books on communism

[Anonymous No.10541560]

hey, neo liberal here. what books do i need to read in order to educate myself on communism? i often find myself in debates and notice that i simply don't know enough about the ussr for example to counter the "true communism has never been tried" argument etc. was thinking of starting by reading the manifesto and then moving onto kapital (although apparently it's dense as fuck). where do i go after this to get a sufficient understanding of communist theory and its applications to adequately critique it and to be able to debate it on a solid basis?

[Anonymous No.10541567]

kolakowski - main currents of marxism

[Anonymous No.10541582]

>>10541560
This work here is a very clear and concise description of Marxist terminology and foundations written by Engels himself:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Kapital is actually an enjoyable read once you get past the first chapter. Which is indeed very dense but in contrast to the rest which is well written and digestable.

[Anonymous No.10541588]

>>10541582
I should mention I once considered myself a Marxist, and a very well versed one at that. But now I no longer identity with the tradition

[Anonymous No.10541596]

>>10541588
>I should mention I once considered myself a Marxist, and a very well versed one at that. But now I no longer identity with the tradition

why not? what changed? what are your thoughts on communism now?

[Anonymous No.10541620]

>>10541596
As much of a classic meme it is. It all comes down to human nature. I was drawn to Communism as a sort of surrogate for my own loss of faith in God. As a unifying mission for bringing good to the world.
But at a certain point it occurred to me that people are such broken beings in such a rat pile of a world that on a material basis alone we don't even desire the harmony and common welfare that Communism aims for.
That any attempt to simply arrange society in such a way will be radically undermined and perverted by what would be often called the Freudian death drive.

The departure is less about economics for me and more about the fact I just don't see it as a spiritually tennable tradition. If there's anything for us, we need something more

[Anonymous No.10541632]

>>10541560
>Labelling yourself as an ideologue from the get
Ishyddta

[Anonymous No.10541638]

>>10541620
>As much of a classic meme it is. It all comes down to human nature.

That's a common argument (and one I believe in) but sadly it's hard to prove. When people don't believe me, I ask them whether they think if a person had the option to get more than another person would he take it or not. Most commies say he would, but that's because he's "indoctrinated" by capitalism since birth. Imo the drive to having "something more" really is human nature, but there is no research to support it afaik.

>>10541632
I am deeply sorry for thinking that a certain subset of an economic system is better than the others.

[Anonymous No.10541650]

>>10541560
>hey, fucking retard here
fixt

[Anonymous No.10541656]

>>10541638
Neoliberalism isn't devoid of value but neither is without reproach. Why limit your view is all I'm saying.

[Anonymous No.10541670]

>>10541560
>hey [ideology] here
into the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.10541686]

>>10541670
I tried to get my conspiracy theorist friend to watch The Perverts Guide to Ideology once. He was too dumb.

[Anonymous No.10541711]

>>10541638

when you debate someone, you don't need to refute their system from every single direction, you can pick one aspect, for instance the labour theory of value, and attack that, the rest falls apart.

[Anonymous No.10541725]

>>10541560
Macron is a qt

[Anonymous No.10541732]

>>10541560
Read Marx with the knowledge that there is a contradiction between his exchange/use value theory (which is beautiful) and his "labor theory of value" (which is shit but is part of the explanation of lowering rate of profit). The value theory stuff is his contribution to economics which has yet to be recognized by anyone except heterodox economists

[Anonymous No.10541823]

>>10541725
you're damn right he is

[Anonymous No.10541911]

>>10541711
This.

One important thing that makes Marx's LTV obviously false is that it has no conception of opportunity cost. The function of the capitalist is to forego consumption and engage in the act of saving, and this saving has a very important role to play in the production of commodities. If a worker co-operative were to decide today to pool their collective resources and produce engines (the useful kind, not steam engines), they'd most likely have several problems. The most important problems are that they'd have no income until they sold the first engine, and that they'd have to assume the risk the engines sell. Wage labour isn't theft of surplus value, the wage-earner is getting something for it; they're avoiding the risk the product won't sell (they still get paid for their labour no matter what), and they're being paid now instead of later. If they weren't paid now, they'd have to have saved enough to see them through the production process, and as mainstream economists know, the value of money now is much higher than the value of money later (hence, interest rates). The capitalist isn't stealing surplus value, the labourers are foregoing the surplus value in exchange for mitigating the risk the product won't sell, and to satisfy their time-preference for money.

[Anonymous No.10541935]

>>10541638
So according to the meme the left libertarian is the only good one?

[Anonymous No.10541966]

>>10541732
>his exchange/use value theory (which is beautiful)

You can't numerically calculate the so-called "use value", you can't establish a mathematical relation between them, you can't apply statistics. It's completely useless.

[Anonymous No.10542028]

>>10541935
No, thats the worst one

[Anonymous No.10542079]

>>10541935
It's not about what is good, it's about what is right.

We on the right don't believe that man is perfectable if you simply perfect the systems/institutions man lives under. We acknowledge that man is messy and complicated and that good people are capable of great evil and that evil people are capable of great good.

That leads us to believe that the government shouldn't have too much power, because it doesn't matter what the intention was when giving the government such power when someone with bad intentions takes over.

[Anonymous No.10542080]

>>10541911

If we are talking about Kapital in a vaccum then this counter-argument is completely legitimate, however, ignoring the body of work on top of Marx's conception of socialism makes your point mute. Oskar Lange provided a theoretical argument for market Socialsim in "On the Economic Theory of Socialsim" that fixed the LVT problems. He used a generalized definition of Opportunity Cost that allowed efficient Walrasian General Equilibrium states to arise. I still don't think efficient states arise in practice even with these constructions, however, theoretically it's kosher.

I still think the best way to argue against communism is via a game theory route. The set of incentives given to the pricing board is a principal agent problem, so if those board members have a modicum of rationality they will go against the publics best interest for their own especially when the pricing board and government have soft budget constraints. So when someone says, "Oh the USSR wasn't real Communism", you say, "you're right, it wasn't real communism because real communism would never arise with government officials that have an ounce of self-interest, which necessarily makes it a bad system"

[Anonymous No.10542118]

>>10541935
Right libertarian is the only good one

[Anonymous No.10542133]

>>10541638
>>10541935
>>10542079
>>10542118
Suppose I'm just a libertarian period. Suppose I embrace both the right and left forms of it and wish only for the freest society attainable by flawed man.

[Anonymous No.10542148]

>>10542133
Then you're dominantly on the right, which I believe most people are, they just don't know it. I believe most people just want to be left alone to their business and don't really care much about what other people do, at least enough to do something about it...

[Anonymous No.10542162]

>>10541935
RADICAL CENTRISM is the way

[Anonymous No.10542165]

>>10542133
Left Libertarians are just Communists who hope everyone will magically not be capitalists once the state is gone.
Or else they're just regular Communists but they claim its not the state when they do it

[Anonymous No.10542179]

>>10542080
I disagree with Lange's view that Marx's LTV is "a static theory of general economic equilibrium”, when applied to capitalism (and not just simple commodity production). If you want to make that case, you might be able to do it with pre-capitalist societies. That isn't what Marx devoted his life to, though.

Using game theory to argue against communism sounds quite interesting, I have to admit. Not sure what I think about it.

