/lit/ - Literature

the lack of competition.

scaring rich people is really funny, for one thing

it appeals to the poor, not the rich

>>2146179
i guess nobody told pol pot you were only supposed to give them a scare.

because its percieved by its followers as an attainable utopia,

only abused children support communism or socialism.

you can tell by how they react when you confront their beliefs on the social contract, for one.

bump

What really makes Fascism so appealing?

Well communism is the next anarchism. Fucking hipsters

Because
>THE STATE SHOULD GIVE ME EVERYTHING FREE OR AT LEAST IT SHOULD COST CENTS LIKE THE OLDE DAYS!

>>2146225
sounds like every retired old fucker I know.

Because Marxism is a compelling and internally self-consistent ideological system. If you're a bright college kid who's sensitive to the oppression in the world and doesn't have enough life experience to understand that human beings don't behave the way Marx thinks they should, the promise of socialist equality for all can seem like a beautiful idea to fight for.

People are no longer born into circumstances over which they had no control (poverty, for example) and then told that the only way out of poverty is to compete against people who have had access to better education and more time to dedicate to studies.

12 years of primary public school, 5+ years of college

>>2146255
Yes they are, what the fuck world do you live in?

>>2146173
The idea that a better world is possible, and the observation that this one is shit. Communism isn't the only ideology that offers this but it's probably the most detailed and intellectually rigorous.

>>2146270
He's replying with what people like about communism, not with a statement about the present world you dense fuck.

>>2146270
I'm responding to OP's question, bro.

desire to steal from your betters combined with ignorance of how many are looking to steal from you.

the idea that humans can cooperate to survive instead of compete.

are we talking about communism or the ussr/china type of thing?

>>2146345
Can you elaborate upon the difference?

it's intended to prevent or reduce the economic inequality that causes undue hardship on marginalized sections of the population.

It's just progressivism that tries to defeat that pesky, counterproductive wealth condensation that occurs in unregulated free market economies.

Communism appeals to people who understand that an empowered collective can do more than a series of empowered individuals.

4chan is communist

>>2146345
>USSR commits political acts of violence, fails economically, goes into general decline
>Declare it "not true communism
>USA commits political acts of violence, fails economically, goes into general decline
>Blame capitalism
Why do leftists do this?

1) There's a lot of really compelling arguments in its favor and it explains a lot of phenomena - in fact it provides an inclusive explanation of the world itself, it makes sense of the world

2) It provide an idea of paradise which does not rely on anything otherworldly

3) For many people it is in their class interest

4) If we believe the predictions of communism it is inevitable and it is scientific - so if it's true, going against it is going against the tide of history. i have never comprehended this argument myself, but apparently it was enormously persuasive in the earlier part of the 20th century and seems to have been the key reason for the intellectual force of Communism.

>>2146364
Because The USSR was in no way true communism. Stalin twisted the principles of it for his own purposes,Lenin to a lesser extent. The only Russian leader who kept true to communism was Trotsky,and look what happened to him

Besides,Capitalism is just a stage,meant to replace feudalism and then be replaced itself by socialism. Capitalism will build Capital and resources and Socialism will create and equal society from what Capitalism has built

>>2146364
While we don't have a truly capitalist system, there are still many elements of capitalism in our mixed economy. And I suppose that whenever we make a shift towards more laissez-faire capitalism (e.g. financial deregulation, less restrictive environmental regulations, slashes to social programs, etc.), it seems to have a mostly negative impact on working people.

Communism, on the other hand, has never been attempted on a grand scale. Soviet Union was only communist/socialist in name but not in practice.

>>2146364
A couple of reasons. One being that the USSR wasn't fucking communist.

Are you Rightists unable to see the difference between command economies and communism? Or are you all using that idiotic definition of communism that equates equality to state ownership of the means of production?

It's like you've never read anything by a fucking communist author.

Ｃａｐｉｔａｌｉｓｍ

In essence and purity, capitalism is simply the right (not privilege) of every human to create, own, barter, buy and sell "means of production," and the practice thereof. Certain political movements seek to deny this right and prohibit this practice by concentrating and entrusting all capital to the public collectively (the state, the commonwealth, whatever), which amounts either to theft or to imprisonment.

Ｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｓｍ

The extent to which communism acts in no way to deny capitalism, a group of humans are only possessive of a given "means of production" as a group (hence collectively), and seemingly no expectation of transferring this capital to another group or a specific individual exists among them.

