/lit/ - Literature

Some people value fairness, others don't. Apparently you don't.

> I'm surrounded by marxist-friendly people and just voicing my disagreement marks me as a reactionary

Where the fuck do you live? Oh wait the only social interaction you have is /lit/?

>be poor
>realize that you're not out of order, the whole damn system is out of order
>have a better throwing arm for Molotov cocktails
At occupy Wall Street I met an 18 year old who told me he wanted another French revolution

>>6293735
i'd probably say it stems from a very very burning passion for equality, empathy, and sympathy
not saying others with other philosophies or economic viewpoints don't - just saying the communists view it as a way to better humanity and not just better the economy and better the "hard workers"

>>6293747
Not him but university campuses are swarming with marxists these days.

I feel like socialism and communism are the pinnacle of human society, at least in theory.

My reasoning for this is that we're social creatures. Our species has progressed rapidly for several reasons; one of those reasons is our ability to lean on each other. As far as societal structures go, capitalism is like natural selection; it's basic and primitive. I think we're better than it.

With all of this said, I don't identify as communist or socialist. I just like the ideas behind the ideologies. Obviously socialism and communism aren't the pinnacle of society in actual practice.

>>6293748
>At occupy Wall Street I met an 18 year old who told me he wanted another French revolution

Did you point out the irony of his statement (assuming he was a Marxist or member of the working-class)?

>>6293755
>these days
have you not heard of the 60s? or 50s or 40s or 30s or 20s or 70s or 80s or 90s or 00s? stop bitching about the younger generation
so fucking annoying

>>6293755
I bet these "marxists" are just your misperception of stupid liberals running around

>>6293757
>capitalism is like natural selection; it's basic and primitive.
>>it's quick, reactive and mobile
>life... Life finds a way
There's a reason that capitalism works it's way into intentionally non-capitalist societies. It's stronger, and reflects the world more accurately

And I did just compare communism to Jurassic park.

>>6293760
Yup. He was a crust punk trying to impress a qt French girl (and succeeding) but I saw the fear and doubt in her eyes

>>6293771
I have had numerous Marxist professors who weren't socialists or communists.

>If I'm so smart, why am I not rich?

If you don't find religion, you inevitably find ideology.
Marxists don't realize that Marxism is just as ideological as any other ideology. This leads to a lot of contradictions; the adamant defense of Stalin and Mao as pseudo-saints, for instance, even to the point of denying that they were both mass murderers.

>>6293744
Surely a capitalist meritocracy is the fairest society of all?

>>6293757
You've got it completely the wrong way around you retard. Collectivist societies are primitive societies. Capitalism facilitated an extended order in which you can help others without ever meeting them via market mechanisms.

I've rarely met any competent person that's Marxist though. Most "intelectuals" like you say are unadjusted insufferable people with useless degrees

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJMdEp2UNrs

>>6293817
rekt

>>6293824
>capitalism
>meritocracy

pick one. a market economy consists of too much random factors to reward merit.

>>6293822
>Marxists don't realize that Marxism is just as ideological as any other ideology.
there's a whole marxist literature on that subject

stop talking about things you dont know about

>>6293848
>random
>doesn't believe in soft determinism
pleb pls

>>6293848
and that's why Capitalism keeps on going, you can always blame it on the Big Other.

>>6293822
i would consider myself very far left but would nvr defend stalin considering soviet union was never even fucking theoretical communism

>>6293853
Could you summarize some points from this body of literature for me?

>>6293871
>muh special brand

>>6293755
No

>>6293822
>Marxists don't realize that Marxism is just as ideological as any other ideology.

Wrong. Read Capital.

>>6293906
Yes.

>>6293822
>defense of Stalin and Mao as pseudo-saints
>marxism
Can you quote Marx on that?

>>6293880
when will this meme die

>>6293920
>Marxism
>Marx
Pick one.

>>6293822
Most marxist gondown the state capitalist route. As in they dont like mao or stalin. And the ones that do "apologize" tend to just disagree with certain figures and views, but dont fully support them. There is a certain group of leftists that do do what you say, but they tend to be retarded.

>>6293924
When Marxists admit that socialism has been tried numerous times and failed on every occasion and I'm every instance to bring about communism, and that this is evidence that a classless society is a practical impossibility.

