Vincêntio

Comunista
*2001

[james ☭ 🇮🇪🇵🇸 @videojames09]

@Kamn_Krtz when people say ‘personal property’ they’re most likely referring to articles of consumption, which belongs to a person insofar as they get a use out of it, e.g. a house belongs to you insofar as you live in it, not out of any legal declaration, which is what ’property’ denotes

[純粹經驗 @ChunCuiJingYan]

The historical canon of anti communism is stuffed to the gills with endless rhetorical fluorish on the necessity of total destruction of nations, peoples and societies in the pursuit of sustaining or recreating some perverse re-imagining of an established order

[manupillo @manutrill0]

“La burguesía del mundo entero, que mira complacida la matanza en masa después de la lucha, ¡se estremece de horror ante la profanación del ladrillo y la argamasa!”.

La Guerra en Francia, 1871 - Karl Marx.

[Liberalism made me impotent @stolperson]

My idea of atheism is very simple: normatively christian, fundamentalist-mormon, vatican-friendly atheism centered on praying and believing in god.

[純粹經驗 @ChunCuiJingYan]

"my country's relation to capital is very unique, while others may let capital interests defile their national wellbeing, we implement capital controls so that the nation and its people can fluorish, but since bourgeois interests are so powerful, we have to concede very often"

[Karl Marx @marxhaunting]

The entire movement of history, as simply communism’s actual act of genesis — the birth act of its empirical existence — is, therefore, for its thinking consciousness the comprehended and known process of its becoming.

[palasha @svetapalasha]

They refuse to tell you this but in Fascist Italy they forcefed all the jailed communists copious amounts of lasagna as an attempt to tank their rep and portray them as lazy and unproductive

[Vladislava @vladislava157]

Profit is Not Theft:

In both Marxist and anti-Marxist circles, there’s a very common misunderstanding: that Marx believed profit was theft. But this isn’t what Marx’s theory of exploitation argues.

This misunderstanding largely comes from people interpreting Marx’s theory of surplus value as a theory of theft. They believe that since the worker performs surplus labor beyond the labor necessary to reproduce the value of their labor power, the value produced during that surplus labor is appropriated by the capitalist, and that this appropriation constitutes theft.

This misunderstands the core of Marx’s analysis of political economy. It reframes exploitation, a relationship structurally embedded within the capitalist mode of production, as some moral act of theft external to the social relation itself. The truth is that surplus extraction is a core feature of the social relations of capital, and it can occur entirely within the bounds of capitalist legality and bourgeois conceptions of legitimate exchange.

What Marx is doing with his theory of surplus value is not about charting a moralistic theory of theft, rather it is an attempt to elucidate the structural relationships and imperatives through which the capitalist mode of production develops, and, consequently, the conditions under which that mode of production can be overcome.

What he elucidates with this theory of surplus value is the exploitative relationship between the capitalist and the worker. The worker sells their labor-power, for which they receive its value in the form of wages, and is thus able to reproduce themselves as a worker. The consumption of that labor-power in production, however, creates more value than the value of the labor-power itself, thus resulting in a surplus for the capitalist. Communism is not about getting this surplus back or correcting some moral violation of theft. It is about abolishing the social conditions that make the production and appropriation of surplus value possible in the first place.

Certain “socialist” currents conceived of socialism as a project of restoring the worker’s full product to them and organizing society around genuinely equal exchange. In the Poverty of Philosophy Marx attacks this very same view. When you fetishize exchange and a society based on the principles of exchange you implicitly recreate the logic of capital. The transcendence of capitalism cannot consist merely in restructuring its categories according to principles of fair exchange. It requires the negation of the social relations and categories through which capital reproduces itself. (1/2)

[Vincêntio @Devicentio]

@MuktiPill What is the source of that video, if you please?

[Vincêntio @Devicentio]

@adhee1673 He *is* economically illiterate.

[heisse @heisseheisse]

well insofar as galileo thought himself consistent with aristotle by disproving aristotle's claim that the sky is immovable, sure. but this makes galileo a partisan of science, not aristotle (who, himself, was that); hence communists partisans of history, not Enlightenment.

[Kayra✨🏳️‍⚧️ @bunouppy]

The fact that I'd be arrested for showing "female" breasts in public, but then put into a men's prison because I'm "not a woman". Goes to show that we are only considered women when it justifies harm but never considered women when it would protect us from it.

[Vincêntio @Devicentio]

@ashyaywoohoo

[Black Internationalist @Greynxgga69]

This is what I remember whenever I doubt the validity of marxism: the communist movement has been nothing but a ghost for generations, and even now it haunts the most powerful men on the planet. The Party is still here, and it’s not going anywhere.

[Vincêntio @Devicentio]

@RotIdeologist Sóla dosis facit uenénum.

[Dohaciel Ygzgzot @ygzgzot]

Marx would, of course, reject this entire framing.

Capitalism is not “based on” a moral commitment to voluntary exchange. The task of critique is precisely to distinguish the system’s self-understanding from its actual social constitution.

[Vincêntio @Devicentio]

@veteran_hater00 @RotIdeologist And what is white?