The fact that no owner of a particular system of capital is (or even can be for that matter) designated may be appealing in a general sort of way, as the need for the capital itself has already been satisfied and so for every proficient user.

>>2146683

you realise right that 'communism' these days is, n practical terms, getting more and more associated with the kind of commune-ism advocated in something like the coming insurrection: networks of interconnected but independent communes built on friendship and a rejection of work rather than anything detailed by marx

Communism doesn't work in practice. It never really worked in theory. Capitalism isn't a fucking god send either.
I am moving on, anyone coming along?

>>2146173

Because college kids never had to work for money and want to replace the allowance they get from their parents with money from social security.

I didn't know it still was so appealing.

I think democratic socialism and libertarian socialism put the final nail in the coffin to Lenin-based socialism.

>>2146703

...which is, of course, a regression rather than a progression from Marx's theories. Prior to Marx, "socialism" was a collection of utopian doctrines advocating one form or another of communal living. Without exception, all attempts at putting these doctrines in practice -- from Robert Owen's commune at New Harmony to Fourier's phalansteries to the hippie communes that flourished briefly during the Sixties -- have failed.

Marx was wrong about a lot of things, but at least he tried to put his socialism on a firmer footing than "me and my friends, are, like, gonna drop out of the system, maaaan."

>>2146725

lol, you're old

>>2146736

Exactly this. Marx gave communism a viable scientific blueprint rooted in classical economics.

And if you do the history, Marx has been amended, corrected and reinterpreted already. Lenin was the first. Then came Trotsky and Stalin. Then came Mao. Then when all of those authoritarian communist systems showed their true colors, libertarian and democratic socialists sprung up. These thinkers include Schumpeter, Jurgen Habermas and Sidney Hook.

>>2146723

>Communism doesn't work in practice.

Humans were mostly communistic for about ~200 000 years.

The alternatives

ITT: Communism is amazing. The problem is all communist leaders are douchebags, didn't you know?

>>2146767
lol
0/10

>>2146772
cool rating brah,

but check dese bad boy
s

>>2146772

It's true whether you like it or not, buddy boy.

>>2146777
Very Nice.
For today you are made of 100% WIN.

>>2146767

This is a superderp.

>>2146786

Still true, laddie.

>>2146767
Tribalism =/= Communism


>captcha: plebes untstorm

>>2146798

How?

>>2146798
Explain the difference. Not samefag above.

Isen't Sweden socialist?

Look at how good they turned out.

>>2146804
I'm not the anon trying to claim they're different.
Of course tribalism isn't communism. Tribalism isn't an economic system.

Way to red herring.

>>2146808

>Communism
>classless and stateless communist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production.

How is this not present in the average paleolithic tribe?

Or, for an example, in the still existing Mbuti people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbuti_people

>>2146818
Classless
>implying there weren't power structures and leaders in paleolithic tribes
Stateless
>implying individual tribes did not act as micromobile states...maintaining autonomy, crafting social structures, claiming territory, fighting off outsiders, punishing insiders harmful to the welfare of the tribe

>>2146818
Because Communism is a result of the development of industrial development and the corresponding development of the industrial proletariat, class conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeois, and the revolutionary victory of the proletariat.

I'm a caveman. This isn't my sheep, it's the community's sheep. This isn't my spear, it's the community's spear.

Communism, in a nutshell.

>>2146818
once more:
Tribalism is not a term that describes an economic system.

Simply because you can conflate the presence of facets of communism does not mean you can logically compare the two systems.

I know about the Mbuti people. They're hunter-gatherers. There are no means of production to commonly own. When they develop factories, then you can bring them to the table. Otherwise, all hunter-gatherer clans, according to you, are communist.

Which then proves true the statement that we have, in fact, been communist for the first 200,000 years of human existence.

So either:
Mbuti are communist, therefore proving the earlier anon's point of 200,000 years of communist existence in human clans, or
Mbuti are not communist, and thus your attempt to compare tribalism and communism was false from the start.

Which is it?

>>2146823

>implying taking advice from the knowledgeable elder because he actually knows his shit constitutes an "authority"

Also, "stateless" just means there's no formal authoritarian government, fucknut. Of course a communistic society can defend territory, capture territory etc.