>>6293929
Are those retards the Marxists of /lit/? Because there's a lot of Stalinist and Maoist apologism on this board.

>>6293735
>What is it about communism that attracts so many young adults and intellectuals?
Because it's christian heresy.

https://ricochet.com/archives/communism-as-christian-heresy/

>>6293744
>>6293824
The problem is "Fair" is an ill defined term that nobody agrees on.

Do you mean equal opportunity (which can feel unfair due to uncontrollable circumstances)
Or equal results (which can feel unfair to people who put in more "effort")

>>6293865
What?

>>6293939
Maybe. But again, just because someone doesnt believe in the "60 million" number or soemthing doesnt mean theyre much of an apologist. Even though its dumb to go into such technicalities. Also, can you not differentiate the obvious trolls, too, you fucking dumbass?

>>6293933
While I prefer to be in the camp that says that all meta narratives are obvious lies, you have to understand the difference between the means being wrong and the goal being impossible. If we lose every world coup doesn't mean that winning it is impossible, just that we suck.

>>6293970
Maybe they aren't trolls. There are enough of them and the arguments get heated enough that it's quite possible that there are some genuine retards on this board.
>>6293979
Maybe you suck AND the goal is impossible.

>>6293757
>humans are above nature
Your anthropocentrism is showing.

Also, for OP, there's a difference between Humanist Marxists (early Marx, luckas, etc) and Structural Marxists (Althusser, late Marx). I'd suggest you learn the difference as you're most likely surrounded by the former, albeit you don't seem like the kind to fairly engage your ideological opposition.

>>6293748
>be poor and resentful
>covet other peoples money
>follow ideology that justifies taking other peoples money

>>6294074
I mean yeah, we have removed ourselves from the food chain. In fact, we rejoin the food chain for *fun*.

>>6293757
>we're social creatures

muhhh human nature's a myth

>>6293839
>say a joke about greece
>You are racist, everything you say is invalid, force against you is ok

Why are all leftists acting like some trained cult of monkeys?

>>6294080
>be rich and grateful
>covet other peoples money
>follow ideology that justifies taking other peoples money
are you telling me that people were born with ownership over the middle eastern oil and nigerian coltan?

>>6294123
I dont understand.

>>6294102
How so? Surely there are qualities that define a being as human, and it makes sense to say that the substance of which these qualities are predicated is a human being, and that human nature consists in the possession of these qualities.

Young people want to make the world a better place. Communism offers itself up as the ultimate panacea.

>>6294127
Most rich people are very grateful of their chance to take absurd amounts of money from other people. Private companies get a billion dollars for each 3 planes they make, without taking in consideration all the petrol each plane takes; all payed with taxes and supported by conservative small government politicians. Do you really imagine you become a billionaire without needlessly fucking people over?
Comapring that to a hundred workers taking a single factory is pretty silly.

>>6294144
As though wealth somehow defined equitably the substantiation of the productive capacity independent of it itself.

Get back to your textbooks.

>>6294167
I was just commenting that your simplification failed to make sense because it could had worked with any group, we all make narratives that justify our actions.

>>6294167
>Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?

>>6294178
"Reading Das Kapital has really changed my outlook on life - I'm happier, more productive at work, and 100 pounds better off for it!"
>>6294177
Using an inverted analysis of property. If you're trying to be correct, at least aim at being right.

The poor man sees three options: Either he didn't try hard enough, he didn't want it badly enough, or an outside agent actively and conspiratorially deprived him of his well-deserved success.

The rich man sees three options: Either he worked hard, he just got lucky, or an outside agent actively and conspiratorially contributed to his undeserved success.

Regardless of the actual cause, psychologically both men will reject the notion that they hadn't worked hard enough. The poor man will reject that he didn't want it badly enough. The rich man will reject that he didn't deserve it.

So we're left with rich men who see success solely as a function of hard work, and poor men who see success solely as a function of conspiracy, when the reality is far more complex and nuanced.

Turns out, there's more poor men than rich.

>>6293735
Basically, the ugly, the mediocre, the non-popular, the rejected sometimes harbor a resentment which they then externalize to larger systems as a rationalization for why they feel so angry (which sometimes manifests as sadness). Hence, they can tell themselves that it's not that they don't measure up, it's the system that's broken (system meaning capitalism, the patriarchy, society as a whole, etc.). This is usually a result of poor parenting and genetics. They never learned as children that prolonged bitterness is an unhealthy reaction to rejection, and this mechanism of bitterness was allowed to flourish into the various ideologies so common in college students.

