UserWiki:Arthurwp

Political Journey
->/->->/->/->///-> (/)->(//) ->

People

 * [[File:Socrates.png]] Socrates (470-399 BCE)
 * [[File:Kant.png]] Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
 * [[File:Hegel.png]] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831)
 * [[File:DialectEgo.png]] Max Stirner (1806-1856)
 * [[File:BakuninHeg.png]] Makhail Bakunin (1814-1876)
 * [[File:Ormarxf.png]] Karl Marx (1818-1883)
 * [[File:Freud.png]] Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)
 * [[File:Guerin.png]] Daniel Guérin (1904-1988)
 * [[File:Camus.png]] Albert Camus (1913-1960)
 * [[File:Postmodernicon.png]] Jean-François Lyotard (1924-1998)
 * [[File:Meta-Anarchism.png]] Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995)
 * [[File:Poststruct.png]] Jacques Derrida (1930-2004)
 * [[File:PostMarxism.png]] Félix Guattari (1930-1992)
 * [[File:Anpostleft.png]] Bob Black (1951-)

Groups/Movements

 * [[File: Soc-h.png]] Paris Commune (1871)
 * [[File:Magon.png]] Morelos Commune (1913–1917)
 * [[File:Makhnovism.png]] Makhnovshchina (1918–1921)
 * [[File:Situationalistinternationalism-icon.png]] Situationist International (1957-1972)
 * [[File:Egocom.png]] For Ourselves: Council for Generalized Self-Management (1974)
 * [[File:Zapa.png]] Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities (1994-)

[[File:Ormarxf.png]] Dialectical/Historical Materialism [[File:Ormarxf.png]]
If we analyze the history of humanity, we can see that the mode of production has evolved over time (generally speaking). The modes of production of the past were overcomed through revolutions fueled by the contradictions generated by the class conflict that was present in the given system. The mode of production we live in now is capitalism (at least for the most part of the world) which was preceded by feudalism. But capitalism still breeds contradictions which are the contradictions between the needs of the working class and the wants of the bourgeoisie. Socialism or communnism transcends these contradictions because it is a classless system.

[[File:Cap.png]] A Critique of Capitalism [[File:Cap.png]]
So now let's take a deeper look at the capitalist system and let me develop a more solid criticism of it. Capitalism is a system where there's private property of the means of production, competition and division of labor. Going straight to the point, the problem with capitalism is that the whole system is based on exploitation. The accumulation of capital is only possible through the exploitation of the worker's by the bourgeoisie. In a company the workers are the ones who produce the wealth and the owner is the one who keeps most of this wealth and also gets to manage the whole enterprise as he pleases while the workers are subject to his authority. It's not hard to realize that this is pure exploitation. You may argue that for the fact that the bourgeois invested his money and for the risk he is taking he has the right to manage the enterprise and keep the surplus. This arguement falls to the ground when we actually analyse what happens if this investment fails. If the enterprise completely breaks down the worst that can happen to the capitalist is he becoming a worker, as he now owns no means of production and will have to sell his labor. And his employees who obviously are already workers also lose their jobs. And he probably will still own some capital which will still assure some economic safety to him while his employees are left with pretty much nothing exept what is remnant of their wages. So even if his investment fails the workers still get the worst outcome. You also may argue that all of this is fair because anyone has the right and possibility to become a capitalist and own a company. That's simply a hilarious blatant lie. People can find themselves in multiple conditions which will make them unable to grant capital. Through the ownership of land those who acumulated capital or just inherited it can monopolize the land, preventing people from competing in the market and keep on accumulating more and more capital. The acumulation of capital also leads to the corruption of the political institutions which allows the bourgeoisie to exert not just economical power but also political power over the working class.

[[File:Libsoc.png]] Economy [[File:Libsoc.png]]
The socialist systems that I mainly support are market socialism, council communism and gift economy. They're not perfect and each of them have their own particularities which means they will work differently in different conditions. People that are against market socialism that even if the workers own the means of production, commodity production would still be a problem. I understand this point of view but I believe that in a socialist economy even if we still have markets a lot of stuff like food and clothes can be decommodified, thus commodity production would not be massive. Also I believe it's really hard to abolish markets in some conditions and I'm not even sure if markets can be abolished world widely (even in the long run). I believe council communism is very positive as it gives the autonomy for the workers to self-manage and allocate resources effectively. Gift economy is awesome although hard to function in large scale. I don't believe a centrally planned economy is effective as it is just a form of state capitalism, since the hierarchy that the bourgeoisie has over the worker is transferred to the state and the worker ends up having little to no autonomy.

[[File:Directdem.png]] Democracy [[File:Directdem.png]]
The only real form of democracy is direct democracy because representative democracy degenerates into oligarchies that don't really represent the people. The liberal representative democracy is just the way the bourgeoisie exercises it's power over the working class. So to put it into simple terms, for democracy to work people should be able to vote directly in the policies of their political institutions. In matters where this is not possible, they should elect delegates who simply obey what the people want and they can be revoked at any time. Federalism or confederalism can be practiced to ensure local or regional autonomy. Some examples of places where such system was applied are the Free Territory of Ukraine (Makhnovshchina), the Morelos Commune and the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities. Something important to point out is that democracy doesn't necessarily mean majority vote. Consensual decision making can also be a part of democracy.

Relationships
Users=

B

 * - We agree on a lot tho I will say I'm not the biggest fan of rojava.

C

 * - Not that bad but do you really believe the bourgeoisie will give up of it's power through reform?

F


Ideologies=

F

 * [[File:Succdem.png]] Social Democracy - You are very very good at capitalism. That's exactly why you're so bad.

Figures=

B

 * [[File:Ormarxf.png]] Karl Marx - Extremely based theories but not perfect.

C

 * [[File:Freud.png]] Sigmund Freud - the oedipus complex 💀.

D

 * [[File:Lenin.png]] Vladimir Lenin - War communism was an agression to the working class. The NEP was literally capitalism. And your vanguard party breeds elitism.
 * [[File:Lula.png]] Lula - Fuck you and your "worker's" party that only stands in the way of the true road to working class emancipation.
 * [[File:Lev Davidovich Bronstein.png]] Leon Trotsky - You crushed the Makhnovshchina and called them kulaks. But your theories of degenerated workers state, deformed workers state and bureaucratic collectivism are based.

F

 * [[File:Hitler.png]] Adolf Hitler - Hot take right here guys.
 * [[File:Bolsonarism - alt.png]] Jair Bolsonaro - The imbrochável lost.
 * [[File:JosephStalin.png]] Joseph Stalin - The final nail in the coffin for the revolution.
 * [[File:Khrusch.png]] Nikita Khrushchev - You're not so different from Stalin.



Youtubers=

F

 * - Remaking relationships. Comment if you'd like to be added.


 * - your economic takes are based brother, can you add me? :)
 * - thanks, sure.


 * - re-add me?
 * - sure.