/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11714491]

Say something bad about this
Hard mode: do it in good faith
Super hard mode: do it without licking capitalism's boots

[Anonymous No.11714500]

Its entirely historical nature lends itself misinterpretation by the uninitiated.

[Anonymous No.11714501]

he's right that capitalism is shit, he's wrong that communism is better

[Anonymous No.11714503]

>>11714491
Socialism has the same spirit and actually fucking works.

[Anonymous No.11714522]

>>11714500
>>11714501
>>11714503
This is an ok board. Don't go to school tomorrow

[Anonymous No.11714527]

>>11714491
I can't. It's perfect.

[Anonymous No.11714552]

The communism end game should be anarcho-communism, js.

[Anonymous No.11714570]

>>11714552
The communism end game should be repentance and confession of their sins before God, and then desisting from their communist shenanigans.

[Anonymous No.11714585]

>>11714570
Ok you can go to school tomorrow

[Anonymous No.11714597]

>>11714570
Thanks for setting the record straight, people need to know these basic facts before discussing a topic as recondite as communism. people can very easily get confused and forget the essentials. god bless

[Anonymous No.11714608]

>>11714552
It literally is. Marx wanted a 'classless, moneyless society' in which the state 'withers away', as he thought the state only existed to defend private property

[Anonymous No.11714621]

>>11714491
Easy. His theory is highly limited and based entirely on misunderstanding. The conclusions drawn from such works lead to the deaths of millions and the extended subjugation of billions.

>>11714503
>Communism, Socialism, call it what you like
>there's very little difference in the two

[Anonymous No.11714631]

>>11714621
>there's very little difference in the two
1. Socialism is an economic system while communism is both an economic and political system.
2. In socialism, the resources of the economy are managed and controlled by the people themselves through communes or councils while in communism, management and control rest on a few people in a single authoritarian party.
3. Socialists distribute wealth to the people based on an individual’s productive efforts while communists farm out wealth based on an individual’s needs.
4. Socialists can own personal properties while communists can not.
5. Socialism allows capitalism to exist in its midst while communism seeks to get rid of capitalism.
6. Socialism has been shown to work in practice without creating tyrannical hellholes of poverty and despair.

[Anonymous No.11714633]

>>11714621
Anon you have to expand on which misunderstandings you're referencing.

[Anonymous No.11714639]

>>11714491
Built off of well-meaning, but false, notions of the virtue of egalitarianism and democracy
>super hard mode
I espouse fascist Corporatism

[Anonymous No.11714641]

>>11714631
The only thing I disagree with is number 5. As we've seen, anytime a socialist government pops up the capitalist states assassinate their leaders or stage a coup. Capitalism is an innate threat to socialism the same way capitalism was a threat to feudalism.

[Anonymous No.11714643]

>>11714491
Currently reading it. The fact that Marx advocates for the abolition not only of private property, but of the family, and states that these things don't exist to the proletariat class anyway is just blatantly untrue. He constantly resorts to the ad hoc bullshit "if you disagree with anything I say, it's because you are an evil oppressor wah!"
(No wonder many of the platforms he lists off at the end of section 2 could almost perfectly be copied and pasted into today's democrat party.)

The abolition of national boundaries, and the assertion that nation states only have utility insumuch as they serve the interests of the oppressor class is complete and total nonsense- one can see from our current application of his cultural ideals that the lines that divide nations are much more than invisible lines created to partition land arbitrarily to make the peasantry more readily subservient (though coming out of the colonial era, perhaps Marx can be spared this criticism a bit.)

The assertion that "bourgeoisie" revolutions always tend to appeal to the past, whereas his new brand of prole revolution will appeal to the "future" is an interesting one at least, given that it is true right wingers tend to view grand change as something that should be undertaken to return to some past greatness, keeping with the cyclicality of history, and left wingers generally find themselves motivated by a push towards a future that they imagine growing ever brighter with each facet of the old society they destroy.
That being said, it is an absolutely fucking idiotic approach that Marx takes to historiography. The gross oversimplification of human history (and human nature itself for that matter) into a struggle between oppressor vs. oppressed class is an idea that I don't think any of us will see vanish from public thought in our lifetimes, and this is perhaps Marx's most awful contribution to western, and certainly American, society left today.

[Anonymous No.11714659]

>>11714643
Could you expand on your second paragraph and your disagreements with the oppressor vs oppressed view of history for us?

