/lit/ - Literature

thats the only reason i gave up my freedoms! who wants an ugly democrat as a leader?

FÜR TEH LULZ, BUMP I!

I'd let him equally distribute me if you catch my drift

>Stalin
>communist

>implying stalinsim=communism=marxism=maoism=leninism

Except that's not Stalin.

I'd let him oppress me.

>yfw Stalin looks like a trust fund kid

>>1903721

It is Stalin.

Liberals are good-looking. Conservatives tend to be uglier, stupider.

What Stalin did was to try and relinquish his country of their conservative problem. Like if the US were to relinquish itself from their's by exterminating the south...........a good idea if you want to expedite the process of liberation.

Unfortunately they were unable to get the message across; and, like all tyrants, rather than relieve his power when the problem was solved, he developed a thirst for it.

Hopefully, one day, a Democrat will seize power, wipe the south, texas and utah off the planet and then say, "now we vote", he/she steps down and becomes the "dark knight".

it's not until we remove these old mores and traditions that we will truly be free. stalin succeeded and wasn't doing it right after. in the us, a dem hasn't had the balls when they have every reason to have. time to get some, or do your part and just start fucking up the south.

>>1903721

Except, it is you faggot.

>>1904277

How refreshing. Another utopian faggot suburban kid.

>>1904277
ITT: A kid who doesn't understand partisanship/lack thereof.

>>1904277

lol

pro–abortion rally? ugly chicks.
pro–life rally? hot chicks.

QED

>>1904285

You get that from It's Always Sunny in Philadephia? lol.....

Reality check. Every hot chick you see on the cover of a magazine - model, actress, porn star, princess - is a liberal. Get over it.

>>1904284

do you know what partisanship is? oh, you do? you might want to explain it to republican politicians, then.

learn2history

>>1904280

>city
>liberal

only american libertarians are conservatives that live in a utopian dream, faggot.

he was a handsome man

is it really true that liberals are more handsome then the other guys?

>Staling
>communist

-3938928943276784/10, nice try OP, pic related

>>1904300

can you name people on the right that are more handsome than brad pitt, george clooney, dicaprio, matt damon, ben affleck and tom brady (can go on forever)?

most every celebrity - even country singers - are dems. conservatives haven't had a real stud since cary grant and that was back when conservative meant something different i.e. the south - the racist, slavish south - wasn't the face of it.

>>1904304
i love Matt Damon!

one time me and my mom went to the movies and he was in the movie and he was so nice!

>>1904305

matt damon on sarah palin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk

>>1903708
Yep, was a fervent communist while still young.
But he matured, like every intelligent person.

>>1904357
Stalin was always Lenin's errand boy and a was a poor communist theorist.

>>1901733
>They say you grow hair, Look a like Stalin

So any American farmer has any arguments why coöperation is bad and being social something to burn for?
For Americans it even goes as far as republican or democrat, it's all still quite right wing, but you're getting closer to a way of life where people can go to hospitals and universities without depending on your parents' money. Don't go too far or you'll get lazy though.

>>1904304
Having entertainers as democrats isn't really a good thing, just like hipsters wearing glasses to look smart. It just doesn't have any effect. Rather tell me that almost every professor who has interest in politics is left wing, which is what I'm seeing around me.

>>1904277
>Stalin
>Liberal in any way.

Stalin was an opportunist who saw the communist doctrine as a ticket to success. As soon as he got into power, he betrayed all of the ideals of communism.

>>1904367
because taking a political position required you to be a professor of histoy, economics, sociology and psychology

So, why is this /lit/?

>>1904377
>I know cos I lived in guy's head since his birth.
>I know cos dude that lived in guy's head told me so.

>>1903715
>Implying no true scotsman would do such a thing

>>1904277
or we could just restict voting to white men who own property again and democrats would cease to be elected.

liberals, party of choice for criminals, perverts, blacks and women, intellectual giants all!

well if anyone even bother to read anymore, you would fucking see that european countries that were at one point communist or socialist are technically on worse terms than when under communist/socialist rule. i mean, during those times, you didn't see hobos searching through the dumpster for empty beer cans and bottles to sell. therefore in a sense, you can't really say communism and/or socialism was 100% bad. prove me wrong.

