/lit/ - Literature

Maybe a book
>>>/k/

>>6308283
But /k/ us full of liberals. I want to know what life as a gommie would be like.

>>6308277
>>6308290

In communist society, everybody is a divine being who feels no desire for personal wealth. There would be no crime, so obviously you wouldn't need a gun.

>>6308277
/lit/ - literature

>>6308298
What if I get in a fight with someone? Or if I just want to shoot cans.

>>6308323
every gommie will be allowed 1 potato gun

>>6308298
>mfw a capitalist shitposts near me

Inb4

>Foucault or gtfo

>>6308298
>there are people who actually believe communism implies that

>>6308277
>Dubles
>Frog poster
>Tendies
>....

Too much.

>>6308334
I want my real guns. I will shoot any and all gun grabbers. I have a right to self determination.

>>6308374
Man, I don't even care what we call it, but can we work towards something like this?

Obviously if the US were to slip into something more socialist, it would have to democratic and it would have huge amount of armed citizens. And being the economic and military power in the world we'd influence a great amount of the world. The economy would boom, poverty would end, wars would trickle away. Butthurt elitists would wither away with age

>>6308374
>there are people who actually belive that an idealistic society where people will work harder than others for free doesn't imply that

>>6308408
take your meds butters

>>6308408
And it would be people eating their food and going to sleep every night, sometimes enjoying pleasure, perhaps alcohol or drugs (all legal and fine), and then one night as they'd get older, they would take a large dose of painkillers and go to sleep for good, peacefully; and that would be an utopia for every single one of these people out there fighting for common good; sleepiness unto death.

>>6308277
>77
nice
>>6308411
>11
nice

>>6308378
What's wrong with pepe?

>>6308423
>common good
Spook
>>6308411
Janitors already do it for free. Humans, therefore, have the capacity to do it for free.

>>6308446
he's the patron saint of salty virgins

i like him though, he can stay

/lit/ - whatever I want (fuck books)

>be me, anon
>senior year of college at Brown
>English Major
>top of my class
>day before the final
>go up to professor day before final
>"what can I do for you anon"
>"there's one thing i haven't quite grasped throughout the entire course, can you help me with it?"
>sure, anything for you anon. what do you want to know?
>"Can you teach me how to read?"
>expelled from university
>worth

>>6308588
>88
These are some great numbers.
By the way, would you mind citing your sources?
It's difficult to tell where your quote is taken from.

Bump

>>6308922
n
i
c
e

d
u
b
s

>>6308277
>>6308411
>>6308588
>>6308922
posting in a dubs thread

You have to.

>>6308277
Mao tsetung was in favour of armed milicia

Source : Book called quotations of chairman mao tsetung

>>6309040
But he wasn't a true communist.

You don't need a gun.

Let the police and government enforce and uphold the law.

>>6309040
>he thinks maoism is communism

>>6309125
Why should they be privileged over me? What if someone wants to kill me or something? Should I just call the police(TM) and wait? No, I want to be able to defend myself. Guns are equalisers. Only bourgeoise progressive intellectuals dislike the firearm.

>>6308277

Yes.

The Marxist definition of the state is the bureacracy and the army/police. The buraecracy would be replaced by direct democracy via workers' association, and the standing army would be replaced by an armed people.

Under Communism, anyone and everyone could who would want a gun, will get one.

>>6309091
>>6309139

Yeah and there's no true Scotsman either.

>>6309091
>>6309139
>>6309191

It's mostly stupid Trots and arrogant Ultra-Leftists that do that shit.

>>6309246
>being a stalinist because stalinism won
>2015
This stopped being valid the moment you stopped winning.

>>6309191
nothing even approaching communism has ever existed

>>6308277
>In a communist society can I keep a gun on me at all times?
1) Many people will shun you, you will desocialise yourself.
2) If you keep a gun on you in different fashions, in socially acceptable fashions, you will have an easier time.
3) For a long period of time the collective arms caches will probably still be in existence, probably due to apathy.
4) People will strongly persuade you not to wear a gun in to an MRI machine, etc., to the point of refusing to conduct MRIs on you.

>>6309186
>The Marxist definition of the state is the bureacracy and the army/police. The buraecracy would be replaced by direct democracy via workers' association, and the standing army would be replaced by an armed people.

No mate, the Marxist definition of a state is the method by which one class politically and/or violently oppresses all other classes.

>>6309260

You are correct, the state is an organ of class domination, of a class dictatorship of one over another. This is not the definition of the state itself though, just why the state exists.

>>6309255
>>6309255

>implying I became a stalinist because "stalinism" won
>implying that the revisionists didn't win

>>6309257
Why? Most people like guns. Only bourgeoise, 'intellectual' pussies, who will perish in the revolution, fear guns. People can't refuse MRIs on me because it has a shared ownership, k
It is mine to use.

>>6309281
So you're no different from butthurt trots then, way to go.

>>6309285
No, friend, it is ours to use together. You go around breaking MRIs and you'll find that people will go everywhere with you until you get better.

>But I wear a gun during sex
Yeah, this is why people will shun you

>Only bourgeois, 'intellectual' pussies, who will perish in the revolution, fear guns.

Firstly women hold up half the fucking sky.

Secondly intellectuality and bourgeois status have never been identical. Go read more union history.

Thirdly, your individualism is marked. I'd suggest you've not been long in the struggle, nor learnt much from it. Our power is a collective power. Our use of guns for political purposes is a collective use. If you're not at a sporting club, or actively engaged in pest control or food hunting, wanting to personally possess a means-and-tool is indicative of serious disorder.

