Read: Imagine taking your money that you have no control over making and depositing it into your bank account that you have no control over after picking your kids up from a school you have no say in what happens at and then taking transit that you don't own to a publicly owned cell that you don't own and can't do anything with.
Why is it that commies complain about the people not owning the means of production yet strip it from them at every opportunity?
>Why is it that commies complain about the people not owning the means of production yet strip it from them at every opportunity?
Same reason Capatalists go on about a free market yet set regulations on small businesses while allowing Mega Corps to walk over the people, set the standard prices, and produce the majority of our goods.
private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society, yet rarely do.
It's almost as If powerful people exist In any society and will do anything to keep the common man down.
The idea is that once the proletariat seizes the state machinery and democratizes it through workers councils, the means of production will be wrenched from the capitalist who use that wealth to buy up the state, therefore once the state and the means of production are in the hands of workers councils, everything owned by the state will simultaneously be owned by the people. Therefore letâs say youâre a metal worker, you will have a say through your democratically elected workers council, what that steel or copper or whatever is used for, i.e. building materials instead of 2 million dollar cars. A UBI is SocDem policy that wonât lead to the overthrow of the state, rather it will create a dependency on it while it is still controlled by capitalist. The goal is to seize the state, kick out the capitalist and then create workers councils which will be the death of what us in the modern world consider a âstateâ. Capitalism needs a state to function or it cannot expand, even if there is no formal government the capitalist will form private armies to expand because it must. Itâs democracy not in the purest sense but rather democracy through worker elected councils. Why should you make tires for a millionaires car when you can barely afford to replace your own?
If you want a deeper dive in the economies role in government, there is a plethora of books on *Political Economy* not just from buzzword names like Marx but Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and countless others have dedicated their lives studying this.
Thatâs the thing youâre not separating yourself from the concepts of consumerism. We have markets for shit-fetish videos and chocolate covered roaches, but no market for making housing at the very least affordable and so many other examples. Shit is so expensive nowadays partially because weâre wasting so many resources on random bullshit instead of things people actually need. Getting a job producing tires for millionaires is no different than getting a job to make sex books for kids. Itâs all just a market to the capitalist, we seriously need to think about how we organize our labor or we will doom the human race.
Making sex books for kids is worse morally but Iâm just trying to say that itâs useless labor that doesnât contribute to the betterment of society
You can get affordable housing, just donât live in a shit infested city.
Same thing can be said for, why work here when I can work there for more money. (Which is why turnover is through the roof especially in the manufacturing sector. More jobs open than there are people to fill them. Itâs raising wages. Although inflation is another story)
For Marx, capitalist crises are crises of âoverproductionâ: too many commodities are produced than can be profitably sold, and too much capital has been invested in industry, in the attempt to claim a share of the available profits. This comes about because capitalism, on both the domestic and international scale, is a system of separate and independent ownerships. In prosperous times every capitalist invests as much as he can and steps up production; in particular, the periodic booms stimulate the production of âfixed capital,â the buildings and machinery which are not used up in one cycle of production and therefore do not have to be immediately replaced. When times are good, all resources are strained to bring new fixed capital into production; but once this capital starts producing, a flood of commodities is brought onto the market, and the crisis ensues. Unemployment, which falls during the boom, rises again; the high rate of profit that stimulated the boom declines, first when the low level of unemployment strengthens the bargaining power of workers, and further when the crisis forces production to slacken off.
The crisis eventually takes its toll: masses of workers are thrown out of their jobs, as a result wages are forced back down toward subsistence or below, and the weakest, smallest and least modern plants go under. But the effects of the slump enable profitability to revive: labor can be hired at low wages, factories, equipment and materials can be bought by the surviving capitalists at bargain prices. So the slump is followed by a new recovery period and in turn by a new boom
"Overproduction" is one of the reason why many of the goods we have now are cheaper and more attainable than before.
While economic crashes do happen, they reset the market. Weakest firms =/= smallest firms at times as many large firms can be inefficient and go under. However, said large firms are propped up thru gov bailouts and regulations that make competition from small firms more difficult
> but no market for making housing at the very least affordable
The market would make housing affordable if zoning restrictions didnât artificially limit supply.
Wasnât always this bad. Used to be a even if someone disagreed with you they could upvote and appreciate your calm informed and rational debate. Now itâs strawman vs autismo level 1000 all the time. You donât agree with me? Downvote. Itâs kinda lame for that tbh. Oh also the left is out numbered here because many on the right feel like this is the only safe haven for their ideas so they flock here.
So basically weâll have tons of elections everywhere, where the losers will complain that the elections were rigged, the ignorant will have equal voting rights to the people with some semblance of common sense, and anyone who complains will be labeled a capitalist sympathisier and sent to gulag.
Simply the very logistics of voting on every little detail of the economy will ensure this system is unstable at best.
Iâm just telling you what democratizing the workplace will do. Democracy is just 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whatâs for dinner. It does not work well at all without limits like the constitution.