>>1904414
No instead of searching for beer cans and bottles they were sent to labor camps and probably died. Not that I'm arguing against that.

>>1904424
you're completely right. but i never said that is was splendid and everyone got a complimentary savings fund and wife, but i'm just pointing out that there were indeed go points to that sort of rule. only on paper did communism or socialism look nice, in theory everything does.

>mass genocide of the American south

fap fap fap.

>>1904277
The South gave you Bill and Hillary Clinton, two of the last stalwarts of the slowly hemorrhaging Democrat party.

Watch your mouth, extremist.

>>1904304
I will say this: Conservatives sure aren't fucking funny. And I mean either the neo-con, Reaganite conservatives or the fundamentalist Tea Party brand. Neither of these type have a sense of humor, seriously. Try watching or listening to conservative comedians...forgive the pun, but they are a joke.

Libertarians seem to be funny motherfuckers, though.

>>1905158

>Libertarians seem to be funny motherfuckers, though.

I know right? Unrestrained capitalism working for the common good. Fucking hilarious.

>>1905153

>Implying that wilson, truman, fdr and lbj - all top 10 Presidents - weren't more liberal than Clinton, and that the Democratic party is 'slowly hemorrhaging' because it is slowly (very slowly) moving this country to the left again.

your silly. and hillary is not from the south. she married into that trash.

>>1905109
But the American south is where all America's good music and books come from.

>>1904432
I hate this 'theory vs. reality' nonsense, like a giant bureaucracy sitting on top of a giant pile of capital wouldn't obviously be prone to exploit it.

The idea of a vanguard party is ridiculous, and a literal 'dictatorship of the proletariat'(Marx envisioned it more as a universal democracy) is obviously prone to failure. That doesn't mean you give up on communism all together.

>>1905179

ah, i don't like faulkner and i ain't talking about killing niggers, but yes, being oppressed and standing witness to such injustices - if you view it unjust - can, no doubt, force more inspiration out of your hand, your voice, than ever being a free man could.

i wrote a screenplay in one day when i was in the hole. vivid and conscious day dreams enhanced by depression and a great yearn for freedom.......have you ever read Genet?

Keith Olbermann is a stud.

Bill-O and Glenn Beck are both sweaty, tubby old angry men.

Case. Closed.

>>mfw nobody in this thread has a complete understanding of Stalin, his legacy, his or Bolshevism's relation to communism, communism itself, or how any one of these topics is relevant today.

I will say though, the guy defending Stalin and his extermination campaign may be the stupidest person I've ever seen on this board.

>>1905163
Capitalist trolls, the both of you.

>>1905263
>stupidest

lrn2adjective. reminds me of when of when I was a kid and I used to say 'my daddy is the bestest daddy in the world'.........of course i was just a kid.

>>1905275

Yeah, that's an actual word nig. Not that I care.

>>1905163
>unrestrained capitalism
>for the common good
It's so easy to see through the free marketers subterfuge; their hidden authoritarian agenda in the guise of liberty.

>>1905263
You haven't read the thread, have you? Only a small part.. Kankertroll!

>>1905334
+1
The only freedom gained under capitalism is the freedom to horde resources unnecessarily and exploit others. Randist 'libertarianism' is a refutation of consensus democracy the same as Stalinism

>>1905358
how the fuck does capitalism imply exploitation?
capitalism does not contradict a constitution, enabling human rights.
if you feel exploited by your employer, FUCK OFF AND WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE. he can't stop you dipshit.

>>1905358

for the horde!

>>1905402

>if you feel exploited by your employer, go get exploited by a different one

This is what capitalists really believe is 'fairness'.

