Source
r/CapitalismVSocialism•
RandomCapitalist

[Meta] Anyone else have the feeling that this forum is about 90 days away from being 85% Real Marxists gatekeeping with the remaining content being Alt-righters and Fascists rambling about culture and degeneracy?

Kinda seems like this place is little more than a Marxist and fascist shitshow recently where half the time they are agreeing with each other and gatekeeping language rather than debating (which makes sense since they are both quasi-Platonic ideologies that place the sacrosanctness of ideological Forms over post-enlightenment logic and empiricism).

I'm sure cuck mods will delete this as they seem to removed any observation of their raging dumpster fire but wondering if any other non-fascists, non-commies find even entertainment value here anymore.

Posted Mar 19, 2018, 10:49 AM UTC

1104
Hhturanational-syndicalist, post-communist•

Ya this sub's had soothsayers since it started, and you of all people being one of them is just funny.

8
RandomCapitalistOP•

So people have been telling you that your forum is turning into a raging dumpster fire for some time now huh?

Weird, I wonder how anyone could have known!

3
Hhturanational-syndicalist, post-communist•

We seem to agree it isn't a dumpster fire right now, and I don't see what merit there is to your concern. It might not be perfect, but this is evidently a steady ship.

1
TonyGazeBright from the dark pasts, shines the future forth•

Or is it that more and more of the regular Socialists read more and more Marx and are able to defend and present their positions better? Leading to a more uniform idea in the Red group, though still with many different schools of Marxism, while the other groups, the Blues(Conservatives), Yellows(Liberals), Blacks(Fascists and Reactionaries), etc. become more and more disjointed and diverse, with many different ideologies.

And, we have to agree on language before we can have any meaningful discussion, and as such, it is always the Non-Reds who want to use fringe schools, and their language, while we Reds are quite content with mainstream economical language.

4
[deleted]•

Leading to a more uniform idea in the Red group,

Remind me, which school of marx teaches that drawing catgirls is evil and bourgois?

Yellows(Liberals),

That color describes liberals perfectly.

Blacks(Fascists 

Raaaaayciiiiiiisss

6
TonyGazeBright from the dark pasts, shines the future forth•

Reine me, which school of marx teaches that drawn catgirls is evil and bourgois?

That's r/Socialism Revisionism, worse than that of Lenin in any way.

Edit: Grammar

7
[deleted]•

I think u/diezeiten might have words to say at you for this blasphemy

2
diezeitenCommunist•

fite me

2
diezeitenCommunist•

Remind me, which school of marx teaches that drawing catgirls is evil and bourgois?

all of them

3
[deleted]•

Disgusting bigots

3
diezeitenCommunist•

catgirls are fascist agents, comrade

3
MoprollemsLiteral Caliphate•

Raaaaayciiiiiiisss

Need mo reddit gold fo dem programs.

Also Fall in Line

1
diezeitenCommunist•

I hope to one day, after the Third and Final Meme War, to be appointed the People's Commissar for the Curation of the Relics of the Alt-Right.

2
PoliticalPhilPeople's Commissar Of the Meme War•

Well I've got a new flair

2
MissBrainProblemsDirty Dumb Syndie Scum•

I read Proudhon and de Leon, thank you very much. Not very socialist needs to be a Marxist, or conform to Marx's definitions of what a socialist is.

3
TonyGazeBright from the dark pasts, shines the future forth•

Weird to read De Leon without reading Marx, considering that he was a Marxist, and based most of his writing off of Marx. Are you sure you didn't just copy some names off of some Syndicalist reading-list, wihtout considering who they were, hoping we wouldn't know them. And as a matter of fact, I've actually read De Leon, and combining him with Proudhon... Isn't optimal.

1
MissBrainProblemsDirty Dumb Syndie Scum•

Weird to read Jung without reading Freud, considering that Jung was a student of Freud, and based most of his writing off of Freud.

And I mean, hey, pal, if you can't synthesize two different and sometimes opposing philosophers into your own personal ideology, I don't know what to tell you.

1
TonyGazeBright from the dark pasts, shines the future forth•

Ofc you can, but reading De Leon without Reading Marx leaves out most of what De Leon bases his philosophy off of. It's different with Jung and Freud since Marx and De Leon are economical philosophers, and the former are not.

1
SerendipitySocietyAbolish the commons•

History is taught by the victors, despite their means of victory.

1
TonyGazeBright from the dark pasts, shines the future forth•

... I think plenty of revisionists want to have a word with you... Did you know, as an example, that on maps in French schools in the period from 1871-1918, Alsace-Lorraine was shown as a part of France, despite being lost in the Franco-Prussian war. Or how the Turkish government nowadays still deny the Armenian genocide. History is taught by scholars, not by victors.

