What's Luxemburgism?

Basically Marxism that isn't authoritarian

Tell me how socialism causes starvation, user. I'd like to hear.

No she didn't. What makes you think that?

Luxemburgism is a name for Marxists who rejected the Bolsheviks and their methods. This term was actually created by the Bolsheviks to mock other Marxists who they saw as too soft. Rosa Luxemburg was a pro-democracy Marxist who argued that any attempt to create socialism without democracy would devolve into a new tyranny. She supported free speech and free press, concepts which the Bolsheviks considered absurd and undesirable.

Marxism but with freedom of speech and democratic accountability, and highly critical of Marxism without those.

If we're going by central planning socialism it's generally because one person or group of people has no idea about how to properly allocate the resources and apply the means of production that THEY own under socialism.

In a market system prices exist because they give these sorts of messages about how scarce or plentiful goods are in certain areas.

Generally centrally planned prices try to reach as cheap as possible regardless of what the reality of a situation is, and inevitably this leads to shortages where instead of people being priced out of food they don't get it because they just weren't quick enough to buy it.

Adding to this issue is that a lot of socialist and central planning types like to strive for autarky, or at least the countries don't like doing business with capitalist ones, so imports on food can be limited which means that there is no way to potentially alleviate the shortages. Even market countries that practice trade protectionism have this problem too, as can be seen in Britain during the 19th century with the vile corn laws that made the famine in Ireland even worse.

>prices exist because they give these sorts of messages about how scarce or plentiful goods are in certain areas.
Supply and demand don't have an absolute negative correlation anymore than labor and price have an absolute positive correlation.

>If we're going by central planning socialism it's generally because one person or group of people has no idea about how to properly allocate the resources and apply the means of production that THEY own under socialism.
Historically it's because their underlings misreport production figures. They claim they met their quota when they didn't. It's like when executives in a corporation lie about sales figures, except worse.

From what I gathered of hanging around online left-wing circles it's the too pure 4u ideology for communists.

Practically if not totally synonymous with the so called ultra-left or left-communism. Luxemburg operated under that forgotten period when radical socialists were still sometimes calling themselves Communists but also had strong anarchist/radical democracy tendencies and were not defined by what the Soviets became under Stalin-Lenin.

They still believed in violent revolution. And I think Luxemburg was open to the idea of "vanguard parties" in the school of Lenin and the bolsheviks. However they would also insist that the revolution MUST be done the developed first world where capitalism had already been well established and there was a large urban working class, must be done organically by the workers rather than opportunism or trickery by a upper class of malcontent doctors, lawyers, and professors with students. In other words a true workers revolution.

Rather than having a strict central state to organize things you start going immediately to advanced socialism where people organize themselves, economically-politically held together via their local democratic union of workers centered around a means of production (worker's councils).

Also some hippy shit about secret police being bad or something is in there too. An infantile disorder to be sure.

Constantine. You're a medievalist, dude, you should know that the Scholastics have proven this shit themselves.

What I was trying to say is that something that commands a high price means that it could give some great profits to whoever is selling it, which is why prices are a message to prospective entrepreneurs to go into a business. Many do this at the same time compete with each other either through innovating and improving the product itself or by trying to make their production more cost efficient and selling it for cheaper. Either way, the need is soon met to a certain extent because of these individuals acting this way.

There are no real prices in a centrally planned system since the state owns everything and therefore there's no negotiation between differing people with differing base goals.

That also happens. Or you get things where the supervisors ask for 2 tons of nails and then the factories just make gigantic nails.

>Start Shit
>Get Shot and dumped in the river.

You say that like it's a bad thing

>You're a medievalist, dude, you should know that the Scholastics have proven this shit themselves.
On the contrary, I'm an Orthodox, the Medieval era was when Latin tradition started to radically depart from ours, and Scholasticism falls completely under that.

>What I was trying to say is that something that commands a high price means that it could give some great profits to whoever is selling it
Or not, if the price of producing or acquiring it isn't significantly different. Sometimes, in fact, the most profit is found in what *doesn't* command a very high price, as Wal Mart demonstrates.

>Hey guys, let's start revolution right after the war! What could possibly go wrong? Surely the vets will support a change! So what if they've been told they are unbroken and are still armed!