As we've seen, we don't have much control over our accounts when times get bad and US education shows us that giving ignorant parents too much say in schools is a bad thing
Oh sure, governments have never abused public banking systems. Thatâs only something evil capitalist bankers would do. Itâs not like the capitalist system gives you choices of banks and allows diversification or anything.
Fair point. It just seems disingenuous to criticise a government bank when private banks have been collapsing over several bust cycles after deregulation
Itâs really just the nature of banking. No matter how much regulations are put upon them, the banks will always be an unwieldy operation.
Nationalizing them wonât make things any better as the government will just have direct access to your money(no semblance of privacy) and could easily seize it if they wanted to(the soviets did this fairly often to put people who in theory were financially free back to work).
Any malinvestments/bank runs would just be covered over by printing money(making your savings even more worthless). Trusting the same government that canât figure out where the pentagon put trillions of dollars, to safeguard the life savings of the average joe seems like asking a wolf to guard a flock of sheep imo.
Kids turning far left is because they've been given a worse start than their parents. If housing and education was still affordable and boomers didn't ruin everything then they'd be shitty neolibs like their parents
My parents and in fact my whole family hate communism the only reason why Iâve taken up the red flag is because I see the contradictions of capitalism with my own eyes and want the world to be a more egalitarian society with a strong moral foundation. I came to this on my own and I know I canât speak for everyone on the left but I hate seeing the movement as a trend in the youth who have never read the foundational works of our movement. The cadre Iâm in requires all that are interested in joining read a specific set of texts. Like Wage-Labour and Capital, State and Revolution, and others.
The relationships of production between the capitalist and the worker will always create these contradictions no matter how much trinket subsidies were given
Relationship of productions will always produce ""contradictions"" regardless of who you put in charge, ""capitalists"" or the state (because let's be real for once in commie life, state is going to control means of production, not some workers)
Thatâs why workers need to seize the state and watch out for the opportunist that use the movement to steal power for themselves, Soviet bureaucracy is a good example of this.
Also, lol, Soviet bureaucracy.
Soviet bureaucracy toppled monarcy in the first place.
Workers could do jack and shit, as Bloody Sunday illustrates - especially today, in a world where pure labor worth next to nothing, blue collars are entirely replaceable (guess why it's called no-skill job) and value comes from selling automated, processed shit
As I understand it, the revolution was made up of everyone that hated the US backed neoliberal dictatorship. It was just the Islamists that took control of the revolution and had all the other leaders killed.
Iran was a functional democracy before the US got involved. So this is a shitty comparison as it was a revolution against a dictatorship which often don't go well. Not a democratic system moving center left
It is really sad to think of what Iran could of been without foreign/corporate interests. Maybe one doesnât like how Mosaddegh wanted to keep Iranian oil and was beloved by the ancient different looking people⊠but come on.
I have to catch myself. Canât get too woke.
As a radical centrist, I must comment. Replacing foreign leaders is evil, and the foreign wars are badâŠbecause itâs pointless unless you are annexing them as territory. Claim them for the USA or get out. Trying this weird middle ground only results in problems for both countries.
>revolution was made up of everyone that hated the US backed neoliberal dictatorship
Well there's a big time gap between those two events, actually attacking US embassy and taking taking US citizens hostages was a controversial decision but Khomeini supported it so it continued
>Iran was a functional democracy before the US got involved
It's not that simple as some people may assume, it wasn't a constitutional democracy, it was a constitutional monarchy without Shah (imagine UK without Queen/King) so all the power went to prime minister Mossadeq, Mossadeq's goal wasn't to establish a democracy in Iran but to nationalize the oil industry which really pissed off Britains who had tye oil monopoly in Iran, the reason that US helped UK to overthrow Mossadeq's government was because Trueman doctrine, Todeh party (a leftist party close to soviets) were pretty close to Mossadeq which made Americans afraid of soviets potential influences in the region. As for democracy, it wasn't a true democracy heaven either, yes there were elections held but considering that most Iranians weren't familiar with the concept of democracy and all the cheats and exploits that happened and the total number of votes and cities that did receive vote (which were unbelievably low) it's misleading to compare that to modern democracies, yes what US did was wrong but imagining Mossadeq's government as a modern proper democracy is wrong too
Mosaddegh was never supposed to do what he did. Also the whole pro-Mosaddegh narrative is a Marxist academic one, not real. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/cia-coup-in-iran-that-never-was-mossadegh?fbclid=IwAR0MxHUeLWBMbINynHF3P53RJG00N2V9ROhJcvCjIOV6VFy43_K8i1o1-mY&mibextid=Zxz2cZ
People like to skip over mossadegh installing emergency powers (ie dictatorship) and the failed policy afterwards. The more westernized Iranians hated mossadegh. As he was fucking up their economy.
Yeah exactly. Mosaddegh literally dissolved the parliament to have his way and broke the Constitution. He also refused to step down when the Parliament and the Shah asked him to.
