Zig Forums you're expected to read. Here we are the neo-Young Hegelians.

Still not an arguement (And false) Mr. Stillborn ideology

Just Remember: USSR = No classes

Explain to me the class distinctions in the USSR in relation to the means of production

Classes are also the government & no they don't have the same relations to any means of production, they literally own it. They're called the goverment for a reason.

If they want the peasantry to fight for their ends, the expansion of their empire they will force them to fight for their ends. There is by definition no socialism is some individual holds authority over another individual. Simple as that. You know… SOCIAL CLASSES.

And idk what you're talking about about being attacked from all fronts post WW2… Plenty of time to give means & training of complete autonomy to each civilian but they were busy behaving like an empire would really… Anyway it's not coming back man let it go & if you're a Zig Forumstard roleplaying as "commie" on the internet then the Reich ain't coming back either tbh, grow up.

Attached: mls in a nutshell.png (566x650, 212.05K)

The individual's working within the Soviet goverment held no more power over the MoP then bureaucrats
The USSR was only in three direct wars its entire existence Two of which were absolutely defensive and the third which is debatable
Elaborate

Are you this retarded? What you are playing with are semantics, you can call the lower stage of communism anything you fucking want.

This post can't be real.

Are socialism and communism the same mode of production, yes or no? And if not, how do their production processes differ?

Then why the government had control over where production has to be allocated instead of the individual worker himself.

If you're ruled, you have a boss, if you have a boss is not socialism… There is a lower class: worker & a higher class: the boss / the people's party member / the politician / the governor / etc.
Is that really difficult to understand? jeez

They're the same to young hegelians this includes Engels, even according to Marx & most (if not everyone) from the 18th & some from the 19th century.

Attached: Laughing_Marx.jpg (480x563, 141.2K)

Because it was literally the only feasible option to create a Transitional stage towards communism that didnt result in societal / economic / Social collapse?

party member / the politician's etc didnt just DECIDE how the economy was planned it was decided upon collectively and their JOB was to IMPLEMENT it

Bureaucrats didnt DECIDE how the economy functioned they simply IMPLEMENTED the already COLLECTIVELY decided plan

Anarchist-inclusive strains actually log off, go outside and do shit.

The Chiapas free territories are essentially anarchist (including the right of the people to take arms against the liberating army), and have existed about half as long as the USSR did. But are still around.

So… you really shouldn't talk shit, especially when it might highlight that Left movements of any stend to live longer without Uncle Joe.

*of any strain tend

And you have the audacity to call anybody illiterate, you absolute fucking brainlet.

See Engels and the "withering away of the state" once enough progress towards the creation of a Communist society was made

EZLN does not claim to be Anarchist and claims to follow Zapatismo which is more about Psuedo-Nationalism and Regional-Autonomy
and the DPRK has existed longer then both so?
The EZLN revolution is irrelevant in the modern context and so is the EZLN themselves who are irrelevant outside of their immediate cone of control in Chiapas

Marcos made sure to condemn dem ebil gommies in Cuba and Russia in Hopes the fucking USA would support him which was obviously false

you're right man. fuck it I'm logging off. Chan boards always have retarded misanthropes who don't understand simple words like socialism.

ok dude whatever you say you won the internet fight wooo!! holy shit what an internet badass. bye. I have shit to do.

Attached: bitch.jpg (350x353, 145.09K)

Well the other dude clearly did. And I can't stop myself from mocking you because of that. And your bringing up of the Zapatistas as this great admirable example of libertarian socialism is hilarious, anarchists are deluding themselves when they think that revolution with the EZLN is just arround the corner. For that big talk ("we are the new Young Hegelians") I expected a bit more meat in your argument but you didn't deliver and now you seem awfully insecure.

…and in fact rejects all classification, but a society based on horizontal autonomy and mutual aid in which any citizen has the right to slaughter the vanguard armies if they're not in the mood is very… {insert answer here}
…and broke with ML in '92. Dengism is the only surviving ML ideology.

Glad to win another convert! I like to advocate the growing of vegetables, which is one thing internet timewasting/sabotaging "leftists" never do.
…read a little Hakim Bey, MCM yourself up some walke-talkies, start a copwatch… :)
They're called ML's, but confusingly, while all shitbags are ML, not all MLs are shitbags.
I usually just lean "anarchism in the magical place called outside, with anyone who can be okay with that" to skip the hassle. That way, it sorts itself out. :)

They flagfagged, and you''re STILL that paranoid that "that rascally hacker Anonymous" is everywhere?
You should take a break from the chans.

Manarchy is the ultimate ideology of Man. Communism will only be achieved through manarchy. Here's what manarchy means.