[Anonymous No.10542182]

>>10542165
Private property is a state institution. Without the state, you might not have some kind of commie approach to property, but whatever property exists will not be private property

[Anonymous No.10542195]

>>10542148
Ok, but if what you're saying epitomizes right libertarians and dude weed epitomizes left libertarians then there is some serious cognitive dissonance on the right. (I realize it's just a meme) but prohibition violates the core of any libertarian thought on three levels
>Violates agency of the individual
>Violates the role of the state by making it an active social engineer
>Violates the laws of the free market economics (and proves that the invisible hand of human desires of consumption is more powerful than laws of the state.)
Truly anti prohibition should be an issue all libertarians agree on.

[Anonymous No.10542206]

>>10542195
>Truly anti prohibition should be an issue all libertarians agree on.
I think they do. I think the image just means that people on the left, who don't want a massive government, do so simply because of weed. People on the right can either hate or like weed, but what they have in common is the belief that the government shouldn't be able to tell us that we aren't allowed to smoke.

[Anonymous No.10542207]

>>10541935
The right path is trying to push forward the XIX and XX C ideologies and/or add more content into them so they can have the "substratum" to face the issues of the XXI C. I think they haven't had a substantial change ever since Reagan's/Tatcher's/Pinochet's Gov'ts. Most other reforms act as very small fixes that I wouldn't call substantial.

Nowadays most national governments are market oriented and this of course isn't sustainable because under every global crisis Governments and citizens have to take part of the losses so the whole system doesn't collapse on itself. Then you have to take into account all the other issues like slavery in 3rd world manufacturing countries, environment, etc... On the other hand, quite a big group of ivory tower intellectual's push for leftist's practices that are doomed to fail due to how inefficient they are when you consider immigration, plus the whole aspect of how easily corruptible bureaucracies are.

I think that we need some sort of grand narrative of what we want humanity to achieve in 100 years or so. If it was for me, I would like everyone to live on small communities and halt technological advancement, but of course that wouldn't work because no one wants to give up their luxuries, so I'd rather side with the most practical ideology (lately I've been more of a centrist). Whatever it is something has to be decided or some sort of consensus between global powers before we blow each-other since ideological tensions are high.

I hope for some intellectual that synthesizes the most practical sides of leftism, fascism and neo-liberalism without creating a monster like Nazbol.

[Anonymous No.10542227]

>>10542182
Depends on your definition of private property. In Marxist terms it could absolutely exist without the existence of a state. Provided you have the guns to keep it

[Anonymous No.10542230]

>>10542207
>I think that we need some sort of grand narrative of what we want humanity to achieve in 100 years or so
So, basically you're for a centrally planned economy?

[Anonymous No.10542236]

You might want to read 'The Black Book of communism' and 'The Gulag Archipelago'.

[Anonymous No.10542237]

>>10542230
Lol

[Anonymous No.10542264]

>>10541620
>But at a certain point it occurred to me that people are such broken beings in such a rat pile of a world that on a material basis alone we don't even desire the harmony and common welfare that Communism aims for.
yep that's unfortunately true. as nice as the world could be if we were all to just get along, it can't happen. for example Yugoslavia was doing relatively fine compared to other communist countries but it all crashed after Tito died and nationalists started playing their tricks. Greed is an essential part of human beings and it can't be stopped.

[Anonymous No.10542272]

>>10542230
The communistic grand narrative is a little too contradictory when put into practice, for example it argues for freeing man, but there has been slavery or mass shootings everywhere it was implemented. Also, empirically speaking, centrally planning an economy is too inefficient for the contemporary world. I would agree just in theory, but as I said it needs to be practical more than ideological.
Enlightenment is a good example of a grand narrative that wasn't so obviously contradictory, it took well into XX C. to notice how destructive it was, and even then it still sort of holds up.

[Anonymous No.10542285]

>>10542272
Why do you think the enlightenment is destructive?

[Anonymous No.10542344]

>>10542285
because the enlightenment brought up, between many things, colonialism and classic liberal economy, which are itself destructive, both to the humanity of the people that were colonized/had to work in industries and to the environment.
It's a product of it's time whoever and I'm not saying it's bad on itself, but you could hardly apply the same logic nowadays and expect to have good results or a good understanding of the issues of our world. Economy is much more complex now than then, and cultures clash harshly everyday, and yes, you could colonize every country out there that doesn't agree with a determined set of values, but that would be inefficient and probably brings war.

The whole idea of civilizing/enlightening the world under the values of the western world resulted in World War I or at least I think it did. (Conquer/Enlighten the world -> countries amass power -> logically they want to have more -> they clash).

[Anonymous No.10542438]

Try Ocalan- Democratic Confederalism. It's like 20 pages and has been the basis for pic related.

If you like the sound of that, you can read Bookchin- The Next Revolution. Bookchin's libertarian municipalism was the basic for democratic confederalism and helps to eliminate a lot of the tankie violence and anarchist apathy from leftism.

Mark Fisher- Capitalist Realism is another readable text. After you read that watch the film Hypernormalisation, which deals with the same subjects.

[Anonymous No.10542509]

>>10542264
>Greed is an essential part of human beings and it can't be stopped.
Why?

[Anonymous No.10542518]

>>10542344
I disagree with your view on the cause of WW1. those forces made it more destructive but are hardly the cause of Europeans fighting grand wars across their continent. See: hundred years war.

[Anonymous No.10542533]

>>10542509
Because greed is a natural reaction to valid or invalid feelings of inadequacy and insecurities. You can't make everyone feel adequate and secure. Therefore there will always be people who desire more than they need to fill the voids they can never fill.

[Anonymous No.10542539]

>>10542533
Seems to me you're just making baseless statements, buddy.

[Anonymous No.10542595]

>>10542539
How is it baseless? My basis is the human condition of insecurity drives the desire to accumulate wealth to assuage insecurity. Obviously this isn't the only reaction possible to insecurities. Feeling insecure can also trigger introspection and empathy but as long as you have insecurity you will have greed.

[Anonymous No.10542608]

>>10542539
>>10542509
>people will put their own interests ahead of others
>durr where are you getting this baeless idea from

[Anonymous No.10542979]

>>10541560

>>10541582 is a good summary. If you want to understand why it failed (also Fascism, Nazism, and now Neoliberalism), I think without a shred of irony that the best book is The Pursuit of the Millennium by Norman Cohn. It is an uncompromising look into the impulses that lead people to believe that they will bring a new world into existence in which everything will be different, and why they always fail. It's a notion that's pervasive -- and may be an irrevocable part of -- modern thinking.

I am a Catholic, and this book is HARD on the Church. It sent me into a very bad state for a while, until I realized that the Church is one of the few Western institutions of any import that seems to have internalized the lesson.

[Anonymous No.10542994]

>>10542979
Neat. I'm not the anon you tagged but I will look into it. This pretty much seems right up my philosophical alley. Also Catholic.

[Anonymous No.10543013]

>>10541620
>he departure is less about economics for me and more about the fact I just don't see it as a spiritually tennable tradition.
its actually not untenable, more debased, a mockery of the natural order.

[Anonymous No.10543056]

>>10542608
>people will put their own interests ahead of others
Do you have a citation for that always being true? There's many cases where people do the opposite, and let's consider you can put your interests "above" or "below" others, you can also consider them "on the same level". Self-interests also has alot to do with the common good when you think about it, having other people being content around you will make your own life better.

[Anonymous No.10543095]

>>10543056
>Do you have a citation for that always being true?

