No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
=== [[File:Cap.png]] A Brief Critique of Capitalism [[File:Cap.png]] === |
=== [[File:Cap.png]] A Brief Critique of Capitalism [[File:Cap.png]] === |
||
So now let's take a deeper look at the capitalist system and let me develop a more concrete critique of it. Capitalism is a system where there's private property of the means of production, competition in a market, division of labor and massive commodity production. Going straight to the point, the problem with capitalism is that the whole system is based on exploitation. The accumulation of capital is only possible through the exploitation of the workers by the bourgeoisie. In a capitalist company the workers are the ones who produce the wealth and the owner is the one who keeps most of this wealth and also gets to manage the whole enterprise as he pleases while the workers are subject to his authority. It's not hard to realize that this is pure exploitation as here we see a fundamental contradiction. The workers produce the wealth. Without the workers the owner would not be able to run the enterprise. Yet still he has all the power of management in his hands. You may argue that for the risk the bourgeous is taking with his investment he has the right to manage the enterprise and keep the surplus. This arguement falls to the ground when we actually analyse what happens if this investment fails. If the enterprise completely breaks down the worst that can happen to the capitalist is he becoming a worker, as he now owns no means of production and will have to sell his labor. And his employees who obviously are already workers also lose their jobs. And he probably will still own some capital which will still assure some economic safety to him while his employees are left with pretty much nothing exept what is remnant of their wages. So even if his investment fails the workers still get a worse outcome. You also may argue that all of this is fair because anyone has the right and possibility to become a capitalist and own a company. That's simply a hilarious blatant lie. People can find themselves in multiple conditions which will make them unable to grant capital. Through the private ownership of land those who accumulated capital or just inherited it can monopolize the land, preventing people from having access to it thus disabling them to compete freely in the market. |
So now let's take a deeper look at the capitalist system and let me develop a more concrete critique of it. Capitalism is a system where there's private property of the means of production, competition in a market, division of labor and massive commodity production. Going straight to the point, the problem with capitalism is that the whole system is based on exploitation. The accumulation of capital is only possible through the exploitation of the workers by the bourgeoisie. In a capitalist company the workers are the ones who produce the wealth and the owner is the one who keeps most of this wealth and also gets to manage the whole enterprise as he pleases while the workers are subject to his authority. It's not hard to realize that this is pure exploitation as here we see a fundamental contradiction. The workers produce the wealth. Without the workers the owner would not be able to run the enterprise. Yet still he has all the power of management and the profit in his hands. You may argue that for the risk the bourgeous is taking with his investment he has the right to manage the enterprise and keep the surplus. This arguement falls to the ground when we actually analyse what happens if this investment fails. If the enterprise completely breaks down the worst that can happen to the capitalist is he becoming a worker, as he now owns no means of production and will have to sell his labor. And his employees who obviously are already workers also lose their jobs. And he probably will still own some capital which will still assure some economic safety to him while his employees are left with pretty much nothing exept what is remnant of their wages. So even if his investment fails the workers still get a worse outcome. You also may argue that all of this is fair because anyone has the right and possibility to become a capitalist and own a company. That's simply a hilarious blatant lie. People can find themselves in multiple conditions which will make them unable to grant capital. Through the private ownership of land those who accumulated capital or just inherited it can monopolize the land, preventing people from having access to it thus disabling them to compete freely in the market. |
||
=== [[File:Libsoc.png]] Socialism [[File:Libsoc.png]] === |
=== [[File:Libsoc.png]] Socialism [[File:Libsoc.png]] === |
