The Great Reset

[Dominus Atheos]

How was autism relevant to this? (Hi, diagnosed at age 6)

I mean, I don't want to start a complete Donnybrook here, but I wonder where the connection is coming from.

This was part of the OP:



Pepe the frog having the "superpower" of autism is a right-wing meme based on the idea that autistic people are "immune" to propaganda, especially jewish globalist propaganda.

[Mastr Blastr]

How was autism relevant to this? (Hi, diagnosed at age 6)

I mean, I don't want to start a complete Donnybrook here, but I wonder where the connection is coming from.

It was a propaganda piece from 4chan, otherwise a right-wing ceaspit, openly calling for Real Communism in the face of the immiseration offered by the Great Reset. These people love capitalism (so they say), adore Reagan... And are quite happy to take property off of the billionaires in the face of the billionaires taking property off of them.

[Raw Shark]

Fair explanation, thanks guys.

[Mastr Blastr]

Again I reiterate that the conditions proposed by/predicted by the WEF are the ones Marx anticipated as the prelude to a Communist revolution.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Haven't seen that pile of crazy in a while... and yet again forget that technology is a major contributor to how an economy goes.

[Mastr Blastr]

Haven't seen that pile of crazy in a while... and yet again forget that technology is a major contributor to how an economy goes.

Technology plays a part in causing it. Automation means that property will become even more difficult to acquire as jobs become ever more scarce.

There's absolutely nothing crazy about this. The big bourgeoisie are flat out telling you that this is the way the rest of history is going to go. It's not a conspiracy theory - you don't make posters and YouTube propaganda for conspiracy theories.

Right-wingers have turned it into a conspiracy by misunderstanding it. They see this, see Klaus Schwab who resembles a Bond villain, and think "this is currently an agenda and we can fight that agenda". Like so:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=26Q8almpwC0

But what it actually is is a soft acknowledgement of Marx's immiseration thesis (that capitalism b tends to drive wages to their lowest price, which will eventually cause profits to crater and will necessitate the taking of property by capitalists to make up for it). The WEF is simply stating what's already occurring and trying to sell it as an enlightenedw policy choice.

Again, all this is in Marx.

This “alienation” (to use a term which will be comprehensible to the philosophers) can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an “intolerable” power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity “propertyless,” and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development.

Again, rightists see this and think "these people are trying to implement Communism". Here is a typical example:



I see it and realize that this actually is late-stage capitalism.

[LadyTevar]

You're arguing in circles, and yes, it's all Marxist.

Is there anything ELSE to this discussion?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

I've seen this behavior before, and I don't believe Mastr Blastr will stop going in circles.

To be honest, we need to necromance Huey Long at this point... or at least his 'Share Our Wealth' idea.

[Mastr Blastr]

You're arguing in circles, and yes, it's all Marxist.

Is there anything ELSE to this discussion?

What circles am I arguing in?

My proposition is quite simple:

(A) One of the biggest outlets for the truly big capitalists has said that, in the future, individuals will own less than they do today. This is couched in enlightened policy terms; some of the rhetoric surrounding it borders on socialism, and has triggered a massive leave of hostility the Right across the globe, who are taking it very seriously. Yet all statistics indicate this is the course that world capitalism in the developed nations has been on for some time: small business ownership is in broad decline in America and Europe, housing is under attack from hedge funds like BlackRock, etc. At the moment it looks like a faction of the GOP in America (primarily the pseudopopulist workerist group led by Josh Hawley) are the only ones concerned about this, because they can tie criticism of it into a socially conservative platform. But that it's actually happening and will accelerate in the future is indisputable. The conservatives see it, the WEF sees it, Marxists see it - the only ones who do not see it are nonMarxist leftists and liberals, who long ago abandoned analyzing capitalism anyway.

(B) Marx absolutely predicted conditions like this to emerge in developed capitalist society, not as socialism itself, but as a prelude to socialism. Marx discusses this also in the section of Capital that talks about the financialization of capitalism and the transition of individual capitalists away from personal ownership of businesses towards becoming mere money managers, which has been basically complete for decades at this point.