[Anonymous No.11714674]

>>11714631
>6. Socialism has been shown to work in practice without creating tyrannical hellholes of poverty and despair.

[Anonymous No.11714699]

The worst writing by Marx, along with other early writings of his

[Anonymous No.11714712]

>>11714659
The second paragraph which refers to the abolition of national boundaries? Sure, no problem. I think Marx's view that human's are subdivided first and foremost by class, and everything else (race, nationality, religion, ect.) after that, is what has in large part paved the way for today's experiments in multiculturalism (which I'm not going to expand on why they have failed or in precisely what ways, I'm sure you've heard enough right-wingers rant on and on about it before.)

I think "oppressor vs. oppressed class" is about the most immature view one could take when asked to provide an assessment of the entire history of the world. this social conflict theory is just what Marx provides, however, in many of his writings. It seems to me that Marx's fallacy in this area is that he made the mistake many of us so often do, in that he seems to tailor fit all of history to fit his pre-established ideology, rather than going about it the other way around. The mentality of oppressor vs. oppressed class has seeped into nearly every corner of western society today. I'm sure I don't have to rant more about the epidemic of race-baiting and welfare state manipulation that ensues because of this.

I hope none of this comes off as antagonistic or holier than thou, I'm reading Marx right now because I'd like to learn more, so I'm of course open to differing points of view, I will admit I don't know much about Marxist thought in general, I've only just begun a reading of the Communist Manifesto.

[Anonymous No.11714736]

>>11714712
For recommended reading of Marx I'd throw in the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. It's much more accessible than Das Kapital while still capturing his ideas on politics and class struggle.

[Anonymous No.11714768]

>>11714712
The funniest thing about the failing of multiculturalism that I think a lot of right wingers miss is that it fails because it often brings in different right wingers. Radical islamists are simply violent evangelicals from different regions of the world. Those that commit to progressive ideals of multiculturalism are often willing to forfeit their regional religions and political beliefs in favor of the liberal institutions they're arriving in. It's the conservatives of these regions, the ones who begrudgingly migrate for solely economic reasons, that are unwilling to take on the social experiment of multiculturalism.

[Anonymous No.11714818]

>>11714631
This is the dumbest post in this entire thread. That is no small accomplishment. There are some absolute turds of ignorance ITT but this one is the king of the commode. Socialism and communism can largely be used interchangeably and were by Marx. Interestingly one of the first people to draw a great distinction was Lenin who referred to lower-stage communism as "socialism" and higher-stage communism as "communism", hence why he named the USSR the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" and not the USCR.

>1. Socialism is an economic system while communism is both an economic and political system.
This is a total platitude. Any economic system is inherently political and vice versa because the base forms the superstructure. The state exists in reflection of the needs of the economy.
>2. In socialism, the resources of the economy are managed and controlled by the people themselves through communes or councils while in communism, management and control rest on a few people in a single authoritarian party.
No communist thinks this. You can make a very strong case that in practice communist-party led states resources are controlled entirely by the central party but you would have to level that same criticism against "socialism" as well as all of these states described themselves as socialist rather than communist since they were founded according to Leninist interpretations of Marx.
>3. Socialists distribute wealth to the people based on an individual’s productive efforts while communists farm out wealth based on an individual’s needs.
What does this even mean?
>4. Socialists can own personal properties while communists can not.
No communist has ever said that no one can have personal belongings.
>5. Socialism allows capitalism to exist in its midst while communism seeks to get rid of capitalism.
This is utopian nonsense. Capitalism and socialism are necessarily mutually exclusive modes of economy. If your society has capitalists and markets in it then it's not socialist, it's at best extreme social-democracy.
>6. Socialism has been shown to work in practice without creating tyrannical hellholes of poverty and despair.
Please, for the love of god, the next words out of your keyboard better not be "like Norway for example".

[Anonymous No.11714843]

>>11714818
>Socialism and communism can largely be used interchangeably and were by Marx.
Wrong.

You're basically continuing to claim both are the same, and then go on to dismiss everything else said based entirely on that falsehood, probably thanks to a decades-long all-American propaganda campaign against anything communist and communist-resembling. God forbid something like that might actually be better than megacorp-ruled dystopian Cyberpunkland.

>"like Norway for example".
Yeah? What's wrong with Norway? It's quite a nice place.