>>6293824
A true capitalist meritocracy has never been tried.

>>6293933
>people should have stopped trying to make working planes before they succeeded

>>6293933
Communism has never been tried in a controlled environment. No amount of data suggesting it's impossible matters when said data fails basic scientific rigors.

>>6294223
luckily then there is way for poor men to work hard enough that they might better their situation. it's called class struggle.

>>6294251
>Human lives and the societies composed of them are things go be experimented with
>Speculation about the future is comparable to science

>>6294257
How could it be when no environment could ever be controlled in such a way that Marxism could be tested in it? Hasn't Marxism been tested as well as it can be numerous times by the socialist revolutionaries of the last century? Hasn't their universal failure to institute 'true' socialism been proof enough that it isn't likely to be possible to do so?
>inb4 'but my special brand hasn't been tried'

>>6294257
Of course it has.

Read up on the New Harmony commune. A bunch of starry-eyed leftists who set out to build a collectivist community in rural Indiana.

It lasted a mere two years before it collapsed.

>>6294275
what is your definition of communism?

>>6294263
>human lives and the societies composed of them are not things to be experimented with
So you're a primitivist?

>Speculation about the future is comparable to science
Trial and error is not speculation.

>>6293933
Nothing happens in a bubble, all political systems are 100% workable within the bounds of sanity and democratic election. The problems occur because outsider systems belonging to other nations work against new systems and seek to prevent them gaining ground, the reason being that the new system might start to infect their nation and thereby dilute or remove their power. New systems are fairly rare which means they are easily put down by the status quo. Its not rocket science, if you take any group of people and they all agree to do X system its going to work probably up until one person decides to game the system or external pressures force it to change.

I love when commmies deny that atheism is an inherent part of communist doctrine. Personally, one of the final nails in the coffin for me was the extreme anti-theism embedded in it, together with hatred of historical tradition and philosophy.

My country was marxist pretty recently, and we have a wealth of literature on philosophy from those days. Reading them is quite funny, in a sad way. Every single philosopher is measured against the dogma of historical materialism, every important thinker praised as a prerequisite to Marx or an idealist to be thrashed. Rarely have Christian thinkers so narrowly discriminated past philosophers in the way these fucks did ALL THE TIME.

>>6293848
>he's never read ringworld
Luck is a form of merit you plebeian

>>6294275
You don't seem to understand what a controlled experiment is.

>>6294272
The fact that something cannot be fully tested in isolation doesn't somehow render flawed, unscientific tests conclusive. By that logic aliens don't exist anywhere in the galaxy because we haven't seen them yet.

>>6294275
That's because they forgot to install a world socialist state first.

>>6294290
common ownership of the means of production.

>>6294308
>You don't seem to understand what a controlled experiment is.
Please enlighten me, how was that not a controlled experiment? They had absolutely no outside influence.

>>6294311
Oh THAT's what went wrong! Silly me, it's so obvious!

>>6294299
>So you're a primitivist?
How did you get that from what I said? Human beings are ends in and of themselves, not means. Experimenting with them to find or create the best form of society is immoral.
>Trial and error is not speculation
No, but the trials and errors have been based on the idea that a future society might be perfect, and that concept is based purely on speculation.
>>6294301
If the system is so vulnerable to the will of one person, maybe it isn't a very good system. If the system is consistently put down by other systems, maybe there's a good reason for that.

>>6294321
They had no outside influence?

Their upbringing, their location, their previous relationships with one another, the environmental factors that affected their economic situation, etcetc.

This is 8th grade science level stuff dude.

>>6294328
>Their upbringing, their location, their previous relationships with one another,
Wait what? How would that affect anything?

> the environmental factors that affected their economic situation, etcetc.
Like I stressed, there were no environmental factors. They were completely isolated to build their little community.

>This is 8th grade science level stuff dude.
Well you clearly never graduated high school.

>>6294332
Okay, you're actually retarded. I'm done. Have a good day.