And what does this have to do with anything?

2
SerendipitySocietyAbolish the commons•

Did you know, as an example, that on maps in French schools in the period from 1871-1918, Alsace-Lorraine was shown as a part of France, despite being lost in the Franco-Prussian war.

As far as I know, Alsace-Lorraine is currently a province in France. That is, they took control back from Germany.

History is taught by scholars, not by victors.

But you repeat yourself! The failures can't teach history because they're either oppressed or dead to begin with!

History is taught by scholars, not by victors.

If you're gaining support on here, I'm providing an alternative hypothesis that it's not because of your superior argumentation as much as it's a cultural change around us. The left is gaining ground, that is, you're victors, particularly because it's becoming the forced anti-establishment.

2
TonyGazeBright from the dark pasts, shines the future forth•

As far as I know, Alsace-Lorraine is currently a province in France.

But it wasn't a part of France from 1871 to 1918(actually 1920, when the Treaty of Versailles was signed). So in the period from 1871 to 1918/1920 the losers of the Franco-Prussian Wars taught their population that Alsace-Lorraine still was a part of France, despite being handed over to Germany in the signing of the Treaty of Frankfurt of 1871. Despite being the losers, the French taught history their way. The "failures", the French in this example, taught history and geograpghy in whatever way they wanted. The same is happening in Turkey to this day, where the government still denies the Armenian Genocide, and it isn't taught in history. Despite the Turkish being the losers in the Great War of 1914-1918, or WW1, or whatever people call it, they still continue to teach history whatever way they want.

If you're gaining support on here, I'm providing an alternative hypothesis that it's not because of your superior argumentation as much as it's a cultural change around us.

I am not claiming that "the left"(God, I hate that expression) is gaining support on here. I am, like you, claiming that there is a cultural shift, leading to more of the regulars reading Marx, leading to a more uniform Red block. In the meantime all the non-Red group is becoming a fractured mess of infighting, with various Liberals, Conservatives, Fascists, Reactionaries, etc. infighting.

The left is gaining ground, that is, you're victors, particularly because it's becoming the forced anti-establishment.

What on Earth are you saying? My impression is that "the left", if you're referring to the Socialists on here, is becoming a continuously smaller group, while the pro-Capitalism group is growing larger and larger, more and more diverse.

The problem is that the pro-Capitalism group is too busy infighting over things that are irrelevant to the subreddit, such as government spending, immigration-policies, etc. while the Socialist group is focused just on the Capitalism V. Socialism debate.

0
RandomCapitalistOP•

Or is it that more and more of the regular Socialists read more and more Marx

Ah so over a century later "more and more" socialists are finally reading Marx? Very rational assumption.

And, we have to agree on language before we can have any meaningful discussion

Wrong. You have to be capable of abstracting foreign ideas and assessing them as a framework in order to have debate. You do not have to declare a sacred meaning of words in order to discuss something. You're literally arguing for Platonic reasoning and dont know it. This is exactly what Marxism does and why it's so appealing - you not only get to make quasi-religious declarations but you get Good Boy Points from your fellow Marxists for being so zealous and not waivering from your dogma in the face of logic.

When you believe that words have sacred definitions you have abandoned reason for magical thinking. Philosophy is about concepts, not Sacred Forms. What you are describing is called a religion.

the Non-Reds who want to use fringe schools, and their language, while we Reds are quite content with mainstream economical language.

LOLOLOLOL

-2
chewingofthecudFatherland. Family. Work.•

LOLOLOLOL

I know... mainstream economic language, LMFAO... like:

Capitalism: The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour.

Capital: Capital is in the first place an accumulation of money and cannot make its appearance in history until the circulation of commodities has given rise to the money relation.

Secondly, the distinction between money which is capital, and money which is money only, arises from the difference in their form of circulation. Money which is acquired in order to buy something is just money, facilitating the exchange of commodities. [Marx represent this as C - M - C or Commodity - Money - Commodity.] On the other hand, capital is money which is used to buy something only in order to sell it again. [Marx represented this as M - C - M.] This means that capital exists only within the process of buying and selling, as money advanced only in order to get it back again.

Thirdly, money is only capital if it buys a good whose consumption brings about an increase in the value of the commodity, realised in selling it for a Profit [or M - C - M'].

Commodity: A commodity is something that is produced for the purpose of exchanging for something else, and as such, is the material form given to a fundamental social relation — the exchange of labour.

