Cowbee [he/they]

About the same score as any Western country. Privacy isn’t really respected anywhere unless you force it yourself, too much money in big data.

Oh hey, it’s the same map, for seemingly everything. “Freedom” in this case largely coincides with the freedom of the wealthy to influence and buy the press and spread their messaging.

Capitalists use control of media, yes. That doesn’t mean accepting right-wing analysis is correct, and that doesn’t mean Leftist ideas aren’t spreading.

I wasn’t suggesting it was deliberate, my point is more that if you want to discuss a subject, you ought to familiarize yourself with it prior to forming an opinion.

Capitalists do need workers to not revolt, yes. Leftists acknowledge this, there are various methods Capitalists employ, like bribery through sharing the spoils of Imperialism with the Working Class. That doesn’t mean right-wingers have valid points.

As for if enough people are reached, yes, increasingly as time goes on. I’m not sure what your point here is.

They’d need to progress to Socialism to actually beat fascism, so in the absence of Socialist Revolution, fascism becomes more a matter of time.

You’re starting to really get the Imperialism argument, fantastic! To answer your question regarding development eventually evening out, it’s through millitary presense and fostering dependence that keeps these countries underdeveloped. Look to what the Sahel States are doing now for an example of actual resistance to this expropriation, they are nationalizing industries and limiting exports to finished products, rather than raw materials. The Imperialist countries fight this with millitary intervention and sanctions in order to extend the plunder as long as possible, because without it these Imperialist countries would face instability from having its working class suddenly being far more exploited.

As for the rest of your comment, I did read through it. Rather than respond point by point, though, I think our time would be better served by focusing on a few key points. I’d rather start fresh, to be honest, I believe we aren’t getting anywhere as it stands right now.

1. Land as Capital

I am not saying Land is the same as all other forms of Capital. However, ownership of land is handled in much the same way as industrial and financial capital, and the purpose of land from an economic perspective is to play a role in fulfilling needs and producing goods. It plays a part in the interconnected process. Focusing on land ownership doesn’t mean you ignore other aspects, and that’s not what I was trying to insinuate. However, placing more weight on Land than on Capitalist production in general, land included, seems to me an unjustified focus when land is becoming more of a problem precisely because of Capitalism, and isn’t as much of a problem in Socialist countries.

2. Private Ownership

My belief is that all markets centralize over time and eliminate competition. This happens at different rates in different sectors, but is nonetheless a constant approach. Market forces create societies where those best guessing the market decide the rules of society, while Socialism allows us to focus on satisfying needs over profits. After revolution, the transformation from markets to public ownership of the whole economy is a gradual one, but a necessary one nonetheless.

3. Ethics

To make this short, Marxism has nothing against individual freedoms except for the freedom of individuals to dominate others. Socialist societies have all seen dramatic democratizations of the economy not found within Capitalist systems.

Circling back, I really don’t think you and I disagree on much in the final analysis, the reason I seem absolutist in your eyes is because of firm disagreements on how we achieve a better society, as well as analysis of Imperialism. I think a lot of what you see in “successful Capitalism” rides on Imperialism, which is why I’m very happy to see your first paragraph. Marx was wrong on a few things, and also didn’t live to be able to analyze Imperialism as a special stage necessary to Capitalism. He didn’t predict countries using Imperialism as a means to perpetuate Capitalism. However, Marxism is an evolving framework, which is why we can look to see its success in China, as an example.

If you want, I can link sources or readings. However, I opted not to do so, as in my opinion, doing so rarely results in people actually doing the reading.

You’re still misunderstanding idealism vs materialism. Your analysis is idealist, and that clouds your judgement of issues surrounding consumerism. Consumerism, as you describe it, still existed in Marx’s time, and the existence of it does not conflict with Marxism. Liberalism in general is idealist, but that doesn’t make it correct. Thoughts aren’t the primary movers, consumerism is driven by a necessity for Capitalists to sell more commodities. It isn’t the choice of individuals, but the underlying Capitalist system.

You still have not made any point regarding workers and consumers. They are the same. They have always been the same. Revolution is further not a threat for them.

Leftists do analyze the motivations of broism, you continue to invent problems that do not exist.

Finally, Leftists do reach people, with action. It isn’t a “trap.”

