/lit/ - Literature

Why do you have an interest in an ideology neither Marx nor Lenin would support?

>>19462209
Lenin Under Leninism, Liebman

J. Stalin - The Agrarian Question is good:
>Introducing socialism means abolishing commodity production, abolishing the money system, razing capitalism to its foundations and socialising all the means of production. The Socialist-Revolutionaries, however, want to leave all this intact and to socialise only the land, which is absolutely impossible. If commodity production remains intact, the land, too, will become a commodity and will come on to the market any day, and the “socialism” of the Socialist-Revolutionaries will be blown sky-high. Clearly, they want to introduce socialism within the framework of capitalism, which, of course, is inconceivable. That is exactly why it is said that the “socialism” of the Socialist-Revolutionaries is bourgeois socialism.

>>19462209
State and Revolution
Imperialism Highest Stage of Capitalism
>>19462242
what? Marxism-Leninism is the only ideology that worked in establishing socialism. Lenin made Marxism in the age of imperialism which is why its called 'Marxism-Leninism' (as well as a break from all revisionist currents within Marxism)

>>19462628
That would contradict everything Stalin said in the Economic Problems of the USSR and MLism in general. We can't read that - it would expose Stalin as an opportunist.

>>19463745
these

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/

>>19462242
>Lenin would not support Leninism
IT'S LITERALLY NAMED AFTER HIM YOU BUFFOON

>>19462242
read hegel

>>19462209
>Crimes against humanity under communist regimes
> From the Gulag to the Killing Fields: Personal Accounts of Political Violence and Repression in Communist States
>The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression.

>>19462242
Marx and Lenin were even worse than Stalin was. Stalin became a Marxist out of his church moralism failing to make sense in an unjust world. Lenin and Marx had absolutely no ideals and felt conflict was not only inevitable but merited, you absolute smoothbrain. Stalin simply took what they had to say to heart. Had Lenin been in power longer, he would have not only had Mao-tier numbers but he also would have been hellbent on repeating it over and over again in other countries.

>>19464820
>muh 1 buhzillion
>muh opression
Non arguments. What if they were justified?

>>19464842
They weren't, victims did nothing wrong.

>>19462209
Serious question for leftists or Marxists

Do you really find value in ANY of these texts from Marx or whoever beyond a limited historical perspective of the times they were written?

I don't understand how anyone can find them as guideline books when they were written in a completely different world.

>>19464847
The so called victims were the bourgeoise, their allies, and midwits who wanted to cause trouble. They got what they deserved.

>>19464872
They were the productive members of the society.
Gommies admitted that they were wrong in their judgment when they dismantled communism in China and the Soviet Bloc.

>>19464820
they shoulda killed more

>>19464883
Can you tell me what parts of the society (social classes if you wish) deserve death today according to you? How about owners of corner shops for example?

>>19464915
anyone that uses Twitter, Reddit, or 4chan.

>>19464947
A friendly reminder that _these_ guys are NOT joking.

>>19462209
>Anti-Duhring (Engels)
>Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (Lenin)
>Dialectical and Historical Materialism (Stalin)

>>19464820
>t.has a black sun desktop background

>>19464915
every single person who's ever stepped into a c-suite in the financial, biomedical, tech or arms industries is a good start

>>19465144
but then you’d kill any chance of a cure that can make your tiny frail skeleton grow

>>19465133
Did you just say that only nazis don't like communism? But nazis did like the idea of total government control and mass murders for ideological reasons, they were much closer to your joke of an ideology than to everything else. Nazbol is a thing after all.

>>19462242
Retard.

>>19462209
None. Don't waste your tilling sand. go read an economics book or do some mathematics faggot

>>19464842
t. am*rican suburbanite who has never experienced real suffering

>>19464763
>bro it's named after him he HAS to agree with it
Stalin named his professed ideology that for propaganda purposes. It is in no way a fusion of Marxism and Leninism.
>Lenin's testament
>he said that Joseph Stalin be removed from his position as General Secretary of the Russian Communist Party's Central Committee, as he could not be trusted with power
>>19464766
I have, Hegel was where Marx got it wrong, why would I read more of the only bad part of a good philosopher?
>>19464834
Communism isn't moralism, it's math for human survival. Their motivations have nothing to do with their professed philosophy or actions to advance them. Read Capital

>>19462209
I have a feeling you already know the answer and made this thread not to ask this question

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c4a567f4eddecfdf9c627a2/t/5d4a0d4d7b3fb6000145f957/1565134231835/Fundamentals+of+Marxism+Leninism.pdf

>>19464820
The black book is notoriously flawed and even called out by other anti-communists. If you want to criticize it get normal sources.