>>6309290

>Trotskyites are stupid
>Ultra-Leftists are arrogant
>The revisionists (who would become the Brezhnevites and Dengists) won

>where is the butthurt

>>6309308
>No, friend, it is ours to use together. You go around breaking MRIs and you'll find that people will go everywhere with you until you get better
So you want to use your privileges against me?
>Firstly women hold up half the fucking sky.
Women aren't workers, they are bourgeoise.
>Secondly intellectuality and bourgeois status have never been identical. Go read more union history.
No, friend, the key part of that statement is the inverted commas. These people consider themselves intellectual. They are the university educated, limp wristed sissy boys.
>Our power is a collective power. Our use of guns for political purposes is a collective use. If you're not at a sporting club, or actively engaged in pest control or food hunting, wanting to personally possess a means-and-tool is indicative of serious disorder.
Is everything you don't like a disorder, doctor? No, you just want to exert your will over others. You are not seeking a classless society, as you wish to be a ruler.

>>6309323
>Women aren't workers, they are bourgeoise.
You're not a struggler, and probably not a worker.

>>6308290
>/k/
>full of liberals
disregard if referring to european version of liberals
America's liberals are different.

>>6309451
I am a worker. I work in a chemical plant. Where do you work?

>>6309493
Second line in a mass productive service industry.

>>6309512
What do you do, exactly?

>>6309519
Turn one form of excel spreadsheet into another form of excel spreadsheet. largely through lookups. What exactly do you do?

>>6309530
I am in the maintenance department, so I repair and maintain machinery, both specific to the operation of the plant as well as vehicles such as forklifts, loaders, and trucks.

Your job sounds very bourgeois to me. You should work with your hands like a man, not sitting behind a desk like a weak woman.

>>6308298 (or anyone)
What will the communists do with our general psychology which is undeniably troublesome and full of complexitiy (such as contrarianism and potential for violence), definitely everybody being economically- and life-style-similar will not make everyone buddha

>>6309595
Name one true communist who did something bad.

>>6309678
Or one true scotsman

>>6309678
Well, presuming you are one, you have just presented me with a red herring instead of answering my question. Therefore I name you, Anon.

>>6309733
I'm an Anarcho-Left Libertarian, actually.

>>6309738
Good goy

>>6309738
*tips fedora*

perhaps you could, monsieur, in a communist society, provided certain bureaucratic niceties were dealt with, perhaps not as cumbersome as the soviet example that liberal multicultural democratic triumphalism can never stop talking about, this despite the fact that the soviet union was more progressive and nicer to workers than what followed. ah, yes, monsieur, 1989, that counter-revolution, led by the same philistine trade unionists as we have in the west, fat in belly, uninterested in communism, always looking out for themselves, allying with NATO, denouncing homosexuals, etc.

>>6309738

>Anarcho-Left Libertarian

>>6309982
Can I keep a gun with me, though?

>>6310022
why are you asking me, monsieur, or /lit/, who neither live in a communist society, monsieur, nor project any ambition of creating one? with all due respect, i think you are 12 years old.

you can't even have the wrong kind of haircut

gun is so completely out of the question its not even funny

source: my parents

>>6309982

>>6310022

>>6309186

No, because everyone would be allowed to take it from you at any given time because private property wouldn't exist as a legal right.

>>6310028
>North Korea is communist

>>6310035
That would give me an excuse to use it.

>>6310035

Guns would be considered personal property, so no, noone will just take away your guns.

>>6310035
ah, but monsieur, you are conflating private property with personal property. in that little word, 'private', lives the entire bourgeois regime of accumulation. the abolition of the private/public duality via communisation does not divest the individual bourgeois unit of the ego of his personal property but only relieves him of the proletarianised condition in which he has been forced to toil for the private benefit of others and the private subsitence of himself, with whatever personal chattels have gathered round his miserable toiling, crippled body like some kind of accomplishment of bourgeois happiness or national idealism, 'the american dream', 'the chinese dream', or what have you, monsieur.

>>6310052
and what objects will be considered personal rather than private? how do you distinguish between the two?

>>6310052

please please just stop this

I don't give a shit if you're being serious or not. This makes me cringe so goddamn hard,

>>6309986
There are other ways of understanding "libertarian" in the world. I don't think he's associating himself with the Ron Paul crowd.

you know all these socialism-marxism offshoots tend to aim for a 'people walking hand-in-hand working together' so of course you wouldn't need a gun except maybe when hostile ET landed on Earth

>>6310079
i am afraid, monsieur, that i don't care what you want or think, insofar as it conflicts with my individual veillity. why? because i am a communist, monsieur, not a free market stalinist or a neckbeard anthropologist. i take myself seriously, because i have the ability to inflect terror in the hearts of my enemies with the devotion i hold for my cause.

>>6310084

pls

>>6310089

Hunter gatherer societies were communist by Marx's definition, and tribesmen always seem to be carrying spears or bows.
I don't see any reason why modern communists should be any different.

In any society, the difference between citizen and slave is the ability to openly carry weapons. A classless society would have no reason to restrict the use of arms. (and in fact require it least a potentially oppressive warrior class be formed)

>>6309186

>that lack of consistency in theory

>>6308451

>janitors

get outside of your bubble please

>>6309256

>>6310686
>implying those were innocents
>implying pol pot gunned down people instead of making them walk until they died
>not posting the identical one with capitalism and pinochet

>>6310692
The only thing they weren't innocent of was opposing communism
The system doesn't work. Millions of dead peasants can't be wrong.

