/lit/ - Literature

also^

social democrats pls go. murdering plutocrats will build a cohesive bond among the proletariat.

>>3763739

Trotskyist looking for more trotskyism theory, can anyone help me?

>>3763748

Trotsky was a defeatist Menshevik. He had no consistent theory. Start looking into real communists like Mao and Lenin.

listen to Trortsky
anon is foolish

>>3763751
but that's wrong chum.

>>3763710
if you actually read the manifesto you would know that pacific solution is not contemplated.
maybe it's more "revolutionary" but certainly not communist,not canonically at least.

>>3763710
You sound white

What the fuck does this have to do with /lit/?

>>3765978
We have a board for racists. Go away.

>>>/pol/

>>3766005
I have yet to see someone react this way to an anon calling another a nigger

>>3765994
>the communist manifesto
>not literature

l-e-l
e e
l-e-l

>>3765978
You sound like your first resort when you disagree with someone is an ad hominem.

>>3766014
It happens practically every time the word is used on /lit/. Other boards not so much.

>>3766005
>racism against white folks
lol. check your privilege.

>>3766020
Who cares if it's racism? It's a straight up ad hominem.

>>3763710
Uh, no. Non-violence is not revolutionary in the least. Why else would corporate media and government officials prattle on about it constantly?

>>3763748
Like the other guy says, Trotskyism isn't a coherent political ideology, it's just a screen for first world leftists to be Communist in words but liberal in deeds. No real revolutionary force that's ever achieved anything has looked toward Trotskyism for guidance, and that's no accident.

>>3766025
Well it's not baseless, it's usually middle class discontented American white kids who cling to pacifism while dabbling in Marxism as an academic hobby. (Hint: it's because they can afford to; real poor people can't)

>>3763710
0/10

>>3766018
No, it's just that the main body of theory that advocates nonviolence doesn't take into account the specific situation of colonized peoples

pic related

>>3766039
Seriously though, what gives you the right to speak for the "real people?" You seem no better than "The Help" loving whites who patronize minorities by attempting to speak for them.

Basically, do you have literature to support your position? If so, share. If not, quit race trolling.

>>3766066
See
>>3766054

Also Red White and Black by Frank Wilderson, the works of Joy James, and the rest of the afropessimism movement, and Black Marxism by Cedric Robinson

>>3766054
Fanon is some real fucking shit.

>>3766066
Also assata shakur's biography is pretty good on the issue

>>3766072
I can't tell if that's a (vacuous) criticism or a compliment

>>3766054
the main body of theory of nonviolence was created by ghandi and I'm pretty sure he understood the specific situation of colonization.

>>3766066
Actually the position I espouse is the one you'll hear if you let the people speak for themselves. The entire history and literature of Marxism (specifically, Leninism and Maoism) and the independence movements of the post-war years is testament to that fact.

>>3766081
Which was for India and India only. It was also a revolution that wasn't very effective from a marxist standpoint

>>3766081
And how are the huddled masses of India doing today, pray tell?

>>3766088
>up and coming global superpower
pretty good i'd say

>>3766068
>>3766074
>>3766083

I agree with you that a third-worldist Marxist movement is more consistent and realistic, but I wanted to see some books posted. Red, White, & Black seems the most interesting of the books you've posted; historical and taking into account the not black and and white nature of race relations in the US.

>>3766087
so how come you think you can apply Fanon, which is based on wholely outdated theories of neocolonialism, today anywhere willy nilly if you can't with non-violence? it wasn't a marxist revolution so it doesn't matter if it was effective from a marxist standpoint.

>>3766081
Ghandi's movement didn't exist in a vacuum. First you have to consider that the very violent independence movements across the globe dialectically supported anything that happened in India by removing pressure off that one particular hot spot, and second the economic 'violence' they practiced (ala the boycotts and sit-ins of the civil rights era) is a far cry from simple little rallies like Occupy, which accomplish nothing.

And of course Ghandi's revolution (not to disparage him or what they did) was only for India's national independence. Economically they're still under the thumb of global capital, and economically millions still starve each year.

>>3766099
Black Marxism is a lot more historical than Red White and Black. Wilderson's argument is oriented around metaphysics, and he says that "the historical record only obfuscates analyses of structure and antagonism", just as an fyi

>>3766103
The point of the topic was nonviolent marxism, my response has been that marxist politics from a nonviolent standpoint overlooks colonialism. A violent revolution in India probably would have been more effective than gandhi's

>>3766092
Ah, right, I forgot that trickle down theory was valid and true, forgive me.

>>3766103
>wholely outdated theories of neocolonialism

starvinglandlesspeasants.jpg

>>3766113
>A violent revolution in India probably would have been more effective than gandhi's
No it wouldn't. The British had military superiority in colonized India. It would've been foolish for a violent uprising unless you want wasted blood shed.