>socialism is central planning

>an infantile disorder
How so?

it is

It basically is. Unless you're one of those special snowflakes that thinks wealth can be redistributed without any central authority overseeing the distribution.

??? why not? Capitalism nearly does it.

Also redistributed is a meme word. It's just distribution. There is no exploitation extracting wealth from the workers in socialism so there is no need to RE-distribute anything back down in welfare bandaids from the top. It'd be like worrying about redistributing wealth from slave plantation owners down back to slaves in "slavery doesn't need to be so bad" welfare packages like minimum quality of slave shacks after abolishing slavery.

Joke's on you. It was a channel.

this so much

>Capitalism nearly does it.
Not in a communist way, in a way that's about competitors trying to individually to outdo each other and acquire a bigger piece of the pie.

I actually did research on her early years and her debates with Engels and Lenin. Fun fact: No one has really published anything about what she taught in the SPD schools before WWI. It's interesting stuff.
Look at the debate she had with Bernstein (de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Bernstein). It's essential to allocate her position within the Marxist theory. She also was against any form of nationalism whereas Lenin wanted to use it as a tool to break the empires
These dudes are actually pretty close. The major difference between her and Lenin is that she rejected the idea of an avant-garde party and looked for revolutionary spontaneity in the working class.
Socialism ITT is a theory, not a historical phenomenon. And many theorists proposed that it was not central planning.

Socialism doesn't mean redistribution per se, it means an economic system in which industry is owned democratically by the workers

Democratic ownership is a redistribution.

>nd many theorists proposed that it was not central planning.

Then those "theorists" are liars and idiots. There is no way to reform society along socialist lines WITHOUT central planning, anyone who claims it is possible is wrong / lying.

Do you know what "re" means?
This is correct. Although historically when societies proclaimed themselves as socialist they proposed some sort of special socialism that differs from the theory for the time being ("real existing socialism").
Yes, there is and anyone who claims otherwise is wrong/lying.

>There is no way to reform society
>not knowing the difference between theory and practice

Even in theory it's impossible.

By all means share with us your magic plan to build socialism without central planning.

german flavor of jewish Bolshevism

In the age of early industrialisation it so happened that some industrials whose name i cant recall willingly democraticised their corporation giving workers a vote on how to do things and equal pays for all etc etc
Not the user you're talking to but if such a thing became a cultural phenomenon and then maybe istitutionalised it'd be socialism with no central planning

You do realize that you are literally grounding your statements on absolutely nothing, don't you? And from the way you talk (i.e. without reasoning or even the attempt to refute the argument) I must assume that you never read anything written by a socialist, except for the occasional macro.
Also, just to get you started, historically decentralized socialist economy was tried and they actually worked: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy

Get a flavor of /pol/ shitposting.

Is this a joke? Are you trying to be funny? Did you seriously just cite the USSR as support for your "you don't need central planning to build socialism" meme? You are a fucking retard, and I don't just say that because you're fucking retarded.

AHAHAHAHAHA

So your "plan" is to wait until everyone just agrees to be socialists? You fucking moron, you're even dumber than that other spastic.

>Do you know what "re" means?
Yes. Do you know that democracy can take numerous forms, from household to international?

You are retarded if you think i think my example is a viable way for socialism to be implemented. Do you have no concept of abstract thinking? You asked how socialism could be decentralised at least in theory. In theory, if people's ideology swinged far left and it were agreed upon to collectivise the means of production, you have decentralised socialism. In theory

>You asked how socialism could be decentralised at least in theory.

No, moron, try reading what I said again. You cannot build socialism without central planning. Your response, of citing the USS fucking R, is about the level of intellectual "ability" I've come to expect from you "people".

>Did you seriously just cite the USSR as support for your "you don't need central planning to build socialism" meme
>hurr durr socialist states never adjust their politics
>if I just write HHAHAHAH people won't realize I never read a book hehee
It's clear you don't know what you are talking about. The GDR tried a similar model which also had very positive effects. The reasons those programs were abandoned were not economical but political. Also technically the NEP was put into place before the USSR existed. Here have another example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Planning_in_Kerala and another chance for you to embarrass yourself.

Im the other guy not the URRS guy. Maybe you should take a deep breath and calm down if your anger prevents you to properly enact reading comprehension

So now your example is the GDR? You're not even stupid, you're flat out moronic. Be honest now: are you a nigger?

>HURR

That's nice, idiot.