Reasons for me as I experienced it:

Marxism is everywhere vilified but nowhere explained. When you start to discover real Marxism you're amazed at how interesting, thorough and reasonable it sounds. It seems to offer an entire new way of analyzing events in the world. You begin to have a vocabulary that can put older thoughts and ideas into expression.

You people seriously think a controlled environment within which to test socialism is something that could even exist?
Kill yourselves

>>6294326
>How did you get that from what I said? Human beings are ends in and of themselves, not means. Experimenting with them to find or create the best form of society is immoral.
Because you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs and you can't have progress without experimenting with things. Saying that you can't do so is saying that you are against progress.

>No, but the trials and errors have been based on the idea that a future society might be perfect, and that concept is based purely on speculation.
And it remains speculation until you try to find out.

>>6294321
>Oh THAT's what went wrong! Silly me, it's so obvious!
If you knew anything about communism it would be.

>>6294349
>progress
There's that teleological view of history again. I still don't see how that overrides the moral objection I made; you're advocating using human lives to achieve progress, an end that may not even be attainable.
>And it remains speculation until you try to find out.
It's been tried and it's never worked. It's not speculation anymore, it's willful ignorance of the experimentally proven fact that communism can't be achieved.

>>6294336
You still haven't explained how New Harmony wasn't a perfect experiment.

>>6294326
>Experimenting with them to find or create the best form of society is immoral.
So it is immoral to apply macro economic ideas like 'quantitative easing' and 'lender of last resort' in an attempt to alleviate economic crises? Some times these attempts fail and other times they succeed. We don't really know how these tools work and as such they can be considered 'speculative' or 'experimental'.

Some people advocate a completely free market with no intervention which is basically just a different experiment (one where no intervention is used). Is this also immoral?

>>6294356
>socialism has failed any time it has been implemented on a local level
>if we implement it on a global level it would totally work!

>>6294239
Jesus Christ! I'm a bit of a traditionalist myself but you take it to a ridiculous level.

>>6294239
"The sensitive known to one side of pain are weaker than those who sanctify the other"

>>6293735
Because young people tend to be emotional. Once they grow up and think rationally instead of emotionally, they realize what a farce communism is.

I'm American, and I used to be far to the left. Then I realized these systems just aren't currently feasible in our society.

I think capitalism can work well with a strong government and all citizens have the ability to have an economic opportunity.

Let's be serious, the US government is in bed with a lot of corporate interests and lobbyists, which have a strong capability to drive political process on their own, forcing their agendas instead of an agenda for the majority of citizens.

A long with this, we're seeing some austerity as well as huge income equality gaps.

The capitalist system in the US just needs to be fixed, not overhauled with radical ideas.

>>6293735
Marxism has a lot of compelling arguments on its side.

>>6294380
It's less immoral than writing off millions of deaths as natural consequences of the necessary advancement of an ideology.

>>6294382
Capitalism must be well established and developed before a transition to socialism can be made. It was tried in feudal tier peasant countries. If anything it was a surprise it worked as well as it did, especially with the constant sabotage from outside forces.

>>6294407
> with the constant sabotage from outside forces.
Yeah, those pesky trostkyist saboteurs!

>>6294407
So it worked? It is socialism, then?

>>6294370
>There's that teleological view of history again. I still don't see how that overrides the moral objection I made; you're advocating using human lives to achieve progress, an end that may not even be attainable.
The alternative is doing nothing. Would that be preferable to you? You can't do anything without "using human lives".

>It's been tried and it's never worked. It's not speculation anymore, it's willful ignorance of the experimentally proven fact that communism can't be achieved.
It has never been tried under the circumstances of which Marx said: "you need these circumstances before you try."

You may as well call Jamie Oliver a cunt because you tried out his lasagne recipe without using an oven and it sucked.

>>6294417
But Jamie Oliver is a cunt.

>>6294414
Yeah, the capitalist west had nothing to do with it.

>>6294415
State socialism and communism are very different things. State socialism has been partly implemented in some places and is still partly implemented in some places, with different degrees of success.

Stop trying to make things less nuanced then they are.

I personally think that communism as an idea is a good concept. However, I do not believe that people are capable enough to actually carry it out and live under a communist government.

>>6294430
Don't talk shit

>>6294435
>Yeah, the capitalist west had nothing to do with it.
Why was it that the capitalist west defeated the communist bloc? Why wasn't it the other way around? It seems to be that the cold war proved that capitalism was the superior economic system.