>>3763710

Well, Marx didn't consider the fact that the status quo is not only maintained by economic systems, but also by hegemonic ideological systems disseminated by culture, family, education, legal systems and a bunch of other things.

So to answer your question, I don't know if they are more revolutionary, but they are definitely a necessity for a revolution to occur

>>3766113
Right. the problem some people ITT have is not recognizing that the question of violence isn't one of tactics. It's more significantly one of politics. The far-reaching revolution asks for more, so it had to do more to achieve it (violence). If your demands are just slightly higher wages or slightly better working conditions some such thing, okay, working within the system (nonviolence) might work.

>>3766124
Gandhi's revolution wasn't possible without the extreme violence of WW2.

>>3766129

Well, when you consider the huge impact that the educational system has on maintaining the rule by consensus, it could be argued that a change in the ideology spread by the educational system could lead to a revolution of sorts and result in a change in the social structure.

>>3766144
Well sure but pragmatically that's a little backwards; how would a movement seize the schools before seizing the state apparatus at large? You're right that proper education is vital but it would have to come in the margins that the state currently ignores/excludes on a socio-economic level. These spaces are the most revolutionary in the first world anyway.

>>3766136
what's your point?

When Marxists talk about violence they aren't necessarily referring to engaging in guerrilla warfare....that depends on the conditions in any given country, and doesn't really apply to the West, in my opinion. Arming the revolutionary forces as a class is the important thing, and I think the threat of violence is enough to work in somewhere like America. The threat would have to be huge, obviously, supported by the mass of people.

>>3766149

I'm suggesting that a movement doesn't have to seize it, it may be possible for there not to be a 'revolution' at all, if you look at the increase in empathy within the capitalist world over the recent years and more importantly the gradual trend of moving towards more socialist societies, despite this being counter-productive to the ruling classes ideological system, it may be possible the revolution ends up being nothing more than an almost 'natural' evolution in thought. I don't think it's too great a leap to think that educational policies that favour socialism rather than individualistic aspirations could become a more prominent trend over the coming decades.

>>3766174
Er, the welfare states that already exist are going through deep austerity cuts at the moment. Power isn't willfully given up, that is is wishful, liberal thinking.

>>3766174
what increase in empathy. what trend toward "socialist societies". what the hell are you going on about

>>3766174
ahahaha what nigga

>>3766088

They've got a fantastic Maoist revolutionary force that's making tremendous strides, so I think they're pretty cool.

>>3766081

>MUH GANDHI

>>3766174

Empathetic capitalism is merely a mask to appease the liberal consumer base. Legitimate threats to capitalism will still be vehemently opposed.

What's revolution about anyway?
The problem lies with a distribution and utilization of resources, no?

Why couldn't the people who want revolution change their own distribution and utilization of resources?
Sure they don't have the greatest share of resources, but that's still something, that doesn't take any violence or coercing or anything, since it's their share, as allocated by the system and the powers that be.

How come people with the greatest share of resources (who earned it through the system) never want a revolution, to change the allocation of resources?
Wouldn't that be the simplest way to change the system, without any bloodshed?
Either the people who want a revolution aren't trying hard enough to accumulate and control resources or they aren't trying hard enough to win the people who already control the resources...

>>3766178
>>3766181
>>3766191

They are going through austerity cuts, however, this is also causing a certain amount of opposition, people are attempting to defend them. When/if the global economy becomes more stable again, it isn't a great leap to consider that money will be pumped into welfare again, or at least that there will be money directed at increasing income (if not other kinds of) equality.

As for what trend towards socialist societies, look at the prominence of socialism (whether they admit it or not) within Europe, and also the increasingly socialist policies not only being enacted, but also being called for within America. As for developing nations that are now focusing more and more upon capitalist ideologies (India, China, Brazil), is it not fairly sensible to consider that they too shall eventually, once out of the mire that they are attempting to drag themselves out of, lean towards socialist policies that will benefit the whole of society?

I realise it's optimistic wishy washy liberal thinking, I'm not denying that. However there is more hope for it than there was at any other point in the past.

As for what empathy, this explains it rather well, although there are flaws to this video, but you get the basic concept that I'm referring to - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g

>>3766213

Come back when you're aware of the basic theoretical principles of capitalism, marxism, cultural hegemony, mass culture, and a bunch of other stuff.

Reading list: Marx, Adorno, Horkheimer, Gramsci, Bourdieu.

>>3766213

>Reducing the problem of the lack of revolution to individuals.

What a lovely capitalist notion

>>3766232
No.

>>3766242
Society is made of individuals I believe.
That bloodshed some of you also talk about in this thread lies on individuals, not just theoretical ants in a theoretical mound.
Which is why it's hard to compare revolution number 63 in country Z to revolution number 94 in country Y, the individuals involved all varied considerably and had different individual interests...

