/lit/ - Literature

>>22982846
>or do they think
Thats the issue, they dont think. If they did they wouldnt really be communists in the first place.

Marxist doesn’t involve thinking. It sees people as flesh machines only capabel of reacting to the whims of material conditions.

>>22982846
communist are essentially platonists who believe that there contrived world view is achievable in society purely because it makes sense to them in their limited intellectual capacity. whenever anyone points out how it has failed every time it has been tried they totally disregard that because since they thought of it it must be real. they don't care about values, ethics, freedom, or other people because in their mind if everyone just does what they say things will work out ok. it is possible to make everyone bend to their whim because they dreamed about it or something.

>>22982846
Assuming that this is an actual, serious question, Marxist don't think it matters what anyone thinks. They believe in economic determinism, which, according to Marx, necessarily leads to increasing democratisation and collectivisation of wealth, property, and the means of production. This is dialectical materialism.

>>22982846
You don't read, you should be posting at /his/ instead

>>22982868
>communist are essentially platonists
It is physically impossible for you to be any dumber than this. Your brain capacity marks the extreme lower boundary of the human species.

>>22982874
>I disagree with someone
>should I make an argument to the contrary? naw i'll just insult them, then they can't refute me
go back to leftypol or wherever you learned these commie tactics from

>>22982846
They are authoritarians, it does not matter what people think as long as they gulag those who are willing to take action and resist, and scare the rest into submission. They only need pay off military, police and some civil servants and news sources to have those institutions keep everyone in check (in constant fear or jail, social credits score, unemplpyement etc), then everyone literally falls in line.

>>22982868
>communist are essentially platonists
Platonism is the polar opposite of the egalitarian materialism that is marxism.

>>22982846
Engles and Marx do not believe in equality at all. Stop confusing them with liberals

>>22982900
wrong. what is platonism? the theory that abstract objects are real in some sense. political philosophies are abstract objects which need to be adapted to reality when implemented. communists deny this. instead they hold the platonic belief that the perfect version of communism exists independent from the formation of the theory in their minds. any failure of communism isn't attributed to the weakness of the system in practice but instead to the failure of man to bring about the perfect version of communism.

>>22982846
Before you dive any deeper into this marxists theory nonsense its important to understand the number 1 absolute fact about it, that its an ideology that is born out of pure envy. This fact will make it easier to understand what kind of idiots ur arguing with when they bring their argument about ''MUH YOU HAVENT READ THEORY!'' i have and my opinion still stays the same.

>>22982846
Your father gave you lands and and a business? FUCK YOU YOU DONT DESERVE IT YOU SHOULD BE JUST AS POOR AS ME

>>22982870
To add to this in Marx's earlier works there is a kind of humanism where wage labour is seen as alienating man from himself. You wouldn't desire to do any of the tasks you do at work unless you are being paid a wage this creates a disconnect between desires and actions.

If you want to look at Communism more widely .There are various anarchists who justify some kind of communism due to seeing on various ethical reasons. There's Godwin justifies it on utilitarian grounds, Kropotkin who sees it as more rational/ scientific than capitalism as well being more moral from a christian perspective, there's various anarchists who draw some kind of lineage from Stirner who see it as the only form of society they are not subjugated to by some unjust authority.

If you are talking about modern people who declare themselves as communists they would justify it along the lines of various reasons like these with varying degrees of consistency.

>>22982920
No. It’s not that abstract objects are real, but the object has a reality you can’t see because of abstractions

>>22982870
Marxists don't believe in economic determinism, marx didn't and especially now that the very idea of the economic base being dominant has been defunct for decades its silly to think marxists do

>>22982923
You never read theory. It’s irrefutable. It’s not pontificating but a scientific analysis

>>22982954
i accept your concession.

>>22982853
This. Thread closed.

>>22982846
Read the first volume of the capital, labor theory of value gets spelled out nicely in there. No point reading the other two volumes, communists don't seem to either. Then read a Marxist summary of Hegel, but not a Christian one, find one from the USSR.

>>22982846
Op is a white NEET from /pol/

Unironically:
>Hegel on his head
>Marx constantly cites to Aristotle
>Labor Theory of Value (connected with the citing to Aristotle)
Not much else more to it, it's a natural response to 1860s England, and Marxism is intensely tied into the disappointment with the failure of liberalism in 1848 on the continent.

Who cares the dumb sector of society the whole project leans on doesn’t understand it either but will naturally tend towards it since its an irrefutable science or something?

>>22982846
For some reason evolution has created two types of people:

>i must suck off all out-groups, if there is a weak man suffering he is good, if there is a person who has failed he is worthy, if a man breaks into my house then i'll let him kill me because the life of a sadistic crackhead is precious, strength and action are bad

>life is my playground lmao, i should enslave and torture entire demographics of people i don't like and there should be booths in every downtown where you can stick sewing needles into the eyes of homeless children while extracting every nickel they've ever begged for

all of this is just temperament. some people are innately woman-brained nurturers to a fault and others are hateful chuds who would trade a crippled old lady into sex slavery for a lollipop. the lefties are getting WAY too comfortable these days though.

>>22982846
Why is it "good" to be a capitalist? Didn't capitalism bring genocide on the world with colonialism? Capitalists seek to justify their rule through moral arguments or logical economic arguments, but capitalism justifies itself, through ruthless colonialism, accumulation of resources, creation of empire, and strict class organization. It's effectively a form of totalitarianism in itself. Capitalism didn't get here by having good values, but by being perverted and violent. Communists are simply radical progressives because they acknowledge class inequality, it's arbitrary nature, and it's corrupted origins, instead of rationalizing what exists, they seek to inspire radical change.

Why won't people just read Marx instead of repeating any ol' drivel they find on youtube?

1. Marxism isn't a moral value system. It's a descriptive system of capitalism which assumes the popular academic framework of Marx's day from Smith and Ricardo.
2. Marxism isn't egalitarian. He's got an essay against it. Proletarian democratic control of resources isn't the same as egalitarianism.
3. Marxism has nothing to do with thinking of people as "deviants".
4. Capitalists are specifically a class of people who profit primarily if not exclusively by owning property- collecting rent from land they own, collecting dividends from stocks..as opposed to workers who are forced to sell their labor to capitalists. These people will not be reprogrammed. Private property will simply be abolished, and with it their monopoly over political power. They are free to democratically vote however they choose, but I doubt a majority of people (workers) will want to go back to living under capitalism.
5. Why is it good to be a communist? This isn't a real question. If you are in the working class, and understand that most of the value you produce is going to your boss. That your boss then turns that surplus value into a weapon to further extort you and the rest of the working class- putting downward pressure on your wages, making it less safe for you to do your job, stripping you of any protections which may have been won through previous class conflict- then it seem reasonable to not want to live in that economic system as a worker. It isn't "good" to be a communist so much as it is not wanting to fund your own subjugation through a system of private property.

See my point about arguing with these >>22982999 kinds of idiots, nothing but pure envy and zero self-awarenes. Nothing but brainwashed cattle ready for the next slaughter.

It's the left wing Chud mindset from the late 19th until the mid 20th century. It's just a "science" that turbo autists promoted because they thought it was the big brain move. If Marx lived in 2024 he would be a retarded Trad Catholic chud.

>>22983016
> If Marx lived in 2024 he would be a retarded Trad Catholic chud.

>>22983011
flip your chart and call it ''an illustrated guide to capitalist hypocrisy." clearly the issue is people who believe in dogmatic economic views

>>22983001
>1. Marxism isn't a moral value system. It's a descriptive system of

There's the problem. None of the shit you said after it is real and this phrase is cope anyway. They are utopians who have convinced themselves that their extremely myopic worldview is the heckin science, same as libs. Too bad it never works out that way IRL.

>>22983001
>5. Why is it good to be a communist?
This is where it falls apart though. Marx was too inspired by the, in his words "utopian" communists he met in Paris and Belgium in the '40s. Ironic since he is usually considered their biggest critic, but he sublimated their basic tendencies into his own view of history. Proudhon and Blanc were much, much more likely to produce a "social republic," which would then tend toward a European confederation of workers' states (aka a republic of soviets) that Marx and Engels wanted also.

Marx fucked up by making the switch from capitalism to communism too utopian. If you REALLY excavate what he wanted, while fighting off libertarian pro-capitalists on your right and dogmatic tranny pseudo-Marxists on your left no less, you can (with great effort) figure out that Marx himself was not for an instantaneous radical conversion to propertiless world-communism, and on this basis you can then prove that his ideas were way less retarded than both of the aforementioned groups of idiots think. Does this matter, then 99.9% of people get their Marx through those groups?

Abolishing private property is just too much of an 1830s slogan, I'm sorry. Nobody in their right mind hears that and doesn't recoil. It SOUNDS like Fourierism, and it has led Marxism to sound like unrealistic, harebrained Fourierism for nearly two centuries now. No wonder the only people interested in it were bourgeois intellectuals daydreaming idealistically about utopian world communism. "Marxism" became the very utopian socialism Marx was justifiably afraid of in the '40s, very soon after his death.

Drop the fucking slogan of private property or at least qualify it by explaining Proudhon's conception of usufruct etc. It makes sense if properly contextualized. But you have to understand, to any normal person, points 1-4 make some kind of sense and then suddenly point 5 goes "Therefore, WORLD UTOPIAN COMMUNALISM! TOTAL CHANGE IN YOUR WAY OF LIFE! YOU WILL EAT AT A BARRACKS INSTEAD OF AT HOME!" even though this is NOT what Marx intended. Of course, the USSR and CPP both being just this kind of totalitarian barracks slop culture does not help the image at all.

>>22983025
Thank you for once again proving my point. Making more people see and understand the stupidity of ur kind. Honestly i really thank you.

If im some guy at an office that sends like one email a day do I even have surplus value being taken from me?

>>22982846
I thought /lit/ was smart. Why is it full of people who can’t understand the science of Marxism? Capitalist cucks

>>22983029
>If you REALLY excavate what he wanted

why should he "want" anything if his conclusions are inevitable? why organize?

