#socialisn

[jambleese]

HEY YOU

Are you registered to vote? Yes? Well, good luck! No? Too late! You won't be able to vote!

What? You don't actually know &/or want to double check? Go to vote.org! They'll let you know!

[www-love80s-ru]

🇷🇺 юные пионерки! СССР, 80-е годы. . 🇬🇧 young pioneers, USSR, the early 80's! . #ussr #pioneers #communism #socialisn #sovietunion #ссср #советскоепрошлое #рожденныевссср #коммунизм #мылюбим80е https://www.instagram.com/p/COF1gjXFXBQ/?igshid=3tqslj6vbia2

[crypto-keynesian]

Value, conceptually, is necessarily derived from two primary socioeconomic manifestations: scarcity and utility. Whilst functioning within capitalistic economic circumstances, scarcity is prioritized, for the purpose of accentuating consumer demand in the absence of select commodities; as such, conditions of scarcity are structurally supplemented by the relentless capital accumulation, facilitated by the inexorable institution of private property in the societal means of production/wealth. Such legislatively regimented and restricted access to the collective wealth of current and preceding economic participants renders the contemporary proletariat wholly beholden to those that exclusively hold the instruments/subjects of labor. This intricately inequitable situation surreptitiously necessitates the allegedly provisional forfeiture of the individual/collective autonomy of the proletariat (those devoid of property holdings of their own), so as to labor in the artificially indentured service of another, to produce items of utility that will be instantaneously appropriated and exchanged in a market by the employer(s), for profit [i.e. economic exploitation].

All of the aforementioned conclusions can be logically derived from a rudimentary analysis of the quasi-metaphysical economic notion of value within the provided context of a market economy, and attempting to reflect upon its structural origins; such analyses lead one to believe that the encouragement of exchange, the appropriation of wealth the the absence of creation (upon reaching a certain status within the established sociological hierarchy), is the fundamental principle that energizes civilizations generated from previous feudal exploits and experiences. The sole innovation postulated by classical liberal theoreticians was the reformation of mercantile conceptions of exchange to include a suggestive provision for its voluntary character; historically significant legal articles and constitutions were drafted and ratified whilst functioning under the implicit ideological auspices of this fallacious perspective concerning voluntarism in the marketplace. So long as an economy is operating with exchange as its communicative and distributive medium, voluntary association is impossible. Profitable exchange (and the systems of production formulated thereof) deterritorializes the standard/popular comprehension of value, fabricates discordant subjectivities, and presents said subjectivities as valid, to prevent communal rejection of their exploitation and assert the system’s necessity.

[ph4z0n]

This new edition (completely reset) of Planned Chaos features a new introduction by Chris Westley of Jacksonville State University. The introduction brings this classic up to date - not that it has ever fallen out of date or ever will.

The title comes from Mises's description of the reality of central planning and socialism, whether of the national variety (Nazism) or the international variety (communism). Rather than create an orderly society, the attempt to central plan has precisely the opposite effect. By short-circuiting the price mechanism and forcing people into economic lives contrary to their own chosing, central planning destroys the capital base and creates economic randomness that eventually ends in killing prosperity.

This important work was written decades after Mises's original essay on economic calculation and includes the broadest and boldest attack on all forms of state control.

[radio-rebelde-blog]

I honestly don't want to see Communist and Socialist countries reforming and bowing to the pressure put onto them by the United States and the current global system. Like no, keep doing what you do and prove all of the Capitalists wrong. You're our only hope.

[laundryandtaxes]

Ok I’m sorry but you are kidding yourself if you beleive that your personal abstention from buying a certain product has any real effect on the workers producing it. The cultural logics of neoliberalism are so deeply rooted in the concept of individual (rather than communal) responsibility that I’m not too sure why radicals and leftists don’t seem to have made that connection yet. If neoliberalism focuses on personal choice as a deciding factor in the determination of punishment, merit, fault, and human value, why would it not do the same wrt personal shopping choices? The cultural logic that holds that personal success or failure is the sole responsibility of the individual also holds that your individual shopping choices can be serious catalysts for economic change. It’s the same idea wrapped up in a different, more radical-friendly package.

For example, if you have a problem with companies that pay minimum wage, neoliberalism’s cultural logics hold that you should shop elsewhere under the assumption that capitalism concerns itself even slightly with actual consumer needs (which we know it does not). But if you stop shopping at Starbucks or Target or *insert retailer* the company doesn’t shut down. It opens somewhere else. Production in capitalism serves the interests of capitalism, NOT consumers. This is why there are empty houses in Chicago and people homeless in the streets. To think your individual choice affects the market is an essentially neoliberal understanding of how markets function.

That being said, I think it becomes clear that strategies to change systemic issues must be communal. If 1500 decide not to shop at Target, but millions more do not, Target suffers no material loss. This is why worker-based organization is so important: workers are quite literally everywhere, and organizing workers in solidarity with each other and against nonorganic capitalist forces is immensely important.

[adeyami]

For a newly radicalized movement to become a powerful force, it must exhibit the cutting-edge militancy of the revolutionary wing of the 1960s movement. But it must also go beyond “activism” and become an “ideological” force. It must be guided by the need to understand and explain that the problems of war, militarism, racism and social oppression will only become more acute unless society is freed from the grip of the capitalist banking and corporate elites. The system of state repression that guards the elite’s property interests and reinforces their neo-totalitarian stranglehold over the official political process of the country must be broken.