>>3766219
>benefit the whole of society

There is no "society" there's you and me and the guy across the street and what's good for each of us may not be good for the others. Now get your hand out of my pocket; I have nothing that belongs to you.

>>3766232
what are intro texts for each?

>>3766246

Well, I'm not going to argue with you because that ideological system is just part of your habitus, i just have to hope you don't pass it onto another generation.

>>3766266
No need to argue, just slit their throat during their sleep.
That's what revolution is about, no?

Once we'll have finally eviscerated every pig capitalist then we'll be able to march toward Infinite Progress or something like that.

>>3766258

For Marx you may aswell get a Cambridge companion to as it'll contain the texts but also introductions that make more sense of them for you.

For Adorno, his aesthetic theory but more importantly the culture industry reconsidered, Gramsci's only real writings are his prison notebooks so make sure you get something with a decent introduction to explain it for you, for horkheimer, you could probably just track down his inaugural lecture for the frankfurt school, that has most of the content of importance, for bourdieu you'll want to check out distinction.

non violence is exactly what the bourgeoisie wants

>>3766246
stfu thatcher you're dead and you can't hurt me anymore

>>3766274

I'm the guy arguing for peaceful non-revolution through a natural empathetical evolution, so, um, no.

Beliefs that I hold that I think will likely be futile to attempt to try and convince you of: Man has a natural capacity for empathy and therefore for good. Mankind is better off the more equal we become

>>3766299
Yes, and? Are you telling me that their fear of violent uprising disproves the potential of non-violent methods?

>>3766306
>Beliefs that I hold that I think will likely be futile to attempt to try and convince you of:
Well if you have evidence it's not futile...

>Man has a natural capacity for empathy and therefore for good.
I don't think that has been scientifically-demonstrated.
Here's an example of evidences of "altruism":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism

>In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time.

Similarly, you can see every human behaviour as a step toward perceived self-benefit.
"Random" acts of kindness provide short-term pleasure...

>Mankind is better off the more equal we become
Why? What's the logic?

>>3766299

Acting based on what our enemies don't want us to is still acting because of them, that is what should be avoided as a priority

>>3766313
a very minor potential
communism is not something most people see as "positive," so the techniques could not work with it
though, with things like racial equality (which could be argued as a step towards communism), they are seen as positive, and are the victims in a confrontational situation
the proletariat as a whole are not viewed as such, as seen with the occupy movement and the wisconsin protests

>>3766334
I didn't say I believe in non-violent methods, just that the argument presented was bad or needed elaboration.

The revolutionary movement can be nothing less than the struggle of the proletariat for the effective domination by any means necessary.

Pacifism or violence? All it will take, but one is not more or less revolutionary than the other.

>>3766325
then neither should be used

>>3766348
Why does anyone want the proletariat to dominate?

>>3766356
Because only then will there be no-one to dominate. Or something like that.

>>3766356
ownership of meanies of something

>>3766092
>>up and coming global superpower
Unlike China, India is nowhere near becoming a super-power. It's closer to Brazil.

>>3766356
For nothing else than the construction of their own lives by themselves.

This implies not only that humanity should be objectively released of their material needs (hunger, etc.), but also that life shouldn't be a compensation but a limitless enrichment.

>>3763748
Trotsky never claim to have his own theory. Neither did Stalin for that matter. Both of them referred to themselves as the true followers of marxism-leninism. The only question is which version do you prefer?

Just read them both and make your own judgment. I, personally, find Stalin's works to be worthless demagoguery written by a person who have no damn clue what Marxism is to cover up his own crimes and stupid decisions made solely for one reason: secure his power. And the style is pretty horrible too.

Trotsky, on the other hand, is very pleasant to read. Many of his prediction about the development of USSR came true too.

>>3766005
A minority can't be racist towards whites as they aren't in a position of power.

NOW YOU GO BACK TO /pol/

>>3766379
I don't see how the proletariat dominating would help with that.
You want the most qualified people in charge.
The proletariat is made of people who build buildings, who dig ditches, who work jobs with limited responsibility.
Letting them "dominate" literally means that you want them to be in charge, that is, to take responsibility for society, which is the opposite of what they're trained and able to do.

I really don't see the relevance of your post to that.
How would letting the least-qualified people take the job let "humanity be released from material needs" and "life not be a compensation but a limitless enrichment"?

>>3766391
National-socialists in the 1920s weren't in a position of power too, so they weren't racist and antisemitic ? What a scoop !

>>3766391
>Racism is usually defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior or superior.

If a person of a minority group has views, practices and actions that reflect the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior or superior, is it not racism then?

>>3766391

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/racism
>noun
>[mass noun]
>the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

>>3766315

Check out the earlier video posted about empathy for what I am talking about.