1) An enormous expansion of the scale of production and of enterprises, that was impossible for individual capitals. At the same time, enterprises that were formerly government enterprises, become public.

2) The capital, which in itself rests on a social mode of production and presupposes a social concentration of means of production and labour-power, is here directly endowed with the form of social capital (capital of directly associated individuals) as distinct from private capital, and its undertakings assume the form of social undertakings as distinct from private undertakings. It is the abolition of capital as private property within the framework of capitalist production itself.

3) Transformation of the actually functioning capitalist into a mere manager, administrator of other people's capital, and of the owner of capital into a mere owner, a mere money-capitalist. Even if the dividends which they receive include the interest and the profit of enterprise, i.e., the total profit (for the salary of the manager is, or should be, simply the wage of a specific type of skilled labour, whose price is regulated in the labour-market like that of any other labour), this total profit is henceforth received only in the form of interest, i.e., as mere compensation for owning capital that now is entirely divorced from the function in the actual process of reproduction, just as this function in the person of the manager is divorced from ownership of capital. Profit thus appears (no longer only that portion of it, the interest, which derives its justification from the profit of the borrower) as a mere appropriation of the surplus-labour of others, arising from the conversion of means of production into capital, i.e., from their alienation vis-à-vis the actual producer, from their antithesis as another's property to every individual actually at work in production, from manager down to the last day-labourer. In stock companies the function is divorced from capital ownership, hence also labour is entirely divorced from ownership of means of production and surplus-labour. This result of the ultimate development of capitalist production is a necessary transitional phase towards the reconversion of capital into the property of producers, although no longer as the private property of the individual producers, but rather as the property of associated producers, as outright social property. On the other hand, the stock company is a transition toward the conversion of all functions in the reproduction process which still remain linked with capitalist property, into mere functions of associated producers, into social functions.

Note that second bolded portion: "The result of the ultimate development of capitalist production is s a necessary translational phase towards the reconversion of Capital into the property of producers, no longer as the private property of individual producers, but rather as the property of associated producers, as outright social property..." this essentially is what this is:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpz6K1sSIPY

A total rentier economy, possibly peppered through with worker co-operatives, is what is meant by "the reconversion of Capital into the property of producers... as outright social property", as part of " the abolition of capital as private property within the framework of capitalist production itself". This necessarily represents, simultaneously, a transitional phase within capitalism out of capitalism and the emergence of hew forms of social control that will necessitate the abolition of capitalism further down the line.

These are the conditions Marx predicted, and they're all appearing quite quickly now. That doesn't mean I think we'll have world communist revolution this year or tis decade or even tis century - but the conditions which must necessarily create it are being produced: the emergence of social property within the capitalist mode of production and the simultaneous elimination of private property, again within capitalism, for the majority q humanity.

Tl;dr simplification: Over time capitalism takes away your property and implements co-cops and such to manage it. This becomes the basis down the line for a revolutionary movement. That's what Marx predicted and it's slowly coming about.

To be honest, we need to necromance Huey Long at this point... or at least his 'Share Our Wealth' idea.

Yes, that's pretty much how this Great Reset will be sold. It's the furthest possible development of capitalist production within capitalism, starts the production of revolutionary conditions with its abolition of property for the immense majority, and simultaneously socializes property within a marker framework.

I expect that the economy of four decades from now will be much more reliant on market-based co-ops, and private ownership of housing and small businesses will have immensely declined. These co-ops will be dependent on financial capital for sustenance and this will grant far more direct control to the capitalists over the activities of their workers than ever before. This extension of capitalism in this way necessitates revolt, because it eliminates even the illusion of the possibility of escaping these conditions through market activity, e.g. becoming a small business owner.

Politically, in the United States, the transition towards worker co-operatives will probably be pitched e.g. by populist conservatives, sold as an alternative to woke capitalism and the Great Reset.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ReFaRKblfdU

[LadyTevar]

Yes.