>>19464854
Marx’s historical materialism is an attempt to develop a scientific understanding of human history, and specifically of the causes of transitions between different historical modes of production (e.g. feudalism to capitalism). As such its general principles are applicable to any form of society, past or present. However, it requires theoretical labour to develop a historical materialist understanding for a given form of society. Das Kapital is Marx’s attempt to do that for 19th century industrial capitalism and as such it is only completely applicable to that form of society. But as capitalism still exists, much of the analysis is either still directly applicable to the modern day, or can be applied with some modification or addition. If you are dubious I would recommend educating yourself further on marxism.

>>19464854
>>19465415
I forgot, picrel sums up the «general principles» of historical materialism pretty well.

>>19464854
Marx kinda, though I try not to do anything hermeneutical with him

>>19465317
You can't read. Congrats. Just added a new tripfag to the filter list.

>>19464847
Social revolutions are political struggles, in the sense of Carl Schmitt’s Concept of the Political. Counter-revolutionaries are going to have to die.

Engels - The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State

Thomas Sowell - Marxism

>>19463745
This plus 'What Is To Be Done?' - very invigorating reads.

More Maoist but

>>19464854
lenins works unironically read like they've been written today

>>19462209

Economics for Business by John Sloman. By the end of the first chapter you will understand why communism always fails.

it was a textbook for my MBA.

>>19462209
>What are some essential Marxist-leninist books
How survive a fall from an helicopter

>>19465707
>MBA
is this some sort of joke

>>19465760
He obviously mentioned it to trigger you, why.
You are having fun triggering us with murder plots.

>>19465772
I have no idea what this means which - along with the rest of this shit thread - is a good indication that the americans are awake

Get your lazy ass out to work, not play, and stop sucking off the government teat like a little bitch. Want to seize the means of production? Start your own business faggot.

>>19465786
boomer

>>19465707
but Marxism-Leninism is an ideology of capitalist rule. it's unrelated to communism

>>19464854
Our great ideal must not remain a mere idea, an ideal in our heads. It must become an ideal of reality. To obtain the ideal in the real world, we must make a revolution in which we turn theory into praxis. We must realize our ideal with the great strength of the French Revolution, the first human revolution, and careful study of the tactics of the Russian Revolution, the first working class revolution.

Does anyone know where to get marxist books with that style of cover?

>>19464854
they weren't written in a completely different world. what about them is limited in terms of historical perspective?
>>19465885
nice idealism
>>19465945
fuck off, find your fashion accessories elsewhere

>>19465760

Not at all. Read the first chapter and understand why egregious shortages manifest in centrally planmd economies.

>>19466033
shortages in the USSR were due to a lack of capital relative to the Western countries it was competing with. and it's production was planned the same way as in any other country: it produced what was most profitable on the world market.

>>19466078
Hence the five-year waiting list for a car. Russians just didn't want cars that badly.

>>19466078

>shortages in the USSR were due to a lack of capital relative to the Western countries it was competing with

wrong. the trabant is a perfect example, as is the 84 85 wheat shortage

>>19465885
Yes! Finally! Although we must not forget starving to death.

>>19466141
wrong, those don't prove anything you said

just listen to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiqXs_QGKP4

>>19466179

You are telling me in 50 years of migs, missiles, subs, tanks and everything else is entailed by a 20 percent gdp spend on military that the politburo couldnt find the budget to open a car factory in east Germany

>>19465458
You've never read Schmitt. Stop pretending you have

>>19462209
Imperialism and What is to be done, Historical Materialism by Stalin, Historical Materialism by Bukharin.

>>19464854
>guideline books
Well, that's not what they are supposed to be.

>>19466317
what's your point?

>>19466381

My point is that the worat car ever made had a 13 year waiting list to buy one because centrally planned economies are dysfunctional. a 43 to 1 demand ratio would never persist in a free market if resource scarcities weren't a factor

>>19466391
read this extra slowly and as many times as it takes to get through your fucking skull:
if they wanted to dedicate resources to efficient production of a particular car, if it was considered useful enough, then it would've been done, because they would've done it
good enough?