>>1905402

>>capitalism 'implies' a class society, which is inherently exploitative

>>didn't say capitalism contradicted any constitution, nor human 'rights' (just freedom)

>>the working class is always being exploited by the ruling class which orchestrates every aspect of the government in capitalist countries, and this happens regardless of individual discretion to abdicate employment

>>wage slavery is slavery.

>>1905405
*hord
lol, never played personally, but yeah all of the 'new generation' marxists are former wow nerds.

>>1905413
in what sense can an employer exploit you? what the fuck is wrong with you, these people are giving you money in return for your work. if they rape you, take them to court. if they make you work 18 hours a day, take them to court.

what the fuck is 'exploitation'? not giving you their money? fuck off and make your own.

>>1905413
> sits around pre-historic africa doing fuck all
> an enterprising young chap spends a week hunting a caribou
> IF YOU DON'T GIVE ME I WILL STARVE
> STOP EXPLOITING ME
> I'LL FUCKING SPEAR YOU IF YOU DON'T STOP EXPLOITING ME

>>1905454

>anon that's never had a job before detected.

>>1905454

If troll, awful. If not, even worse.

People who can't comprehend a class dictatorship can't understand the world we live in today. Democracy can't function under capitalism. Ulterior motivations (material wealth, social power) and inequality among citizens (a privileged class) make it impossible. And what does this come down to? Material possession, and currency. Socialism doesn't allow unbridled personal acquisition when it comes to necessity, and yes, private property is unacknowledged in a socialist society. However, Marxist socialism is anti-state and pro-consensus. So it does work with democracy, on a theoretical and practical level. Except when the ruling class of Europe stops it, indeed spawns an entire ultra-reactionary political movement (fascism) just to quell the movement, which at the beginning of the twentieth century had a large following among workers in European countries, just as it does now globally.

>>1905479
i worked in a shitey pub for years washing up for minimum wage in order to fund my education

fuck you, cunt.

>>1905488
> totally fails to explain how an employer can exploit you

>>1905464
>caribou
>Africa

based on your basic knowledge in zoology you're clearly intelligent enough to discuss global politics and economics.

>>1905488
> thinks the wealthy somehow have more votes in democratic capitalism

>>1905489

well, then you're a piss-on cunt. also, minimum wage for years? yeah you're a pisson on. don't worry, you're also a believer, so you actually believe it when i tell you---it's just rain!

>>1905464
this is what libertards actually believe

>>1905506
what the fuck are you talking about?
am now at best uni in the world.
$300K starting, any job i want.
lol @ ur butt-devastation

>>1905497

Yeah, I was busy explaining why socialism is preferable to a class ruled faux-democracy. I work, I am employed. However, my employer hardly represents the bourgeoisie. But the work force IS exploited by the ruling class. It's a self-evident fact, which, though I did explain it, hardly needs explaining.

>>1905517
> /lit/tard can't do analogy
> just ignore it.

>>1905522

So you're an educated anon that makes 300k a year, sounds like a fucking retard and thinks there are caribou in Africa?

>>1905501

>thinks wealthy can't use money to influence idiots.

look up koch brothers

look up tea party

>>1905536
what makes you think i'm cariboufag? -_-
how's your career going?
can't wait to find out you have a degree in lit and work at maccy d's
and your entire 'employers dey r expoit meh' philosophy is basically your justification of why you can't get a proper fucking job

>>1905544
> is the champion of the proles and their ability to come to a consensus in a vote on political issues
> "the proles are fucking idiotic sheep"

jesus fucking christ

>>1905497

well, unless you are a boss, have seniority or have a friend or family member in such places, you are subject to the pissy days of everyone that has seniority over you. and if you don't take it - be a fucking piss-on cunt - you get fired. that's exploitation. and there is nothing you can do about it. try getting unemployment in tx. your word against there's.

this has happened at every job i have ever worked. of course now i'm my own boss, just sayin'.

>>1905501

I didn't even see that one. Are you retarded?

>>1905531

>However, my employer hardly represents the bourgeoisie.