You've been saying that. Or should I say Preaching That. It's almost like you're pitching the idea and trying to sell us on it.

Obviously, it isn't working as others have pointed out all the flaws.

So. Why are you still pitching it when we've pointed out that Yes they can TRY to sell it like that, but people LIKE OUR STUFF. We are not going to give up owning our own bed. Owning our own car. Owning our clothing, our dining room, our daily life comforts.

So why are you continuing to push it?

[Mastr Blastr]

Yes.

You've been saying that. Or should I say Preaching That. It's almost like you're pitching the idea and trying to sell us on it.

Obviously, it isn't working as others have pointed out all the flaws.

So. Why are you still pitching it when we've pointed out that Yes they can TRY to sell it like that, but people LIKE OUR STUFF. We are not going to give up owning our own bed. Owning our own car. Owning our clothing, our dining room, our daily life comforts.

So why are you continuing to push it?

Again, you're acting like I'm endorsing the Great Reset as an end of itself, like I'm an employee of the World Economic Forum. I'm not.

What I am is a Marxist and an economic determinist. My point is that, okay, this can't be resisted on the current basis of private property - the Reset (to the extent it's an agenda and not a set of pretedermined developments within capitalism) will go through. The only energy to fight it is on the Right, e.g.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k21SuhGx7xA

But of course they can't fight it. Fighting it would take... an international movement (conservatives do not accept internationalism) of working class people (conservatives by and large hate the working class, or at least worship the wealthy). Moreover, the actions that would actually be capable of fighting it would require the abolition of capitalism and private property anyway. How will the Right fight these bourgeoisie - cut their taxes and deregulate their industries?

This is the future, and it will go through. My point is not to endorse it in itself, but to point out that it will lead to a situation that will require the other shoe to drop: "You've taken our property and left us with nothing; now we'll take yours". And once this is done, capitalism will have been abolished and there will be no return to the old system. This is how Communism develops as Marx understood it.

Once more, with feeling: I do not advocate the Great Reset in and of itself, or the abolition of property for working class people within a capitalist framework of production. What I do say is that it is a historically necessary, predetermined capitalist phase of development which mankind likely must pass through en route to the other side -- the it is unavoidable on the basis of the current system of production and contains within itself the seeds of the abolition of this mode of production, just as the end of feudalism in Europe was essentially unavoidable once kings began warring with their subject nobility and began paying the bourgeoisie as their agents to help prosecute these wars.

You like your stuff, but the current system will take it all away from you (the collective you, i.e. us). Eventually, you'll have to take their stuff away. This inaugurates Communism.

[LadyTevar]

And so far you are still regurgitating the same things that others in this thread have refuted.

No, the "Great Reset" is unlikely to Come True. No, it will not take a big step into Marxism/Communism to resist it or 'overthrow' it. Because the "Great Reset" is a PIPE DREAM of some thinktank full of rich idjits who have no idea or connection to the Common Man.

And, since you're not "Endorsing It"... Why are you still arguing and pushing this thread?

[Mastr Blastr]

And so far you are still regurgitating the same things that others in this thread have refuted.

Nobody's refuted it. What's there to refute? It is a fact that homeownership, small business ownership, and property ownership generally is in decline in the developed capitalist systems. It is a fact that this has been noted and given a name by the World Economic Forum, the Great Reset. It is a fact that this coincides exceedingly well with what has been called Marx's immiseration thesis and his general teleological view of human historical development, directly paralleling his view of the pre-revolutionary situation.

]No, the "Great Reset" is unlikely to Come True.

Part of my point is that it has been for a long time, long before it was called such by Klaus Schwab. Property has been disappearing for most for a very long time.

Take a look at non-agricultural self-employment figures in America.



Massive decline across the board, from one quarter to one-tenth of the economy (shouldn't the Internet have reversed this process, in theory?).

Or, again, the health of the small business sector in America.





This tallies with Marx very well.

The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.

No, it will not take a big step into Marxism/Communism to resist it or 'overthrow' it. Because the "Great Reset" is a PIPE DREAM of some thinktank full of rich idjits who have no idea or connection to the Common Man.