>>22983050
That is an essential tension in Marx's thought and a major reason for the revisionist controversy. Highlighting this kind of thing to create genuine curiosity and, to an extent, move beyond Marx, rather than depicting his thought as a sealed and completed system, would actually encourage more people to absorb what is living in Marx's ideas.

>>22983028

Man if only people would read Socialism Utopian and scientific, to stop hashing out these same lazy nonreaders. Such a quick read and would save you some embarrassment.

>>22983029

I'm not all that interested in how I sound. Understanding that private property is the historical bases class based society is necessary to dissuade liberals, revisionists. We're still at a point where people can't imagine living life without a parasitic ruling class.

>>22983039
I said thread closed, commie cuck. Learn to read.

>>22982846
What have you gleaned from your pic related on these questions?

>>22982846

>>22983024
You think he would be a brony or a troon instead?

>>22983075
>Man if only people would read Socialism Utopian and scientific, to stop hashing out these same lazy nonreaders. Such a quick read and would save you some embarrassment.

i'm just drunk and being abrasive on 4chan to mine keywords desu lmao but the reason i'm not interested in marxist literature is because it's just abundantly clear that everyone who pushes this shit has cuck brain. a venn diagram of "extremely neurotic s*y-coded people who work privileged meme jobs and simp for outgroups on principle with no workable opinions beyond aesthetics and emotions", or "ENSCPWWPMJASFOOPPWNWOBAAMs" for short and "marxists" is practically a circle. convince me i'm wrong if you're so great.

>>22983011
That's because anarchist communism is superior. The idea that all wealth should be concentrated in the hands of a powerful state is... Practically setting yourself up for failure. The ideals of communism are worth pursuing. Kroptkin imagines a society without money and class of only having to work two hours a day to support yourself, and a relative abundance of goods that you can take at your leisure. I ask again, why be a capitalist? Why is inequality and exploration innate to human society? They aren't, they are derived from specific historical processes of genocide and exploitation, made absolute by the state and ruling classes as ideological hegemony. Anarchists and anarcho communist thinkers for saw the disaster of Soviet communism long before it transpired.

>>22983153
>Why is inequality and exploration innate to human society? They aren't, they are derived from specific historical processes of genocide and exploitation, made absolute by the state and ruling classes as ideological hegemony.

because you are focused on the ideal man instead of the real man. in utopian theory, mankind is a kind boy who has simply been victimized by the unfortunate historical ascension of very specific oppressors. in practice, every time you replace a fascist shitheel dictator and his entire strata with "socialists", the latter becomes the former. it is a delusion based on unwarranted optimism.

>>22983025
The ultimate irrefutable difference is that capitalism allows for reform, while communism purges you for being a counterrevolutionary.

Most people /pol/ calls communists aren't communists

>>22982941
Fair enough, I don't normally consider anarchists etc at all when I think of communism.
>>22982951
Source: your ass.

>>22983172
Leninism and Maoism, we have no idea how non-vanguardist Marxism would work as they always get BTFO by vanguardist Marxism.

>>22983172
Wrong, the difference is that these idiots see capitalism as an ideology when it really isnt, its just a term that was coined by the bearded failure of an idol so everything they dont like they call it capitalism. Essentially they dogmatised their own ideology into a religion which is even more pathetic.
Heretic = Capitlist
Kuffar = Capitalist
Goy = Capitalist
All in all the same. However i agree with you and miss.Rand on this point that communist with most other totalarian regimes without a doubt always end up cannibalize themselves.

>>22983165
You obviously don't understand what I'm saying. Communists view the class system as unjust as systems of racial segregation and servitude. If someone had said slavery was natural and part of human nature, he would have been applauded at the time for his genius. Anarchists, go even further than Marxists, seeing the state hierarchy as unjust and corrupt as the class system or the system of racial oppression.

The "socialist" states have been long critiqued by the radical left for being totalitarianian hypocrisies, attempting to destroy the state with the state. Your reasoning is contradictory. There have been many societies that have existed without strict class relations, such as many indigenous societies. The successes of capitalism cannot attributed to mere human nature as they are constructions of a historical epoch and conquest. Rather, a project headed by powerful elites, over centuries, to enrich and empower themselves, and the centralization of wealth and power into monopolies and the state. It's a system based on inequality that asserted itself through force. Class disparities need to be reconciled as racial disparities were reconciled, rather than accepting this as the way things will always be.

>>22982954
History isn't a science

>>22982846
>also, how do they justify their morality?
Morality has no justification and requires none.
>why is it "good" to be communist?
There is no such thing as "Good" or "Bad" or "Evil" beyond subjective individual value judgements rooted in emotional intuition.

>>22983216
Neither is Marxism, but that didn't stop Karl Marx from claiming it was.

>>22982923
>Envy bad bro just be happy with extreme inequality

>>22983232
>WAAAAAHHH! HOW COME YOU ARE SMARTER AND STRONGER THAN ME?! WAAAAAH!
You have to be 18 to post here you teenage nigglet. And this i mean unironically, you most likely are underage if u have that kind of mindset.

>>22982964
Wage labor isn't actually consensual since most people lack alternative options to being homeless and starving to death.

>>22983243
The existence of the Amish disproves your point. You are always free to leave society

>>22983241
Is Jeff Bezos a billion times stronger and smarter than the average person?

Does one become smarter and stronger by learning insular corporate information and performing menial tasks to advance in a job?

>>22983241
>We're smarter and stronger than you, goyim, so just accept your servitude to a tiny minority of capitalists and bankers
Cuckold grindset
If the capitalist class is so strong and smart, how did Mao put every Chinese landlord into a mass grave?

>>22983243
Nothing but a pure cope post. This isnt the middle ages anymore where the universities and education is for the chosen nobility anymore. You can work and always strive for more if you have the will and discipline.

>>22983211
What's unjust about segregation?

>>22983211
You are saying that we could have a utopian society of noble savages if only history didn't tragically turn out in such a way that sadists and capitalists conquered everything. What is your solution? Put a communist faggot in power of course! Eventually all hierarchy will be abolished but we need a vanguard in the meantime*.

*Please ignore the fact that the individuals you put into power are now murdering vast swathes of people in the countryside while sipping expensive liquor at operas and wearing mink coats. This is just temporary.

>>22983216
Of course it is. What else?

>>22983260
>Don't worry, you can saddle yourself with debt to Jewish banks for decades so your overlord might pay you slightly more
Lmao

>>22983273
It's a liberal art

>>22983249
>dude you can just abandon civilization and all modern technology if you don't like slavery
So do you wear a chastity cage while Jeff Bezos fucks your wife or does he let you keep it out?

>>22983260
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann#Journalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays#Philosophy

The entire economy is fake. We live in a technocratic command economy administered for the benefit of an ownership class that actively pushes and funds degeneracy on the population to keep it weak and retarded.

>>22983028
The obsession with le science is for the birds and a deeply bourgeois trait to the point that Marx is closer to a positivist than a dialectician. And it was inherited from Proudhon anyway.
Sorel was on the right path by making fun of the science obsessed libtards of his time.

>>22983259
You become smarter by realizing that people like jeff bezoz and elon musk arent the center of this world but only front faces of a corporation with multiple investors and sharholders you fucking monkey.
>B-BUT IT SAYS ON GOOGLE THEIR NET WORTH IS A GAZZILLION DOLLARS.
That is the worth of the entire corporation which they dont even fully control.
>>22983261
>how did Mao put every Chinese landlord into a mass grave?
Yeah and the state became the new landlord which built cardboard boxes for the chinks to live in. Nice counterargument faggot. Not too mention the guy got btfo by literal birds and the exo-system. I say again you have to be 18 to post here little nigglet.
>>22983275
Pure cope once again. What is internet and libraries. Both are state-funded and free at ur disposal.
>>22983296
Yeah i noticed, you are definitely part of the retarded ones.

>>22983288
>implying amish actually abandoned technology

even old order amish buy carts full of bologna at walmart, they don't reject technology. that's a meme. they just reject arbitrary aspects of technology but have no problem filling up a grocery store full of BO stink while they saddle their carts with goyslop. lots of child rape and animal abuse too. vile cult possibly worse than mormonism in many ways.

At least it's an actual ideology unlike anarcho capitalism. All anarcho capitalism is either a utopian fantasyland (Samuel Konkin III, Robert Nozick), a dystopian fantasyland (Rothbard), or absolutely standing for nothing besides "muh freedumb which has been proven to not exist" or "leave me alone and ill leave you alone" so basically the thought process of a retarded 6 year old. And "austrian economics" bullshit is pure dystopian. Fuck Friedman, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Hoppe, Walter Block, Max Stirner, and I was gonna say fuck Rand and objectivism but 4chan is 18+ anyways so nobody will get triggered. I'm a socialist but I'll proudly take Julius Evola over any fucking retard idealist "libertarian".

>>22983272
Obviously you must be smart because you employed some false dichotomy shitty rhetorical device about primitive society and colonialism. You just don't want to accept that capitalism is not the end of history. Either we live under capitalism or we live in a communist dictatorship, or a mythological utopian society.

>>22983303
>Yeah and the state became the new landlord which built cardboard boxes for the chinks to live in. Nice

doesn't matter. if they were actually so strong and superior they wouldn't have gotten BTFO so hard. uh oh stinky looks like you're not so superior and a college student just smashed your child's skull with a hammer for fun before burying you alive!

a true aristocrat wouldn't die this way.

>>22983303
>Yeah and the state became the new landlord which built cardboard boxes for the chinks to live in.
Nice goalpost move. The capitalist class is demonstrably destructible. Cope.
And what the fuck is the exo-system?
>Pure cope once again. What is internet and libraries.
No employer gives a fuck if you read Wikipedia articles, you retard. You need an actual degree/

>>22983319
i'm a drunk shithead who barely reads so if you think i'm smart you're 200 proof retarded. as expected from leftists.

>>22982846
Friendly reminder that the "free" west has had declining quality of life for over 50 years and the one country about to usurp the top global power is an avowed Marxist Communist state. How will rightoids ever recover?

