/lit/ - Literature

>>13311941
>we tried his approach
Did we though?

>>13311941
after the 9th time
just kidding OP you fucking mongoloid

>>13311944
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHAH

>>13311941
Two antecedents:
1. If the revolution happens in developed capitalist countries (like Marx expected), rather than in feudal countries (Russia, Cuba, China, etc).
2. If the revolution is roughly global and not just isolated to a few countries.

If and only if it fails after these two conditions are met will I admit he was substantially wrong.

>>13311967
see
>>13311965

>>13311967
>>13311974
money doesn't make people happy tards. excessively living off the market or full wilderness does. pick your poison and stop trying to create a utopia, we're living in one

>>13311967
>If the revolution is roughly global and not just isolated to a few countries.
Cool, so we could starve nearly all of the humans instead of just a couple hundred mil. Imagine how good the environment will be.

>>13311967

So unless the world bends over backwards to fulfill your requirements for a successful revolution, your ideology will never be realized successfully. That sounds like it doesn't mesh with reality all that well.

If only people stopped hating and killing each other, world peace could be realized. Wouldn't that be nice?

>>13311941
When his criticisms stop being relevant people will naturally forget he existed.

>>13311996
>>13312028

>>13311941 asked:
>At what point do you say, okay we tried his approach
That's my answer.
See >>13311944.

>>13311941
>socialist country develops
>US invades it, overthrows the government in a coup, sanctions the shit out of the country and makes them international pariahs
>hurr guess it didn't work lol guess we should just give up xD

>>13311944
>I-I-I-IT WASNT LE REAL COMMUNISM JANNIES HELP ME PLEASE

>>13312042
Really, did the US overthrow USSR or Chinas political party?

>>13312034
based

>>13312042
>I-I-I-IT WASNT LE REAL COMMUNISM JANNIES HELP ME PLEASE

>>13311967
>if everything exactly perfect it doenst work at all
Wow, what a great system!

>>13311941
Capitalist country fails
>ah well we have to look at the nuances and the trade deals and the geopolitical pressure and the environmental catastrophes and this and that
Socialist country fails
>well there you go, socialism disproven

>>13312028
>>13312059
Low IQ
Do you think liberal revolutions such as the French or American one would have amounted to much if they occured in the third world?

>>13311941
When we try it in an industrialized, Western nation, like he said. Oh no look a bunch of illiterate peasants can't build communism without a lot of death, imagine my surprise! Personally I think it would work better with religion involved too.

>>13312050
well america did try to overthrow the Russian government after the revolution, it's just they failed, in addition the US also ramped up military pressure on them massively in the 80s emphasising they were intending to go to war and forced the Russians into a game of who could spend the most on useless bombs and jets, they also went out of their way to sabotage all countries that supported and were cooperating with the Soviet Union trying to politically and economically isolate them from any support internationally.
China is obviously less straight forward since of course Nixon made efforts to fix their relations but it's still important to remember that Nixon only did this so as to undermine the Soviet Union and China's relationship and pave the way for the US to sabotage them and force them into the global capitalist market
>>13312055
I'm not saying it wasn't socialism it's just you can hardly say it failed when all the powers that be made it their goal to ensure its failure

>>13311967
While people who point to China and the USSR as "examples of communism" are indeed fools who fell for the propaganda of those very states, I suspect, if Marx were alive today, he'd still say he was wrong - or at least go through a whole lotta revisions.

The world and its economies evolved in such a way that neither Marx nor anyone else alive at the time could have possibly predicted. The idea of areas of production, where workers have control of the means of production, is ludicrous in an interconnected world where parts and materials are drafted from all over the world, and where one area maybe but part of a chain of refining before one reaches the final product, in another nation entirely. Then there's the Internet and IP to consider, all things his economic philosophy was in no way prepared to handle.

The closest thing we see to the Marxist ideals are the tech startups, such as the early days of Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and their ilk, where the workers did indeed own the company. The model is still commonly used in various coops today, but once the company reaches a certain size, it abandons the model - for good reason. You can't, for instance, give your warehouse workers a say in software design decisions. In addition to having to compartmentalize, eventually the company reaches such a size that it's simply not practical - you can, at best, have your union heads elected, at which point it's essentially just representative democracy. Eventually your company becomes so large and unwieldy, you're forced to adopt the traditional corporate top-down model in order to remain competitive.

Communism is fine, on the commune level, with tight knit groups of maybe 200 or less, but once you reach that Feinman limit, your only real option is to centralize. Certainly no nation numbering in the millions could hope to compete, broken down into hundreds of independent areas of production, and even if the majority of the world adopted such an inefficient model, they'd be bulldozed over by any given prime nation that took to the naturally evolved, if ugly and unjust, models that most of the world uses today, for valid reasons (even if some of those reasons are not "good", in the ethical sense, they are largely practical).

The nations we point to as "communist" were aware of the shortcoming of the ideal, even at the time, sometimes somewhat honestly. The Soviets official line being that they were "on the path" to communism, even if they never took a step to get beyond the "centralize everything" stage.

Though the USSR shouldn't be pointed to as a failure, but a success. A world power rising from incredible levels of destruction at the end of WWII, unrivaled and unparalleled save for the US, for a half century, despite what was effectively the entire civilized world working against it all that time.

Sadly, it's not a success of communism, but of totalitarian dictatorship, which is frighteningly effective, and a whole lot nastier in nature.

>>13312080
I think some sort of non-religious spirituality would work better, like secular buddhism or something similar

>>13312085
>I-I-I-IT WASNT LE REAL COMMUNISM JANNIES HELP ME PLEASE

>>13312091
Yeah, those workers dictated the means of production in those states, didn't they? Each factory, farm, and surrounding villa was wholly independent of any outside authority with total control over whatever they chose to do, right? Truly stateless societies.