||
Now, my goal here it's not to be prescriptive but to lay out the socialist systems I believe can work generally well in different conditions. Obviously I recognize that our systems must adapt to the conditions we face and not the other way around but with the theoretical knowledge I have and with the lessons acquired from past and current socialist experiments I can presume what socialist systems generally function better. I believe market socialism is a good way to transition from capitalism as workers can take expropriated enterprises and start to self-manage them, forming cooperatives. People that are against market socialism argue that even if the workers own the means of production commodity production would still be a problem. I understand this argument but I believe that even in a market economy a lot of stuff can be decommodified thus commodity production would not be massive. Also it is very hard to transition directly from a (capitalist) market economy to a non-market economy and generally markets are not easily abolished. |
Now, my goal here it's not to be prescriptive but to lay out the socialist systems I believe can work generally well in different conditions. Obviously I recognize that our systems must adapt to the conditions we face and not the other way around but with the theoretical knowledge I have and with the lessons acquired from past and current socialist experiments I can presume what socialist systems generally function better. I believe market socialism is a good way to transition from capitalism as workers can take expropriated enterprises and start to self-manage them, forming cooperatives. People that are against market socialism argue that even if the workers own the means of production commodity production would still be a problem. I understand this argument but I believe that even in a market economy a lot of stuff can be decommodified thus commodity production would not be massive. Also it is very hard to transition directly from a (capitalist) market economy to a non-market economy and generally markets are not easily abolished. I believe decentralized planned economies can be very efficient. Local workers councils with elected delegates (that can be revoked at any time) need to be established so that every workplace has a say in the planning. This way bureaucracies are prevented from being developed in this process. I don't like state owned companies as they necessarily generate some alienation to the workers (although some level of self-management can still be practiced within a state owned company) but I recognize that they are a necessary evil sometimes. I believe all banks, schools and hospitals should be nationalized for example. Still, an economy where most of the industry is nationalized (aka state capitalism) is pretty bad as it doesn't do away with the capitalist wage labor relations. Same goes with centrally planned economies. |
||
WIP |
WIP |
||
| Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
* [[File: Ancom.png]] [[Anarcho-Communism]] - Direct action, mutual aid and gift economy are all based but you fall too much into ideological boxes and sometimes lacks an efficient approach. |
* [[File: Ancom.png]] [[Anarcho-Communism]] - Direct action, mutual aid and gift economy are all based but you fall too much into ideological boxes and sometimes lacks an efficient approach. |
||
===<big>{{Color|#ffff7f|C}}</big>=== |
===<big>{{Color|#ffff7f|C}}</big>=== |
||
* [[File:AnSynd.png]] [[Anarcho-Syndicalism]] - |
* [[File:AnSynd.png]] [[Anarcho-Syndicalism]] - Not the biggest fan of trade unions but you can be decent sometimes. Still, a lot of times you're just radlib. |
||
*[[File: Marketsoc.png]] [[Market Socialism]] - Cooperatives can be good but a fully coop free market just seems like petit-bourgeois "socialism". Also reformism is cringe. |
|||
===<big>{{Color|#bfff7f|D}}</big>=== |
===<big>{{Color|#bfff7f|D}}</big>=== |
||
*[[File:Clib.png]] [[Classical Liberalism]] - I would probably support you if I was born like... 300 years ago. |
*[[File:Clib.png]] [[Classical Liberalism]] - I would probably support you if I was born like... 300 years ago. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
===<big>{{Color|#7fff7f|F}}</big>=== |
===<big>{{Color|#7fff7f|F}}</big>=== |
||
| ⚫ | |||
<br> |
<br> |
||
|-| |
|-| |
||
| Line 150: | Line 152: | ||
Figures= |
Figures= |
||
===<big>{{Color|#ffbf7f|A}}</big>=== |
===<big>{{Color|#ffbf7f|A}}</big>=== |
||
*[[File:Ormarxf.png]] [[Marxism|Karl Marx]] - Made probably the biggest contributions to philosophy and political economy in history. |
|||
===<big>{{Color|#ffdf7f|B}}</big>=== |
===<big>{{Color|#ffdf7f|B}}</big>=== |
||
