StalinForTime [comrade/them]

Yh a lot of mfers on this site need to actually read some theory.

Yes I’m aware that’s what you meant but that has nothing to do with my point and affects it in no way that you are expanding a definition in a way that has normally only been done by the right-wing, for obvious reasons (Elon Musk loves hammering this point).

• “What I mean to say is that in a market system the rational behaviour is to seek to maximise what you get for what you give. Anti-competetive practices are simply the logical way to behave in such a system. Trade unions do aim to use market forces to gain for workers an advantage and that is a good thing.” Sure. Up to a point, but you are assuming an understanding of rationality that is perfectly consistent with the neoclassical and neoliberal view of the world. The rational interests of the working class are not limited to restricting their behaviour to maximisation of their income in a private labor market.

• “The market isn’t fair and it never has been about fairness.”. Yeh. Sure. Who said otherwise?

• “deally we wouldn’t have a market system but while we do it makes no sense for the workers to not try and get ahead in it”. Up to a point, sure, except exclusive focus on this has historically and inevitably led to economism and reformism.

• “Take coffee growers for example they are pitted against each other by the buyers and thus live in poverty as competition pushes their wares lower and lower. If they were to cartelise they would be able to afford good things and have the basic dignity of always having enough to eat. Competition in the market makes everyone poorer”. The formation of unions can be useful but is limited in effectiveness, especially in periods of poor-bargaining power for working class groups such as now, with very low levels of organization. The purpose of supporting unionization, from a communist view, must also include the concern to increase our leverage during period of economic boom so as to be better prepared during downturns for pushes for radicalization.

“so while trade unions are an anti-competetive practice that’s only because competetive practices are stupid” - this is vague or ambiguous and it doesn’t look like the former point doesn’t step from the latter. Also stupid for whom? Why? How? For workers? then yes, as per my point.

I understand what you mean, but I’d really strongly object to the use you’ve made of the term though as that is precisely the use which was introduced by the right-wing for the purposes of delegitimizing labour organization by conflating labour organization with the anti-competitive nature of cartels in the ideological and rhethorical climate of Neoliberalism that has continuously fetishized supposed competition and playing off our fear of it while nevertheless tending the conditions that promote cartelization of the global economy to the hilt.

The difference is that cartels are firms controlled by capitalists for the purpose of profit and capital accumulation. They fix prices for this purpose. Workers do not, because by their very nature capital accumulation is the logic of the capitalists’ material interests, and so in strong contradiction, in the final analysis, with the material interests of labour. Cartel on this definition you’ve used would then just mean ‘price control’. But is then a monopoly or the government a cartel when they respectively fix or regulate prices? The purpose of the introduction of the term was to refer to new formations, concentrations and centralizations of capital in the late 19th century for purposes of overcoming the economic slowdown of this period. It seems harmful, confused and inevitably confusing to widen the meaning of the word so broadly.

I obviously agree that labour should organize, and there are circumstances in which markets might be tolerated in very restricted ways from a socialist perspective, and in such markets labour should therefore of course be organized in such a way as to control production and therefore prices. But the assumption in your question that markets are ‘legitimate’ in general strikes me as deeply problematic and politically un-Marxist.

‘Free-markets’ has never referred to a philosophical, moral or spiritual idea of freedom, except when used rhetorically in discourse by the right, especially since Thatcher and Reagan, i.e. the full onset of the Neoliberal counter-revolution.

Economists do not study the idea of ‘freedom’. That is a philosophical concept. When they say ‘free’, and you actually look at the structure of the propositions they use, they are referring essentially to the private autonomy of firms as ‘free’ to the degree that there is no non-private, social, public or governmental interest (it’s not only the government, as this definition implies that trade-unions make a market ‘less free’).

