[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 155 KB, 700x1000, communist_manifesto.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19446158 No.19446158 [Reply] [Original]

I don't get it.

>> No.19446223
File: 45 KB, 500x473, 9B08F149-42DE-4BB4-B0F2-A4F49D0F30E4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19446223

>>19446158
https://youtu.be/FzdmDTiSFN4

>> No.19446230

>>19446223
This is music and I don't speak this language.

>> No.19446234

>>19446158
>you have nothing to lose but your chains
A rousseauian knock off? They have a very nice first edition that costs 10k usd I'd like to get.

>> No.19446239

>>19446158
>a few people owning everything and getting the reward well the rest of us toil away our lives is bad - t. Marx

>> No.19446245

>>19446239
This makes sense.

What do we do instead though?

>> No.19446281

>>19446239
the problem (assuming it is even a problem and not just the natural state of things) is that while his diagnosis is correct, his solution is terrible

>> No.19446288

>>19446239
>- t.
>-
>t.

>> No.19446292

>>19446230
The lyrics are plainly marked in the picture. Do words not even stir?

>> No.19446294

>>19446292
Why do you write like this?

>> No.19446309

Paying people to do labour for you is inherently unethical

>> No.19446335

>>19446309
How?

>> No.19446410

>>19446294
Like what? It’s plain English.

>> No.19446422

>>19446410
Like you're in a black and white film.

>> No.19446442

>>19446422
I’ve absorbed speech patterns from books rather than rap and hip hop, I guess.

>> No.19446459

>>19446335
because they're the ones who do the labour, so they deserve everything produced and used to produce, not just compensation

>> No.19446460

>>19446459
But then who would the products be for? Who needs that many chairs?

>> No.19446461

>>19446442
Jeez louise

>> No.19446479

>>19446460
you dont need to produce "all those chairs" if there is no profit motive, you only produce chairs when people need them

>> No.19446482

>>19446479
Yeah but I need four chairs, tops.

If I'm finished making those chairs, as a chair-maker, what do I do next? Retrain in something else?

>> No.19446499

>>19446158
The goberment must take over everything, and then it will wither away.
I get the "don't get it" part though.

>> No.19446505

>>19446482
spend your free time engaging in art and other passions and make chairs when chairs are needed

>> No.19446512

>>19446505
I think I'd just get really into drugs.

Would drugs even be available? Surely someone has to make those too.

>> No.19446520

>>19446512
hell yea

>> No.19446526
File: 46 KB, 634x506, 377FFF2C-31BD-4F35-8CA1-0E502083CA08.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19446526

>>19446461

>> No.19446529

>>19446158
Read something actually communist like critique of the Gotha programme. Manifesto is liberalism.

>> No.19446539

>>19446499
Came to think of it, the goberment taking over all aspects of the society will certainly bring about total ruin and destruction - there must some anarchist period after its inevitable collapse? But it wont be a communist anarchy still, former Soviet oligarchs were grabbing private property just fine.

>> No.19446548

>>19446512
Now you're getting it

>> No.19446549

>>19446520
I'm not even joking btw I think I'd just sit around drunk all day or something.

Maybe that's a failing on my part but would that be okay under the new system? Would supply keep up with demand?

>> No.19446569

>>19446549
nothing stopping you from supplying yourself. marxism is effectively the process of achieving anarchism

>> No.19446573

>>19446245
Collective property of the means of production

>> No.19446584

>>19446569
But where do I get supplies?

Even if I lived in a cottage in the woods with solar panels etc. I'd need materials and specialist labour from the outside world, right? Do I go build them chairs and in return they give me booze?

>> No.19446679

>>19446539
And Chinese gommies just reformed themselves without loosing grip over the population. So it's just bollocks regardless.

>> No.19446751

>>19446158
it's pretty straightforward

>> No.19446846

>>19446584
>But where do I get supplies?
The state has already decided how much supplies are needed and how much work and resources should be allocated to their production. This goes on until technological development has effectively achieved post-scarcity or just forever

>> No.19446851

>>19446846
W-What if I want more?

>> No.19446855

>>19446158

Boris Yeltsin after visiting a US grocery store:

>"When I saw those shelves crammed with hundreds, thousands of cans, cartons and goods of every possible sort, for the first time I felt quite frankly sick with despair for the Soviet people,"Yeltsin wrote. "That such a potentially super-rich country as ours has been brought to a state of such poverty! It is terrible to think of it."

