/lit/ - Literature

>>21360285
*Stares you down*

>>21360285
no

>>21360352
t. guy whos criticisms of marx all came down to antisemitism
> Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews, such as Jews are every where: commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades, with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement, and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press — they have taken possession of all the newspapers — and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of blooksuckers, a single gluttonnous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders but across all differences of political opinion — this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for Rothschild.

>This may seem strange. What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralization in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which. speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail

>>21360443
No. Look for all the arguments that have nothing to do with Jews

>>21360443
That's mega based

>>21360443
Bakunin fucking rules
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/nicholas-thoburn-bakunin-s-lumpenproletariat
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/bio/robertson-ann.htm

>>21360460
his criticisms were all dumb, he complains that marx wasn't emotional enough in his analysis. Bakunin had his own set of ideas in opposition to Marx. Bakunin styled himself as a materialist but he always had this this weird idealist strain (such as complaining that marx wasn't emotional enough) and a preference for conspiratorial societies. I think that Bakunin misunderstood Marx on the question of the state, see Marx's marginal notes on Bakunin's criticism, and possibly how Marx himself ran the iwa. Re the state, Bakunin thought that you could just pronounce the end of the state and that would be it, which he did in a failed coup where he took over a town hall and then declared that the state had been abolished. Bakunin also thought that states created classes, rather than classes creating states. In combination of all this Bakunin diverged from Marx on what classes in capitalist society are revolutionary adding another whole host of issues to the idea of a unitary class organisation as a means of revolution.

>>21360517
>failed coup where he took over a town hall and then declared that the state had been abolished
Sounds like every Marxist attempt at a revolution other than Lenin's, which immediately became tsarist autocracy 2.0

Defend LVT. You can't.

*walks away knowing this thread will devolve into a shitfest 'cause this shit is undefendable*

*creates a theory that lets the bougies kill the proles in the name...proles*

How many Rolls Royces did Lenin own?

>>21360522
the bolsheviks did not think they abolished the state
> Sounds like every Marxist attempt at a revolution other than Lenin's
during the revolutionary wave there was massive upheaval, the most industrialised region of germany (the ruhr valley was in constant revolt and in italy the po valley was essentially controlled by the proletariat, the reasons these revolutions failed would cause a conversation that would shit up this thread and i'm just no bothered to go over it
>>21360539
> creates a theory that lets the bougies kill the proles in the name...proles
the ltv was derived from the works of smith and Ricardo

>>21360547
>the ltv was derived from the works of smith and Ricardo

Beside the point. Every single implementation of Marx has resulted in a bougie managerial class that genocides the proles. Marxists hate when you bring this up because it kills their fantasy.

>>21360557
the capitalist mode of production cannot be abolished in one the nation, the workers revolution has always been a international one

>>21360566
>We have to keep genociding the proles until every state does this, then real communism will be tried

>>21360460
Amendment *Look at the angles without the lens of antisemitism. I means it's all correct to characterize Marxian "communism" as a sham

>>21360517
>he complains that marx wasn't emotional enough in his analysis
Perhaps what you mean is that he takes nothing of the emotions of humans into his analysis. He misses the forest for the trees, this much we know. Hardly "dumb".
In order to make this SOCIAL revolution we must have the hearts and minds of the majority declare the state and its lifeblood capital null and void. To overpower all the slack jawed nitwits who would beg to bring these disgusting systems, these shackles, back. To strive towards a utopian ideal is a noble spiritual thing. This is the only way to make it happen WE pronounce the end of the state. We don't go through a "historical materialist" stage of vanguardism. "Scientific socialism" is fraud and we saw that play out already.

>>21360622
>We don't go through a "historical materialist" stage of vanguardism. "Scientific socialism" is fraud and we saw that play out already.

this

>>21360622
>Perhaps what you mean is that he takes nothing of the emotions of humans into his analysis
that is idealism, society is not shaped by peoples feelings, it's shaped by production, do you think is someone just felt REALLY strongly about it they could will feudalism back into existence?

>>21360641
check your techno bio security state happening right now (and supported by marxists)

>>21360654
i don't even know what the fuck you're talking about

>>21360658
touch grass retard

>>21360641
>do you think is someone just felt REALLY strongly about it they could will feudalism back into existence?
but this already happened you retard

>>21360641
What you and Marxists are really arguing in saying this is that there are no other ultimate causal factors whatsoever in human nature and human history aside from relations of production, i.e. humans producing and reproducing their economic necessities for consumption, and then exchanging them. What Marxists believe is that the level of technological and social sophistication, in producing and exchanging the necessities of mundane life, is the only real ultimate cause of human behavior and thought at any given moment. Everything else, all a culture's ideas and values, the history of philosophy and science, religion, culture, art, all of it is ultimately determined by these economic relations and can't ultimately shape economic relations "back" with the same level of causal power.

You may believe this, as a Marxist, but very few other people do. Not even most Marxists believe it, Marxists in the 20th century all repudiated it and turned to other models to explain how culture, ideology, and psychology can prevent things that are "inevitable/obvious" from the economic perspective.

VERY few Marxists today are still classical scientific materialists. Very few Marxists in Marx's own day were. Most of them didn't understand what he was saying, most of them were "vulgar" idealists from Marx's perspective.

>>21360666
thanks satan
also this nigga is right unironically reducing everything to economic activity does not make logical sense

>>21360641
Typical male.
>do you think is someone just felt REALLY strongly about it ...
This IS how it works
>To strive towards a utopian ideal is a noble spiritual thing. This is the only way to make it happen WE pronounce the end of the state.

>>21360681
ywnbaw

>>21360654
That is an oligarchy with emergent fascist tendencies. China is not Marxian even.

>>21360689
all marxists supported it, especially your dear zizek, keep moving the goal posts "not real communism" etc...every single time its implemented the result is the same: bougies rule over the proles and genocide them

marxist theory today is completely powerless to protect the proles

>>21360662
>but this already happened you retard
show me
>>21360666
> there are no other ultimate causal factors whatsoever in human nature and human history aside from relations of production, i.e. humans producing and reproducing their economic necessities for consumption, and then exchanging them
exactly
> Everything else, all a culture's ideas and values, the history of philosophy and science, religion, culture, art, all of it is ultimately determined by these economic relations and can't ultimately shape economic relations "back" with the same level of causal power.
exactly
> You may believe this, as a Marxist, but very few other people do
i don't care, this isn't a popularity contest, it's the movement of history and it moves regardless of wether anyone actually agrees with it

>>21360443
Smart guy, perceptive to the heart of the issue

>>21360352
What?

>>21360673
Even Marx would understand this today and simply reformulate his theories like his more intelligent heirs did. You don't even have to destroy Marxism, just admit it was flawed in some respects.

>>21360731
>this isn't a popularity contest,
It is though since one of Marx's theories is that, given the economic causes are completely determinative, the rise of proletarian self-consciousness was likewise completely overdetermined, which is to say inevitable. There's some ambiguity here, since Marx is rarely explicitly fatalistic, but the clear implicit message of Marx's and Engels' writings is that the battle lines are being drawn, the proletariat will achieve self-awareness to one degree or another, and its conflict with the bourgeoisie is very imminent.

Marx and Engels probably thought that what could happen is the proletariat would LOSE the battle, if it didn't prepare properly. But that a proletariat would form was inevitable. And that such battles would keep happening until the proletariat won was also inevitable, barring the destruction of humanity or regress into the stone age or something.

So it is literally a popularity contest insofar as the mass mobilization of the proletariat, through raising it to self-consciousness as a proletariat, is the entire point of the theory. But nobody agrees with this today, not even Marxists. If Marx and Engels could be here now and see the last 150 years, they would simply say they were wrong. If someone tried to defend how they're right in some roundabout way, they'd say, but we weren't TRYING to be right in a roundabout way, we were trying to make accurate predictions about the near future and prepare for an imminent crisis with very definite characteristics.

>>21360527
What does Henry George have to do with this thread?

>>21360772
>It is though since one of Marx's theories is that, given the economic causes are completely determinative, the rise of proletarian self-consciousness was likewise completely overdetermined, which is to say inevitable
in many nations the proletariat are not a majority and they do not have to be a majority to enforce their will, heres a good article on how little popularity actually matters to the success of the workers
https://organizing.work/2020/05/you-dont-have-to-be-popular-to-win/
> So it is literally a popularity contest insofar as the mass mobilization of the proletariat, through raising it to self-consciousness as a proletariat, is the entire point of the theory. But nobody agrees with this today
do you think workers form tenants unions and workers councils only when random intellectuals think they're capable of doing so?
> So it is literally a popularity contest insofar as the mass mobilization of the proletariat, through raising it to self-consciousness as a proletariat
do you think people strike only when they read marx or when @gramsciismid tweets that they should?
Class consciousness is not something you introduce from the outside into the class, but something it may or may not acquire in its own experience. You don't reason someone into becoming radical in pseudo-religious messianic ways, claiming to have some secret knowledge nor does the proletariat actually care whether or not these outsides think they're capable of fighting. Additionally, at all times only a minority of the proletariat will be communist.
> If Marx and Engels could be here now and see the last 150 years, they would simply say they were wrong
nothing about capitalism has fundamentally changed so no they wouldn't

Yeah, I'm thinking based.

>>21360814
Sorel is great, he and Gramsci are the real successors to Marx for the 20th century. Lenin is held back by being too wedded to autistic materialist determinism, and all he knew how to do was make way for Stalin. Lukacs is a brilliant theorist of a theory that can't work. Luxemburg knows her Marxism very well, but who gives a shit since it's wrong, and she doesn't have the same apocalyptic flair as Lukacs. The Frankfurt School is philosophically refined but extremely bourgeois post-Marxian depth psychology that only makes sense if you presuppose a priori butthurt materialism once again.

Sorel's writings are great, not just his most famous Reflections on Violence either. His critiques of Marxism are very interesting.

>>21360811
You misunderstand what I mean by popularity. I'm saying that Marx's whole theory was predicated on the near-inevitability of mass proletarian acceptance (to one degree or another) of proletarian self-identity, imminently, either by the turn of the 20th century or early in the 20th century. This didn't happen. Anything less than this is anti-bourgeois vanguardism of one kind or another, and vulgar from Marx's perspective. It's exactly the kind of idealism he meant when using idealist as a slur, like you did above. Scientific socialism is scientific: it's not supposed to leave room for wishing anything were so, or noble sentiments, etc. You're either right or you're not that proletarians will see themselves as proletarians and then have a fight with the bourgeoisie. Marx wasn't right about this.

I don't personally think mass popularity matters, because I'm not a Marxist, so I can consistently argue for a vanguardist (Blanquist) position. You just can't do that if you're a Marxist. Vanguardism (Blanquism) is anti-Marxist. Strategizing about how we can play a literally centuries-long game of Risk with the bourgeoisie by getting unions to form in 2037 and maybe create the conditions of socialism is fine, you're just a Gramscian crypto-ethical/non-scientific socialist at that point, but it definitely isn't Marx's Marxism.

>nothing about capitalism has fundamentally changed so no they wouldn't
Well, the part about it inevitably producing the conditions they predicted it would produce by around 1900 has changed, if by changed we mean "didn't happen." It's like I said above, you can keep most of Marxism if you just acknowledge what he himself would acknowledge, and what almost all Marxists acknowledge, i.e. that he was wrong that economics is fatalistically determinative of all culture, ideology, and conflict.

>>21360527
LTV describes specific types of commodities which are mass-reproducible and socially necessary. Part of the issue is the word "law" but a better term would be trend. It works only because markets try to maximize efficiency over time. Corporations want to sell their products for as much as possible but (without legalized monopolies) other corporations can just do the same thing and undercut them. So corporations can't get something crazy like 3000% profit but what is to stop this process also at 3%? What stops people from just investing forever? Well eventually the return on profit gets so low that even if there is profitability on paper it becomes not worth the risk. So to review, the ceiling of profit is limited by market forces and the floor of profitability is limited by the risk that expenditure outweighs sales. Expenditures exists put of only one thing: "living" and "dead" labor costs. At the end of everything the floor price of any commodity is the payment of labor. We can also observe that profit across various industries tend to converge closely around a certain value. This means simply that the price of most products will tend to be total costs (always labor in some form) + a globally standard profit margin. This means that the average cost of labor is mathematically the basis of most prices.

>>21360851
>Labor influences price
No shit. That's not the LTV

>>21360285
>The explanation Marxism offered of the significance of History was ludicrously simple, and in this very simplicity lay its charm, and its strength. The whole history of the world was merely the record of the struggle of classes. Religion, philosophy, science, technics, music, painting, poetry, nobility, priesthood, Emperor and Pope State, war, and politics — all are simply reflections of economics. Not economics generally, but the “struggle” of “classes.” The most amazing thing about this ideological picture is that it was ever put forward seriously, or taken seriously.

