/edu/ - Education

>>7477
I looked at a few of the socialist subs on lemmy, they seemed to have lots of strange people who combine aspects of liberal social values and aspects of medieval religious fervor. Might check out the GenZedong community you mentioned tho.

I don't know if popularity is a desirable quality anymore, reddit is very popular but it also glows hard and many subs have ruling ideology enforcement.

Reddit use to be fun when it had more of the "hacktivist ethos" of people like Aaron Swartz, back when the internet was mostly free and corporate astro-turfing as well as state glowies were less able to wreck good communities.

I really like the picture in OP. More like it plz.

>>7639
Well that's true, and computers and internet and GPS are all military developments, so I guess there's some tie-in to what people actually find socially necessary.

>>7640
So I guess it depends on the point of view: if it's from the POV of the bourgeoisie, the military is necessary, so they fund it. But from the proletariat point of view it is a surplus resource sink and a tool of imperialism. Then most of the military is a waste of human life.

However that still leaves me confused: what is being created by this industry? Of course we can tally up how many human hours work for the MIC, but is it or is it not work that goes into creating value? And if it's not (because it's not SNLT) what is being created?

>>7641
>So I guess it depends on the point of view: if it's from the POV of the bourgeoisie, the military is necessary, so they fund it.
Yes but not for every capitalist, the circle of capitalists that benefit is shrinking. Some capitalists are loosing out. We're sort of nearing the end of the age of empires as well, which means that the returns on investment for imperial stuff are going to shrink and eventually it'll turn into a loss.

>But from the proletariat point of view it is a surplus resource sink and a tool of imperialism. Then most of the military is a waste of human life.
Well the world has anarchy between states, so you can't do without some amount of military, but yeah upholding a imperial system that's a drain. That's why all empires fall.

>However that still leaves me confused: what is being created by this industry?
Like you said there's some technological offshoots. Politically i think the current crisis period will "produce" more assertive pacifism.

>Of course we can tally up how many human hours work for the MIC, but is it or is it not work that goes into creating value? And if it's not (because it's not SNLT) what is being created?
You need work to create value, but the reverse is not necessarily true, not all expenditure of work creates value. For example all the human effort expended for the 2 decades of Afghanistan forever-war yielded roughly nothing. All the dead/maimed and all the grind that went into it, poof.

It doesn't create value.
Eisenhower was calling out the two obvious threat to what had taken over the US, that he was tasked with representing. Aristocracy fears a military coup - this is the most obvious way the nascent globalization project would be destroyed at home - and it fears industry that is not in service to aristocracy. and technological values not lining up to aristocratic desires.

In effect, he was calling for the MIC to not be independent of the true ruling power, and appealing to factions in the US public that were more amenable to seeing the militarists as a threat than the aristocratic project.

>>7641
The military is most unnecessary though. It's well known that most of these weapons platforms will be obsolete and scrapped without seeing significant use, and their use as a deterrent is questionable. The purpose of all of the military apparati in the past century has been primarily defensive. The German war plan during the Nazi period was no exception. Retards think "offense won", but the Germans expected that if they did not engineer the swift victory backed by internal coup, they were going to have to continue pressing, and defend the Nazi imperatives. It just so happened the Nazi imperatives weren't "defending Germany", but defending their stolen hoards of gold as the rats slinked off and left the German people to eat shit.

If you took these weapons for an offensive war, they get utterly destroyed against any half-competent defensive strategy. Setting up a modern war entails a ridiculous setup of siegeworks before the war begins, logistic expectations of what will result from it, and limited war aims. General war becomes far too difficult to control or predict, and no one is in the business of throwing away their big and expensive military because it's a freeroll.

One reason why it was a fools' errand to believe Bush would attack Iran (aside from there being nothing to gain and the known existence of the Iran-Contra network).

>>7653
Do you agree that romance and sex are oversold as entitlements of adulthood?
That most people fail in romatic love because theyve been taught wrong about love being some fatalistic innocent effect that just happens rather than being based on sociobiological endowments?

Society tells young people tgat "looks dont matter" in the game of love.
They tell young people to "be yourself".

Yet, young people whom are plain in looks amd wit are looked down upon.