>>19466408
Why do you think a centralized government is better at assessing the usefulness of a product better than the collective intelligence of a society as a whole.

>>19466391
no, that's not the reason. the reason is scarcity of capital which made such production unprofitable in the conditions of international competition with the West.
in order to keep up in this competition they need to put all resources into producing simple, labour intensive products so that the deciding factor was not productivity dependent on technical sophistication (in which they were behind) but on low wages and the intensity of exploitation. producing sophisticated products intensive in constant capital for internal consumption was for them like shooting themselves in the foot. they only did it to the extent necessary to keep the urban middle classes relatively happy. if they did produce things intensive in constant capital then it was again focused on export, in a desperate attempt to get a foothold in on foreign markets. but this again was only to the detriment for such production for the internal market.
>>19466452
the Soviet government didn't care about usefulness but about the relation of the sale price on the world market to the production cost. the production wasn't planned by the government but by the anarchy of the world market with its constantly changing rates of profit, just like for all the other capitalist.

>>19462209
Here, comrade

>>19466657

>>19465317
>it's math for human survival.
Commies are automatons, more news at eight.

>>19466408
You gommies are so fucking retarded that you don't even understand what is the point of all economic theories in the first place. It is about efficient allocation of scarce resources between competing and useful goals. They could have possibly make a functional, commonly available car (though it's essentially impossible that it would match the quality of Western products because you need many well developed industries for that) but they could not make a fucking car WITHOUT FUCKING STARVING THEIR POPULATION at the same time - or producing vacuum cleaners, toilet paper, ballpoint pens and thousands of other consumers goods expected in a 20th century civilization.

>>19465420
>>19465415
I think Marx has some valid critiques of 19th century industrial capitalism that are so of valid still, but he is completely wrong on how people in society view themselves and how they act as groups.

The past 150 years have proven him completely wrong on that so his entire works are rather worthless. Historical materialism is just complete nonsense garbage.

>>19466326
I’ve read enough to his his basic political distinction and critique of liberalism. If you’re such an expert explain where I’ve gone wrong.

>>19467727
to apply his*

>>19466663
This

>>19467573
>The past 150 years have proven him completely wrong
His early identification of the business cycle is correct to the point where it has become a part of mainstream economics and the TRPF theory is still not settled, so "completely wrong" is objectively false. Nothing he said has been proven wrong. He will only be proven wrong if what comes after capitalism is not socialism.

>>19464854
Serious question for Christians

Do you really find value the bible beyond a limited historical perspective of the time it were written in?

I don't understand how anyone can find it as a guideline book when it was written in a completely different world.

>>19466663
>parenti
based

>>19467751
Yikes post.

>>19465317
>Communism isn't moralism, it's math for human survival.
uh.. communism is not game theory

>>19464854
Most main critiques of modernity were finished in the 19th century and everything else has been adding window dressing and tweaking for efficiency. Marxism has its massive flaws but his fundamental perspective that bourgeois economy and economic "science" is a mystification of actual production relations is very valuable whether you're a fascist, national syndicalist, or homosexual Marxist-Leninist on twitter.

>>19466033
>why egregious shortages manifest in centrally planmd economies.
How come Walmart can do it?

>>19468036
Walmart is not an economy lol

>>19466663

>>19468048
How is it not? It has to buy produced goods then distribute them to different locations where they are then sold. An economy isn’t just limited to a nation state. Do you think the East India Company had no economy?

Economy
>of, relating to, or based on the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services economic growth.

>>19468036
Because Walmart has computer technology to plan their internal economics and logistics infrastructure while the USSR never had a chance to experiment with computerized economics. I have taken the Cockshottpill. Time to finish what Project Cybersyn never started. Marxism-Leninism-Skynetism with T-900 characteristics will win.

>>19468111
Based

>>19464834
>Lenin and Marx had absolutely no ideals
meds

>>19468078
>why is Walmart not comparable to the economy of a nation
Communists will never cease to amaze me

>>19468111

Actually Walmart's advantage is in supply chain management, and no you don't need a supercomputer to tell you that a 13 year waiting list for a plastic car isn't optimal.