>>21360869
Based Yockey

>>21360845
1/2
>I'm saying that Marx's whole theory was predicated on the near-inevitability of mass proletarian acceptance (to one degree or another) of proletarian self-identity, imminently, either by the turn of the 20th century or early in the 20th century. This didn't happen
yes it did, did the revolutionary wave from 1917 not happen?
hell marx actually predicted that the first european proletarian revolution would be in russia and that it would launch a revolutionary wave across europe and the wider world which is exactly what happened
> The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?
>The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1882
> You're either right or you're not that proletarians will see themselves as proletarians and then have a fight with the bourgeoisie. Marx wasn't right about this.
the proletariat don't come into conflict with the bourgeoisie?
> so I can consistently argue for a vanguardist (Blanquist) position
blanqui was advocating for coups done by a military elite and through terrorism.
it's the threat of mass violence that accompanies the nonviolent movement. workers groups were just weatherman tier in size, they would have threatened little. And even then, it was less just nonviolent action vs violent action and more about mass organizing and changing material conditions (the shifting of people to the cities, concentration leading to greater organizing opportunity, conditions more broadly of large portions of the urban capitalist ruling interests). A mass movement can find success in considering terrorism in a few cases, but most important is that the mass movement has some threat of violence-not the terrorism specifically. terrorism such as the blanquist cells practiced held little effect anyhow
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1911/11/tia09.htm

>>21360845
2/2
> play a literally centuries-long game of Risk with the bourgeoisie by getting unions to form in 2037 and maybe create the conditions of socialism
the developed world is in the midst of a big surge in rank and file organising and formation of tenants unions not to mention nations like iran where workers councils have formed. instead of "playing a game of risk" why don't you actually focus on the proletariat and their organisation
> Well, the part about it inevitably producing the conditions they predicted it would produce by around 1900 has changed
there has been a surge of rank and file organising in the developed world from the logistics centre like amazon to chipotle to recently railways, not to mention the recent formations of tenant unions, and that's just the first world, if one looks at the third world you can see the labour movement becoming more intense and militant such as the worker councils in iran or the current garment strikes in bangladesh. coupled with the fact that there is now a war in europe and a unprecedented recession looming, 3 or 4 years ago everything i listed would either be seen as a stretch or unimaginable yet is now a reality so it is fair to say that capital is yet again in crisis and the international labour movement has finally begun to wake from it's coma even if it is just in a very nascent stage of revival

>>21360845
What would you say is the best distillation of Blanqui's ideas? He didn't write much, though I know he contributed to Proudhon's Treatise on Property where woman are compared to livestock.

>>21360443
Antisemitic Bakunin-Wagner gang.

>>21360884
Marx predicted that communist revolutions and potentially successful communist revolutions would occur, not that the USSR would become an authoritarian junta and kill tens of millions of workers and peasants for no reason, or that the vast majority of economically and technologically advanced states (where Marx said communism would break out) would resoundingly reject communism and embrace the bourgeois nation-state (primarily Britain, Germany, France, but also Italy, Spain, Hungary, every Balkan state, etc.).

If Marxism = "wars will happen.... social conditions will lead to socialist revolutions of some kind!," then yeah Marx was right. But it's not that, so Marx was wrong.

Again, classical "Marxism" predicted a communist revolutionary struggle with clear cut lines around 1900, and predicted that the only defeat condition of this struggle would be the bourgeoisie winning a tactical victory and resetting the clock until the next round. Instead what happened is the socialist movements completely dissolved into bourgeois movements, like the SDP in Germany which actively turned around and suppressed its pathetically tiny KPD revolutionary minority, and aided the Weimar state in killing them. In Russia, a bourgeois movement won the popular election and had to be overthrown by exactly... what did you call it in your post... "coups done by a military elite and through terrorism."

What you really defend is, minimally, "Marx was right in the big picture, he was just off in the timing of his predictions by 150 years or so (minimum)," which is a dubious thesis on its own. Either way, it's not classical Marxism.

>>21360904
I think most of them are available on marxists.org, you are right that there isn't much. I think I also read some in that Corcoran Before Marx book. He's mostly interesting from the historical perspective of how/why he thought it would work, less as a theoretician. Proudhon is interesting for the same reasons. To be honest Proudhon's/Louis Blanc's ideas probably would have actually resulted in a social republic within a generation or two, which was their plan (gradual dissolution of the class conflict through legislation favoring continuous redistribution, more or less). But Marx was dead right that they were insane for thinking this was going to happen via anything less than a gun to the bourgeoisie's head.

The anthology Property is Theft! of Proudhon's writings is great.

>>21360863
If you follow the logic then you'll see that the quantity and intensity of labor is really the only thing that can be said to determine value. Supply and demand is determined/conditioned by Capital investment. Labor is what creates anything.

>>21360910
because the workers revolution is a international one, not one that can only be done in one nation
> or that the vast majority of economically and technologically advanced states (where Marx said communism would break out) would resoundingly reject communism and embrace the bourgeois nation-state (primarily Britain, Germany, France, but also Italy, Spain, Hungary, every Balkan state, etc.).
hungary had a revolution and in germany for literal years the most industrialised region of germany (the ruhr valley) was in constant revolt by communist workers and in italy the po valley was essentially controlled by the proletariat, the reasons these revolutions failed is down to organisation not from the proletariat not being interested, they most certainly were fighting>If >Marxism = "wars will happen.... social conditions will lead to socialist revolutions of some kind!," then yeah Marx was right. But it's not that, so Marx was wrong.
marxism is looking at society from the point of view of its mode of production and capital regularly goes into crisis
> he was just off in the timing of his predictions by 150 years or so (minimum)," which is a dubious thesis on its own
can you show me where marx said that revolutions are incapable of failing?

>>21360916
People's personal desires is what determines the value, not effort or labor. Usefulness is as common a trait to commodities as is labor. That and there are things not produced by human labor that have value. Most importantly, commodities do not have a "value" in themselves. There is no "value" property of a piece of gold

>>21360925
>People's personal desires is what determines the value, not effort or labor
water is one of the most desired things on earth, why is it so cheap then?

>>21360923
I basically agree with you that Marx's theory can still be made tenable if extended to the long term, and I even agree with a lot of it personally (beyond just finding it tenable theoretically). I'm not disputing that with you at all. I'm simply telling you that classical Marxism has holes in it, it has failed predictions, and for tactical reasons of saving face and spreading Marxist thought, you should confront these holes and failures honestly and just focus on the many things Marx did analyze well.

Instead of doing that you are deliberately misconstruing me or raising things that aren't really relevant. For example I've said repeatedly that Marx wasn't wrong about social revolutions occurring, but about the nature and timing of the ones that did occur. You reduce this to "are you saying marx said a revolution can't fail" (something I explicitly contradicted) so that you can trap me in some autism bubble bath with you.

I'm not telling you any of this for my benefit or to win any fight with you. Just putting enough info out that any curious lurker can follow up on his own.

>>21360939
Its not always cheap

>>21360925
If personal desire is what determines price then why do profits tend to converge across industries? Personal desire is just a way of mystifying social necessity. If people would pay for a commodity more than its cost of production then it WILL be made regardless of any other factors. And again the ceiling of a price is not determined by people's desires but rather other Corporations undercutting competition. It's a binary operation.

>>21360952
on average it is, give me a reason why diamonds are more expensive than water? despite the former being more sought after

>>21360981
>If personal desire is what determines price then why do profits tend to converge across industries?
Because people have similar desires. We are of the same species of course.
> Personal desire is just a way of mystifying social necessity.
No it isn't. Its a way to clearly explain what motivates the exchange of commodities.

>>21360925
>That and there are things not produced by human labor that have value.
Name them. Air and water are both abundant on earth and naturally produced but why do we pay for water and not air? We need air more than water so it should cost more. It's only explained by the fact that it takes labor to deliver water while air requires no external labor. If it took external labor to supply us air then if would cost something.

>Most importantly, commodities do not have a "value" in themselves. There is no "value" property of a piece of gold
Very true. Gold has only 2 real properties; 1 it's social necessity and 2 the labor required to produce (mine and refine) it. Value is just the vector sum of those two forces.

>>21360996
>On average
But it isn't always. Your "average" is an appeal to a market trend. To determine what is the "true" value of a commodity, you will need more proof than just trends, i.e. something absolute.

Karl Marx was right about so much of what he said about the world and society. He predicted that the working class would become increasingly marginalized as capitalism grew. He argued that exploitation of workers was inherent in the system, and that the bourgeoisie would eventually be overthrown. We can see this happening today, with the rise of the gig economy and the struggles of the working class to make ends meet. He also predicted the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of the few and how this would lead to a polarization of society. We can see this too in the growing inequality between rich and poor around the world. Karl Marx was right about all of this and more.

>>21361003
>We need air more than water so it should cost more.
No. People don't desire things they already have.
>It's only explained by the fact that it takes labor to deliver water while air requires no external labor.
No, its because people already have air. They don't need more of it. Labor is not a factor at all.
>Gold has only 2 real properties; 1 it's social necessity and 2 the labor required to produce (mine and refine) it.
Weird, none of these qualities show up in the Periodic Table. Marxist chemistry must be a different field, that's right, of the social sciences.

>>21360443
Is this supposed to make Bakunin sound bad? He's right desu

>>21361020
But what about Hitler? In many ways, he was better than Marx. Hitler was an incredibly charismatic leader, and he was able to rally people around a common cause. He had a clear vision for a unified Germany and he was able to inspire people to work towards this goal. He was also a brilliant tactician and strategist, and he was able to outmaneuver and defeat opposing forces.

But more than that, Hitler was able to bring hope to a people that had been downtrodden and oppressed for centuries. He was able to bring a sense of pride and unity to the German people, and to give them a vision of a brighter future. He was able to inspire people to fight for their country and to stand together against a common enemy. This is something that Karl Marx could never do.

So while Karl Marx was right about much of the world, Adolf Hitler was better. His vision and charisma gave the German people a sense of hope and purpose, and his tactical brilliance enabled them to achieve their goals. He was able to unify a divided people and give them a sense of pride and purpose. That is why Hitler was better than Karl Marx.

>>21361006
the price water has on the market is absolute, and it's cheaper than diamonds

>>21361030
The price fluctuates, so its not absolute. Its cheaper than beer in some countries.

>>21361001
>Because people have similar desires. We are of the same species of course.
I agree and it's why I think it's not a very good determined of price. We all generally converge on what is socially necessary so saying it determines value is silly it's just an omnipresent fact of existence. This however does not explain why rates of return on investment and profitability is standardized. That doesn't even make sense.

>No it isn't. Its a way to clearly explain what motivates the exchange of commodities.
It's just a poor way of obfuscating the truth. If people starting going absolutely bonkers for blankets and would die for them what would happen to the market? Well in the short term there would be an increase in market value of blankets but long term Capitalists will see that value and get jealous, invest and flood the market with blankets until the supply is so high that it doesn't matter how much it is desired. It will fall back to the same price they are today despite being far more desirable. Human desire is an input value that the capitalist market revolves around. This view only can explain short term micro-economic functions which LTV doesn't even claim to say anything about.

>>21361028
Mikhail Bakunin is gay because he was an anarchist who wanted to overthrow the oppressive regimes of his day and promote freedom and autonomy for all people. He was also a passionate advocate for LGBT rights, believing that same-sex relationships should be respected and protected. In addition, he is often seen as a precursor to modern queer theory, which is based on the idea that all forms of gender and sexuality should be accepted and celebrated.

>>21361034
and why is that, may it be because in that nation water is cheaper because it is less labour intensive to extract it than in say Cameroon?

>>21361020
Yeah it’s wild how overwhelmingly correct a lot of the Marxist works are.

>>21361021
>People don't desire things they already have.
So in other words it takes no effort to aquire. In other words no labor.
>Labor is not a factor at all.
Funny how everything that is free implies no need for external labor. Can you think of any time in which increasing the quantity of labor for a product doesn't drive up the price? Or the converse?
>Weird, none of these qualities show up in the Periodic Table.
Ok, you're either a troll or can't into abstract thinking. I think I'm done here.

>>21361036
>This however does not explain why rates of return on investment and profitability is standardized
It doesn't need to explain those. its simply a fact of reality that that is how value is determined. Concocting concepts to rationalize the markets is delusional. May as well say the gods of deemed it so as an argument.
>It's just a poor way of obfuscating the truth.
Its a basic fact. Using social trends (appealing to labor averages or price averages), the sum of personal opinion, as the basis for the value of a commodity is absurd. My lap top, no matter how much someone is willing to give for it, will never have any inherent worth.

>>21361072
I think you read too much into the idea of "value." The value is never meant to be inherent in some material or objective sense. It at base starts with human subjectivity but when that gets mashed into the completely objective world of production-consumption the result is objective and predictable, and describable.

>>21361070
>So in other words it takes no effort to aquire.
Wtf no. It means exactly what the sentenced stated. Effort is not a factor. If someone has what they want, such as sufficient air to breath, or possibly take it for granted, then this effects the demand.
> Can you think of any time in which increasing the quantity of labor for a product doesn't drive up the price? Or the converse?
Don't need to. Labor is only a factor in that it costs money to acquire. But this price for labor says nothing about the true worth of that labor, or about the true worth of the product produced. The price is not the value. Purchasing labor is simply an exchange, just like purchasing a hammer at home depot, then using that hammer to build a bookcase, then selling that bookcase at a price higher than what it cost to build the hammer, to pay the retail workers and to acquire the wood. Nothing strange is happening here. The price is not the reflection of the worth. So your question is moot.
> I think I'm done here.
Please, be my guest. Show me what the value of gold looks and feels like. if its so real than you should have an easy time finding a picture of it (the value in itself, not the gold).

>>21361093
Yes the value is meant to be inherent and completely independent of human opinion, i.e. of the exchange value and use-value. It is all right there in the beginning of Capital. When one says the value of X is "objective", they mean that it is the true inherent worth, not just the average worth or the worth to this-or-that person.

>>21360285
saved

>>21361106
>Yes the value is meant to be inherent and completely independent of human opinion
Absolutely false. The Capitalist economy functions as a giant machine that produces anything humans desire. The only thing that matters is that they want the product more than it costs to run the machine. If that condition is true then the machine runs. The market in this case is a neutral network that makes the machine efficient.

>>21361098
>Show me what the value of gold looks and feels like.
Marx's never claims such a thing exists. To even think such a thing could ever possibly exists is nonsense. You simply do not understand the conversation. The first qualification Marx makes about the LTV is it's inherently social quality.

>>21360285
Marx was probably a mason
Marx believed in economic satan
Marx wasn't not a frankist
Marx had no foreskin

>>21361277
imagine having a foreskin

>>21360285

>>21360527
you have no idea what you're talking about, please god read the first three chapters of vol1 of capital

>>21360726
>all marxists supported fascist China
I know. They're dumb.
>Your dear Žižek
He is not my dear anything of the sort. David Graeber is was my dear
>Every single time
I'm literally in this thread telling you Marxian Leninist sham vanguardism leads to authoritarianism. But you too must admit that Republics always turn to oligarchy and virtually indistinguishable authoritarianisms. You prefer the General leader over the Banker leader? I prefer neither.