>> No.19446861

>>19446855
Isn't he famous for excessive drinking?

Which brings me back to >>19446549 and >>19446851.

>> No.19446866

>>19446846

>The state has already decided how much supplies are needed and how much work and resources should be allocated to their production


AHAHAHAAHA

>Since its manufacturer was astate monopoly, acquiring a Trabant took about ten years.[10]East German buyers were placed on a waiting-list of up to thirteen years.[11]The waiting time depended on their proximity toBerlin, the capital.[6]Officialstatepricewas 7,450GDR marksand the demand to production ratio was forty three to one (1989)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant

>> No.19446871

>>19446679
His crucial mistake is vilifying private ownership. Theft (and coercion) is bad, not the concept of ownership itself, and historically it's been precisely _violating_ property rights of common people which was the root of evil.
By dismissing the whole idea of private ownership he essentially throws the baby out with the bathwater.

>> No.19446884

>>19446861

He's famous for being a lifelong soviet leader

>> No.19446891

SO If I am a hammer maker, and a builder wants one of my hammers, can we not conduct this interaction between ourselves? Will I have to send my hammer to a government storehouse and he picks it up? Is a third party always necessary?

>> No.19446895

Wait. cant a whole bunch of communists pool their money and buy some cheap land and do communism there? I mean, cults and religions do that and the Amish seems to be working out ok. THey just have to scrounge up whatever federal taxes they need 2 pay.

>> No.19446901

>>19446866
Yes, that's exactly what happens every time all the time under communism. The market will always be more efficient than any group of bureaucrats and the state's inevitable failings will always result in people's suffering and probably a collapse
Give these objections to a communist though and he will respond with
>if the market is so efficient how come it keeps crushing
>if communism is so bad how come it managed to defeat nazis and American imperialism in Viet nam and conquered space
>but what about CHINA
Also it is likely that even if he recognizes that it is not a perfect system, he will say it is still better than what we got now, which is pretty much what the manifesto is about
It says that everything you heard about communists is true, that they want to abolish property, destroy family, and take everything away from you, but it argues that capitalism already got so bad that it is doing exactly that by itself, and that the amount of people screwed over by the system will inevitable reach such a mass that a communist revolution is bound to happen regardless of whether you believe communism is better

>> No.19446905

>>19446158
Basically the developed nations of west europe are about to get fucked by communism. Isn't really an ideological document. Marx was also wrong about this, like most other things.
>>19446223
I'm sure OP knows Marx wanted to change the world

>> No.19446912

>>19446905
He said he didn’t get it

>> No.19446914

>>19446891
>If I am a hammer make
No such thing. You will be a worker in the common hammer-making factory. No private enterprises

>> No.19446921

>>19446895
Pretty sure this happened a bunch of times across the xix century. Also the base of communism are proletarians, not farmers

>> No.19446925

>>19446914
So this is the kind of worked example that keeps coming up but I don't understand.

So the workers own the factory, do they own their own individual tools or are all tools shared? What if there's a problem? Can people get fired?

>> No.19446927
File: 77 KB, 1280x720, 1492592348.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19446927

>>19446912
There is more to get in the CM than pic related

>> No.19446933

>>19446925
its anarchy anon, if the community doesn't like you you dont get fired, you get exiled to die in the wilderness or they will just spicy tire necklace you africa style

>> No.19446937

>>19446921
Yah, werent they called utopian societies or something? I remember there was (and is) a large amount of open land in 1800s USA so people would just start making experiemental communities or something.

Then cant they buy a chocolate milk making plant? Or a steal refinery?

>> No.19446948

>>19446933
So We can go into exile to do something by our lonesome if we so please? Or will we be forced to be communal?

And then If I meet some other indiviguized guy, couldn't we then start private exchange between the two of us (as neither of us want to do something communally)

>> No.19446956

>>19446901

Heh walls to keep people in and needing government approval to travel doesn't speak volumes on how communism is superior

>> No.19446961

>>19446925
>So the workers own the factory
No. That's a semantic trick the manifesto pulled. The state owns the factory. And since after the revolution the proletarians are the political power, then they own the factory

>> No.19446964

>>19446948
there isnt one answer because there isnt a state to regulate anything, the rules are made and enforced on a whim by the mob, im sure you could go into exile, or they might hate you enough to feel the need to punish you further and prevent you from doing so, there is no laws or structure in a stateless society, just whatever the people feel like doing in that specific moment.