The pleasure principle. Everything else is just spooky bullshit

[Anonymous No.10543104]

>>10543056
Holy shit you pseud we are not going to spoon feed you this debate that every political treatise since Plato's republic has examined. Yes there are other outcomes like>>10542595 said BOTH are predictable outcomes but if you can figure out how to engender the exact reaction you want then congratulations you win the billion dollar prize of the centuries. A more reliable solution is to accept greed has part of the human condition since it always has been and then work a system around our flaws instead of hoping or believing we can eradicate them. Also read Brave New World. It's the attempt to remove the source of emotions like greed and envy by making everyone feel adequate in every way they can conceive.

[Anonymous No.10543108]

>>10542979
>Norman (((Cohn)))
>Denies the divine mission to bring forth the Kingdom of Heaven

Yeah no thanks buddy

[Anonymous No.10543171]

>>10541560
Neoliberal? So you're a kike?

[Anonymous No.10543173]

>>10543056
are you seriously looking for scientific studies to confirm that people tend to argue with each other? i don't know what to tell you, i want to live in your utopian dreamland as well

[Anonymous No.10543303]

>>10541560

Communism has never been tried because no socialist country ever gets past the "dictatorship of the proletariat" part. Funny how that works lol

[Anonymous No.10543424]

>>10541560
Instead of books, buy a rope. You know what to do from there.

[Anonymous No.10543580]

>>10542272
are you kidding me planning an economy is the most posible now. specially because now we live in the computer age, where calculating labour contents, and making input output plans can be actually calculated to respond to demand, unlike soviet times, where they just basically said "make a 1000000 of that thing, that'll be enough" which caused shortages

[Anonymous No.10543627]

>>10543580
It's essentially what Walmart already does

[Anonymous No.10543641]

>>10543580
>>10543627
You still need the free market will. Wal Mart benefits from being able to aggregate enough data on what we choose to buy and what we look at online. That's much different than deciding how much we ought to buy of a thing.

[Anonymous No.10543697]

>>10543641
are you stupid honestly?, that can also be done in a planned economy, the goverment can monitor what people are buying and how much of that thing they are buying, and plan the economy accordingly, and if a good right now in this very moment doesn't match demand then its price can be incremented above it's labour content, according to how much people demand it, the difference between the labour content of the good and its sell price is then fed to a larger economic algorithm that minimizes these differences, honestly you should read pic related and stop spouting the same memes all people do

[Anonymous No.10543745]

>>10543697
No it can't because you've reversed the incentive. It's absolutely perverted.

[Anonymous No.10543778]

>>10543745
how exactly can't it happen?, there is no incentive here because there is no human decision, a machine would record the amount of x product bought in a given geographical zone, it would then run a simulation of demand in the near future and conclude on a given price for the product such that there won't be shortages of it, this price is then used by another machine and is compared with the labour content of the thing, if the price is higher then production at the closest factory would be ramped up, and the machine would let know a higher up how much addtional labour to allocate to that factory, so that they produce enough of the thing, so that its future price will match its labour value, besides the goverment guy that's in charge of allocating more people to produce more, there is no human decision here, there is no incentive to do anything besides let the system continue its course, how can it fail?

[Anonymous No.10543799]

>>10543778
Wal Mart isn't a machine it's a collection of shareholders with the business incentive to make a profit. The algorithms and stats they use are tools to serve that end. In a state planned economy those tools would be in the hands of bureaucrats who may or may not have good/correct incentives. The profit incentive is not perfect, but is better than the decision of a government official.

[Anonymous No.10544861]

>>10543799
Capital works better only if you're willing to accept huge market failures like industrial pollution, death from preventable disease, permenant war, etc...

You know the U.S. had a planned economy during WW2? We were handing out ration cards, using steel for planes instead of rich man's fancies, centrally directing most factory production - and it went fine! Nothing collapsed! Sure, a few marginal inefficiencies in the (frankly rare) markets that were reasonably competitive - but that doesn't matter because we got the big social good we were pursuing (killing nazis) right.

It's the same today. A socialist state might produce too many newspapers occasionally but it will put humanity on the road to solving climate change, avoiding existential superbugs, dealing with encroaching AI, etc.

The system survives because you think these problems are intractable, but they can be dealt with if the system were reformed.

[Anonymous No.10544869]

>>10543799
>>10544861
Also all the arguments in this thread are 10th-grade tier. OP, go talk to some actual socialists on a forum that isn't filled with pseuds who can only parrot what they hear on panel shows.

[Anonymous No.10544969]

>>10544869
>all the arguments are 10th-grade tier
doesn't respond to any of those apparently easily refutable arguments
>tells op to go to better forum
doesn't link any forums or resources for op

the absolute state of commies

[Anonymous No.10544979]

>>10541638
the purple quadrant’s just a shadow realm. the only ones that i can classify under there are Ancaps, Objectivists, Minarchists, and Libertarians. conspiracy wingnuts like Alex Jones and meaningless cult leaders like Stefan Molyneux are probably outside the realm of the dark purple quadrant.

[Anonymous No.10544980]

>>10541620
>implying human nature isn't shaped by the ideological circumstances it lives and grows in
read more Marxist theory

[Anonymous No.10544991]

>>10542236
don't forget to add Mein Kampf to that list.

[Anonymous No.10545020]

>>10541560

Here's a tip: Don't bother with any of this shit.

Nobody gives a fuck about your online debates or even your IRL debates with freaky little college neckbeards.

Communism is not going to happen and there won't be any appreciable change in the current political system in your lifetime.

You probably don't even vote anyway.

[Anonymous No.10545028]

[Anonymous No.10545030]

>>10542236
>'The Gulag Archipelago

ugh. Go to bed, Jordan. You need to conserve your energy. There is a dragon to slay tomorrow..., well, a blue haired feminist wanting to be called xer..;

[Anonymous No.10545035]

>>10541620
>That any attempt to simply arrange society in such a way will be radically undermined and perverted by what would be often called the Freudian death drive.
That's why we must embrace the death drive and build a fascist society.

[Anonymous No.10545037]

>>10544991
Only criticism to "Black Book of Communism" is that it's a COUPLE MILLIONS off in some places. As if that matters at all.

Muh combubism dindu nuffin

[Anonymous No.10545039]

>>10545030
>go to bed the 1970s Nobel Prize in literature

[Anonymous No.10545042]

>>10542207
>I hope for some intellectual that synthesizes the most practical sides of leftism, fascism and neo-liberalism without creating a monster like Nazbol.
As a moderate fascist I am intrigued.

[Anonymous No.10545068]

>>10543799
You havent actually responded to any of my arguments, i told you a machanism for a planned economy, challenged you to point the flaws in it and all you can say about it is "it has no profit therefore is wrong", the point of the post in case you didnt noticed is that goverment burocrats dont really need to be involved in a major way in day to day planning, they are there merely with an instrmental, and helpin role, they do not get a say even in the amount of production, or how it would be allocated, their motivation would be to do their job, which would be to solve problems in production facilities, and help people do their job, in the big scale they would have less involment than a liberal goverment, since most planning can be done in elections

[Anonymous No.10545075]

>>10541560
For economics, The Road to Serfdom by FA Hayek.

If you want to feel fear whenever you see a hammer and sickle, then The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn.

[Anonymous No.10545103]

>>10545042
>As a moderate fascist

Kek

[Anonymous No.10545199]

>>10545020
what are you even doing here you fucking normie, shouldn't you be in some gym doing sports or watching tv at home?