>>6310733
How about the millions dead in latinamerica during the anti communist dictatorships? if anything it evens out at the end.

>>6310752
There is a difference between being martyred while fighting for freedom and being mass murdered by an inherently evil idea

>>6310772
ethnic cleansing isn't martyrdom, not by their own accord at least.

>>6310772

>There is a difference between being martyred while fighting for freedom and being mass murdered by an inherently evil idea

Right back at you, reactionary faggot.

>>6310520

What do you mean?

>>6308277
If you're part of the state security force you'll not only get to have a gun at all times but you'll be able to use it too! Mostly on unarmed civilians.

>>6310447
>Hunter gatherer societies were communist by Marx's definition
>alpha male takes the most and best food every time

>>6310772
>being martyred while fighting for freedom
Excuse me? The dictators in Latin America, financed and supported by the US were killing, arresting, torturing, and sending people to exiles, censoring the arts, oppressing protests, reshaping education by crushing critical thought, history, language and the arts, created a messy society that leveled up crime in favelas, raised a violent law enforcement culture, rewarded corrupted generals taking people's money, all of that without any transparency or spark of democracy. Any left-wing inclined idea was not merely opposed, but it was obliterated and suppressed by the governments without hope of dialogue. The people had to fight to gain their democracy back, one that was took directly by the US to maintain its power and Latin America is still suffering from the rotten fruits of that time. Cold war was not cold at all, it was very hot out there in the US and USSR's backyards. I'm not even defending communism or anything, but people must be aware of this fact.

>>6311027
You should read more on hunter gatherer societies. Not backing up anon's statement on Marx, but it's not like you're saying it either. Mostly because there is a fuck ton of variety to those societies and they are not like either.

>>6311079
Nah, that takes time and effort. Know how long it took me to fire off my greentext and attach my NCFOM png? Yeah, like, 10 seconds.

It's not fucking worth it to me to actually educate myself on this shit.

>>6311064
I find it very funny that while most dictators in latin america were trained in the School of the Americas, which had to change its name to a more generic acronym to cover face, right now the states have the very same institutions in the American University in Cairo and the American University in Iraq (which gives class mostly to kurds)

>>6311118
>>6311079
Do you seriously believe hunter-gatherer societies were some kind of noble savage ideal? How much of a deluded luddite can you be?

>>6311139
Do you really beieve hunter-gatherer societies behaved all the same way around the globe?

>>6311118
Okay.

>>6311139
>Do you seriously believe hunter-gatherer societies were some kind of noble savage ideal?
Don't put believes in my mind. Concepts of nobility or savages bears no meaning to me. I like to read on hunter gatherers and other tribal communities and I can assure you there is a lot to be learned about the way they lived, what kind of values they treasured, how was the division of labour and of goods, how was their concept of family and so on. And as said, there is a lot of variety. Putting them all in the same pack will only lead to weak arguments.

>>6311139
Still waiting for some facts, big boy.

Feel free to fire off some more greentext if it's easier.

>>6311142
Mostly, yes. Just like how panthers around the world act mostly the same.

>>6311158
>I can assure you there is a lot to be learned about the way they lived, what kind of values they treasured, how was the division of labour and of goods, how was their concept of family and so on.

Except you have no way of actually knowing this. The documentation for those societies is trash.

>>6311191
Look for Richard Leakey's Making of Mankind on the San people for a start. He talks about some accounts on San people making into civilization, the problems that come with it, people who returned to the tribe, people who adapted to capitalist society and so on, touches the subject in this topic a bit.

There are plenty of books on the subject, you just have to look for them. The greatest harm to the study of those societies is when people see them from the perspective of our society, leading to biased statements and distorted values, such as comparing them to Marxism, or thinking of them as "noble savages", or thinking of them as inferior societies that need to advance and so on. If you hold your judgement a second and look at them objectively and from their own perspective, you can learn a lot from there. Don't make your prejudices hinder your way to knowledge.

>>6309255
>being either
Socialism is just democratic control of the economy by the workers, I don't need a face to go with that. Marxism gets a face because it's a form of analysis

>>6309323
>Women aren't workers, they are bourgeoise.

Thus when monogamous marriage first makes its appearance in history, it is not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period. In an old unpublished manuscript, written by Marx and myself in 1846, I find the words: “The first division of labor is that between man and woman for the propagation of children.” And today I can add: The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.

-Engels

>>6311237
so this is why feminists are always marxists as well

>>6310091
Daily reminder that Stirner completely destroyed Marx and Feuerbach, and the only thing he could say in response was:

>W-well! Your mom is a whore!

>>6311248

Other way around. Most marxists are also feminists. Most Feminists are just liberals.

>>6308378

FUCKING NORMIES!!!!!
GET OUT OF MY BOARD

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>6308277

Why is this on /lit/

>>6308347
foucault was a nut

>>6311395

because what would happen under a theorized communist society would be underneath marxist theory, and we all know that /lit/ is the board not just for /lit/erature, but also for philosophy.

Also because this is the only place on 4chan where you can have a discussion with an actual marxist about marxism.

why do we have so many fucking commies on /lit/ anyways?

>>6311745

Because of the large amount of socialist literature and theory with the marxist philosophical tradition being long and deep-rooted in left wing political and social thought.

Also because we're shooed away everywhere else.

pretty much a reiteration of this >>6311423

>>6311745
Because this is the smart board.