My example is India you illiterate. Be honest know without looking up, name any politician from the GDR to prove how well educated you are on the history of East Germany.

Also are you implying I a socialist or support socialism? Lmaoing @urlife it's called playing devil's advocate

>Kerala is in the GDR
okay buddy

If she supports communism via democracy, why get involved in a violent revolution?
All those aspects you mention sounds like a Fabian Socialist minus the violence.

>"this list is wrong and isn't even on wiki and accordin gto the pages history it never was"

flattering that someone made a refutation to an image i made when i was 16 in 2011

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_Revolution_of_1918–19&oldid=470973761

see commanders and leaders

better link

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_Revolution_of_1918–19&oldid=578508550

>My example is India you illiterate.

India is a socialist country is it? And you're still hammering on about the GDR like it's some kind of commie utopia, you "people" are honestly worse than niggers.

This is your only argument though? Wiki is a shit source and the fact that the current version is totally different pretty much proves that the list is/was objectively wrong.

>HURR

Learn to read, simpleton. That idiot cited the GDR as well as India, I passed on India because I assumed he must be joking, since India isn't a socialist state so it's completely fucking irrelevant but no, apparently that was his "knockdown argument"! Fucking INDIA! HAHAHAHA you commies are dumber than the Libshits!

>jews aren't hugely over represented in communism tho
>early soviet politburo wasn't around 75% jewish
>jews all over other socialist communist revolutions in Europe around the same time, pure coincidence
>bela kun, lenin, trotsky, all jewish, pure coincidence
>jacob schiff, jew, funding Bolshevik revolution in Russia, pure coincidence

Ok, so you admit you have no idea about the GDR or India.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Congress
>Ideology Indian nationalism, Social democracy

>HURR social democracy is socialism!

Apparently being completely right is called "having no idea" now? You stupid faggot, at least admit you were a fool to cite the GDR and India as socialist countries.

>>jews aren't hugely over represented in communism tho
Which no one denies. Still it's interesting that you need to rely on lies and false information to back up your claim.
>>early soviet politburo wasn't around 75% jewish
Source me.
>>jews all over other socialist communist revolutions in Europe around the same time, pure coincidence
Jews, in all of those event fought on both sides. Looking at only one party of a conflict is logically flawed.
>>bela kun, lenin, trotsky, all jewish, pure coincidence
>Milton Freeman, Stiglitz, Greenspan, all jewish, pure coincidence
>>jacob schiff, jew, funding Bolshevik revolution in Russia, pure coincidence
Well actually his influence is minuscule when compared to the support of the German Empire but I am sure you will find a way to spin this in a way the Emperor was Jewish or some crazy shit.

It literally says that the ideology of the ruling party was Democratic socialism in the 90s. You didn't even click the link and are just shit posting to the max.
>you were a fool to cite the GDR and India as socialist countries.
Wait, what? Are you saying the GDR is not socialist?

>planned economy
>nationalized banks and enterprises
>ruling party calls itself socialist and redistributes land to peasants
>not a socialist country
What exactly constitutes a socialist state in your opinion?

Are you really still trying to claim that Kerala is some kind of blueprint for non-centralized socialism? Because that would be a profoundly stupid thing to claim.

The GDR was socialist but to cite it in support of a non-centrally planned socialism is beyond satire.

You realize that by those standards, the USA is "socialist", right?

India is a mixed capitalist economy, not a socialist state.

>Are you really still trying to claim that Kerala is some kind of blueprint for non-centralized socialism?
No. And I never claimed I would. Also you ignored that fact that you fucked up on India and you know nothing about the economy of the GDR.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_System

>Which no one denies. Still it's interesting that you need to rely on lies and false information to back up your claim.
false? where?

>Source me.
whatever I source you you'll call BS unless it's from a modern textbook
heretical.com/miscellx/bolshies.html

>Jews, in all of those event fought on both sides. Looking at only one party of a conflict is logically flawed.
>both sides
wot mate? the kaisers, prussian elite, Russian nobility and aristocracy were Jewish? you need to read more

>Milton Freeman, Stiglitz, Greenspan, all jewish, pure coincidence
>economists are equivalent to organizers of armed revolts

>India is a mixed capitalist economy, not a socialist state.
How is this relevant? We talked about 1991 not 2016 you fucking imbecile.