>>2146834
Are you seriously dense enough to think that no tribal elder ever held power over the tribe? Never made decrees, never enforced his superiority? Never got the lion's share of the meal?

>>2146826
Communism is not simply communal ownership. That is naive and facile. Communism is a system of government in which the proletariat, as a class conditioned by the historical development of capitalism, has seized control of the means of production. Communism can by definition only occur after the development of capitalism. Earlier forms of organization of mankind may have been communal, but they literally could not have been communist and you are an idiot if you think otherwise.

>>2146832

>There are no means of production to commonly own.

But they have all sorts of stuff like primitive clothing and huts and weapons and food

>Mbuti are communist, therefore proving the earlier anon's point of 200,000 years of communist existence in human clans

This one.

>>2146838

Nope, see >>2146767

>mostly

>>2146842
>>2146842
There's no proletariat to own those. There's no class division, no class consciousness, no industrialization.

communal, but not communist, you fucks

>>2146847
>making assumptions to fit your ideology

Also, see:

>>2146840
>>2146840

>>2146842
I am a caveman. I am somehow incapable of wrapping a fur around my body, tying a sharp stone to a stick or eating an apple without cooperation from my fellow cavemen. Communism is practically ingrained into my base instincts.

a more equitable income for the oppressed.

Hence, the exploited like it because it suggests lack of exploitation. The moralists like it because it suggests a more moral situation. The rich don't like it because they get the short end of the stick. I should mention communism is an interpretation of socialism and as a result not actually_socialism as many right wing thinkers like to mistake

>thread made for the sole purpose of trolling
>derp

>>2146840

We're just using different definitions of the word, but you seem to think your definition is the only one, the correct one.

Well, I'm using this definition:

>1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

You're using this definition:

>b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

With my definition the Mbuti are communistic, with your definition they are not.

>>2146857
I'm using the only fucking correct definition and you're off somewhere in fucking Wonderland. Say communal if you mean communal, say communist if you mean the economic and political theory descended from the thought of Karl Marx.

>>2146861

But there are several definitions for a word, I just laid out the one I mean and it fits what I'm saying. No need to get all worked up, kiddo.

>>2146867
there is one correct definition for communism, babe, sorry. it refers to a specific set of ideas and a specific ideology.

>>2146173

>The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely anyone at all escapes.

>Now and then, in the course of the century, a great man of science, like Darwin; a great poet, like Keats; a fine critical spirit, like M. Renan; a supreme artist, like Flaubert, has been able to isolate himself, to keep himself out of reach of the clamorous claims of others, to stand ‘under the shelter of the wall,’ as Plato puts it, and so to realise the perfection of what was in him, to his own incomparable gain, and to the incomparable and lasting gain of the whole world. These, however, are exceptions. The majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism—are forced, indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man’s intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable, though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/slman10h.htm#startoftext

>>2146911

No, there are several.

Just look at the Merriam-Webster definitions

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism

>>2146173
Can i ask you a question OP what per say does the bus run on? Even if it is electric what makes the electricity and what makes the parts for the bus and the parts to make the device that provides electricity(if it is electric) to the bus?

>>2146916
>implying socialism/communism isn't based on living for others
>implying altruism is the chief negative aspect of capitalism
>implying altruism would be abolished by socialism

>>2146924
This is the dumbest post I have ever seen on /lit/.

>>2146923
Mirriam-Webster is wrong. or, I suppose, they're mostly right, because all 5 of those definitions broadly come from the same group of ideas and theories, and in that light have some truth to them. it's only when you consider them in isolation from each other that they're wrong. because there is an element of communal ownership to Communist thought, but Communism is not the same as communal ownership.

you're still wrong though

>>2146926
This is the dumbest post I have ever seen.

>>2146929

When I used the word "communism" the definition I used was

>b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

And it is a valid definition. You see, a random jackoff on the internet cannot possibly argue against a well-respected dictionary on the definition of a word.

Whether that is the exact same definition as "communal ownership" has is completely irrelevant.

>>2146932
I sincerely hope you're >>2146924

>>2146935
Yes I can. Because that - in isolation - is not what Communism means. Using Communism to refer to that on its own is wrong. I can't prove this. I understand that. You're going to continue being wrong and there's nothing I can do about that. If you're happy being wrong, more power to you.