>marxist theory today is completely powerless to protect the proles
You're bonkers.
>Blue lives matter

>>21360527
>Defend LVT. You can't.
it's literally science. I could point to cockshott or anwar shaikh but I doubt you would read them
>>21360863
t. booklet

someone refute the economic calculation problem of central planning
>>21361295
>>21360851
>>21361457
read Mises
/thread

>>21361481
>read Mises
already did. he's a hoot
>someone refute the economic calculation problem of central planning
read cockshott

>>21360517
I don’t see how anyone could claim that Bakunin was wrong about Marxist views on the state. Communism’s biggest problem is that it requires a massive centralized state to supposedly destroy the concept of the state itself. It’s a nonsensical belief and it gives annunciation to liberal/capitalist imperialists to constantly associate socialism with “authoritarianism”

>>21361486
>Communism’s biggest problem is that it requires a massive centralized state to supposedly destroy the concept of the state itself
it needs a workers state so as to redirect production away from capital gain and towards social need
> it gives annunciation to liberal/capitalist imperialists to constantly associate socialism with “authoritarianism”
i don't care

>>21360845
You’re completely correct anon and Marxism’s overestimation of the primacy of materialism is the biggest problem with it but you’re never gonna convince a Marxist otherwise. It’s like trying to convince someone to apostatize from a religion, it’s very difficult and there is always a rationalization for any pitfall you notice with their faith.

>>21361020
These things were said by many others before Marx. Why attribute them to Marx?

>>21360641
>do you think is someone just felt REALLY strongly about it they could will feudalism back into existence?
Yes.

>>21361618
This anon gets it

>another commietranny thread

>>21361191
The social element is there to demonstrate the objectivity, making the value a quality of the commodity. Please reread the first chapter of Capital. Without it being a quality of the commodity, the ‘value’ you speak is just a market trend.

>>21361029
GPT-3 post

>>21360726
what level of incoherent liberalized brainrot do you have to be on to call china fascist

>>21360527
Where can I buy an academic qt?

>>21360285
>let's discuss how our boy Karl was literally right about everything
Just face the wall.

>>21360527
>defend an intuitive market mechanism

OK...

>>21361457
>Imagine supporting an economy that crashed?
Like the Entire Warsaw Pact? Like the Soviet Union? Go back to leftypol, tranny.

>>21361026
Marx's labor theory of value is debunked by the simple fact constant capital, use-value are not derived from human labor, yet determine the value of a commodity. Marx tried to reconcile this with "socially necessary labor", but this just a concession to the subjective theory of value by Merger. Ignoring that, Marxism is nothing more than a degenerate, atheistic philosophy driven by class envy and hyper-materialism. Its really just the losers of society venting they can't be anything but cogs. You solve that problem by just putting them in camps like Hitler did.

>>21362144
Marxism directly led to Hitler abandoning his entire country and blow his own brains out. That's quite the incoherent interpretation of history you got there, bub!

>>21362154
>Like the Soviet Union?
The USSRs economy did not crash. The republic was dissolved, shock therapy forced on the resulting federation of Russia caused the horrors of the 90s.

>>21361485
Cockshott's an idiot though. Economic planning is not a solution to any of the problems we currently face. Sexual degeneracy, mass immigration lowering wages, and housing prices sky-rocketing isn't going to be solved by a bunch nerds sitting in a room giving others to people behind computers like you do, faggot. It will be solved when people like you exterminated in the streets like you were in Germany and Francoist Spain.

>>21362176
>mass immigration lowering wages, and housing prices sky-rocketing
these are both direct results of the development of capitalism, and i sincerely hope this isn't a shock to you to hear. the same reason globalization was done to lower production costs and raise profits is the same reason immigration is pushed in the west - theres still wages to be depressed over here, and citizens used to a certain quality of life certainly won't willingly take those shitty, poor-paying jobs. Housing prices is just the obvious end result of speculative financial markets left unchecked.

>>21362173
The USSR literally dissolved... it did crash after decades of stagnation from communist mist management of the economy, you stupid tranny. The fact the Soviet Union did not have a toilet paper plant until 1969 is all you need to know that it was a shit hole country. Most people USSR still used newspapers just to clean their ass, and a dumb ass like you wants to tell us it was a success story. Why hasn't anyone just shot your brains out for being so fucking stupid. You clearly don't use it to think.
>>21362170
Marxism lead to trannies, and Stalin raping a 13 year old child. Of you defend that pedophile which is why you should be shot along with your entire family for producing such a genetic dead end like yourself.

>>21362184
Its the direct result of Marxism pushing immigration, restricting housing supply with environmental regulations - we'd solve these problems if we just killed people like you to prevent you from creating and pushing such policies. We need to start giving people like you the death penalty.

>10 hamburgers = 12 quadzillion labors because... IT JUST IS OK???

>>21362185
damn dude, you need pussy

>>21362170
None of these issues existed in Germany, Spain or Chile because they just shot Marxists like you. Its not capitalism. Capitalism is a simply a tool, and can be utilized in an effective matter for whatever purpose. That's why many M.E. and Asian countries are socially conservative while being capitalist. You just need to get rid of left people by putting a bullet in their heads and shooting their family members to prevent them from fighting back. Fascism works. Communism does not and never will.

>>21362190
nazi ukraine won't solve your problems, bro

>>21362202
I need to find you and silt your throat. But you pussies just hide on the internet all day and twitter. When you're in public - you hide your fact. Why don't you just have a revolution so you can end up like Luxembourg? Typing away at the keyboard isn't going to make it happen, you fucking degenerate.

>>21362211
i dont even have social media lol

>>21362154
>>21362185
>Like the Entire Warsaw Pact? Like the Soviet Union?
>le crash
I'll just leave this here

>>21361534
>it needs a workers state so as to redirect production away from capital gain and towards social need
That's called a council, you don't need a state for that

>>21362239
>if you change the names of things that changes their function
have these gentlemen seen my balls?

>>21362225
Nobody cares about a shit hole country that falsified its economic data. It was doing so well; it would still be around. Keep coping, cuck. You will never own the means of production.

>Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples “all at once” and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism. Moreover, the mass of propertyless workers – the utterly precarious position of labour–power on a mass scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction and, therefore, no longer merely temporarily deprived of work itself as a secure source of life – presupposes the world market through competition. The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a “world-historical” existence. World-historical existence of individuals means existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world history.

>>21360285
Marx was basically hitler

>>21362190
>Its the direct result of Marxism pushing immigration
Marxists do not like immigration. You're thinking of liberals. Liberals control capitalism. Capitalism loves immigration. Look at USSR vs USA in terms of immigration. If you don't plunder 3rd world economies and want to destroy your own people's wages there's no need to have them come to your country. Everyone would be fine where they were even if there's nothing stopping immigration. Marx himself denounced immigration.

>>21362190
>pushing immigration, restricting housing supply with environmental regulations
when did marx say any of this? or are you just 80iq'd

>>21362185
>Marxism lead to trannies
capitalism made trannies while communist banned them

>>21362374
immigration is free labour power THOUGH. immigration in capitalism with its labour market pushes wages down, but this is not the case in a socialist economy. we should expect a socializing economy to able to make good use of immigration since it externalizes childrearing costs to the emigrant countries. socialist countries historically have had little qualms with moving people around to avoid the creation of enclaves. you'd also struggle to find any ghettos in the USSR like you have in the US or present day Russia

>>21362457
>>21362449
>>21362374
Who are you trying to fool, you same fagging bunkertranny? Go back. Nobody gives a fuck what you subversive, subhuman lying degenerates say. Kill yourself. We should just abolish your life processes.

>>21362374
>Look at USSR
>Look at a country that built walls to keep people from escaping to a country that builds walls to keep people from coming in
Lmfao, you fucking retard.

>>21362457
East Germany was one of the first countries to pay for tranny surgery and Cuba currently does. Almost all trannies are leftists. Kid, you can't fool people here. Don't even bother.

>>21362607
>>21362610
>>21362614
comrade, i mean this with all my heart, do yourself the greatest service and touch some grass or hold a girls hand

>>21362457
90 percent of trannies are commies and 90 percent of commies are trannies in 2022

Nothing you say can ever make this untrue, and it discredits your entire ideology. Your ideology exclusively attracts pedophile sex pervert incels.

>>21362749
Continue never touching any women as per your restraining order, after that DSA party where you pinned a nonbinary girl against a wall and drunkenly told her about your "girlcock" you degenerate faggot

I like when he's unable to contain his utter disdain at the people he is critiquing.

>Malthus’s theory, which incidentally not his invention, but whose fame he appropriated through the clerical fanaticism with which he propounded it – actually only through the weight he placed on it – is significant in two respects: (1) because he gives brutal expression to the brutal viewpoint of capital; (2) because he asserted the fact of overpopulation in all forms of society. Proved it he has not, for there is nothing more uncritical than his motley compilations from historians and travellers’ descriptions. His conception is altogether false and childish (1) because he regards overpopulation as being of the same kind in all the different historic phases of economic development; does not understand their specific difference, and hence stupidly reduces these very complicated and varying relations to a single relation, two equations, in which the natural reproduction of humanity appears on the one side, and the natural reproduction of edible plants (or means of subsistence) on the other, as two natural series, the former geometric and the latter arithmetic in progression. In this way he transforms the historically distinct relations into an abstract numerical relation, which he has fished purely out of thin air, and which rests neither on natural nor on historical laws. There is allegedly a natural difference between the reproduction of mankind and e.g. grain. This BABOON thereby implies that the increase of humanity is a purely natural process, which requires external restraints, checks, to prevent it from proceeding in geometrical progression. This geometrical reproduction is the natural reproduction process of mankind. He would find in history that population proceeds in very different relations, and that overpopulation is likewise a historically determined relation, in no way determined by abstract numbers or by the absolute limit of the productivity of the necessaries of life, but by limits posited rather by specific conditions of production

>>21360443

From Bakunin to The Mirror of Production. Everyone BUT the Continentals is well aware.

>>21362764
im a straight, white male happily married to the woman of my dreams, comrade. i work as a skilled professional and dedicate myself to improving my community and connection of relationships to the people around me. you could have all of this too, if only you can get over this affliction of pure malice and learn to love yourself and others. godspeed. WAGMI.

>>21360285
Marx predicted Capitalism final crisis, which happened when the TRPF, combined with market saturation, reach such a level that Capital rotation and accumulation cannot happen anymore. He predicted that due to that, Capitalism will require more and more fictitious credit, which happened in the last years, in the form of quantitative easing (money printing).
He predicted, in the fourth volume of Das Kapital, that when overproduction reach critical levels, Capitalism would have to put itself into a fallow state, in order to purge itself of overproduction, and restart on a new accumulation cycle. That's what happened with the 2020-2021 quarantines, as well as the Shanghai lockdown, and the possible climate lockdown, as well as blackouts in the future. Capitalism, when facing market saturation, and the impossibility to make profit due to it, has to artificially purge it's own saturation. That is a Marxian analysis of what happened in the last two years with the quarantines. Only Marxian saw this, and they are probably right. Normies see the social engineering. Conspirationists see a great millenarian conspiracy against the christian nations. Marxian see the necessity for Capitalism to self destruct it's overproduction with a planned destruction of the economy (quarantines, shanghai lockdowns, and soon blackouts, as well as climatic lockdowns). This is confirmed by some insider on /biz, who confirm that the lockdowns are done to control money velocity, which is another way to say control Capital accumulation, and rotation, in Marxian terms.

>>21360772
>So it is literally a popularity contest insofar as the mass mobilization of the proletariat, through raising it to self-consciousness as a proletariat, is the entire point of the theory. But nobody agrees with this today, not even Marxists. If Marx and Engels could be here now and see the last 150 years, they would simply say they were wrong. If someone tried to defend how they're right in some roundabout way, they'd say, but we weren't TRYING to be right in a roundabout way, we were trying to make accurate predictions about the near future and prepare for an imminent crisis with very definite characteristics.
Most likely they weren't wrong. They never gave a timeline in the books. Only time they gave a timeline was on some letters, were Marx said to Engels that the final crisis is coming soon. But the timeline was never given on the books, which are something well more serious than simple letters.

>>21360484
>Bakunin
>socialist
>rules

>>21360443
You unironically ruined the thread. You knew this would turn the thread against Marx.

>>21361277
Marx criticized masonry, in many different conferences, which were written on paper, and accessible today.
>Marx believed in economic satan
???
>Marx wasn't not a frankist
Pure speculation.
>Marx had no foreskin
Yet Marx converted to Christianism at 6 year old, literally wrote a book criticizing jewish mentality (on the jewish question), and Engels at the end of his life wrote a contribution to the history of primitive christianity, were he had a positive view of early christians, whom he compared to proletarian struggles of his era.

>>21362167
>Marx's labor theory of value is debunked by the simple fact constant capital, use-value are not derived from human labor
Constant Capital is literally dead labor in Marxian theory. It is valid since it is obvious that raw materials value and machines wearing value are part of the final product value.

>>21362190
You are a fucking retard. There are plenty of sources from billionaires, back from the 19th century, or the 1970s, publicly saying they want more immigration in order to have cheaper wages.

>>21362922
A lot of communists are based, but they're fucking doomed. Especially now; as a genuine Communist, not a liberal progressive tranny "communist", any attempt to support a real proletarian movement is just going to feed the bourgeoisie liberal faggots and rape the people even harder.