>>6309275
Actual states are historically specific to their mode of production, Stalin. A capitalist bureaucracy is not the state form of the proletariat.

>>6310447
>pre-historic theory of social organisation
>thinks he knows everything about them

>>6311027
>implying I ever said anything about that.
This has nothing to do with Evo-psych male superiority bullshit.
>>6311923
You don't need to look at pre history to see that hunter gatherer societies don't seem to think much of carrying weapons.

>>6311959
>You don't need to look at pre history to see that hunter gatherer societies don't seem to think much of carrying weapons.
>everyone on earth organised their society in the same way
You're dumb.

>>6311959
Mainly because you're projecting modern social meanings of "weapons" onto other societies.

Fucksake, learn your historical materialism. A weapon only exists as a social relation between people. In human bands with undifferentiated relations, weapons only become people killers when something goes wrong with an individual or in interband conflict. This is completely different to a generally alienated society.

>>6311971
How then does that imply that a hypothetical perfect communist society would place negative associations on gun ownership?

In a Feudal or Capitalist society, weapons are symbolic of the warrior class or military, and thus people associate them with oppression. Remove that power dynamic and weapons stop being scary people killers.

You pretty much just repeated my own thesis from >>6310447
In different words.

>>6312010
No I've not. You use metaphors of class oppression to describe your desire to carry weapons in public. You're still also fixated on individuals. Think back to the last time the cops broke your picket line about whether this was an individual or collective instance of self-defence.

In a society without citizens or slaves, the fit purposes for carrying tools for hunting is hunting, tools for sporting accuracy is sporting accuracy. A lone woman carrying a large game hunting semi-automatic in an urban area is an anti-social act. Where are her friends to hunt with. Where are the moose to kill?

It's like some arsehole individually trying to build a plastics plant on top of a kindergarten.

>>6312035
There's some powerful spookery at work here.

>the fit purpose
>society

>>6308298
>this entire post

>>6312048
>I'm not actually a communist.

Then there's no reason to listen to your opinions.

>society

Read the chapter on Money in Grundriesse.

>>6312035
Why are we making assumptions about urban areas and the type of weapon the woman is carrying? That has nothing to do with OP's question.

OP asked if he could carry a "gun" (never said what kind) on him at all times in a communist society. The size of the gun and nature of the environment were not part of his question.

My answer is that if this "communist society" is some sort of marxist neoprimitive commune, then carrying weapons for hunting and defense might be a societal expectation.
Other "communist societies" might expect armed citizens to serve as law enforcement rather than relying on a specialized police force. (which often becomes a sort of oppressive warrior class in capitalist societies)
Even putting those scenarios that prevents a "communist society" (no other information given) from allowing a person to carry a concealed weapon. If all we know is that this "society" is somehow "communist" we can't really make assumptions on whether or not gun ownership is considered socially acceptable.

As for your babble about individuals, I don't really see what you are talking about. Could you re-explain?

>>6312074
I'm definitely a communist and a materialist. I think reification is very idealist.

>all these people thinking socialism is a utopia

It's simply and radically the worker-held and managed spaces of production, industrial and otherwise.

If you're looking to socialism as mainly about welfare and social liberalism, then the neoliberal model of bio power is what you want.

>>6312098
And if your mode of production involves shooting things, the worker will carry a gun.

>>6312095
>I'm definitely a communist and a materialist. I think reification is very idealist.
Read Marx on the formation of social man by the process of capitalist production, I've given you the chapter already.

>>6312083
>My answer is that if this "communist society" is some sort of marxist neoprimitive commune, then carrying weapons for hunting and defense might be a societal expectation.

Not to overstate cosmopolitianism but "this is all ours together" means that there is no such thing. There might be people living in continuous remote contexts, but this is not "at all times," this is in "a fit purpose." There is no isolated human band possible when the scale of human exertion, and the scale of human control over human exertion are both global and collective.

>Could you re-explain?

"Citizens" only exist in the context of individuation. "Slaves" only exist in the context of individuation.

Whether or not people are individuated historically depends on their society. There's a reason why "liberalism" and the birth of the individual go hand in hand, because in feudal or tributary societies most people aren't individuals.

Similarly, the proletariat is a collective subject.

>>6310023
Literal autism.

>>6311131
>kurds
isn't that also ironic? the kurds are said to be terrorists, and have their own Workers Party... yet they are being trained by the US.

>>6312152
>the proletariat is a collective subject.
And might this collective subject be required to carry firearms in some circumstances?

>"Citizens" only exist in the context of individuation. "Slaves" only exist in the context of individuation.
Honestly that bit about citizens and slaves was an amorphism more than anything, and mostly based on an observation of similarities between capitalist and feudal societies.
In both cases, an aristocratic warrior class is expected to carry weapons, while the working class is either prohibited or discouraged from doing so.

Marx thought at least, that this class dynamic did not exist in hunter gatherer societies. Some people here disagree, but he lived in the 1800s when noble savage thinking was hip.
Whether or not people in a classless society are "Individuals" or "Collective Subjects" is meaningless in my argument. The distinction only really exists when you have something to compare them against. I say everyone in a classless society is an individual citizen because that's the only meaningful way to count people if everyone is equal.

If these "individuals" live in a society where they have to catch food or defend themselves, they'll probably "collectively" value and normalize gun ownership. Otherwise they "collectively" won't. If only some of them are allowed to have guns, then it can't really be called a classless society because now you have a distinct warrior class which might start to exert control over the means of production.