>>22983272
Not even what I'm saying. Human society has been fucked, but there are plenty of examples of societies without class. Don't be splitting hairs and putting words into my mouth. All I'm saying is that capitalism isn't fundamentally superior except in the sense it plundered most the world and built empires from the spoils and are still rich to this day. That doesn't say anything profound about human nature.

>>22983342
>Human society has been fucked, but there are plenty of examples of societies without class
That's bullshit. Even cavepeople have distinguished priestly and warrior classes.

>>22983323
>>22983328
Yeah and for the entire chink state to survive they had to abandon communism and privitize most of their sectors and open it to a free market and sell their people for cheap facotry labour to make western products for cheap. You sure showed me nigger. HAHAHAHAHAHAA!
>Exo-system
Meant to say eco-system.
>>22983341
>He thinks some slant-eyed state which relies heavily on imported food will overtake the west.
HAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHA!

>>22983349
>>He thinks some slant-eyed state which relies heavily on imported food will overtake the west.
The USA had shortfalls of paper masks because China shut off exports. In the grand scale of things, Western countries are WAY more reliant on China than China is on Western countries.

>>22982923
You realize one of the founding people who made the theory was a Capitalist right? Marx even criticizes envy and all emotion as unimportant but he says that envy actually keeps the workers in chains.

>>22983341
true, they will never stop coping about the flourishing democracy and high living standards of DPRK either

>>22982846
Libertarians are retarded; “capitalists” are Joe Rogan LARPers and don’t actually own any capital.

>>22983349
>Yeah and for the entire chink state to survive they had to abandon communism and privitize most of their sectors
Not actually true. If you look up what the biggest companies in China are, which coincidentally are some of the biggest in the world, they're state-owned mostly or entirely.

>>22983349
nobody is defending china lrn2read

>>22983358
>paper masks
Is this slant-eyed nigger serious?
>>22983359
And yet he was a envious loser, a trust-fund baby who lived on handouts, talked about the rights of the worker yet never once lifted a finger and worked himself. This is the kind of mongrel you take advice from? Kek.
>>22983366
>state-owned
Yeah by a party-members oligarchy, Holy fucking cope.

>>22983373
>Yeah by a party-members oligarchy, Holy fucking cope.
Goalpost moved again. You're really not good at this.

>>22982846
Read Marx’s Contribution to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.

>>22983342
>but there are plenty of examples of societies without class.

stratification begins at every human interaction. you are crying in the wind. a better way is to adapt to this reality.

>>22983375
Wrong again, Im extremely good at this chinky. You actually think i actually take marxists seriously? Im drunk on Gin and fuck around with you monkeys and get you to talk urselves into a corner because i know how predicatble you trash are.

>>22983385
now people are going to confuse your cringe with my posts but desu i'm drunk on vodka not gin and TSD (total sternoid death)

>>22983288
>NOOO I HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY THIS IS SLAVEREEEEEEEEEE
If it's so bad, leave. Go find some empty land and start a homestead. You'll never have to hear of Jeff Bezos again.

>>22982925
Pretty much this

>>22983341
coincidentally over 50 years ago mass immigration, outsourcing, fiat currency, and anti-discrimination law also started.

>>22983414
History doesn't begin 50ya, retard

>>22983394
>i'm drunk on vodka
Working while intoxicated? Sorrymr ching chang thats gonna be -1000 social credits. Now go die in some industrial fire.

>>22983437
read the post i replied to.

>>22983375
>pointing out that "state owned" means that ruthless party members now own everything is cope

wtf i love cope now

>>22983441
i'm a miner but the standards are pretty good in my country thoughbeit

>>22983303
So you figure in reality that they‘re only a million times smarter and stronger than you, and that‘s obfuscated by the fake system of value that capitalism has created? Not a good sell, retard.

>>22983451
Yeah, some of what you've said isn't true anyway and some of them existed previously and were abandoned due to political pressure brought about by, in particular, full emancipation and the right to vote.
But you just stick to your own points and don't be tempered if you choose not to

Well, almost no Marxists have ever read any Marxist literature so they’re just virtue signaling values for an economic class they perceive as oppressed and that is more of a culturally conditioned impulse than a proper worldview. The small handful of them which have read Marxist literature basically consider values nothing more than the result of historically conditioned social dynamics wherein one group imposes the values that benefit it materially over the others. So they see capitalists and conservatives as people who just affirming that status quo. They think that either the proletariat (the labor class) or a vanguard of the proletariat can seize political power and thus the means of production to direct society in a way that benefits the proletariat rather than oppresses it. They don’t really justify it morally. Obviously, ethics are supposed to be imposed by different social groups so in that regard ethics are relative, but why then they identify with the ethics in favor of the proletariat is basically unjustified. It’s just a Darwinian social consequence (I want proletariat power because I’m proletariat) or cultural consequence (I want proletariat power because the proletariat is oppressed and power will liberate them). It really is the other side of the coin to liberal-progressive capitalism. In fact, progressivism itself is basically a hybrid between liberalism, capitalism, and Marxism. Everywhere man is in chains. Same line of thinking in marks. Except the men are all workers.

>>22983341
Do you mean the avowed Marxist state which abandoned Marxism all but rhetorically and as a matter of fact opened up to free markets and Western commercialism? That avowed Marxist state?

>>22983474
ah i see so it's just "progress" which is always good no matter what. you're not the same thing as a liberal btw totally not. also forgot to mention women entering the workforce but that's progress too innit?

>>22983395
Why are you conflating filling a capitalist's pockets with "contributing to society"?

>>22983457
>pointing out that "state owned" means that ruthless party members now own everything is cope
You said they privatized their industry, I pointed out that their businesses were owned by the government rather than privately owned, and you're unable to refute that fact. You're coping.

>>22983645
I'm sorry Anon, but you can't sit in your room all day playing video games and smoking weed. You must provide some sort of good or service if you want to receive an income.

I know, it must really suck to hear, I'm sure you're very upset at this news, but if you want to reap the benefits of civilization then you need to contribute to society in some way.

If this is intolerable to you, then you have many options at your disposal. You could take a raft to Cuba and escape to a proletarian workers' state. You could find an empty plot of land and start a farm and be entirely self-sufficient. You could join a monastery and live as hermit monk. You could find a group of people and form a commune out in the middle of nowhere. You won't starve if you're not a complete retard.

>>22983701
>You could find an empty plot of land and start a farm and be entirely self-sufficient.
not anymore

>>22983701
>if you want to reap the benefits of civilization then you need to contribute to society in some way.
Stop conflating "society" with big corporations.

>>22983715
But I'm not. You seem to be, because for some reason you think an HVAC mechanic or a teacher or a firefighter or an account is a cuck to Jeff Bezos.

>>22983701
not anon.
>I'm sorry Anon, but you can't sit in your room all day playing video games and smoking weed. You must provide some sort of good or service if you want to receive an income.
jobs wouldn't be so bad if modern capitalism wasn't based on endless growth and hustle culture, where you only need to provide as much as you want to receive, there is no reason to work more than 20 hours a week otherwise.
but with modern work culture? nah... fuck you im gonna leech, I didn't ask to be brought here so I can slave work 40-80 hours a week for some asshole.

>>22982846
There's a Lenin or Marx quote that I love. It is about what will we do, when the revolution comes, with those that don't want to give up their wealth and participate in the new system. The answer is simple, we hang them.

>>22983728
I agree, shits fucked breh. But at the risk of sounding like a counterrevolutionary class traitor, maybe the answer to the problem is democratic reform and advocacy instead of killing everyone and instituting a totalitarian dictatorship under the premise of a 19th century utopian fantasy.

>>22983778
im not a commie, im just saying that modern work culture sucks, and the fact that some people defend this is awful. especially when it's an obvious exploitation brainwashing tactic from wealthy corporatists.

>>22982846
1. They think all forms of one person employing another is "exploitation", completely dismissing any organizational work by an entrepreneur as not real work, completely ignoring concepts like risk, business innovation, creation of new products etc. They think getting hired in a factory should automatically make you co-owner of that factory, regardless of who put up the money to build it.
2. They create endless addendums to their conceptions of value and labour to smooth out obvious incoherences and contradictions on their theory, because they can't accept that Marx was utterly wrong in defining them. "Multiplying entities without necessity", as Occam put it.
3. They think material conditions determine the culture of societies. While that is somewhat of a chicken-or-egg question, there's more evidence that similar material conditions might lead to quite different cultures, which in turn make material conditions diverge enormously, see e.g. Europe vs Middle East.

Overall, it's an ideology that might have had some value in the specific situation of Marx' and Engels' time, and was already outdated at the end of the 19th century. It's later success, up to this day, comes down to its rhetorical power. I'll give Marx full marks (no pun intended) for rhetoric and his aphoristic style, zero for analytical insight.

>>22983720
I never said that, retard. Kill yourself.

>>22983778
>maybe the answer to the problem is to do nothing

>>22983764
people will just find other ways to exploit each other, humans can't change by just educating them.

>>22983852
You've said repeatedly that contributing to society is being a cuckold lmao

>>22983878
Prove it. You should be raped by dogs.

>>22983884
Do you have memory loss? Read your own posts. You said that life was slavery because you either work for a corporation or starve. I said that wasn't true, and then you starting spurging out saying that Jeff Bezos is cucking me.

>>22983858
Nirvana fallacy; cut your own dick off.

>>22983907
>Do you have memory loss? Read your own posts.
Quote the specific post or be raped by Scooby Doo for blatantly lying like a typical capitalist Jew

>>22983915
>SPOON FEED ME
Typically lazy communist. SCROLL UP NIGGA.

>>22983828
>They think all forms of one person employing another is "exploitation", completely dismissing any organizational work by an entrepreneur as not real work
That's completely untrue. Work done by the entrepreneur to establish their business is a real and important job called being a chief executive officer. That's why when they get really successful or bored they stop doing that job. You have some basic confusion over Communist theory.