>>19465317
>>he said that Joseph Stalin be removed from his position
Never happened
In the so called "Lenin Testament" he calls for a renewed unity of the CC with some enlargement, arguing that a split would destroy the Soviet Union

>Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work.

>These two qualities of the two outstanding leaders of the present C.C. can inadvertently lead to a split, and if our Party does not take steps to avert this, the split may come unexpectedly.

This part

>Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a [minor] detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance.

Was because Nadja Krupskaja pressured Lenin into adding it.

>>19468111
>cockshottpill
based

>>19466408

Aab so the government should decide how much I need a car vs how much they need another ICBM.

Sounds like utopia to me. They should build a wall to keep me in so I don't get depressed by seeing all those people suffering under capitalism (oh good they did)

>>19468139
>Walmart is not comparable to the economy of a nation
???
>Revenue US$559.2 billion (2021)
>Number of employees 2,300,000 (2021)

Norway
>GDP (PPP) $350 billion
>The number of employed persons in Norway increased to 2810 Thousand in the third quarter of 2021

>>19468151
>i-its plastic!
Cope

>>19468139
Come on mate >>19468198

>>19468198
Walmart is a single corporation which acts within markets and political/legal structures of countries. If you want to compare it to a state the closest you can get is probably a feudal enterprise. Running a country as a for profit corporation in a larger market was incidentally the meme utopia cooked up by mencius moldbug lmao.

>>19468177
>Sounds like utopia to me. They should build a wall to keep me in so I don't get depressed by seeing all those people suffering under capitalism (oh good they did)
kek
Read books

>>19468220
>within markets
Central planning can exist within some sectors of mixed economies.
>and political/legal structures of countries.
And?

>>19468220
>walmart is not a country
Imagine my shock.
But that's moving the goalpost: if you are selling [product] does it matter to you if you're selling it to Walmart or Norway? You probably don't care, the client could be satan, trees or robots, if they pay they are welcomed.
Walmart would probably buy more of anything than Norway, btw (larger potential market)

>>19468254
>central planning within some sectors
That's just regulations, subsidies etc which capitalist countries already do, its still based on a market.
>and?
And the rest of my post explaining that what you are actually proposing is to run a country as a for profit company when you compare it to Walmart

>>19468261
You cannot be serious. Again do you want to run your country like Walmart, as a for profit company in a larger market?

>>19463745
Lenin was not an ML. Being both a leninist and a marxist is not the same as being an ML.

>>19468270
>That's just regulations, subsidies etc which capitalist countries already do, its still based on a market.
It’s not. When bake 10 dozen cookies for the baking fair as I predict I will sell 10 dozen cookies, that’s planning.
>what you are actually proposing is to run a country as a for profit company when you compare it to Walmart
No

>>19468336
You're aware that governments have corporations, both nationalized and contracted, make a certain amount of goods for them in capitalist countries right? This is a thing that happens.

>using a for profit corporation that exists in a larger market as my model of how a state could behave is not using a first profit corporation that exists in a larger market as my model for how a state could behave
I dont think you're really worth talking to. You cant export Walmarts behavior without its structure and environment

>>19464834
That is the worst take in this thread and you have a double digit IQ to believe in any of that.
>Had Lenin been in power longer, he would have not only had Mao-tier numbers
Time to get anachronistic: Lenin was a Deng, not a Mao. Stalin was a Mao. If Lenin was in charge longer, then centralised economies would not be associated with socialism. No other 20th century communist was as pragmatic as Lenin, with Tito and Deng being contenders for that quality.

>>19468198
>expecting these dimwits who can't even define what an economy is to understand basic numbers
>>19468276
>what is state capitalism?

>>19468431
State capitalism is emphatically not running your country as a single for profit corporation, though it is hilarious that fucking Communists would want to claim this being as it makes the workers serfs. I already gave the example of feudalism as about as close as the historical record shows but it doesnt map perfectly either because a company like Walmart is simply not comparable to a state, as it exists inside of one(or more) and participates in a larger market

>>19468446
define this personal version of yours then regarding state capitalism. state capitalism is literally designed as a compromise between capitalism and socialism so that is why you find it hilarious. it is not weird for a communist to claim it unless they are some sort of leftcom

>>19468477
Its hilarious to claim state capitalism is like running your country as a giant Walmart if you're a communist. I guess maybe we could say it's like if a lunatic who couldn't be fired was the walmart CEO and he micromanaged the entire company

>>19468499
as funny as it may be, it is how it be doe. it's basically how china works right now. the walmart model reigns supreme

>>19468276
>Again do you want to run your country like Walmart, as a for profit company in a larger market?
Point EXACTLY where I even implied something remotely similar to this.