[Anonymous No.11714866]

>>11714491
it still wants people to labor and for the sake of industrial society, and thus isn't ultmately all that different from capitalism itself

[Anonymous No.11714875]

>>11714843
Yes, anon. Everyone who disagrees with your bastardized notions of politics is just brainwashed by AmeriKKKa, it could not possibly be that it is nonsense that would make Marx puke.
>You're basically continuing to claim both are the same, and then go on to dismiss everything else said based entirely on that falsehood,
The fact that you accuse me of being dismissing and you have a whopping one word response to everything I wrote is hilarious.

No, you brainlet. Read Marx and point out where he says "socialism is X as opposed to communism which is Y".
>Yeah? What's wrong with Norway? It's quite a nice place.
Nothing, besides the usual capitalist problems that everywhere in the world has. It's a lovely country. But it's not fucking socialist.

[Anonymous No.11714911]

>>11714736
Thank you. My edition of a few of Marx's works includes that as well, so I'll be reading that as well in the near future, got a lot on my plate in terms of reading right now though.


>>11714768
I can see how that could be the case in many instances, yes. I would argue however that radical Islamism more or less transcends the right-left paradigm though. A lot of people on the left just label it a right wing belief system because 1. it's an effective tool to draw comparisons between religious traditionalists in their own nations and radical Islamists. and 2. It seems anti-progressive enough to be labelled as right wing.
In reality there are many elements of it that are rooted in communal responsibility, yet still more elements of it that are rooted in a kind of authoritarian chauvinism that sort of just feels right wing in it's essence. However, I would object to the notion that "conservatism vs. liberalism" and "left wing vs. right" are necessarily the same thing. In Islamic society, it may be the conservative position that women not be allowed to leave the house unsupervised. This is because the "conservative" position always seeks to preserve the current social order, whereas the liberal one seeks to change it. There is nothing inherently "right wing" about sharia law.
In the west, we're seeing that more and more the right wingers are more or less the ones aggitating for chage to a pre-established system, largely controlled by those in the moderate to center left. In the west, I'd argue that the right wingers more or less are now becoming the "liberals" (whatever that term really means) and the left wingers, who now more than ever seem to be playing defense, are actually trying to "conserve" the current paradigm (there are 1000 nexceptions of course but this is the general trend as I see it.)

Outside of Europe, in the southwestern USA for example, the problems that arise from immigration, have very little to do with a right-wing population of foreign nationals. It has much more to do with the fact that this population is very left wing in its philosophies and approaches to things and the tension arises on occasion because that population often vocally demands that its own familiar brand of socialism be implemented.

Overall, I think the culture clashes between foreign peoples come about mainly because of radical difference, regardless of if it should be a matter of left vs. right, authoritarianism vs. libertarianism ect.

[Anonymous No.11714913]

>>11714643
the communist manifesto is just a pamphlet that would be handed out to workers. it only makes claims without backing them up because marx had already expanded on his ideas in Capital. If you want to critique what marx was actually talking about, you have to read Capital. The manifesto is basically just 70 pages of political slogans.

[Anonymous No.11714919]

>>11714491
it was inspired by max stirner, without whom marx would have remained an hegelian idealist throughout his life

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11714939]

Without full comprehension of the necessary division of labour between the intelligent and the less intelligent, ignoring the false attribution of the pareto distribution as being an emergent property of a capitalist system, the book was destined to destroy the lives of any foolish enough to embrace it.

[Anonymous No.11714940]

>>11714913
>70 pages of political slogans
Without question its brevity keeps it from being able to back up it's claims substatially like I'm sure Marx does elsewhere, but the basis of arguments are actually there, they just aren't good. They seem tailor fit to appeal to a pissed-off laborer for sure, but it still would have been nice to see some more extrapolation.
Also, the damn pamphlet is pretty difficult to read in sections. I'm surprised the average worker was able to make sense of what he was saying in it with little prior introduction to what socialism really was.

[Anonymous No.11714944]

>>11714940
>Also, the damn pamphlet is pretty difficult to read in sections
Have you considered that you are brainlet?

[Anonymous No.11714951]

>>11714491
It does nothing to provide evidence that communism would actually benefit humanity, rather it only wants you to believe what it says on faith.

[Anonymous No.11714955]

>>11714940
> basis of arguments are actually there, they just aren't good

they arent good because they arent arguments. they're declarations like is found in the declaration of independence or the declaration of rights of man and citizen. if you don't agree with them its not because they aren't well formed its because you simply dont agree with the sentiments expressed. which is fine but dont act like you actually know what you're arguing against because if you haven't read Capital you just don't.