>completely ignoring concepts like risk, business innovation, creation of new products etc. They think getting hired in a factory should automatically make you co-owner of that factory, regardless of who put up the money to build it.
This is a legitimate Bourgeoisie argument. It's wrong, but it's not fallacious. All useful labor is able to be undertaken by a worker. There's no magic quality that separates entrepreneurs and anyone else. Workers simply do not need them. Currently, who is allowed access to the creation, ownership, and management of industry has only been a privilege of the wealthy. Because the wealthy control access to the basic things we need to survive, their class interests can effectively dominate society. In other words, they've created a society in which only they say who has access to resources and then frame it as "undertaking risk." It's a joke anyway since they just get bailed out if they go under.

>They create endless addendums to their conceptions of value and labour to smooth out obvious incoherences and contradictions
Not another one of these. There are legitimate arguments to the LToV, but none of you can make them because you've never bothered to read any of the source material. Marx talks about every single one of your stupid, insipid insights.

>there's more evidence that similar material conditions might lead to quite different cultures, which in turn make material conditions diverge enormously, see e.g. Europe vs Middle East.
Marxists are more talking about how material conditions make certain modes of production more powerful and those who control the means of production get to set what is culturally valued. For instance, diligence and work ethic were not highly valued by landed aristocracy that got their wealth from inheritance 376 generations back.

I have no idea where the lazy communist stereotype comes from. the soviet workers were worked to death and utterly buck broken. capitalists can just argue the that communists are authoritarian but instead they go for the "them lazy millennials" argument.

>>22983910
you're the one claiming a perfect solution.

>>22983926
You're lying. No such post exists, or you would have replied to it. GG

>>22983971
No one said that.

>>22983968
Communists are lazy assholes who never worked a day in their life and are tragically worked to death in Communist factories all the time. Communists are effeminate, out of touch, first worlders who could never hold a gun and also ultra-violent dangerous extremists. They're naive bleeding heart idealists and amoral bloodthirsty psychopaths. Their system is so insane that it could never work and must be stopped at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of young westerns lives so it doesn't effortlessly overtake the entire southern hemisphere into a domino effect that leads to global revolution. Communists can be whatever you want them to be.

>>22982846
Read Main Currents of Marxism by Kolakowski.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Currents_of_Marxism

>>22983968
Think that’s targeted more towards idealist western commies. Which seeing that type of person or their arguments for gobbunism isnt totally unfounded imo

>>22984000
to be fair work kind of sucks if it's not interesting, and most work isn't. work isn't a virtue in of it self, it's the result of the work. anyways, i dont buy the whole commies are envious lazy children thing. maybe some neets like to associate with commies

>>22984049
Ad hominems aren't arguments.

>>22983303
Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, the WEF, and all the elites ARE the center of the world you fucking ancap kike. Take Milton Friedman's kike cock and Thomas Sowell's coon BBC out of your faggoty cocksucking jew mouth and realize that most shareholders are 90% the same jewish family and it's basically impossible to become part of the 1% in this society without being a ruthlessly evil satanic chomo. Its been proven that the heads of corporations and the big nosed Rothschild-like families behind them do literally run everything.

>>22984000
all of those things are true though lol, "grassroots" commies are a nonevent and and the "intellectual" ones are simultaneously absurd cowards and violent psychopaths, they just don't personally commit the violence. this archetype exists everywhere. see pic related's desire to enact an extreme totalitarian world government and bomb data centers because "AI might kill us all", it is the same cowardly impulse and fear that makes people like big yud want to drop a nightmare dystopia on the world because in his mind there's a chance that AI (or anything) might threaten his personal safety. communism is the ethos of a man who has never touched a barbell, or the ethos of a man who has touched a barbell and knows that it's bullshit but it will get him a nice sinecure.

this is an oversimplification but in the end you are still gay and s()y

>>22983968
>I have no idea where the lazy communist stereotype comes from.
It came from the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc. "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us" was an old Soviet joke. Anyone who visited the Eastern bloc as a tourist, even just East Berlin for a day, experienced the labor inefficiencies, like a corner sandwich shop that had six people making each sandwich in a faux production line, that existed when you mandated full employment, propped up inefficient and failed enterprises, had little or no price signals, etc.

Homo Sovieticus became the real life parody of the ideal New Soviet Man. Because people had no incentive to work hard, they didn't get paid more and full employment was a social guarantee, people didn't work hard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Sovieticus

On the structural problems of the Eastern bloc command economies that caused this, see Janos Kornai:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A1nos_Kornai

>>22984051
>work isn't a virtue in of it self, it's the result of the work.
In Capitalism you don't even get the result of your work. You get appraised at market price like a pig on auction and get paid that until they happen to feel otherwise. It's ultimately up to the company how much of the result you even get of your work.

In Capitalism, the virtue of work is the lack of starvation and the rest is market forces.

>>22983948
>That's completely untrue
Really, so it's not exploitation when the entrepreneur supposedly extracts the added value from the finished product by selling it, withholding the profits from the worker? Pretty sure your Marxist comrades would lynch you for that suggestion, since it's pretty much the starting point of Marxist economic analysis.

>All useful labor is able to be undertaken by a worker. There's no magic quality that separates entrepreneurs and anyone else. Workers simply do not need them.
This contradicts your previous point. The quality might be "magic" but it exists, plentifully shown by people who used to be workers and then become entrepreneurs, while other workers don't. And it's simply untrue that access to resources is limited to the already wealthy. If you and a team of comrades wanted to found a collectively owned and run business, you'd have various opportunities to get the capital via things like kickstarter, gofundme, or frankly even "socially responsible" banks. There are countless leftist enthusiasts who support such efforts and are willing to donate money to grassroots projects. But whaddaya know, most leftists prefer to be political commentators and "professional activists" instead of doing something useful for once.

>because you've never bothered to read any of the source material.
Enough to understand its faulty logical structure. Marx was a fucking hack who couldn't make sense of calculus, but sure, I bet somewhere in the 50 volumes of his and Engels' collected works is the ultimate argument that turns a contradictory system into a perfectly reasonable one via the magic of dialectics.

>>22983366
The west has huge companies that are partially or fully governmentally owned too. Why are leftists so intellectually dishonest?
>>22983323
Why do leftists always end up reduced to posting deranged violence fantasies like this?
>>22983972
>>22983915
>>22983910
>>22983884
>>22983852
Brilliant leftypol arguments.
>>22983948
>It's a joke anyway since they just get bailed out if they go under.
This is not an intellectually serious person. Underaged, most definitely from leftypol.
>>22983968
>>22984000
Leftypol trannies have nothing in common with 3rd world guerilla movements from the mid 20th century. How can you be this fucking pathetic?

>>22984063
What if I'm a Communist because I found Marxist economic theory fit best with the empirical data available.

>>22984092
>Why do leftists always end up reduced to posting deranged violence fantasies like this?

it literally happened and the point wasn't that it's good, readlet.

I really dont care what commies have to say until they start popping off in minecraft. Its that simple, aint holding my breath for that though

>>22984098
your unexamined moral assumptions and approach to that data still dovetail with being a yud tier faggot. i'm sorry, it's terminal.

>>22982846
First of all, what makes you think communists are more well read on communism than any other bunch of ideology fanboys?

>do they assume that everyone values an egalitarian society?
Marx wasn't strictly speaking an egalitarian. However, most orthodox Marxists (who I assume your referring to when you say commie) do believe in maximizing equality and eliminating as many social distinctions as possible. They do assume everyone values equality and if they don't, it must be becuse they're brainwashed by capitalism or something.

>do they think that libertarians and capitalists are human deviants that can be reprogrammed into valuing a socialist/communist society?
Orthodox Marxists do think this. They'll tell you that right libertarianism is an ideology born from the capitalist economic system. When the economic system is changed to something else, the root cause for libertarian ideology will disappear and slowly libertarians will just go the way of the dinosaur and be forgotten. People will no longer have a reason to believe in it. Shouldn't take a genius to see the problem with this way of thinking.

>why is it "good" to be communist?
Marx was a fan of Adam Smith and his labor theory of value: the value of consumer products is determined by the labor poured into them. Without labor, everything is literally worthless. In capitalism, employees have to work (sell their body) to produce a product which is sold by the capitalist for higher than the initial manufacturing cost. The capitalist then takes the majority of the profit generated by the sale for himself, giving the workers a pittance for their efforts. Its basically prostitution. For Marx and other 19th cen. commies, this was just unfair. If workers put the value into the product, why should they be given shitty wages and crappy working conditions or live meaningless boring lives while capitalists live it up? Marx in particular was disturbed by the shitty existence that was the life of an industrial worker, reduced to a cog in a machine utterly living at someone else's mercy.

But the othodox Marxists and neo-Stalinist leftypol you'll meet online are basically social darwinists. They believe in a sort of whig theory of history where human society evolves in stages with each stage being progressively better than the next, the way man evolved from chimps and neanderthals. Capitalism is just another stage we have to move past to a higher future and the working class are the messianic chosen people who we (the commies) will lead to the promised land/end of history that is the communist stage. They're like race theorists, except obsessed with class and not schizo fringe science although, just like altrightoids, they'll claim their beliefs ARE science and anyone who disagrees is just brainwashed or "bourgeois" (they actually use that as an insult lol).

>>22984098
This has never happened ever.

>>22984098
Marx's own theory didn't. He stopped updating the wage table in new editions of Capital that he published in his lifetime because wages started going up, contrary to his theory of immiseration, now abandoned by almost all Marxists and indeed proven wrong by history.

>>22984092
>The west has huge companies that are partially or fully governmentally owned too
When did I ever say there weren't huge state owned corporations in the west?
>Why are leftists so intellectually dishonest?
A very hypocritical question.

>>22984121
>He stopped updating the wage table in new editions of Capital that he published in his lifetime because wages started going up
Wages haven't gone up since the 1970s.

>>22984121
Every time this is brought up in a leftypol brigading thread such as this they always respond by trying to cut out 150 years of history and try to glue alleged contemporary trends directly onto those of the mid 1800s.