Fuck off with your memes.

>>13312097
>JANNIES PLEASE WHY WONT YOU HELP MEEEEEEEE

>>13312091
read a book and stop memeing. it wasn't real communism

>>13312085
This guy gets it.

>>13312099

>>13312099
>>13312091
>>13312055
>>13312049
absolutely seething

>>13312091
t. unironic NPC

>>13312100
>>13312103
>>13312107
>JAAAAAAAAAAAANIES PLEEEEEEEEEEASE IT WASNT REAL COMMUNISM

>>13312097
Kinda quirky how it always devolves into authoritarianism tho

>>13312100
>>13312103
>>13312107
>>13312108
>32
>19

>>13312111
have sex

>>13312111
you sound upset

>>13312085
Excellent post, I agree with a lot of it, especially USSR and China being dictatorships instead of communist, however I think you are far too hasty in dismissing one particular argument
>"While people who point to China and the USSR as "examples of communism" are indeed fools who fell for the propaganda of those very states"
I would argue that, for the same reason you point to later in the post regarding natural orderering in terms of top-down, that any attempt at proper communism would lead to dictatorship eventually. You give a good reason as to why, the size of the commune, but I would also say it is just more effective in general to have a top-down approach in terms of material efficiancy. Like Plato wrote in The Republic, you need to divide the labour and have people specialize, this is the only way to effectively set up a system that will progress financially.

>>13312112
yeah bro i dont see any authoritarianism in capitalist countries. especially not since 2016 in the US

Do unironic commies use this board? Ew.

>>13312126
fucking lol every time
chapo trap house is that way buddy

>>13312114
>>13312116
>39
>20

>>13312127
>having a nuanced understanding of history makes you a commie
americans everyone

>>13312144
americans have the worst education s2g

>>13312112
Well, I suspect it would, but in those instances it was authoritarianism from start to finish. There was never any intent nor attempt to give up power.

If you're looking at instances where the institution started out as shared collectives with distributed power - such as the aforementioned tech startups, then yes, though the economic structure those companies were in kinda made corporatism the only other viable option. (And even corporatism isn't as draconian and controlling in nature as those states were.)

>>13312119
>I would argue that, for the same reason you point to later in the post regarding natural orderering in terms of top-down, that any attempt at proper communism would lead to dictatorship eventually.
Possibly, but I think it's just as apt to turn into regional democracy, much like the US has. Again, in the case of China and the USSR (and Cuba), the revolution established a dictatorship from day one, and never let it go. A series of coops would no doubt unite under single umbrellas, but much like when nations do the same, such institutions tend towards representative democracies - like the EU and such - simply due to all the conflicting interests that need to be managed. Much harder for a single strong man or small group to take over in that situation (not that it doesn't happen).

sent from my iphone
>no u

>>13312156
look we can all post random screenshots

>>13312111
>>13312099
>>13312091
I know ya don't have the attention span to read this, but look, you have two options:

1.) It was real communism, and against incredible odds and the ongoing efforts of the entire western world, the USSR, aside from the US, was the single most successful and powerful nation in all of history, while under communist rule.

2.) It wasn't communism. Cuz communism doesn't work on that scale, and Lenin and Stalin weren't idiots, but power hungry men willing to sell their rule to the people with that vague future promise they never delivered on.

In short, your position is far more pro communist than the one you are shouting down. You damned pinko.

>>13312178
>no u
>>13312182
>46
>20
You’re right, I didn’t read it.

>>13311944
We did, and it turned minor backwards economies into world powers, relatively, overnight. But they're conditions were behind countries that modernized their economies centuries earlier so, lmao failed experiment.

What am I to do if I don't like either capitalism nor communism? Can't there be a middle way with the state playing as the referee, only intervening when it's needed, to enforce rules that makes sure that things don't go really out of hand?

>>13312197
Then you're basically living under the system of any given nation in the modern western world. It's all very hybrid now, even in the US, with very fuzzy lines being crossed every which way.

>>13312197
>what if i liked everything literally as it was right now but didn't even realise it
lmao

>>13312197
>What am I to do if I don't like either capitalism nor communism?

>>13312206
>>13312207

Capitalism has created a web that is interwoven through the very fabric of everyday life now. Everything is a commodity, a consumer identity, or something that is made with driving consumption in mind. I don't like that at all. I don't like the Marxist approach, either.

>>13312213
>>What am I to do if I don't like either capitalism nor communism and want everything to be 100 times worse and to be ruled by complete autists

>>13312188
wtf do those numbers mean?

>>13311941
What makes Communism a special case when it comes to ideologies that don't work? It's the same for all ideologies.

>>13312228
number of posts and posters I assume, I imagine he thinks he's somehow making a point when in reality he just looks weird and autistic

>>13312217
Well, it's not quite as blatant in some nations as others. The scandinavian countries tend to have fairly socialist democracies (or is that the other way around? Dunno, ask Bernie). These go to great lengths to limit and regulate corporate power and media presence, unlike say, the US, where "greed is good", yet they still have a whole lotta bodies dedicated to keeping things from getting out of hand economically, if not culturally (and even if corruption often makes those bodies fail).

Realistically, trading is just what people do (true, even in the USSR, where they had wages and the like). Economic gravity means wealth concentration is inevitable, as wealth buys power to acquire more wealth and then more power, and said snowball eventually rolls into an avalanche that takes over everything. I've seen a lot of "pie in the sky" dreams on how to get around this inevitable fact of economics, but most of them aren't applicable - unless you can land on another planet and establish the groundwork, free from any external interference.