>>6312253
>And might this collective subject be required to carry firearms in some circumstances?
Yes, "some." Chiefly in its disposal of the bourgeois state and its disruption of the bourgeoisie itself. Or in concrete human activities, such as sport, food gathering, pest disposal. These aren't carrying objects habitually. And like other dangerous collective tools (combine harvesters) they are unlike to be personally stored due to the hazards (like shooting everyone in the household).

>if everyone is equal
Equality is a concept from the enlightenment ;).

Kropotkin's account of class dynamics in gatherer hunter societies at the end of the 19th century is superior, but then again Kropotkin had better access to superior secondary sources. Very useful for the birth of class society, Mutual Aid is.

>If only some of them are allowed to have guns.
It isn't some being allowed, it is certain ways of being allowed to use them. In particular as we don't know how "alienated" in the "species being" sense people will be in communism, we don't know the risk factors for individuals "going nuts" and killing everyone in their household or going into public places to kill.

Dangerous, collective tools, that are habitually used for personal violence in our society => I'm not organising with individuals who insist on having this tool on them when they want to work with me.

Compare someone in an shopping centre stacking shelves carrying an opinel or multitool to someone carrying a 12" cane machete.

>>6312286
>Equality is a concept from the enlightenment ;).
As is communism ;) Can we stop playing semantic games here? The difference between a group of individuals or a single member of a collective is meaningless and has no bearing on this conversation.

As for individuals "Going nuts with dangerous tools" It seems like most of the problems they seem to cause in western society seem to be caused by the conditions imposed by capitalism. The perceived danger could very well go down.
And restricting the use of weapons too strongly can lead to the creation of a warrior class, which would change society from communism back to feudalism. I think that's a much bigger threat to the community. The amount of violence enacted by police officers on unarmed civilians vastly outstrips the amount of violence enacted by mentally disturbed or clumsy citizens.

>>6312152
Individuation is not some historical phenomena exclusive to modern liberal capitalist societies.

What is contingent to this modern epoch is the extreme subjectification/objectification of the multitude and the individual. Citizens exist in the context of political subjects within modern constitutional states. An individual always stands in antithesis to a mulititude. A subject is identifiable and differentiable within a multitude but still intimately connected to that multitude. You can very well track a citizen as an individual actor (subject) but they necessarily are also taken as a unit within a greater multitude (as an object composing a larger object).

Individual exist in all types of social organization. The extreme, fragmented and reconstituted subject does not. The latter could very well still exist within a "proper" socialism.

>>6308378
Peeps is great.

>>6312405
>The difference between a group of individuals or a single member of a collective is meaningless and has no bearing on this conversation.

It has everything to do with human exertion to fulfil human desires during and after the period of repression of the bourgeoisie and value form.

>It seems like most
And I agree with you entirely. But "most" isn't good enough.

>restricting the use of weapons too strongly
If violence is all it takes to destroy communist relations then we've already lost. As far as communal weapons caches that's a matter which shouldn't be discussed because it leads into contemporary operations.

>An individual always stands in antithesis to a mulititude.
Nope.

>A subject is identifiable and differentiable within a multitude but still intimately connected to that multitude.
"A subject," isn't necessarily an individual. You're thinking in terms of bourgeois ideology here.

>Individual exist in all types of social organisation.
>human nature
Yeah, whatever happened to that ruthless critique of all existing social forms, it disappeared the moment you felt threatened as a bourgeois subject.

The history of tributary and feudal societies demonstrates collective subjectivity. As does the history of slave societies. The "individual" in these societies didn't exist, and "the soul" wasn't a direct analogue.

>>6312521
>It has everything to do with human exertion to fulfil human desires during and after the period of repression of the bourgeoisie and value form.

Blah Blah Blah Spooky ideology and so on.

When I say Individual, I just mean one person regardless of their (singular they) circumstances. They might be a man or a woman, adult or child, they might be part of a collective, or a disenfranchised slave, or they might be the supreme ruler of the known world. But they are only one person and they have only one head and one body, and will only take one bullet to kill. That is what makes them an individual, Not some sort of social status.

The question is, will they (and everyone else in his group) be allowed and or required to carry a firearm at all times in a particular society.

I say that there are several possible scenarios that might be described as communism where the answer is yes.
You seem to be arguing around this point because you place more value in the precise meaning of the word "individual" than I do.

>>6312636
>Blah Blah Blah Spooky ideology and so on.
>When I say Individual, I just mean one person regardless of their (singular they) circumstances.

I don't care what you mean, that's idealism. Fuck off.

>>6312657
That's as polite as I can be, you've been pedantically arguing around the point all day long.

do you guys think that obama is a cryptocommie?

>>6312745
No, he's a bourgeoise progressive set only on placating the proletariat. Ed Milliband, however, is a different story.

>>6312671
He's doing that because he can't reconcile his progressive gun grabbing ideals with communism, which fully supports the arming of the workers.

>>6308277
Yes, but there would be no reason why you would want a gun on your person at all times.

>>6308423
Sounds bretty nice

>>6312791
Perhaps, and maybe his sperging out over "individualism" is the result of him imagining me as some sort of Bourgeois Egoist Libertarian gun nut. Or maybe somewhere in between.

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt on /lit/ at least. But there is still a tendency for people to ague past each other.

>>6312881
Anyone who claims to be a communist who hasn't experienced the collective subjectivity that is actually capable of implementing communism, is a fucking dilettante. Methodological individualism has no place in reflecting on the collectively produced knowledge of the proletariat.

>>6312820
It makes me feel safe and strong. There's no reason you'd want a hat at all times, but its still nice.