>>22984089
>Really, so it's not exploitation when the entrepreneur supposedly extracts the added value from the finished product by selling it, withholding the profits from the worker?
No, you're mixing two different things together as one and trying to pass it off. When the entrepreneur actively works in the interest of the company he receives a wage as a worker. However, because the entrepreneur is not only a worker but also an owner he can extract the added value from the finished product. Notice no other worker, no matter how hard they work, get to do that. It's because he gets to do that not because of the work he does but only as a result of his ownership.

>plentifully shown by people who used to be workers and then become entrepreneurs, while other workers don't.
It's simply not possible for everyone to be entrepreneurs and, again, the point is that the entrepreneurial spirit can be harnessed outside of Capitalism. Almost all innovations today are made by government funding or heavy subsidy.


>If you and a team of comrades wanted to found a collectively owned and run business, you'd have various opportunities to get the capital
It's been done before but there are various structural issues that prevent such a thing from occurring. Business loans are far too large for crowdfunding effectively and most banks don't want to lend to what they see as what's basically a hippie commune. Of course, even if it all succeeds it's still up to the market if it succeeds and they would likely even have to pay themselves exploitative wages just to keep up with other companies. And, obviously, you'll only ever get a loan if you can convince a wealthy person that you can make them even wealthier.

>Marx was a fucking hack who couldn't make sense of calculus, but sure, I bet somewhere in the 50 volumes of his and Engels' collected works
Why don't you just try reading about the actual parts you criticize like the LToV? You have plenty to talk about. If you don't know about it just don't talk about it.

>>22984107
You're right. I was brought up as a filthy red Communist and I never considered any other possible modes of thinking because I'm morally lazy. It was just so easy to listen to my parents, teachers, bosses, and politicians instead of thoughtfully leading a careful life of self-examination. You've really given me a lot to think about.

>>22984189
nah you're just an abrahamist in denial, it's fine.

>>22984198
I'd rather call myself in spirit than in denial.

>>22984202
potato potahto, your brain is poisoned by >>22982998

>>22982868
The reason the other two anons are making fun of you is that Platonism is a form of idealism, which is directly opposed to materialism, which communism necessarily is.
Believing in the world of Platonic forms does not mean you're, uh, /idealistic/ per se, it means that you believe our world is incomplete due to the limitations of our senses. What you mean here >>22982920 is that communists are utopianist retards who have 0 understanding of how the world works. This is both more true and more fun to say.

>>22984139

>>22982846
The most misunderstood idea in the world is Marxism. Read Marx and Engels, they are some of the world's most influential writers.

>>22984300
How can one say that an idea is missunderstood when a single book can have different interpretations depending on the perspective of the reader? (wich can only ever read a book from their own perspective)

>>22984358
u wot

>>22984370
What ive said. The same phrase or oration or word, despite not really changing, can have different interpretations depending on the background and state of the person currently reading it. The person who wrotte may have had an specific intention in mind for the reader, but the reader can only ever read what he wrotte, not what the author was thinking when he wrotte what he wrotte.

>>22984373
what's your point. this is to relativistic as to be useless.

>>22984373
It also explains why there are so many contradicting socialist marxist ideologies that hate each other imo.

>>22984139
Isn't that an American thing where health insurance benefits gained by employment are not counted as wages, despite being a benefit in the overall remuneration package, and total reumeration packages (wages + benefits) have gone up, only to be eaten by rising American health insurance costs? A systematic failure to be sure, but not the one Marx predicted.

>>22982846
>do they assume that everyone values an egalitarian society?
no, just the vast majority of people, i.e. the working class

>>22984374
The point is, you cant really understand Marxism or Engels, you can only interpret what theyve said. Interpretation is what an individual is only capable of doing when reading something. Indeed, its relativistic and thats why reading it is useless.

>>22984381
The bourgeoisie are also liberated from the alienation and false consciouness of being the master in a classless society. The deduction comes from Hegel, the master is alienated because his social inferior can not offer him full recognition, in simple terms all he'll get from his employee/servant/class-inferior is a "yes boss" rather than a real human-to-human relation, and because the individual is made by his relations in a process of recognition, the master is also alienated from becoming fully human by the inadequency of the workers status. See Kolakowski>>22984022, or Hegel on lord-bondsman in The Phenomenology of Spirit.

>>22984382
somehow i doubt somebody who says reading is useless understands much of anything

>168 posts
>47 posters
Is it even worth reading this thread or is it just more /pol/ bullshit basedjack posting unsourced charts and repeating arguments from YouTube? Did the literates ever show up?

>>22984404
none of that contradicts what i said. being objectively alienated doesn't make capitalists want an egalitarian society:
>Marx can be characterised as diagnosing contemporary capitalist society as corresponding to situation (i); that is, as being a social world which contains both objective and subjective alienation. On what we might call his standard view, Marx allows that objective and subjective alienation are conceptually distinct, but assumes that in capitalist societies they are typically found together sociologically (perhaps with the subjective forms tending to track the objective ones). However, there are passages where he deviates from that standard view, and—without abandoning the thought that objective alienation is, in some sense, more fundamental—appears to allow that, on occasion, subjective and objective alienation can also come apart sociologically. At least, that is one way of reading a well-known passage in The Holy Family which suggests that capitalists might be objectively but not subjectively alienated. In these remarks, Marx recognises that capitalists do not get to engage in self-realising activities of the right kind (hence their objective alienation), but observes that—unlike the proletariat—the capitalists are content in their estrangement; not least, they feel ‘at ease’ in it, and they feel ‘strengthened’ by it (Marx and Engels 1975: 36).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/alienation/#Appl

Commies think work is intrinsically valuable. There's nothing else to it. There's nothing deeper to debate when they fail to accept that it isn't. You might as well talk to a flat Earther.

>>22984471
Yes but that feeling of being "at ease" would be a false consciousness, and in light of the failure of immiseration within Marx's own lifetime and the uplifting of workers living standards and the success of reformist trade unions and working class politics, that same feeling of being "at ease" also applies to the proles. Conditions of objective alienation for both bourgeoisie and proletariat continue, based on the same philosophical deduction from Hegel, no matter their subjective feelings of ease. As always with Marxism, the philosophical deduction is more important than any empirical fact, and where they conflict, be it a contented worker or boss who themselves does not feel alienated, so much the worse for facts. In the theory lies the actual deeper truth.

Kolakowski is critical of Marxists for losing sight of the Hegelian basis of Marx's humanism that promises universal liberation from alienation for all classes, not the kind of vulgar proletarian chauvinism that Marxism became, despite the proles ordained special role in bringing it about.

>>22984493
Marx did not think that all work was intrinsically valuable. He thinks that all value comes from labor but not all labor produces value. The idea that work is intrinsically valuable makes no sense and no one would believe it. It's a very simple and common misinterpretation. This is the issue when you think about your intellectual opponents as cardboard strawmen.

>>22983203
Source for marx not being an economic determinist: ""Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past."from the eighteenth brumaire of louis bonaparte.
And look up the british marxist historians, cultural historians that revolutionzed marxist historiography in the 50's and essentially made the idea of base-superstructure go extinct in academic studies

>>22984503
Wrong. Marx thought material items had value due to the labor used to produce them, not the actual demand for what was produced. This is only capable if you believe work is intrinsically valuable because the actual market value of an item with no demand is precisely zero.

>>22984516
Holy fuck read the book you idiot. Is everyone on /lit/ illiterate? Is it really that hard to read capital?

>>22984504
Pulling decontextualised quotes doesn't prove anything. The 18th Brumaire quite plainly reduces the narrative of Napoleon III's rise to class conflict, based in the economy. Marx specifically makes reference to the peasants who idolise the name "Napoleon" since it brought them prosperity before (in quite different conditions), while the "parasitic" class of bureaucrats and Napoleon III's employment of lumpenproles further complicate the picture. Marx presents Napoleon's coup as a transient reactionary moment, based on fleeting sentiments and ideas rather than on the real economic factors that maintain a state. The peasants, having nurtured great hopes for Napoleon III, continue to decline - the economic conditions are simply too different. Proletarisation is proceeding apace, and with it, the inevitable changes in class relations that bring about communism. This is the idea. Once again, Marxists believe in the primacy of economics.
Referring to the English Marxist historians doesn't exactly do you much favours since they were tactically driven people, aiming to inspire and nourish a sense of rebellion in the people. What they say to the masses is not necessarily what Marxist doctrine says - the important part is to get the masses acting in their class interest, be it through truth or lies. That's been the Marxist approach since, well, Marx. This is why communists are acknowledged as the "most politically advanced" stratum among the working classes.

>>22984500
ok but that's all compatible with what i said

>>22982846
Who cares, they're all underaged trannies and 3rd worlders

>>22984520
>Is it really that hard to read capital?
it's pretty hard, it's like 3000 pages, expecting anti-communists to read that is ridiculous. but >>22984516 would know that they're wrong if they read much shorter secondary literature like an introduction to the three volumes of karl marx's "capital" by heinrich

>>22984169
>When the entrepreneur actively works in the interest of the company he receives a wage as a worker. However, because the entrepreneur is not only a worker but also an owner he can extract the added value from the finished product. Notice no other worker, no matter how hard they work, get to do that
But the whole point is that the company is created by the entrepreneur, who decides what it does and how, initially. After a while of being successful, he might delegate the daily running of it to a hired CEO. Founding it as a project of uncertain prospects, and running it as an established business are different things.
The workers are hired to do a specific thing, then they go home and don't have to worry about profitability. Unless they collectively own it, as mentioned - which is not prohibited in capitalism, and when you say they couldn't keep up with the efficiency, it's hardly a point against hierarchical capitalist structures that they're simply too productive.
Then again, if the business is unprofitable, the owner doesn't get to complain that workers have created "reduced value" and demand their wages back. That's after all what's encoded in the concept of risk.
And if your problem is with ownership as such, and you demand that the entrepreneur should just receive a wage (determined by?) for acting "in the interest of the company" - there is no interest of the company before its conception, there are interests of people wanting to make money by some niche in the market, so they become entrepreneurs. Nothing evil or unjust about that. It hinges on owning what you create, which in that case happens to be a business.