[Anonymous No.10545262]

>>10544991
I recommended those books precisely because I think they showcase the dreadfulness of totalitarianism (communism in this case) so I wouldn't recommend that book.

[Anonymous No.10545265]

>>10545030
Does Jordan /ourguy/ Peterson trigger you?

[Anonymous No.10545847]

>>10543778
Is today machines capable of such a thing? "Running stimulation on possible future demand" is not easy as it sounds. Also machine isn't as flexible as humans, if one problem occurs in the system, which will most likely happens, good fucking luck trying to convince the public to believe in the machine ever again.

[Anonymous No.10545862]

>>10545847
>Is today machines capable of such a thing?

Impossible to say. It's a question about how many factors it would need to handle in order to be useful.
Personally I doubt it could ever outperform the capital allocating ability of the stock market

[Anonymous No.10545870]

>>10544861
Yeah ration cards were wonderful...
>>10545068
I undermined the premise you built your tower of arguments on. I have thusly proved all of them to be built upon a bad foundation.

[Anonymous No.10546042]

>>10541560
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06-XcAiswY4

This is the only 3 minute clip you need.

[Anonymous No.10546087]

This list starts you off nice and easy before delving into serious theory.

Honestly, whenever I hear communism being shit on because of muh human nature, I fucking cringe. Communism doesn't operate on any kind of model of a superior altruistic human. Modern liberalism in fact has a much more utopian view of human society than Marx did. I think this is a problem of separating the early Marx, who comes from a clearly optimistic enlightenment tradition, from the late Marx who is very different with his sober pragmatism.

[Anonymous No.10546116]

>>10545075
To add on to this,
For a mix of economic and political perspectives read From Under the Rubble by Solzhenitsyn.

[Anonymous No.10546132]

Just watch this, it's only 3 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06-XcAiswY4

[Anonymous No.10546160]

>>10545028
Haven't read the others but Sowell doesn't understand Marxism at all(most "marxist" doesnt either but that's a different story). If you're dead set on reading a rigth-wing view of socialism I would suggest pic related.

Mises get some things wrong but he atleast understands that a socialist 'economy' involves the absence of prices(which his central to his criticism) and ownership of any kind; worker, state or collective.

[Anonymous No.10546180]

>>10546132
Most historians/professors/authors today can agree that what the USSR was definitely not socialism, but it certainly does not vindicate the ideology.
If on a hot summer day I get sunburned from spending an eternity outside, do I turn to the sun to criticize and curse this effect? No, and neither should I of socialism in the USSR, but it doesn't make the burn any less real.

[Anonymous No.10546189]

If you want a treatise on economic planning, you should read someone like a computer scientist, not any of these free market ideologues. It's disgusting how fucking Hayek is considered an authority on feasible economic systems, he was so deep into ideology that he believed freedom is by definition a market exchange.

[Anonymous No.10546281]

>>10542509
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

[Anonymous No.10546921]

>>10545847
many industries already run demand simulations, and computer planning is fundamentally reduced to linear system solving. whose computational time is proportional to the number of commodities, so its a p problem and therefore can be solved in a resonable time

[Anonymous No.10546945]

>>10545870
you are retarded, there are plenty of industries through history that have worked without profit incentive, can you imagine if you applied your brainlet logic to other things
> nhs will never work, since the drive isn't profit from drug prices then no drugs will be avalible at all
>public schools will never work since profit is not the main function of them
so me a favor a go die

[Anonymous No.10546983]

>>10546945
Every NHS in the world depends on the advancements made and paid by the u.s.' largely private system and private schools consistently outclass public schools even economically depressed urban settings.

[Anonymous No.10547052]

>>10546945
>Reminder that separate but equal education and the college debt crisis were born under public education.

[Anonymous No.10547134]

>>10543697
>are you stupid honestly?
Says the moron who thinks it's possible for any government to plan the economy efficiently.

You do realize that putting all your eggs in one basket is a pretty fucking stupid thing to do, yeah?

[Anonymous No.10547177]

>>10543697
You're also overlooking the value of competition. You know why Western cars were always better than Soviet one's? Competition. In fact the only complicated, high tech industry that Soviets excelled at was military and rocketry. You know why? They were competing against the west.

[Anonymous No.10547186]

>>10546983
Marx argued that Capitalism was good for getting the framework of a society in place (infrastructure, industrialization, drug research). You just said that these were in place, and that's why the NHS works. What's your argument here?

[Anonymous No.10547194]

>>10547134
>You do realize that putting all your eggs in
>So I'll just put all my eggs in the capitalists basket, they've never fucked up before, and I'm sure they have my best interests at heart

[Anonymous No.10547278]

>>10547186
That you still need the capitalism of the u.s. to fuel the advancements used in other nations. If there was a system where private firms competed with each other for government contracts maybe this would work, but maybe it would become as corrupt and bloated as our defense budget.

[Anonymous No.10547285]

>>10547194
There is no "capitalist" basket. It's a public and private cooperation. Communism rids itself of the private partnership and so you are left with a singular monolith of all power that you hope doesn't fuck up.

[Anonymous No.10547295]

>>10547177
a military is much easier to plan than a commodity economy, simply put the variety of material supplies is less, so is much easier to figure out how much production of each material is required, and therefore it's easier to cordinate the military industrial complex. as i said in that post "figure out how much of that material is required" is a difficult thing in a planned economy, and the soviets only did it with their military, the reason they succeded in that is because they could coordinate the military better, so practical research could be implemented faster. also your post implies that a goverment can't innovate unless it's competing with someone, just look at state funded science, for decades the only way to finance research that is too expensive for the private sector is the goverment, they do not compete with anyone, cern wasn't competing with anyone when they created computer linking, the usa wasn't competing with anyone when they created the tcp/protocol, fuck even now the eu is not competing with anyone in their fussion project (project that is funded in soviet research btw)

[Anonymous No.10547324]

>>10547285
So what kind of system are you arguing for specifically?

[Anonymous No.10547326]

>>10547285
political power is gone in communism

[Anonymous No.10547343]

>>10547278
>That you still need the capitalism of the u.s. to fuel the advancements used in other nations.
Hardly, take a look at how many patents are being filed in the US vs how many are filed in countries with, say, socialized healthcare or free public college.

[Lol No.10547348]

>>10542509
Because is necessary to survive

[Anonymous No.10547368]

>>10547343
This.

Socialists in USA constantly praise the healthcare in Sweden, but they don't understand that we're basically enjoying a free ride thanks to all the investments into R&D that America is doing.

[Anonymous No.10547379]

>>10547324
I'm not sure exactly yet. Ultimately it would most likely pull from a variety of political philosophies, but I haven't figured out exactly how much of each system to pull together and which ideas prove to be most compatible. I agree with libertarians on most issues, but I also believe that cartels can greatly threaten that system so there needs to be checks on that. I don't think that all social welfare is inherently bad, but that it needs to be extremely limited and focused and almost always impermanent because as an ever more dynamic society we will increasingly have to start from scratch to address new problems or quickly evolved problems. I don't think the entrenched nature of a fully socialized bureaucracy will allow us to be as flexible as we need to be in a future of accelerated technological advancements.
>>10547326
Yeah and I'm going to ride a unicorn to work today.

[Anonymous No.10547383]

>>10547343
Yeah and where'd they get their degrees?