>>6294445
In what possible way is communism a good idea?

>>6294465
>superior at beating outside forces means being generally superior

I guess a dad who rapes you every night is the best dad as long as he is capable of beating up the neighbour.

>>6293735

Communism is definitely experiencing some kind of resurgence in the West right now. That being said, the way you describe your situation seems peculiar. I'd say about 10-15% of the politically active youths I know are Marxist. There are just as many libertarians, also a lot of wishy washy liberals.

Marxism has never been attractive to me personally, but I'd distinguish Marxism from Marx. I admire much of what I've read of Marx, I just don't like religions of any type and Marxism (like libertarianism) has plainly become one. In particular, I dislike Marxists who engage in apologetics for Stalinism and forced collectivization/centralization policies that can be demonstrated to be inefficient scientifically.

Here's the thing about communism: it's a good idea in theory but not in practice because it goes against human nature. Just look at the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, etc.

>>6294472
The communist bloc also resorted to underhanded tactics. In the end, it was not covert operations which brought down the communist bloc, but the empty shelves of the supermarkets and the long lines for a single loaf of bread.

>>6294477
>Communism is definitely experiencing some kind of resurgence in the West right now.
Is it? I had no idea.

>>6294482
But humans did fine living communally and sharing resources for hundreds of thousands of years. Human nature is just fine with it. It's the way civilisation is ordered that has been the problem so far.

>>6294494
>But humans did fine living communally and sharing resources for hundreds of thousands of years
If your definition of "living fine", is being a bunch of naked savages going around killing and raping each other I have good news, just move to the remot hills of Papua Guinea to enjoy your worker's paradise.

>>6294488

Among the intellectual classes there is without a doubt a resurgent interest in Marxist thought post-Occupy. Zizek I guess would be the poster boy for this development.

That being said, at least for the time being, this really seems like a cloistered phenomenon basically tucked away in the halls of academia. I don't see the relatively lower classes in the west becoming class conscious, I see a bunch of well off people stroking their egos.

>>6294508
>killing and raping each other
Thank god capitalism put an end to that nonsense!

>>6294513
I finished my degree in philosophy 2 years ago, and didn't encounter many Marxists or Marxism during it. Yes, there were posters up around for Marxist meetings but i dint care.

>>6294522
Kind of.

At least 50% of people don't die a violent death anymore.

>>6293735
>I'm surrounded by marxist-friendly people
Really OP?
Where do you live, Bulgaria?
Maybe it's just you. Not everything that is leftist or liberal is marxist. It's just that some ideas that Marx liked are popular, like people being against racism, internationalism, etc. Those things aren't exclusive from Marxism.
>>6294477
I don't think so. I mean, yeah, there are socialists, but most of them are critic of marxism, hence why socialdemocracy is now very popular.
>In particular, I dislike Marxists who engage in apologetics for Stalinism and forced collectivization/centralization policies that can be demonstrated to be inefficient scientifically.
This is really common in extremist, trying to justify whatever the hell other extremists did.
But western marxists, at least most of them, aren't like that. Unless you think most of them are from the revleft forums.

>>6294527
I would think that a stable and safe economic situation along with an effective and trustworthy police force is more important to the rates of violent crimes than the economic system by itself.

I am not particularly interested in the Eastern Bloc and I think discussions are often muddled and confused by bringing it up. But I do feel the need to point out that when the Eastern Bloc collapsed and moved to a capitalist system there was an increase in violence and rape.

>>6294508
I'm saying they didn't have a problem with sharing resources with each other and the absence of private property, I'm not otherwise attracted to the hunter-gatherer life.

>>6294482
Yeah, conceptually it's not a bad idea. I just don't think it can be properly implemented. Look at all of the nations who have tried. Each one has failed. Social democracy is the winner.

>>6294554
>I would think that a stable and safe economic situation along with an effective and trustworthy police force is more important to the rates of violent crimes than the economic system by itself.
I was just refuting that anon's point that primitive societies are some havens of love and peace.

>I am not particularly interested in the Eastern Bloc and I think discussions are often muddled and confused by bringing it up. But I do feel the need to point out that when the Eastern Bloc collapsed and moved to a capitalist system there was an increase in violence and rape.
Depends on which country we're talking about. The baltic countries and Poland are arguably doing much better. Russia is still lagging behind but it's not really capitalistic, is it?