A lot. I think you really need to get some background on just what exactly is wrong with Capitalism. You also need to realize that there was a very heavy ideological war, in which, the United States made every effort to demonize Communism. We often critique the loss of "freedom" with Communism, but then if you look at the McCarthy era communist witch-hunts, or the proxy wars we waged, you can see where this is discredited.

Basically, most of the West has been raised in a world where Capitalism won and gets to keep writing its own history. Every time an event happens that clearly shows that Capitalism has some flaws (i.e. CDO induced fiscal meltdown of 2008) the narrative is always changed so that some how the Government was at fault and the Free Market saved the day (even when history shows more often than not it is the other way around).

Add to this: The idea of a "Free Market" is fundamentally insane. It makes no sense, whatsoever. The concept that a system which determines power, lifestyle, and relations of power would ever be "Free" or "Fair" is ludicrous. There are people who would (and do) kill for these things. Bribery, collusion, politicking-- continually happens. Remember that many execs of companies have relations outside of business. They golf together. They set up their kids on dates with each other. Etc. It's fucking hilarious that people could ever believe in a "free market".

>>2146942

>If you're happy being wrong

I have absolutely no reason to believe I am wrong.

You seem to be under the misconception that a word can only have one definition. Sorry lad, that's not how the English language works.

>I can't prove this.

Good to hear, I believe we're done here.

>>2146222
Eagles.

>>2146944
the humorous thing is 1950's America had some genuine similarities to Soviet Russia in that time. Mass consumerism popularized the idea of a homogeneous middle class where every individual had the opportunity to own the same goods, not very different than communist ideology of equal distribution of goods. Some scholars at the time actually believed classes did not even exist (IE classlessness). The climate of McCarthyism also created a kind of super-conformity much milder than soviet persecution but similar nonetheless. The difference between the US and the USSR was by degrees, they both tried justifying themselves on a similar basis
not important, but interesting.

>>2146173
Flying saucers.

>>2146703

I know, but as a sharp supporter of laissez-faire, I was trying be PC in describing communism, so I chose to explain it in a way compatible with agorism. The only way was to introduce the idea of "unowned" capital (means of production). This is as moral. But are we in a dialectic about morality or about jurisprudence?

To be realistic, pure anarchy will never exist with large populations, only formal anarchy. The problem with a lot of "revolutionaries" is that they feel it is their right to destroy the state without the consent of the democratically governed, callously infringing upon their rights. It isn't theirs. The individual's only anarchic right is to deny the state's coercive "authority" and subjugation over himself/herself alone, and a voluntary team of such freedom-seeking dissidents have a right to do the same as a group, in so far as the state is a democratic (thus "consensual") one. For other kinds of government, anarchism may better amount to a form of liberation extending to all captives (or "subjects"), not just the freedom-seeking dissidents.

>>2147004

>sharp
>supporter of laissez-faire

pick one

>>2146944

The Adam Curtis documentary 'All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace' (actually /lit/ relevant given the Richard Braugitan reference) is a rather hit-and-miss attempt at tracing the ideological structures which underpinned the whole-hearted embrace of neo-liberal 'free market' nonsense, focusing on stuff like Ayn Rand, the emergence of ecology etc. It's an interesting watch even if it's not up to scratch compared to a lot of his other documentaries ( e.g. The Power of Nightmares, The Trap)

Utopianism. People love the idea of a perfect society. Socialism is appealing because it makes everyone equal.

>mfw people confuse communism with a command economy
They are commonly paired together, but they aren't the same thing, plebs.

RE: neoliberalism and "free market" in general

has anyone mentioned this?

>>2146173

don't anal cannons run on oil though?

>>2147013
>Adam Curtis
Why does anyone take him seriously? All he does is take lots of stock footage, put scary music in front of it, and talk shit about entire intellectual fields he doesn't understand. Oh, and his shit talking is thankfully free of cliched bullshit like "evidence", it's just accusation after accusation about how it's all a gigantic intellectual conspiracy to kill socialism or similar trash. The man is just a liberal Glenn Beck.

why do intellectuals still think ideology will solve world problems?

>>2147240
1. What constitutes a problem?
2. Have intellectuals ever thought ideology would solve world problems?

>>2147007
2/10
Is that seriously the best reply you've got?