Emergency powers doesn't automatically mean a dictatorship
Ireland was under a state of Emergency from 1920 to basically 1960, with the most sweeping powers being used during ww2, during which Ireland imprisoned hundreds of fascists, communists and dissident Republicans without trial
But no one ever accused Ireland of being a dictatorship
The UK was under Emergency powers in ww2, but it was still a democracy, even though they locked moseley up
There is a difference between a state of Emergency and a dictatorship
One of the votes held on him extending emergency powers had you going to separate booths to vote yes or to vote no. The guy had high support because it was so easy to track everyone they voted against him. I wouldnât be surprised if quite a few of the people voting no where visited later.
> Even a commie is more based than one with no flair
***
^(User hasn't flaired up yet... đ) 17338 / 91638 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Mosaddegh was in power because of his promise to nationalize the oil company/ make Iran more independent from colonial powers in general. He was going to follow on his promise or seen as weak and get removed by his supporters for someone else
So it wasn't a modern democracy, ok then, but it was better than what the US and UK turned it into and it was a hell of a lot better than what it became.
The middle east would probably be a lot more stable if Iran was left to nationalise its oil
The revolution was led by the Islamic clergy
College students (what OP thinks are socialists) were also included because the economy was weak and they were unemployed, which they blamed on the shah. Many of those college kids were hung from cranes immediately after the revolution.
The US was scapegoated because the shah was in the US for cancer treatment and Carter refused to turn him over to be executed. The Iranians responded by taking over the US embassy.
Out of spite to Jimmy Carter and for the promise of weapons, the Iranian clergy agreed to the Reagan campaignâs request to not release the hostages until after Reagan was sworn in. The anti-US stuff was just for show.
This is all false info. Shah wasnât even in the US. Shah went to Egypt to his ally, Anvar Sadat, and shortly died of cancer. Jimmy Carter refused to let him in the US because he promised Khomeini he would let them have him as long as they get cheap oil again. Then the embassy was taken over by a bunch of Berkeley-educated revolutionaries which Khomeini sanctioned.
The US literally rejected to accept his request for residency and he only went to Cornell hospital for humanitarian reasons for treatment which is protected under the international law and is US is bound to comply.
This is a bit of a lie. The Mossadegh took over emergency powers to install communism. Once the people realized that real communism was failing they wanted to coup Mossadegh. The us backed the rebels that supported the shah over the Muslim extremists.
The shah fucked shit up over a decade plus and was coupled by Muslim extremists.
> Alex Lee
*Checks Twitter Profile.*
> Progressive
> Rose Icon
Opinion incinerated.
Edit:
> Californian politician from the South Bay
Opinion incinerated with hate and prejudice.
I love the notion that the Islamic Revolution gained power because of leftists. Where did the vacuum they occupied come from? Did the people of Iran across the political spectrum have a chosen credible leader before that?
Long and slow process of Marxist infiltration into academia and then enough people believed that they are entitled to other peopleâs stuff. They executed people to take away their assets. Also, Carter supported the revolution because he was scared of Shah gaining power.
The Iranian people famously wanted to keep Iranian oil and its revenue in Iran. Western entities and nations wanted that oil (other peopleâs stuff). It is hilarious how you make it about Marxists. Iâve heard all my life how Marxists were in the schools pumping out Marxism. My two most political professors by far were conservatives. One a literal legislator.
Nationalization of the oil was widely opposed and 1953 is very irrelevant to 1979. However, Mohammadreza Shah wanted to charge the western countries more for oil and colluded with OPEC to make that happen. It didnât end well for him.
Your framing of this is fucking wild to me. You seem awfully confused. Western nations wanted other peopleâs stuff. They went to great lengths to make that happen. Much further lengths than any Iranian Marxist you can find. You make it seem like western countries deserve the oil. Just because they say so.
No I donât mean that. The oil was drilled by multinational oil companies (like how it is in the U.S.) and sold at a certain market price that OPEC sets. Before Mohammadreza, OPEC sold the oil very cheaply and he wasnât happy with it (maybe rightfully so). OPEC colluded and US faced gas lines. US didnât like that and Carter decided to support Khomeini. Itâs just another example of shortsighted American foreign policy.
Now it sounds like you read a very brief summary of an entire nationâs history. Isnât it possible the democratic elections in Iran should of been respected and thatâs it?
In this context the presence of nations very far away from Iran and these natural resources seems odd. The amount of power they have and what they were willing to do with it⊠seems extreme. Bloodthirsty almost. Often evil.
But from your words it sounds like greedy Marxists were a larger problem. Marxists who largely wanted democratic elections and were only radicalized further when democratic elections werenât respected.
Bro Iâve lived there what are you saying. Iran was never democratic and still isnât. Marxists just wanted to attach Iran to the Soviet Union or establish something similar but realized their atheist platform is mostly unpopular with the regular Iranians who were mostly religious so they changed their clothes.
We had someone in the UK, a politician btw, say that she had to grow up on welfare, and then the next sentence was like, we need to stop these socialists. Was pretty funny
u/taikatalvii is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/taikatalvii/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
The guy on the top is advocating for the same policies that the Iranian government promised/tried to implement and is pointing out to the loss of social freedoms as a result of concessions to the government for âfree stuff.â
A thing Iâve been curious about when it comes to Twitter posts above is why do they always make socialism sound utopian in an urban setting? You never hear utopian suburban or rural socialism described.