>>22984516
Would you describe an item that nobody needs to be "socially necessary"?

>>22984647
Describe an object with no labor put into it and give it value.

>>22984647
>>22984662
Necessary condition: A product is in demand by a market/society.
Sufficient condition: a product requires human labor so it's not effortlessly available.
Thus, value.

>>22984686
Is Marx's conception of value qualitative or quantitative? If qualitative, how can two values of two different goods be compared against eachother, say in circumstances of competition where there exists an oppurtuinity cost between producing or consuming one or the other, like if there was a single bakery and we needed to decide the value of white bread versus brown bread to make in our morning run, how would we compare the values of white bread versus brown bread.

>>22984704
This would be mediated via consumption of the products by consumers which would produce a need for whichever product the consumers deemed favorable for their tastes according to whatever social laws they are governed by culturally or whatnot. The aesthetic tastes of the consuming producer produce the need for the consummation of whichever product, a meme could be the decisive determinate factor regarding which type of bread is of whichever value. In my extremely rough understanding...

>>22984754
*Producing consumer

I made a mistake by saying the consuming producer. The producing consumer would be more precise

>>22984754
But it would seem "value" in the Marxist sense has no applicability to decision making here, and it becomes a rather vague and useless concept in any economic context. Rather exchange pricing and market forces of supply and consumer demand decide actual value/price, with exchange price a synonym for value and not something different.

Perhaps consumer demand is being determined (or at least informed) by socially driven aesthetic tastes, and some systematic factors are in play, but even that is only realised when one type of bread is shunned by consumers and sits on the shelves, or the other is sold out even at a premium, i.e. in the marketplace at comparative exchange price, supply, and demand, not any "values" prior to exchange.

>>22982846
>do they think that libertarians and capitalists are human deviants that can be reprogrammed into valuing a socialist/communist society?
Yes. The other mode of thought is that even if they can't truly be, their children can be "counter" brainwashed into thinking their now normalised communist society is great, and then wait for everyone that remembers differently to die out.
>how do they justify their morality?
Basically that anyone who isn't with them, is actually against them and their utopian ideals, except they explicitly deny that they have a utopian vision. If this sounds confusing, congratulations, you're not retarded.
>why is it "good" to be communist?
Because in Marxist thought, if you're not living in a Marxist society, you're actually oppressed, no different than a slave really, in any system except for a communist society.

>>22982846
I will become a loyal marxist/leftist/progressive if I get to bully fat people into using kettlebells.

>>22984783
In my understanding the exchange of the commodity in a way gains its value in its exchange and use. A commodity not used only has potential value, in its exchange it immediately is given value in its exchange and consumption which in the individual consumer consuming it gives rise to its necessity regarding the desire for the repetition of this act.

onions

>>22982868
There’s literally nothing platonist about communism, not the political system, not the metaphysical system, not the ethics system. Platonism opposes marxism in all these regards. You would have to make some pretty big (and retarded) mental gymnastics to justify your hypothesis.

>>22985036
Plato openly supports a society where all property, including children, are owned in common, and private property, class, and money are effectively abolished. Marx was highly inspired by the Greeks, the theory of communism was derived by Marx from Epicurus originally.

>>22984471
>in The Holy Family which suggests that capitalists might be objectively but not subjectively alienated. In these remarks, Marx recognises that capitalists do not get to engage in self-realising activities of the right kind (hence their objective alienation), but observes that—unlike the proletariat—the capitalists are content in their estrangement
What's alienation, anyway? Does Marx describe the ideal state of the non-alienated human in anything but rhetoric about "free and creative self-actualizing", which is meaningless?

>>22985279
It's from Hegel and Winckelmann and the tradition of German aesthetics and bildungsromans. What was feudal nostaglia for German romanticism, and Roman Republic LARP for Robespierre and Saint-Just, Marx (correctly) saw the mistake of those attempts was their ignorance of the economic conditions that created them, which could not be reproduced in a modern capitalist society. Instead by the economic transformation of communism, we could create the dreamed for Weimar-Arcadia-paradise of long German tradition by grounding it on a proper economic footing: a classless society, a Greek republic with an economy that allows everyone to be an aristocrat and no one a slave.

>>22983153
>>22983221
>>22983232
>>22983243
>>22983259
>>22983297
>>22983288
>>22983319
>>22983341
>>22983342
>>22983358
>>22983360
>>22983365
>>22983366
>>22983375
>>22983381
>>22983394
>>22983457
>>22983460
>>22983645
>>22983650
>>22983710
>>22983715
>>22983764
>>22983856
>>22983858
>>22983884
>>22983915
>>22983948
>>22983968
>>22983971
>>22984051
>>22984054
>>22984084
>>22984098
>>22984131
>>22984169
>>22984198
>>22984208
>>22984404
>>22984503
>>22984520
>>22984528
>>22984565
>>22984803
You commie cucks really are illiterate huh? Let me put it in big, easy, readable letters: THREAD CLOSED.

>>22983828
>They think all forms of one person employing another is "exploitation", completely dismissing any organizational work by an entrepreneur as not real work, completely ignoring concepts like risk, business innovation, creation of new products etc. They think getting hired in a factory should automatically make you co-owner of that factory, regardless of who put up the money to build it.
Worker collectives.

>>22985267
>Plato openly supports a society where ... class, and money are effectively abolished ... is effectively abolished
bruh

>>22982900
Marxism isn't egalitarian. You're all fucking retarded.

>>22985322
>Worker collectives.
Perfectly legal right now

>>22983243
>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
Marxism doesn't claim to free people from menial work, it merely states that the production should be distributed according to their misplaced idea of fairness.

"Muh work is not consensual" is not a valid criticism coming from Marxists because their model does not aim to fix that at all, it merely changes who is benefitted from nonconsensual work and arguably makes it even worse by removing the individual's possibility of producing for himself or his own goals.

>>22985335
>Perfectly legal right now
Not exactly. In nearly every US state using corporation types that are close to it puts said corporation into tax hell, making it non-viable from the get go. Nearly every discord tranny arthoe collective that actually exists is actually a much more typical form of corporation with a typical form of ownership concentrated in the hands of several trannies who promise to be fair to their dear comrades, honest guvnor, until the first significant turbulence which typically crashes those communities.

Many other countries' legislation effectively does not allow, and a few do - but well, existing legislation is not perfect for any corporation.

My point in general is that communists don't have any issue with employment, and do consider risk, business innovation, creation of new products etc. The issue is with control over surplus value - and that apparently has to be in the hands of a small group of people because it just has to ok. It can be claimed that most people don't possess the skills necessary to perform that type of managerial labor, but that's just specialization, so it's entirely within the acceptable frame for any group to deputize this work to people who are specialized in it - just like the manager themselves deputize menial or technical labor to others, as all of them are essentially necessary for the final product, it is fine as long as the gain (and therefore the risks as well) are distributed among all people vital to the production process. It's not even necessary for said distribution to be perfectly equal, even per Marx himself, as some labor requires more specialization, education, skill, talent etc and thus requires more maintenance for the worker performing it. Problems start with the divide between workers being effectively treated as equipment (salaried workers) and those who harvest profits from ownership, while not necessarily performing any work whatsoever, and typically not performing any at all.

>>22985344
>Marxism doesn't claim to free people from menial work, it merely states that the production should be distributed according to their misplaced idea of fairness.
Marxism does not even operate within the concept of "fairness". Capital concentration is not bad because it is unfair. It is very useful and even necessary for specific situations, like how it is most conductive to exponential growth while said growth is possible. But in other situations it becomes useless while refusing to adapt, and that makes it non-viable and malignant in such situations. That is the issue.

>arguably makes it even worse by removing the individual's possibility of producing for himself or his own goals
How would it be so everyone is effectively an entrepreneur?

>>22983029
Marx himself lamented that communists of his era were not hardcore enough. He was an idealist retard.

You're right though, classical Marxism revolutionary ideas are passé. Modern Marxism is identitarian bullshit.

>>22985363
Soviet Union was a natural product of it's conditions - it was built in the conditions of absolute destitution on top of the remains of an empire where the overwhelming majority of people were treated like cattle and thus degraded into cattle, while a very slim minority and the nature of it's social existence was very well portrayed by Gogol, Tolstoy, Turgenev, Dostoevsky and Lermontov. You're on /lit/ for fucks sake you know the drill.

So it's entirely fair to criticize the Soviet Union for it's own countless pitfalls, but to portray it some form of cultural degradation from the entity that produced and to which it was a reaction it requires a special kind of retardation.

>>22985381
It was a degeneration. You're missing the blossoming of the intelligensia that was snuffed out by Stalin, both prior to and after the revolution.

>>22985334
Engels:
>Along with [the classes] the state will inevitably fall. Society, which will reorganise production on the basis of a free and *equal* association of the producers, will put the whole machinery of state where it will then belong: into the museum of antiquity, by the side of the spinning-wheel and the bronze axe.

>>22982868
>platonist
I guess they both like talking about chairs, am I right?!

>>22985404
>You're missing the blossoming of the intelligensia
Ah yes the famed blossoming in the Russian Empire when every single intelligentsia members #1 goal was not living in the Russian Empire anymore, and willingly choosing to stay there automatically lumped you into the turbo-patriotic nationalist bin, which in turn made you actually more likely to end up in prison or Siberian exile. Not paradoxically, ofc, the government couldn't arrest the guys who shit on it while living in Geneva, but it had to arrest someone.

There seems to be this assumption that what they call "capitalism" isn't just a natural human behaviour that is going to arise no matter what, and that we can just return to a better state where people aren't going to be greedy or competitive.

>>22985418
communists may be retarded but it's fair to say that the industrial revolution and especially financialization completely changed the nature of commerce. there's a world of difference between cattle sellers and blackrock.

>>22982846
>I don't understand how communists think
Me neither. Imagine wanting the "right to work". Fuck work, I want to be lazy instead.

>>22982920
Platonism believes in an ideal realm of concepts which according to Marxists, doesn’t exist and life is just purely physical. Contra Voeglin, Marxists are indeed the demiurge.