>They seem tailor fit to appeal to a pissed-off laborer for sure, but it still would have been nice to see some more extrapolation.

READ CAPITAL. Or if you don't at least don't act like you're engaging with these ideas in any meaningful manner

>Also, the damn pamphlet is pretty difficult to read in sections. I'm surprised the average worker was able to make sense of what he was saying in it with little prior introduction to what socialism really was.

it was a different world back then. kids would attend union meetings at a young age. iirc in one instance a bunch of 12 year olds even led a successful strike but i forget for what reason

[Anonymous No.11714957]

>>11714944
>Anyone who admits to having any degree of trouble understanding something at first is a brainlet
I don't think I'm a genius or anything, no, but a pamphlet that was intended for the average person should be at least somewhat easy to read. But if spew enough venom and bullshit to appeal to people's anger, then facts/ communicability come second I suppose.

[Anonymous No.11714960]

>>11714911
I think you are mixing liberals and leftists in your understandings of modern liberalism in America. It is true that liberals are on the defense, they are the majority opinion in America and are defending themselves against radical right wingers and radical leftists. The left is still on the offensive, arguing for the end to borders as well as the end to a capitalist system regardless of how "equal" it is. The modern liberals who maintain the majority consensus are often still extreme capitalists just with egalitarian notions of how to carry that economic system out. The socialists, communists, ancoms, and straight anarchists are still out there arguing against the statist machine, just in the opposite direction of the right wing.

[Anonymous No.11714961]

>>11714957
It is easy for the average person to read, they literally read this shit in some high-school classes. You're just a smol brain.

[Anonymous No.11714965]

>>11714957
its one thing to be stupid but another thing to get defensive about it. maybe you should start a bit smaller and work your way up. have you heard of a book called harry potter and the sorcerer's stone?

[Anonymous No.11714969]

>>11714955
I'll read the 18th Brumaire first, then decide if I want to read Capital.
I clearly don't know a ton about Marxist thought in the first place, I'm not claiming to. A good argument is at least partially self-evident.

[Anonymous No.11714970]

>>11714965
>>11714961
Guys don't be dicks. I'm a marxist myself but this kind of rhetoric isn't useful against someone actually making the effort to work through the backlog of socialist theory. Save this for the Qanon retards.

[Anonymous No.11714984]

>>11714970
just like a marxist to tell people what to do. fuck off cunt

[Anonymous No.11715003]

>>11714970
We bully mob nigga

If you can't handle the heat you'll never handle the dialectics

[Anonymous No.11715052]

>>11714491

Marxists are conmen and they have been from the beginning. Everyone has always known it except for the happy few retards (ignorance equals happiness) but even though few people even teach marxist thought anymore academics take it seriously for who knows what fucking reason. Probably because they don’t understand it and are too lazy to do so let alone explain it.

I should mention that this post is strictly about marxism and should not be taken to refer to anything or anyone else. These are my views alone and do not represent those of the masons as a whole. *hangs fedora on erect penis*

[Anonymous No.11715055]

>>11714522
it's f*cking friday no school tomorrow anyways.

[Anonymous No.11715229]

>>11714674
>sweden
okay. how about you open your fucking eyes and realize the Sweden isn't a fucking socialist country. At best, its a social democracy.

[Anonymous No.11715243]

>>11715229
Great, let's have that shit in the US. Oh, no? That's still dirty socialism? Eat shit then.

[Anonymous No.11715246]

capitalism facilitates equilibrium, communism tries to force it, misguidedly

[Anonymous No.11715267]

>>11715243
Social democracy is wildly popular among many Americans and in the next 20 years is probably going to become a serious force in American politics.

[Anonymous No.11715310]

>>11715267
You meant to say democratic socialism, comrade

[Anonymous No.11715327]

>>11714491
they want to destroy the family. that's the most heinous, evil, satanic thing ever. fuck them and may they rot in gehenna

[Anonymous No.11715355]

>>11715243
Why do redditors such as yourself make it so damn obvious?

[Anonymous No.11715363]

>>11714911
>Islam is lefdisd!
>MUH GULYUTAL MARGSISM
kys

[Anonymous No.11715385]

>>11715363
I never said Islam was leftist, I just said it wasn't an exclusively right-wing belief system

[Anonymous No.11715426]

>>11715327
What's wrong with that?