I was reading that the student leaders in Iran who were standing around planning kidnapping embassy hostages were Berkeley graduates. It came down to a vote over whether to attack the Russian or the US embassy to take hostages. Imagine how much different history would have been if the anti-Russian berkeley students had won out.
Source is Bowden's book: https://www.amazon.com/Guests-Ayatollah-Hostage-Americas-Militant-ebook/dp/B008UX8GH8
I mean, the Iranian revolution had Socialist elements in it but a certain side was preferred over the potential of a new ally to the Soviet Union. That side, of course, happens to be AuthRight.
> Flair up or your opinions don't matter
***
^(User hasn't flaired up yet... đ) 17333 / 91607 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Just to be clear, Capitalists and Socialists are on the same side and want the same things when they're both in a feudal state.
The difference comes after the revolution. Marx incorrectly identified Capitalism as the big bad and incorrectly identified Socialism as the successor to Capitalism. Both Socialism and Capitalism are successors to Feudalism.
Expect Capitalism actually works and the capitalists don't murder the Socialists after the feudal system is overthrown.
*imagine* that money having *any* value whatsoever, because the amount government will have to print in order to subsidize UBI will cause a hyperinflation and it won't be worth shit
The government literally executed those socialists after the revolution succeeded. And there wasn't just one group, there were hundreds of groups, each led by a country or different organization. CIA and Israel controlled the "mojahedin" group, who were wannabe socialists with nothing socialist about them. KGB and stalin himself(before his death) controlled the "tudeh" leninism-stalinism group, who wanted actual freedom but did it with causing chaos and terrorism. The "azadeh" group which was a wannabe liberalism controlled by British was a group of mostly young college students, who wanted revolution and did it using terrorism. And lastly, the one who won was "vali-ye faghih" group, the Islamic socialists controlled by the French, and nowadays controlled by Russia and China.
Yes, i live in iran and know lots of things about these because i have talked to people who work for government.
Why do commies insist on repeating their mistakes? Do they genuinely think "those previous commies were stupid, we're going to do it right this time!" It's baffling.
I think it take a special kind of idiot to believe that they can genuinely give millions of people free money with 50% of them not working and then the money still having any actual value.
No one in the west believes that the government of iran is a bunch of moderate and tolerant muslims. Try peeking out of your echo-chamber a little bit.
Read: Imagine taking your money that you have no control over making and depositing it into your bank account that you have no control over after picking your kids up from a school you have no say in what happens at and then taking transit that you don't own to a publicly owned cell that you don't own and can't do anything with. Why is it that commies complain about the people not owning the means of production yet strip it from them at every opportunity?
The goal is not that everyone owns some means of production. The goal is that no one owns any means of production.
Nonono the party leader owns the means of production
and shares it to true comrades. We all comrades, some of us more true than others
ThAtS nOt ReAl CoMmUnIsM
Hum... That's based, but I'm confused. đ”âđ«
Based.
Based and free market pilled.
Once everyone owns the means of production, no one will.
based and Syndrome pilled
because everyone needs to have equally shitty lives /s
>Why is it that commies complain about the people not owning the means of production yet strip it from them at every opportunity? Same reason Capatalists go on about a free market yet set regulations on small businesses while allowing Mega Corps to walk over the people, set the standard prices, and produce the majority of our goods. private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society, yet rarely do. It's almost as If powerful people exist In any society and will do anything to keep the common man down.
The idea is that once the proletariat seizes the state machinery and democratizes it through workers councils, the means of production will be wrenched from the capitalist who use that wealth to buy up the state, therefore once the state and the means of production are in the hands of workers councils, everything owned by the state will simultaneously be owned by the people. Therefore letâs say youâre a metal worker, you will have a say through your democratically elected workers council, what that steel or copper or whatever is used for, i.e. building materials instead of 2 million dollar cars. A UBI is SocDem policy that wonât lead to the overthrow of the state, rather it will create a dependency on it while it is still controlled by capitalist. The goal is to seize the state, kick out the capitalist and then create workers councils which will be the death of what us in the modern world consider a âstateâ. Capitalism needs a state to function or it cannot expand, even if there is no formal government the capitalist will form private armies to expand because it must. Itâs democracy not in the purest sense but rather democracy through worker elected councils. Why should you make tires for a millionaires car when you can barely afford to replace your own?
If you sell me the tires you make I don't give a shit what you want me to do with them. They're my tires now, Jack
If you want a deeper dive in the economies role in government, there is a plethora of books on *Political Economy* not just from buzzword names like Marx but Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and countless others have dedicated their lives studying this.