All it is is an official recognition of a process which has been ongoing for decades, long before it was termed such. This process of in moderation probably began around 1958 (it probably begins in earnest with the Eisenhower recession that year), was stymied for a bit by the New Deal/Fair Deal/Great Society, and erupted massively after 1969.



This tallies exactly with Marx, too.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... 1/ch25.htm

We saw in Part IV., when analysing the production of relative surplus-value: within the capitalist system all methods for raising the social productiveness of labour are brought about at the cost of the individual labourer; all means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over, and exploitation of, the producers; they mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work and turn it into a hated toil; they estrange from him the intellectual potentialities of the labour process in the same proportion as science is incorporated in it as an independent power; they distort the conditions under which he works, subject him during the labour process to a despotism the more hateful for its meanness; they transform his life-time into working-time, and drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the Juggernaut of capital. But all methods for the production of surplus-value are at the same time methods of accumulation; and every extension of accumulation becomes again a means for the development of those methods. It follows therefore that in proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer, be his payment high or low, must grow worse. The law, finally, that always equilibrates the relative surplus population, or industrial reserve army, to the extent and energy of accumulation, this law rivets the labourer to capital more firmly than the wedges of Vulcan did Prometheus to the rock. It establishes an accumulation of misery, corresponding with accumulation of capital. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole, i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product in the form of capital. [25] This antagonistic character of capitalistic accumulation is enunciated in various forms by political economists, although by them it is confounded with phenomena, certainly to some extent analogous, but nevertheless essentially distinct, and belonging to pre-capitalistic modes of production

The Great Reset isn't now starting, it has been occurring for a long time. It started happening during the Johnson-Nixon-Carter-Reagan Administrations.

[LadyTevar]

And so far you are still regurgitating the same things that others in this thread have refuted.

Nobody's refuted it. What's there to refute? It is a fact that homeownership, small business ownership, and property ownership generally is in decline in the developed capitalist systems. It is a fact that this has been noted and given a name by the World Economic Forum, the Great Reset. It is a fact that this coincides exceedingly well with what has been called Marx's immiseration thesis and his general teleological view of human historical development, directly paralleling his view of the pre-revolutionary situation.

((SNIP THE DISTRACRTING BULLSHIT THAT PROVES NOTHING BUT YOU KNOW HOW TO COPY AND PASTE))

The Great Reset isn't now starting, it has been occurring for a long time. It started happening during the Johnson-Nixon-Carter-Reagan Administrations.

No. The "Great Reset" is purely something made up AS YOU SAID IN YOUR FIRST POST, By Schwab only 4 years ago. He did NOT name this, he came up with it as a whole Neo-liberal pipe dream of "You will Own Nothing And Be Happy"

The "Great Reset" is a Neolib-tards wet dream, and will not lead to your "glorious revolution' of Marxism. You might get your wish of Revolution, but it'll be the last gasps of the Racist Followers of the GOP/Confederacy who didn't think Jan 6th was enough. They will be shot down, probably literally, and the NeoLibtards pushing the "Reset" will slink off into the shadows.

MARXISM is Dead. It killed the USSR. Even CHINA dropped it like a hot rock for Capitalism, or their totalitarian version of it. Which is also showing the strain and cracking at the base. We are in real time watching the two biggest Communist Countries crumble, so WHY do you think it's got any chance of coming back?
We have a better chance of experiencing MadMax or Fallout that seeing Marxism rise.

[Straha]

There's a series of problems with this.

Most notably, your horrific formatting and almost Jackson Pollack-esque presentation to the point of almost unreadability.

That said, the idea of an imminent great reset is underpants gnome stuff.

Step One: Workers are eaten alive.
Step Two: ???????????
Step Three: COMMUNIST REVOLUTION! LIBERTY FOR ALL!