As for equality: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

>Actually being communist
oh child

>>3766394
Communism is precisely about abolishing the old notions of power like 'being in charge'. The domination of the proletariat, as a step towards the abolition of social classes, means to revolutionize the labour itself.

The notion of gestion you're advocating for is a barrier. The communist fights for the abolition of money, private property, hierarchy, the capitalist system itself. It isn't just a change of regime.

But Marx is the best for telling you that, not me. Read him.

>>3766394
Marx wrote his stuff in the 19th century. By this time proletariat seemed to be the only class progressive enough to revolt, as opposed to reactionary bourgeoisie and illiterate peasantry. It doesn't make much sense in the era of mass media, when the working class mostly vote republican thanks to the brainwashing.

>>3766405
>videos
Can't you summarize that in a few bullet-points?
If you have evidence of empathy in humans then it shouldn't be too hard to show it.
If you don't then it's just a silly belief like any other.

Biology doesn't do equality, neither does the rest of reality.
I don't get the point of uniformity. Sure things are more efficient if you have an input of X and you know that no matter what you'll have an output of Y, that's the point of robots.
However I, and I suppose I share that sentiment with other people, like humanity because we aren't robots, we are versatile, able to adapt to different situations.

>>3766410
Except there will always be people in charge. There simply can't not be. How do you go about enforcing communist values without people in charge? How do you stop the people in charge from going corrupt like Stalin?

>>3766397
Oh god you're stupid. I can tell you don't associate yourself with true leftists. Racism is a structural issue. A position of institutionalized racism that only whites benefit from. It's time for you to read up on the consensus from academics on the issue.

go back to /pol/ you ignorant fuck

>>3766410
> The communist fights for the abolition of money, private property, hierarchy, the capitalist system itself. It isn't just a change of regime.

Enough with this vague fuckery. Lay out a detailed plan for actually accomplishing things. Marx is fine and dandy and I think everyone should read his writing, but he doesn't offer anything beyond vague generalities.

Explain why any other attempt to hand dominance to the proletariat won't turn out exactly the same as the USSR, cold war China, North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, or literally any other state that has had a "communist" revolution.

>>3766410
>The domination of the proletariat, as a step towards the abolition of social classes, means to revolutionize the labour itself.
It would make more sense to call it "the destruction of the proletariat" then.

>The notion of gestion you're advocating for is a barrier.
Reality is a barrier then.
In reality there's a limited amount of resources that has to be divided among humans. This task is getting increasingly problematic as the number of humans rises.

>The communist fights for the abolition of money, private property, hierarchy, the capitalist system itself. It isn't just a change of regime.
That's all nice and all but that doesn't translate into anything. It sounds like magical thinking, all of it.

>>3766411
>By this time proletariat seemed to be the only class progressive enough to revolt
What does "progressive" even mean in this context?
Does it mean "fed up", "at odds with the system"?
In that sense the "muh guns" type of republicans seems close to the revolutionary prototype.

>mostly vote republican thanks to the brainwashing.
Marx wasn't exactly a proletarian himself either, and same goes with most revolutionary leaders.

>>3766418
>I can tell you don't associate yourself with true leftists.

Please. The great men of the left are all dead and no one has replaced them. I don't see how you can call your little circle-jerking corner of academia the "true" leftists when nearly all of the great revolutionaries and philosophers of the movement would be horrified by the state of contemporary leftism.

>>3766418
>A position of institutionalized racism that only whites benefit from.
There is no racism in countries without "whites"?

>>3766431
Oh fuck off. Next you're going to tell me the "West" is dead.

>>3766410
>Communism is precisely about abolishing the old notions of power like 'being in charge'
That's bullcrap, commies always turn on the anarchists that naively fought along with them in their revolutions. Sounds like they couldn't tolerate not being in charge.

>>3766417
>>3766420
1. formation of orgazinations like worker's councils based on direct democracy
2. maximal communication as much as possible between these structures
3. when the struggles (strikes, etc.) are leading to a point when the state can be overthrown, the organized councils are taking control by force, being in charge as you said

You'll tell me, why did people like Stalin, etc, took the power ? Because they made a organization based on a Party, leninism wants a party to lead everything, the revolution, the masses.

They won because of their planned strategy to take control ; they exterminated the radical elements, the rest was gullible enough to follow them.

>>3766447
Anarchists should by now have learned never to trust communists. They're power-hungry totalitarians who always stab us in back.

Everyone should have learned from the anarchist experience, too. The only good commie is a dead commie.

Violence and non-violence are tools.

>>3766457
>democracy
Ya blew it. Democracy doesn't work.

>maximal communication as much as possible between these structures
This along with you democracy will only serve to increase corruption.

>when the struggles (strikes, etc.) are leading to a point when the state can be overthrown, the organized councils are taking control by force, being in charge as you said
Again, corruption. Another Stalin would rise again.