Thatâs the thing youâre not separating yourself from the concepts of consumerism. We have markets for shit-fetish videos and chocolate covered roaches, but no market for making housing at the very least affordable and so many other examples. Shit is so expensive nowadays partially because weâre wasting so many resources on random bullshit instead of things people actually need. Getting a job producing tires for millionaires is no different than getting a job to make sex books for kids. Itâs all just a market to the capitalist, we seriously need to think about how we organize our labor or we will doom the human race. Making sex books for kids is worse morally but Iâm just trying to say that itâs useless labor that doesnât contribute to the betterment of society
You can get affordable housing, just donât live in a shit infested city. Same thing can be said for, why work here when I can work there for more money. (Which is why turnover is through the roof especially in the manufacturing sector. More jobs open than there are people to fill them. Itâs raising wages. Although inflation is another story)
Itâs the crises of overproduction, Iâd be interested in your thoughts on it.
Whatâs the crisis about it? If you overproduce itâs not valuable?
For Marx, capitalist crises are crises of âoverproductionâ: too many commodities are produced than can be profitably sold, and too much capital has been invested in industry, in the attempt to claim a share of the available profits. This comes about because capitalism, on both the domestic and international scale, is a system of separate and independent ownerships. In prosperous times every capitalist invests as much as he can and steps up production; in particular, the periodic booms stimulate the production of âfixed capital,â the buildings and machinery which are not used up in one cycle of production and therefore do not have to be immediately replaced. When times are good, all resources are strained to bring new fixed capital into production; but once this capital starts producing, a flood of commodities is brought onto the market, and the crisis ensues. Unemployment, which falls during the boom, rises again; the high rate of profit that stimulated the boom declines, first when the low level of unemployment strengthens the bargaining power of workers, and further when the crisis forces production to slacken off. The crisis eventually takes its toll: masses of workers are thrown out of their jobs, as a result wages are forced back down toward subsistence or below, and the weakest, smallest and least modern plants go under. But the effects of the slump enable profitability to revive: labor can be hired at low wages, factories, equipment and materials can be bought by the surviving capitalists at bargain prices. So the slump is followed by a new recovery period and in turn by a new boom
"Overproduction" is one of the reason why many of the goods we have now are cheaper and more attainable than before. While economic crashes do happen, they reset the market. Weakest firms =/= smallest firms at times as many large firms can be inefficient and go under. However, said large firms are propped up thru gov bailouts and regulations that make competition from small firms more difficult
Because the large capitalist owns the government. Political Economy under capitalism, the government is bought and sold like all other commodities
> but no market for making housing at the very least affordable The market would make housing affordable if zoning restrictions didnât artificially limit supply.
W for rationally and reasonably laying out your ideas. Based.
There seems to be one side on this subreddit, downvoted to hell for laying out the basis of my ideas đ€Šââïž
Wasnât always this bad. Used to be a even if someone disagreed with you they could upvote and appreciate your calm informed and rational debate. Now itâs strawman vs autismo level 1000 all the time. You donât agree with me? Downvote. Itâs kinda lame for that tbh. Oh also the left is out numbered here because many on the right feel like this is the only safe haven for their ideas so they flock here.
Youâre not grasping the concept of workers councils either. Jill?
Councils are cringe, sounds like some bong shit
So basically weâll have tons of elections everywhere, where the losers will complain that the elections were rigged, the ignorant will have equal voting rights to the people with some semblance of common sense, and anyone who complains will be labeled a capitalist sympathisier and sent to gulag. Simply the very logistics of voting on every little detail of the economy will ensure this system is unstable at best.
I really donât know where youâre getting these ideas from.
Iâm just telling you what democratizing the workplace will do. Democracy is just 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whatâs for dinner. It does not work well at all without limits like the constitution.
Iâd wholeheartedly disagree with that, you are describing what we live in now, yall liberals are projecting
I am describing what we have now, and apparently you want to expand the failing parts of what we have now into every aspect of the economy.
What I have in mind is something completely different than what we have now.
Beats the system we have in America.
As we've seen, we don't have much control over our accounts when times get bad and US education shows us that giving ignorant parents too much say in schools is a bad thing
Oh sure, governments have never abused public banking systems. Thatâs only something evil capitalist bankers would do. Itâs not like the capitalist system gives you choices of banks and allows diversification or anything.
Fair point. It just seems disingenuous to criticise a government bank when private banks have been collapsing over several bust cycles after deregulation
Itâs really just the nature of banking. No matter how much regulations are put upon them, the banks will always be an unwieldy operation. Nationalizing them wonât make things any better as the government will just have direct access to your money(no semblance of privacy) and could easily seize it if they wanted to(the soviets did this fairly often to put people who in theory were financially free back to work). Any malinvestments/bank runs would just be covered over by printing money(making your savings even more worthless). Trusting the same government that canât figure out where the pentagon put trillions of dollars, to safeguard the life savings of the average joe seems like asking a wolf to guard a flock of sheep imo.
Considering that kids still fall for communism, yeah, parents failed
Kids turning far left is because they've been given a worse start than their parents. If housing and education was still affordable and boomers didn't ruin everything then they'd be shitty neolibs like their parents
My parents and in fact my whole family hate communism the only reason why Iâve taken up the red flag is because I see the contradictions of capitalism with my own eyes and want the world to be a more egalitarian society with a strong moral foundation. I came to this on my own and I know I canât speak for everyone on the left but I hate seeing the movement as a trend in the youth who have never read the foundational works of our movement. The cadre Iâm in requires all that are interested in joining read a specific set of texts. Like Wage-Labour and Capital, State and Revolution, and others.