[Anonymous No.10547429]

>>10547383
>public colleges

[Anonymous No.10547996]

>>10547429
I was going for American, but yeah that includes our mess of a (((public))) college system.

[Anonymous No.10548074]

I thought the whole point of being a neoliberal was to exist in a bubble where you didn't have to take any competing ideas seriously at all because they are all so obviously "against human nature" as to be rejected outright.

And to advocate for the extremely specific idea that "human nature" is essentially an algorithm for selecting preferences.

Why not just read Thomas Sowell's "Marxism" so you can dig your heels further into the turf you've settled on? I mean the entire appeal of your worldview is its comic-book like understanding of good and evil, evil being the people who simply will not accept the fundamentals of neoliberal theory (PREFERENCES!), be they professors or their pink-haired students (who use iPhones lol). Why spoil that quality by admitting the complexity of the world and having to go evaluate the arguments and ideas of others seriously? I mean do you know how much reading that is? For now you want to know about Communism but soon you'll be looking at contending theories of human nature, history, and maybe even the meaning of life.

Go down this rabbit hole of exploring Communism and you might find yourself studying a shitskin language like Arabic just so you can go back and read their sacred texts as a component of your re-evaluation of modernity.

Just don't do it man, it's not worth it.

#MAGA

[Anonymous No.10548077]

>>10548074
are you ok

[Anonymous No.10548082]

>>10541560
>True communism has never been tried
False, true communism has never been achieved because it devolves into dictators and genocide way before it can achieve anything at all, this is the way it works in reality

[Anonymous No.10548085]

>>10541560
>be a neoliberal
>undermine the preconditions for liberalism by supporting democracy and mass immigration

I don't mean to presume anything about your views, OP - I just think the views of the le radical centrists are so self-defeating

[Anonymous No.10548090]

>>10548082

Not OP (and not at all a neoliberal) but for fuck's sake this argument is very tired.

Violent revolution on a nation-wide scale necessitates the existence of an army, and all armies have generals.

As soon as the war is over, the generals possess all the power once held by the previous elite. And no amount of good intentions or Communist rhetoric will prevent those generals (or the nastiest, most scheming among them) from seizing power through intrigue.

[Anonymous No.10548104]

>>10541620
Another liberal who hates humans and humanity, you are such a cliche it's not funny anymore

[Anonymous No.10548136]

>>10548090
It's almost like taking people's rights away it's an act of violence on itself so you could never achieve communism by any peaceful means

[Anonymous No.10548168]

>>10548136

I'm not your fucking friend either, don't give me your "rights" bullshit.

You have only your body to move. This is all the instrument you have to change the world, and those that start dreaming up armies, courts or police, or some other ropes upon which to hang their brothers so as to make them dance, are no better than slave drivers, and know nothing of the goodness encapsulated in the giving of a crust of bread, the world be as it may.

Those who try to redeem the world through history only further the pace of its destruction.

Today we feel the neediness of others, and we sense our own desire for our own ends. This is a conflict as old as mankind, and it remains the principle arena of moral action. What will take from our friends to keep for ourselves? That's all God wants to know.

[Anonymous No.10548209]

>>10548168
>We will just vote for everyone else to never have the right to vote again that way we will create a peaceful non opressive society

[Anonymous No.10548231]

>>10548209

I don't have a clue how that is a relevant response. I'm guessing you're just farting out pre-hashed arguments to reassure yourself you have something to say at this point.

[Anonymous No.10548255]

>>10548231
there are only two ways you can "achieve" communism first one is to start a war against people who dont think like you wich is violence and second one is to opress everyone who doesnt think like you wich is violence
i guess you could try educating people but you are going to have a tough time unless what you call ducation is manipulation and teaching thigs wrong wich would also be violence
no wonder every solution you can come up with ends up in violence when you try to see everything through power

[Anonymous No.10548267]

>>10541620
>human nature
Luxembergist here. I see this argument coming up a lot as a criticism against the implementation of socialism or communism, but I don't find it a particularly compelling one. There is no, and will never be, one universal "human nature"; the vast differences in world culture proves beyond any reasonable doubt that this so-called inborn nature varies widely by the environment that a person has become acclimated to.

[Anonymous No.10548270]

>>10542264
>but it all crashed after Tito died and nationalists started playing their tricks
so then it follows that the real problem is nationalists, no?

[Anonymous No.10548273]

>>10548267
show me all those societys with no property, no currency and no power structures

[Anonymous No.10548280]

>>10548267
Yes but communism needs human nature to be universally altruistic and giving. Or at least a far sighted enough selfishness to get everyone to give up private property. Capitalism allows for a diversity of human natures to coexist.

[Anonymous No.10548281]

>>10548255

I don't have a problem with anything in this post, which is probably why I'm not a Communist.

And you're right. The only way to peacefully convert a society is to convince each member, one by one, to change. And that takes a lot of patience and time.

This is how a person who places principle above any and all pragmatic concerns engages politics. The result is extremely slow, unsexy and discouraging.

Politics is for people who want big splashes and huge numbers, and who haven't realized that these kind of motions make a society extremely vulnerable to outbreaks of mass violence (whether by a police state or through war with foreign nations).

[Anonymous No.10548332]

>>10548104
>>10548074
>>10548270
I gotta go to sleep now but I just want to know why communists don't believe in the Pareto distribution, where a small number of people own majority of the wealth. Or where out of millions of athletes, only a few are world class. Why do you believe that it is not human nature for some to strive and be better than others? To them it's purely psychological. Rich people are NOT like Scrooge McDuck where they like to swim in money because they can, to them it's just a game to make more money. To athletes it's just a game to become better etc. Why do you deny that this is human nature?
And you know what, the world can't even work without those hierarchies. Just take a look at the Linux community. They work on a free and open source platform and there's so much elitism and animosity and everyone hates each other. Unions and syndicates are impossible because the commanding people will have more power over others. It's absolutely natural to have hierarchies because some people are better than others at leading and being in charge.
And please, prove ONE example of a modern successful society that wasn't a dictatorship and that didn't have hierarchies.

[Anonymous No.10548345]

>>10548281
>to peacefully convert a society is to convince each member, one by one, to change. And that takes a lot of patience and time
you wouldnt be able to do it and even then someone will change his mind or someone will be born with a high eough iq to challenge it
its an opressive and violent system, communism isnt the opposite of capitalism, its the opposite to democracy
politics are for people looking for money and control

[Anonymous No.10548355]

>>10548345
Yeah this. Harrison Bergeron and what not.

[Anonymous No.10548373]

>>10548332

The points you raise are perfectly understandable and it's good you're thinking through them. I feel I could respond to this post effectively in a long conversation, but not on here.

I don't have space to explain it but, you're basically coming at Communism from a neoliberal perspective, and what you need to do is come at the neoliberal perspective from the Communist perspective.

That will require you to have enough knowledge of Communism to convincingly pretend to be one (like I'm doing here).

Marx did not begin his theory of the world by analyzing "human nature." Marx begins his analysis by studying the system of industrial production that he believes characterizes capitalism.

Starting at the factory instead of with the consumer produces a vastly different (and highly convincing) analysis. Most people who study Marx seriously are going to end up being Marxists for at least a few years. That's because Marx is unbelievably brilliant and insanely convincing.

A good book would be "Contending Economic Theories" (which will show you just how different Marxism is from neoliberalism), written by a Marxist. Since you've studied neoliberalism you can also have fun analyzing his explanation of it. You will know whether he is being disingenuous or if he is presenting it as it actually is.