>>3766464
ancaps pls get >>>/out/

*hammering the trot alarm as fast as possible*

>>3766389
Trotsky's main prediction was that the USSR wouldn't be able to build socialism. They did.

Stalin was great.

>>3766411
look up, labor aristocracy, settlerism

>>3766485
>Stalin was great.

Judged as a traditional statist leader, yes. Judged as a communist, no. Just more proof that communism is nothing but pie-in-the-sky fairy-tales that can't offer anything of substance beyond a pretext for authoritarian power-grabbers.

>>3766433
there are no countries without whites.

>>3766430
>What does "progressive" even mean

Why, "having nothing to lose by their chains", of course. Social revolution, with redistribution of property following, benefits them, as they had no property to begin with. At least that's how it was in the 19th century, I suppose.


And what would radical right-wingers do once they seize the power? How would they go about redistributing the property? I'm pretty sure all the want is to hang niggers and homosexuals. And start the war with some Middle-east country. What are their economy program, give more money to transnational corporations? You don't exactly need a revolution for that.

>>3766464
anarchism is a hobby, not politics

>>3766485
>indiscriminately killed like 100 billion people just to stay in power
at least Hitler loved his country and did the best he could for the Germans, Stalin just killed whoever stopped him from getting his hands on more jewgolds

>>3766430
>>3766447
>It would make more sense to call it "the destruction of the proletariat" then.
Precisely. The struggle of the proletariat is the auto-abolition of himself, and all the classes.

>Reality is a barrier then.
In reality there's a limited amount of resources that has to be divided among humans. This task is getting increasingly problematic as the number of humans rises.
The resources are limited, that's a fact. What's your point ?
>That's all nice and all but that doesn't translate into anything. It sounds like magical thinking, all of it.
I just put books and books about communism and its realisation in one sentence. Of course it sounds like magical thinking, it's short.

>That's bullcrap, commies always turn on the anarchists that naively fought along with them in their revolutions. Sounds like they couldn't tolerate not being in charge.
Communists =/= stalinists

>>3766478
Basically communism is an utopia that assumes that nobody will be the bad guy who decides to dominate over everyone else.
Capitalism/whatever we have now is the opposite because it was recognized that somebody would be the bad guy and would decide to dominate over everyone else, so it was made so that the system would keep working along with that fact.

Whatever we have now allows for counter-powers to try and defeat the bad guy(s) who dominate(s) and/or to take its place while communism gets rid of those counter-powers in order to have ultimate equality which soon turns into ultimate dictatorship.

Capitalism has a proletariat, a middle-class, etc, and a ruling or several ruling classes.
Communism has one proletariat class and a group of people who exploits the rest.

>>3766497
Oh okay.
So no matter the country, even if 99,9% of the population is African, any racism can only come from the "whites", if the Africans arbitrarily decide to put all the "whites" in jail because they are "whites", then it's not racism, for example.

>>3766493
>statism
>authoritarianism
>totalitarianism

oh shut up. the lack of intellectual rigor among anti-communist leftist makes me roll my eyes every time. have fun with your self-sustainable gardens or incremental horse race politics or whatever the hell you like to jerk yourself off with.

>>3766505
Basically you're a high school history student.

>>3766512
Thread's over, guys. ETA for full /pol/ raid in 5 min.

>>3766522
>abloo bloo bloo people have different opinions than me

>>3766499
I can smell the fear on you, commie swine. Revenge will be ever so sweet when it comes.

>>3766534
>when it comes

it doesnt just come, you have to take it. the impotence of anarchism in a nutshell

>>3766485

They didn't. Stalin just take their fucked up caste system as it was and call it "socialism". Except what about stateless, classless society? And there's no difference between socialism and communism by Marx, "two stages" theory was the invention of the stalinists to cover up their own mess.


Trotsky's prediction about the future of the USSR was that one of the two things is gonna happen: either political revolution with overthrowing of Stalin's bureaucracy or the restoration of the capitalism. And guess what?

>>3766529
Pathetic. As always.

>>3766485

They didn't. Stalin just took their fucked up caste system as it was and called it "socialism". Except what about stateless, classless society? And there's no difference between socialism and communism by Marx, "two stages" theory was the invention of the stalinists to cover up their own mess.


Trotsky's prediction about the future of the USSR was that one of the two things is gonna happen: either political revolution with overthrowing of Stalin's bureaucracy or the restoration of the capitalism. And guess what?

>>3766498
I thought "progressive" had something to do with "progress".
I guess the term "progressive" does not mean much of anything after all.

>Social revolution, with redistribution of property following, benefits them, as they had no property to begin with.
Duh. Of course.
Why not go all the way and keep the property and become the new ruling class then?

>And what would radical right-wingers do once they seize the power?
I dunno, live according to their values?
I think it would be those so-called "traditional familial values".