>>19468513
China isn't like that though, it has a substantial amount of decentralized market. I really cant think of anything above a single fiefdom that really functioned like a Walmart while also sort of being a state. There were little markets even within those environments anyway, it just not like a Walmart.
The whole thing is silly because its uber capitalism being described here
>>19468536
When you used Walmart as your example of how to centrally plan. Use something that isn't a for profit company as your example instead if you dont mean that

>>19468545
>When you used Walmart as your example of how to centrally plan.
I never mentioned central planning.
I just said (>>19468198)

>>19468600
Well you entered a conversation in which it was used an example of central planning, and number of employees + revenue are not enough to make it comparable because they are different types of organizations, an economy of a nation not even being a single organization in the usual sense of the term.

>>19468611
Walmart isn't a single organization either though
>they are different types of organizations
Again, that's not the point: the point is that some companies/corporations/entities/whatever are so immense that they weigh more than entire actual countries


>United States 778.0 US$ bn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

>Poland 642 US$ bn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

>>19465964
I only ask because I already own a lenin book with that style of cover
Was printed by some chinese book publisher

>>19468696
That is indeed my point, the structure of Walmart and its environment are not comparable to that of a state regardless of the amounts of money involved. You can just ignore these differences

>>19462209
Anything Bakunin wrote

>>19468545
this is becoming a game of semantics. was the soviet union decentralized under stalin because more than one guy came up with the five year plans?

>>19462209
Luther was an idiot; Descartes was an idiot; Bacon was an idiot; Locke was an idiot; Hume was an idiot; Kant was an idiot; Hegel was an idiot; Marx was an idiot; Lenin was an idiot; all marxists-leninists are idiots. Don't waste your time with it.

>>19468764
Would you compare the SU to a fiefdom?

>>19468765
this all comes down to jesus being an idiot. straight fax
>>19468779
you can spin it that way, so yes. people are spinning america today with serfdom too

>>19468715
You haven’t explained why

>>19468812
>>19468850
In a company like walmart you have a CEO who is appointed by a board of directors elected by shareholders, contingent on production of profit; a top down management structure with nothing resembling democratic or socialist input; and a larger economic and legal environment which restricts what the company can do, and presents it with a complex economy in which to participate. This is plainly not isomorphic to a state. Again you could maybe theoretically run an entire country like this but you'd have to deal with an entirely different set of problems regarding political sovereignty, law, the market planning issue itself because a state doesnt have a clearly defined goal of producing profit and it would have to be both operating in a larger international market as well being able to coordinate an entire country into a single corporation without the use of internal markets which are key to every large nation, since a corporation obviously does not contain markets within it.

>>19468715
>regardless of the amounts of money involved
The SMOM has no territory, 3 (three) citizens, 42000 employees, and is a UN permanent observer. It has formal diplomatic relations with 110 states and has official relations with another five states and with the European Union. They issue passports, licence plates, stamps, and coins. They held colonies in the XVII century.

Make of these informations whatever you want

>>19468919
What does this have to do with a corporation and a state having different structures and environments?

>>19468911
>In a company like walmart you have a CEO who is appointed by a board of directors elected by shareholders, contingent on production of profit; a top down management structure
That’s very similar to democratic centralism
>Again you could maybe theoretically run an entire country like this but you'd have to deal with an entirely different set of problems regarding political sovereignty, law, the market planning issue itself because a state doesnt have a clearly defined goal of producing profit and it would have to be both operating in a larger international market as well being able to coordinate an entire country into a single corporation without the use of internal markets which are key to every large nation, since a corporation obviously does not contain markets within it.
This can all he achieved

>>19468996
Its rule by capitalists, literally. Shareholder rule.

Do you think the USSR achieved that though? Because they dont seem to me like they did. Maoist china was also a meme and they've since reverted to having markets inside the country

>>19467751
Things like the business cycle aren't the basis of historical materialism

Yes the past 150 years have proven historical materialism to be complete fucking nonsense. People do not act the way Marx says they do, and they do not organize the way he says they do and history doesn't proceed the way he says it does.