>>22985381
The Soviet Union was actually awesome and the Russian Empire that came before it was even better. God bless the Tsar. Simple as.

>>22985412
It's oddly similar to the here and now, I guess? Russian intelligenzia doesn't seem to live in Russia, nor does said clique choose to educate its unfeathered birds in Russia.

>>22985418
That's not quite what they believe. Capitalism is a neccessary and inevitable stage of history, and there is no possibility nor desire for a return to a previous stage which would require economic regression. Rather the development of a classless society and economy will be achieved by the proletariat. Now whether that selfless class society exists within the possibility of human nature is another question. For Marxists human nature is realised intersubjectivley (as per Fichte and Hegel but on a material-economic basis) within a society and economy, so a classless society and economy will create selfless people.

>>22985486
*selfless classless

>>22985412
Read Hope Against Hope or something mate. You're operating under a naive and far too hamsfisted understanding of Russian cultural development.

>>22985495
>You're operating under a naive and far too hamsfisted understanding of Russian cultural development.
Naturally. That was more of a shitpost to answer a shitpost. I did read Mandelstam's biography, and I realize that the shit is complicated in many ways - but I do stand by the opinion that claiming that the Russian Empire was more conductive to human development and culture than the USSR and that revolution was degradation in that regard is rather ridiculous. It is a fact that a flat out larger proportion of local intelligentsia was doing time in Russian Empire compared to the USSR, all while said intelligentsia was much smaller. Which does not characterize of USSR as some poet's paradise, but points out that it was somewhat less of a shithole than what came before it, and it's entirely disenenious to dscribe it's culture as degradation from the culture of the Russian Empire. It was not a degradation, and nor it was a utopian transfromation - it was a natural development conducted through a conflict that naturally followed the unresolved internal conflicts within the Empire, and as such it retained a lot of preexisting characteristics, developed a few new ones, and rearranged several categories around.

>>22985460
marx's son-in-law (lafargue) wrote a book called "the right to be lazy"

>>22985593
I'm aware.

>>22982874
I think you'd have a better time on reddit.

>>22985627
Are you saying that Redditors actually have an accurate understanding of the (really basic) difference between idealism and materialism?

>>22985344
im convinced 4chan only has illiterate teenagers left
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm

>>22983243
>Sex isn't actually consensual since most people lack alternative to pussy and being an incel.
Men are slaves to women in the same way workers are slaves to employers.

>>22983968
That would probably describe the USSR during Stalin's time but most people who lived there in the 60s, 70s and into the early 80s lived utterly ordinary lives. I think they probably had a lot of problems (and I think there's a good argument for the "state capitalism" theory with the state and its managers essentially taking on the role of the capitalists) but one of the issues talking about historical socialist regimes is decades are compressed into a few images or impressions rather than things being quite different at different times. But if there was a big socialist country like that again, I don't see how it wouldn't be any other way. I think more self-proclaimed communists too should use their own Marxism as a way to critically look at the USSR but a lot of them just seem too deep in their own sauce, or repeating their own propaganda about how great it was.

Also, on Stalin -- that was a time of extreme scarcity. And I think the reason for the purges is too often presented as either Stalin being a villain (although he could certainly be villainous), or "they did nothing wrong, end of story, everyone who got in the neck was a traitor" (and there were probably some who were). But extreme scarcity makes people behave in disturbing ways. Like, there's 10 people but only one position where you'll get more food, one person slips up and says something possibly a little bit... counter-revolutionary... now there's nine people competing for one position. Then... you see. Cancel culture in academia is kind of like that. Only one student is going to get a Ph.D. or get a job and there are five candidates. One says something construed as racist, you get rid of him. High-minded ideals can mask more cynical motives. And the "communists" can be just as tempted by money and power as everyone else. That's what happened, right? They sold out and became capitalists including in the former USSR. The movie "Network" from 1976 also satirizes this.

>>22982941
I haven't read a lot from Marx but this is one of the most interesting observations to me. Because the product of our labor is split off from ourselves, people come to feel at home when they're not at work, and away from home when they're at work. In other words, work ceases to be the center of our creative lives. You get a job to pay for the things you do when you're not at work, but then people work so much they don't have time to enjoy that. Or a screenwriter with a lot of passion ends up writing bad sitcoms or insurance company commercials and it becomes just another job. I suppose it's better than feudalism. But communism seems like it'd be a society where those distinctions would dissolve, the communists had ideas about work and play and games all sort of re-combining together rather than being "alienated" from each other, along with the erosion of the social distinctions between classes (like white collar and blue-collar labor). It's a rich insight and I can see why this would be attractive.

>>22982846
They don't see the labor of others - and thus think the products of those labors are free.

>>22983075
>Socialism Utopian and scientific
No part of this proves that marxism is actually scientific as opposed to utopian. You're just doing the thing where you refer to how marx and co described their system and accusing anyone who disagrees with that description of not reading them. Saying you're not utopian, doesn't mean you're not utopian. In that book at the end where engels talks about the liberation of man, that's obviously all utopian.
You're just a filthy dilating leftypol tranny, the only creature deranged enough to take marx&engels as straight gospel still in 2024.

>>22982846
Real communism only catches on in prison societies because, yes, there will be a practical belief in reprogramming. You would think that Germans political philosophy would catch on more in Europe than in Russia or China but it goes to show what a difference societal worldviews make.

>>22984073
>Anyone who visited the Eastern bloc as a tourist
Exactly. Any American would go crazy at how fucking slow basic things were, forcing everyone to stand in line for hours to send some mail.

>>22984109
race is actually scientific thougheverbeit, however you're not wrong that wignats just use it to push an agenda.
https://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/

>>22988219
Despite their materialist conceit, Marxism is still operating with Kantian disembodied minds that create themselves through the process of Fichtean recognition, albeit within an economy and society rather than the pure thought of Fichte and Hegel, but still immaterial minds formed by a material world. There is no place for the materiality of the body (or subject generally) in historical materialism.

>>22988249
Disgusting image on many levels

>>22988264
It was a golden age.

>>22982846
Thought experiment
>you are born in squalor
>still taxed
>see person born in riches
>no inheritance tax to their daddy's fortune
>they also pay next to no taxes
>complain and ask for equality
>get beaten by cops that your taxes pay for
Try and argue against equality of opportunity then (equality of outcome is ridiculous for its own reasons)

Communism and marxism are products of jewish schizophrenia. Not much to understand unless you want to contract their mind virus yourself.

communism is just the resolution of the inherent contradictions in capitalism, which necessitate an alteration in the economic system. its postulated to be a objective historical development analogous to the transition from feudalism to capitalism. the projected future existence communism isnt contrived on any moralistic framework.

>>22988657
if this weren't a communist thread i would assume this post was made by a libertarian. maybe that's the real horseshoe theory...

>>22983216
Doch, Geschichtswissenschaft

>>22988657
1. If I want to give my already income-taxed money to my son I should have the right to do so, no matter how some retard seethes about it as if it would otherwise go to them
2. The top 10% pay over 50% of the tax budget in most first world countries, while the bottom 50% pay in almost nothing

>>22983165
>Singling out fascists
Class colaborationists have one moment of glory and the entire world hasn't gotten over it after 80 fucking years. Regardless, some form of liberalism is usually the current form of government/economics. Assuming the state is an actual state and not some african meme nation.
>>22983029
>"Therefore, WORLD UTOPIAN COMMUNALISM! TOTAL CHANGE IN YOUR WAY OF LIFE! YOU WILL EAT AT A BARRACKS INSTEAD OF AT HOME!"
You have to admit that as foolish as the whole experiment was, the early days of the USSR and China were fascinating experiments. It does go to show the heirs of Marx strayed very hard from his "scientific" roots, though. Especially after de-colonization came into the mix.
>>22983211
>There have been many societies that have existed without strict class relations, such as many indigenous societies.
Those societies feed themselves off what they can hunt and gather. Maybe off the tubers they farm. Their existence does not prove there can be a modern classless society, much less a harmonious one (most of those societies practice inter-ethnic warfare, for example).
>Rather, a project headed by powerful elites, over centuries, to enrich and empower themselves, and the centralization of wealth and power into monopolies and the state.
Calling it a unified project is giving them too much credit. It was a partially accidental process tht developed from the projects of thousands of men over the course of centuries. The individual projects mostly crumble into dust, like Fordlandia.
>It's a system based on inequality that asserted itself through force.
All systems we have, even the classless tribal ones, assert themselves through force in some way or another.
>Class disparities need to be reconciled as racial disparities were reconciled
Implying racial disparities have been reconciled. Brown/Black people want more with a side of revenge while White people either want to be left alone or for browns to have less and fuck off.
>>22983208
If we are to use religious terms, Kuffar (hider of the truth)/Heretic is what Marxists would call a revisionist.
A capitalist/Fascist would be the Goys/Pagans.
>>22983318
Comically outdated meme since december 10 2023.
>>22988657
Equality of opportunity is there if you have the faculties to make something of it. Low quality people will descend in status, Mediocre people will keep their status (you are probably here), High quality human capital improves its social status, and excellent people with excellent blood actually do exceptional and excellent things.

>>22988657
>I'm resentful because someone saved their money

Why are you like this?

>>22986435
A big problem with Marxism is that it leans on historical materialism (all its flaws will be for now ignored) too much to make predictions that aren't really confirmed. As far as I understand, it proposes
>Slaveocracy dissolved into Feudalism which then reconstituted into Capitalism...
This is something that happened. A factual statement. But then
>...therefore Capitalism will surely culminate in the rise of Socialism.
Is a non-sequitour, in my opinion. If the sentence was instead
>...therefore Capitalism will eventually give way to another socio-economic system.
I would agree. But the prescription that Socialims will replace Capitalism for sure is foolish and unfounded to me.

>>22989427
Capitalism produces an industrial proletariat who by necessity form associations in order to defend their economic interests. These associations tend towards becoming larger and more powerful to the point that the proletariat eventually becomes capable of taking political power for itself which it must use to abolish property if it wants to abolish its own condition.

in other words, the movement towards communist society is a process that is being created by capitalist social relations; an objective and inevitable fact of bourgeoisie society.