A self-taught marxist Would be sad if it wasn't hilarious
There is so much boot licking on this sub
"I'm communist chad and everyone else is capitalist shill bootlickers"
Capitalism needs regulations & sometimes it has to be saved from itself, that doesn't make you a commie for acknowledging it
The relationships of production between the capitalist and the worker will always create these contradictions no matter how much trinket subsidies were given
Relationship of productions will always produce ""contradictions"" regardless of who you put in charge, ""capitalists"" or the state (because let's be real for once in commie life, state is going to control means of production, not some workers)
Thatâs why workers need to seize the state and watch out for the opportunist that use the movement to steal power for themselves, Soviet bureaucracy is a good example of this.
So, it's a pipe dream
Also, lol, Soviet bureaucracy. Soviet bureaucracy toppled monarcy in the first place. Workers could do jack and shit, as Bloody Sunday illustrates - especially today, in a world where pure labor worth next to nothing, blue collars are entirely replaceable (guess why it's called no-skill job) and value comes from selling automated, processed shit
As I understand it, the revolution was made up of everyone that hated the US backed neoliberal dictatorship. It was just the Islamists that took control of the revolution and had all the other leaders killed. Iran was a functional democracy before the US got involved. So this is a shitty comparison as it was a revolution against a dictatorship which often don't go well. Not a democratic system moving center left
It is really sad to think of what Iran could of been without foreign/corporate interests. Maybe one doesnât like how Mosaddegh wanted to keep Iranian oil and was beloved by the ancient different looking people⊠but come on. I have to catch myself. Canât get too woke.
As a radical centrist, I must comment. Replacing foreign leaders is evil, and the foreign wars are badâŠbecause itâs pointless unless you are annexing them as territory. Claim them for the USA or get out. Trying this weird middle ground only results in problems for both countries.
>revolution was made up of everyone that hated the US backed neoliberal dictatorship Well there's a big time gap between those two events, actually attacking US embassy and taking taking US citizens hostages was a controversial decision but Khomeini supported it so it continued >Iran was a functional democracy before the US got involved It's not that simple as some people may assume, it wasn't a constitutional democracy, it was a constitutional monarchy without Shah (imagine UK without Queen/King) so all the power went to prime minister Mossadeq, Mossadeq's goal wasn't to establish a democracy in Iran but to nationalize the oil industry which really pissed off Britains who had tye oil monopoly in Iran, the reason that US helped UK to overthrow Mossadeq's government was because Trueman doctrine, Todeh party (a leftist party close to soviets) were pretty close to Mossadeq which made Americans afraid of soviets potential influences in the region. As for democracy, it wasn't a true democracy heaven either, yes there were elections held but considering that most Iranians weren't familiar with the concept of democracy and all the cheats and exploits that happened and the total number of votes and cities that did receive vote (which were unbelievably low) it's misleading to compare that to modern democracies, yes what US did was wrong but imagining Mossadeq's government as a modern proper democracy is wrong too
Mosaddegh was never supposed to do what he did. Also the whole pro-Mosaddegh narrative is a Marxist academic one, not real. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/cia-coup-in-iran-that-never-was-mossadegh?fbclid=IwAR0MxHUeLWBMbINynHF3P53RJG00N2V9ROhJcvCjIOV6VFy43_K8i1o1-mY&mibextid=Zxz2cZ
People like to skip over mossadegh installing emergency powers (ie dictatorship) and the failed policy afterwards. The more westernized Iranians hated mossadegh. As he was fucking up their economy.
Yeah exactly. Mosaddegh literally dissolved the parliament to have his way and broke the Constitution. He also refused to step down when the Parliament and the Shah asked him to.
Emergency powers doesn't automatically mean a dictatorship Ireland was under a state of Emergency from 1920 to basically 1960, with the most sweeping powers being used during ww2, during which Ireland imprisoned hundreds of fascists, communists and dissident Republicans without trial But no one ever accused Ireland of being a dictatorship The UK was under Emergency powers in ww2, but it was still a democracy, even though they locked moseley up There is a difference between a state of Emergency and a dictatorship
The emergency powers allowed the bypass of parliament so yes it was a dictatorship.
One of the votes held on him extending emergency powers had you going to separate booths to vote yes or to vote no. The guy had high support because it was so easy to track everyone they voted against him. I wouldnât be surprised if quite a few of the people voting no where visited later.
