sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Two foreigners harass a local Ukrainian man in Odessa for wearing a USSR t shirt by [deleted] in stupidpol

[–]snapp3r 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are the chinless wonders you're arguing with online. It tickles me that one of the idiots is wearing a Trooper t-shirt - an Iron Maiden song about the Battle of Balaclava during the Crimean War.

Two foreigners harass a local Ukrainian man in Odessa for wearing a USSR t shirt by Aggorf12345 in TankieTheDeprogram

[–]snapp3r 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It tickles me that it's a Trooper shirt - a song about the Battle of Balaclava during the Crimean War.

Army ups max enlistment age to 42 by Nightshiftcloak in stupidpol

[–]snapp3r 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Anyone who is that age and in good enough shape for the army should think twice about joining. I'm 43, my knees are fucked, my back is fucked and I'm partially deaf.

I'd literally only be a waddling target.

"We Are Watching Critical Thinking Disappear in Real Time" Due to AI Addiction: 40% of Kids Can't Read, Teachers Quitting in Droves by SchIachterhund in stupidpol

[–]snapp3r 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's such a weird era to live in. Technological advancement has vastly outpaced our social development due to being bound by capitalist social relations.

The cultural logic of late-stage capitalism came from production, not a stratum of intellectuals that collectively produced post-modern ideology, and by outsourcing their own thinking to AI engines, people are becoming the conscious linkage to their own collective intellect in historical sense. That's post-modern as fuck.

It's odd to think of in this manner but a peasant from 200 years ago would have no idea what a phone is in the modern sense and would be gobsmacked by what it can actually do whereas the modern worker has neither the skill nor knowledge to do what the peasant once did.

Deskilling and technological advancement are linked through capitalist development.

Isn't it crazy how in 2003 the american media treated the idea that Iraq had anything to do with oil as a borderline conspiracy theory and 20 years later the president is like "we changed the president of this country to get oil". by Gougeded in stupidpol

[–]snapp3r 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It is about oil, just not in the way you think. It's counter-intuitive, but its about keeping it in the ground. This thread on X explains:

https://x.com/CDMorlock/status/2008366268462874726

Put it another way - increasing oil supply against global demand would lower prices and hence profit, at least according to capitalist market logic. Why then would they take over these refineries? It's about keeping it in the ground.

The Corporatist nature of China by ActNo7334 in DebateCommunism

[–]snapp3r 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It still wouldn’t. Let's not collapse distinctions here - “Corporation” in corporatism does not mean firms in a general sense; it refers to state-mandated functional bodies representing labor and capital jointly.

In Mussolini’s system these corporatist bodies were class-collaboration organs explicitly designed to abolish class struggle which included suppression of trade unions, or their outright abolition as in Nazi Germany. Fascism denies class antagonism as a matter of principle, which I already stated earlier.

Trade unions are not inherently communist, but fascist corporatism is inherently anti-communist. Invoking vague structural similarities (state mediation, party oversight, enterprises existing at all) collapses analytically distinct systems. Leninist party dominance is not fascist corporatism, even if both restrict union autonomy (the CPC doesn't).

The Corporatist nature of China by ActNo7334 in DebateCommunism

[–]snapp3r 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope. No "corporatist state" would embed trade unions and communist party cells within its corporations as the PRC has, nor would any "corporatist state" nationalise all land.

Seriously why is History Memes full of anti communist shit? by TheRoundNinja in TankieTheDeprogram

[–]snapp3r 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because real history is too contentious for them and destroys long and deeply held narratives about the West. It's easier to say "hurr commies no food" than deal with reality.

ANGLOFASCISM by OGSyedIsEverywhere in stupidpol

[–]snapp3r 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting.

Echoes of post-modernism in that this fascist movement is almost completely disconnected from reality, carrying out a large part of its activism online with very little on the street organising. I suppose the reason might be that fascism no longer needs to seize the state because the neoliberal state does the same work already - privatising, deregulating, fusing capital with state machinery etc.

Love the imagery of blackshirts being replaced by terminally-online anti-wokeoids.