Manarchy is the dissolution of all hierarchies when men recognize one another as equals in manliness. "Men" is inclusive of "women," who are incorrectly not recognized as men, part of the race of Man. Manliness is the trait of actualizing oneself as Man and as a man, as one of our kind and as oneself. To be manly is to develop strength, but do not be fooled. Strength comes in all forms, not just of the muscles (muscles are good though). The greatest strength of Man is the many strengths of men.

Through developing one's strength, a man recognizes one's strengths and weaknesses, measured against those of other men. In recognizing weakness, a man develops respect for the corresponding strength of other men. This motivates a man to aid in the development of comrades' strength as well as supplementing their weakness. The greatest strength of Man is the many strengths of men. The greatest strength of a man is recognizing and supporting the strength or weakness of other men, including other men's strength to support you. A full-on mentorship is not necessary though it is great. Even a simple, genuine compliment is a small act of support and costs nothing.

By supplementing one another's strength and weakness we recognize our equality in interdependence, This is apex manliness, for nothing else known can cooperate like Man. Apex manliness is not a state of being or a stage of development, but a process of ongoing development. In recognizing our collective, cooperative strength we also recognize the obstacles of hierarchy and arbitrary roles. By lifting up our fellow men and being so lifted up we will set an example of what Man can truly achieve. By cultivating manliness we will demonstrate that not only is anarchy compatible with "human nature," it is the highest expression of it. Through apex manliness we spread revolution - internal and external - like a virus.

Manarchy adds what the left and contemporary culture in general sorely lack. In augmenting the strength of all men you can - you must - learn to recognize strength. Recognize strength whenever possible! Reinforce it and render assistance! Never miss an opportunity to recognize it and to help other men recognize it too. Always spot a man who's lifting heavy. Other tendencies focus too greatly on negativity: criticism, destruction, and so on and so on. This has its place, and many have strength in this area. However, excess negativity is disheartening and not sufficient! In order to replace even a failing system, there must be a better system on the horizon. We must build communism. It will not arrive on its own. To this end, apex manliness entails apex neighborliness.

Neighborliness is necessary for anarchy and communism. Unfortunately the modern left is bereft of neighborliness. At best we have people donating patreon bux to people who validate their ideas. We have sacrificed neighborliness on the altar of the Idea. We are to believe that ideology will bring us a revolution, but what has it got us? Not left unity, and certainly not working class unity or dare I say unity of Man. This is because we are all turned around. Ideas follow from material conditions, not the other way around. Do not seek to change your neighbor's mind. Seek to change their material conditions! Lend your strength when they are in need. Do so freely. Accept their strength when you are in need! The humility of accepting aid is a strength of its own. Every moment is pregnant with the opportunity to lend (and thus develop) strength!

A man's greatest strength is to recognize strength in others. Develop this strength so that you may never miss the opportunity to help another man develop strength. Seek not to attack weakness but to bear it with your strength. Seek to help others build their strength with your help. Use this combined strength to build neighborliness and solidarity. Develop the courage to accept the same! Be unashamed to lend or receive strength! Through mutual strength and unity, you will build community. Through community you will build superior bonds to those of capitalism. You will challenge its structure and its ideology. With the apex manliness in a manarchist community you will have the greatest possible strength with which to fight capitalism and the greatest strength with which to weather capitalism fighting you. Through the manly combining of our strength communism will win.

Lend and receive strength and love without fear or shame, my neighbors.

Attached: Good Job.jpg (640x502 1.88 MB, 43.45K)

I'm a determinist. Also read Bourdieu.

M-L's everyone.

The other dude literally defines communism when there isn't a hierachy in a workplace, therefore, he is in no position to accuse others of revisionism.

Direct democratic first worldist state socialism GOAT.

Why? Because the missing ingredients in various commie revolts/states keeping them from success have been some combination of:
Democracy
Industry
Advanced Institutions
Stability
Military Order
Size

Marx said from the beginning that socialism was only possible in a state that had progressed through capitalism and you couldn't skip steps. Later evidence suggests that this is not only an economic requirement but a social one, as a population can't jump right from feudalism to democratic socialism. In addition a third or second world state doesn't have the cultural clout to avoid invasion from imperialist powers. If Angola went full commie could the US find some excuse to invade them with nobody caring? Of course. Could they do the same with a Western European country? No way. The fact is that nationalised industry has been the best indicator of how socialist economics could actually work, they have been unreserved successes unlike various authoritarian central planning models that have lagged behind. In other words, FULL CORBYNISM NOW

Attached: corbyn enlightenment.png (700x940, 617.79K)

Found the Menshevik. This is mechanistic "stageism" which do not correlate with human progress. Marx himself wrote in his letter to Zasulich that socialism in Russian peasant communes would be an option.
My Gott

How does the internet allow for new forms of praxis and institutional forms? I think we should look into both, especially the latter.