>>6294560
>I'm saying they didn't have a problem with sharing resources with each other and the absence of private property
Oh yes, I'm sure these tribal wars were fought over ideological reasons. Tip top kek.

During a socialist revolution intelligent people with strong opinions can ascend to the top heights of political and social power just because they're good at writing leftist polemic. I don't know who WOULDN'T want a socialist revolution at any given time. To live in such a paradise.

>>6294563
>Social democracy is the winner.
Social democracy is shit tier though.

>>6294563
Social democracy is good but many SD parties now give a shit about the social side.
That's why many right wing parties (like the Ron Paul one) are now becoming leftists if talking in a 'murican sense.

>>6294574
What's better? And why?

>>6294583
>What's better?
Laissez faire capitalism.

>And why?
Leads to greater prosperity.

>>6294587
>Laissez faire capitalism

Reminder that America's greatest president was FDR.

>>6294599
>Not Lincoln

>>6294587
>the free market will fix it

>>6294583
>What's better?
Traditional Political law

>And why?
Leads to greater prosperity.

>>6294599
>>6294601
Both of these presidents were shit tier.

>>6294602
It literally will.

>>6294570
>Russia is still lagging behind but it's not really capitalistic, is it?
Capitalistic by what measure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP
USA: 41.6%
Russia: 35.8%

Russia looks capitalist to me.

>>6294608
>this bait

>>6294570
>I'm sure these tribal wars were fought over ideological reasons.
In a way they actually were, with warrior culture glorifying fighting and people's status increasing with how many men they've killed.

>>6294616
Russia is an oligarchy. The market isn't free, but instead is dominated by Putin's cronies (after being dominated by the oligarchs during the 1990s)

>>6294619
not even b8ing.

If you truely believe that FDR did any good then you are a moron.

Lincoln was a warmongerer who caused the deaths of nearly a million americans.

>>6294622
Yeah, they totally fought because of warrior culture, not because of ressources.

>>6294630
its more free than the US
and having an oligarchy doesn't negative this

>>6294630
As opposed to American markets which are totally not owned by a small percentage of the American people ...

>>6294635
>its more free than the US
Of course not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

>>6294639
American markets are pretty free. Don't know what you're talking about.

>>6294634
its just a huge coincidence that the post-war boom years that saw unheard of standards of living for average people happened just after FDR's welfare state reforms, labor support and embrace of keynesian economics.

>>6294482
>Here's the thing about communism: it's a good idea in theory but not in practice because it goes against human nature.

This one gets me every time

>>6294275
Nigga, Owen's work is a prime example of utopianism, installing an utopian society while ignoring the historical development of the world (according to Marx of course).

Now if there was one thing Marx couldn't stand, it was this utopianism. The marxist theory is all about its scientific roots that determine the world revolution and following elimination of classes as set conditions. Marx doesn't give an exact date for these events (Luxemburg tried to fix that with the Theory of Accumulation), but the scientific inevitability of these events is one of the cornerstones of his theory.

>>6294630
Capitalism was never a word for "completely free lolbertarian utopia".

>>6294644
>American markets are pretty free.

>>6294652
>but the scientific inevitability of these events is one of the cornerstones of his theory
Different anon here, class war is inevitable, not the victory of the proletariat. Alternatives are a slow descent into barbarism, or both classes dying while fighting each other.

>tfw you're a social democrat
>tfw the Marxists hate you and call you a capitalist pig
>tfw the conservatives and libertarians call you a Communist
I thought petty hatred ended after high school.

>>6294646
>its just a huge coincidence that the post-war boom years that saw unheard of standards of living for average people happened just after FDR's welfare state reforms, labor support and embrace of keynesian economics.
The post war boom was due to the fact that europe's and japan's industry was annihilated.

Pre-ww2 economic results of FDR's policies were pitiful. Had there not been a war FDR's economic policies would've been Obama-tier.

>>6294653
Capitalism implies free markets. Otherwise you're thinking of cronyism.

>>6294665
Hatred abides, it just stops being petty. They would all kill you if they had the chance.

>>6294616

And China's the most capitalist of all! Just look! Their government spend as a percentage of GDP is lower than both USA AND RUSSIA by a huge margin!