You don’t really have any real points, you are dead-set on your misinterpretations of left vs right and as a consequence don’t actually understand Leftist critique or analysis, and it seems deliberate.

The fact that it’s been the primary strategy for achieving genuine positive change against the will of the ruling vlass for as long as class society has existed.

I understand that his lack of success is due to the way the US government works. My point is that that’s the primary impedement for him, trying to work with a system designed against change, rather than trying to undermine that very system.

It’s been going on since the conception of the US Electoral system, that’s what it’s been designed to do from the beginning.

As a boot lover, I just suffer through the heat, lmao.

I’d say follow @FoxyFerengi@lemm.ee’s comment for sandals/open top heels, but maybe see if you can find more breathable socks to wear! Some can be quite cooling.

It’s important to consider trends and trajectories, while countries like Ireland and whatnot may appear to satisfy a lot of these, they are also struggling with the same decaying Capitalist system and are being dragged down by US decay as well. Countries like China that are improving rapidly might be more worth considering.

The White Army was a Tsarist Army. The Red Army was the Soviet Army. And you are mistaken, while there were times that the Soviets or Chinese Communists helped others, it was usually after revolution. I think you need to look more into your history.

I really don’t think you know what you’re talking about if you think advertising isn’t considered in Marxist theory. Workers are consumers, they get their means to live through being paid wages. Further, theory isn’t static, it adapts and changes while the core remains the same.

I’d say it’s increasingly likely that Imperialism finally ends, yes. Whether that’s through revolution or war is a separate matter.

When I say your point on TikTok is Idealist, I mean it in the philosophical way, in opposition to Materialism. Idealism is wrong, it’s the concept of thoughts and ideas being the primary mover, not material reality. The reason I say yours is idealist is because you’ve invented a problem that doesn’t exist, tik tok does not change the material base, being workers who spend their wages on goods.

There are people trying to solve the issue with “broism” without listening to the analysis of the “bros” beyond data points. Being connected to a problem doesn’t mean you know how to solve it. The Left doesn’t lack an answer to it, the left already has answers. The answers of the “bros” like government supplied girlfriends are not worth considering.

So in the end, you say the Leftists are correct, and say the problem is if people don’t listen to that? I mean, kinda, but that screams that you haven’t ever engaged with Leftist theory. Knowing leftist theory leads to action, not inaction.

Yep, the entire system is built to give the illusion that it’s capable of change, while giving all of the reigns to Capital.

I think the biggest reason Bernie gets more hate from the Left is because in many ways people were radicalized by him, and then outrgrew him. He’s disappointing. He did a good job of getting many liberals to adopt more progressive views, but he will constantly fold because that’s all he can do with the strategy he takes. Electoralism doesn’t work, and those radicalized by Bernie increasingly see that and feel betrayed.

There are also those that weren’t radicalized by Bernie, and thus always saw him as a sheepdog for the Empire.

You’re misunderstanding many of my points. Market concentration is one aspect of how Capitalism functions, and is why it can’t last forever and is bound to be replaced by planning or by barbarism. Land ownership is a part of that process as well. However, the negative consequences of these facts are minimized in areas like Scandinavia through Imperialism.

You already kinda leaned into it, IMF loans are an example of Imperialism. Essentially, Scandinavian countries do the same thing other Imperialist countries do, they outsource the worst labor and pay far less for it than they’d pay for domestic labor, and along with the rest of the Imperialist gang use millitary threats and reliance on things like food control from countries like the US to keep these countries dependent. It’s why “aid” is really a tool of underdevelopment, true aid would allow countries in the Global South to develop themselves, rather than foster dependence.

I am not engaging mostly with the stats you bring up because they are one-sided and really serve to apologize for Capitalism and Imperialism, by focusing on land ownership alone when it’s a giant and interconnected system. I’m skeptical that the impact is as big as you say it is, but even if we accept them all as true, you’re still only analyzing one factor and thus miss the true problems at play. Marx elaborates as such in this letter discussing Henry George.

I’ll answer the disagreements in order:

1. The role of land. My point is that a Land Value Tax will not solve the problems of Capitalism. It can certainly play a role in a larger transition to Socialism, but it alone will simply pave the way for new avenues of exploitation, as has happened every time a “progressive Capitalism” has been enacted.