>How would they go about redistributing the property?
Probably seizing the property of "internationalists", Jews, homosexuals, who knows. You can be pretty creative. It depends of the group of right-wingers of course.
Maybe they'd put tariffs on foreign goods and the American companies would have to come back to provide jobs and to be able to market their products locally.

>What are their economy program, give more money to transnational corporations?
That's not specifically a right-wing thing you know. This is a strawman so it's difficult to say.
I doubt xenophobic people would rather buy foreign than home-grown...

>You don't exactly need a revolution for that.
That's because right-wingers don't need that much change to be content, they trust themselves and others to do good. There's a certain stability in traditions and the like.

>>3766504
>The resources are limited, that's a fact. What's your point ?
Hence the concept of gestion is intertwined within the concept of resources.

>>3766537
Laugh while you can. The transhumanist revolution is just around the corner, and once it comes anarchism will have its day. Time and science are on our side.

>>3766543
>abloo bloo bloo people have different opinions than me

>>3766545
Fear of Stalinism amongst socialists is simply fear of real communism. Pathetic.

>>3766505
lol. its human NATURE you guyyyys *stickin' around theme plays*

>>3766520
Nah. I just don't get how it's possible to put everyone on the same level and expect everyone to remain there.

People don't have the same abilities, some are better than others for a given task.
Even if you force everyone to work the fields or whatever, some will always be better at growing carrots than others, and they'll want to keep the excess of carrots for themselves.

Who makes it so that everyone stays on the same level? Who prevents the carrot-growers from hoarding the carrots?
Is that not a form of power?
Maybe with robots every human could be on the same level but you need to program the robots first. Whoever is in charge of taking care of the robots has an advantage.

>>3766556

Are you afraid of the word "nature"?
What about "physiology"?
"Genetics"?
Are you cowering in your corner now?

>>3766554
In the capitalist world, a resource is a commodity. Resources in communist society, are shared :

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

>>3766563
I don't know, how about you study how the actual socialist societies of the 20th century functioned? Or you could continue nodding in agreement while watching youtube vlogs of first year econ students, whatever's your bag.

>>3766512
he's a different person you retarded stormfag

learn2chan

>>3766512
if Africans decided to put all whites in jail it wouldn't be arbitrary, it'd be Divine Justice.

>>3766572
>From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
If you say so.
I wonder what fantasy of variation is acceptable for your "ability" if you make it so that you always get what you need.
Some days you could decide that it's not in your "ability" to go to work.

>>3766574
I don't understand your point.
>how about you study how the actual socialist societies of the 20th century functioned?
They didn't function very well?
Is getting rid of a large share of the population and going at war the way to balance a socialist society?

>>3766555
>fear of having your ideological goals perverted by megalomania masquerading as permutation is fear of real communism

>>3766600
>>3766572
Also who decide what the need of every individual is?

For example how do you know somebody is going to be a great writer? That's the person you should provide with a literary education in priority, no?

>>3766600
They didn't function? Oh, yeah, I guess exterminating the scourge of Nazism and saving humanity from enslavement was just a fluke.

>>3766585
Yeah, it's not like there was ever a period in history when North Africans were raiding the coasts of Europe for slaves.

>whites are uniquely evil!
>whites invented slavery!

The mantra of someone whose knowledge of history begins in 1683.

>>3766546
>I thought "progressive" had something to do with "progress".

Well, apparently social revolution, as opposed to political one, brings the humanity to the new stage of history, and that's what progressive about it. According to Marx, of course. See: French revolution. Didn't really happen with the October revolution, though. At least yet.

>Why not go all the way and become the new ruling class then?

They will do so. See: dictatorship of proletariat.

>keep the property

There wouldn't be enough for everyone! There's way more exploited than exploiters.

>I dunno, live according to their values?

Don't they already?

>That's because right-wingers don't need that much change to be content, they trust themselves and others to do good. There's a certain stability in traditions and the like.

See? That's what the difference between them and Marx's proletariat. The latter can't be content with their lives due to poverty and lack of TV to tell them that being poor is allright as long as General Motors is doing fine.

>>3766617
>anti-white racism!

pls go back to /pol/ already

>>3766617
who said anything about whites being unique? Just because someone points out that today, 2013, is a white man's game doesn't mean they're arguing some metaphysical white essentialism. Quit being so insecure about the paleness of your skin, honky.

>>3766614
Depends how you define "enslavement" really.
Eastern Europeans would disagree with you...

STOP TALKING TO THE /POL/RONS! STOP IT!

DON'T DO IT! DON'T!

>>3766636
Actually Eastern Europeans are experiencing grinding poverty that's so far killed an excess of 16 million in Russia alone and pine for old days in huge numbers.

>>3766632
>brings the humanity to the new stage of history, and that's what progressive about it. According to Marx, of course.
Yeah it seems quite delusional.