Theyre left to rot lonely and awkward.
They find love in middle age when theyre already burned out and stuck in a dead end job to some damaged goods

>>7653
>It's very telling that women are told to emphasize their "market value" or a eugenic sense of civic worth with their whole person, and this dominates all messaging to women and about women. So insidious is the messaging that when we think of women as anything but this, we're "objectifying them", while this treatment that is mandated and glorified and emphasized is somehow not objectifying. Then a guy figures out that women are, you know, objects of affection who won't actually love them back, and decides to make the most of it, and this isn't good enough either. It's all designed to emphasize who's in the orgy club and who isn't, and everyone who condones it is a complete piece of shit.

Blame chivalry.

Also, its not really the fault of women they ended up like this.

Theyre just as hurt and confused.

>>7654
Most of the world doesn't go in for "romance". Talk to married guys and they are miserable and regret it. They will try to say it's for the kids and hold on to that, if they can, except now eugenics is taking your kids and punishing parents for any kindness or decency that once existed. They're not going to stop until all of humanity is as Satanic as them.

>They tell young people to "be yourself".

>Yet, young people whom are plain in looks amd wit are looked down upon.

That cult of selfishness stuff is literally the Nazi ideology. It's alarming how this was asserted and we weren't allowed to say no or say what it was - how standards of comparison were destroyed, making the Nazis appear fantastical. Now there are a few shmaltzy ads coming out telling us how Nazis were actually good, that Hitler made a paradise on Earth. It's disgusting. If you opposed it, you were accused of "promoting degeneracy".
This is what I mean by the eugenic creed. It's not a rehash of the Nazis carried out mindlessly. That's what eugenics always creates, wherever it inhabits institutions. It went on for too long.

Really though, people don't need to be much to be acceptable. At the end of the day, any penis will do. The one thing that would make this tolerable - any sort of genuine affection and kindness - is haram under the eugenic creed. Anything that would allow a family to form has become unseemly and "creepy". The only "exceptional" traits that are valued are the traits of perverts who insinuate what others are allowed to be. Eugenics only had to select for such people and impose their ultraviolent, Satanic religion on the world, and wait us out. We were told to "stand and die" as they did this.

Love is a very simple thing. In another world, I could have shown it to human beings, but it is not to be. Not in this life. I can only show that indirectly through things and whatever world can exist outside of society - or rather, outside of this beast which is now called "society". The sick thing is that there are all sorts of hiding places where we did retain anything to love, and all of them are aggressively destroyed by the same insinuation and faggotry.

>>7655
I know what you mean, Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7656
>That cult of selfishness stuff is literally the Nazi ideology. It's alarming how this was asserted and we weren't allowed to say no or say what it was - how standards of comparison were destroyed, making the Nazis appear fantastical. Now there are a few shmaltzy ads coming out telling us how Nazis were actually good, that Hitler made a paradise on Earth. It's disgusting. If you opposed it, you were accused of "promoting degeneracy".
This is what I mean by the eugenic creed. It's not a rehash of the Nazis carried out mindlessly. That's what eugenics always creates, wherever it inhabits institutions. It went on for too long.


Ive noticed this as well.
Even before my political phase, I notice tgat Nazis were always glamorosed.
I heard people s at ing Hitler was a misunderstood genius, that Jewish elites were making him look bad because he opposed the international bankers.
Hell, nowadays, "nazi" as an insult is reclaimed as comical or endearing.
Meanwhile, "commie" is considered evil.
People view communism with worse fear and loathing than Nazism.
Anything that interferes with personal convenience is wrongfully called communism.

>>7656
>Most of the world doesn't go in for "romance". Talk to married guys and they are miserable and regret it. They will try to say it's for the kids and hold on to that, if they can, except now eugenics is taking your kids and punishing parents for any kindness or decency that once existed. They're not going to stop until all of humanity is as Satanic as them.

Again, its fucked up that society overpromotes romantic love and family planning as the only route of adulthood.

Because of it,too many adults throw away their potential for a participation trophy.
Most child-rearing adults, especially nowadays, often are terrible life coaches.

Society reduces children to being bipedal pets that are only barely tolerated.

Meanwhile, single childless adults are looked down upon as leeches.
They ruin many bachelors who couldve made a legacy doing scientific research or trades or culinary/agrarian arts.

Then, perhaps we could have science. Those are the only conditions where it will be possible to speak of such a thing in public, or even sustain anything in private life where we can speak to each other without the insinuation came common to humans - now a Satanic race incapable of even the most basic honesty in speech or actions.