Other than that, I would check out David Harvey on Youtube and watch some of his lectures before diving into a study of Das Kapital. You don't need to read the book in full but you should be very familiar with some Marxian jargon like "means of production" and "contradictions of capital."

Good luck and good on you for being open minded enough to study opposing views.

[Anonymous No.10548380]

>>10548355
there are lobby groups trying to push for overtime to be unpaid and seniority to be disregarded only so women and men can earn the exact same amount of money even tho nobody is forcing women not to work overtime or to stop working to have children

[Anonymous No.10548387]

>>10543424
give the rope to the people?

[Anonymous No.10548390]

>>10548345

Sorry I should be clear. Post >>10548281 is not advancing a Communist argument. It's just my own opinion as a former Communist.

I'm something of a "personalist" I guess you could say, in that I see all human problems as moral problems which can only be solved to the extent that individuals decide to act morally.

For me, the goal is not to create a uniform society. The goal is to awaken human beings to truths that allow them to live morally, one person at a time, beginning with myself.

[Anonymous No.10548396]

>>10548380
Lol my single childless younger sister who works holidays and overtime would blow blood vessel if they succeed.

[Anonymous No.10548452]

>>10548396
individual people dont matter, haventt you seen those videos with white protestors yeeling at some black guy fo r being an uncle tom?
>>10548390
>former communist
thats funny

[Anonymous No.10548498]

>>10548452

>thats funny

There's nothing funny about it. All the poverty and meanness of capitalism are very real. So are its periodic resource wars and its ideology wars. And all the horror created by 20th century Communism is real too.

It's as bad as either a neoliberal or a Communist could possibly imagine on their own and then some.

You cannot believe how irredeemably pessimistic my view of politics is.

[Anonymous No.10548516]

>>10548498
It's funny that you consider yourself a former communist, that's a very flattering self perception
There are plenty of former communists alive today and it's not like anyone can seriously expect America or Western Europe to become communist anytime soon

[Anonymous No.10548537]

>>10548516

Oh I was just running with the jargon of the thread mate. It didn't seem appropriate to make the Communism/Marxism distinction here as it wasn't immediately relevant to anything.

I'm a former Marxist-influenced kid who sincerely tried to engage the "activist" circuit to try and "change the world" if that means anything to you.

[Anonymous No.10548579]

>>10548537
It's funny that you describe yourself as a communist as if communism is part of your identity, it's not, saying I'm a communist or I'm a Marxist or an anarchist tells me nothing about you, you could have said you are a communism sympathizer but instead you take ownership over it, how are you a communist?

[Anonymous No.10548642]

>>10541560

If you're looking for an opinion, I think that True communism has never been tried because it's a suicidal concept. Imagine gutting the fed and all but shutting down the military so bob cooter and tyrone can have 10 kids and still have beer money. The concentration of wealth has clear benefits to a nation.

[Anonymous No.10548668]

>>10541620
You were never a Marxist, you were just a typical utopian socialist who thought that a certain set of policies would correct all human morality.

That's fine. Read Marx and you'll learn that you were wrong then and are still wrong now.

[Anonymous No.10549692]

read 1984, Goldstein's book.

you'll learn why it's useless to struggle for a revolution to communism or capitalism because it's a cycle.

[Anonymous No.10549711]

Neoliberalism is a good system until the hordes of illiberal people you let flood over the borders turn it into an authoritarian shithole. That's why all the libertarian scholars turn into neo fascists
>but MUH VALUES
Try explaining that to Muhammad. Maybe he'll allow you a quick death

[Anonymous No.10549729]

>>10543580
read The Road to Serfdom by Hayek and see how far that idea gets you

[Anonymous No.10549748]

>>10549729
(((Hayek)))

[Anonymous No.10549767]

>>10547348
If that were true you mother never would have had your wortheless ass. And probably wouldn't be supporting your life in the basement. At the very least woldn't have invested the tens of thousands of dollars and time into raising you.

[Anonymous No.10549871]

>>10548373
ok thanks. Yes, i'm trying to understand communism instead of just dismissing it. I've just read the manifesto so far. My plan includes Marx/Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, since they're often mentioned as the big 4. Anything else you would recommend? I'll read that book you mentioned as well

[Anonymous No.10549873]

>>10549748
(((Marxist))) Falseflag

[Anonymous No.10549961]

>>10549871
not the guy but kolakowski - main currents on marxism, especially if you want to know more about the ussr and not just marxist theory

[Anonymous No.10549966]

>>10548332
20% of people don't have 80% of the acomplishments, that's the reason marxist don't belive in the paretto distribution. Beyond that go straw man some other ideology

[Anonymous No.10549968]

>>10548668
I've literally read Kapital V1

[Anonymous No.10550039]

>>10549966
>20% of people don't have 80% of the acomplishments

They literally do though

[Anonymous No.10550058]

>>10550039
20% of the people have all the money, it still doesn't make windows his personal achivement, over the thousands of workers he employs
>>10548273
socialism has power structures, it's full communism that it doesn't, and keeping that in mind the answer is the incas, they neither had markets, or private property or currency, in fact they were the og socialists

[Anonymous No.10550064]

>>10550058
>it still doesn't make windows his personal achivement

Well he achieved it, so it does

[Anonymous No.10550080]

>>10550058
>the answer is the incas, they neither had markets, or private property or currency
and thats why there are no incas anymore

[Anonymous No.10550083]

>>10550064
i'm sure you are the type of person who would have thought that the pharao built the pyramids all by himself

[Anonymous No.10550085]

>>10550083
No but there'd be no fucking Pyramids without him would there

[Anonymous No.10550091]

>>10550058
Actually Microsoft is a great example. Where you have a power structure where people demand shit to be done and to be done in a certain way which will guarantee high quality of their product, and which the free market can respond to.
As opposed to Linux, in which every asshole has his own ego and makes his own distro, instead of coming together to fix certain issues which Linux has had for decades. Exactly because it's a free and open community so people have no incentive to come together, they separate and isolate themselves into their little groups and everyone is at war with each other all the time.
Which one has been proven to be more successful? And it's not just because of money and investments, MS simply has more qualified and better people to fix issues, work on compatibility, new features etc

[Anonymous No.10550098]

>>10550080
they existed for hundreds of years prior to the spanish, who spread deadly diseases to them, creating pandemics,but nah i'm sure socialism was the real cause of their disapereance

[Anonymous No.10550102]

>>10550098
what is social darwinism, just because they died doesnt mean war killed their culture

[Anonymous No.10550108]

>>10550098
>>10550102
Dude you guys realize Peru still exists, like its a majority Indian nation

[Anonymous No.10550122]

>>10550102
>what is social darwinism
a meme

>just because they died doesnt mean war killed their culture
nah i'm sure it's a total coincidence that they existed continuously for centuries, and then happen to disapear at the time where a big war happened

[Anonymous No.10550124]

>>10550108
not as a socialist nation

[Anonymous No.10550129]

>>10550124
The Incas were more Social Democrats than Socialists in either case

[Anonymous No.10550130]

>>10550122
>a meme
jewish people experienced at least two genocides and thats the least of their problems through history and now they revived their dead language and have a nation of their own

[Anonymous No.10550136]

>>10550130
Rodents tend to be the most resilient of mammals

[Anonymous No.10550144]

>>10550136
be it as it may their culture was strong enough to survive all that, inca socialism wasnt

[Anonymous No.10550146]

>>10550129
how can you be social democrat without private property or private economy or markets, and or drive for profit?, are you a leftcom?