>>21362962
>billionaires
The same people who invented (((communism)))

>>21360550
absolute kek

Also Marx publicly criticized mass immigration, in Das Kapital (Capitalism aim is to replace one Yankee with three chinese), and was clear about mass immigration in his letters, like this one:
http://www.reveilcommuniste.fr/2018/12/karl-marx-denonce-les-effets-ravageurs-de-l-immigration-sur-la-classe-ouvriere-1870.html
If you know nothing about Marx, shut the fuck up. You are doing nobody a favor, including yourself.

>>21362944
Imagine not being against (((Marx))) lmao

>>21362931
Marx did spend some time curtailing the expectations of his fellow communists while remaining optimistic himself, according to Friedrich Lessner. It's not really clear if Marx was convinced or not that a revolution was imminent in his own life-time.

Lessner himself thought that capitalism wouldn't survive the 20th century so its possible that Marx thought so too.

>>21362970
Marx literally quote Rotschild as an adversary in the book class struggle in france, 1848-1850.
As for communism invented by the billionaires, i would so love to have a time machine, and send you to revolutionary Catalonia, you telling the worker's committees that what they are doing is something invented by billionaires. They would fucking lynch you boy.

>>21362980
Globalization gave Capitalism a second life post WWII. But now there is no more markets or third world countries to absorb overproduction. It's over. The great reset is about creating an economy totally virtual, and disconnected from real value, with central bank digital currencies. But this will not work on the long term.

>>21362963
Samefagging here:
Liberal democracy is so deeply entrenched in counter-establishment groups that there's very little in the way of genuinely working against the system. Genuine Communists, (again not globohomo tranny communists) have no outlet for political support. Socialist and Communist parties in the US and Europe are 100% controlled opposition that the system props up, and if they ever gain popular support all that will result is a change of the system's external appearance, maybe with the addition of a "Department for the People's Gender Transitions."
A lot of disillusioned working class people (primarily whites, who are actively attacked by the liberal democratic system) have turned to "fascism" and right-wing politics as a response. Unfortunately, even that is going to be co-opted and fucking destroyed, just like true communism. There's no possibility of reform.

>>21362988
>worker's
Low IQ morons scammed by kikes you mean, of course they would try to kill someone who exposes their brainwashing lmao, how is this an argument in favour of (((communism)))?

Read Wallstreet and the (((bolshevik))) revolution and educate yourself idiot.

>>21362975
Imagine not thinking that Marx was not Redpilled about the jews, and publicly written about them.
Here idiot, for your culture:


" Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets.

… the real work is done by the Jews, and can only be done by them, as they monopolize the machinery of the loanmongering mysteries by concentrating their energies upon the barter trade in securities… Here and there and everywhere that a little capital courts investment, there is ever one of these little Jews ready to make a little suggestion or place a little bit of a loan. The smartest highwayman in the Abruzzi is not better posted up about the locale of the hard cash in a traveler’s valise or pocket than those Jews about any loose capital in the hands of a trader… The language spoken smells strongly of Babel, and the perfume which otherwise pervades the place is by no means of a choice kind.

… Thus do these loans, which are a curse to the people, a ruin to the holders, and a danger to the governments, become a blessing to the houses of the children of Judah. This Jew organization of loan-mongers is as dangerous to the people as the aristocratic organization of landowners… The fortunes amassed by these loan-mongers are immense, but the wrongs and sufferings thus entailed on the people and the encouragement thus afforded to their oppressors still remain to be told.

… The fact that 1855 years ago Christ drove the Jewish moneychangers out of the temple, and that the moneychangers of our age enlisted on the side of tyranny happen again chiefly to be Jews, is perhaps no more than a historical coincidence. The loan-mongering Jews of Europe do only on a larger and more obnoxious scale what many others do on one smaller and less significant. But it is only because the Jews are so strong that it is timely and expedient to expose and stigmatize their organization."
“The Russian Loan,” published in the New-York Daily Tribune on January 4, 1856, Karl Marx.

>>21363032
Communism is just another system of Jewish control, a scam for Jewish hegemony. Who could doubt it when it’s two principal architects were Jews of Rabbinic descent — Moses Hess and Karl Marx. Hess converted both Marx and Engels to Communism. Marx referred to Hess as the “Red Rabbi.” In 1935 Rabbi Stephen Wise stated “Some call it Marxism, I call it Judaism.”

The September 10, 1920, edition of American Hebrew Magazine bragged:

“The Bolshevist revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction, and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental and physical forces, become a reality all over the world.”

Robert Wilton, a long time Russia correspondent for the London Times, said in his book The Last Days of the Romanovs: “According to the data furnished by the Soviet press, out of 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik State there were in 1918-1919: 17 Russians, 2 Ukrainians, 11 Armenians, 35 Lets, 15 Germans, 1 Hungarian, 10 Georgians, 2 Poles, 2 Finns, 1 Karaim, 457 Jews.”

Jews Declare Anti-Communism = Anti-Semitism

Lenin himself declared capital punishment for any Russian who criticized Jews or identified Jewish leaders with Russian names as Jewish:

Anti-Semitism was branded as being counterrevolutionary in nature, and persons participating in pogroms or instigating them were outlawed (by a special decree issued by the Council of Commissars in July 1918, signed and personally amended by Lenin to sharpen its tone). A statement against Anti-Semitism made by Lenin in March 1918 was put on a phonograph record, to be used in a mass campaign against the counterrevolutionary incitement against the Jews.”

>>21363022
Imagine thinking that Bolsheviks were communist, when Lenin himself said it was state Capitalism:
"The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.
Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the latter’s quick rehabilitation is inconceivable." Lenin, To the Russian Colony in North America,Written November 14, 1922
https://libcom.org/discussion/lenin-acknowledging-intentional-implementation-state-capitalism-ussr

Your level of unreadiness and idiocy is off the roof. And it's sad we have those debates again and again on 4chan, when this knowledge should have reached your brain years ago.

>>21363032
Now just see for yourself Comrades If anti-Semitism was “counterrevolutionary” that must mean all the revolutionaries were Jewish.

In 1931 Soviet Dictator Josef Stalin told the Jewish News Agency in the United States that
“Under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the death penalty!”

In 1941, New York Publication “Jewish Life,” and “Jewish Voice,” told their readers that Anti-Communism is Anti-Semitism. The New York publication “Jewish Voice,” July and August of 1941, page 23, states as follows:

“Anti-Communism is anti-Semitism.”

Another quote, this from the Jewish publication also New York

“Scratch a professional anti-Communist and you’ll find an anti-Semite.”

And add to this, At the Yalta conference in 1945 Stalin declared: “I am a Zionist.”

>>21363039
Just imagine if the jews didn't stick their hands into communism so early on. The world would be so different.

>>21363043
>state Capitalism
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>21363049
(((Marx))) the inventor of this satanic system called (((communism))) was a kike, so I don't know what you're smoking, only natural system in existence is pure unadulterated free market capitalism.

Jewish Wall Street Bankers Financed the Reds

This fact blows away the myth that Communism was a “working class” movement; it was not. Communism was, for all intents and purposes, an elitist Jewish movement. Not only were Jews the lead actors on the ground in fomenting the Bloody Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and other attempted Communist takeovers, but they were funded to power by Jewish bankers on Wall Steet, particularly Jacob Schiff, the Rothschild emissary in New York who headed Kuhn, Loeb & Co., bank. Schiff is reported to have

“sank about $20,000,000 for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.”

Jacob Schiff, a Jewish Wall Street banker, funded Lenin and Trotsky to the tune of $20,000,000. A massive amount of money for that time.

Schiff reportedly gave this vast sum of money to the Jewish Marxist agitator Leon Trotzky (aka Leiba Bronstein) who Schiff had brought to New York to recruit Russian Jewish immigrants from the Lower East Side of the city for the Bolshevik revolution.

Jew Commies bankrolled by Jew Bankers. Communism is obviously a fraud for Jewish hegemony.

Trotzky trained Russian Jewish emigrants as revolutionaries and brought them back with him to Russia with the expressed purpose of overthrowing Czar Nicholas II, whom the Jews hated, implementing brutal Communism, exterminating the “best of the Gentiles,” and establishing a Jewish empire — a central organization with which to foment global revolution and the eventual Jewish takeover of the entire planet. According to Juri Lina’s book Under the Sign of the Scorpion, it was Jacob Schiff, not Lenin, who ordered the murder of the Russian Royal family.

The ritual murder of the Russian imperial family was carried out by a cabal of Jewish assassins led by the Jews Jacob Sverdlov and Yankel Yurovsky.

One of the Jewish butchers of the Romanov family etched in Hebrew the words adapted from a poem by German-Jewish poet Heinrich Heine on the wall of the Ipatiev House, where the Romanov’s were shot and bayoneted. The poetic line inscribed on the wall next to the bloodied corpses of the Romanovs alluded to the death of a Gentile ruler in ancient Babylon who had “wronged the God of Israel.” A clear display that another Gentile king, the Tzar, had been killed as an act of Jewish retribution

>>21363061
meds

>>21363039
Fucking idiot still thinking Boslshevism was Communism. Your case is hopeless.
Also what are the Yevsektsiya? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevsektsiya
"The stated mission of these sections was the "destruction of traditional Jewish life, the Zionist movement, and Hebrew culture".
In any case, reminder that only 11% of the bolsheviks were jewish.
Boy i've read the controversy of zion like 10 years ago. But confronted to the facts, i quickly changed my mind. But in order to change a mind, this mind has to be somehow not idiotic, like yours.
Muh jews control the world. Nice 73% of Isralians vaxxed by the Covid vaccine by the way. Idiot.

>>21363071
Debunked by pure facts lmao this is all you got kikeowitz?

>>21363061
Jews funded it from the start to destroy Monarchy, the last thing in between them and the ability to dominate the world through raw capital alone. The communists believed they would be able to bite the hand that feeds and win out in the end against their jewish masters, just like communists today think they'll be able to betray Soros and friends after sucking their dicks long enough. They always lose.

>>21363046
Stalin killed almost all the bolshevik jews. At the end of his life, Stalin was anti-jew, see the doctor's plot. But what is the use of informing you on this subject, you refuse to learn anything.

>>21363072
Who invented (((Communism)), was it (((Marx)))?
>73% of Isralians vaxxed
Israel is based, not all jews are bad I'm not a moron, we talk here about devil worshiping kikes behind satanic system of (((communism))) which literally follows the satanic principles from Babylon satanic religion.

>>21363082
(((Stalin))) was super mega kike lmao

This kike invented your satanic (((religion))), then (((Marx))) made it mainstream, do you denounce both of them

>>21363073
You have started out with a conclusion and then worked backwards to support said conclusion. It's just systemized schizophrenia and you need to take your medication.

>>21363061
Schiff financed bolshevism, that's true, but he must have known that the bolsheviks weren't in fact communist. He wanted to get rid of the Tsar which was a hindrance to trade between the anglo world and russia. Which exactly worked, since many trade agreements were made between the bolsheviks and the anglos during the 1920s, here some proofs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Russian_Co-operative_Society
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_Trade_Agreement
Jesus, do you even realize that you knowledge on those subjects is outdated? You are 10 years late boy. You would have shined on internet board 10 years ago, but today, you appear as an unread, ignorant useless idiot.

>>21363093
So you deny Moses Hess and Marx who were kikes invented communism?

>>21363098
Dont care

>>21363095
>bolsheviks weren't in fact communist
Cope and also irrelevant, Marx was a satanic kike so was Moses Hess they invented this scam.

>>21363084
>Israel is based, not all jews are bad I'm not a moron, we talk here about devil worshiping kikes behind satanic system of (((communism))) which literally follows the satanic principles from Babylon satanic religion.
At last something slighly interesting. But this has nothing to do with the average jew going to his local synagogues. Those people you talk about are not jews, but Canaanites, Moloch worshippers. Nothing to do with little Mosche, baker in Tel-Aviv.

>>21363095
>you appear as an unread, ignorant useless idiot.
>t. (((communist))) in 2022
LMAOOOOO

>>21363084
>Who invented (((Communism)), was it (((Marx)))?
Also Marx didn't invent communism, you had before him the Essenes, Gracchus Babeuf in the French revolution, even the Huterrites, who are christian communist, and predate Marx. Proudhon was a communist also, even if he didn't understand that in order to abolish class, you have to abolish commidity and wage labor, as well as money, something Marx understood.

>>21363107
>Nothing to do with little Mosche, baker in Tel-Aviv.
Never said it has, that's why I always put them in brackets to distinguish the kikes from regular , even though judaism like catholicism is fundamentally satanism doesn't mean everyone associated with it is active practitioner

>>21363086
Stalin spend literally 4 years at the Tiflis seminary. He was probably more like a jesuit.

>>21363104
>Marx was a satanic kike
Absolutely no proof about this at all, except some cringe poems written by Marx, between 18-24 years old.

>>21363116
It's not about race or religious, it's about amount of Capital owned, and class dominance. Get real.

>>21360641
This

>>21363053
>state Capitalism
Do you even read the published Lenin quote, or are you in pure denial?

>>21363081
Reminder that Bolsheviks actually overthrew the young Russian Republic, operating from the Tsaric abdication (february 1917), to the bolsheviks take over (october 1917).

>>21363043
>Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments
Is this the power of dialectics?

>>21363061
>only natural system in existence is pure unadulterated free market capitalism
dear lord, this man has overdosed on milton friedman quotes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfvXwuZ-bok&t=1s&ab_channel=SteveKanterakis

Watch.

>>21363207
Lenin was an hypocrite. But that doesn't mean that Bolshevism was a pure jewish plot, and would never have happened without the jews since only 11% of the Bolsheviks were jewish. Nor would have the situation in russia be any better, should the bolsheviks never have existed. I'm anti-bolsheviks, but it's undeniable that the bolsheviks developped russia, and won the WWII. Would Nicolas II have won WWII? The guy already had tremendous difficulties during WWI.