>>19469014
>>19468996
To defend communism - you basically have to memory hole the 20th century as not real communism.

>>19469014
not all shareholders are equal as some have more shares than others. you would also need every single person to be a shareholder. we have now essentially reinvented public property
>>19469020
no memory hole needed. the regimes themselves said that they attempting socialism and not communism. pretty easy to grasp

>>19469032
>you would need evry person to be a shareholder. That's just...democracy. that's just democratically electing the monarch kek

>>19469032
>no memory hole needed. the regimes themselves said that they attempting socialism and not communism. pretty easy to grasp
This is memory holing because socialism was the step towards communism, and these countries were ruled by communist countries. So, again, you are memory holing things.

>>19469019
Marx (and consequently you) talked about a lot more than just historical materialism, so that not being the basis of it is irrelevant.

The past 150 years have not proven historical materialism to be complete fucking nonsense because historical materialism is so far an unfalsifiable theory when it comes to the past and since we are still in the capitalist mode of production, the wait is still on to see if Marx's predictions were true or not. If socialism becomes the new status quo and capitalism disappears, then you will still have to wait for upper stage communism.

You don't know if history proceeds the way he says it does because history hasn't proceeded much since his time. Certain large changes like globalisation and technology making production simpler (technological determinism) are things he did predict accurately, and that is alongside the business cycle causing unrest in recession periods.

Leave critiquing Marx to others who actually read what he wrote; you are helpless at it and are just misleading.

>>19469041
yes, you are getting it now
>>19469095
if you believe in indirect attempts at communism, then you are admitting that marx's take on history was correct. capitalism is the step towards socialism which is then the step towards communism. either use the commie roadmap or don't, just be consistent in your argument or else it is weak. america is an attempt at real communism all along... LMAO. these countries were socialist countries i.e. states led by communist parties. so, again, this is pretty easy to grasp

>>19469128
Ok but Walmart is not a democracy. I dont think even those worker owned companies actually elect their CEOs democratically do they?(could be wrong about that)

It also reinstates the conflict between sovereignty and profit which is not present in a company because there are exterior laws and incentives compelling it

>>19468850
I'll bite, organizations which are motivated by profit cannot be considered centrally planned in the way socialists imagine that to mean.

>>19469128
>if you believe in indirect attempts at communism, then you are admitting that marx's take on history was correct.
No? This is called a non-sequitur. These two things are not even related. It just proves communism does not work since every attempt to apply Marx's ideas have done anything to achieve his Paris Communtard dreams, and you will make any attempt you can to rationalize your theories instead of acknowledging that they fail. It just displays your lack of reason.
>capitalism is the step towards socialism which is then the step towards communism.
You haven't demonstrated this; you're just stating platitudes like every boring, pseudo-intellectual commie that posts here. Your entire argument is just a poorman's version of internet blood sports. You're an aspie addicted to social media validation, and you generally do not have a genuine commitment to the politics. This stuff to you is a mere hobby, a virtue signalling attempt, to make yourself feel as if you're making a difference in the world when you're not.

>>19462209
>What are some essential Marxist-leninist books
Pic rel

>>19469101
>J-just wait bro
Sure any day now right?

It was proven wrong because there has been serious technological progress in the past 150 years and the modes of production haven't changed and society hasn't organized how he said it would and never will. It has been long enough.

Saying technology makes producing things easier is not some fucking deep insight. And historical materialism also applies to any society throughout history which is just obviously wrong as well.

And I was responding to posts primarily about historical materialism which is why my posts were mainly about it

>>19469164
The only reason I brought up Walmart is to prove that central planning works. No socialist society should completely model itself on Walmart. I suggest you read

>>19469164
of course walmart is not a democracy. as for the cooperatives or worker owned companies, it depends on their structure
>>19469202
>This is called a non-sequitur. These two things are not even related.
except you said "socialism was the step towards communism". well, which one is it? was it the step towards communism or not? if it is the step towards communism, then capitalism is the step towards socialism. again, are you going by what the marxists say or not? you need to make up your mind in a rational manner
>You haven't demonstrated this
it is demonstrated by the same sense that "socialism was the step towards communism" was demonstrated by you. all I did was merely give you the full picture by indicating what comes before socialism if you believe that socialism was the step towards communism. I am playing by your rules here, retard, and now that you have lost, you are contradicting your own argument in realtime kek

>>19469229
>The only reason I brought up Walmart is to prove that central planning works
Yes but Walmart only proves central planning works in the case of a single for profit corporation acting within a an economy and state. It does not prove central planning would work in a socialist state with an entirely different structure and environment, which is what this entire argument has been about.