*[[File:Ormarxf.png]] [[Marxism|Karl Marx]] - Extremely based but not perfect. |
|||
===<big>{{Color|#ffff7f|C}}</big>=== |
===<big>{{Color|#ffff7f|C}}</big>=== |
||
*[[File:Freud.png]] Sigmund Freud - the oedipus complex 💀. |
*[[File:Freud.png]] Sigmund Freud - the oedipus complex 💀. |
||
*[[File:Lacan.png]] Jacques Lacan - Desire it's not lack my brother. |
|||
===<big>{{Color|#bfff7f|D}}</big>=== |
===<big>{{Color|#bfff7f|D}}</big>=== |
||
| Line 167: | Line 171: | ||
*[[File:JosephStalin.png]] [[Marxism–Leninism|Joseph Stalin]] - The final nail in the coffin for the revolution. |
*[[File:JosephStalin.png]] [[Marxism–Leninism|Joseph Stalin]] - The final nail in the coffin for the revolution. |
||
*[[File:Khrusch.png]] [[Khrushchevism|Nikita Khrushchev]] - You're not so different from Stalin. |
*[[File:Khrusch.png]] [[Khrushchevism|Nikita Khrushchev]] - You're not so different from Stalin. |
||
<br> |
<br> |
||
Invalid user
->/
->
->//
->
/
->
/
/
/
->
(
//)->
(/
/
) -> 
Socrates (470-399 BCE)
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831)
Max Stirner (1806-1856)
Makhail Bakunin (1814-1876)
Karl Marx (1818-1883)
Friedrich Engels (1820-1895)
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)
Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919)
Daniel Guérin (1904-1988)
Albert Camus (1913-1960)
Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995)
Michel Foucault (1926-1984)
Jean Baudrillard (1929-2007)
Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) Félix Guattari (1930-1992) Bob Black (1951-)
Paris Commune (1871)
Morelos Commune (1913–1917)
Makhnovshchina (1918–1921)
Korean People's Association in Manchuria (1929–1931)
Situationist International (1957-1972) For Ourselves: Council for Generalized Self-Management (1974)
Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities (1994-) Dialectical/Historical Materialism If we analyze the history of humanity, we can see that the mode of production has evolved over time (generally speaking). The modes of production of the past were overcome through revolutions fueled by the contradictions present in the given systems. The mode of production we live in now at least for the most part of the world is capitalism which was preceded by feudalism. But capitalism still breeds contradictions which are the contradictions generated by the relationship between the needs of the working class and the wants of the bourgeoisie. Socialism or communnism transcends these contradictions because it is a classless system.
A Brief Critique of Capitalism So now let's take a deeper look at the capitalist system and let me develop a more concrete critique of it. Capitalism is a system where there's private property of the means of production, competition in a market, division of labor and massive commodity production. Going straight to the point, the problem with capitalism is that the whole system is based on exploitation. The accumulation of capital is only possible through the exploitation of the workers by the bourgeoisie. In a capitalist company the workers are the ones who produce the wealth and the owner is the one who keeps most of this wealth and also gets to manage the whole enterprise as he pleases while the workers are subject to his authority. It's not hard to realize that this is pure exploitation as here we see a fundamental contradiction. The workers produce the wealth. Without the workers the owner would not be able to run the enterprise. Yet still he has all the power of management and the profit in his hands. You may argue that for the risk the bourgeous is taking with his investment he has the right to manage the enterprise and keep the surplus. This arguement falls to the ground when we actually analyse what happens if this investment fails. If the enterprise completely breaks down the worst that can happen to the capitalist is he becoming a worker, as he now owns no means of production and will have to sell his labor. And his employees who obviously are already workers also lose their jobs. And he probably will still own some capital which will still assure some economic safety to him while his employees are left with pretty much nothing exept what is remnant of their wages. So even if his investment fails the workers still get a worse outcome. You also may argue that all of this is fair because anyone has the right and possibility to become a capitalist and own a company. That's simply a hilarious blatant lie. People can find themselves in multiple conditions which will make them unable to grant capital. Through the private ownership of land those who accumulated capital or just inherited it can monopolize the land, preventing people from having access to it thus disabling them to compete freely in the market.