[Anonymous No.10550250]

>>10550144
well the arguement in the first place was whether, private property and markets were human nature, and since the incas were a large scale society without those it proves that that in wrong, so stop moving the goal post

[Anonymous No.10550277]

>>10544980
Yes, that is what he's implying.

[Anonymous No.10550288]

>>10550146
Because they still had an aristocracy who owned big palaces and temples full of Gold

[Anonymous No.10550418]

>>10548387
Well, kind of? After you use it once you won't need it anymore

[Anonymous No.10550442]

>>10541620
Did human nature change between from when we used to live in tribes and now?
Or was it nurture that changed?

[Anonymous No.10550447]

>>10550442
In short we found out God is dead

[Anonymous No.10550568]

>>10550447
Think for more than 5 seconds and type something longer than 8 words and maybe I will respond to it next time

[Anonymous No.10550575]

>>10550568
Keep your response buddy

[Anonymous No.10550724]

>>10550250
i didnt make that post, i only replyed to >>10548267
because you where obviously being dishonest

[Anonymous No.10551140]

semantics man words mean whatever I want them to the (((economists))) jew bankers control the world!11

http://people.bu.edu/tboas/neoliberalism.pdf

https://olivermhartwich.files.wordpress.com

/2015/02/neoliberalism.pdf


http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/60471/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRARY_Secondary_libfile_shared_repository_Content_Venugopal%2C%20R_Neoliberalism%20as%20concept_Venugopal_Neoliberalism%20as%20concept_2015.pdf

[Anonymous No.10551183]

You won't be able to because neo-liberalism is untenable and unjustifiable.
>>10541620
Human nature doesn't exist. You have no clue what you're talking about. Disliking THE MAAAAAAAN when you were 12 doesn't make you a former communist.

[Anonymous No.10552191]

>>10541567
This.

[Anonymous No.10552262]

>>10546945
Those systems have monetary profit incentives and need those to function (health experts and educators are paid and will often cease or reduce their contributions to society until their employers give them more benefits), they just don't have monetary profit as the end-goal of the whole.

Also, you think pharmaceutical industries aren't big, profitable businesses?

[Anonymous No.10552291]

>>10541560

Do not listen to anything an American says about communism ever.

[Anonymous No.10553400]

>>10541823
Yeah, globalist literal kike shill that wants to import even more subhuman violent Africans into France is so great.

[Anonymous No.10553826]

You don't have to read Capital, honestly I would just point you toward an hour or two of reading on wikipedia and you should be good. Communism at its heart is not a complicated system and its failings are obvious; Marx spent 10% of Capital explaining it and the other 90 trying to defend it (open verdict as to whether or not he succeeded).

[Anonymous No.10553836]

>>10541620
>human nature

Lmao

[Anonymous No.10553932]

read this

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7lpSWaE2hEtZ09qY2RZZFZsaWc/view

[Anonymous No.10553975]

>>10545262
But it's irrelvant to what OP wants to know, he wants arguments to counter the "communism has never been achieved" argument.

[Anonymous No.10554037]

>>10550442
It has tho.

[Anonymous No.10554290]

This channel will help you with Marxs Capital if you don't want to read it.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9qzXVDKmBdbTlID3HLHe9Q

[Anonymous No.10554343]

>>10541620
>human nature

Not an argument lad. There's no such thing.

[Anonymous No.10554500]

>>10554343
>Fighting baseless assertions with baseless assertions.

[Anonymous No.10554523]

>all of human history shows people to be fighting among each other, killing each other, stealing property, land etc
>communists STILL deny the fact that it's literally just human nature to compete against each other and that it's impossible to just simply get along
so what would you do in your ideal classless society where everyone is equal? You would have to imprison everyone whose opinion is different from yours and that sets a dangerous fucking precedent, no?

[Anonymous No.10554544]

>>10554523
>You would have to imprison everyone whose opinion is different from yours and that sets a dangerous fucking precedent, no?
they're reactionaries, it's justified

[Anonymous No.10554551]

>>10554544
so what do you do once the state is so powerful you don't have any freedom and you're literally just a slave?

[Anonymous No.10554562]

>>10554523
>>10554544
>Implying that it wouldn't be cheaper to shoot them
I also wonder how many more imprisoned it would be than here in the u.s. I think our system is the best example of the fact that you can't imprison your way against a market force if the demand for a good is there. The Chinese had success against opium but they had to kill every user/seller and their family. But fuck it they had people to spare I guess.

[Anonymous No.10554580]

>>10554523
>all of human history shows people to work together
>capitalists STILL deny the fact that it's literally just human nature to cooperate with one another

[Anonymous No.10554581]

Real communism was tried, and failed when the Bolsheviks fucked it up

[Anonymous No.10554622]

>>10554580
It's both. Duality of man. Capitalism doesn't reject cooperation it allows it to coexist with self interest. Ultimately most cooperation is born of self interest anyways, but cooperation has to be voluntarily given by the individual for it to be true cooperation.

[Anonymous No.10554670]

>>10554580
answer this >>10554551

[Anonymous No.10554792]

>>10541560
god, this thread i a mess. Read the State and Revolution then more of his other works. Nearly all notable socialist movements worldwide followed Lenin.

[Anonymous No.10555002]

>>10554670
what do you do when the state doesn't exist anymore and we all live in corporate company towns?
if you don't understand what I'm trying to say, the problem with the question is that it presupposes that the only possible endpoint is the enslavement of man to the state, just like my answer presupposes is that the only possible endpoint of capitalism is some kind of YA post-apoc setting.

[Anonymous No.10555036]

>>10555002
Nah we need total free marketism with an institutionalized destruction of the cartels that crop up every 10 years. Like an economic version of the Purge.

[Anonymous No.10555276]

>>10555002
but that AnCap dystopia you're describing never happened before, while communist dictatorships happened all around the world

[Anonymous No.10555374]

>>10555002
That's a criticism of state-corporationism. I.e. economic fascism.

Which the United States is dancing dangerously close to btw.
>>10555276
We are sliding out of capitalism and into economic corporate socialism tho.

I'm not a commie though because I don't think you can solve the ills of corporate socialism with popular socialism.

[Anonymous No.10555401]

>people who just dismissively greentext ">human nature"
You're all worthless pieces of trash. Of course people share some common characteristics in general, but not everyone shares them in the same way.

Give me some books that discuss human nature.

[Anonymous No.10555416]

>>10555401
>Plato's republic
>The Leviathan by Hobbes
>The prince and other writings by Machiavelli
>The second treatise of government by Locke

[Anonymous No.10555421]

A communist society is supposed to be stateless and without private property, so when commies say that the USSR or any other state run by a Communist Party wasn't communism, they're saying it wasn't that kind of society. It was, however, socialism, which is supposed to be a step on the road to communism rather than just the best we can get outside the realm of ideals.

Or at least that's my understanding of the argument. I think it's very similar to libertarians saying our current society isn't capitalist enough, since they both conflate their autistian conception of a perfect society with what real people and real peoples can actually achieve.

t. Nazi

[Anonymous No.10555435]

>>10550130
>nation of their own
lol no

[Anonymous No.10555439]

>>10555421
>T. National socialist
Ftfy

[Anonymous No.10555465]

>>10555439
Correct. The term 'Nazi' doesn't sting me anymore though.