Not that you can't attempt such experiments in utopia on small scales under the good grace of the more tolerant nations. Sometimes it even works, with tight knit communities, to one degree or another. But it's very unlikely that there's a perfect solution that'll fit a world of 7 billion with cultures this diverse.

>>13312217
well unfortunately the only competing alternatives to this way of thinking are Marxism and the unspecified anti capitalism that comes from the Alt and New Right, which is ambiguous and almost no one in the movement is consistent on what they want. You could try to pioneer your own but then you'll discover you're probably just creating your own autistic branch of leftism or rightism that someone has already named

>>13312219
>and want everything to be 100 times worse
literally the opposite
>and to be ruled by complete autists
only after 1941
go be buttflusted somewhere else

>>13312250
yeah pretty much this

>>13312251
yeah I really want to have random people I know have their lives ruined because of their ethnic background not conforming with the autistic leader's unspecific, ambiguous genetic preferences

>>13312263
Go live in another country if you don't like it. At least you can, can't say the same for the USSR

>>13311967
So if his theory is so detached from reality that the conditions for this exact revolution will never even happen, you're gonna just keep pretending that it's the beacon of truth?

>>13312263
NTG, and yeah, I'm sick of every board being /pol/, but whether they know it or not, they do have a point. The primary idea behind NATSOC's economic model was that corporations would be forced to work for "the good of the nation", and thus not exploit its people.

The obvious problem with that is who decides what is for "the greater good", and what stops that individual or institution from being corrupted.

>>13312272
The revolution will happen.

>>13312269
>leave the country you have lived in for hundreds of years because this random autist doesn't like the religion you don't even properly follow
Also lets not forget the fact that Nazi Germany's economy was built for expansion, they had taken out massive loans they very obviously couldn't repay and were destined to run out of basic goods and necessities like oil if they didn't rapidly expand outwards, which means should the person who doesn't want to live in your retarded state wants to move then your retarded country is probably going to invade because lmao they forgot they needed oil to run a functioning society

>>13312273
>The obvious problem with that is who decides what is for "the greater good"
council of Military/civil/scientific and agricultural leaders
>and what stops that individual or institution from being corrupted.
Barring anyone that has working higher up in the private sector for holding public office.

>>13312273
Democratic fascism

>>13312273
the problem with these ideologies though is that the autistic racial classifications and militarisation shit comes first before concrete rationalisation of how to manage the economy. Hitler literally just privatised everything and took out massive loans to furnish his military and navy, he didn't have any real plans for how to manage the economy outside of, no jews and invade everyone, the states aren't built to last

>>13312282
>Also lets not forget the fact that Nazi Germany's economy was built for expansion,
literally wrong and full of conjecture
>lmao
back to wherever you crawled out from, this is /lit/, not twitter or r*ddit

>>13311941
Marx was based, burgers are restless as fuck trying to spread FUD because the future is red. Buy Marxcoin because its about to boom

>>13312291
>Hitler literally just privatised everything
Is this bait?

>>13312297
>>13312302
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties
do a little fucking reading about the states you defend you retards

>>13312291
He had his whole idea of autarky and it's requisite self sufficiency, he was worried that once the East(USSR) realized its industrial potential and could produce consumer goods it would become self sufficient from Germany and would essentially starve them out. Thing is Germany's economy could not survive on this self-sufficiency and had to annex land to sustain its deficit. And also look at Italy and Spain, less racially oriented more based on actual fascist ideology. Think Oswald Mosely has a good book on this, 100 questions for a fascist I think.

How do socialists cope with the fact that the only real, meaningful, humane, successful worker-led uprising was Solidarity and it was driven by Catholic social teaching?

>>13312306
>wikipedia.

>>13312314
sorry i should have relied on all the sources youve provided me with lmao

>>13312288
>Barring anyone that has working higher up in the private sector for holding public office.
Dun think that would cut it. Ambition abounds, from the lowest to the highest.

Personally, I think any universal system needs to play on the weaknesses of humanity as well as its strengths - which is sorta what we see in this "naturally evolved" hybrid systems today. It'd basically need a whole lotta competing systems of checks and balances, and another layer of competing systems over those dedicated to maintaining the balance of power between them. How one creates such a bureaucratic beast and makes it as self-sustaining and self-perpetuating as the current systems is beyond me though... I am a strong proponent of "the philosopher's school" though, in that every office should be technocratic as fuck with educational and experience requirements increasing as you go up the ladder. None of this "everyone is entitled to lead the nation" bullshit. It doesn't much matter how retarded the voting masses are, if their only options are all thoroughly qualified and vetted.

>>13312291
Well, the "kill da j00z" shit doesn't necessarily have to be part of such an economic system, but yeah, when "the good of the nation" becomes the standard, some weird shit does tend to work its way in there, as that's basically a religious decree. I suppose it'd help to have a very well constitutional definition as to exactly what that does and doesn't cover, but one does risk leaving profitable loopholes or paralysis in the face of unforeseen events.

>>13312308
I definitely think that mussolini is underrated and was only ruined by hitler's autism, which again shows you that even if you do manage to assemble a functioning state, then the people you associate with internationally who aren't intent on the same objectives as you will drag you into a quagmire of failure and sabotage you. it's only the miracle that Franco didn't get involved in the war he managed to last as long as he did. Mosley is just as autistic about the jews as hitler was if you see interview with him you see him banging on about international jewry as much as your stanard polnigger. The ideologies unfortunately only draw in racial purity autists and weird prussia fetishisers hardly any real economic decision makers

>>13312306
>wikipedia
Jesus Christ you're stupid

>>13312329
yeah I should have gone to the sources all the upstanding nazis in this thread have provided me with that go against what im saying

>>13311941
>>13311944
I have come the conclusion that communism works in theory, however, once you add human nature it becomes a flawed system and naturally degradates.

