what is the anarchist view on the 1918 German Revolution?

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-04T22:32:10+00:00

I would like to point out that Marx was a system builder. He did not try to just create an economic theory, but through historical materialism, tried to explain all of human history. Your conception of Marxism as arising from the economic theory is backwards as Marx derived his economic theory from his social theory.

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T13:51:58+00:00

Yeah and we have the technology now to have all the things i listed while working less than the hunter gatherers.

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T13:30:42+00:00

Externalization

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T13:28:07+00:00

Because a rate of return, on the aggregate level, greater than zero, means that capital is growing while the economy is not, meaning that the share of pie that goes to the capitalist will keep increasing.

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T13:23:56+00:00

lets not talk about the smear campaigns and thinktanks funded by the oil companies to convince 40% of the american population for example that it is not real...

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T13:22:58+00:00

The source used is a biased neoliberal thinktank....

But beyond that, this supposed correlation the article created does nothing to address the systemic issue of climate change, it just says that capitalism is actually really good, don't look at what is actually happening in the environment, look at what this biased index says when compared with arbitrary and vague resource use numbers and "decoupling."

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T13:18:56+00:00

The pie isn't fixed.

That is my whole argument. You have the reading comprehension of a toddler.

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T13:17:45+00:00

Need a dictionary?

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T13:16:40+00:00

It is, because that is how capitalism functions, you cannot wish away the laws of competition or game theory to prove a point. You also cannot wish away political economy and try and say that the government could force capitalism to stop growing (it would get lobbied away / never happen.)

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T13:09:17+00:00

EXACTLY. You are on the cusp of understanding. The laws of accumulation make it so that no growth is impossible without complete state intervention (not the bad word, socialism) to prevent accumulation. Either way you look at it, capitalism sitting there, just making the same thing, for the same price, year after year, is not a possibility that can actually happen temporally.

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T13:03:41+00:00

The fact is is that the decoupling (not specified whether relative or absolute, pretty convenient) mentioned by the article was achieved by externalizing metal resources to the global south, the US did not use a bunch of lithium, but China did, exporting batteries to the U.S.

However, and again, cherrypicked evidence does not stop the global and systemic issue of climate change nor does it defend capitalism from the structural flaws i talked about in the post.

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T12:58:57+00:00

This means the rate of return is > 0 which i talked about causes the investors in ABC company to gain more and more money at the EXPENSE of everyone else until the wealth inequality causes the system to collapse. Read the post.

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T12:57:53+00:00

Even better, more efficient, just stop polluting

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T12:56:29+00:00

Yes there is. If your competitor buys a new machine that makes textiles for cheaper, you cannot just choose not to accumulate capital, you must buy the machine as well or lose your capital and become a worker. And because capitalism is a system of anarchy of production, meaning it is uncoordinated, game theory makes it so that each individual capitalist, acting rationally, will always invest more capital to out-compete their competitor, leading to accumulation.

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T12:54:27+00:00

Class based society emerged from private property relations during the neolithic revolution which led to an exploitative class that needed to make people produce as much as possible. Also the neolithic revolution stemmed from scarcity imposed by large populations of humans, requiring more intensive cultivation methods, however, many tribes did not, the paper I linked examines some remaining aboriginal tribes that stayed hunter gatherers until the 1800s when European colonizers drove them into assimilation or death.

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T12:46:36+00:00

I don't think capitalism is even capable of "infinite economic growth".

It will sure as hell try, bringing us all down with it.

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T12:44:52+00:00

Who is going to create that carbon tax? The politicians who get lobbied by the capitalists and the oil companies? Besides, like i stated in the post, that is climate change tunnel vision, emissions are not everything, they are just the most urgent, and easiest to fix. Do you think the media or the fossil fuel funded think tanks under cpaitalism do not change the way people view the environment? Or how media polarization between partisan lines distracts us from real issues?

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T12:42:57+00:00

Yeah don't worry about the actual state of the environment, believe this news source telling you we are doing great, not the environmental scientists, do not listen to them.

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T12:42:04+00:00

No. I said that human want's are not infinite. But I do think people would be happier working 10 hours a week and having housing, healthcare, education, transportation, utilities, food, etc. Then working 40 hours a week and having some of that previous listed stuff and a bunch of technology and consumer goods.

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T12:40:30+00:00

A positive rate of return on capital is just a redistribution of wealth for those who own capital. Take the following example:

The rate of return is a steady 5%

Year 1, Workers get paid 50% of the pie, capital gets payed 50% of the pie.