2. Capital, and its role. Land is one aspect of Capital, just as financial Capital and Industrial Capital are. You taking specific aim at Land ownership, and not at the system of private ownership as a whole, is why you have an incomplete view.

3. We agree already that Land needs to be tackled, and you agree that markets centralize and thus are better to have those monopolies folded into the public sector, but what happens after that? How do we get there in the first place? We keep folding into the public sector and abolish classes, and we get to there in the first place through revolution. We don’t sieze for the sake of siezing, but because it becomes an economic necessity as production increases in complexity.

4. It has never genuinely been possible for any working class to gain power by asking for it, ever. Only revolution has worked.

You do focus, but you over-focus, which is why you miss the key points. This is why there aren’t really any Georgists anymore, the right-Georgists become Social Democrats or Neoliberals, and the Left-Georgists become Marxists. Georgism occupies a niche underdeveloped in economics, which explains its scarcity. The largest economy by Purchasing Power Parity is run by Marxists, while Georgists don’t run anywhere.

I also don’t know what you mean by “ethical problems” with respect to Marxism. Marxism, if anything, is more ethical as it aims to abolish class society as a whole, rather than apologize for a large part of it and focus on one aspect.

I don’t think I’m being rude. I do disagree with your analysis quite sternly because I think you quite nearly get it. You fall just short, and it’s frustrating, if I’m being honest. If that manifests in rudeness on my part I apologize.

Scandinavian countries are seeing rising wealth inequality. This inequality was pushed back against, especially when the Soviet Union still existed as a neighboring alternative system, but unionization alone doesn’t translate to control of the State or fight against rising inequality. Further, Scandinavia is Imperialist, it isn’t accurate to see it as a closed system with internal inequality alone, the geopolitical context must be analyzed as well.

It’s very easy to find sources showing rising concentration of wealth. This makes logical sense, even if there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall. Such a tendency is core to Marxist understanding of the eventual failure of Capitalism under its own weight.

Economic rents are monopoly rents, for the purpose of our conversation. Monopoly is a sliding scale, if something is restricted in supply, to where you can’t make any more, it fetches higher prices. Land is one aspect, an important one, but it isn’t the source of new value, labor is. When orienting an economy, we need to understand who controls what, and Land is a form of Capital. Land rent is an aspect of the overall system, but in focusing on it one-sidedly, you get an incomplete view, such as your belief that the government in Scandinavia represents the people. Really, it supports Capital, including land, and bribes its working class with the spoils it plunders from the Global South.

Essentially, your analysis is half-baked, thus undercooked. You have a partial view, and that over-emphasis on one part of the whole leads to incorrect conclusions about the whole. Land is important, that’s why one of the first things Marxists tend to do upon taking power is implement land reform, but it isn’t the full picture.

The White Army was specific to Russia, not all Socialist states like China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. Don’t really know what you’re getting at, here.

Workers were always consumers. That’s part of the problem with Capitalism, higher wages give more room for increased commodity circulation, but Capitalists don’t want to pay their own workers higher wages. Further, industry is still the backbone of production worldwide, the Imperialist states in the West just export the hardest jobs to the Global South so they can have cheap goods without the harsh labor.

As Capitalism decays, proletarianization increases even in the Imperialist countries, and thus reception to Socialism increases.

There is no “mental problem that cannot be solved,” this is quite literally inventing a problem that exists purely in your head. Idealism to a T.

Broism is a reaction to proletarianization, combined with patriarchial culture. It ignores analysis and goes for vibes-based solutions, which is why all bro-culture is incoherent and contradictory.

…what?

Having a parent as a politician and then being elected is not a “class.” The alternative is to bar descendents from holding office, which is just trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

The USSR had problems we can analyze, but through collective farming methods became food stable in a country that frequently had famines. Further, we can see food stability in countries like the PRC.

We should not ignore right-wing proletarians. We should thoroughly correct their poor analysis and promote correct political lines. We should see fascists and the bourgeoisie, landlords, etc as enemies.

The upper class plays up division to distract, this is correct, but Socialism remains the correct path. There isn’t a “perfect” Socialism, but that doesn’t mean advocating for Socialism locks in the current situation. To the contrary, Socialist revolution has already happened in many areas.

I’d like to know what you mean by saying “Socialism has ro for improvement” as a general rule, and not as countries building Socialism iterating and working to resolve the problems that come with nation building in general.