>>13312335
>defending wikipedia
>for free

>>13312343
damn that's crazy

>>13312343

I think a big part of the problem is the cult of personality effect. One man maybe a great leader, but that doesn't guarantee the next man will be as well, and he'll inherit all his power. Men are mortal, institutions endure. So what you need, more than a great leader, is an institution that encourages great leaders, and discourages and quickly ejects bad ones.

It's not very cathartic, being ruled more by a system than by men, but, with exception of a few nations that have strict experience and/or educational requirements for various high offices - which would only be part of such a solution - I can't really point to a system like that which has been put into place on a large scale. Even corporate CEO's, while they tend to be hired on technocratic merits, experience, and previous success, suffer very little real consequences when they go off the rails, and of course, usually have no term limit.

>>13312343
There is no such thing as "human nature", and communism has never been successful because it's never been truly realised in reality by those starting off revolution.

>>13312344
>defending nazis
>for free
idk mine sounds less worse

>>13312343
This is the common sell line. It's, however, not really true. Communism simply doesn't work over a certain scale, especially in a world of competitors (and even without them, it's terribly inefficient). Communist fanbois will sometimes cry "It's never been tried!", and they are right, in that it's never been tried at a national scale, but for good reason. But it's not the case that communism "decays into dictatorship", all the feigned national efforts at communism were large scale centralized dictatorships from day one, and never anything else.

Granted, the nasty part of those nations was the authoritarianism, not the socialism. And concentrating on the latter instead of the former, tends to let said authoritarianism sneak up on one unnoticed, when it comes in an anti-communist guise.

>>13312376
“Unlimited power in the hands of limited people always leads to cruelty.”

>>13311941
There are almost 200 countries, only a couple wouldn't call themselves capitalist. Most of those countries are a shit to live in, with the exception of the "developed" ones that use their neocolonial superpowers to skew your perspective.
>At what point do you say, okay we tried his approach and didn't get anywhere good, maybe we should ditch his ideas since they don't mesh well with reality?

Don't fall for the propaganda of this world's hegemon, OP you fag.

>>13311992
LMAO

>>13312085
this is a great and largely true post.

>>13311941
At what point do you say, okay we tried Newton's approach, but Einstein and Heisenberg kept showing us that it didn't get anywhere good, maybe we should just ditch physics since it doesn't mesh well with reality?

>>13312228
Go back, tourist.

>>13312321

>>13312197
There's social liberalism and social democracy as middle grounds. Social democracy used to be more considered just socialists with an incrementalist approach rather than revolutionary, though with the turn of Keynesian economics their parties became more about keeping the capitalist structure in place for efficiency while using regulations and heavy welfare statism to benefit workers and consumers. Social liberalism is an off shoot of the classical liberalist tradition after laissez-faire economics was shown to often be abusive to the worker. What they retain from the classical liberal tradition is a focus on liberty. A classical liberal would say you can do whatever you want so long as you're not directly interfering with others. A social liberal would say you can do whatever you want so long as you're not overtly coercing others. They extend this to things like the worker contract and see it as illegitimate as an unregulated agreement. One, because those in the contract don't enter on equal terms: if you alone threaten to stop working to cancel the contract, your employer might have 100 other workers to make the damage to them minimal, but them threatening to stop providing you money has immediate damaging implications that would often ruin you in a month. Thus, union and minimum wage laws are standard positions in this school. Monopolies, especially natural monopolies, are seen as similarly coercive enough for the government to step in. They also see positive liberty as important enough for the state to provide the conditions for it, as with, for example, public education. To them, it is important one is not only free from the meddling of others but to have the opportunity to self actualize in any way they deem fit. Funny enough, while the early social liberals were in favor of public sector jobs and the right to work for a fair compensation, they were skeptical of "paternalistic government" in the form of heavy welfare statism, seeing that as being detrimental to an individual's drive.

>>13312236
>98
>35

>>13312426
Someone really should add "read Crime and Punishment" to this pic

>>13312050
erm?

>>13312050
>Really, did the US overthrow USSR or Chinas political party?
Would that be ever declassified?
US certainly financed coup in Poland in the '80, that was eroding the eastern bloc. Also oil price dumping along with the Saudis greately helped to fuck USSR into oblivion.
China still calls itself communist and is doing pretty good last I've checked.

>>13312422
Er, maybe I can play on your analogy... Newton's approach is fine, and valid, and still used. On most practical scales, it's every bit as accurate as one could need it to be.

It only goes really wonky on larger and faster scales, where it falls apart and ya gotta use the much more accurate (but nonetheless, in part, derivative), Relativity.

And Quantum Physics, similarly, works great on those unimaginably tiny scales, but becomes impractical at larger scales, and breaks down entirely when Relativistic gravitational effects come into play.

So ya use Newtonian physics for ping pong balls, Relativity for planets, and Quantum physics for electrons. (Though, on intergalactic scales, it may be we've hit a bit of a wall.)

Economic and political philosophies tend to fall into similar categories. Some work for some scales and situations, some work for others, but no one works everywhere (yet another wall), so you try to mix and match optimally... And much like physics, where everyone is still looking for that magical thing we call GUT or TOE, everyone's still looking for Utopia in political and economic philosophy.

>>13312343
like the orthopedic surgeon in "Madam Bovery" who says "The technique has been perfected, although it has never been tried."