Politics must intervene in step two, and the track record of succesful Marxist revolutions is, shall we say, slim. For every success (Russia 1917, China, Cuba) there are litanies of failures. Either when the ground work for revolution was brutally suppressed (e.g. Germany 1919-1920), militarily put down, domestically averted often through combinations of the above (e.g. the United States during and after the great depression), or worse was used as a spring board for the most radical of retrograde and reactionary politics (e.g. Italy 1922, Germany 1933.) To have blind faith in the outcome of the revolution without the political and social scene being set is to be a stubborn fool.


Put differently, yes, you are correct, Marx laid out a vision that includes where we are on its path. This isn't just because Marx was a visionary but because Marx understood, truly understood, the horrifying logic of capitalism. It inexorably leads here. What he did not understand was the power of the state or the potential power of those with wealth and resources and their enablers and their ability to deploy that power with great abandon for the sake of both repression and the continuation of that power. The West, and certainly not the US, is not set up for a communist revolution of anysort, and to imagine one could happen in the next two decades is self-delusion. There is not an active elected Marxist party ready to smooth out a transition, there is not an active Marxist vanguard worth talking about waiting in the wings, the Left has been defined by a buffoonery the likes of which cannot truly be understood (see: Bob Avakian), and the populace has so internalized years of crowing victory over the Soviet Union that to imagine undoing it would be an impossibility. (And there is no global vanguard of communism waiting in the wings. One of the lessons the CCP internalized from the collapse of the USSR is that to be an advocate for global revolution is the way to have markets closed to you. They want access to those markets, and they will pay ideological prices for that access.)

Do I have hope for the future, sure. Do I think this is the path, no.

[Mastr Blastr]

And so far you are still regurgitating the same things that others in this thread have refuted.

Nobody's refuted it. What's there to refute? It is a fact that homeownership, small business ownership, and property ownership generally is in decline in the developed capitalist systems. It is a fact that this has been noted and given a name by the World Economic Forum, the Great Reset. It is a fact that this coincides exceedingly well with what has been called Marx's immiseration thesis and his general teleological view of human historical development, directly paralleling his view of the pre-revolutionary situation.

((SNIP THE DISTRACRTING BULLSHIT THAT PROVES NOTHING BUT YOU KNOW HOW TO COPY AND PASTE))

The Great Reset isn't now starting, it has been occurring for a long time. It started happening during the Johnson-Nixon-Carter-Reagan Administrations.

No. The "Great Reset" is purely something made up AS YOU SAID IN YOUR FIRST POST, By Schwab only 4 years ago. He did NOT name this, he came up with it as a whole Neo-liberal pipe dream of "You will Own Nothing And Be Happy"

The Great Reset is a name given by Schwab to this phenomenon to describe something which is already actually occurring . The conservatives think it's an agenda to be implemented in the future; it is something that started happening already in the past. Schwab and the WEF are simply trying to gently wake the capitalists up to the reality of immiseration under capitalism sonthey can plan around it.

The "Great Reset" is a Neolib-tards wet dream, and will not lead to your "glorious revolution' of Marxism. You might get your wish of Revolution, but it'll be the last gasps of the Racist Followers of the GOP/Confederacy who didn't think Jan 6th was enough. They will be shot down, probably literally, and the NeoLibtards pushing the "Reset" will slink off into the shadows.

This is your brain on the Democratic Party.

MARXISM is Dead. It killed the USSR. Even CHINA dropped it like a hot rock for Capitalism, or their totalitarian version of it.

Marxism is simply an analytical tool to understand what's actually occurring in the capitalist economy.

Which is also showing the strain and cracking at the base. We are in real time watching the two biggest Communist Countries crumble, so WHY do you think it's got any chance of coming back?

Neither were Communist.

We have a better chance of experiencing MadMax or Fallout that seeing Marxism rise.

Sure, we probably are going to pass through something loke this phase for many people.