>> No.19446976

>>19446961
I almost worded it that way actually, but then I rewrote it.

So in the same way Britain has the NHS, there'd be a National Factory Service?

Does it apply to literally everything that gets produced? Including art?

>> No.19446977

>>19446964
Yes, but my point is that eventually in a deheirarchical non-state, that allows the seeds for an actual state or self property to begin to be grown as there is nothing organized to stop it besides spontinatiety, if that particular dynamic tickles a few peoples fancy. Doesn't this just reinstate the beginning of civilizations? with some townships developing into polities in their own?

>> No.19446984

>>19446977
no one will reinvent the state or private property because there will be no reason to, everyone will be free and have their needs taken care of, they wont just randomly enslave themselves.

>> No.19446991

>>19446976
Well the soviet government had a complete monopoly on all capital in the country (all land, factories, tools etc) and used that power to enforced "socialist realism" as the mandatory art style for artists

>> No.19446992

>>19446976
>So in the same way Britain has the NHS, there'd be a National Factory Service?
No clue what that is but on paper sounds about right
>Does it apply to literally everything that gets produced?
Yes
>Including art?
No but actually yes
To get a concrete idea, since most "theory" just dances around the pragmatical application, I suggest reading some state-approved sci-fi from Soviet union like andromeda nebula or something. In that society people just study, specialize, then study some more, as they explore space or the oceans depths and write books and make paintings while all of their needs are just non-issues taken care by the post-scarcity state. It's like star treck

>> No.19447001

>>19446984
seems like people have already done that historically though. if we take the analogy f hunter gatherers to early sedentary civ.

Also, it could be a simple point of temperament. if someone is particularly individualistic, it doesn't matter that they have bread, its more the concept of having Their bread. It doesn't require a slave, all that is required is a master.

>> No.19447005

>>19447001
Someone will rat him to the state police and we will disappear into a gulag or something

>> No.19447021

>>19447001
sure thing, bootlicker

>> No.19447038

>>19447021
?
>Its mentally inconceivable that someone does not want everything communalized
>But what if someone doesnt
>bootlicker
?

>> No.19447078

>>19447038
>I really want an apartment
>Here's your state allocated accomodation that everyone has a right to
>No, I mean that I want MY apartment. Mine alone. That's bigger and better and everyone's else
>Well, you can't have it. You get what everyone else gets. What's fair and equal
>But I am a master!
>Gets imprisoned and made to do self-criticism until he looses that bourgeois attitude
Seems like a non-issue in a communist society really

>> No.19447084

>>19446855
To be clear, that was political theatre for people back in the USSR, because he was trying to push liberalization there.

>> No.19447089

>>19447084

>political theatre

https://youtu.be/t8LtQhIQ2AE

>> No.19447094

>>19447078
i didnt say complain or demand, i even specifically stated what if they left the community and did their own schtick and then traded privately with someone else who likewise didn't want to share shit communally.

you seem to be thinking of it as a
psychological defect, but is a lone wolf type that hard to grasp? Is it freedom if one cannot leave and do as he wills? you kind of imply that someone taken care of just wouldnt have the thought or inclination to up and leave or have an inclination to indiviguism.

>> No.19447096

>>19447021

Heh someone who supports granting absolute power to the state calling someone else a bootlicker

>> No.19447104

>/lit/ can't even read a simple manifesto

>> No.19447110

>>19447104
I am too busy reading the Marx-Engels Reader dad

>> No.19447113 [DELETED] 

>>19447110
read this instead

>> No.19447117
File: 119 KB, 800x1228, 9781788736862-7946eff508beb4612bba1dc907e50826.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19447117

>>19447110
read this instead

>> No.19447118

>>19447104
Reading this is one thing, making any sense of it is something completely different.

>> No.19447124

>>19447117
Karl “The Political Writings” Marx

do communists really give such kitschy nicknames?