Value: ...each particular commodity represents only a certain share of the socially necessary labour time. The magnitude of value is determined by the amount of socially necessary labour, or by the labour time that is socially necessary for the production of a given commodity, of a given use-value.

Exploitation: Exploitation is making use of some vulnerability in another person in order to use them to attain one’s own ends at their expense. In particular, wage labour is a form of exploitation in which the working class is exploited by capital.

Marx defined the “rate of exploitation”, also referred to as the rate of surplus value, as the proportion of unpaid, surplus labour a worker performs for their employer to the necessary labour workers perform, producing the value equivalent of the wage they are paid.

4
diezeitenCommunist•

I can't tell if you're trying to make fun of him, or us, because to me (obviously) all of those definitions seem entirely rational.

3
chewingofthecudFatherland. Family. Work.•

I wouldn't even necessarily dispute that they're rational, but the idea that they're mainstream is just totally out to lunch.

2
RandomCapitalistOP•

Can't tell if being ironic....

1
TonyGazeBright from the dark pasts, shines the future forth•

Ah so over a century later "more and more" socialists are finally reading Marx? Very rational assumption.

Globally? No. I think it's the same amount of Socialists globally who've read Marx, probably 50-60% of people who call themselves Socialists have read Marx, ranging from people who've just read a short pamphlet like the Communist Manifesto, to people who've fought their way through Capital and all other works.

But as I said, of the regular Socialist, referring to the regulars of this subreddit, more of them read more Marx than before, and those that don't are engaged in discussion about Marx, leading to them also being introduced to Marxist theory.

You do not have to declare a sacred meaning of words in order to discuss something.

If we disagree on what the word "Capitalism" means, you really can't discuss Capitalism. If one says "Capitalism = free markets" and someone else says "Capitalism = a system based on the organization of private property for the creation of profits", we would disagree on the premises of the discussion, and we would get nowhere.

This is exactly what Marxism does and why it's so appealing - you not only get to make quasi-religious declarations but you get Good Boy Points from your fellow Marxists for being so zealous and not waivering from your dogma in the face of logic.

What logic? That "Crony Capitalism" or as I like to call it: "Capitalism" isn't "real Capitalism"?

When you believe that words have sacred definitions you have abandoned reason for magical thinking.

Non sequiter. Just because you use definitions doesn't mean you quit reality. Rather, we stick to definitions to make our rhetoric steadfast, and keep it relevant to the world.

Philosophy is about concepts, not Sacred Forms.

It's about both...

What you are describing is called a religion.

Religion and ideology is the same, Religion is a mere set of beliefs, the same is ideology. Both take offset in philosophy. Religion and Philosophy are not mutually exclusive, but rather knit closely together.

2
SerendipitySocietyAbolish the commons•

I don't see it happening. I sympathize with ancaps and they're still a relevant and potentially strong faction here.

3
RandomCapitalistOP•

Who here is even a literal much less an ancap?

I haven't seen a single post arguing for ancap since I've been here. All I see are socialists and fascists shrieking about ancaps and a thread full of circle jerking.

-1
RationalPotterRadical Liberal•

Eh. There is a lot of non Marxist socialists, conservatives, and liberals on this sub.

3
[deleted]•

Kinda seems like this place is little more than a Marxist and fascist shitshow

Funny how you single out two ideologies that are more consistent than anarchocapitalism.

recently where half the time they are agreeing with each other

On ancaps sucking?

and gatekeeping language rather than debating

Did someone piss in your morning milk by correcting you on a definition or something?

1
RandomCapitalistOP•

Are you just raising money for autism awareness or something?

0
[deleted]•

Not an argument

1
chewingofthecudFatherland. Family. Work.•

This is what's been happening in the broader political landscape for a while now: it's becoming clear that what seemed like a bunch of different positions are resolving into basically two which are orthogonal to the previous paradigm which wasn't very useful because the previous paradigm was basically an internal division within one of those positions.

1
RandomCapitalistOP•

My theory is that it's merely online gatekeeping by purists but I'm not very in touch with the political landscape.

0
Fuck1917and1776class-exclusive socialization for the powerful•

Dude, not a leftie, but your definition of Socialism is soo mutable that might as well call everyone you dislike a "moonbat".

1
RandomCapitalistOP•

Um, what definition of socialism are you talking about, crazy ass?

I didn't provide a definition you fucking kook.

1
Fuck1917and1776class-exclusive socialization for the powerful•

The definition libertarians use: "Anything with a Government" = Socialism.

I didn't provide a definition you fucking kook

Your post historial says otherwise.

Now if you actually want an answer for your question. Let me tell you something, the "Right-Wing" is diverse as hell. You have the puritians: Rand to the "Crazy Fringe" = Evola.