[Anonymous No.10555480]

Radical thought: What if people don't want to be your comrade? If you spend a lot of time arguing for communism on the internet, you're probably too socially retarded to engage in your civic duties.

Why would I want to be your comrade? Why would you want to be my comrade?

[Anonymous No.10555487]

>>10555480
Not everyone has to be a political activist. Just do nothing and something will happen around you.

[Anonymous No.10555530]

My main problem with communism is that there is a significant portion of black africans in my country.

I feel fine about coming together with my fellow countrymen and even citizens who are not white but down for the cause, but I don't feel comfortable with black people being part of the movement.

I mean wherever black people go inevitably turns into a fucking dump, and I would feel very bitter about giving Mbongo Ukelele a share of the nation's stuff because he would just squander it with his 70 iq and whatever else it is that makes his black brain act retarded.

Do any of the communist scholars deal with how cultures and ethnicity would be handled in a communist state?

[Anonymous No.10555554]

>>10555465
It shouldn't. It's an ad hominem. There is no such thing as a Nazi party and even if there was it couldn't exist in America because it's an implicitly German exclusive party. I'm probably preaching to the choir here though.

[Anonymous No.10555576]

>>10555530
Basically Guns Germs and Steel. Biological determinism is a spook in communists' eyes because it has to be for world revolution to be viable. Culture and national feeling are the tools of capital, etc.

>>10555554
Rockwell used 'Nazi' but that was for shock value as much as anything. I guess fascist works better, that's a general term that doesn't apply specifically to the German worker's party.

[Anonymous No.10555608]

>>10555576

>Basically Guns Germs and Steel. Biological determinism is a spook in communists' eyes because it has to be for world revolution to be viable. Culture and national feeling are the tools of capital, etc.

Hmm, I should have made this association myself.

Sigh, I'm only racist against blacks too. I believe literally every other race on the planet has a shared humanity and the same potential, except for these fucking africans.

[Anonymous No.10555627]

>>10541560
If someone ever tells you 'true communism hasn't been tried', it's a green light to punch them in the face. Even if they are a commie, they are one of the braindead ones.

[Anonymous No.10555644]

>>10541620
That should be obvious to anyone with common sense with even the briefest knowledge of communism. Even the theoretical ideal of communism is dystopia, as it eliminates true freedom.

All it's good for is riling up people who are against the bourgeoisie.

[Anonymous No.10555679]

>>10555644
>I have only read liberal Enlightenment types and think according the maximum number of rights and freedumbs to individuals will create the optimal society
Don't you start. At least when it's just fascists and communists talking shit isn't totally retarded.

[Anonymous No.10555704]

>>10555679
>Fascists and communists can't see that they're the degenerative to tyranny part of the cycle
Every time.

[Anonymous No.10555718]

>>10555704
>attempting to create a society governed by how many shekels you have and how much of the mob you can win over with said shekels is tyranny or degenerate
>liberals in charge of reading any political philosophy not prescribed in high school civics class

[Anonymous No.10555720]

>>10555718
>attempting to create a society governed by...
A society NOT governed by said things, sorry. I'm not a liberal, I'm just mocking them.

[Anonymous No.10555744]

>>10555718
>>10555720
Well you know how the old saying goes: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result

From Sparta to the USSR state planned economies have doomed their otherwise stable societies. It's a bridge too far my man.

[Anonymous No.10555748]

>>10555644
>All it's good for is riling up people who are against the bourgeoisie.
Which isn't a bad thing. Class consciousness is a good thing in capitalist societies.

[Anonymous No.10555752]

>>10555744
>it's not economically efficient enough! never mind that my assertion is trivially falsifiable and totally avoids the legitimate case against Marxism which is its materialist outlook and attempt to force ideals on the real world, the planned economy was the real problem!
All economies are planned. Neither the end of Sparta nor the USSR happened because their governments acted in the market, that's retarded. You don't literally have to decide how many loaves of bread will be shipped to food depot #21245 in Nowhere, South Dakota to plan an economy.

[Anonymous No.10555768]

>>10555752
I said STATE planned. Who is doing the planning matters. The state is too easily corrupted. The private sector and the public need to act as balanced foils to each other.

[Anonymous No.10555779]

>>10555768
>The private sector and the public need to act as balanced foils to each other.
Sounds like fascism anon. I approve.

[Anonymous No.10555810]

>>10555779
My complaint with fascism is that the private public become too closely linked to allow them to maintain that proper foil. Leads to a situation of easier corruption through bribery and too much economic concentration in too few corporate hands. Convince me the system can avoid state sponsored cartels.

[Anonymous No.10555847]

>>10555810
I would say the opposite. Just because there's a greater degree of nominal separation between public and private sectors in liberal capitalism doesn't help it avoid bribery, corruption, or revolving-door situations. When the two are in closer contact such that you could call worker unions part of the state (being the constituencies that politicians compete for) or the state another potential business partner to go to to finance private enterprise, the two can better keep each other in check with the help of the voting population.

Also, I wanna clarify something. "Corporatism" meaning corporate control of the state is a Stalinist slur based on confusion of the Italian word corpo (body) with corporations in the capitalist sense. When you talk about corporatism in relation to fascism, it'd be better to call it syndicalism- which is what I basically propose.

[Anonymous No.10555866]

>>10546180
Wouldn't that anology imply the ussr applied the doctrines of Marxism too well? (and every state ever, whom have claimed to follow marx)

[Anonymous No.10555876]

>>10541560

The number one thing that you need to understand OP is that communism was tried on multiple occasions. Communists, marxists and their ilk incorrectly deny this on account of a technicality. By denying them their own theory, you refuse their frame and gain a rhetorical advantage over them. The next step is for you to read some of their stuff so that you can understand why they insist that communism hasn't been tried (it has), the better to reject their sophistry.

You can also trigger them by pointing out that human nature is a real and useful object of inquiry (it is).

[Anonymous No.10555902]

>>10555876
The technicality is important though, as is defeating someone within their own frame. The argument should not be that communism has failed, because it hasn't, any more than true anarchocapitalism has failed. The better argument is that communism as conceived of by communists is unenactable.

That argument doesn't necessarily say anything about socialism though, so I can see why liberal types don't use it.

[Anonymous No.10555928]

>>10548104
this, i dont get why they dont suicide already

[Anonymous No.10556045]

>>10555876
>The next step is for you to read some of their stuff so that you can understand why they insist that communism hasn't been tried (it has)

op literally asked what to read in order to do this, but instead of recommending books you just state something he has already realized as if it were an answer to his question

[Anonymous No.10556061]

>>10555779
Fascism is the opposite of that. In fascism, autarky or at least protectionism is supported, and so national corps, which bankroll the graft-happy state, are protected from outside competitors, which suits the state too as these are seen as external influences therefore threats to the national body. The state relies on these national corps for revenue and the corps rely on state contracts and protections to stay strong and both keep each other as close as can be.

[Anonymous No.10556129]

>>10556061
Aside from misinterpreting unions as corporations, and thinking fascists are okay with corruption, that's more or less correct.
The private sector and the public sector working together, rather than one ceasing to exist.

[Anonymous No.10557284]

bump

[Anonymous No.10557307]

>>10555768
>The state is too easily corrupted.
the private sector is corrupt by definition

[Anonymous No.10557408]

>>10557307
Only a pseuds definition.