>> No.19447127

>>19447094
>if they left the community and did their own schtick and then traded privately with someone else who likewise didn't want to share shit communally
They can't leave the community. They can leave the state, but one of the objectives of Marxism is to achieve world revolution so no much room left to go to
>you seem to be thinking of it as a psychological defect, but is a lone wolf type that hard to grasp?
It's not hard to grasp, but under communism there is no place for lone wolves. They will have to adapt or die
>Is it freedom if one cannot leave and do as he wills?
Communism' s concern is not freedom. Equality and freedom even though often times said together are at opposite ends
>you kind of imply that someone taken care of just wouldnt have the thought or inclination to up and leave or have an inclination to indiviguism
If he has that inclination he will have to do self-criticism until he does not have it anymore

>> No.19447132

>>19447127
wtf are you talking about

>> No.19447137

>>19447118
why would you need to make sense of a straightforward political manifesto

>> No.19447153

>>19447137
Tbf the manifesto seems more concerned with staring why capitalism suck and these other movements that are not quite capitalist but also oppose communism well they also suck, than explaining what communism actually entails
If one read it as a first approach to communist ideology he would have a hard time understanding what's the deal with it

>> No.19447162

>>19447038
its not conceivable that enough people would willingly enslave themselves to private property and a state in order to create an actual community that has any effect on anything

>> No.19447164

>>19447127
> so no much room left to go to
worlds not covered in a metropolis. you can go half a mile outside a town and be somewhere. and with the decentralized communities its not like it can be policed top down.
> They will have to adapt or die, equality and freedom are at opposite ends
at least you are frank
> If he has that inclination he will have to do self-criticism until he does not have it anymore
cant that be more of a philosophical standpoint though? I mean ascetics and rugged woodsmen types.

>> No.19447192

>>19447153
communism is the dispossessed and exploited masses liberating themselves by any means necessary

>> No.19447199

>>19447164
In a totalitarian communist state everything is administered and policed top down, and there would not be decentralized communities
Depending on which brand of communist you are talking to they will tell you that it would be just a transactional phase towards some kind of anarchist communes. In that case the only defends against "philosophically inclines like wolves" would be education (read, indoctrination), which is not much and isn't really any different from saying
>it costs $0 go not be like this
You have to be q special kind of retąrd I think to actually believe in anarcho-communism

>> No.19447206

>>19447153
I understood the manifesto to be more descriptive than normative. It just explains using historical materialism how capitalism came to be and that what will follow after is necessarily a revolution and worldwide communism.

The main point I wasn't clear about is what the role of then communists is in all this. If communism is the de facto end goal of history and individuals can't make a difference, then are communists just there to hurry up the process?

>> No.19447207

>>19447162
You sure about that? on the small scale people might prefer the direct trade between two individuals rather than putting resources towards a shared third party communal state. And you use the term enslave, but that requires them to conceptualize it as such. enslavement itself predicates a form of individual, otherwise what are you loosing in the process. You could twist a communal society itself to be slavery in that manner of course as you must go through a community rather than enact your own personal will by your own personal means. Again as ideology itself shifts.

>> No.19447208

>>19447192
Sure, that's clear. But to achieve what exactly? What kind of order, SPECIFICALLY, is it trying to achieve after liberation. The manifesto is nebulous at best about that

>> No.19447214

>>19447208
there's no order, only chaos

>> No.19447215

>>19447208
Not the anon you're responding to. But I guess the answer would be a unified, stateless, classless society without private property.

>> No.19447218

>>19447214
is not order within chaos by its very nature?

>> No.19447227 [DELETED] 

>>19447207
blah blah blah, read a book

>> No.19447230

>>19447206
>are communists just there to hurry up the process?
Pretty much. The manifesto exists so proletarians can achieve class consciousness and with that revolutionary consciousness. Consciousness is the key word here, hence why in other works terms like opiate of the masses are used, and why the manifesto spends so much time attacking other movement in apparent opposition to th3 bourgeois order
It is saying the proletarians to not be fooled, we are the only way forward, and you're only delaying the inevitable by not recognizing it and not joining us
The wrong side of history and all that

>> No.19447233

>>19447215
>I guess
See, one is left with guessing

>> No.19447238

>>19447207
>you use the term enslave, but that requires them to conceptualize it as such
Hence why to achieve the revolution one should first acquire class consciousness

>> No.19447245

>>19447227
Oh, ok, its you Butterfly. You forgot your trip.