>>13312450
>And Quantum Physics, similarly, works great on those unimaginably tiny scales, but becomes impractical at larger scales, and breaks down entirely when Relativistic gravitational effects come into play.
stop.

>>13312465
I admit, I carried the analogy too far, but that is all true, if oversimplified, so far as I understand it.

>>13312085
very underrated and insightful post

>>13312085
Interesting post, but wrong is the thesis:
>once the company reaches a certain size, it abandons the model - for good reason
Google: Mondragon Corporation

>>13312412
The thing is, there are atleast many succesful capitalist countries. Can you point to one succesful socialist country?

>>13312085
>>13312091
>>13312102
>>13312119
>>13312421
>>13312483
>>13312484
Didn't know /lit/ was a bunch of trots and trot sympathizers

>>13312484
Interesting... I'll have to look into that more deeply when I get the chance. Though, given Spain's history at around the time that was put to together, it maybe a unique aberration, and, at first glance, it does look like it did at least devolve into more of a representative system rather than directly worker controlled.

>>13312504
Maybe you should go back to where you came from desu

>>13312445
Really, it looks like we were even more unprepared for the collapse of the Soviet Union than the Soviet Union was. Though, this was largely due to the CIA being repeatedly told not to tell politicians things they did not want to hear, so a lot of their reports came with a certain blind slant.

That breakup and the history that followed would have been a lot smoother had that not been the case. ...And we'd probably be living with less of the consequences of that deliberate lack of foresight, in the form of, well, nearly every conflict we're in today.

>>13311941
If capitalism is so compatible with reality, why is it giving way to communist, or at least socially democratic, attitudes all around the world?

>>13312507
you're right, your mom misses me by now

>>13312503
Anything from Scandinavia?
If you're talking about something more communist like, then my anwser is:
You'd need to start from US or destroy it first. A smaller democratic country will get it's govt overthrown if it tries fucking with the corporations. So the only nations that called themselves communist were totalitatian since they may not be as easy to destabilise.

>>13312506
The playing field - "the global free market" - is skewed. Since the biggest players are already dictatorship corpos and can influence the regulations, don't expect "free market" will be coop friendly. Still that market is an artifficial creation. Just as well you can create a free market in which the only entities alowed to exist are coops (as working for a pyramid structure is hidden slavery).

people should have stopped attempting communism after the first several million deaths

god damn you to hell, marx

>>13312566
>the concept of the state should have been stopped after the first several million deaths

>goddamn you to hell humans

>>13312525
I think the collapse of USSR went according to plan of US oligarchy up to a point. It is a US standard practice to overthrow a govt, start rampant privatization and create another neocolonial country. Russian oligarchy was stronger however. And they have Putin.

>>13312504
what is a trot?

>>13312583
it's when you have absolutely abhorrent takes like Marx was actually a revisionist and the USSR wasn't actually socialist

fuck niggers
fuck commies
fuck women
fuck trannies
fuck chinks
fuck beaners
fuck redditers
fuck faggots
fuck jannies

>>13312539
Scandinavia isn’t even sligthly socialist. And it’s not about the welfare society thing, or le meme nordic model, it’s that philosophically and spiritually the private ownership right is very much enforced and encouraged. I am a Swede and nothing Marx says really clings well with Swedes

>>13312610
Truly astounding how people give capitalist systems - private, free-market economies - as examples of socialism just because they favour redistributive tax policies more so than others. Seems to be an American phenomenon.

>>13312610
Why are commies so dishonest?

>>13312527
based. telling that nobody responded

>>13312598
you seem angry

>>13312629
>redditspacing
>commie
>xD who hurt you sweaty
You HAVE to go back.

>>13312527
what the hell sort of question is this?
a single capitalist country can last longer than all communist countries

>>13312085
>Communism is fine, on the commune level, with tight knit groups of maybe 200 or less, but once you reach that Feinman limit, your only real option is to centralize.

Communism IS centralized you utter retard. You think you're saying something that contradicts Marx, when in fact you're just repeating after him. He made the exact point about the "interconnectedness" of the means of production and the necessity of their appropriation to correspond to that interconnectedness, that is to be universal, at the level of society (not "nation", not "tight knit group").

>This appropriation is first determined by the object to be appropriated, the productive forces, which have been developed to a totality and which only exist within a universal intercourse. From this aspect alone, therefore, this appropriation must have a universal character corresponding to the productive forces and the intercourse.

Of course we all know that this board is full of morons who write about what they haven't read, so it's not that I'm surprised or anything.

>>13312655
well most countries actually don't last very long, most contemporary government's can trace their origins to within the last 100 years, the idea that "hurr gapitalism make gountries to last" is plain retarded considering how many capitalist countries collapse in on themselves constantly

>>13312610
>There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms
>The state of Norway has ownership stakes in many of the country's largest publicly listed companies, owning 37% of the Oslo stockmarket and operating the country's largest non-listed companies including Equinor and Statkraft.

>I am a Swede and nothing Marx says really clings well with Swedes
You're a single person, don't talk for an entire nation.

>>13312677
compare how many modern capitalist countries have fallen in the past 100 years to how many modern communist countries have fallen in the past 100 years
>b-but muh african desert shitholes are capitalist

>>13312684
well i mean technically a lot of them are very capitalist, you're more likely to find failed states in africa that are capitalist than socialist

>>13312655
>a single capitalist country
Copitalism can't work as a single country.

>>13312656
Which was his point about the next step for implementation being authoritarianism. The idea that doing it for long enough would integrate it as a natural desire in most people, in such a way that it can be maintained outside of an authoritarian regime, is a baseless assumption.