Or, they can, you know, stop attacking us, which is very simple and doesn't require anyone to die or any great technology. But, a Satanic race will refuse to cease their assault. If that happened, they start shrieking. It would be worse for them to not attack us than it is for them to be stripped and beaten and placed into their natural slavery. They respect slavery. They have no concept of the most basic notion of a free society, because they hate the idea of such and always have. A Satanic race and its members never, ever change regarding this.

Given what humans are now, humans would have to be effective abolished and irrelevant. There would still be human bodies and human-like minds, but they would be ephermeral existences and deemed irrelevant. The human subject would be deemed politically irrelevant in total, and human institutions could not be permitted any judgement. The human race would be judged permanently and incurably insane, and what remaining faculties they possess would recognize that they are a failed race and consider their political situation accordingly. It would no longer be a question of what humans "choose" to do, in that sense. There would be choices - they always come back to the interest of those entities who are the only ones who care about any of this, which is us. But, the choices would no longer be made on the basis of self-interest or a presumption of human rationality, because humans would be judged correctly as permanently insane and retarded by themselves. They would be forced to regard a world outside of them, and recognize the failure of any human institution and conceit is eternal. They would only know (a) there is a world, and (b) it is knowable, but it is one that human history has made clear humans have no ability to know because of their deliberate and repeated failure in the most basic deeds required for that. The remaining human knowledge would fritter in and out of existence, with the best of them recognizing the "kernel" or "seed" of genuine knowledge and science. It would be seen as dire necessity to feed a base of knowledge out of a sense that ceasing the habitual lying of an insane race like humanity is worth more than any political benefit of habitual lying and the thrill of torture that is now humanity's existence.

There is no aristocracy or "hidden world" where humans are allowed any sacrosanctity. The aristocracy and elite are why we are condemned to this. They were always insane and should have been ignored. In the past, this would have been very simple.

Perhaps there will be something in future history that works against the present trend of the eugenic creed. But, eugenics ensured that humans can never be anything else. If eugenics faces terminal defeat, they have already vowed a crusade of unlimited terror to restore their religion. Only a greater and eternal terror would even secure peaceful conditions where reversal of this tendency is possible. It would be a permanent tyranny at the least, and it would also forestall any political concept except despotism, which will be the final condition of human political life. Humans don't know anything else. This would probably be the best outcome compared to the continuation of the republican idea.

There is not, and never can be, the world of imagined "free individuals" that you all seem to believe is inevitable. That was destroyed very early on, and every time someone asked what would actually be necessary for that - or even to do basic things like "not start retarded race wars" - the shriek machine started, and fags got their way. We're supposed to kowtow to them apparently, rather than anything that would have been basic shit. Now, it went on for too long. The last time it could have been averted in human history was the 1990s, and it was basically an act of spite by that point.

Probably what will happen is a fatalistic existence of a few cells where people talk about these things, knowing that nothing will ever actually happen. The people who wanted a different world will enter cults and think only of an afterlife. Humanity is beyond any saving. The public was turned into this willfully and proudly. A Satanic race knows nothing else.

That sort of calculation is always made with "genocide" - which is why they invoke "genocide" and racial thinking, to cover the true strategy of democide and the use of racial animosity to get poors to attack each other to "get ahead".

reposing this effort post by some other anon


Books
< Fraud, Famine and Fascism by Doug Tottle
http://rationalrevolution.net/special/library/tottlefraud.pdf

< The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933 by Davies and Wheatcroft
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=32DAA2871728468189A57E0233492A3A

< Lies concerning the History of the Soviet Union by Mario Sousa
http://www.mariosousa.se/LiesconcerningthehistoryoftheSovietUnion.html

< The Soviet famine of 1932-1933 reconsidered
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09668130801999912
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7592
This is originally from a google doc called "Anti-Communist myths debunked" that was linked on the /r/GenZedong subreddit.

>>7593
didn't the links broke?

>>7602
A lot didn't and you can probably go find a different URL if you were so inclined.

>>7520
>but probably less so in the Soviet Case.
Capitalism has a mechanism of competition to drive prices to SNLT.

What mechanism did your vanguardoid shit had?