Oh, and look at Cuba, coming in at 24%, WELL BELOW the USA. Is Cuba capitalist too?

>>6294665
That's the burden that every socialdemocrat will carry.
You deserve it since you will probably be a memeber of a socialdemocrat party and start doing shit to the economy, not to mention giving a shit about socialdemocracy.

>>6294670
>Capitalism implies free markets
It really doesn't, capitalism implies whichever system will yield the most profits at any given time.

>>6294664
The communistic society is the end of history to Marx. It is the society where humanity can archieve its ultimate form, and all of history is a build up to this.

This is fundamental to Marx.

>>6294665
>social democrat
>not being a democratic socialist

All the Marxists at my Uni who aren't philosophy majors are completely insufferable tumblr warriors who treat Marxism like a secret club anyway so fuck them.

>>6294674
NVM about the Cuba thing I was reading the wrong column, but CHina still stands. If GovtSpend/GDP is your metric for communism, then they're less communist than USA and Russia.

>>6294662
Prove that they aren't amongst the most free in the world.

>>6294677
When people refer to capitalism they obviously mean free market capitalism.

>>6294665

I feel like social democrats get the last laugh though because although all the faggot ideologues hate them, it's their system that everybody seems to be moving toward and that reality seems to agree with the most.

>>6294644
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

>In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 35% of all privately held stock, 64.4% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top ten percent have 81% to 94% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and almost 80% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

>>6294684
Then why do socialists complain about state capitalism, which isn't free market capitalism?

>>6294688
Free market refers to a market which allows free enterprise, not an equal distribution of wealth.

>>6294689
Because they find that state capitalism is not leftist enough.

>>6294694
>>6294688 is in response to >>6294630

>>6294670
But basically all other developed countries also had strong economic booms with equally-shared growth in the post-War decades. It can't have been America profiting off their misfortune, because they all did better than ever too -- under similar welfare state, keynesian policies.

You're right that the war did a lot because it took a war to build up the political will to spend as much as was required. Before the war FDR was too shy about government spending because of the foolish devotion to silly ideas like balanced budgets. Trying to balance the budget is what prolonged the depression, it took the war spending to really fix it.

Anyway,
Capitalism = right to property guaranteed by state, its military and its courts
and the emergence of markets thereof
and other byproducts which might coincide with your precious idea of it

>>6294680
I see a lot of that. The most humorous thing to me is that they say they support human rights.

>>6294703
>But basically all other developed countries also had strong economic booms with equally-shared growth in the post-War decades.
Not really. For example, India has a disastrous growth rate due to its shitty socialist policies. On the other hand, countries which embraced capitalism such as South korea did indeed have stellar growth rates.

>It can't have been America profiting off their misfortune, because they all did better than ever too -- under similar welfare state, keynesian policies.
No, they didn't profit off their infortune, they profitted off being the only industrialized country left in the world.

>You're right that the war did a lot because it took a war to build up the political will to spend as much as was required. Before the war FDR was too shy about government spending because of the foolish devotion to silly ideas like balanced budgets. Trying to balance the budget is what prolonged the depression, it took the war spending to really fix it.
Trying to balance budget is not "foolish"...

>>6294717
>Trying to balance budget is not "foolish"...
Actually it is. Having a surplus removes money from the economy. Having a deficit adds money to the economy and in return citizens get services.

We let banks add money to the economy through lending why not let the state do it?

I prefer the idea of socialism. People should be fully equal and people should get help if needed, but the ones who can work but just won't need to be ignored. Plus I know the population needs a government, but not a dictatorship or a communism leech.

>>6294717
>No, they didn't profit off their infortune, they profitted off being the only industrialized country left in the world.

The UK, France, West Germany, Italy, Australia, Japan all had periods of unprecedented equally-shared growth during the post-War decades. Right after the developed world decided to jump right into expanding the welfare state, supporting labor unions and using keynesian economic policy. Some coincidence.

>>6294757
Keynesianism is the reason for the current troubles of today's western economies.

>>6294717

"You mother fucking pathetic wicket, I will catch you out you fucking golden duck"

>>6294771
The adoption of Keynesian economics in the post-WW2 years coincided with the greatest equally-shared prosperity in world history.