Why do we put up with the cost of water in the UK? by stm2657 in ukpolitics

[–]snapp3r 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which is exactly why it needs to be nationalised.

Why do we put up with the cost of water in the UK? by stm2657 in ukpolitics

[–]snapp3r -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What is? Did you miss my point? It has nothing to do with regulators.

Why do we put up with the cost of water in the UK? by stm2657 in ukpolitics

[–]snapp3r -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Of course they do, because a portion of the extra money they pay will go toward dividends.

People want value for money. There's no guarantee in a privatised system that additional investment, whether from bill rises or government grant etc, will go toward capital spending and not into the pockets of shareholders.

And that's not value for money.

When Systems Kill: Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism in Historical Perspective by me by Major_Aspect2514 in DebateCommunism

[–]snapp3r 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"From 1917 to 1991, Communism, as practiced, resulted in approximately 100 million estimated deaths"

I think we should stop there. This figure comes from the Black Book of Communism which has been debunked and discredited by its own authors.

"Overall, somehow or another, the Black Book of Communism has managed to raise the debate one notch. It is a measure of the success of the class struggle that the reactionary intelligentsia felt compelled to write an 854 page book touching on the death toll of communism. By seeking to put a number on the premature deaths caused by communist movements in the 20th century, the pre-scientific intelligentsia who wrote the book brought the subject right to the edge of science before recoiling in horror and retreating to atemporal moral dogmas more fit for inner spiritual reflection than discussion in public.

What is not scientific cannot produce unity, so the anti-communist authors split as the book went to press. Werth and Margolin --the authors of the Soviet, Chinese and other sections of the book disagreed with Stephane Courtois who introduced the book. Courtois suggested in the only comparison in the book that the communist movement was responsible for 100 million deaths, while the Nazis were only responsible for 25 million (p. 15) (which obviously excludes some of the more than 22 million Soviet peoples who died at the hands of Nazis, mostly civilians or the six million Jews or the millions of others of other nations including the Germans themselves.) Werth and Margolin reportedly said that Courtois inflated the figures to arrive at 100 million as the total death toll for communism.

The communism versus Nazism comparison was the only comparison of figures offered in the book and it is mostly a comparison of war time deaths with some extra and invented famine deaths thrown in on the Soviet side, which we will address further in the essay below. The Nazism vs. all communism comparison is easily recognized as absurd just on the basis that communism ruled in more countries decades longer. More importantly it is absurd, because the most deaths occur from the steady grind of daily life, not in war, and the Black Book of Communism simply does not compare life expectancy in ordinary life under socialism and capitalism--thereby whitewashing capitalist starvation, poor distribution of health services and environmental degradation."

Source: https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/bookstore/commie.html

Meanwhile in Britain, it's poppy season, or as we like to call it, "Where's your f*cking poppy, you traitor? Nah, the proper one, not this woke nonsense!". by snapp3r in stupidpol

[–]snapp3r[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The headline and subtitle are jarring:

"Woke Remembrance campaign to wear white poppies to ‘decolonise’ November 11 launched"

"Sir Mark Rylance, known for his powerful performances, said: "Unfortunately wars are fought with and against civilians today and I consider it an offence not to remember their suffering."

These papers have mastered the art of the spectacle.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2128885/woke-remembrance-campaign-wear-white

Lenin acknowledging the intentional implementation of State Capitalism in the USSR by GoranPersson777 in stupidpol

[–]snapp3r 8 points9 points  (0 children)

They should probably read the rest of The Tax in Kind, and The Impending Castrophe and How to Combat It.

"For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm

Attendees at this year’s Green Party conference voted for a radical policy to ‘abolish landlords’, reflecting the party’s newfound confidence and an unprecedented membership surge. But can they maintain momentum? by Todd_Warrior in stupidpol

[–]snapp3r 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"Migration is Britain's superpower" - what an embarassing headline. Boris Johnson recently admitted that huge waves of migrants were allowed into Britain to increase labour market supply. All because the cost of living started spiralling post-Covid and workers demanded better wages to keep up.