>There wouldn't be enough for everyone!
Duh.
The one proletarians who managed to get in the light, the first at the top, etc, should get most of the resources, that is if they're smart enough.
The ones that come right after will otherwise.

>Don't they already?
No, there's still abortion clinics and all kind of bad things happening that right-wingers disagree with in the US.

>The latter can't be content with their lives due to poverty and lack of TV to tell them that being poor is allright
Yeah.
Communism is pretty much obsolete ever since TV has become a mainstream household item.

>>3766555
What's so good about stalinism anyway? Having a huge powerful empire? That's what Churchill thought, but he wasn't really a Marxist. Well, Hitler had something like that too. Of course it did crumble, but so did Stalin's.

The important goal of the bolsheviks was to eliminate the exploitation and social inequality. And there were even more of those in USSR than in the bourgeois countries.

>>3766418
>>3766418

Oh god you're stupid. I can tell you don't associate yourself with the true German race. Jewish dominion is a structural issue. A position of institutionalized nepotism that only kikes benefit from.

>It's time for you to read up on the consensus from academics on the issue.

How about, uh...YOU read the academic consensus on the issue. Do you really think discrimination and "social privilege dynamics" is a titanic barrier to low SES groups? Would many economists agree?

This issue HAS been polled among psychologists, who would have specialized knowledge concerning mental development and its relationship to social outcomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy_(book)#Synopsis

Leave science and public policy to the adults.

>>3766648
Haha that's funny.
Whatever's your vision of history m8.
Still haven't told me how to overcome the variation of abilities between humans to render them equal within a society.

>>3766659
The USSR was never an empire. You're confusing form for essence.

Your statement about social inequality is an out and out lie that I'm embarrassed to be even dignifying with a response.

>>3766668
your conception of communism is mccarthy tier lmfao

>>3766637
>>3766637

>/pol/ invades /lit/

>I can't accept the fact that my peers may disagree with me on issues I care about

>>3766600
You know what's fun ? In the 90s, sociologists predicted that working as we knew it was definitely a thing of the past (Rifkin, etc), because of the technical progress and such, we would only have to work two or three hours a day, that everyone will have a very high basic income.

Of course, they were proven wrong because of the hard capitalistic realities. But we know that the transformation of work isn't just utopia : we have the technical capacity to change it, by collective organization. Of course there will always be parasites, like in every society, communism isn't perfect.

>>3766606
The individual is the only one who can know his needs, there is no predestination : you're a writer when you start to write.

>>3766655
>The one proletarians who managed to get in the light, the first at the top, etc, should get most of the resources, that is if they're smart enough.

That's called "reaction". All of the revolutions had those. What should happen is the other proletarians having a political consciousness gained during the revolution won't allow them. That's how Trotsky wanted it to be. Too bad.

>Yeah.
Communism is pretty much obsolete ever since TV has become a mainstream household item.

No, it's just that the proletariat stopped being a revolutionary class in the first world. Not only because of mass media. The practice of outsourcing eliminated the most of the contradictions between them and the capitalists. Starting with 1968 we have the new revolutionary class: angry nerds.

>>3766635
>>3766635

>Just because someone points out that today, 2013, is a white man's game

Factually untrue. This isn't 1910 anymore, demographic data suggests wealth isn't in the hands of reactionary WASPS. I hate it when uninformed cretins spout their nonsense in my face, and insult my intelligence with their illusory narcissism.

If your "inequality means discrimination" mantra were applied to modern, REAL demographics, you'd be a tinfoil anti-semite and hater of the admirable brown and yellow folk of Asia.

>doesn't mean they're arguing some metaphysical white essentialism.

They aren't? Then why do their views conflict with history and data?

>>3766702
>In the 90s

Oh yeah man, people have been saying this forever. If I recall correctly Marx mentions this in Capital vol 1, and he's quoting even older texts to discuss it.

>>3766702
>The individual is the only one who can know his needs, there is no predestination : you're a writer when you start to write.

So the individual can just decide that they need all of the water in the collective storage of water for their field for example?

>>3766711
>we have the new revolutionary class: angry nerds.
Hue hue hue.

>>3766715
You really are one paranoid cracker.

>>3766671
Are you Russian? You should be, otherwise I can't really see where you're coming from. Do you remember how Yeltsin came to power? He promised to cancel the privileges of the nomenclature.

If so, please read some materials on the history of the Soviet Union, like, say, this: http://web.mit.edu/people/fjk/Rogovin/volume1/index.html..

If not, at least read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partmaximum

>>3766735

>panther is africa
>leopard is sth americas
>lion is the west
>tiger is the east
>aussie boongs get a fuckin dingo.

>>3766747
Uh, right, because the nomenklatura of socialist societies were exactly the same as moneyed classes of capitalism.