[Mastr Blastr]

Politics must intervene in step two, and the track record of succesful Marxist revolutions is, shall we say, slim. For every success (Russia 1917, China, Cuba) there are litanies of failures. Either when the ground work for revolution was brutally suppressed (e.g. Germany 1919-1920), militarily put down, domestically averted often through combinations of the above (e.g. the United States during and after the great depression), or worse was used as a spring board for the most radical of retrograde and reactionary politics (e.g. Italy 1922, Germany 1933.) To have blind faith in the outcome of the revolution without the political and social scene being set is to be a stubborn fool.

I am aware. Marx allows for the possibility of defeat and mutual destruction of the warring classes.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... reface.htm

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master(3) and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... e/ch01.htm

Bourgeois revolutions, like those of the eighteenth century, storm more swiftly from success to success, their dramatic effects outdo each other, men and things seem set in sparkling diamonds, ecstasy is the order of the day – but they are short-lived, soon they have reached their zenith, and a long Katzenjammer [cat’s winge] takes hold of society before it learns to assimilate the results of its storm-and-stress period soberly. On the other hand, proletarian revolutions, like those of the nineteenth century, constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite colossalness of their own goals – until a situation is created which makes all turning back impossible, and the conditions themselves call out:

Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
[Here is the rose, here dance!] [NOTE]

My point is simply n that the conditions that compel class war are now being openly acknowledged and you can see it if you know where to look.

But differently, yes, you are correct, Marx laid out a vision that includes where we are on its path. This isn't just because Marx was a visionary but because Marx understood, truly understood, the horrifying logic of capitalism. It inexorably leads here. What he did not understand was the power of the state or the potential power of those with wealth and resources and their enablers and their ability to deploy that power with great abandon for the sake of both repression and the continuation of that power. The West, and certainly not the US, is not set up for a communist revolution of anysort, and to imagine one could happen in the next two decades is self-delusion.

I absolutely do not think it will happen in he next two decades. The timeframe I gave just necessarily be vague, but I said

In the near-medium term - say, the next century and a half to two centuries - most people will own far, far less than they do today.

This is the coming era of mass immiseration.

.

There is not an active elected Marxist party ready to smooth out a transition, there is not an active Marxist vanguard worth talking about waiting in the wings, the Left has been defined by a buffoonery the likes of which cannot truly be understood (see: Bob Avakian),

Revolution isn't a product of the Left as such, but of the working class as the revolutionary agent. I'd recommend reading "The Revolution Is Not A Party Affair" by Otto Rühle:

The revolution is not a party affair. The three social-democratic parties (SPD, USPD, KPD) are so foolish as to consider the revolution as their own party affair and to proclaim the victory of the revolution as their party goal. The revolution is the political and economic affair of the totality of the proletarian class. Only the proletariat as a class can lead the revolution to victory. Everything else is superstition, demagogy and political chicanery. The proletariat must be conceived of as a class and its activity for the revolutionary struggle unleashed on the broadest possible basis and in the most extensive framework.

This is why all proletarians ready for revolutionary combat must be got together at the workplace in revolutionary factory organisations, regardless of their political origins or the basis by which they are recruited. Such groups should be united in the framework of the General Workers' Union (AAU).

Political parties in their electoral sense belong to bourgeois society. I don't see what necessary functions they must have in revolution, not in a formal sense.

and the populace has so internalized years of crowing victory over the Soviet Union that to imagine undoing it would be an impossibility. (And there is no global vanguard of communism waiting in the wings. One of the lessons the CCP internalized from the collapse of the USSR is that to be an advocate for global revolution is the way to have markets closed to you. They want access to those markets, and they will pay ideological prices for that access.)

I don't think the revolutionary situation will resemble Russia or China. I don't think it will be organized by a vanguard or a Party. I think the left-communists and council communists (Antonio Pannekoek, Paul Mattick etc.) are correct.

[Straha]

My dude, do you deliberately format your posts so as to be fundamentally unreadable?

For someone who claims to be geared towards revolution and change I would hope you would understand communication as a truly valuable skill, yet each and every post seems to go out of its way to be an aesthetic Everest. As they say in the business, yikes.

[Mastr Blastr]

My dude, do you deliberately format your posts so as to be fundamentally unreadable?