>In capitalism GDP
All that can be accounted for

You can just take FIRE out

While in Soviet case you need to fucking look at energy consumption and shit to even get a rough estimate of output lol

>Calculated prices in socialist centrally planned economies generally are better a tracking rational resource allocation optimums.
Maybe in your imagination lol. In ACTUALLY EXISTING SOYCIALISM nobody even had ANY IDEA in what range SNLT was lol.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7521
The Soviets lacked the computer resources to fully plan their economy, they still had to rely on partial markets.

Sufficient computer resources exist now, it's possible to make the planning system calculate the prices you would get from a perfect competition, without any market distortions from monopolies.

You only need the consumer feed-back to know whether people want a given product for a given price.

Markets lack a signalling feature for consumers to signal that they want a product that nobody is making yet. I don't know whether that can be added to markets, but for a socialist planning system, it's very easy to add this because there already is a polling system for surplus allocation priority, that makes it trivial.

Many other economic aspects will become easier too, you'll be able to establish new workplace simply by convincing workers to start contributing labor-inputs. That'll be much simpler than the complicated ways of starting a business.

The purpose of the vanguard will only be to bootstrap sortition democracy and socialist cybernetic planning, they won't have to make political and economic decisions. After the system runs it will reproduce it self. You won't need heavy handed political repression to keep it going, civil society will be able to defend this effortlessly.

If you're trying to convince anyone of socialism being right, "debunking" is a shitty way to go about it. It's a disgusting turbolib habit which always assumes imperious institutional authority to tell you what facts are, without any judgement or independent verification. Against shameless liars, they don't care if you debunk them, because their arguments are not intended to appeal to anything rational. They will invent new lies, and the truth is always irrelevant. The way to stop the shameless liars is to expose the full extent of their depravity and failure as human beings, rather than this habitual "snark" that is an extreme faggotry.

That said, debunking anticommunist arguments is kind of pointless because the communists debunked themselves by failing to make clear - or seeming not to know - what communism stood for. This is mostly because, after all of the posturing, the USSR and USA were far more similar than they were made out to be in the grand narrative theory of history. The Russians and those in their orbit identified communism with technology and their conception of mass politics. It was responsive enough to public demand compared to the old way where the rulers were openly democidal and slaughtered peasants without regard. The Tsars were a monstrous regime given this strange PR by anticommunist fags, and they are fags. Communism failed from within, and many of the anticommunist talking points came direct from the former Soviet Union and ideologues, whose objective was power more than anything good. Of course, all of the people in the USSR who wanted something decent out of it - and that tends to be most people who have an obvious self-interest in not letting this faggotry take over everything - were left holding the bag so that a few thieves could mock them. Most of the anticommunist arguments to "debunk" the USSR could just as well be used to dismantle the US so that the same thieves - sometimes the exact same thieves that plundered the former USSR - can do the same to the next large country, then the next, and so on. Nazis do not need to be creative, and that's what they are - goose stepping, motherfucking fags who have a fetish for this shit.

If you want an argument against "capitalist idealism", it's better to not even regard their facile arguments against communism, and attack capitalism on its own terms. Since the anticommunist retards don't have any core, and are perfectly happy to cannibalize capital to feed their thiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7522
So I might try some of these arguments, since Cockshott Gang is at it again.

I'll tell you why cybernetic planning was scrapped in the USSR - because the plan of the higher ups knew that the same thing was being done globally, and there was no further use for duplicating effort. The new economic plan called for eliminating most of humanity, who were useless to their preferred forms of society. After Khrushchev, all the upper rungs of the Soviet system thought about was how to sell out and get out while the getting was good, and then you had the scientists who wanted to be fed goodies forever and pissed on those who weren't worthy in their view. There's no "planning" that gets around that basic imperative that the classes that mattered followed, that the philosophies given to them insisted was natural and normal. When you uphold an amoral view of history and what we do, you're going to get the expected result. Gee, no one saw ZAT coming, right?

No one is ignorant of what the people want. The people, if they believe speaking of what they want is at all safe and not likely to get them killed, will tell you what they want, and have been willing to say this without too much prodding or effort. The rulers and favored classes never ever want to give the people what they wanted, because what the people wanted was security - which means they would hold a share of wealth, no questions asked or insinuations made. That would be the first condition before anything else is considered. Once the people have what they wanted out of it, they have no reason to regard the state or "society in the abstract" as something worth their efforts. Sure, there is a basic level of decency that allows society to exist, but beyond that, people want security. The Soviet system provided some level of that for enough people, and those who had no security were never going to be allowed that ever again. The Marxist view of humanity was just one of many views among higher society that held humanity in contempt and treated the lower orders accordingly. That's entirely on their own terms, and that spoke to the interests of the middle class generally. Everyone who lived through the USSR, and people who were alive then will tell you this, would tell you that the ideology and "the system" was rife with opportunism, rather than the source of good. The people who boost the system make abuPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