[Anonymous No.11715456]

he confused the jew and the eternal anglo and acted as if the average business owner was anything like them

[Anonymous No.11715531]

If you wanna hear a criticism specifically about the manifesto: it was just a pamphlet so it lacks any sort of depth and it was created relatively early in Marx and Engel's life/career so it lacks later developments. Of course these are only valid criticisms when considering how much the Manifesto has become a staple of political philosophy which in turn has caused people to take it very seriously. In some cases it being the only Marx and Engels many people have ever read which can cause lots of misinformation and miscommunication in arguments. It's a shame that something also relatively short like Critique of the Gotha Program didn't end up becoming the go-to Marxist work (though admittedly labour vouchers are fucking retarded). It would have prevented a lot of misinterpretation, ignorance and annoyance for people who want to discuss Marx.

[Anonymous No.11715583]

Isn't the communist manifesto kind of low hanging fruit since it wasn't meant to be some thick deep tome but more of a propaganda pamphlet? Wouldn't it be harder to have chosen Kapital or something?

[Anonymous No.11715598]

>>11714491
It ruined socialism for goys. Marx comes across as a whiny bitch. It advocates taking the side of the bourgeoisie against the petty bourgeoisie (high-low vs. middle), it critiques utopianism and then goes "workers of muh world unite! :3"
Absolutely shitty book.

[Anonymous No.11715650]

>>11714503
lol

[Anonymous No.11715662]

I'll say this: labor theory of value is bullshit

[Anonymous No.11715671]

>>11715598
>It advocates taking the side of the bourgeoisie against the petty bourgeoisie (high-low vs. middle)
do you even fucking read books at all?

[Anonymous No.11715824]

>>11714491
Deeply flawed view of human nature. Nine times out of ten people will prefer an awful hierarchy to none at all.

[Anonymous No.11715933]

People preach it to gain support then stop giving a fuck once they're there to the point regimes seem to get better the more removed from it they are

[Anonymous No.11715935]

>>11715824
>implying Marxism leads to abolishing hierarchy
People still get their awful hierarchy under communism. Only difference is a new set of people who lord over them. But don't worry, the vanguard will relinquish their power when the time is right...any day now...

[Anonymous No.11715940]

>>11714491
'Good faith' is my new favorite leftist buzzword.

[Anonymous No.11716026]

>>11714491

The communist doctrine was invented by pretentious jews to prey on the lower class and use them as a weapon against the establishment which is unforgivable

[Anonymous No.11716064]

>>11715824
Tell that to libertarians.

[Anonymous No.11716105]

>>11714491

I wish Marx had written something between this and Kapital so people wouldn't go, "WELL I DON'T WANT TO READ DOSS CAPITUL" and "THE MANIFESTO IS WRITTEN FOR RETARDS LMAO"

I mean, it was written for barely literate workers but still. That's all the negativity I have for it.

[Anonymous No.11716141]

>>11714491
It's a pretty good work of fiction

[Anonymous No.11716148]

>>11716141
Oof. That edge.

[Anonymous No.11716161]

hey guys btw socialism is when the government does stuff

LIBERAL FARTISTS OWNED by LOGICAL FACTS that HANGED HARRY POTTER for his KEKCRAFT and LIBARDRY Part 6 of 38298256

[Anonymous No.11716180]

>>11714939
>rich people smart, poor people dumb
yaaawn

[Anonymous No.11716344]

>>11714939
>Tripfag
Hmmmmm... yeah, gay and bluepilled

[Anonymous No.11716356]

>>11714491
Falls for the Rousseauean noble savage lie.

Theory built on fallacious grounds must necessarily fail in practice.

It does fail, spectacularly, under all conditions within which is has ever been attempted.

[Anonymous No.11716367]

>>11714491
Centralization of capital and relying on the general populace to be self governing is retarded - a utopian vision spawned from naivety. >>11714491

[Anonymous No.11716369]

>>11714631
Communism, Iike Nazism, is a flavour of socialism.

Socialism is the authoritarial manifestation of security from competition for a favoured identity group.

Socialiam does not work, and has never worked, as it is exactly the same as all manner of corruption.

It assumes a supposedly moral individual, or special few, are possessed of omniscience and thus capable of efficacious dictatorship.

This is not true of any human being, and never will be.

[Anonymous No.11716381]

>>11714491
Not as complex as Infinite Jest. It's just as faulty as any other ideology. Very outdated.