The abandonment of Keynesian economics in favor of Monetarist thinking, neoliberalism and financialization of the economy coincided with declining standards of living and increasing inequality and less cooperative, less trusting, less confident and content societies.

The worldwide economic issues this trend led to and which are made worse by explicitly anti-Keynesian austerity policies are, of course, *the fault of Keynesianism*.

very interesting conclusion

>>6294771

Now that's a pretty broad and sweeping claim that ignores the complexity of over seventy years of political, economic and societal development and interaction.

Care to share your argument in full?

>>6294791
>Now that's a pretty broad and sweeping claim that ignores the complexity of over seventy years of political, economic and societal development and interaction.
Not as broad and sweeping as this guy's claim : >>6294785

>>6294805

whataboutism.jpg

>>6294133
he's right though. Marxists have no conception of human nature. We are formed by our surroundings, by the conditions we live in. This is materialism 101

>>6293939
there are some vocal maoists and stalinists, though every poll proved that the marxists of lit are either left-coms or post-marxists. Leninists make up a fair part too but there's a ton of subgroups of leninism and they tend to hate each other.

>>6294824
We're also formed by genetics.

>>6293839
Jaffe is a fucking cunt

>>6294824
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_human_nature

>Thus, the whole of human nature is not understood, as in classical idealist philosophy, as permanent and universal: the species-being is always determined in a specific social and historical formation, with some aspects being biological.

>>6294346
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

>>6294848

He's correct, but the biological aspects are more important than modern Marxists think (I've noticed a lot of them are hardline blank-slatists which is simultaneously not a position ever taken by Marx, and just retarded and discredited).

>>6294857
Because that was a separate environment from that of the Spanish civil war and wasn't interfered with by fascism at all

>>6294866
well without the biological aspects of humans we wouldn't be sitting in front of computers and talking about human nature. They're essentially the things that distinguish us from other species.
Though I'd say that now it isn't as important as in pre-neolithic societies.

>>6293953
You're absolutely right.

It's with these problems that communism will not succeed

>>6294649
I am not that anon, but it's not good in theory and the human nature argument is valid when it is defined.

Humans originally arranged themselves tribally. Reciprocal altruism existed only within the tribe. To scratch the surface, things like religion & national identity take advantage of the superstitious character of human beings, thereby allowing that trust and altruism to be extended to more than the immediate social group. Being "nice" to one another in a larger society is a product of evolutionary selections which forced a certain behavior that was beneficial for the inhabitants.

Communism appeals to an abstract idea of fairness and the greater good. Unlike the previous factors that I mentioned, communism directly states its goals, allowing them to be discussed and interpreted. This does not work because in our societies groups exist within groups and they all have different ideas of what is fair and good. When it comes time to apply communism, the bond which previously existed between them is eroded as they feel they must fight for what is in their self-interest. Eventually one or more prevail above the rest.

To apply communism one would have to out-maneuver human behavior. Calls for fairness, justice, and to all "get on the same page" are an idiotic and fruitless endeavor.

>>6293757
wrong
Stirnerism and radical individualism are pinnacle of human society.

>>6293735
Propaganda and indoctrination in the Western education system.
In other words, they're fucking brainwashed and are not aware of their potential of destroying what we know today as the Western world.

See useful idiot

>>6293757
>I think we're better than it.
Yeahhh, no. Fucking hell you are delusional. Check out fucking history you brainwashed piece of shit.

Because it acknowledges problems in society and promises concrete change + has a lovely aesthetic. If propaganda was as effective as you claim it was there would be no such thing as communists in the US.

No other extreme ideology has a theory as well thought out and presented as Marxism.

>>6294494
>But humans did fine living communally and sharing resources for hundreds of thousands of years.
You know nothing, like most other Communists. They had a class system back then as well you know and it was based on the mere strength of individuals. Then the agricultural revolution occurred and there were then other ways that could lead to power than strength. Communism don't work because it is in human nature to expect more the harder you work. That was also the result under the hunter gatherer life style.
>mfw /lit/ proves me right that leftists really are as retarded as I feared
Please, just realise that being a Communist/Marxist is like beating a dead horse.

>>6294223
> or an outside agent actively and conspiratorially deprived him of his well-deserved success

That's literally /pol/ in a nutshell, yet none of them are communists.