>>6313071
That's a feeling of deficit. By being a member of a communist society you would already feel safe and strong. Unless you've suffered some form of trauma, in which case having a gun wouldn't heal the trauma but there would be readily available care and support from professional caregivers and your fellow man.

>>6313094
I wouldn't feel strong, though. There's no way in a city of millions that I could know and trust everyone. Besides, who will stop me from carrying? Who will tyranically exhert their will over me and force me into submission like a superior?

>>6313109
The same people that you're tyrannising by taking into their company a dangerous tool.

Fuck off with the liberalism for fucksake, you're displaying no awareness of solidarity.

>>6313109
As long as you don't hurt anyone or try to seize property etc. no one in a communist society would be threatened nor try to take away your arms. What you don't seem to understand is that human relations in the condition of communism are qualitatively different from those under previous stages, including socialism. Under capitalism, our current stage, human beings don't relate to each other directly as human beings, we only relate to each other through commodities in the market. That is why you are obsessed with your gun but, if you were to travel in the future and end up in the communist society, they wouldn't care about your gun but about you.

>>6313132
All tools can be dangerous. Forks can be dangeeous, cars can be dangerous, electricity can be dangerous. Guns, in the right hands, are safe.
>>6313133
>Under capitalism, our current stage, human beings don't relate to each other directly as human beings, we only relate to each other through commodities in the market.
I disagree. Only city dwelling sissies think like that. Normal people, country people, don't see each other like that.

>>6313174
>All tools can be dangerous. Forks can be dangeeous, cars can be dangerous, electricity can be dangerous. Guns, in the right hands, are safe.
I don't think anyone has disputed that, but thanks for removing the liberalism and "rights" discourse.

>>6313174
>Normal people, country people, don't see each other like that.
Yep, because you know the person who digs the coal who fires the power plant, that makes the aluminium, that forms the truck, that paves the road.

Of course you fucking don't. You're forced to pay land taxes.

>>6313206
>Yep, because you know the person who digs the coal who fires the power plant, that makes the aluminium, that forms the truck, that paves the road.
That's not indicative of all people. I still know everyone in my town and relate to them.

>>6313221
And money doesn't change hands between any of you. Not coin, not geld, not note, not note of hand, not credit card, not bank draft, not postal money order, not account book marks, no money eh?

>>6313174
>Only city dwelling sissies think like that.
Only an unconscious ideologue thinks in these kinds of dichotomies.
>country people, don't see each other like that.
You do, exactly like that. As long as your existence is hinged on the exchange of labor for money that is exactly how you relate to other human beings- especially those in your immediate locale. We're not talking about feelings. Your prejudices against "city dwellers" are unfounded, as they know each other just as you claim to know the people of your town, and symptomatic of this inability to relate outside of capital and market relations.

>>6313232
>And money doesn't change hands between any of you
Yes it does. What are you on about? We're all farmers.
>You do, exactly like that. As long as your existence is hinged on the exchange of labor for money that is exactly how you relate to other human beings- especially those in your immediate locale. We're not talking about feelings. Your prejudices against "city dwellers" are unfounded, as they know each other just as you claim to know the people of your town, and symptomatic of this inability to relate outside of capital and market relations.
I think I know more about my life than you do. Try using your own experience instead of an ideology.

>>6313323
>I think I know more about my life than you do.
What did I say that doesn't fit your life? In the same post you admit that you exchange your labor for money. Now you deny it. Which is it?

>>6313339
That doesn't mean people are 'unrelatable', you sissy.

>>6313280
You deal with money, alienation etc., for me, I need to go eat something.

>>6312945
But he never really claimed to be a communist (or anything for that matter) just that communists might carry guns.

And you are talking nonsense anyways. Communism is collective ownership of the means of production. It has nothing to do with people magically turning into a hive mind. That's only what the right thinks communism is.

>>6313133
>>6313094
>>6312945
>Anyone who claims to be a communist who hasn't experienced the collective subjectivity that is actually capable of implementing communism, is a fucking dilettante. Methodological individualism has no place in reflecting on the collectively produced knowledge of the proletariat.

This is some pretty mystic sounding shit. I thought Marxism was supposed to be a materialist philosophy.

>>6313453
>Communism is collective ownership of the means of production.
Reread Volume 1. MOP are a peculiarly capitalist social form.

>It has nothing to do with magically turning into a hive mind.
I can see you've not engaged in solidarity, collective subjectivity is unimaginable to you. Do bother to read around in Marx's works, you'll notice that the proletariat is not a body of individuals.

>>6313491
You are smoking something if you think solidarity is exclusive to communists or the proletariat. Or that people cease to be individuals just because they agree on something.

You also have this thing where you keep rejecting the conventional definition of individual, but refuse to define your own version of it in concrete terms.

>>6313484
I think you've intentionally misread those quoted comments.

>>6308277
Well, if history has taught us anything.

>>6313562
And I think you view Marxism as a religion rather than a materialist critique of capitalism.

>>6311237
So Muslim polygamy is liberating?

>>6313564
Back to /pol/ with you, dickweed.

>>6313566
You're doing it again, mate.

>>6313571
>pinko btfo on /pol/
>goes to lit to talk about communism

back to reddit with you jason.

>>6313540
>You are smoking something if you think solidarity is exclusive to communists or the proletariat.

It is. Other classes have idealised property forms inherent in their social relations.

>>6313133
That's religion, not communism.

>>6313602
You're wrong.