>>19469244
>only proves central planning works in the case of a single for profit corporation acting within a an economy and state. It does not prove central planning would work in a socialist state with an entirely different structure and environment
That does not follow

>>19469251
How does that not follow? Why not use an example of a socialist states central planning instead of wlamarts? What proof do you have that it will work for the socialist state just because it works for a completely different sort of organization?

>>19469206
Read books

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of
production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that
the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as
mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the
community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the
Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed
almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal,
not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the
Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for
a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is selfevident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of
the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

>>19469283
>writes entire paragraph that barely says anything
Yep it's a commie

>>19469283
>Communist blames the commodification of women on capitalism when it's a literal socialist concept
I hate this hypocrisy

>>19469227
>I haven't died yet so I am invincible
Marx gave no dates or how much something must change. Your entire argument here is the manifestation of ADHD. Once the mode of production changes, only then will we know if Marx was wrong or right.

>Saying technology makes producing things easier is not some fucking deep insight.
It changing the mode of production however was some fucking deep insight and that is one of the reasons why Marx is such an prominent figure. He thought of it first, more or less. You're late.

>historical materialism also applies to any society throughout history which is just obviously wrong as well
Just repeating "it's wrong" over and over isn't making any point. If you have paid attention to any real criticisms of Marxism (or what I've fucking stated), then you know the problem with historical materialism is that it is neither right nor wrong. It is unfalsifiable because Marx crafted the theory around history he already knew. He fit his theory to history. Society obviously went from e.g. feudalism to capitalism because of material changes. The challenge is in the future prediction, which he could not fit because he was not a time traveller.

>>19469206
>cuck has a blond SS undercut
>whore is clearly of aryan stock
>bull is taller and darker
is this a good ww2 book detailing the rape of berlin?

>>19469336
>aryan stock
>black eyebrows
I'm revoking your nazi badge

what a shit fucking thread

>>19469447
Next time dont compare socialism to a Walmart and I wont be forced to do this again

>>19469464
I'm not that guy you fuckhead. You are sincerely retarded. Go back to studying human resources or marketing to gays in 2021 or whatever the fuck it is you servile MBAs do.

>>19469496
I will be ctrl f ing all future commie threads for mentions of Walmart, watch your step

>>19469317
>Marx gave no dates or how much something must change. Your entire argument here is the manifestation of ADHD. Once the mode of production changes, only then will we know if Marx was wrong or right.
But it isn't like socialism or socialist systems are unknown. They have objectively failed multiple times despite socialists of their day saying they were the future. First with the USSR and all those socialist systems. Then with places like Venezuela which were called a 21st century socialism by socialists and have only failed as well.

The modes of production changed several times and only failed proving capitalism the superior system. The entire premise of Marxist thought relies on the idea that socialism is superior to capitalism as capitalism is superior to feudalism and so on. Since socialism isn't superior to capitalism, he was wrong in his entire historical materialist ideas.

>It changing the mode of production however was some fucking deep insight and that is one of the reasons why Marx is such an prominent figure.
Which is what I said. The 150 years of technological progress would have been unimaginable to Marx and yet the dominant mode of production hasn't changed.

>Just repeating "it's wrong" over and over isn't making any point. If you have paid attention to any real criticisms of Marxism (or what I've fucking stated), then you know the problem with historical materialism is that it is neither right nor wrong. It is unfalsifiable because Marx crafted the theory around history he already knew. He fit his theory to history. Society obviously went from e.g. feudalism to capitalism because of material changes. The challenge is in the future prediction, which he could not fit because he was not a time traveller.
It is wrong because it was just scribbled down nonsense by a dude in mid 19th century Europe who wanted to explain his preferred economic system, when he had no access to modern history or sociological thought which more clearly explains how societies organize and function and change. It is just obviously wrong on those grounds even ignoring the societal examples proving it wrong.