>>21363280
Literally a CIA agent

>>21362922
Are you gonna neglect to mention that China is one of the only Marxist countries in the world and they’re the ones doing these lockdowns the most

>>21363384
>Are you gonna neglect to mention that China is one of the only Marxist countries
You are an hopeless case.

>>21363072
Jews tended to fill leadership roles in the left wing movement, and they still do. I don't really believe in a nefarious "Judeo-Bolshevik" conspiracy, but it would be historically ignorant to say that they didn't have a pretty sizeable role in the left. Maybe not in the rank and file, but definitely in the elite.

>>21360285

>>21360285
He was wrong about everything and have ruined socialism. If anyone was right it was Blanc

>>21363399
You’re right, the Marxist-Leninist one-party dictatorship of China has nothing to do with Marxism

>>21363515
Marxism-Leninism is a rejection of Marxism, so that would be correct.

>>21363515
The gini index of China is higher than the the gini index of the UK, and close to america. But i guess you don't understands what this means anyway.

WHy did marx the jew suck so much cock? Why are the jews such giant hylic niggers?

>>21360443
Based bakunin

>>21363808
The gini coefficient is a meaningless statistic because poverty is relative.India has a lower gini coefficient than the US, but a retard like you would argue India is a better place to live.

>tfw chud who wants to read marx
Where to start?

>>21363979
Fashists out.

>>21363426
>regular dude who works out and geys laid
What did the marxist mutt dike mean by this?

>>21365675
communist manifesto

>>21363072
> Lenin not listed as a Jew
This entire infographic has been refuted.

>>21364511
The Gini coefficient is not about poverty though but inequality.
The anon is saying that China cannot be all that Marxist if it has more inequality than the UK.

>>21365675
>>21365940
don't start with communist manifesto.
start with the german ideology.

>>21366200
then go for capital

>>21363061
this is your brain on /pol/

>>21365675
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/
about 30 pages each

>>21365675
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/
chapters I.9-11 + the entire parts II and III except II.10
>>21363515
yes, that's right. Marxism-Leninism is the name of the official ideology of Stalinism, which was a counter-revolutionary movement in Russia that abolished the proletarian dictatorship and established the rule of capital in Russia

>tfw liberal propaganda is so advanced it makes people think the parts of liberalism they dont like are communism and the parts they do like are fascism or vice versa and there is a two party system that alludes to allowing votes along these lines but both parties are actually just liberal parties but there are celebrities who are allowed to engage in radical rhetoric along the lines of communism and fascism but their end effect is actually only to point people back at the two liberal parties again and there is a technological system in place that is centralized in the hands of a few liberal elites from the most liberal of all the liberal states in the nation of liberalism that allows regular people to regurgitate the propaganda they were already fed so that over time there is no longer any trace of communism or fascism but only the liberalism people were duped into believing was something other than liberalism which is accomplished thru a factory like school system that produces autists who will generate a practically infinite amount of this propaganda and there are also ai chat robots for the same purpose and so all political dissent on the centralized technological information system is actually just autists and robots producing liberal propaganda and on the rare occasion that the autists figure this out their only course of action is to call the liberal elites in control of it all communists or fascists and so the system reaffirms itself ad infinitum

>>21365675
https://platypus1917.org/2022/12/01/the-quintessence-of-marxism-a-popular-presentation/

>>21363107
>But this has nothing to do with the average jew going to his local synagogues.
Yes it does. They're the breeding hives where the worst ones spring from. Destroy the hive and they all disappear

>>21366360
Unfathomably based post.

>>21366285
>muh Stalinism
>muh state capitalism
trotoid detected

>>21366285
Things were still fine with Stalin, it's with Khrushchev when it fell apart.
Same as in China with Mao and Deng.

>>21360443
Everybody knows that fascists were just socialists who replaced “bourgeoisie” with “jews”. This is why both ideologies are host to the biggest fucking faggots who have ever lived.

>>21366458
trotskyists were not against state capitalism, the thing they take issue with is bureaucracy

>>21360285
He wrote the revolutionary class comes from it's economic situation, now communists are saying the complete opposite, they say communists have to create the revolutionary class through propaganda.

Marx was right about nothing, he is burning in Gehinnom for all the evil he brought to this world, to his family, to jews.

>>21366737
Except one is a never ending purity spiral (petit bourgeoisie) and the other have names faces and big fucking noses.

>>21367007
>he is burning in Gehinnom
>to jews
you're aware joos don't believe in Hell, right?
>communists have to create the revolutionary class through propaganda
source on this claim?

>>21366737
>Everybody knows that fascists were just socialists who replaced “bourgeoisie” with “jews”.
...and socialism with capitalism.

>both ideologies are host to the biggest fucking faggots who have ever lived.
And then there's you, Mr Enlightened "Libertarian"? No?

>>21365680
You're mad and I can tell

>>21367023
>you're aware joos don't believe in Hell, right?
Whoever told you that? They do believe in a place of punishment, there is even a big Yaron Reuven lecture coming up on it with multiple sources but for Noe you can watch these
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxYGqSV-gIo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M2H-D8QsxQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXOyYe_kdeM

>source on this claim
Here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Laclau

The biggest modern Marxist theoretician now said classes don't even exist, they're created by the revolutionary propaganda according to the interests of the party.

Before this guy Herbert Marcuse also changed Marxism with the idea that the true revolutionaries are the lumpenproletariat.

Marxism doesn't have a dogma besides acquiring as much power as possible by any means. As the original version was intellectually discredited it sought to become more and more something immune to rational criticism. The communist militants today are inoculated more with a sense of community founded on the common hatred of structures that are more vague and less definable by the day.

The current communist "discourse" isn't a discourse in its strict sense, but an agglomeration of symbols of emotional effectiveness, some non-verbal, that equally appeal to the most varied frustrations and resentments, uniting the hate of feminists and lgbt to the traditional religious morality with the fundamentalist Islamic hostility towards the degenerate immorality of Occidental societies. The coherence of the ideological discourse doesn't matter anymore (maybe just for the useful idiots that haven't catchen up to the history of the communist movement). Not that this is unexpected since this is what the Marxist praxis is about in essence, taking advantage of both sides, four sides, 10 sides even.

>>21367733
To give an example of how communists operate, they will create a law prohibiting people to have guns while also creating culture to promote criminality.

If crime rises they will use it to justify their totalitarianism, if crime doesn'trise they will just take credit for and further create more restrictions.

>>21367733
Laclau and Marcuse werent Marxists.

>>21367769
>Laclau and Marcuse werent Marxists
>n-no they werent real Marxists
Who was then? Trotsky claimed the same about Stalin. Mao said the same too.

Whenever some fool says he knows what real Marxism is millions of people are killed and the next communists say the previous were not real Marxists.

>>21366458
it wasn't state capitalism. in the period the state exerted the most direct control, most of agricultural production was done on non-state co-op enterprises and on non-state peasant plots. in state capitalism, it would've been done directly by state enterprises.
and you don't have to be a Trotskyist to understand that it was capitalist, you only need to read Capital. in fact I don't think there are Trotskyists with the correct position on this. it's either "degenerated workers' state" or state capitalism, which are both wrong.
>>21366514
they were fine for the development of capital, and what you describe as it "falling apart" is simply the bourgeois revolution running its course and the capitalism maturing in the given country. obviously the revolutionary fervor is going to disappear or fall apart. but in Russia and China it was a fervor of bourgeois revolution either way.
>>21367007
no communists are saying that
>>21367806
or you can just read Marx yourself instead of asking random clueless people and being surprised you get conflicting answers

>>21367733
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Laclau
>post-Marxism
intothetrash.jpg
predictably the rest of your post is incoherent gibberish
>>21367995
the point is that "state capitalism" is an oxymoron
>and you don't have to be a Trotskyist to understand that it was capitalist, you only need to read Capital. in fact I don't think there are Trotskyists with the correct position on this. it's either "degenerated workers' state" or state capitalism, which are both wrong.
4u: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm
the USSR didn't have generalized commodity production, only commodity production in the kolkhozes as you say, with the state being the only purchaser. it also didn't have private property. therefore it was not capitalist.

>>21360443
holy
frigging
based

>>21368087
>Citing Stalin
I don't care what the pedophile said. The fact that you would cite that degenerate is proof alone you aren't worth talking to. Kill yourself.

>>21366022
>The Gini coefficient is not about poverty though but inequality.
Worthless tautology.
>The anon is saying that China cannot be all that Marxist if it has more inequality than the UK.
The premise is wrong regardless because the USSR had a gini coefficient lower than the states - its still a shithole regardless because the gini coefficient doesn't accurately reflect reality. Its easy to have a low gini when everyone in your country is poor. Statistics mean nothing without context.

>>21368087
Citing the economic problems of USSR is hiliarious when Stalin himself points out that the USSR operates on the law of value - something Marx literally says in the first chapter of Capital that only exists in capitalist countries. More so, Stalin himself was a revisionist. In the Agrarian Question in 1906, he explicitly stated that commodity production only could exist under capitalism. He completely contradicts his position in '51 because he's just a fucking liar, opportunist, and retards like you just take him at face value.

>>21368087
The Soviet Union did have private property. It said so itself in the Soviet Constitution. MLs can't read.

>>21368237
>the USSR operates on the law of value
literally every economy operates on the law of value. if you try to claim otherwise then you cede ground to the Austrians. what Marx points out is the value *form*, the form that value takes in capitalist economies. even a communist economy will economize on labour, because the law of value always applies
>he explicitly stated that commodity production only could exist under capitalism
*generalized* commodity production yes, which the USSR didn't have after the end of the NEP
>>21368246
>The Soviet Union did have private property
bullshit
>in the Soviet Constitution
quote the relevant section then

>>21368087
>the USSR didn't have generalized commodity production, only commodity production in the kolkhozes as you say, with the state being the only purchaser
commodity production cannot exist in socialism
> Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
>Let us now pass to the point that they want to introduce socialism in the countryside forthwith. 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.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/03/x01.htm
> it also didn't have private property
private ownership of land and private firms were enshrined rights in the USSR
>ARTICLE 7. Public enterprises in collective farms and cooperative organizations, with their livestock and implements, the products of the collective farms and cooperative organizations, as well as their common buildings, constitute the common, socialist property of the collective farms and cooperative organizations.
>In addition to its basic income from the public, collective-farm enterprise, every household in a collective farm has for its personal use a small plot of land attached to the dwelling and, as its personal property, a subsidiary establishment on the plot, a dwelling house, livestock, poultry and minor agricultural implements - in accordance with the the statutes of the agricultural artel.
>ARTICLE 8. The land occupied by collective farms is secured to them for their use free of charge and for an unlimited time, that is, in perpetuity.
>ARTICLE 9. Alongside the socialist system of economy, which is the predominant form of economy in the U.S.S.R., the law permits the small private economy of individual peasants and handicraftsmen based on their personal labour and precluding the exploitation of the labour of others.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/12/05.htm
> Today there are two basic forms of socialist production in our country: state, or publicly-owned production, and collective-farm production, which cannot be said to be publicly owned.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch03.htm

>>21368264
> literally every economy operates on the law of value
the economy does not exist in socialism, the very concept of value does not exist in socialism

>>21368087
>the point is that "state capitalism" is an oxymoron
it's not an oxymoron. a state can purchase a capitalist enterprise and keep running it on wage labour and profit. the relation is still capitalist, and if those state enterprises comprise a significant majority of its economy, then the form can be correctly termed state capitalist.
>the USSR didn't have generalized commodity production, only commodity production in the kolkhozes as you say
if it was only in the kolkhozes, then why the fuck are you linking me a text that says the products of the state industry for foreign trade were commodities?
secondly, the worker spent a majority of his wages on the food that was produced as a commodity, and his labour-power was also a commodity, for which he received the equivalent in commodity-money (admitted by Stalin), that he then exchanged for his means of subsistence that we already know were commodities.
and lastly, Stalin obviously wouldn't admit this, but internal products of state industry were also commodities. state companies traded them using money of account in a state bank.
>with the state being the only purchaser
the state wasn't the only purchaser at all. but even supposing it were, it was then selling the stuff to workers in the cities in exchange for commodity-money, so this would've been just a regular capitalist relation, only where the distribution business would be monopolized by one capitalist that happened to be the state

>>21368264
>literally every economy operates on the law of value.
Engels:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch26.htm
>From the moment when society enters into possession of the means of production and uses them in direct association for production.... society will not assign values to products.... People will be able to manage everything very simply, without the intervention of much-vaunted “value”.
>The concept of value is the most general and therefore the most comprehensive expression of the economic conditions of commodity production. Consequently, this concept contains the germ, not only of money, but also of all the more developed forms of the production and exchange of commodities....
now pay attention
>The “exchange of labour for labour on the principle of equal valuation”, in so far as it has any meaning, that is to say, the mutual exchangeability of products of equal social labour, hence the law of value, is the fundamental law of precisely commodity production, hence also of its highest form, capitalist production.... By elevating this law to the basic law of his economic commune and demanding that the commune should execute it in all consciousness, Herr Dühring converts the basic law of existing society into the basic law of his imaginary society. He wants existing society, but without its abuses

>what Marx points out is the value *form*, the form that value takes in capitalist economies
Marx:
>Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear there as the value of these products....

>even a communist economy will economize on labour, because the law of value always applies
economizing on labour isn't the law of value. you can economize on labour as a community without the products of this labour becoming private property of some part of this community to be exchanged with others, and hence without becoming values

>>21368264
No shit, retard. We live in a capitalist world order. Do you even know what the law of value is - you illiterate ML retard? According to Marx, a guy you've never read, the law of value can only exist in countries were capitalism exi sts because exchange-value exists, retard. The majority of production in every country is not done to satisfy distinct social needs, but for the accumulation of capital and money, retard. This doesn't exist under socialism because g social planning eliminates it by ending the mercantile production of goods and services in the economy. Goods are purely produced for their use for societal needs - not for the accumulation of wealth. That did not happen in the USSR, according to Stalin himself, because goods and services were p roduced for commodity exchange, you retard, for profit. Profit, again, retard can only exist where surplus value i.g . the rate of exploitation of the proletariat. Production was done for profits for its police state; not for social needs in the Soviet Union. And the Soviet Union had a proletariat i.g. people who worked for wages so it never be a socialist country acc ording to Marx, dummy.

