MarlKarx

I think i understand the basics. For example, a capitalist buys wood for 20 (money) to make a chair, he employs someone else to make the chair which adds value to the wood...lets just say the value added through the labour is 20 (money) the chairs cost therefore is 40 (money) but the capitalist steas some of the added value to make a profit and now the chair is only worth 30 (money). The worker has therefore worked a significant amount of time for free because the value added does not correspond to what the chair is sold for. Thats already what i understand but how exactly does the capitalist turn this into profit? Yes he has gained some money but he still has 30 dollars in debt due to the production costs and the labours costs...and it would not change in the future as the debt just like the value he steals from the workers grows. Can someone pls explian?

After the carnation revolution when the people where fed up with the colonial wars portugal went through the "PREC" (Processo Revolucionário Em Curso) which was a short era of societal reform that included nationalization of companies, the collectivization of farmland and the general growing of popularity of various worker-movements/ parties like the PCP (MLs) the PCTP (Maoists) and others like the UDP and some trots but nobody really gave a shit about them. It was a period of unlimited potential for a revolution and yet it failed to establish socialism in the country. From what i can tell, the main problems were disorganization within the parties themselves (especially the PCP which was the largest communist party and could've done much better than this) and the restraint to overthrow the state by violence. The PCP, one of, if not the, leading leftist party of this period refused to establish dominance by violent means...they know that the only way to establish a socialist government is with a revolution yet they seemed so paralysed during this time. On the 25 November of 1975, communits and socialists unsatisfied with the more "soccdem" way Portugal would take, decided to start a coup but failed as armed "moderates" stopped the attempt before it having any effect. Since then Portugal is just another european "soccdem (nuts)" country with a Neo-liberal government. The PCP still has seat in the portuguese parlament but is loosing relevance more and more while the "CHEGA" (a quasi fascist party with anti-immigration plans and tax cuts for rich and whatnot) party is gaining more popularity. Portugal could've become "europe's cuba" as Otelo Saraiva, a portuguese revolutionary put it. But at the end, fell victim to your average reddit-style "enlightened centrist" who wants a welfare system while conserving the neo-liberal mechanis.

I have been interested in the Juche Idea lately and read some texts. From what i can tell, one of the main components of the Juche idea is that the man is master, the maker of history and master of his destiny. This sentence by its own sounds quite un-materialist as it implicates that material conditions do not shape the man but vise-versa. BUT, what i think they mean is that, using dialectic-materialism, we can predict societal changes that will evolve in the future...similar to how we know that socialism will sometime ovetake capitalism as the anti-thesis (the proletariat) will assert dominance over the current (syn)thesis as it had happened similarly to former societal structures. Knowing how the wheel of history spins now has given us the ability to predict it and therefore the power to take our destiny into our own hands and shape history after our desire.

Is that what Juche is about? I havent touched much of actual theory on that matter but im interested to know if i have interpreted it right...if not, i would be more than happy to be educated on the Idea and how exactly the man is supposedly the shaper of history according to Juche.

i am not very fond of anarchism as an ideology. It just cant function without contradicting its own principles....How in a revolution, or US intervention would strategic decisions be made? You cant just make everyone elect some shit every few hours during a war without somebody having to make decisions for other people. Or production? If you would like to have a car, or a house or whatever, you would need to ask hundreds of people for consent to produce the needed commodities as there is no state that regulates what and how much one should work....that would take a fucking long time which in return means not everyone gets to be supplied their needs. Anarchism is just not something you can achieve directly after a revolution, it needs to be gradual, when imperialist forces and other capitalist threats are annihilated, global socialism can deregulate its state-functions and transfer piece for piece more power to the people.

"breaking new liberals are ignorant" i know this isnt new to us but i couldnt resist and entered a political discord server and debated with someone on why Lenin wasnt anti-semite? and why Marx wasnt anti-semite either especially considering how his father is jewish himself...and then the guy switched to how the soviet union was anti-semitic because they seized synagogues belongings? and i tried to explain why this wasnt directed at jews but rather religious institutions as a whole because of the power they held in the russian empire....he also used the "muh authoritarianism, vanguard party authoritarian" which ofcourse he would mention not knowing that reactionary movements would have eleminated the revolutionary progress made if it werent for the vanguard party protecting it. He then proceeded to compare the vanguard party to israel because i said the vanguard party and with it the people need to hold all power to protect the revolution which he translated into "yuh but if you are anti-israel that means that israel should also protect itself from the palestinians for its survival" (him being pro-israel). Funny thing is that he considered himself a socialist eventhough he admitted to not like marx and called himself a pre-marxist socialist? He also admitted to never have read theory and this is the part that annoys me the most: He called himself a socialist.....

Everytime i try to be reasonable with these people they pull out the most randome take out of their asses and i try to educate them but they mock me. All i can hope for is that they will become class-conscious and be enlightened about the all the trash propaganda they have been fed...but aslong as this isnt the case if fear they will need to face the wall if they keep being the enemies of the people

I cant stand living in this fake-wannabe democracy. I feel so lonely, nobody shares my views and everytime i try to educate them they mock and ridicule me to oblivion. Western europe truly is a hopeless pile of garbage. Thanks to the social democracies (nice move bourgeois pigs) people dont see the need to overthrow the capitalists when they are already fed the absolute bare minimum (free eduction and healthcare) by them while still being significantly poorer than the capitalists who are still fucking up our economy and politics. People are so liberal here, its like someone made a concentrate of Liberalism and spoon fed it to every-single person from man, woman to baby. *uh but freedome but muh democricuh * i cant hear it anymore. Its not enough that my family is constantly argueing about the shit in ukraine while im just sitting there having to listen 24/7 to "The russians were always authoritarian burglars, thats just their nature" and "Russia needs to be bombed its the only solution". Oh pls just somebody, China perhaps come and liberate the people from the western hegemony. The west needs to fall and when it does while watch with joy.

ps. Sorry for the outburst here but i really needed to get that out of me