Socialism Now, my goal here it's not to be prescriptive but to lay out the socialist systems I believe can work generally well in different conditions. Obviously I recognize that our systems must adapt to the conditions we face and not the other way around but with the theoretical knowledge I have and with the lessons acquired from past and current socialist experiments I can presume what socialist systems generally function better. I believe market socialism is a good way to transition from capitalism as workers can take expropriated enterprises and start to self-manage them, forming cooperatives. People that are against market socialism argue that even if the workers own the means of production commodity production would still be a problem. I understand this argument but I believe that even in a market economy a lot of stuff can be decommodified thus commodity production would not be massive. Also it is very hard to transition directly from a (capitalist) market economy to a non-market economy and generally markets are not easily abolished. I believe decentralized planned economies can be very efficient. Local workers councils with elected delegates (that can be revoked at any time) need to be established so that every workplace has a say in the planning. This way bureaucracies are prevented from being developed in this process. I don't like state owned companies as they necessarily generate some alienation to the workers (although some level of self-management can still be practiced within a state owned company) but I recognize that they are a necessary evil sometimes. I believe all banks, schools and hospitals should be nationalized for example. Still, an economy where most of the industry is nationalized (aka state capitalism) is pretty bad as it doesn't do away with the capitalist wage labor relations. Same goes with centrally planned economies.
WIP
Democracy The only real form of democracy is direct democracy because representative democracy degenerates into oligarchies that don't really represent the people. The liberal representative democracy is just the way the bourgeoisie exercises it's power over the working class. Direct democracy is also the only way the dictatorship of the proletariat can function. So to put it into simple terms, for democracy to work people should be able to vote directly in the policies of their political institutions. In matters where this is not possible, they should elect delegates who simply obey what the people want and they can be revoked at any time. Federalism or confederalism can be practiced to ensure local or regional autonomy. Some examples of places where such system was applied are the Free Territory of Ukraine (Makhnovshchina), the Morelos Commune and the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities. Something important to point out is that democracy doesn't necessarily mean majority vote. Consensual decision making can also be a part of democracy. I also believe that the current technology can be used to enhance democracy. In estonia for example people are allowed to vote through their cellphones. In a direct democracy this would be very helpful as people would have more political participation and therefore would need simpler ways to engage in it. And I don't think this is very hard to be implemented. Even in not very developed countries like mine (Brazil) most people have access to the internet.
Anarcho-Communism - Direct action, mutual aid and gift economy are all based but you fall too much into ideological boxes and sometimes lacks an efficient approach.
Anarcho-Syndicalism - Not the biggest fan of trade unions but you can be decent sometimes. Still, a lot of times you're just radlib.
Market Socialism - Cooperatives can be good but a fully coop free market just seems like petit-bourgeois "socialism". Also reformism is cringe.
Classical Liberalism - I would probably support you if I was born like... 300 years ago.
Social Democracy - You are very very good at capitalism. That's exactly why you're so bad. Karl Marx - Made probably the biggest contributions to philosophy and political economy in history. Sigmund Freud - the oedipus complex 💀.
Jacques Lacan - Desire it's not lack my brother.
Vladimir Lenin - State capitalism cannot be good for the working class. And your vanguard party breeds elitism.
Lula - Fuck you and your "worker's" party that only stands in the way of the true road to working class emancipation.
Leon Trotsky - You crushed the Makhnovshchina and called them kulaks. But your theories of degenerated workers state, deformed workers state and bureaucratic collectivism are based.
Adolf Hitler - Hot take right here guys.
Jair Bolsonaro - The imbrochável lost.
Joseph Stalin - The final nail in the coffin for the revolution.
Nikita Khrushchev - You're not so different from Stalin.<comments />