The market is not a planning mechanism and never was. Firms must plan their behavior in the same way a home-maker plans her expenditures. They do not actually believe the world is ruled by abstractions - and then believe that narratives far removed from the original abstraction actually has causative power in this spooky, Germanic way. The planning of a firm is not the same as a home, because firms have very different imperatives they meet. Large firms that hold monopolies have different imperatives from an imagined firm in "ideal capitalism", and this has long been known. Those are always prevalent over any ideological conceit about "the system", as if systems operated through spooky action.

All of this relies on portraying the USSR as this strange ideological unicorn "totally against the natural order", rather than what it actually was - a country modernizing much like the United States in the same time, doing so in very different conditions. The capitalists or what counted as such in the USSR were told they had to do business through the Party and the state, and this was seen as perfectly reasonable to those who stayed behind. Since the Party has its own imperatives - and they were the imperatives of the Party rather than "the state" in the abstract as Germanism insists - business was for a time subdued because the society was oriented towards aims it deemed necessary and useful. The idea wasn't to micromanage everyone's lives through GOSPLAN into eternity, and say this is immaculate "perfect information in perfect systems" - another Germanic perversion of sense. Planning through the Party and bureaucracy was a lot more effective for a lot more people than this idiocy that is done now. If you look at the USA between 1940 and 1970, the interested parties were some imagined executives in top hats or doing cocaine fueled orgies and scams. They were assholes in suits and intel ghouls who knew exactly what they wanted, and laugh at how easy it was to cajole retards into thinking they had a choice in any of this. The US was so big and didn't have its industry wrecked by Nazi invasion that it could tolerate a level of "market anarchy" - and this was largely the large middle class holding on to what they already held, rather than the market generating anything. Capital by that time had been exposed as a wholly unproductive "system" that was so ruinous that FDR had to work extra hard to get these people out of their own way just so he could helm this bePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7526
This has been studied a great deal, people who have extra ordinary high intelligence, rarely turn up in positions of academic prestige or high posts in organizations. The people with genius level brains mostly end up in relatively mundane professions. Maybe our present societies lacs the appropriate interface for highly intelligent brains or something.

You're out of your mind if you think we'd paywall knowledge or learning in socialism. Quite the opposite we'd pay people to learn shit or get skills.

Scholarships are not an excuse to exclude the masses from knowledge or learning. It doesn't count as empowering the proletariat unless it's available to the entire proletariat.

>>7527
Most of mankind's problems are solved only after leaving the confines of schooling

>>7529
>Most of mankind's problems are solved only after
the proletariat takes over the reigns ?

>>7466
>I feel like we have more highly tuned predator sensors in our brains
Now you are stereotyping women, and it's weird to reference a universal "we" as if all women were members of the same club. Anyway women can engage in predatory behavior also.

>Tinder sounded like a speedrun to getiing raped or waking up with a few sellable organs missing
Risky ? yes.
A front for a organ-harvesting ring, i doubt it.

>>7467
My reasoning is the same reason women have an in-built ability to see more shades of orange and red to spot berries and stuff. Dimorpism was more prominent to survival at one point to men being able to defend / hunt while women gather, strategize and sound the alarm was a strat when people were still barely making a living. If you have something to refute that then I'll conceed as I don't feel strongly about this.
>A front for a organ-harvesting ring, i doubt it.
Not like that. It's like if they made craigslist but for dating. I got the desk I'm using rn off craigslist, it's sturdy and the guy I bought it from was pretty chill. You're still gambling your kidney each time you use it tho, and dating being a touchy-kissy thing seems even more so.

>>7468
Sexual dimophism means that male predators and female predators are statistically likely to use different strategies. For example men are more likely to use intimidation while women are more likely to use deception. But it does not mean that men are predators and women are prey.

Sexed color perception being the result of hunter gatherer division of labor, certainly makes for a compelling story, but have you checked it ? The bare minimum would be looking for research that confirms or refutes that women are in fact better at spotting nuts and berries.

