>>4858 Part Jesus, look at all the words >Eternal growth is only demanded by the current govt+corp+finance complex. When capital does not grow capital does not exist. That is what happens when a depression occurs. There ceases to be a sufficient expectation of a return on investments, so investors stop investing. Investment resumes in increments as the weaker porkies get culled. Then the cycle begins again. A stoppage of growth is just a depression. >Why insist on reifying the current mode as some holy eternal law.It isnt. Things have properties. Growth is a definitive property of capital. M becomes M'. Third-positionists want to have social production without capital, but the engine that moves social production is capital. That does not have to be the case, but when capital is removed from the formula something has to takes its place. Investors do not invest without expectation of a return. What makes investors invest if doing so does not benefit them? My solution: have no investors at all and produce for use. >Their analysis is sound and sometimes accurate - but their models still assume gold backed ie limited currency What have they gotten right? I cannot help remembering Greenspan being completely befuddled when the bubbles burst. >Soviet's best mathematicians couldnt figure it out. Where does this myth come from? Kantrovich did it in 1939. >Give me a synopsis of cockshot. Cockshott cited Kantrovich's arithmetical method based on production outputs and combined it with Dantzig's simplex method to scale it up infinitely. It is all based upon the point that money is not the only scaling objective function out there. I will include the pamphlet in case you are interested. I am not an advocate of central planning, being a leftcom, but Cockshott makes a convincing case for its plausability. >Give my regards to the lady of the manor squire. I'm hitting the sack.Drunk as a lord. Til the morrow May your headache be light and your bedroom dark. >Appreciate the chance for sincere debate like civilised grown ups. It is both pleasant and unusual to talk with someone here about economics and not have it turn into a memefest two posts in. God, the MLs can cite Lenin back and forth, but once the subject turns to the M-C-M' cycle in Capital and its relation to the state it's all "anarkiddy" and "imperialist."

>>4857 >Remember that the state is a construct, not a thinking, acting entity So is capital.The rules you ascribe to it are a construct too and pur ideology.Capital to marxists is some type of gnostic demiurge with dialectical materialism providing the role of the saviour logos acting throughout history. The state is power over a defined geographical region and population.The question is who/what controls that power.Currently it is management elites who are largely under the thumb of extant capitalism. The question is how to get the right elite in power,preferably in several core western states at the same time ,to challenge global capital and knock it down a peg or 200. >the bureaucrats still had to extract surplus-value from workers This fixation on extraction of surplus value as inherently exploitative clouds all your thinking. Qualitative distinctions matter. >They were still beholden to capital and its inherent contradictions Capital? in what sense? Extraction of surplus value? No contradiction there outside the current capitalist system. >liberals of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century They did so to protect capitalism as we know it - not to castrate it and domesticate it as is my intent.They did nothing else which is required. >How does one provide increasingly large quantities of start-up capital to such inefficient entities with any hope of recouperation Currently SMEs are 80% of the uk economy.No special govt funding is even required.What is required is the evisceration of big porkies ie breaking up monopolies,transnationals and eliminating parasitical privateer finaniers by aforementioned nationalisation of the financial industries - on a pan-national level. >first economic downturn There will be no further downturns after pan-national autarkic control of finance.The "business cycle" is a product of the current govt-corp-finance complex aka extant capitalism - which is an arbitrary construct >This sounds a lot like the British and American economic system of the early-eighteenth century when the factory system was still young. The american system yes.Some similarities.That was back when americans were still wise to the banking oligarchies and their games.

>>4861 >Youre too* smart to delude yourself otherwise. >"Capital" of itself is sterile unless propped up by* state enforced usury and fiat

>>4859 Lets expand this debate beyond just you stating marxist ideology and me disagreeing. It will get circular and dull. Let's bring in some other issues eg social issues,humanbiodiversity,the "women issue",woke capital - the radlib faggotry spewed forth by the current liberal superstructure etc

>>4859 You still alive comrade?

>>4841 >but mostly just addressing human biology and contemporary genetic/biological research from the lens of dialectical materialism*.

I'll basically name the thread human biology, start with a paragraph of non-controversial foundations that are quite important but often missed(?), like pointing out that homo sapiens-sapiens is a subspecies, and that "race" isn't a contemporary biological category at all. Then I will address some of the other topics mentioned in the OP in-thread, so as to not bump a OP with any trace of uncertainty or arguable points; letting it only contain basics of human biology and leaving the potential debates for the reply-chains. I invite mods to be heavy-handed if /pol/ or IDpol thinks they're welcome while the replies are going, as I want this to develop dialectically forward into a heightened biological understanding for bunkerchan and not make another "IDpol containment thread".

Please give it a chance.

>>4844 Sure, personally I feel like it would be better on /edu/.

>>4854 Yeah, I agree. I think /edu/ is the better choice.

>>4781 LMAO, the mods and their sycophants are the most guilty of mobbing. I guess it's not reactionary when you agree with the mod eh?

>>4786 Not really. I'm really taking the piss out on OP since he seems completely ass-blasted about this, given that he's written so many sentences and responded to my post rather quickly, kind of like an underage user. Just take the issue to IRC and resolve it there like an adult already.

>>4796 >ABLOO BLOO WHY IS PERSON MAD ABOUT BEING UNJUSTIFYINGLY BANNED cuck

>>4797 wow you sure owned him bro lmao thank you for consistently proving my point

>>4798 >wow you sure owned him >lmao >thank you passive aggressive cunt

>>4481 It doesn't even work half the time, only the OP post appears and the rest of the posts do not.