>>13312610
A svenne rightoid that doesn’t know about his own history. Like clockwork.

>>13312689
good point but they're not shit countries because they're capitalist, they're shit countries because their leadership is insanely corrupt
>>13312692
good point but communism can't work, period

>>13312697
no they're usually shitholes because of capitalist countries fucking with them in some capacity, whether it be the US or EU imposing some ridiculous economic situation on them or overthrowing their leaders in a coup for leaning slightly too far away from complete market domination.

>>13312710
if they can't compete in any area despite having huge populations and abundant resources, then they're fucking retarded

>>13312697
>they're shit countries because their leadership is insanely corrupt
By the western capitalists

>communism can't work
Because?

>>13312715
>Because?
are you serious?
have you not seen the state of the world in the past 100 years?
how many people have to die for you blind tankies to see the light?

>>13312713
well no let's look at the reality of places with abundant resources, like Nigeria which has large quantities of oil, Nigeria's economic failures come from the way European companies like Shell maintain control over their governments and get themselves the best deals they can while straddling Nigeria with the most environmental, and economic burden they can get away with. Nigeria is completely able to compete with the rest of the world it's just the idea that capitalists have of "muh competition" is completely at odds with the reality of massive multinationals with more power in their hands than federal governments. Nigeria isn't corrupt and awful because its population are retarded, they're corrupt and awful because they're being paid to be that way by market forces

>>13312728
>Nigeria's economic failures come from the way European companies like Shell maintain control over their governments
and how did it come to that situation? did capitalists magically strip their reasoning ability?

>>13312697

>>13312732
well we do have to also remember nigeria was a colony of the UK until the last 50 years, and after the UK very unceremoniously withdrew there was a massive power vacuum and era of conflict that followed, a lot of the governments that come in to fill that void will appeal very heavily to overseas investment to try and bring some stability to their country through financial security, however, when you invite those overseas investors in they will then proceed to lobby and take control of the government because surprise surprise the only people with money in post colonial nations have all the power. They can then lobby for lower taxes, less emphasis on regulation, less emphasis on human rights or education, they can lobby for their own interests exclusively. It's pretty straight forward.

>>13312735

>>13312723
Why when millions die under an authoritarian capitalist regime is it blamed on dictatorships and authoritarianism and fascism but when a left-leaning government does the same it is automatically blamed on socialism?

>>13312715
because if no one owns the means of production, there is no incentive to make the means of production. also, the assumption that working people would become more poor was the opposite of correct. its time to move on, find something better to think about.

>>13312744
communism will never work because the society will be immediately raped by an invading army while they are defenseless

>>13312746
Nobody here likes discord tranny except for /a/ /lgbt/ and /r9k/, boards which you shouldn’t visit to begin with for unrelated reasons

>>13312749
examples?

>>13312746
>expecting me to read fucking discord logs filled with anime avis

>>13312758
Nazi germany

>>13312767

>>13312752
That’s only true for pseudosocialist risings in irrelevant communes or states. A true revolution starts at the heart of capital, borrowing its accumulated forces and means of production to overthrow it at the same time. There’s also the pressure of technology outpacing the ramifications of an outdated economy, i.e, the economy type can’t keep up with the advanced forces of production.

>>13312758
well if we look at just the major colonial Empires the UK, France, Spain, the Ottomans, the Portuguese, Germany, all managed to kill millions in some capacity during their runs whether it be due to mismanagement of resources, or intentional violence.

Socialism works
T. Cuban

>>13312723
Communism in it's essence is antitotalitarian. Have you heard about "power to the people"?
When Lukashenko says that Belarus has democracy do you believe him? If not, then why do you believe Stalin, when he called USSR communist?
Both blocs - eastern and western had inerest to call USSR a communist state. Both lied. You are high on propaganda and blinded by it. Which means I probably won't be able convince you, since you already "know better".

>>13312750
> if no one owns the means of production
They belong to the people in socialist state.
Read about kibutzes if you think it's ineffective.

>>13312694
It's only "authoritarian" towards non-proletarian classes, until class distinctions disintegrate. What actually is a baseless assumption, is the assumption that antagonisms based on conflicting class interests outlive this base. Now that's literally baseless.

>>13312750
>because if no one owns the means of production, there is no incentive to make the means of production
The means of production are owned by the society.
>the assumption that working people would become more poor was the opposite of correct
RELATIVELY more poor, which indeed happened.

>>13312752
What army? The society is THE society, not the nation or some part of society. Unless you mean a Martian army or something, then sure, perhaps you're right.

>>13312889
>It's only "authoritarian" to those who disagree with it
Well done.
>until class distinctions disintegrate
No reason to believe that "class" singularly arises from material conditions. In fact there are plenty of reasons to believe otherwise.

Not to mention "worker owned means of production" can map out in various ways. Disagreement (whether local, or not) on whether this should be implemented through direct democracy, representative democracy (through and elected council of reps/union leaders), or simply by delegating executive function to a top-down system as a result of prioritising/valuing what is viewed as efficiency -and the resulting negotiation imbalances- will always get you back to square one, unless you control this through an authoritarian, totalitarian regime. Utopias are short-sighted, arrogant masturbations of narcissists. Strictly imagining well-being as a derivative of material conditions is not only a terrible way to live, but also incorrect.

>>13312191
Wasn't Marxism but the Chinese people who did that.

>>13312970
To clarify the first point, it is conceivable, even demonstrably possible that it's not just the non-proletariat"/non-owners of capital who would disagree with this.

>>13311941
As long as international imperialistic bourgeois exists communism is nearly impossible to achieve(see: Paris commune). Even USSR was only socialist and China claims that it's moving towards socialism.