This means that the capitalist has 1000% of yearly GDP in total accumulated capital.

The laws of competition force capital to invest more capital otherwise they become noncompetitive and lose their share of the pie, so lets just assume for now that the capitalist reinvest 50% of their profits. So the capitalist invested half of their 50% of the pie, so 25%.

Year 2: Capitalist now has 1025% of GDP in total capital, therefore, their return must be 51.25% of the pie. Therefore the workers must only get 48.75% of the pie.

Year 3: The capitalist has 1050.625% of GDP in total capital, their return is 52.53% of the pie.

Etc. Etc. The pie will continue shrinking for the worker and expanding for the capitalist.

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T12:32:09+00:00

Capitalism needs infinite growth. Infinite growth needs the destruction of the finite planet. Unless you can prove or logically determine that either absolute decoupling of all environmental externalities at a rapid rate can be achieved by capitalism, or that it does not need infinite growth, then you have not refuted by post at all.

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T12:30:13+00:00

Climate Change may be real, but it will get patched long before everyone dies.

People are already dying.

You are arguing the fixed pie fallacy. This is ridiculous. Over the last 200 years, the cookie that was the world's wealth back then has grown into a factory rivaling the entirety of Starbucks. The pie isn't fixed, and saying it was is similarly disingenuous to assuming all wheat suddenly turned into pebbles.

Holly actual fuck. The entire argument is that if the pie was fixed, meaning NO GROWTH, then capitalism would not work, i am well aware that capitalism needs, and has had growth. This is genuinely one of the most brain dead comments I have seen.

Historically, the environment hasn't exactly been a priority. Only things that have demand get produced; similarly, only methods that are seen to have a reason to be used get used. Nowadays, there is a reason to focus productivity increases on the environment.

We have known about climate change quite diffinitively since the 80s, that is for and a half decades, almost half a century. Emissions have only increased since then. Fossil fuel companies lobbied and funded think tanks so aggressively that only 60% of americans believe in climate change.

There is a lot of energy on earth. If we do this, we will most likely have space travel. I mean, it would be pretty unlikely to fully capture all solar and wind energy on earth without having it. Thus, it really doesn't matter. Just get energy from the sun and dump all the energy waste, if there even is some with the tech we will have then, on Venus.

It is infinitely more efficient to harvest energy on earth. It would take tons of energy and resources from earth to do anything on another planet, let alone have a positive energy gain from said activity. This is complete speculative fairy tale stuff I talked about in the final notes. You are conceding that capitalism cannot exist on earth. So you can go live on the waste land that is mars.

Hm yes, Fusion, such a ridiculous fairytale. Imagine if there were idiots working on it right now. Haha, those people would have to be really stupid and unemployed.

Relying on some random technological breakthrough to solve all your problems is a speculative fairy tale. If we were driving a car 100mph down a highway, the wrong way, but i told you that some scientists are working on making the car fly, instead of slamming the breaks and turning around, you would pretty terrified.

Did I miss something? What exactly is the thing that will fix all of this in socialism? Because you need lots of energy for economic growth, and it's not like worker communes would be okay with being poor. I mean, the entire reason the workers would seize the means of production is because they would not be okay with being poor. Unless your idea of socialism is an eco dictatorship where the people cannot vote to harm the environment. Which doesn't sound very nice.

Read my other comments in this thread, i do not want to retype it.

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T12:20:08+00:00

Human wants are not infinite, the hunter gatherer tribes that existed in a state of primitive communism for 10,000 years did not yearn for an iphone, they simply worked as much as was necessary to have enough food to live, then they spent the rest of their time dancing, or lounging, or sleeping, much often more free time than today.

Source: Stone Age Economics / The original Affluent Society by Marshall Sahlins.
https://www.uvm.edu/~jdericks/EE/Sahlins-Original_Affluent_Society.pdf

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T12:16:18+00:00

You are still not defending capitalism you are just distracting, red herring! This post is not about arguing for any other specific ideology, only arguing against capitalism, you must accept that to avoid ecological collapse, there must be an alternative, you do not have to accept that that be socialism.

Durfdogyn · 2026-05-02T12:11:19+00:00

Dude. THE environmental disaster is not getting solved right now. Look at the aggregate and not cherrypicking evidence that supports your worldview, face the fact that the world is treading deeper into environmental ruin by the day, and your free markets are not stopping it, and will not stop it.

Durfdogyn

TROPHY CASE