Again, confusing form for essence. This is trot nonsense, basically. That "analysis" doesn't explain why social inequality skyrockets after the USSR's dissolution, apart from stupid non-materialist rubbish about capitalism simply being "more efficient".

>>3766726
The fields are collectivized, the guy you described is just taking water for everybody else. He's actually doing his job.

> Not realizing that the bourgeoise dictatorship is a better way to guide the masses than the proletarian one.

>>3766778
Oh then replace "water" with "food for himself".
You can't collectivize everything.
What about the guy who takes all the books from the library and never gives them back?
He says he needs them.

>>3763710
If communism wasn't totally bullshit, capitalism woud be goned by now.
Stay illiterate pleb.

>>3766782

don't you know that society is alienated?

>>3766786
wow holy shit dude congrats, you just disproved socialism completely in two posts on 4chan, amazing, multiple fields of social science shattered by the blistering purity of nu-empirical Logic. here's your prize, it's you jerking off to tranny porn forever.

>>3766796
That's a long post to sarcastically admit that you don't know how to reply because you're out of arguments.

>>3766787

>capitalism woud be goned by now
>If communism wasn't totally bullshit

toplel

Yes, fabian socialism is far more useful to change a society.

t. a brazilian who's suffering from this kind of bullshit

>>3766801
>implying I even read whatever stupid bullshit you wrote

I wasn't the guy arguing with you I just could smell the neckbeard on your posts from multiple threads away.

>>3766769
>That "analysis" doesn't explain why social inequality skyrockets after the USSR's dissolution

But that's exactly what Trotsky predicted to happen. The descendants of Stalin's bureaucracy denounced the communism to claim the property they were supposedly in charge of for themselves. That's not the capitalism per se, it's the consequences of Stalin's policies.

I never intended to compare the 80s USSR to the quasi-capitalistic modern Russia . What I was comparing are 30s USSR with 30s bourgeois Europe. Which do you think had more inequality? What about 20s USSR vs 30s?

>>3766782
Toppest Lel

>>3766791
I do, most people don't and the ones that do, easily forget, control is simple and for the best.

>>3766819
>>3766819
Oh you haven't read. That's very interesting.

>>3766786
>You can't collectivize everything.
You can.

>>3766846
How do you collectivize organ donations and grafting?
Very few individuals are tissue-compatible.
If a person needs an organ should they take it on somebody else?

>>3766854
silly, thats where stem cells come in

not guy ur talking to

>>3766862
Are you talking about magic, now?
We do not have the technical capacity to build artificial biological organs, right now.

What would communists do, without that capacity?
Does the individual not need a functioning organ? Is that need not supposed to be met?

If you want to go into magical thinking, why not just create a bunch of clones and build your communist utopia with them?

>>3766870
Because commies feel the need to make everyone like them. They can't simply gather a lot of people, buy a big piece of land and live a simple, rural, collectivist life.
They absolutely NEED to force everyone to live their shitty dreams.

>>3766827
Bureaucracy is something Stalin battled throughout his career. He didn't do enough, of course, and that's partly why there's no USSR today, but to hold the engineer of the first socialist state in history wholly responsible for that is nonsense. Why even bring Trotsky into this? He didn't even want to build socialism in the USSR, and when everyone disagreed with him he resorted to bitter terrorism and sabotage. He got what was coming.

And we both know that at no point in history were Party nomenklatura anywhere near as wealthy or powerful as Western Big Bourgeoisie, so we can end that here and now.

>>3766875

That strawman gettin so big you could live in it pal

>>3766887
They wouldn't need a revolution if they didn't want to pull the rest of society with them, wouldn't they?

>>3766899
*would they
Check out these consecutive digits.

>>3766886
>resorted to bitter terrorism and sabotage

Not sure if serious. Not even Russian hardcore stalinists (which of them who's not completely insane) still believe that . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Commission

Anyway, Stalin's policy basically was:
1.) Get rid of the people openly disagreeing with him
2.) Get rid of the people smarter than him
3.) Get rid of the the people smart enough to disagree with him someday
4.) Murder all of the above
5.) Murder all of the people who might have suggested something went wrong
6.) Murder the executors (and hire the new ones)

No wonder by the end of the day USSR was left with complete retards like Brezhnev in charge! Talking about effectiveness.

What else, "winning the war"? While losing 25% of population, no less. Purges in the army in the late 30s definitely helped, just look at the losses in 1941.

>>3766906
bleh whatever I'm not going to debate a complete Trot who cites the Dewey Commission with a straight face. I mean no ill will toward you but I hope you one day grow out of this phase and enter the stage of real politics. Good luck on your development.

>>3766902
>dubs on /lit/.
try again

>>3766887
>strawman

>>3766914
Aww, all right. Say, do you find the North Korea a nice place to live? Ever think about moving there?

>>3766951
So what he was saying really is a marxist pov? shilll