Re-reading the Manafisto. This guy is talking out of his ass and basing his definition of "Individual" on shit that does not apply to this context at all.

>From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes
>You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

Individuality =/= individual.
"individual" =/= individual.

Individuality is to be an "Individual." Which is something that bourgeois parents tell their kids makes everybody special. "You are a valued individual."
An individual is a single element of any given thing. "Individually wrapped toothpicks."

A communist may lack individuality and not exist as an "individual" but each one of them is an individual communist. As they inhabit individual bodies.


And yeah, he seems to be treating max like a prophet rather than a materialist philosopher. The Communist revolution will be achieved, not because the Proletariat have superpowers, but because Bourgeois capitalism is inherently unstable and is shaking itself apart.

>>6313672
>but because Bourgeois capitalism is inherently unstable and is shaking itself apart.
Structuralist scum. "No subject in history," fuck off and strangle your wife again.

>>6313680
At what point did I say those were my beliefs. The only actual communist in here is the guy who won't shut up about how communists can't be individuals because MAH SOLIDARITY.

The narrative of capitalism eating itself alive belongs to Marx, if you have a bone to pick with that reading of history, get in line.

>>6308446

>>6309186
How heavy weapons(airforce,navy,artillery) are managed in true Marxist state.

>>6313702
>The narrative of capitalism eating itself alive belongs to Marx, if you have a bone to pick with that reading of history, get in line.
Except it doesn't. Marx constantly refers back to the proletariat as the subject of history who will abolish capitalism. Your fatalistic reading of Marx is a structuralist one, and I am not responsible for why you're a structuralist.

>>6313732
>state
Let me stop you there.

>>6313732
Collectively, the same way a factory would be.

If you think about it artillery is just a factory for making dead people.

>>6308408
Ever wonder why elitists don't wither and die, ever? Because there is potential to rise above the common state of man, and someone will always conceive that whether you force "equality" on people or not. Anything that moves or does anything involves imbalance and flux, and elitists are important because they procreate imbalance and keep the war of life moving like fire or progress.

>>6313891
Spooks ideology, and so on.

I'm not even a communist but seriously "MAH HUMAN NATURE" arguments are retarded.

>>6313891
>Ever wonder why elitists don't wither and die, ever?
Capitalism.
>Because there is potential to rise above the common state of man
Yet always stop short of caring enough to bring up fellow humans to said potentials
>and someone will always conceive that whether you force "equality" ...
It shouldn't be forced (too strongly) people hate that.
>and elitists are important because they procreate imbalance and keep the war of life moving like fire or progress.
I mean specifically monied elites, and life is not a war, it's feeding time, it's play time, it's nap time.

>>6313903
Why? I realize that we can only view human nature within the confines of environmental structure, culturally and so forth. But we all have the same methods of perceiving the world, more or less, by the senses of the body which we understand more and more. There is a finite capacity for the behavior of humans that live in the same physical world, since we are only influenced by our sensation and perception of the same physical reality. Or at least we must assume that unless one assumes solipsism. Our sensation and perception of the world informs our behavior, which is basically predictable when confronted by different environments. Human Nature arguments aren't antiquated -- they've never been more astute since we can predict behavior like never before. Violence, contrarianism, narcissism -- these things are responses that don't just go away, even when they become maladaptive. That's simply not how it works.

tl;dr The argument for Human Nature is healthier and more provable than ever before in history.

>>6313922
That's your answer? Capitalism? That's unbelievably trite. To bring up your fellow man would fetter the person with the potential to rise above, and you'd be ignoring the weak person's weaknesses which are unique to them - not simply those weaknesses caused by socio-economic conditions - which would limit the strong person's capacity to rise to such an extent that they'd be worse off and not be any help to anybody. As well as ignoring those on the bottom who tend to return to the bottom when they're raised up, because that's all they know. They feel safer at the bottom because they do not know how to survive in an elevated position. Survival is the only beat that life will dance to, and it goes to the environment it's most suited for.

Let the strong rise above, and let them open doors for people to reach if they have the desire to rise too. You can't force shit to be useful, but you can allow a man to be more than shit in the mud. Those in utmost power now, they don't allow the strong to rise, or they at least only let them rise to a certain place but place a ceiling over their head. That's fucking wrong, and it is to our great disadvantage. But your utopian society of zero-elite is laughable.

>>6311898

Yes, the organization of the state is historically specific to their mode of production, but any form of bureaucracy is only for the transitional dictatorship of the proletariat. The whole point of the socialist revolution is to smash the state, to ensure the alienated bureaucracy (and the organs of state repression) to wither away and cannot help but wither away.

The way proper socialism would happen would be direct democratic organization of the economy by a common plan via workers' association, and the replacement of the standing army with an armed people.

>>6314009
Stalin, we know what the dictatorship of the proletariat looks like: councils. So why did Lenin seize the Tzarist bureaucracy and use it over the workplace councils; and why did you extensify the bourgeois bureaucracy first in collective party leadership and then as the first amongst lessers?

>>6313970
Maaaate, did you seriously just post that ahahaha

>>6314177

The Bolsheviks simply taking over the Tsarist buruacracy is erroneous. After Red October, the Tsarist bureacracy simply collapsed, and the Bolsheviks (who renamed themselves Communists) had to recreate the state apparatus to deal with the devastation as a result of WWI and the Civil War.