>>22989427
>...therefore Capitalism will eventually give way to another socio-economic system.
>I would agree. But the prescription that Socialims will replace Capitalism for sure is foolish and unfounded to me.
We can look at what the previous revolutions did to get an idea of what they will do. He also didn't really define anything about what it would look like.

>>22982846
They view the state as a mechanism to tinker with society to make it more socialist and democratic (in the socialist sense) to approach communism. So naturally they’re either confused or shit themselves when they run into opposition that completely rejects their view of the state out of a respect for deontology (like a Christian or the libertarians you mention). They are confused if they fail to see how someone could not think the state is used to tinker with the populace as a long term project, and they shit themselves if they realise some people do think the state should not cross certain lines and respect a deontology because they realise the implications of that in relation to their attempts to quash dissent against their “march of progress.” This is why commies go after tiny, peaceful and demographically irrelevant religious minorities like Jehovahs witnesses. They view the deontology those groups have as a threat to their ability to tinker with society and reforge it in a form of their choosing.

They are more willing to respect social democrats in a time of piece rather than liberals or Rhine capitalists because social democrats share the believe that you use the state to tinker with society to make it more socialist. This belief regarding the state as carrying out a great long term project is why commies tolerate small businesses at first and only quash them later or reintroduce them to fill gaps in the market. They view it as a transitional stage in their state orchestrated project. All the “personal property is fine” stuff is bullshit they say to placate liberal opposition. They will simply reclassify whatever they want to seize, as they did in East Germany in the 60’s and 70’s.

Of course “anarcho-communists” and “libertarian communists” say that they don’t want this but they form alliances with Marxist leninists to get into power and get purged as soon as the next socialist utopia gets established, paving the way for MLs to do exactly what I have described above.

Read Democracy the God that Failed.

>>22989427
I think the thesis that "socialism necessarily succeeds capitalism" has to be read in the following way: For capitalism to vanish it is necessary that private property of the means of production is abolished and with it wage labor and the accumulation of capital (profit motive).
The underlying assumption is then merely that we do not fall back into primitive tribalism but that we keep our globalistic industrial society so that mass production of goods is still a thing. Now, an industrial society without private property, wage labor and the accumulation of capital is what is meant by socialism (by Marx at least).

Maybe there is another possibility that Marx did not think about. I can't think of any, do you have something in mind?

>>22989063
>The top 10% pay over 50% of the tax budget in most first world countries, while the bottom 50% pay in almost nothing

The bottom 50% owns 2.6% of America's wealth and contributes 3% of tax revenue.

The top 10% owns 66% of America's wealth and contributes 50% of tax revenue.

So, proportional to wealth, poorer Americans contribute more than the right.

>>22982846
Also some of them believe communism is inevitable and liberal opposition is just forcefully and violently slowing it down. They see this stage before the “inevitable” communism as “fascism.” This is why not wanting your country flooded with illegals and not wanting half your wages stolen to be given to single mothers and 3rd world leaders who’ll just pocket the cash whilst otherwise being an average Joe is “fascism” in the eyes of commies. This is why everyone in a liberal-democratic country (e.g. the UK or USA) who they don’t like is a “fascist.”

Everything is interpreted around the idea of progressing through states to reach communism and if you stop one of the stages happening, you’re “reactionary” and must be done away with. This is why commies tolerate and encourage shitflinging between 3rd world nations. These nations are going through their own nationalist phase like Europe did in the mid and late 1800s. Therefore you must tolerate genocide in Africa and China or you’re a heckin chud who’s against progress.

These ideas are of course ridiculous and commies need to be lustrated so they can’t taint normal people.

>>22989686
>Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master(3) and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
>either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
there's your alternative.

>>22989630
>Capitalism produces an industrial proletariat who by necessity form associations in order to defend their economic interests. These associations tend towards becoming larger and more powerful o the point that the proletariat eventually becomes capable of taking political power for itself
All good until here. I disagree, but those disagreements can be set aside. AMong them the fact that the last part about taking political power has literally never happened. Literally never. Not even once. Unions might as well have the revoltionary potential of a respectable middle-class shopkeeper.
>which it must use to abolish property if it wants to abolish its own condition.
This is where the rift appears. It assumes that the proletariat is going to naturally want to abolish its own condition and to do that it must necessarily abolish property. It prescribes an arbitrary outcome to an as of yet unresolved conflict for no good reason. It's in fact just as probable a new form of property comes to supplant private property. (Supplanting being a harsh word to use because the different forms of property flow into eachother).
>in other words, the movement towards communist society is a process that is being created by capitalist social relations; an objective and inevitable fact of bourgeoisie society.
You say that but I don't necessarily see why it must necessarily be that way. Especially considering the last 2 economic transitions were not caused by the proles, they were caused by a third element arising from the conflict between master and slave, lord and serf, Burgher and proletarian.
The fact concepts like "labor aristocracy" exist are a testament to the fact Marx bungled up his calculations at some point. Controversially, I could unconvincingly argue that the capitalist dialectic already resolved itself into managerialism.
>>22989671
The revolutions that defy historical materialism by arising in agrarian feudal nations and recently de-colonized third world countries?

>>22989822
>political power has literally never happened. Literally never. Not even once.
right
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrograd_Soviet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution

>>22989686
At that point socialism/communism grows in vagueness to the point it literally means anything that might supplant capitalism. Which makes socialism into a misnomer because it implies characteristics it needn't necessarily have.
>I can't think of any, do you have something in mind?
Well, no, because the definition you gave is essentially binary, a system is either capitalistic (private property, wage labor, the accumulation of capital) or isn't.
I already said that if the assertion is that a system will eventually replace capitalism, I agree with it. But that it must have the charcteristics socialists allege is a completely different thing. I think that the assertion that post-capitalism will stateless or classless is essentially a non-sequitur.

Here are some alternatives to the stateless, classless society.
>Corporatism- Hierarchal corporations (as in, associations of people) based on common characteristics compete with eachother to secure resources for their members, which are then redistributed internally. Perhaps a little moldbuggian in nature. Classes might be those in the corporations and those outside them. Or alternatively the inner circle of the corporative structure and the outter one. The main incentive would be to grow ones corporation by whatever means.
>Technocracy/Managerialism- statist, top-down planned economy overseen by AI. Property is state owned/state-owned by proxy. Labor is done by quota, Prime objective is a sort of universal improvement/engineering of mankind.
>Distributism- maybe?
>>22989834
The rural farmer was just as if not more instrumental in the establishment of the USSR than the factory workers in two cities.
Regardless, the unions didn't seize shit, the revoltionary vanguard did. And the vanguard wasn't made up of union men. If anything, the unions were cannon-fodder for the vanguard.

>>22989822
>The revolutions that defy historical materialism by arising in agrarian feudal nations and recently de-colonized third world countries?
This was because they were delayed Feudal rebellions against kings that had already begun integrating themselves into Capitalism. So you had a half-capitalist, half-socialist revolution. The actual stated goal of Leninism is to create Capitalism controlled by Socialists.

>>22982853
>>22982965
>you must be over 18 in order to post

>>22989720
Economic determinism hasn't been a thing for a long in Marxist thought. At least since WW2 this is the main point where Marxism has deviated from Marx himself. It is a modernist idea an died with modernism. You can read that in basically every Marxist book since WW2.

>>22989822
>It's in fact just as probable a new form of property comes to supplant private property.
Well, a new form of property is not private property, is it?
The original basic sketch of Marx was, that private property is abolished to be replaced by communal property.

>>22990761
>calling people underaged while posting in a thread about marxism/communism
next you're gonna tell us commies/marxists are actually all incels and trannies

>>22989876
>At that point socialism/communism grows in vagueness to the point it literally means anything that might supplant capitalism. Which makes socialism into a misnomer because it implies characteristics it needn't necessarily have.
What characteristics do you think it implies?

>>22982846
I've come to the conclusion that the problem with communists is they don't really understand human nature. They think it's really possible that people can live as equals, and that you can have a vacuum of power at the top of a society without a sociopath rushing in to fill it. Because this isn't reality, most people understand that the best thing we can do is pick the lesser of all possible evils to put at the top and debate what the best way is to do that. But they deny that whole premise.

>>22989876
>Regardless, the unions didn't seize shit, the revoltionary vanguard did. And the vanguard wasn't made up of union men. If anything, the unions were cannon-fodder for the vanguard.
You just don't know about the history of the October revolution. You really think a handful of "vanguard" just took out an entire country? Are you insane? The point of the vanguard is to galvanize regular society across many different lines for the socialist cause. The same thing happened in the French Revolution.

>>22982846
>Marx
>Communism
It may be enough to recall the words which Baruch Levi wrote to Karl Marx, which are not well-known and are worth quoting :

“The Jewish people, as a whole, will be its own Messiah. Its domination on the world will be achieved by the union of the other human races, through the elimination of frontiers and of monarchies, which are the ramparts of particularism, and through the formation of a worldwide republic, in which the Jews will enjoy their rights everywhere. In this new organisation of humanity, the sons of Israel, who are now scattered throughout the world, will be able, without obstacles, to become everywhere the leading element, especially if they manage to place the working masses under the control of certain of their own number. The governments of the peoples constituting the worldwide republic, with the help of the proletariat, without this requiring any effort, will all fall into the hands of the Jews. Private property can then be subject to rulers of Jewish origin, who will control the state goods everywhere. Thus, the promise of the Talmud will be fulfilled, according to which Jews, when the time comes, will possess the keys of the wealth of all the peoples of the world.” (cf. Revue de Paris, 35, 11, p. 574)

>>22990867
B-BUT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND YOU NAZI FUCK

CAPITALISM HAS TO EVENTUALLY FAIL WHICH MEANS THAT COMMUNISM HAS TO HAPPEN TOO

>>22990851
>private property is abolished to be replaced by communal property.

>>22990875
and then the holocaust happened and jews just secularized becoming a total mockery of judaism. aged pretty poorly desu.

>>22990891
What is this supposed to tell me?