Soo, you will have to understands that the idea of a "Right-Wing Unity" will become a "Big tent" for lefties.

I mean look at the Cold War when American Capitalists sided with Former Nazis to fight against Communism.

2
RandomCapitalistOP•

The definition libertarians use: "Anything with a Government" = Socialism.

Where did I say this?

If my post history says otherwise it shouldn't be hard to copy and paste an example if you're not full of fucking shit, right?

1
Fuck1917and1776class-exclusive socialization for the powerful•

Not you but your friends sure do:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/80p93q/capitalists_describe_socialism_socialists/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYz8Fzzdgdc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqXfH_38-9E

If my post history says otherwise it shouldn't be hard to copy and paste an example if you're not full of fucking shit, right?

No, more like you should take the existence of political opponents less of a threat to the existence of the liberal world, I mean a Commie living in India should not be an issue to an American Citizen.

0
EmpiricalAnarchismMarket Anarchy with (((Neoliberal))) Characteristics•

Nah, I see myself sticking around longer than the next 90 days (though I am going to disappear for a couple weeks in a couple weeks), and as long as I'm around, there's a bulwark against both the tankie crowd and the alt-white crowd.

1
RandomCapitalistOP•

Godspeed

1
RationalPotterRadical Liberal•

Hear hear!

1
specterofsandersismPosadist•

tfw this post itself is complaining about degeneracy

1
End-Da-Fed•

Please stick to criticizing ideas, not people when you come out to make a post.

It's only fair and legitimate to attack someone personally when they make a shitty comment first.

0
RandomCapitalistOP•

How many more centuries do we need to criticize socialism as an idea before it gets old? According to socialists it doesn't even exist anymore so what's the novelty in even criticizing it?

And how is observing that socialists split up into tribes and gatekeep not "criticizing an idea"?

2
End-Da-Fed•

My fault for not being clear. I didn't see the utility in calling moderators cucks when the rules for this sub are clear.

1
RandomCapitalistOP•

The rules of Reddit are no threats and no trying to reveal personal information. Socialists here do both while joke posts from liberals get censored. Mods are cucks.

2
End-Da-Fed•

I'm not denying it users tried to dox or threaten you.

In my experience the Marxists have only been rude or trolled me when they don't have anything of value to contribute to a conversation or when they can't provide a decent rebuttal or or when they are caught in a logical contradiction.

The moderators certainly don't do that and I don't think it's fair to attack them personally. That's all. I have no quibble with any of your other points.

1
Dopecheez-Social Democrat•

How many centuries of ancap autistic screeching do we need before it gets old?

1
RandomCapitalistOP•

no u

How long did that one take you, Corky?

2
Dopecheez-Social Democrat•

It's just hilarious that you guys complain so much about socialists when you're even worse.

0
deltacaboose•

You mean it isn't already? Im going to go randomly apply gate control theory communism

0
chair0147Schrödinger's Socialism - it's only socialism when it works•

The only thing I'm noticing is that I'm arguing with the same damn people over and over again, and there's a lot more alts coming into this sub; yours for example.

-2
TonyGazeBright from the dark pasts, shines the future forth•

Lowready didn't do nuffin

2
[deleted]•

While this is true, lowready did do ban evasion...which is only a sumthin if mods care, but they're fickle

1
mphjackson7Socially Conservative, Economically Complicated•

I believe that he's u/cheapshill right?

0
[deleted]•

Yellow Submarine starts playing loudly

u/mphjackson: "I believe that's the Beatles, right?"

1
RandomCapitalistOP•

What other names do you think I'm using?

There's like two other liberals in here.

0
chair0147Schrödinger's Socialism - it's only socialism when it works•

You made your account on February 8, 2018 but you talk like you've been here for a long time. So that leads me to believe that you're an alt.

1
RandomCapitalistOP•

Have you considered that most liberals who come into this shit fueled dumpster fire don't find it worth sticking around?

1
License-to-KillPaleolibertarian Anime Racist•

Your account was created the day after u/CheapShill was banned.

🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

1
chair0147Schrödinger's Socialism - it's only socialism when it works•

Whether or not that's true is irrelevant.

0
cheri5474•

Easy to be a big mouthed Marxist WHILE on the dole, but eventually reality bites and they repent. Excluding college professors of course.

-3
TonyGazeBright from the dark pasts, shines the future forth•

I don't think it's harder for me as a brewery worker to be a Marxist than for a college professor to be a Marxist... I think it's the same.

4
GenuinelyLeninInternational Union of Working Monsters•

and they repent.

And we're the cultists, apparently.

3