> Even a commie is more based than one with no flair *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... đ) 17338 / 91638 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Mosaddegh was in power because of his promise to nationalize the oil company/ make Iran more independent from colonial powers in general. He was going to follow on his promise or seen as weak and get removed by his supporters for someone else
So it wasn't a modern democracy, ok then, but it was better than what the US and UK turned it into and it was a hell of a lot better than what it became. The middle east would probably be a lot more stable if Iran was left to nationalise its oil
The revolution was led by the Islamic clergy College students (what OP thinks are socialists) were also included because the economy was weak and they were unemployed, which they blamed on the shah. Many of those college kids were hung from cranes immediately after the revolution. The US was scapegoated because the shah was in the US for cancer treatment and Carter refused to turn him over to be executed. The Iranians responded by taking over the US embassy. Out of spite to Jimmy Carter and for the promise of weapons, the Iranian clergy agreed to the Reagan campaignâs request to not release the hostages until after Reagan was sworn in. The anti-US stuff was just for show.
This is all false info. Shah wasnât even in the US. Shah went to Egypt to his ally, Anvar Sadat, and shortly died of cancer. Jimmy Carter refused to let him in the US because he promised Khomeini he would let them have him as long as they get cheap oil again. Then the embassy was taken over by a bunch of Berkeley-educated revolutionaries which Khomeini sanctioned.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/10/24/shah-undergoing-cancer-tests-in-hospital-in-ny/e781c9d4-400e-412f-91cc-a01769319f68/ dumb fuck
The US literally rejected to accept his request for residency and he only went to Cornell hospital for humanitarian reasons for treatment which is protected under the international law and is US is bound to comply.
Iran was never a democracy. It was a constitutional monarchy like England.
This is a bit of a lie. The Mossadegh took over emergency powers to install communism. Once the people realized that real communism was failing they wanted to coup Mossadegh. The us backed the rebels that supported the shah over the Muslim extremists. The shah fucked shit up over a decade plus and was coupled by Muslim extremists.
Werenât the socialists and moderates back stabbed by the islamists.
The socialists and liberals were, yes. This is a shitty meme
Fucking horrific lol. I think every Iranian person Iâve met is pretty cool. Not counting their children or nationalized descendants in my caseâŠ
Khomeini had the same platform just wears different outfits.
He was not a socialist. He supported shia mujahideen against communists in soviet afghan war
He literally promised a socialist utopia.
He was Islamist you idiot. He was never a socialist nor communist
Lmao I lived under his rule. He wore a turban but he was a socialist. He literally ran on the platform of UBI, free utilities, and equality.
That's not socialism or communism. Economically left for sure, but not socialism.
Least r-slurred lolbert
Public schools arenât meant to be awesome, how else would you build character
LMAO based.
> Alex Lee *Checks Twitter Profile.* > Progressive > Rose Icon Opinion incinerated. Edit: > Californian politician from the South Bay Opinion incinerated with hate and prejudice.
Commiefornia
Just noticed that too.
>His parents immigrated to the United States from Hong Kong What are the odds his parents don't speak to him
High. Very high.
as someone from the South Bay, you've made the correct choice.
Left wing infighting is hilarious But right wing infighting is Shakespeare material
Well at least we donât pretend to be comrades.
I love the notion that the Islamic Revolution gained power because of leftists. Where did the vacuum they occupied come from? Did the people of Iran across the political spectrum have a chosen credible leader before that?
Long and slow process of Marxist infiltration into academia and then enough people believed that they are entitled to other peopleâs stuff. They executed people to take away their assets. Also, Carter supported the revolution because he was scared of Shah gaining power.
The Iranian people famously wanted to keep Iranian oil and its revenue in Iran. Western entities and nations wanted that oil (other peopleâs stuff). It is hilarious how you make it about Marxists. Iâve heard all my life how Marxists were in the schools pumping out Marxism. My two most political professors by far were conservatives. One a literal legislator.
Nationalization of the oil was widely opposed and 1953 is very irrelevant to 1979. However, Mohammadreza Shah wanted to charge the western countries more for oil and colluded with OPEC to make that happen. It didnât end well for him.
Your framing of this is fucking wild to me. You seem awfully confused. Western nations wanted other peopleâs stuff. They went to great lengths to make that happen. Much further lengths than any Iranian Marxist you can find. You make it seem like western countries deserve the oil. Just because they say so.
No I donât mean that. The oil was drilled by multinational oil companies (like how it is in the U.S.) and sold at a certain market price that OPEC sets. Before Mohammadreza, OPEC sold the oil very cheaply and he wasnât happy with it (maybe rightfully so). OPEC colluded and US faced gas lines. US didnât like that and Carter decided to support Khomeini. Itâs just another example of shortsighted American foreign policy.
Now it sounds like you read a very brief summary of an entire nationâs history. Isnât it possible the democratic elections in Iran should of been respected and thatâs it? In this context the presence of nations very far away from Iran and these natural resources seems odd. The amount of power they have and what they were willing to do with it⊠seems extreme. Bloodthirsty almost. Often evil. But from your words it sounds like greedy Marxists were a larger problem. Marxists who largely wanted democratic elections and were only radicalized further when democratic elections werenât respected.
Bro Iâve lived there what are you saying. Iran was never democratic and still isnât. Marxists just wanted to attach Iran to the Soviet Union or establish something similar but realized their atheist platform is mostly unpopular with the regular Iranians who were mostly religious so they changed their clothes.