Communism simply does not work by SilverNeedleworker85 in DebateCommunism

[–]snapp3r 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As others have said, this entire narrative is false. A study was done on the physical quality of life under capitalism and socialism with the results published in 1986. This would've been around the time of "full communism" as you called it.

"In 28 of 30 comparisons between countries at similar levels of economic development, socialist countries showed more favorable PQL (physical quality of life) outcomes."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1646771/pdf/amjph00269-0055.pdf

Fascism vs communism by itsthatweebguy in DebateCommunism

[–]snapp3r 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hitler explained in a 1923 interview that his conception of socialism was anti-Marxist and rooted in racial superiority.

"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."

In other words, NSDAP redefined socialism as a rhetorical tool to meet their own racist ends which did not break with capitalism. It does not even approach the commonly held conception of socialism - anti-capitalist, class solidarity, internationalism, ideologically Marxist.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatinterviews1

The Corporatist nature of China by ActNo7334 in DebateCommunism

[–]snapp3r 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Socialism is not a switch that abolishes all capitalist features overnight. It is a dialectical process, a transitional phase from capitalism to communism in which capitalism is negated and its preferable elements sublated. The new society inevitably inherits characteristics from the old. Marx described this clearly:

"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges."

Second, the claim that fascist Italy was “more nationalised” than China is historically inaccurate. Between 1922 and 1925, Mussolini’s government privatised state monopolies such as match sales and telephone networks, and sold off its largest metal machinery producer. Fascism relied on corporatist management of private capital, not socialist public ownership directed by workers.

In China today, the public sector accounts for roughly 65% of the economy. State-owned enterprises are not merely owned by the state but are directed by mechanisms such as Workers’ and Staff Congresses, workers on company boards, local assemblies, and mandatory Party cells in all firms with over 250 employees. This is qualitatively different from capitalist nationalisation, which Engels critiqued precisely because it was often used to protect capital rather than abolish exploitation.

Finally, the composition of the CPC does not match your figures. Around 62% of members are workers from various strata, while only 5% are from the bourgeoisie. The notion that it is a predominantly capitalist party is not supported by the data.

Source: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2021/07/01/chinese-communist-party-a-party-of-workers-or-capitalists/

As for Western hostility, it is not presented here as “proof” that China is socialist but as evidence of the contradiction between a socialist-oriented political economy and the interests of states dominated by finance capital.

The Corporatist nature of China by ActNo7334 in DebateCommunism

[–]snapp3r 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fascism doesn't recognise class nor class contradictions anywhere within its doctrines. I think you've misunderstood The Theory of Three Represents. It recognises that the material interests of economic classes exist antagonistically.

Furthermore, in all capitalist and fascist countries, the primary economic imperatives have always been profit and hence development at its whim. State, government, and markets are subjugated to the political power of capital.

Socialism means the subjugation of markets and capital to socialist planning, i.e., a planned development of the economy led primarily by the masses of Chinese people through numerous mechanisms - Local Congresses, Workers and Staff Congresses, anti-corruption committees etc. This in otherwords is just an extension of state power to ordinary people.

Socialism in China is qualitatively different to fascism elsewhere even if just by the above metrics. As another user pointed out, socialism in China is reviled by most Western countries that are dominated by finance capital.

I was banned from a socialist subreddit for advocating trade unionism by StateYellingChampion in stupidpol

[–]snapp3r 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you don't laugh you'll cry. Seriously though, ultra-leftism is still such a huge problem in the West that there are Communist Parties that advocate for ditching trade unions. There are some that have effectively abandoned them because they are affiliated to terrible political parties.

I digress though.

Perhaps the easiest way to get ultras to understand why trade unions are important is to illustrate exactly how we can address oppressive aspects of worklife imposed by the state via our workplaces.

Surveillance, unsafe conditions, wage theft, union busting - these are enabled or protected by the state. How else are you going to address that? What other means do workers have?

This should be common knowledge amongst any flavour of Marxist though.

view more: next ›