[Anonymous No.11716394]

>>11716369
nothing you said is even remotely correct

[Anonymous No.11716403]

>>11716369
>flavour of socialism

9/10 chance you're a fatass who has no idea what communism, nazism, and socialism is. Nazism is not socialist, only the naive would fall for that old trick. You are a deranged pseudo-intellectual who needs to be put down like a rabid hound.

[Anonymous No.11716435]

>>11716403
Nazism is not socalism, but it is explicityl right wing, as in 'the voice of the people'

If Nazis aren't left wing then neither was the USSR which was a dictatorship

[Anonymous No.11716441]

>>11716435
It’s funny that people won’t believe that the USSR was right wing when Lenin wrote a book called “Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disease”

[Anonymous No.11716446]

>>11714491
It's quite a dull read, not incomprehensible like Das Kapital but still very sloggish.

Parts of it, like the constant references to Monarchism, are also quite outdated (although >inb4 no shit sherlock)

[Anonymous No.11716447]

>>11716435
>, but it is explicityl right wing
i hope we all get that i meant left wing here

[Anonymous No.11716455]

>>11716435
Go drink a Red Bull if you want wings. USSR controlled the means of production and that is by definition communist. Nazis were facists who got cucked so hard by the USSR, Nazism ended with murder/suicide race betrayal.
Stop shilling that Western left right business.

[Anonymous No.11716458]

>>11714491
It's been turned into such a meme that it's basically impossible to get any liberals to read it seriously.

>>11715935
That's Marxism–Leninism which the majority of modern lefties admit was a failure and really a terrible idea from the get-go.

>>11716435
You're so close to a critique of ML here, keep going!

Also "left" and "right" are pretty useless terms for anything other than very broad generalizations, which even then often fail. Plz stop calling american democrats "left wing".

[Anonymous No.11716460]

>>11716455
>strong imperialist state
>communist
come on anon, even they never claimed to have achieved communism. Socialism (in Lenin's sense) at best.

[Anonymous No.11716464]

>>11716455
>USSR controlled the means of production and that is by definition communist.
No that isn’t the definition of communism dumbass.

[Anonymous No.11716471]

>>11716460
The reason why socialism will never exist in the long-term is because some military will put a bullet in its head. Socialism is just a fantasy for the naive.

[Anonymous No.11716473]

>>11716458
left and right mean primarily 'do we like personal authority or not'

anybody who doesn't see that is a brainlet

[Anonymous No.11716476]

>>11714491
communism is just super-liberalism taken to autistic heights, it has nothing to stand on and when strictly applied it will leave you with nothing

[Anonymous No.11716487]

>>11716471
Agreed in the current world, which is why non-meme lefties don't dream of toppling the existing order and seizing all the property in the name of the one, they want to move dialectically towards a better economic mode.

[Anonymous No.11716490]

>>11716455
Nazis also controlled the means of production, they just hired capitalists and told them what to do.

Actual communism is the people owning the means of production, not Stalin

[Anonymous No.11716505]

>>11716490
Communism for any nation would require a centralized government. People do not truly own the means of production, it is the government that owns the public. Try to dissent in any communist state and you will die or disappear.

[Anonymous No.11716510]

>>11716505
Anon please read *any* leftist theory, *any* at all. You're unironically arguing using a american boomer understanding of what "communism" means.

[Anonymous No.11716511]

>>11716505
in reality yes, obviously, hierarchy is immutable

but communism as depicted by Marxists is stateless and without hierarchy, the people own the means of production

Socialism as a historical force could maybe be said to have existed in the USSR, but not communism, which can never exist anymore than you can drop a pile of sand on the ground and will become an evenly distributed mass rather than a cone-pyramid

[Anonymous No.11716516]

>>11716510
Please read more books and not just one genre of fiction pleb. Read or return to reddit.

[Anonymous No.11716531]

>>11714491
Not really their fault, but it's too bad they weren't around to comment on the larger movements of the 20th Century like the Bolsheviks or CNT.

[Anonymous No.11717536]

>>11715671
"In Germany [the communists] fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie."
- The Communist Manifesto, p. 44 (International Publishers print)

[Anonymous No.11717584]

>>11714491
When everybody has the same status, everything will stagnate

[Anonymous No.11717639]

It doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.11718572]

>>11714491
Do I need to read something before this or can I dive right in?