As for the Bolshevik Party organization, I'd recommend you read this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105275/index.html

And ComradeOm's posts from this thread:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/were-soviets-closedi-t118798/index2.html

>>6314224
>capitalist state collapses
>we have to recreate it

This is not a cogent argument Stalin, when you are to the right of the left-SRs and when you are to the right of State and Revolution something is very very wrong. You are also concretely wrong on the collapse of the Tzarist bureaucracy. It was captured, intact, by the Bolshevik party.

>>6314237
>Capitalist state
LOL

>>6314224
Can someone change this picture to make Stalin look less Jewish? Thanks.

>>6314237

I remember a passage from Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism where, as a result of the Western blockades, he describes the lack of coal for the trains to properly function to transport necessary goods towards places that needed it. The Civil War was devestating.

The military was created to spur the advancement of the White counter-revolutionaries. After the defeat of the Whites, being that the majority of the soldiers were proletarians, that they weren't doing anything, and that something needed to be done to rebuild the Russian economy after the destruction recked by years of war, the army was put to work in production, and the armies were transformed into labor armies.

And no, I'll reiterate it again, the Bolsheviks did not simply seize the already existing Tsarist bureacracy. After the collapse of the Tsarist government, the bolsheviks had to appeal to the Soviets (which were created spontaniously) towards creating a centrilized state.

I recommend reading the links I showed you to better understand the Bolsheviks' relationship towards the Soviets and Bolshevik political organization. Much of the way people percieve the Bolsheviks tends to be an imposed anachronism from the perspective of the wretched buraecracy of the later Soviet Union rather than in the context of the Russian Revolution.

Also, stop the tendency bating. I use the Young Stalin pics to create a political image of myself, but I'm too collectivist and hold to much contempt towards individualism to tripfag.

>>6314272
>Stop the tendency baiting.

I'm sorry, but RSDLP(b) archives demonstrate that the RSDLP(b) captured the Tzarist bureaucracy intact, from the Duma/Provisionals; Simon Pirani is good on this.

>The civil war was awful.
Nobody is going to disagree with you. But when your tendency subverts its own slogan of "all power to the Soviets" and instead ensures all power to 1) the PC CC, 2) uses existing capitalist bureaucracies in preference to the stable democratic forms, 3) proceeds to internalise these bureaucracies into the party, rather than ever more closely supporting the workplace soviet's mastery of governance there's something wrong.

>>6314307

I'll check up on Pirani's works, then. It's difficult to obtain literature here in the Phillipines.

But, nonetheless, I'd like to reiterate, yet again, for you to read: http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105275/index.html

>>6314333
It'll be read.

>>6314272
>being that the majority of the soldiers were proletarians
most of them were peasants

>>6314364

My mistake, should have put "workers" instead. but there was still a lot of urban proletarians in the military, even if it didn't constitute a majority.

>>6314183
Nice reply, loser. Being smug might make you feel superior, but in reality your just a lazy faggot!

>>6314254
That's as "less-jewish" as he gets m8...

>>6308277
>In a communist society can I keep a gun on me at all times?

Clearly not. How would they deny people's property rights without having a monopoly of violence?

>>6313903
"Human nature" doesn't mean "all people are evil and can't be trusted". It means "forced equality and lack of private property does not coincide with what all people truly want". Greed (for lack of a better word) is good.

>>6314532
Karl Kike Marx was such a fucking retard.

>the people should be armed for revolution
>people will use guns to kill the bougie


Not at all how it works. Most people, will use guns to kill pinkos trying to take their shit.

hell, Nazism took off because of communism. People didn't like natty socialist too much, but they fucking hated commies. They saw Nazis beating the shit out of pinkos in the street. They loved that shit and voted them in.

Nazism is just as retarded btw

you could
BUT
you'd have no reason to have a gun with you all the time

>>6309246
>that one stalinist shitposter making it look like /lit/ consists only of stalinists
you a funny guy

>>6315118
There is actually more than one Stalinist shitposter. I think there are like three of us or something. Honestly though, I only shittpost to annoy Trots and Ultra-leftists, and I actually contribute to discussions every now and then.

hint: I use pics from a certain dashing rogue

>>6314743
>what all people truly want
How, pray tell, can you know this?

>>6315317
Are you guys the same as the catholic Stalinist shitposters?

>>6314354
And we're back
>mass meeting of 100 delegates
… … …

>>6315118
>>6315699
Believe it or not there are people that can think outside of good/bad dichotomy. The only posts I've ever seen on /lit/ about Stalin are either: Stalin was a monster that was worse than and killed more people than Hitler, or that the former claim is hyperbolic and generally comes from old and faulty anti-Communist polemic.

>>6315713
That's probably because you can't differentiate, "He wasn't a monster, he was simply a bourgeois ruler whose state was engaging in primary accumulation at massive human cost." and "He wasn't a monster, he was the best thing since sliced bread and Engel's bastardisation of the dialectic in Anti-Duhring."

>>6313970
>That's your answer? Capitalism? That's unbelievably trite.
It's brief.
>and you'd be ignoring the weak person's weaknesses which are unique to them
How about not ignoring it?
>As well as ignoring those on the bottom who tend to return to the bottom when they're raised up
There'd be no economic bottom. Poverty would be a famine with late relief to your region. The chronically lazy would get a little shabby home and some scowls from those he's mooching off of. Perhaps he'd take to drifting. I see no problem with this sort. The mental patients are the ones to watch out for. The schizos would all be looked after, but some would fall through the crack and maybe murder or rape. But there can never be a utopia.
>Let the strong rise above
When will you see that "the strong" IE the wealthy HATE the company and will never let the true strong rise. About 95% or more of us would rise if given the chance. You let the strong rise.