I actually have and am reading the reader. I might eventually get to that new fangled one you are really into now. there is just a cultish and prescriptive nature to a lot of communism that has always offputted me to it, and without the implicitcy of cultural peculiarities in other general systems that lean towards a more idealist bent. though i assume a materialist standpoint would create such a basic ontological impasse.

>> No.19447248

how embarrassing

>> No.19447260

>>19447238
t amount of the makignof the english working class, but i feel even that is a bit dealing with ideologies in such a way that it is almost self defeating from a materialist perspective.

It requires an ideology to destroy ideology, but within its very mean is its own absurdity. people start to ask that question from moby dick “who aint a slave” and what a slave is comes up for debate in itself.

>> No.19447293

>>19447245
>a cultish and prescriptive nature to a lot of communism
For many that's the appeal. It's not like millennial and zoomer commies are experiencing any of the class struggle Marxism is concerned with, with production having moved to third world countries and young people working some flavour of white collar job or being unemployed with useless degrees
Marxism is in desperate need of a new coat of painting but the aesthetic is just too cool so it ends up being sort of a larp in most cases not all that different from neopagans or something

>> No.19447299

the class war will happen but it will be driven by spiritual, not material drivers.

>> No.19447304

>>19447299
yeah psychedelics are neat

>> No.19447312

>>19447304
im not talking about drugs, junkie faggot

>> No.19447318

>>19447312
what are you talking about, non-junkie non-faggot?

>> No.19447323

>>19447318
Why a pagan uprising against semitic control of the world and the spirit of course

>> No.19447325

>>19447318
are you trying to imply that you think spirituality is when you do drugs and dont understand what i mean when i imply otherwise?

>> No.19447331

>>19447325
nah just asking an open question, curious what you mean.

>> No.19447350

>>19447323
gay. psychedelics are better

>> No.19447388

>>19447331
I think material conditions will continue to adapt and stabilize again like always, but people will eventually revolt anyway because of how spiritually devoid life is, as opposed to the marxist assertion that people will leave behind all non-material notions, and revolt against the upper classes purely because of material factors.


right now it seems like spiritual conditions wont cause people to revolt so much as completely shut down and break mentally and physically, and the government and capitalists need to simply replace their broken machinery with new meat that is farmed in regions purposefully kept in disarray for this task, but one has to believe that eventually people will stop destroying themselves and turn their violence outwards. I imagine thats what the demoralization is for, to keep people feeling weak and impotent, demoralized, so they destroy themselves instead of lashing out.

>> No.19447409

>>19447388
So... When are you going to lash out anon

>> No.19447443
File: 57 KB, 1052x998, 1593231510060.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19447443

>>19447409
inappropriate question for a Kyrgyzstani Buzkashi forum, but if you must know, i will never dissent against the state and all my posts are satire

>> No.19447477

>>19447096
not real communism.

>> No.19447484

>>19447443
Hey, all I'm saying is that the commies actually did revolt at a a certain point. You guys however are just larping

>> No.19447498

>>19447388
>people will leave behind all non-material notions
this isn't a marxist assertion. marx himself was indifferent to religion/spirituality. read the theses on feuerbach (as well the holy family and the german ideology)

>> No.19447508

>>19447484
the various little communist revolutions borne of marxist revisionism and the original theorized marxist class war arent really the same thing, and if you want to contend that they are, then it is safe to say that marxism is then shown to be an even greater failure because of it.

>> No.19447517

>>19447508
that's not how this works

>> No.19447523

>>19446281
Why do u asume natural state itself isnt a problem? Its the current year

>> No.19447524

>>19447517
lmao

>> No.19447796

>>19446223
How can philosophers change it if historical materialism is going to move history towards X whether philosophers like X or not?

>> No.19447846

>>19446933
It's not anarchy nigger. It's essentially a totalitarian state perpetuated by the proletariat (nopowerfags) instead of the bourgeoisie(powerfags). It's doomed to fail since it assumes all the proles are intelligent and want to work towards the common good.

>> No.19448225

>>19446861
He was infamous for his drinking. It made him one of the most funny statesmen of the 90s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygywjtf2jYA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9YnDirqwT4