>>21368087
you should go back to leftypol or genzedong or stupidpol or wherever you waste time cause even when talking to the retards of /lit/ you're getting absolutely fucked on

>>21368355
Based.

>>21368264
You're dumb. Stalin himself commodity production does exist under socialism. He was just a liar who revised his beliefs because he murdered all the old Bolsheviks, and most the USSR towards counter-revolution.
>"Let us now pass to the point that they want to introduce socialism in the countryside forthwith. 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."
This Stalin himself, but again a retard like you doesn't know anything about the USSR like the typical ML tranny.

>>21368355
You're talking to Marxist greentext tranny. He's a /leftypol/ tourist who does this sometimes for entire days and nights on end. By this, I mean babbling and moving goalposts endlessly without ever actually having a meaningful exchange. He'll do it again to your post here. It's why he uses the excessive greentext format. Many have tried to get him to actually respond instead of going "so you're saying (thing you didn't say)" and babbling more. All have failed.

The only winning move is not to play. Most people just ignore him. He only manages to rope in a libertarian here and there these days. My guess is he was banned from whatever reddit or /leftypol/ variant he uses for not being the right kind of tranny.

>>21360550
Lmao

>>21368320
>commodity production cannot exist in socialism
I didn't say the USSR was a socialist economy. it clearly wasn't. it also clearly wasn't capitalist, because it didn't have generalized commodity production or private property. it may be most accurate to call it a socializing economy
>ARTICLE 7
exactly, it didn't have private property only *personal* property. petty tools do not private property make
>>21368326
>the economy does not exist in socialism, the very concept of value does not exist in socialism
wrong.
>>21368343
>the relation is still capitalist
no it is not
>if it was only in the kolkhozes, then why the fuck are you linking me a text that says the products of the state industry for foreign trade were commodities?
commodity production for the purpose of export is not the same as generalized commodity production. any socializing economy will conduct trade with surrounding non-socializing economies
>>21368352
this only works if you take value == exchange-value, which it is not. value == SNLT by definition. if you want to define value as exchange-value then go ahead
>>21368367
>Stalin himself commodity production does exist under socialism
I didn't say Stalin was 100% right all the time. in particular Stalin's proclaiming the USSR's economy to be socialist is a enormously annoying

>>21368377
That's not the green text tranny. That's just an ML retard. The green text tranny is a left communist. He's in this thread, but that's not him. The ML is actually worse than him. I don't like either of them, but I hate ChapoTrapHouse/PSL/CPUSA retards who come here and just lie about the USSR and push non-sense about it being Marx's vision of socialism. They're the biggest pseuds.

>>21368386
>exactly, it didn't have private property only *personal* property
changing the name of something does not change what it is, a inalienable right to own land is private property
> wrong
> Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

>>21368388
>The green text tranny is a left communist. He's in this thread
where?

>>21360285
Marxposters are based
Chudposters are cringe
Simple as

>>21368386
Stalin was 100% wrong all the time. Read Marx:
>" All these “socialists” since Colins have this much in common that they leave wage labour and therefore capitalist production in existence and try to bamboozle themselves or the world into believing that if ground rent were transformed into a state tax all the evils of capitalist production would disappear of themselves. The whole thing is therefore simply an attempt, decked out with socialism, to save capitalist domination and indeed to establish it afresh on an even wider basis than its present one."
How the fuck was the USSR socialist, in a Marxist sense, when wage labor was the primary way of production? When the law of value, which Marx says in Capital I literally the first fucking chapter, only exists in economies with production is done for commodity accumulation, not social need, dummy.
You have stop defending that shit hole, and what Stalin did. The USSR failed at its goal, retard. It failed at the Battle of Warsaw. You have to correct its mistakes, not repeating them by justifying Stalin's stupidity.

>>21368392
See >>21368352
I'm actually on the guy's side this time because I fucking hate MLs Dengoids who shill here all the time. Especially that Tranny China simp who posts the Xi quotes and acts like Jack Ma is a proletarian world leader. Fuck these tranny PSL, Finnish-Bolsheviki, Hakim, ChapoTrapHouse, Stupidpol, fuck all these faggots

>>21368390
>changing the name of something does not change what it is, a inalienable right to own land is private property
again, private property is property used in a certain way. just because your dacha has a small plot of land around it doesn't make that land private property
>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
yes I've read gothakritik
>>21368403
>How the fuck was the USSR socialist, in a Marxist sense, when wage labor was the primary way of production?
wages exist in socialism (lower communism), read gothakritik again. but again, I'm not saying the USSR's economy was actually socialist. it still had quite some ways to go. Stalin tries to pass the USSR's system off as socialist, in direct contradiction to the definitions laid down by Lenin and Marx, Lenin notably having renamed Marx' lower communism to socialism which is annoying in itself but not as annoying as uncle Joe's fucking "this ad-hoc mess is actually socialism trust me"

>measuring the "socialism" of a state or movement by comparing it to a frozen abstract ideal

I guess you fags hate China and the DPRK too

>>21368423
>private property is property used in a certain way. just because your dacha has a small plot of land around it doesn't make that land private property
having a inalienable right to where you literally own land is private property, that means that noone else can occupy and use that land and the state will enforce that division, that is private property
>yes I've read gothakritik
you obviously haven't

>>21368423
Wage labor does not exist in the first stage of communism. That is completely wrong. In the Critique of The Gotha Programme - Marx states commodity exchange does not exist under socialism in either phase. C-M-C is the basis of commodity production. With no commodities being produced, there is no money to be exchange, i.g. there is no wage labor. It also makes no sense. Why would wages need to exist workers own the means production - retard? Who the fuck are they paying to work when they can decide what is produced? Use some critical thinking skills, and stop believing shit you heard from twitter.

>>21368434
>having a inalienable right to where you literally own land is private property, that means that noone else can occupy and use that land and the state will enforce that division, that is private property
wrong

>>21368445
you're not very bright are you?

>>21368427
>He thinks China and DPRK a great examples of socialism
This is kinda why people just don't bother or become social democrats. Because they see trannies like you just justifying pedophiles like Stalin murdering people because your socialist state was so great and can't be criticized.

>>21368444
>Wage labor does not exist in the first stage of communism
yes it does. lower stage communism still uses remuneration. how do you propose "to each according to contribution" should work without wages? you don't have currency but you do have means of payment, namely labour vouchers. which would be paid out as wages. higher stage communism is then defined as dispensing with all remuneration schemes

>>21368453
>higher stage communism is then defined as dispensing with all remuneration schemes
what happens if you stop showing up to work at this stage?

>>21368453
Remuneration is done with labor vouchers i.g. not money. It isn't wage labor because labor vouchers don't have exchange value. Wage labor doesn't exist because production done in common; not by mercantile producers who employ labor as a commodity. You did not read Gotha, or understand Marx even in the slightest. You've never read Capital either. You basically are a discord troon.

>>21368453
>you don't have currency but you do have means of payment, namely labour vouchers. which would be paid out as wages
that's not how labour vouchers work, labour vouchers for one thing are destroyed when used which does not happen with wages and money

>>21368456
>what happens if you stop showing up to work at this stage?
probably people would be cross with you. but also this is kind of why higher stage communism likely only comes about after hundreds of years of lower stage communism. if society hasn't matured enough that it can't happen
>>21368463
>It isn't wage labor because labor vouchers don't have exchange value
I mean if you don't want to call it wage then sure. feel free to come up with a word for it. but keep in mind lower communism likely has equivalents of hourly wages, piece wages and basic income, depending on the situation
>You've never read Capital either
I'm halfway through vol III
>>21368476
>that's not how labour vouchers work, labour vouchers for one thing are destroyed when used which does not happen with wages and money
I'm simply calling it wages despite them being paid with vouchers rather than currency

>>21368485
>if society hasn't matured enough that it can't happen
*if society hasn't matured enough then it can't happen

>>21368485
Labor vouchers are not money or commodities. They can not be exchanged. They're literally like food stamps. They can not be used to buy the means of production, and they can only be used to acquire what is produced by social, as a whole, through a social plan that limits production to what is necessary and not profligate consumerism. The whole fucking point of socialism is limit production to what is healthy to human race through scientific planning. There's no fucking buying gaming laptops with your labor vouchers. You can buy food, you can buy a bed, but you're not going to force Africans in the congo to make your fucking iphone by paying capitalists to just produce whatever they want.

>>21368485
>I'm simply calling it wages despite them being paid with vouchers rather than currency
because you think wage labour exists in socialism which it doesn't
> keep in mind lower communism likely has equivalents of hourly wages, piece wages and basic income, depending on the situation
can you show me where marx says this?
>I'm halfway through vol III
you are a liar

>>21368485
Money only exists in capitalist countries because capitalists own the means of production. Its how the anarchy of the market works. People just give out money to produce shit without thinking about the social costs or consequences of what is produced. Under capitalism, gamer girl bath water sells for millions of dollars because money is solely made for profit. That isn't the case under socialism because labor vouchers are exchange for socially necessary labor that has already been ear-marked for society. The more you work, in the first stage of communism, the more you receive from the common fund. In the second stage - ideally it is no longer necessary because humanity has figured out a way to produce goods without requiring incentives or because scarcity has been solved through technological progress.

>>21368491
>Labor vouchers are not money or commodities. They can not be exchanged. They're literally like food stamps
I know. but you're still being remunerated based on your work. if you don't want to call it wages then sure, but do please come up with an appropriate term
>There's no fucking buying gaming laptops with your labor vouchers
you can have my vidya when you pry them from my cold dead hands
>can you show me where marx says this?
marx doesn't go into such detail, this is an active discussion in the academic debate around planning
>you are a liar
picrel

>>21368521
>An appropriate term
Why don't you learn how money works, and what a commodity is before you post in a Marx thread? Wages are not labor vouchers. You're paid wages because you don't own anything - you don't own the means of production. The capitalist takes most of what you make. Labor vouchers give you the full value of your labor because its based on on your contributions to society as a whole. According to your logic - food stamps are the same as money because they are forms remuneration. Do you think food stamps are money? Do you think ration cards are money? Do you think getting food stamps is a wage? Do you not realize how stupid you sound...

>>21368521
>Lotto tickets and survey points are money bro because they are remuneration
MLs are dumb as fuck man. Holy fuck.

>>21368533
I have asked again and again that you come up with a term for a word for the equivalent of "wage" in an economy that uses labour vouchers. perhaps "remuneration"? "rations"? what is the equivalent term for "paycheck" when you no longer have cheques?

>>21368542
Go ask your boss, well you obviously don't work, when you get a job - ask your boss to pay you in lotto tickets and raffle cards because that's the same as a wage.

>>21368386
>petty tools do not private property make
they do, they're means of production, and so is land. their products belongs to their owner who can sell it, because there were markets: in this miraculously non-capitalist economy there were somehow wage labourers who traded their private property commodity labour power for the private property commodity money, and then had to do another commodity exchange to, whatever the intermediaries, get the private owners of food (who could be its private owners only because they privately owned the means of production necessary to make it) to give them some of that so that they don't starve
>no it is not
how does a mere transfer of a title of ownership change the real economic relation? if the state bought a supermarket chain, would the relation stop being capitalist the moment the transaction became legally binding? if not, when?
>commodity production for the purpose of export is not the same as generalized commodity production
I agree, the part wasn't identical to the whole. that's big if true, and I say it's true
>any socializing economy will conduct trade with surrounding non-socializing economies
and any socializing economy will remain decidedly capitalist until it makes significant inroads into destroying capitalism, which the USSR hasn't, since it was rather building it up with strong state initiative that was, however, limited by strong peasant interests
>value == SNLT by definition.
and SNLT doesn't get established unless products of labour are traded in mass quantities
>>21368423
>just because your dacha has a small plot of land around it doesn't make that land private property
if the potatoes that grow on it are sold and then end up with the proles who pay for them with commodity-money (as certified by the moustached hebe enjoyer man), then it's sure private property
>>21368423
>wages exist in socialism (lower communism)
Marx:
>To say that the interests of capital and the interests of the workers are identical, signifies only this: that capital and wage-labour are two sides of one and the same relation. The one conditions the other in the same way that the usurer and the borrower condition each other. As long as the wage-labourer remains a wage-labourer, his lot is dependent upon capital.
or
>But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation.
etc.
so you might as well be saying that capital exists in socialism
>>21368427
not an abstract ideal but a concrete scientific criterion

>>21368542
Did you take the short bus to school? How many examples do I have to give to explain to you that wages are not the same as labor vouchers, and wages do not exist under either phase of socialism, retard? Ration cards, food stamps, lotto tickets aren't wages because they have limits on what they can be exchanged for and how they are acquired. The Soviet Union did not use labor vouchers, and used wages, because the workers did not own the means of production. Stalin himself said the law of value was used to increase the discipline of business executives. What socialist country would have executives, retard? What socialist uses Ford and Koch to build their car industry and forces their workers to work at multi-national corporations like Pepsi?
Literally, just stop being stupid.

>>21360285
/pol/ is for politics

>>21368453
>you don't have currency but you do have means of payment, namely labour vouchers
Marx is clear that "means of payment" is a function of money and that vouchers are not money. there's no payment with labour vouchers because there's no exchange of values. there's only exchange of values regarding the worker when there's the commodity labour-power privately owned by the worker to be exchanged. but that's no longer the case in lower communism, because production is already according to the social plan, and the worker's labour is consequently directly a part of social labour that is assigned to particular tasks included in the plan. the worker doesn't go on the market to sell his labour-power to some external entity owning means of production, so there's no wage.
>>21368485
>I mean if you don't want to call it wage then sure.
it's not a question of semantics but of knowing what wage is and applying the concept correctly.
>I'm halfway through vol III
bad news chief, you need to start over, but pay attention this time
>>21368533
>Labor vouchers give you the full value of your labor because its based on on your contributions to society as a whole.
not the full value of your labour, but what's true is that no part of the product of your labour constitutes private property of another anymore.