There is absolutely nothing inconsistent between free-markets and market concentration. If by a free-market, we use the standard neoclassical meaning of one where there is no/very little/minimal government or public regulation to influence demand or supply or the price mechanism, which in material terms implies that those are completely controlled by private capital and its owners, then there is nothing stopping this from being an oligopoly, a cartel or a monopoly. Actually lack of public regulation has generally lead to more concentration, not less.

I think you are confusing the neoclassical ‘perfect competition’ (which does not, and cannot, exist in the real world) and neoclassically defined ‘free’-markets.

Please don’t try drop econ-101 learns on Marxists if you don’t know the definitions of free-market economics, perfect competition or oligopolies.

Lmao westerners having a totally normal one over the lack of loyalty of a slop-house to the divinely-ordained imperial cause.

Then lastly on Sweden. First of all, it is historic that now Finland is member of the Alliance. And we have to remember the background. The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.

So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.

Learn to read.

It’s hilarious seeing the liberals’ comments here that prove that despite being overeducated they literally don’t know how to read.

Firstly, I’m not sure your understanding of the meaning or relevance of ‘hypocrisy’ is very clear.

Secondly, you’re introducing a moralistic discourse about this when the first issue is what caused or explained the Russian intervention in Ukraine. Despite the evidence overwhelmingly pointing to NATO expansion, the fact that you are denying it when even Stoltenberg and Blinken are basically at the point of admitting it, implicit as those admissions may be, is pretty comic.

If you think that the Ukrainian government was not only not abusing, but in fact not committing acts amounting to ethnically cleansing Russians in eastern Ukraine, you have been living under a rock and its disgusting that you can utter such bullshit with such nonchalance and impunity. Contrary to, say, accusation of genocide in Xinjiang, for which there is no hard concrete evidence (in fact evidence and reason point to the contrary), there are mountains of evidence in every form of media, whether video, documents, government announcements, proving that there was repressive military and political action being taken against the Russophone and ethinically Russian, or simply anti-nationalist Ukrainians of the East, by the Ukrainian ultra-nationalist regime. There have been mass disappearances, lynchings, bombings, assassinations, and we could go on. Again, there is too much evidence for this in every form for any one person to peruse the entirety of, so either you are pig-shit ignorant, or you are lying. Trouble is you are doing it in the wrong place.

Your last sentence is barely comprehensible quite frankly. If you think that reocognizing that a state should not aggressively expand a demonstrably imperialist organisation and in the process break all related previous agreements and promises in doing so, in a way that every party involved is fully aware will be perceived as a threat to the national security of one of the concerned countries, if one wants to avoid hot conflict, given the self-evident realities of realpolitik, is communist or marxist, then go off I guess.

congratulations, you are beyond parody

This is an insult to the lovecraftian function of court jesters.

Are the brigades in the room with us right now?

they got them poor langley interns down the postin mines workin overtime i tell ya hwaht

Henry Kissinger on suicide watch

The Green parties are simply a way in which the capitalist superstructure ensures the security of the base by ensuring electoral support of the pearl-clutching petit-bourgeois.

oh look we found the intern at Langley

I for one am shocked and appalled those who serving poisoned slop have, in fact, considered lying about it.

Yeah there is hardcore survivor’s bias.

Also the statement is at best only partially true for the older bougie and middle class fucks who lived through the 80s-90s as neoliberalism did it’s best to delegitimize socialism, and who dominate todays discourse about that period, due to wealth and survivor bias.

By design.

One of the purposes of the planned inefficiencies of state services, often the direct consequence of completely economically irrational private-public partnerships and offloading to private firms of public services who will bid for contracts to run state-constructed infastructure on the basis that they will minimize costs (inducing low wages, high turnover rates of workers and low efficiency, surprise suprise). The malignant genius of it is that the inefficiency of the effects of partial and shadow privatization of what should be public services turns people against them and pro privatization because they still perceive it as public.

A similar phenomenon can be seen in the case of tax systems, especially the US tax system, or the US postal service.

Neoliberalism reestablishes profitability by sefl-destructive cost-cutting.