>>19469503
>They have objectively failed multiple times despite socialists of their day saying they were the future.
This doesn't matter because the same has been observed to an even greater effect with democracy. That took around 1800 years to take hold after numerous failures in antiquity. Democratic systems now rule the world. Do remember how long feudalism ruled.

>The modes of production changed several times
No, it did not. This is precisely why the regimes failed: they were pretending to be something they were not. There is an argument to be made that they regressed backwards i.e. North Korea. Calling X by the name of Y does not make them equivalent if their contents are still different.

>The 150 years of technological progress would have been unimaginable to Marx and yet the dominant mode of production hasn't changed.
It will eventually change. He did imagine automation. Capitalism will not last forever, even people like Keynes who basically saved capitalism and are the faces of mainstream economic thought stated that capitalism would last a few hundred years at best. Probably explains why he was so soft on Marxism.

>it was just scribbled down nonsense by a dude in mid 19th century Europe who wanted to explain his preferred economic system
That may be the case, but it doesn't change the fact that he purposefully fit his theory to the past. It can't be wrong because he already knew the old answers.

>he had no access to modern history or sociological thought which more clearly explains how societies organize and function and change
This will blow your mind, but modern sociology largely agrees with Marx in a macro context. We know this because the man is the father of sociology and the field is full of Marxists more so than any other field.

The real takeaway here is that the capitalism versus communism argument is pointless futurism and it is more about accelerationism versus reformism.

>>19469295
>I CANT READ!
:O

>>19469303
Please elaborate>>19469348

>>19469348
>he didn't read the books
*sigh*

In his 1927 book The Racial Elements of European History, Günther outlined the differences between racial and linguistic definitions:

We find, in general, the most confused notions as to how the European peoples are composed of various races. We often hear, for example, a 'white race' or a 'Caucasian race' spoken of, to which the Europeans are said to belong. But probably, were he asked, no one could tell us what its bodily characteristics are. It is, or should be, quite clear that a 'race' must be embodied in a group of human beings each of whom presents the same physical and mental picture. Physical and mental differences, however, are very great, not only within Europe (often called the home of the 'white' or 'Caucasian' race) and within each of the countries in it, but even within some small district in one of the latter. There is, therefore, no 'German race,' or 'Russian race,' or 'Spanish race.' The terms 'nation' and 'race' must be kept apart.

People may be heard speaking of a 'Germanic,' a 'Latin,' and a 'Slav' race; but it is at once seen that in those lands where Germanic, Romance, or Slav tongues are spoken there is the same bewildering variety in the outward appearance of their peoples, and never any such uniformity as suggests a race.

We see, therefore, that the human groups in question – the 'Germans,' the 'Latins,' and the 'Slavs' – form a linguistical, not a racial combination.

The following consideration will probably be enough to keep racial and linguistical grouping distinct from one another.[...] But now a fresh perplexity comes in: In Scotland are found many tall, fair, light-eyed men and women, speaking Keltic. Are there, then, Kelts who look like 'Germans'? It is from Kelts (according to a still prevalent belief in south Germany) that the dark, short people of Germany come. Many of the ancient Greeks and Romans are described as like Germans. Fair, light-eyed men and women are not seldom met with in the Caucasus. There are Italians of 'Germanic' appearance. I have taken the anthropometrical measurements of a Spaniard with this appearance. On the other hand, there are very many Germans, men belonging, that is, to a people speaking a Germanic tongue, who have no Germanic appearance whatever.

Günther divided the European populations into six races, the "Nordic" ("Nordische"), "Phalic" or "Phalian" ("Fälische"), "Eastern" ("Ostische"), "Western" ("Westische"), "Dinaric" ("Dinarische") and "East Baltic" ("Ostbaltische") race. "Western" and "Eastern" were, in practice, alternatives for the more widely used terms "Mediterranean" and "Alpine". The "Phalic" race was a minor category regarded as a sub-type of the Nordic race, and was dropped in many of his writings.

Günther in his book Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes categorized Germans as belonging to the Nordic, Mediterranean, Dinaric, Alpine and East Baltic races.[8] In the book, he argued for Germans to avoid race mixing.

>>19469496
>>19469447
Americans....

>>19469735
If Walmart is socialist you should just go work there instead of worrying about the revolution