>>21368485
>probably people would be cross with you.
What would they do about it?

>>21368491
>There's no fucking buying gaming laptops with your labor vouchers.
Can I obtain a gaming laptop at all in this world?

Marx said initially the social plan would be done by the state, but gradually over time the workers would manage production on a co-operative basis. He was afraid that capitalism would re-constitute itself if workers simply owned the means of production without considering social planning. What this planning could look like would be in forms of councils, worker committees that debate production needs on a national basis. The revolution, however, is universal since no country can be completely self sufficient, and would have to rely on capitalist institutions to manage their economy.
Not to say this means you should wait until the revolution. In the mean time, you help the proletariat with reforms. But you have to beyond reformism by forming a political party with a specific communist programme.
This isn't happening anywhere in world at moment because every communist group is degenerative and has completely capitulated to bourgeois interests. This problem isn't going to be solved any time soon.

One of the reasons why communism is so fucked, and won't be saved any time soon because of Stalin's actions. His degenerative actions of equating the USSR to socialism, and socialism in one country. His murderous actions of destroying much of the party in purges, and his disastrous policies of social fascism and working with Hitler. His damage is still felt today because his theoretical errors of popular frontism, socialism in one country, his terrible actions et cetera are spectre that haunts communist politics. He has done irreparable damage, and that's most likely why communism will never be a serious movement. It will just be the movement of degenerate, petite bourgeois college students who equate their twitter activism, third world anti-imperialist contrarianism and socially repugnant behavior/ tranny idpol with the real movement to abolish the present state of things.

>>21368575
>they do, they're means of production, and so is land. their products belongs to their owner who can sell it
there's still no generalized commodity production. your little personal plot of land doesn't enable you to pork out
>how does a mere transfer of a title of ownership change the real economic relation?
it doesn't. the fact that it's a small personal plot, that you only have petty tools, that is what changes the relation
>I agree, the part wasn't identical to the whole. that's big if true, and I say it's true
at least we can agree on something
>and any socializing economy will remain decidedly capitalist
no it will not. a socializing economy doesn't consist of porkoids exploiting workers. it's fucking different, even if it isn't yet fully socialist. you are correct of course that capitalism needs to be stamped out in most places before the transition can be carried out fully
>and SNLT doesn't get established unless products of labour are traded in mass quantities
again you are cucking to the Austrians. you do not need trade to establish SNLT for a good or service. you merely need to measure the amount of labour time expended producing the same good in different workplaces. then you run statistics on that which tells you what the average labour time is, as well as if there are workplaces where the time taken is very much different from the average. feedback mechanisms would kick in for those cases, for example resources could be withheld from less productive workplaces or maybe you'd have the different workplaces send people over to see how things can be improved
>>21368577
I'm going to move for calling the remuneration schemes "wages" in the experimental planning projects that are in the works, just for you anon <3
>>21368585
>Marx is clear that "means of payment" is a function of money and that vouchers are not money
I mean goods will likely have their value printed on them and I don't know what you'd call cancelling vouchers in exchange for them if not "payment". by all means come up with a verb
>>21368625
paddlin'

>>21366360
I hate that he's right so much bros

>>21368652
>paddlin'
meme answer indicates you are joking somewhat, but is that really the answer? instead of working to make money, you work because you will be physically punished if you don't?

>>21366360
>celebrities who are allowed to engage in radical rhetoric along the lines of communism and fascism
Celebrities are allowed to engage in fascist rhetoric? Kanye's career is finished unless he publically repents.

>>21368737
you work because you want to. also working hours are likely to be greatly reduced. today we could have a 20 hour work week if we wanted, in the future a 10 hour work week is not unthinkable

On a long enough time scale capitalism begins to exhibit all of the negative traits of communism and none of the positives

>>21368811
Kanye was always going to wind up like this. The second Pete Davidson entered the picture with his 9 inch Jewish cock, it was over. He’s been suffering since his mom died, but I think he’s been especially been spiraling ever since Donda dropped.

>>21368870
People would work less in a communist society not because of laws, but because of full employment. Employment would be mandatory, and so everyone would have to contribute. More so, less things would be produces since commodities for simply profit would not be produced. The only things that would be produced would be goods that are useful for society. Luxury goods would have to be drastically reduced.

>>21368940
For example - cars would be greatly reduced for public transportation. Home ownership would be reduced for housing co-operatives or like communal apartments. Drugs would be eliminated i.g. alcohol, weed, all that shit communists currently love won't be produced or even be legal. Prostitution would be outlawed. You wouldn't be able to own multiple homes, but you would never be homeless. You could choose your job, but your job wouldn't be painting or some of the stupid shit you heard on twitter. You'd be most likely doing something with manual labor related like agriculture, trash collection or building infrastructure. Men who are capable of working would have to work; there will be no NEETs who post on 4chan all day.

>>21368971
>have to
what happens if you don't? physical punishment like the other anon says?

>>21368992
The idea is to rely on social punishment before physical punishment. So you would be bullied, ideologically indoctrinated to work. This very much how it worked on the early Christian communes, and how it was going to work in the USSR with Lenin putting much emphasis of the communist youth.
>"We must bear this in mind when, for example, we talk about proletarian culture.[2] We shall be unable to solve this problem unless we clearly realise that only a precise knowledge and transformation of the culture created by the entire development of mankind will enable us to create a proletarian culture. The latter is not clutched out of thin air; it is not an invention of those who call themselves experts in proletarian culture. That is all nonsense. Proletarian culture must be the logical development of the store of knowledge mankind has accumulated under the yoke of capitalist, landowner and bureaucratic society. All these roads have been leading, and will continue to lead up to proletarian culture, in the same way as political economy, as reshaped by Marx, has shown us what human society must arrive at, shown us the passage to the class struggle, to the beginning of the proletarian revolution."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/oct/02.htm

>>21368887
I don't know if everyone goes through this after reaching a certain age, but I fucking hate modern cars. Everything from the interiors to the paint is disgusting.

>>21368940
>Luxury goods would have to be drastically reduced
uh, no. communism partly means unfettering the forces of production
>>21368992
I wasn't seriously suggesting paddling. more likely there would be social pressure. but also no one sits around doing nothing for long

>>21369009
>uh, no. communism partly means unfettering the forces of production
No, communism is the restriction of unfettered production for social need. Again, read a book:
>"The more grain he clings to, the more profitable he finds it; as for the rest, let them starve: "The more they starve, the dearer I can sell this grain." All should work according to a single common plan, on common land, in common factories and in accordance with a common system."
Its what production goes towards; not how much is made. That was Stalin's idea i.g. communism just raising the material conditions. That's just not sense. That hasn't lead to communism in China.

>>21369009
What would that social pressure look like?
>but also no one sits around doing nothing for long
kek

>>21369034
Anything from mockery to struggle sessions. Violence in the most extreme cases.

>>21369034
I mean compare to what happens if you're at a family event and you don't pitch in?
>>21369028
there's nothing wrong with luxury goods so long as the labour necessary for producing them is accounted for. in lower communism this is easily handled by a remuneration scheme. you want fancy shit, you have to work for it

>>21369052
Would engineers, planners, skilled technicians etc. get more fancy things?

>>21369052
Completely wrong. Capitalism already produces abundance. There are more homes than homeless people. The idea wouldn't be the case because houses would not be produced for a profit, but to meet real problems. Luxury goods bad as people are starving right now you while post here. Nobody should live in luxury while worried about going homeless because they don't have savings for an emergency. The type of profligate mindset that you have is a part of the problem - culture has to change too just as Lenin said. There can be petite-bourgeois college students, like yourself, having the free time to shitpost on 4chan while people are going bankrupted from their medical bills.

>>21369052
>I mean compare to what happens if you're at a family event and you don't pitch in?
So nothing

>>21369059
This is commodity fetishism. Communist society doesn't assign value to products. It just produces what is necessary. Your gaming desktop isn't going to have RBG lights. You'll get a 2011 Thinkpad and you will like it.

Marx and Lenin sat across from each other in a dimly lit tavern, their eyes locked in a heated stare. Marx's face was twisted with rage as he spoke, his words dripping with venom.

"You, Lenin, are a traitor to the cause. You have betrayed the principles of socialism and have turned our movement into a dictatorship."

Lenin sneered in response, his voice low and menacing. "You are the one who is misguided, Marx. The ends justify the means, and I will do whatever it takes to bring about a socialist utopia."

Without warning, Marx leapt to his feet and lunged at Lenin, his fists flying. Lenin was caught off guard and stumbled backwards, narrowly avoiding Marx's blows.

But Lenin quickly regained his footing and countered with a series of blows of his own, sending Marx crashing to the ground. The two men fought with a ferocity born of years of animosity and ideological differences.

As the fight raged on, the patrons of the tavern looked on in horror, unsure of who to root for. But it soon became clear that Lenin was the superior fighter, and Marx was struggling to keep up.

Finally, after what seemed like an eternity, Lenin delivered the knockout blow, sending Marx sprawling to the floor. The tavern erupted into chaos as Lenin stood victorious, his chest heaving with exertion.

Marx lay on the ground, defeated and humiliated. As he looked up at Lenin with hatred in his eyes, he knew that their rivalry was far from over. The battle between Marxism and Leninism had only just begun.

>>21369052
>you want fancy shit, you have to work for it
not that anon and i was going to leave this thread be due to how retarded the ML is but it's not a case of "i want want this particular item and society will have it for me", in communism where the means of production are owned in common and producers have free association and production is based on need and to the producers capabilities. luxury goods would decrease as practically noone will be willing to put in the labour to find and extract them. do you think there will be people out there who spend weeks on end scouting out geography for diamond mines? things like restaurants would cease to exist as well

>>21369059
do they work more than everyone else?
>>21369062
>Luxury goods bad as people are starving right now you while post here. Nobody should live in luxury while worried about going homeless because they don't have savings for an emergency
yes but we're talking about late stage communism not the hellhole that is the present. we can actually have nice things once we bring the economy to heel
>>21369072
this all depends on what you mean by luxury goods. wants vs needs

>>21369072
Pretty much, but stuff like restaurants would exist in very small cases if they were community owned for a particular purpose. They wouldn't be a fucking Mac Donalds everywhere on every highway. Nobody gives a fuck about diamonds in a communist society. They don't put food on the table. They just serve the narcissism of retards.

>>21369080
diamonds are pretty though

>>21369077
>we can actually have nice things once we bring the economy to heel
will everybody be equally likely to obtain nice things, regardless of their job?

>>21369077
>this all depends on what you mean by luxury goods. wants vs needs
luxury goods are luxury goods because of how expensive and they are due to how much labour is involved, these things would significantly decrease in communism
>>21369080
> Pretty much, but stuff like restaurants would exist in very small cases if they were community owned for a particular purpose
i seriously doubt it, erving tables, rushing orders, noone would voluntarily run this kind of firm and the food industry is one of the most alienating.

>>21369084
So are yachts the CEO of Mac Donalds owns. But what's not pretty are amount of obese people from eating their food, the amount homeless people from the low wages they give out who shoot drugs on the streets to cope with their lives. Production has social consequences that will have to be considered, and done away with. Unproductive labor, wasteful consumerism won't be possible.

Where to start with Marx? I've read him and lenin in uni so not totally unfamiliar.

>>21369092
There would be places where people go to get food, but they wouldn't be like restaurants. I could see there being food halls like they were in the early Soviet days. Kinda like how Mao did, but not in a retarded way.

>>21369101
those would not exist for the same reasons i said before, most people would probably cook their own food

>>21369100
the manifesto and then capital, the hardest parts of the latter are funnily the first couple of chapters but after that it reads like an essay, just giver the first three chapters a couple rereads to understand it

>>21369100
Just read Complete Works collected works, and don't read anything until you've finished them. Don't read Lenin, or any else unless you've read that, and have extensively studied Soviet and Chinese communist history. You need to have a firm grasp on 20th century history of communism. You also learn about pre-Marxist communism, and familiarize yourself with people like Robert Owen. Be familiar with Plato and Aristotle's discussions on the subject matter. Marx does cite Aristotle quite a bit so you at least have some understanding of Greek philosophy. He wrote his PhD on Epicurus I believe.

>>21369094
>the amount homeless people from the low wages they give out
most homeless people aren't getting any wage

>>21366360
What is there to read that goes into detail on this issue?

>>21369110
>Be familiar with Plato and Aristotle's discussions on the subject matter. Marx does cite Aristotle quite a bit so you at least have some understanding of Greek philosophy. He wrote his PhD on Epicurus I believe.
this is not needed at all, philosophy is not needed to understand marx, his writings on feuerbach made that clear

>>21369111
Homeless people often live in their cars, and do work. You will find employed homeless people in cities like Los Angeles because housing is so expensive. Not every homeless person is a drug addict who's homeless by choice.

>>21369115
Actually, it is necessary. You will never understand communism without having a complete understanding of continental philosophy. You can't just read Marx without knowing the history of communism or Hegel. Marx did not come to communism naturally either - he had already extensively studied philosophy up until that point. Its also very stupid to just ignore pre-Marxist philosophy because you're just regurgitating dogma without critically analyzing the context and genealogy of his work. Reading without reading the Greeks first is like trying to do Calculus without knowing integrals or derivatives. You can't just commit to a philosophy without extensively studying it, and having a deep understanding of what else is out there.