>>4482 Of course not.

>>4517 you should, would fix all your problems.

>>4426 Please can we have: >*yous* to help replies and follow threads >URL image hotlinking: SO we can add an image directly from a url address Please. Pretty please. Pretty please with cold milk and canned honey on top. Thanks

>>4457 based

>>4711 >See? This is why I respond so angrily towards you. You either make these obviously false statements on purpose and then draw conclusions from them dishonestly, or you really do genuinely think it and then you draw conclusions from it ignorantly. That's the point I'm making you idiot. It's an obviously false statement because either one is ridiculous. You wouldn't reduce Marxism to it's philosophical foundations, and you shouldn't do the same for Nazism either. Fundamentally, they both represent CLASS INTERESTS. In the case of Nazism that is the interests of displaced elements of the petite-bourgeoisie in collaboration with the big bourgeoisie, in the case of Marxism that is the industrial proletariat in alliance with the peasantry. Both political movements have philosophical roots in German idealism. Hitler was influenced by Wagner and Nietzsche, Marx was influenced by Hegel. >Yeah, fuck. Honestly, I'm gonna stop arguing with you because clearly I'm letting anger and emotions cloud my thinking, which means I'll just make mistakes and say things I may not actually mean. Clearly. > Marxists, as a (philosophical) goal, wish to find an explanation for "movement of the dialectic" that doesn't rely on Hegel's Spirit, or on History, or even on "internal contradictions of all things that after resolved result in something better". I don't think that is a fair characterization of Marxism, although that is how the word is used in academic circles. To me, Marxism is is the attempt to ground revolutionary socialism in a scientific basis. This doesn't necessitate a particular metaphysical outlook, because metaphysics is inconsequential to science. >Engels doesn't even mention Hegel's second negation in Anti-Duhring, but you can call Engels an idealist because he tried to explain science and nature and literally everything through Marx's dialectic, but Marxism doesn't end with Engels. I am doing an in depth study of Anti-Duhring at the moment. It seems to conform much more to Hegel's conception of dialectics then it does to Mao or Trotsky's or even Bordiga's (as much as it pains me to say that). I haven't read Stalin's pamphlet on dialectics yet so maybe that one is the way. As best I can tell, what all of these thinkers mean when they talk about materialism really has nothing to do with metaphysical materialism (except in the case of Trotsky but his argument is full of non-sequitors) rather they are making a case for contexualism and particularity, which is perfectly compatible with idealism. If you want to point me to any texts from Marx or Engels or whoever that you think might give me pause that would be appreciated.

>>4720 >>4711 Sorry for calling you an idiot that was rude. I could have made that point more clearly and I can see why you misunderstood what I was saying.

>>4720 I don't want to fight with you either. Just the things you said made you seem like you're advocating (inadvertently) for a destructive ideology. I don't have the time to respond to your post right now, although I do have things to say. I just wanted to let you know that I don't have any animosity towards you as a person, although I did insult you. I insulted you only as a way to make you see that the things you're saying can be used to justify a fascist ideology. I don't actually think you're a swastika-wearing, goose-stepping Nazi. So, I will be back in this thread.

>>4706 Heidegger was an actual card-carrying Nazi, and a personal anti-semite (above and beyond the requirements of Nazi 'public' performative ideology) tho

>>4749 No shit. This is the first thing you tend to learn about Heidegger. The point is that studying Heidegger is not going to put you into a pipeline to fascism, and thinking along those lines is liberal idealism. You can say the same about Mien Kampf. It should be required reading for communists imo. Fascism represents a CLASS INTEREST, not merely a set of beliefs.

I'm trying man. I'm trying to make it happen.

test

test

test

>>4615 I'm going to get the dev to come into this thread this is odd.

>>4615 >>4590 This ban should be lifted now.

>>4592 your trip code just woke up a neglected part of brain. where i have seen comatoast before? 1chan? 420chan? this would have been around 2014

>>4617 Thank you.

>>4618 7chan possibly, he is a mod there also

>>4604 >Murdering jews in gas trucks = okay <Whining about chicks once in a relevant discussion = not okay Fag

>>4605 Did the last 8 months since we got here not happen to you? Incels have shit up every thread where someone mentioned anything that triggered them. Which is basically everything.

>>4606 Projection

>>4605 Yes. >>4608 >Projection nice projection idpolers

>>4608 I just want to talk about politics on a socialist politics board without someone dragging their pathetic personal issues all over the place. Apparently that is too much to ask. Kindly off yourself.

COLGATE; body { background: #e8e8ff; color: #000000; font-family:sans-serif; } hr{ border-top: 2px solid gray; } a, .hideButton, .unhideButton, .embedButton, .navClickable, #closeWatcherMenuButton, .watchButton, .watchedCellCloseButton, .hideFileButton, .coloredIcon { color: #000080 !important; } a:hover,.extraMenuButton:hover, .hideButton:hover, .unhideButton:hover, .embedButton:hover, .navClickable:hover, #closeWatcherMenuButton:hover, .watchButton:hover, .watchedCellCloseButton:hover, .hideFileButton:hover, .coloredIcon:hover {

I dunno, like...15 bucks?

>>4498 >>4508 nah minimum 45 zoinkazillions