My stupid friend, you're claiming that a country synonymous with central planning and police statism can somehow be used as a model for a non-planned socialism. Do you realise how completely stupid this makes you look?

>the democratic party calls itself socialist
>Obama redistributes land to peasants
>Obama nationalized banks and enterprises
lol okay buddy

New Deal.

We never talked about non-planned socialism. We talked about decentralized planning. And the NES was an attempt at decentralized planning. It also was an (economic) success.

>MUH GOALPOSTS

HAHAHAHA pathetic!

How was there a land distribution happening? How were enterprises being nationalized? At what point did Roosevelt call himself a socialist?

>slightly loosening the extreme and total planning of the economy for a few years is somehow "unplanned socialism"!

HAHAHAHAHA just stop posting I don't think my sides can cope with any more of your "contributions"!

>be jews
>be ghetticised, discriminated again, stigmagised by the ruling class
>movements to topple the ruling class prop up
>even better, equality is one of its tenets
And you expect jews not to participate? They did not invent bolshevism, they were attracted to it, in some places and times tried to lead it, and eventually end up in pogroms or isolated in fucking siberia

>lose argument
>keep posting HAHAHAHA
>insult people
Nice going mate. I am going to go to bed now. And tomorrow I will enjoy my academic scholarship after spending another day at the archives working on my PhD. Have a nice life and may you rage lead you into a library at some point in your life.

>I am going to go to bed now.

I accept your graceless surrender. Now fuck off.

Honestly, if Jews were in love with the societies that treated them so horribly, it would be kind of creepy.

>They did not invent bolshevism
Do I really need to name a particular individual who, idk, contributed to that area of socioeconomic thought? Hmm who might that be... think mid 19th century.

>be ghetticised, discriminated again, stigmagised by the ruling class
Why might've that have been? Jews were emancipated only a few generations prior... things were on the upswing. Actually, really on the upswing. zionismunveiled.blogspot.com/2009/09/jewish-dominance-in-pre-wwii-germany.html

I would hesitate to call them victims of the system.

Is this information available anywhere?

Of private property to the public, not necessarily of personal wealth from an individual to other individuals.

A socialist society doesn't mean everybody has the exact same amount of personal property.

Class doesn't mean how much money you have, but your position within the labor market.

A completely irrelevant literally who tier LARPing club for the weird community college dropout and currently NEET cousin you have based around some old cunt who promised a bunch of poor starving people an unrealistic and impracticable utopia, so they rioted for a month before the army shot them all because they were that desperate

Just more proof that the Jews were trying to de-Christianize and de-Europeanize Europeans.

>flattering that someone made a refutation to an image i made when i was 16 in 2011
I'd rather say that it's telling that an entire board swallows up propaganda made by someone who is clearly either underage, retarded, and/or purposefully lying.

And regarding :
>jews aren't hugely over represented in communism tho
>early soviet politburo wasn't around 75% jewish
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Committee_elected_by_the_6th_Congress_of_the_Russian_Social_Democratic_Labour_Party_(Bolsheviks)

>pure coincidence
This is a straw man. It is not a coincidence that oppressed minorities are over represented in revolutionary movements, and nobody claims it is.

>Do I really need to name a particular individual who, idk, contributed to that area of socioeconomic thought? Hmm who might that be... think mid 19th century.
Is it, by any chance, a guy that wrote an antisemitic book, who grew up as a protestant, who was an atheist, who was married to a protestant german noble, who didn't have jewish kids, who never had anything to do with judaism? Right, i forgot that jewish conspiracies are transmitted genetically and genetic jews don't actually have to be in any way related to other jews to participate in the conspiracy. They really are magical people.

And marx has nothing to do with bolshevism. First, because he wrote almost nothing on communism, and second because the little he did write was the complete opposite of a vanguard party taking the power away from workers.

>zionismunveiled.blogspot.com
Nice source. We're in a history board, not on /pol/.

>its another "jews create an ideology for workers "rights" while they plan to be on top of the food chain" episode
boy that sounds familiar

>de-europeanize
What do you mean?

> Right, i forgot that jewish conspiracies are transmitted genetically and genetic jews don't actually have to be in any way related to other jews to participate in the conspiracy.
Well yes, obviously. That's why Hitler killed Jews by lineage, not by whether or not they went to synagogue.

>They really are magical people.
It says so in their holy book.