>>13312970
>No reason to believe that "class" singularly arises from material conditions. In fact there are plenty of reasons to believe otherwise.
Class in the Marxist sense does. Communism doesn't mean that there are no longer any distinct social groups. It just means that they don't have antagonistic economic interests following from their role in the division of labor rather than their natural capabilities and needs.
>Not to mention "worker owned means of production" can map out in various ways.
Marxism isn't about "worker owned means of production". That's a meme.
>Utopias are short-sighted, arrogant masturbations of narcissists.
It's not about utopia either.

>>13312987
What's important here isn't their feelings, but their interests.

>>13312994
>what is important isn't their feelings, or interests, but what my nomenklatura and I determine the latter to be and the former should be as its resultant.

>>13313000
Are you some kind of relativist?

>>13311941
Capitalism

>>13313004
Of course not. Just a liberal. Just because I deem you to be immoral, doesn't mean I want to make the existence of the likes of you illegal.

Marx didn't write much about what it should look like, this is the part most don't know. He did this on purpose. This was the case until Lenin theorized. 20th century historical communism only moved production from the Capitalists to the State. Marx was against this and cults of personality, so when it's said it's never been done it actually has never been done. Only in name or governments label others as such.

There is no reality, you lumpenigger.

>>13313020
based

>>13313014
I mean a relativist about interests rather than morals.

>>13313032
No, much like in the case of morality, just a subjectivist. Just because I think that your interests are ill-informed, doesn't mean that I believe I should, or CAN dictate what they should be. Not that there aren't facts to be known about our inter-subjective network of interests. Just that authoritarianism brings about more suffering than liberalism.

>>13312713

>if you can't compete with our literal enslavement of the large population and the extraction of your abundant natural resources then you're retarded

shut the fuck up burger choke

>>13311965
lots of thought put into this post. good job

>>13312050
WWII resulted in loss of 20mil Russians and infrastructure from which USSR never fully recovered. America was the only one who gained staggering amount of wealth due to the war. As a consequence of bad leadership and general fallout of the war USSR declined. Reform was needed but Gorbachev and his buddies sold USSR to the highest western bidder against wishes of its people. US got involved in 90s elections to prevent resuscitation of the communists and election of Yeltsin, and alas it lead to present Russia. USSR did achieve many great things in Russia(Industrialisation in 20 years, 99% literacy from less than 10%, space programme, etc). and one can claim by the sheer fear its mere existence induced in the western establishment resulted in workers rights and welfare programs (which are being progressively torn down).
China in the other hand is Dengist, Dengists claim China is developing its productive forces by state capitalism and Chinese leaders such as Xi are signalling that they will try to shift China towards socialism.
Latin America is a clear victim of American imperialism though. every time it's country elected socialists America tried to instigate coup. American imperialism has run rampant in Latin America for nearly a century now.

I'm not a socialist or a communist anyone though, cause I think it'll never be achieved in our consumer society and the revolutionary force (proletariats) are nearly non - existent. The revolution might've been possible in last century but it's not going to be on the horizon for a long long time. Who knows, maybe Marx is right, and it'll happen when we are expecting it the least. Sorry for going off the tangent, I even forgot what I was replying to.
The thought of never ending capitalism very disturbing but might end up being true.

>>13311941
Why tf people still insisting that everyone wants a utopia ? Hello , theres also people who dont ! Get off your stupid utopian meta narrative and just embraced the ghey buttsex narrative which everyone wants. BTFO.

Is /lit/ the last place on earth where people still take "it wasn't real socialism" trope seriously?

>>13313089
My issue with politics is that it's not dsytopian enough. Indeed, I won't stop my activism until we get dwarf nationalist parties and trans-straight anal sex legalized.

>>13313088
>anyone though
anymore*

>>13311941
At what point do you say, okay we tried his approach and didn't get anywhere good, maybe we should ditch his ideas since they don't mesh well with reality?

>>13311941
When does one ought to state that, " we attempted to implement their suggestions and failed, and perhaps it would be better to discard their ideas since they fail to successfully account the true nature of things"?

>>13312127
Where the fuck do you think you are, cowboy?

Why do americans tennagers like to larp as commies on the internet?
Didn't they understand that this is offensive for people in Europe who suffered from socialism

>>13313172
Perhaps actually reading some communist and anti-capitalist literature might help answering your question?

>>13313172
Who cares about triggering retards?

>>13312156
>28 upvotes
>years ago
>I'm not going to participate
real damning shit there buddy, no way any the_donald kids came here from reddit, right? just these 28 marxists?

>>13312085

Gentle reminder that the USSR was built on the backs of slave labour, whether it'd be the prison camp workers stripping harsh Siberia of its natural bounties or regular joes fulfilling government quotas - it was illegal in Soviet Union not to work. Russia exchanged feudal slavery for communist slavery, boyars for chekists. Communism did indeed lift the country out of its medieval trappings but it had practically nothing to do with Marx's dubious vision.

>>13313172
>offensive
Sounds like you're a fucking retard! lol

>predict uprising of proles in industrialized capitalist societies
>only successful communist revolutions were in feudal countries led by millitary defectors, misguided rich people and regular criminals, with barely any proles
how do communists reconcile this?

>>13313099
>trans-straight anal sex legalized.
what third-world rock do you live under where this isn't already legal

>>13312970
>It's only "authoritarian" to those who disagree with it
It's authoritarian towards those who don't share the class interest of the proletariat. They will mostly consist of those parts of non-proletarian classes who by that time still fail to recognize the fact that the class interest of the proletariat corresponds to the universal human interest because it leads to universal human emancipation.