From Wiktionary:
>sharp (comparative sharper, superlative sharpest)
>1. Able to cut easily.
>2. (colloquial) Intelligent.
>3. Able to pierce easily; pointed.
>4. (music) Higher than usual by one semitone (denoted by the symbol ♯ after the name of the note).
>5. (music) Higher in pitch than required.
>6. Having an intense, acrid flavour.
>7. sudden and intense.
>8. (colloquial) Illegal or dishonest.
>9. Exact, precise, accurate; keen.
>10. Offensive, critical, or acrimonious, as sharp criticism.
>11. (colloquial) Stylish or attractive.
>12. Observant; alert; acute.
>13. Forming a small angle; especially, forming an angle of less than ninety degrees.
Well, pick one of those.

So, being the asinine little shit that you certainly are, you have without a doubt applied the first colloquial definition (the second definition overall) (or possibly to the ninth, eleventh or twelfth definition overall, one of which being colloquial), to my words.

Care to explain why you obviously think "sharp, supporter of laissez-faire" is oxymoron?

But of course not, seeing as how you invoked Sage (probably mistakenly thinking that it'd kill the thread). The joke is on you, pal. Accept two points for creativity.

bump

>>2146173
PRC ftw

>>2148084
>2/10
>feels compelled to write several paragraphs comprehensively demonstrating why he wasn't trolled

The irony is delicious. I know who *I'm* laughing at.

>>2147135
Was wondering how long it would take until neoliberalism would be mentioned.

Go fuck yourself.

>>2148102
no you

because at its core the philosophy isn't evil. it replaces money motivation, greed, materialism, etc etc with the idea that everyone works together to make shit work for everyone. according to marx this is inevitable. with an ever widening income gap (which is true) people would get tired enough of it. as for us, i know working to help society alone isn't incentive enough after you've gone through the time-tested adult acceptance of hedonism.

personally, i believe in capitalism but i wish we had heavier progressive taxation. that is all.

Because Max Stirner spoke the truth.

>>2146926
How is it a dumb post i was answering to OP's pic which shows "Who needs oil?", then says "I ride the bus" which is stupid cause the bus runs on oil etc etc.
That is where my little questioning came in if you didn't realize.

Also no i am not he >>2146941.

I am sorry if this doesn't make for a strong rebuttal, but when i tried posted last night i was getting problems and my post was not getting through. So this is my second shot and all the hot steam i had last night has died down.

>>2148337
the buses in my city run on CNG

>>2148340
It's funny because CNG and Oil still leave unhealthy by-products when they are finished being used.

communism is appealing because there are people in this world who want to JUST live a comfortable life, they don't want to be millionaires and have butlers and all that jazz, they just want to have food for their family, a place to stay, and something to take the edge off on the weekend. They don't want to take risks for the glorious prizes, they just want to punch their time clock and have enough time and resources to spend with their family and friends

>>2148350
yeah, but we don't need to fight wars in the middle east to get natural gas

>>2148363
So its a means to not depend on foreign oil? and not a means to fight Climate Change? Because there ads they have on CNG makes it out to be that they are the Holy Grail. Its only because i know that some by-product is still produced, some lesser minds might argue with you saying that it does not harm to the atmosphere "because the ads said so".

>>2148386
Burning Carbon = CO2.

Also, Global warming is a hoax.

>>2148386
hey fag, all the sign says is "who need oil, I ride the bus" and the buses around here don't need oil

>>2148400
How do you know where the buses are from?

>>2148389

ahahaha, awesome

>>2148409
I don't know where the buses come from, and the person holding the sign might be a total moron, but my point is that some buses don't need oil to run aside from maybe lubrication, nor electricity which is produced mostly with oil, that's all, why are you trying to turn this into a debate about the ethics of using oil vs other fossil fuels?

The buses derailed the thread.

Staying on topic, I just don't find pure communism appealing.

>>2148389

do you really think global warming is a hoax?

whether or not global warming is real, all american patriots should encourage the adoption of alternative fuel technologies (as well as changes in lifestyle) to allow us to wean ourselves off of foreign oil, the influence of which is immensely harmful to american politics and security.

>>2147458

>>2148505

>foreign oil, the influence of which is immensely harmful to american politics and security.

Actually, America exports more oil than it imports, and the only country it imports from in any significant quantity is Canada.

So, you should probably do the research before telling us what we should do.

>>2149379
Lol you mean Lybia