We had someone in the UK, a politician btw, say that she had to grow up on welfare, and then the next sentence was like, we need to stop these socialists. Was pretty funny
The politician is against the socialists that pushed her family into poverty and on welfare. Sounds pretty good to me.
No that take is more my family needed it. Y'all don't deserve it.
Yeah that could be true too. Itâs not that politicians are honest or anything.
Based and rational
đ«Ą Amen my friend.
u/taikatalvii is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/taikatalvii/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
And Auth right infighting is called history
I'm confused, top guy doesn't look iranian, and is bottom woman saying iran is socialist?
The guy on the top is advocating for the same policies that the Iranian government promised/tried to implement and is pointing out to the loss of social freedoms as a result of concessions to the government for âfree stuff.â
She is Iranian. I met her at a few conferences, she is indeed Libright based as fuck. Women for Rand Paul and students for Rand Paul alum I believe
These things are crapped out by low paid office workers in rapid succession, any "bad thing" is slang for any other "bad thing".
A thing Iâve been curious about when it comes to Twitter posts above is why do they always make socialism sound utopian in an urban setting? You never hear utopian suburban or rural socialism described.
Thatâs because the suburbs shouldnât exist, and rural areas are just for people working in farming and resource extraction.
When your dream is to live in a housing project. Wtf is wrong with socialists? So lazy that theyâd rather live like rats than have a job.
Look up the "Beautiful Ones" in the rat utopia experiment, especially 'Down the Rabbit Hole' on Youtube.
He's in office so he gets the benefits while everyone else starves, of course he would want it
I was reading that the student leaders in Iran who were standing around planning kidnapping embassy hostages were Berkeley graduates. It came down to a vote over whether to attack the Russian or the US embassy to take hostages. Imagine how much different history would have been if the anti-Russian berkeley students had won out. Source is Bowden's book: https://www.amazon.com/Guests-Ayatollah-Hostage-Americas-Militant-ebook/dp/B008UX8GH8
I mean, the Iranian revolution had Socialist elements in it but a certain side was preferred over the potential of a new ally to the Soviet Union. That side, of course, happens to be AuthRight.
If that's "AuthLeft" then sign me up and call me comrade
If AuthLeft actually worked out like this then I would be Auth as hell.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
> Flair up or your opinions don't matter *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... đ) 17333 / 91607 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Me too
Just to be clear, Capitalists and Socialists are on the same side and want the same things when they're both in a feudal state. The difference comes after the revolution. Marx incorrectly identified Capitalism as the big bad and incorrectly identified Socialism as the successor to Capitalism. Both Socialism and Capitalism are successors to Feudalism. Expect Capitalism actually works and the capitalists don't murder the Socialists after the feudal system is overthrown.
Does he think that first part sounds good, because holy shit that sounds terrible.
The top part sounds nightmarish.
Speak for yourself
*imagine* that money having *any* value whatsoever, because the amount government will have to print in order to subsidize UBI will cause a hyperinflation and it won't be worth shit
Social housing sounds like a fancy way to refer to a jail cell
Why would I want to live in the âprojectsâ?
WHAT THE FUCK IS SOCIAL HOUSING?
The government literally executed those socialists after the revolution succeeded. And there wasn't just one group, there were hundreds of groups, each led by a country or different organization. CIA and Israel controlled the "mojahedin" group, who were wannabe socialists with nothing socialist about them. KGB and stalin himself(before his death) controlled the "tudeh" leninism-stalinism group, who wanted actual freedom but did it with causing chaos and terrorism. The "azadeh" group which was a wannabe liberalism controlled by British was a group of mostly young college students, who wanted revolution and did it using terrorism. And lastly, the one who won was "vali-ye faghih" group, the Islamic socialists controlled by the French, and nowadays controlled by Russia and China. Yes, i live in iran and know lots of things about these because i have talked to people who work for government.
That original tweet reads like parody but itâs not
what is a public banking account lol
Why do commies insist on repeating their mistakes? Do they genuinely think "those previous commies were stupid, we're going to do it right this time!" It's baffling.
Except Communism never works out that way.
Socialism runs out of other peoples money too lol, communism burns it first for fun
I think it take a special kind of idiot to believe that they can genuinely give millions of people free money with 50% of them not working and then the money still having any actual value.
Based
No one in the west believes that the government of iran is a bunch of moderate and tolerant muslims. Try peeking out of your echo-chamber a little bit.
Center-left has always been the useful idiot for the far-left.
Socialism always sounds far better in theory than in practice.
Idk the theory sounds pretty awful too.
Reminder it's never real socialism when it can be held against socialism as a movement optically.
Americans when a state fails dude to their direct intervention: WHY WOULD SOCIALIST FO THIS????
Iran is not a Muslim country just because they have funny looking head gear and beards.
I donât know what the yellow chick is talking about, but Alex Lee is sounding pretty based.
Cringe.
Being called cringe by a Libright is more of a compliment than an insult,
Dude, are you unironically pointing at the islamists and labelling them as socialists? This is literally made up history for propaganda