It's plausible that in primitive society men would have the duty to defend the tribe. But i don't think that humans were really besieged by beasts. Most wild animals avoid groups of humans, even many apex predators that are stronger than humans, do. So there is at least the consideration that by the time the modern homo-sapience came along our ancestors were already the dominant species. My guess would be that humans were really effective at hunting most large animals into near extinction and therefore the surviving ones inherited instinct or learned behavior of avoiding humans. I think that women probably also hunted, probably not big game with spears and nets but archery seems plausible. Many women seem to enjoy it as a hobby today.

On what are you basing your assumption that there are organ harvesting gangs lurking behind second-hand trade and hook-up apps? If you have an insight where the organ harvesting gangs are stalking their victims these days. You probably can get rich off that by organizing what would be a modern day bounty-hunter guild. Like being the go-between of private investigators, private security and police.

>>7469
>But it does not mean that men are predators and women are prey.
Ah I see the confusion, I meant like women might be more on alert for predators as a whole, not just men. Woman sees eyes in bush, shouts, man stabs bush.
>have you checked it?
I've been meaning to make a notebook / git repo where I keep notes on this sorta thing so I can actually substantiate my opinions whenever I spout them but I end up overcomplacating the project. I should just pick a technique and stick with it, not try to reimplament my entire worldview all at once.
>I think that women probably also hunted, probably not big game with spears and nets but archery seems plausible.
Oh certainly, especially the archery part, I've just been under the impression the genders would sway more toward specific tasks, but it couldn've been hard lines.
>On what are you basing your assumption that there are organ harvesting gangs lurking behind second-hand trade and hook-up apps?
Heard stories about it, again neglecting to keep note of the source. No statistics though, just anecdotes.

This is just a big fat cope written by some homosexual neo-nazi.

>>7502
fatalism is stupid

>>7503
The feudal monarchical structures in pre-revolutionairy Russia never stood a chance, they were 100 years behind on industrial development. If there hadn't been a communist revolution, there might have been a bourgeois revolution which probably would have been a lot more destructive. Or possible an imperial occupation by a more powerful capitalist country, which would also have been a brutal affair.

The dissolution of the Soviet system wasn't inevitable, that system could have been reformed. Even a regression to capitalism could have been done without neo-liberal shock doctrine killing millions.

So no, your comparison doesn't track.

>>7505
>so "most MLs" are not vanguardists anymore?
Vanguardism never was a end in it self, it was a means to keep opportunistic sell-outs from hijacking political power to enrich them selves at the expense of wrecking the socialist project.
Since we now have the ability to achieve the same thing with other much more pleasant means, like sortition and democratic polling, we use those. If you want you still can have a vanguard that bootstraps these other means.

>I really can't wrap my head around how you retards are gonna square the circle that direct democracy is ANTITHETICAL to political party as an ORGANIZATIONAL FORM
The goal is to build a socialist society that operates a socialist mode of production, the political party is just a means to that end. If there's a better way we'll use that.
>Lenin would've shot you if you told him party form is gotta go
Probably, but in the early 20th century the communication technology couldn't have facilitated democratic polling, so there was no alternative to the "party form". State-of-the-art technology of that time were telegraph machines.

>>7505
>who thought USSR required a political revolution to fully complete its transition to socialism
which, if you really think about it, is beyond ironic: Real Existing Socialism was far more threatened by the real proletarian uprising than capitalism ever was lol (solidarity fucking killed PRL even with the martial law, enormous crowds of proles made SCSE officials shit their pants live on tv, Chechoslovakia descended into fucking chaos lol)

tho I'm not so sure soyciety in vid related is capable of any historically progressive revolution at all (not that capitalist soyciety is capable of any either lol)

>>7507
>fatalism is stupid
histmat is deterministic (in the sense of irreversible processes)

>If there hadn't been a communist revolution, there might have been a bourgeois revolution which probably would have been a lot more destructive.
there WAS a bourgeois revolution (February revolution) lol

it fucking failed because of ww1

this is fucking BASICS

>that system could have been reformed
could it really, tho? lol

this actually re-poses the old question on a new level: reform or revolution in the Real Existing Soycialism?
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7497
>>7498
>It's good but it collapsed
this is equivalent to saying
<It's bad because it collapsed
But that's retarded anon. It didn't collapse because conditions were bad for the average worker. It collapsed because of internal and external political reasons. We should acknowledge their successes and failures and try again but avoiding the failures.