>>21369124
>You will never understand communism without having a complete understanding of continental philosophy. You can't just read Marx without knowing the history of communism or Hegel
you can and if philosophy was so necessary to communism then they would have published
>The decision by Marx and Engels not to publish their work on the history of philosophy and to concentrate all their efforts on a scientific analysis of one social organisation is only indicative of a very high degree of scientific conscientiousness.

>>21369116
>most
also the full clause was
>the amount homeless people from the low wages they give out who shoot drugs on the streets
presumably if they had cars they would shoot drugs in their car, not on the streets

>>21369124
>You will never understand communism without having a complete understanding of continental philosophy. You can't just read Marx without knowing the history of communism or Hegel
you can and if philosophy was so necessary to communism then they would have published their works on philosophy
>The decision by Marx and Engels not to publish their work on the history of philosophy and to concentrate all their efforts on a scientific analysis of one social organisation is only indicative of a very high degree of scientific conscientiousness.

>>21369134
Really bad advice. Marx's been dead for nearly 200+ years, and the idea you don't need to anything but him is just shooting yourself in the foot. You're going to make it easy for people to counter your arguments without having an extensive philosophical education. You're regurgitating dogma at that point. You're going to look dumb if you don't understand even the most fundamental principles of ontology and metaphysics.
>scientific analysis of one social organisation
Which is impossible because without a philosophical education you don't have the tools of doing that. And this is largely why people shouldn't be Marxists become Marxist in the first place because they read Marx, can't understand him because they don't have the historical, philosophical context to understand his true beliefs.

>>21369134
>>21369136
Just completely wrong and just bad advice. Lenin spent years reading and annotating Clausewitz, Hegel, other Marxist philosophers before becoming a communist. Marx did the same and did so his entire life. The idea you can just become a communist one day because you feel like after doing the bare minimal doesn't make you a communist or a useful one. Marxism requires a life long commitment to intellectual curiosity and debate. That will never happen if you ignorantly philosophy before and after Marx. Which is the problem with Marxoids to day; you don't have any ability go above and beyond simple erudition and quote spamming.

>>21369141
>You're going to make it easy for people to counter your arguments without having an extensive philosophical education
communism has nothing to do with philosophy, marx say so himself
> Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as onanism and sexual love.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03e.htm
>The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
> You're regurgitating dogma at that point
i'm point out how philosophy is not related to communism and one does not need to go through the canon to understand marx and communism
>Which is impossible because without a philosophical education you don't have the tools of doing that. And this is largely why people shouldn't be Marxists become Marxist in the first place because they read Marx, can't understand him because they don't have the historical, philosophical context to understand his true beliefs.
his true beleiefs are laid bare in his writings, in his words and he did not hold back, there is no "secret meaning" beneath his writings that can only be discovered by shoehorning in aristotle
>>21369151
> Just completely wrong and just bad advice. Lenin spent years reading and annotating Clausewitz, Hegel, other Marxist philosophers before becoming a communist
the quote is show here >>21369136 came from lenin

>>21369154
Just dumb. This would be like going to a law school without knowing you'd have a job at the end of it. You'd be just wasting your money and time. Marxism is not a fad you get into. Its a permanent commitment class struggle. And that means everyday you must be learning and adapting your mindset and improving your intellectual and physical skill set for the class struggle. That will never happen by just memorizing a few Marx passages as your ilk typical does. Which is why you will never be a serious communist, and will move to something else in a few years like all these fucking losers and trannies do when its convenient. You have no skin the game, and your attachment to socialism is purely aesthetic and ephemeral.
There is no point in talking to you anymore because you're a pseud, and you're not even engaging with what I said. You're spamming quotes, and not comprehending what is being said. Work on your critical thinking and reading comprehension skills before you post on /lit/, you green text spamming tranny.

>>21369154
You just spam, and selectively quote Lenin. That's why you're just as bad as MLs.
>"The old schools provided purely book knowledge; they compelled their pupils to assimilate a mass of useless, superfluous and barren knowledge, which cluttered up the brain and turned the younger generation into bureaucrats regimented according to a single pattern. But it would mean falling into a grave error for you to try to draw the conclusion that one can become a Communist without assimilating the wealth of knowledge amassed by mankind. It would be mistaken to think it sufficient to learn communist slogans and the conclusions of communist science, without acquiring that sum of knowledge of which communism itself is a result. Marxism is an example which shows how communism arose out of the sum of human knowledge."
If you read more than the few quotes you've memorized would see Lenin does not agree with you, but you are just pseud. Just stop posting. You're not much better than the other retard who doesn't know what labor vouchers are.

>>21369184
>And that means everyday you must be learning and adapting your mindset and improving your intellectual and physical skill set for the class struggle
is communism a gym program now? is it PPL?
> That will never happen by just memorizing a few Marx passages as your ilk typical does
literally all i did how show how philosophy does not have much to do with communism, especially not to the extent you claim it does, marx was clear about that, he associated philosophy with masturbation for fucks sake
> Which is why you will never be a serious communist
i've been working part time since i was 14 and have been involved in multiple workers actions
> will move to something else in a few years like all these fucking losers and trannies do when its convenient
i have a feeling alot of this vitriol is you looking for an opportunity to vent some kind of anger rather than any actual grievance
> You have no skin the game, and your attachment to socialism is purely aesthetic and ephemeral.
cute

>>21369212
Lenin literally knew Judo, karate, a professional weight-lifter, and loved and encouraged sports. Holy shit, you're dumb. Just as bad as the ML. You don't know anything about Lenin or communism in general. It figures the green-text spamming tranny thinks debating people online while being an obese fat fuck that doesn't go outside is going to communist revolution happen LMFAO.

>>21369222
i'm not transgender and i've been going to the gym since i was 15 and boxing since i was 16, i was just making fun of how you were turning communism into lifestyleism

>>21369222
>>21369226
i asked where to start with marx and you two idiots turned it into a homerotic pissing contest

>>21369226
Yeah bro. Lenin weight-lifted, did sports, knew karate, encouraged physical fitness and spent his entire life reading philosophical journalists and military doctrine. But according to a retard like you - all you have to do is sit on your ass and spam the same three passages always do. Then communism will happen. You're one the worst Marx posters on /lit/. Pseud leftcoms are just as bad mls who don't read Lenin but quote him. Stop posting. You're not a communist, and you're not intelligent because you know a few quotes from /r/leftcommunism. Go back, cuck.
>Lifetyleism
You don't even know what word means, retard. Its literally what you're doing all the time on 4chan and Discord. I guarantee you've nothing to further the cause, and you're just masturbate to fact people know you're a lolcow here.

>>21368887
this.

>>21369232
i wasn't the one just blowing rhetoric calling him a trans faggot, i replied because this is a pretty big misconception, at best going through the canon would do nothing for your understanding of marx and at worst it would hinder it, which is why i responded, as for what to read the go to what i said here >>21369107 and avoid guides, marx was a writer not a video game boss battle
>>21369234
> You're one the worst Marx posters on /lit/.
this is the first time i've been here in weeks
> Pseud leftcoms are just as bad mls who don't read Lenin but quote him
nothing i've said is left communist, all i did was quote marx on philosophy
> You're not a communist, and you're not intelligent because you know a few quotes from /r/leftcommunism. Go back, cuck.
stop swinging at windmills, i don't go on reddit except for the porn and i've never been on that subreddit

literally all i did was show you were overemphasizing philosophy and you freaked the fuck out

Do any of you seriously believe that a communist revolution is possible in the current era? I mean in a normal country, not a fucked up country like Brazil or whatever.

>>21369242
>>21369242
Nigga, you come here all the time arguing with people. You don't do shit with your life. I would say you're a troll, but I know your retarded type well. You are the proto-typical leftcom discord pseud. Your type was popular here about six years ago, but you're not interesting anymore. You just spam the quotes, and you clearly have autism.
>>21369243
The average communist is a retard like >>21369242 so no. A lot of these communists are just petite-bourgeois that just don't want to work, or put in the work of actually changing society. They just want to feel special by identifying with a political clique of people on twitter. Honestly, just harass and bully anyone who calls themselves a communist. They're worth engaging seriously because at best they don't know what they're talking about, and at worse, they're a massive pseud with self unwarranted importance.

>>21369243
given the recent surge in rank and file organising in the developed world, armed tenants unions in the US, garment strikes in Bangladesh, organising in the logistics center, workers councils in iran and a war in europe it's clear that capital is once again in crisis and that as long as capital exists then so does the proletariats role of sublating it continue to move on no matter how defeated it seems or how nascent it is in its own revival
>>21369247
this is literally the first time i have been on this board in weeks

stop lamenting and being a bitch over how little philosophy actually has to do with communism

>>21369242
Marx is already hindered by the fact you, and many of the people like you have autism. You're not persuasive. You thinking getting an education, and knowing what you're talking about, is the same as playing video games. Of course you used video games as an example because you are a degenerate who just plays them. You're only a communist because your mom didn't raise you since she was too busy on onlyfans while leaving you in front of a computer.

>>21369254
Stop pretending you're a Marxist and get a job.

>>21369254
>Strikes and violence are when communism
Lmao. This anarcho-kiddie shit. There's no communism without a party, retard. At that point; its just meaningless action without a political goal. You're so stupid. Why even spend months being a Marxist when you won't even try to understand it?

>>21369267
>There's no communism without a party, retard. At that point; its just meaningless action without a political goal
communism is the labour movement and the proletariat moving towards the sublation of capital and the commodity form. communist parties, militant ones emerge from the proletariat organising themselves, communism was not theorised into being, it emerged from the way society was moving the same way communist parties emerge from this kind of organization. this kind of rank and file organization amongst the proletariat is the backbone and foundation of communism, the labour movement and it's workers parties. i genuinely don't know why you look at this with such a dismissive tone? especially when it's proof of the international labour movement waking from its decades long coma, you're obviously angry at something, go scream in a pillow or some shit

>>21369287
Again, you're just spamming quotes and using a thesaurus. You're an idiot. You're not a Marxist and not a communist. You think syndicalism, de-politicalized protests are the same as communism because you play too much Kassereich. You're a joke, kid.

>>21369291
>You think syndicalism, de-politicalized protests are the same as communism because you play too much Kassereich
you're a fucking lunatic, when the alarm on your microwave goes off do you start arguing with it?

literally nothing i've said has anything to do with syndicalism

>>21369298
>Bolsheviks
spend decades building the partying, working underground, politicizing the Duma for revolution, planning revolution
>Retard today
>IT JUST MAGICALLY HAPPENING AND EVERYBODY LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER
Lmao, you are so dumb. You became a communist because of Vaush.
>Lunatic
I'm pretty sure a lunatic would be someone like; I'm not one who ruins every Marxist thread on /lit/ by spamming shit over and over again. How much of a fucking loser do you have to be de-rail every thread about Marx here because you have to interject with your stupidity? Are you that attention depraved that you must find these threads to waste peoples' time with your retardation?

>>21369298
You're the same level as barneyfag. You're literally the barneyfag of /lit/. You're just what barneyfag is to ponies to with Marx. Every thread that might be related to Marx is just spamming quotes, being a pseud, and interjecting when you're clearly not intelligent enough to talk to people here.

>>21361485
Don't know where the quote comes from but it seems the predatory theory of the origin of the state. Don't see the commie in it, except that marx said that the state would eventually disappear.
Now read Hayek's knowledge theory

>>21368652
>you do not need trade to establish SNLT for a good or service. you merely need to measure the amount of labour time expended producing the same good in different workplaces.
you don't even understand the difference between abstract labour time and concrete labour time. just stop posting and go read Capital

>>21370125
again, if you think SNLT doesn't exist outside of trade then you are ceding ground to the Austrians

>>21360285
>>21360443
when can we get back to being viciously antisemitic as a society, it was pretty kino, i mean just look at marx, even jews love it

>>21370192
it doesn't exist in a society that doesn't trade. but in a society that does, it does exists outside trade. this is literally the first chapter of Capital, just go read it
>It is only by being exchanged that the products of labour acquire a socially uniform objectivity as values, which is distinct from their sensuously varied objectivity as articles of utility. This division of the product of labour into a useful thing and a thing possessing value appears in practice only when exchange has already acquired a sufficient extension and importance to allow useful things to be produced for the purpose of being exchanged, so that their character as values has already to be taken into consideration during production.

>>21367995
>random clueless people
>like mao, stalin, lenin, trotsky, etc

>>21370286
and yet Marx goes to great lengths to separate value from exchange-value later in the text. you are aware that Marx is sometimes sloppy, right? to me what you seem to claim is that value == exchange-value, which again cedes ground to the Austrians
we could say that value ==> SNLT is a one-way implication, but I don't think Marx does this. he seems to say value == SNLT by definition.
for the sake of argument we could say "value" only truly makes sense in a market economy and that we shouldn't talk of value in in-kind economies but rather the SNLT directly. but that's just changing the names of things, not their essence, hence why I say that SNLT regulates production in all human economies

>>21370353
Lenin and Trotsky were right, Mao was actually clueless, and Stalin was consciously falsifying Marxism
>>21370368
>and yet Marx goes to great lengths to separate value from exchange-value later in the text
this doesn't contradict anything I said
>you are aware that Marx is sometimes sloppy, right?
you wouldn't be able to tell because you don't even understand what he's saying in the first chapter of Capital. if something sounds inconsistent then maybe make sure you aren't missing the point first instead of jumping straight into projecting your confusion onto the text
>to me what you seem to claim is that value == exchange-value
your seemings are mistaken then. exchange value is the form of appearance of value, and value is that which necessarily appears as exchange value
>he seems to say value == SNLT by definition
and he says that products of labour only acquire the character of values in society which regularly exchanges them to the extent that the future exchange is already taken into account at the time of production
>and that we shouldn't talk of value in in-kind economies but rather the SNLT directly
but you just said correctly that SNLT is value
>hence why I say that SNLT regulates production in all human economies
it doesn't. Marx is clear than in a communist society products aren't values, and you seem to understand that SNLT = value

>>21369113