For someone who claims to be geared towards revolution and change I would hope you would understand communication as a truly valuable skill, yet each and every post seems to go out of its way to be an aesthetic Everest. As they say in the business, yikes.

What better way is there to format it?

[Rogue 9]

The World Economic Forum (or more specifically the air for brains who presented this garbage at it) forgets: "Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff." That basic fact is also going to get this idea, to use the term loosely.

[Mastr Blastr]

The World Economic Forum (or more specifically the air for brains who presented this garbage at it) forgets: "Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff." That basic fact is also going to get this idea, to use the term loosely.

What they're proposing, again, is not itself Communism. It's what we might charitably call terminal phase capitalism. It isn't an idea they're implementing, something they propose to do in the future that's not being done now, but an attempt to get people (mostly capitalists) to realize what has already been occurring within the economic system for a long time.

They're not abolishing money (though they may abolish paper money and implement A social credit score). They're not abolishing social classes (though they are getting rid of small business owners, or rather capitalism is getting rid of them as they can no longer compete, which simplifies class relationships enormously). They're not pretending to abolish capitalism (though they may use socialistic rhetoric to justify this move).

What they are doing is setting the stage for the furthest evolution of the capitalist system, as Marx anticipated. The "own nothing, be happy" slogan is a rhetorical cover for Marx's immiseration thesis. It's what sets the scene for Communism by socialising the working class inside of a capitalist system of production and then compels revolution (if you own nothing you are far more susceptible to mass extinction events during a crisis of capitalism than if you have a small farm to fall back on or a house or something).

[Rogue 9]

I realize they're not proposing Communism. I'm saying what they're proposing has the same structural flaw.

Also:

(don't know how to actually embed YouTube videos properly here)

Like this:

Code: Select all

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Iy-YrmDMX4[/youtube]

You have to take the "s" out of "https" and it doesn't like mobile, so also the "m." and you have to include www. It's super finicky.

[Mastr Blastr]

I realize they're not proposing Communism. I'm saying what they're proposing has the same structural flaw.

Haha, this is just capitalism my man. That's my point. The experience of humanity in the 19th and 20th centuries so far has been that of early, progressive capitalism. This is what comes next (and has been occurring, as I've shown, for decades in America). Communism does indeed come next (actual, workable Communism) as a product of this and the revolution it must inevitably compel.

[Straha]

A. Fewer images. (Preferably, none.) I know your most recent post has none, but most of your prior ones are just blocks and blocks of images of random dimensions in ways that do not track.

B. Smaller quotes and avoid putting them together. Giant quotes next to each other diminish the value of them as citations and make what they're trying to do in this context often indecipherable, to say nothing of the inherent lessened readability of quotes.

C. Put citations in the quote source. When you do a quote text box you can cite the source inside it, and even put URLs in there. Having a dangling URL above a quote doesn't just break up readability and flow but looks ugly as sin.

D. Underline in quotes for emphasis, don't bold. Bolding is inconsistent on phpBB boards and often just looks unsettling especially in quote boxes where justification is a little janky anyway. Underlining is far far cleaner and much more consistent across themes and background.

E. Are you going to refer to your quote for more than a sentence in your own words? No? Delete the quote and summarize. If you can't summarize the argument in your own terms you shouldn't be making it, if you can don't use the quote. One sentence "here's a thing to read!" replies look bad on the board in terms of formatting, sandwich what you're trying to say between giant blocks of text that draw the eye away from you, and to say nothing of not really contributing to the conversation. Like, yeah, I've read shelves full of Marxist theory. I have better things to do with my time than have some rando have a broken up conversation with me where they try to suggest even more for me to read scattershot.

There's more, but all of that will go a long way.

[Mastr Blastr]

Fair enough.

So, yeah. This is the realization of Marxist theory in full. I don't say it occurs in our time - there won't be a global revolution this century. I don't say it will occur even next century. I do say this is unavoidable, intrinsic to the system, will result in immense human suffering, and cannot be stopped. After it occurs, the only logical solution will be to do unto this class as it has done unto humanity.