What? Of course he does. If he's capable of employing you, he's a bourgeois capitalist. He owns the means of production in which he employs you in order to exploit your labor power for profit. This is basic stuff.

>>1905552

>college drop-out, or college forced-out.
>actually make a shit load of money, far more than than the amount you pretend you do.

>>1905603

Why are you falling for this guy's ad-hom dick waiving contest?

You have to be more perceptive, comrade.

>>1905609

>Waiving

Huh, that's an interesting typo. Waving*

Sage for self-correction.

>>1905600

Everybody's a cog, son.

>>1905609

why do people troll? boredom.

>>1905600
i shat my pants when i realised this inanity is the just the basics of your philosophy

>>1905615

>Everyone's a cog. Now please go die in my coal mine while I reap all the profits.

>>1905622

Okay.

>>1905603
> making a shit load of money
> exploited by employers
> fuck off

>>1905623

I don't work in a coal mine. Now that's worker exploitation.

>>1905622

And here I thought it was 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'.

>>1905632

you do understand that is this thing that we understand as time, right? and that over time........

fucking idiot.

>>1905632

you do know that there is this thing that we understand as time, right?

>>1905639

>I don't work in a coal mine. Now that's worker exploitation.

Why do you consider one exploitation but not another?

>And here I thought it was 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'.

That's different. That's one of the basic tenets of the communist party. What we're discussing is the fundamental relationship between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, which is explained in Marx's Capital.

>>1905667

He thinks a coal mine is bad because it is bad for your health.

>mfw he doesn't realize that all forms of labor are bad for your health and work related stress can take years off your life.

>>1905158

PJ O'Rourke used to be funny back in the day. Not a republican, just saying is all.

Captcha: Lemma Trolli. lololol

>>1905667

>>of the communist party

Er, no, I think you mean egalitarianism.

>>How could you consider one exploitation

The inhumane conditions miners have at many points in American history been subjected to is an example of workers' exploitation. I have not given or commented on any other examples. But the bourgeoisie in Marxist dialectics are those who control the means of production. Small business employers only constitute the medieval bourgeois.

>>"What we're discussing is the fundamental relationship between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie"

No, I've already outlined that, so we're not discussing it. You're talking about a situation where it's hardly applicable in an attempt, I assume, to refute the theory.

>>1905699

That's hardly why. Marxism doesn't presume that labor will be pleasant if not done for the sake of capitalist rulers, it simply proposes a more humane and more humanly workable situation for accomplishing it.

>>1905714

>Er, no, I think you mean egalitarianism.

They're not mutually exclusive.

>Small business employers only constitute the medieval bourgeois.

A bourgeois is a bourgeois is a bourgeois.

>No, I've already outlined that, so we're not discussing it.

Where did you do that?

>You're talking about a situation where it's hardly applicable in an attempt, I assume, to refute the theory.

You think I'm trying to refute Marx's analysis of capitalism?

>>1905714
> doesn't think 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is a communist maxim
> doesn't realise capitalism doesn't somehow enable you to force somebody into a coal pit
> all communist coal mines are safe and the work is voluntary

>there exist people who wouldn't bang Rosa Luxemburg

>>1905764
I'm not into necrophilia.

>>1905786
The moral bias against necrophilia is a bourgeois invention. The brothers of the revolution stand united, dead or alive.

>>1905722

>>They're not mutually exclusive.

No, but this founding principle of egalitarianism is hardly the exclusive property of vanguard movements.

>>Where did you do that?

>>1905488

>>You think I'm trying to refute Marx's analysis of capitalism?

At this point, I've stopped caring what your motivations are.

>>1905725

>>egalitarian maxim; can be applied to any form of economic mutualism, not just communism
>>It can under certain circumstances, like if you're impoverished and want to survive
>>Oh wait, I said I didn't believe that here: >>1905721
>>though in a genuinely communist or socialist society, labor would certainly not be less voluntary than it is for wage slaves, so eh

So yeah, basically all of these arguments are shit.

this thread needs a bump:

>kapitalists are a stupid
>Communism=/=cOmmunism