With near instant communication around the globe it allows significantly easier decentralization and coordination, thus allowing strikes or whatever to be much larger and allows us to avoid having the revolutionary movement crippled by the capture of a few important people.

old-style soviet system was pretty decentralized and democratic, being based on DeLeon's ideas. I think many strains of anarchism and all that bookchinism and shiet are essentially calling for the same thing or type of things with different names.

In terms of tactics, I'm a supporter of mike oehler-style anarcho-hoxhaism. With illegalist tendencies. It'd work pretty well for anything from funding revolution to guerilla warfare. And it's compatible with posadism.
Oh and offering amnesty/protection to porkies in exchange of their wealth would help tremendously in funding revolution. And we'll need more than just manpower to do revolution, so that sorta thing should be welcomed.
I believe there was this child of a chinese emperor that, under Mao, was given the ability to lead a normal life. He claimed it was good for him. I believe the rich are also alienated enough in their lonely towers of material pleasures and hard choices that they could thank us in the end for allowing them to lead unalienated lives again. Where they're allowed to be in charge of themselves, instead of letting money lead their lives.

In my specific country, we are too dependent on trade. We'll have to transition via market socialism or mutualist paths to keep our economy afloat when becoming self-sufficient. We'll be ready soon enough when vertical agriculture becomes a big enough thing.
Furthermore, a typical part of our culture is the idea that everyone keeps discussing shit for too long. Stuff like council communism is made for that.
I also propose that we take any interesting ideas from any tendency and implement it on some level of governance in some area to some extent, and see how well they each work. "The ideological supermarket is only fit for looting."
And it'd be the scientific thing to do. Testing things to see if/how they work, instead of jumping headfirst into a random pool, without checking how deep that pool is.
In my defence for any accusations of "reformism": I'm not calling for reform based on any random democratic system. Those are just meant as platforms. There needs to be a constitutional basis that demands societal progression in its base, to some extent. This would have to be implemented via revolutionary means.
But Rome wasn't built in a day, and we can't guillotine all porkies all at once. We don't need to rush ourselves if it means risking failure of the country.
Oh and sabotage the IMF and capitalist world economy by assisting industrialization and overproduction so it can accelerate itself into the ground.

...

...

Does anyone deny this? Socialism (lower stage communism) is simply a less developed stage of communist society which emerges from our current society

Marxism is not dogmatic and anyone who thinks this is a retard. Theory is merely a guide to action, not a religous work

Stalinists do, don't they?

Proofs?

...

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism

Attached: 1473178787767.jpg (258x360, 55.17K)

Because it will eliminate all forms of suffering through re-engineering of the brain, and will allow humanity to become superhuman and achieve species immortality.

Attached: civilizationhappiness.png (2250x858 84.68 KB, 401.52K)

Look at these Zig Forums-level charts. I swear anprims are less autistic than transhumanists

lmao muh rational self interest

You know you need to put these quotes into context. I swear one time I will force that book down a Leftcom's throat if they keep misrepresenting the content like that.

Stalin says here, quite clearly, that the law of value does not regulate overall production except the cooperative sector which is agriculture. Marx says himself:
(Capital Vol. 3)

Because liberty.

How do you measure "intellectual power"?

kek. That lazy universe, better get his ass out of the bed and start doing shit.

So is it a depiction of the communist mode of production?

Communism is not a mode of production.

What is it then?

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence"

So how is called the new mode of production that will result from the communist movement?

Socialist mode of production. It will gradually transform into a communist society in which all limits of access to production (the state of affairs) are abolished.

So there's no mode of production superior to the one Stalin describes?

I would say Stalin describing a socialist mode of production, so did Marx in the Critique of the Gotha program, so does Cockshott today. Ultimately, when society would more and more communize, production becomes more free, until it finally reaches a stage where division of labor is slowly abolished and productive forces are open for everybody to use. Of course there different stages of socialism, which all employ the socialist mode of production that does not follow the laws of capital. The same way a worker in a textile manufactory in rural England in 1810 experiences a different reality than a officer worker in 2018, but both work under the capitalist mode of production because the social relations are the same.

Not abolished, since there will still be limiting factors such as the natural availability of resources, and the labor required to extract them. I doubt there are enough rare earth minerals to give everyone on the planet every technology they could want at will

Yeah, Marx is talking about the social relations here. Of goods raw materials need to be distributed etc. - I would imagine however that we would see the end of big factory plants, which is also the end of the differences between the countryside and the city, and a replacement with communes with small, publicly accessed productive forces.

of course*