>Disagreement (whether local, or not) on whether this should be implemented through direct democracy, representative democracy [...] will always get you back to square one, unless you control this through an authoritarian, totalitarian regime.
Petty bourgeois retard imagines that people will give a shit about his stupid formalisms once they are no longer subjected to their power. Those decisions become purely logistical in a socialist society, since they only become a problem when there are competing class interests fighting over them. Which is of course for you means "always", since your ideology can't comprehend that capitalism isn't eternal.

>Utopias are short-sighted, arrogant masturbations of narcissists.
I agree. Marx enjoyed trashing utopianists.

>Strictly imagining well-being as a derivative of material conditions is not only a terrible way to live, but also incorrect.
I don't even understand what that's supposed to mean, but it doesn't seem relevant to my position.

>>13313097
I doubt it. It's pretty clear that this "trope" is true if you read some Marx, but /lit/ doesn't read so they can't possibly know that.

>>13313266
Reconcile what? Peasant revolutions are not communist.

>>13313172
>offensive
>insulting Americans
false flag burger

>>13313254
>Gentle reminder that the USSR was built on the backs of slave labour
at least it wasn't literal chattel slavery like that which the US was built on

>>13313334

>cotton picking niggas and Irish maids built the US

Sheeeeeit

>>13313334
>US was built on slavery

>>13311941
Christcucks have been trying for thousands of years
Still no Milennium and somehow nothing actually worhwhile in life works on the power of prayer

Marxists are fighting a constant struggle against human nature, but at least their goals are semi-plausible compared to most of the other ideological garbage

>>13313342
go back to rebbit faggot

>>13313342
>>13313345
ok so you're telling me you think labor camps for political prisoners in the middle of siberia is enough for a country to be "built on" but not the partial legacy of the british (biggest empire in history) transatlantic slave trade which started a civil war

People actually take anything above social democracy seriously anymore? Lmao stay in the past.

>>13313377

>labor camps for political prisoners in the middle of siberia is enough for a country to be "built on"
What part of ''it was illegal not to work in Soviet Union'' did you not fucking understand? Next you'll tell me the soviets didn't draft people to work the fields in harvest time.

>slave trade which started a civil war
There were many other reasons for the Civil War, other than slavery. Even across the northern states there wasn't a consensus on ending slavery.

Typical braindead commie. Go slurp some Starbucks while you browse Reddit, faggot.

>>13313405
>What part of ''it was illegal not to work in Soviet Union'' did you not fucking understand?
you starve if you don't work in the US so i mean

>civil war was started over state's rights
still on this meme?

>>13313307
>Reconcile what? Peasant revolutions are not communist.
In that case Marx was simply wrong because the proles have never risen up and never will

>>13313384
Fuck off, NeoHegel.

>>13313422

Real high IQ post, I can tell you're totally not being retarded on purpose here.

>you starve if you don't work in the US so i mean
In the US you have a CHOICE to work. There are no government goons forcing you to flip burgers. And the welfare state has existed since the sixties.

>still on this meme?
Tell that to historians, or even Wikipedia.

>>13313440
Picrelated is way ahead of you on that one.

Philosophy doesn't just stop at dead ends. Marxism is a science

If you're not trying and trying and trying then you're a quitter. Communism will win. Eat my shit, capitalist cuckolds.

>>13313452
Nick writes in a language i dont understand, so i wouldnt know

People will never give up Capital as their God

>>13313443
based

>>13313447
>There are no government goons forcing you to flip burgers.
there are goverment goons forcing me to give up part of my income for that welfare state you mentioned. you sure you want to get to the same conclusion as nozick?

"he who does not work shall not eat" was lenin's interpretation of what marx called "lower communism" (what lenin called socialism) which marx said would follow the maxim of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution"; marx's entire point behind this was to say that "lower communism" would have leftover ideology from capitalism, needing to rely on accounting of labor for an "exchange of equivalents". my point being you will have a hard time arguing capitalism doesn't involve economic coercion along these same lines, since marx explicitly said lower communism would be similar to capitalism in this way - hence what lenin did. lenin even called the USSR "state capitalist" btw. his words, not mine

>>13313454
a shitty science, it seems. Spengler said empiricism was garbage and just pulled stuff out of his ass, and he still was a hundred times better at predicting the course of civilization.

>>13313487
It's all good. the bossman just wants one more yacht, and that should naturally come first?

>>13311941
At what point do you sat, okay I didn't read Capital or any of his works, maybe I should ditch trying to argue against strawmen of his ideas since they aren't representative of the reality?

>>13313539
based

>>13313487
>ugh if only they were class conscious like me. If only i could lead them

>>13313539
>implying anyone even reads capital besides leftcoms who treat him as an infallible prophet whose word is Scripture
>implying the Manifesto doesnt already show enough shit wrong with marxist theory
THe biggest flaw is that the proles never did rise up, even when communist movements were at their height, and that 'false' consciousness proved to be far more strong and even true than shitty materialist class consciousness.

>>13313557
https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/zh9p34j/revision/5

>>13313440
>In that case Marx was simply wrong because the proles have never risen up and never will
They did in 1871 and 1917–1919. If you're wrong even about the past then I think it's safe to ignore your assertions about the future.

>>13313513
>lenin even called the USSR "state capitalist" btw
Which is beside the point since he didn't consider USSR to be socialist. Your post overstates the similarities between capitalism and a lower stage of communism. Marx only made this and similar comparisons to bourgeois society as an analogy to help Lassaleans and other retards understand what he's saying.

>>13313539
>/lit/
>reading
lmao