/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19581366]

Holy shit you guys told me that Marxists don't really want to abolish monogamy and family and that cultural Marxism is a rightoid meme but it's literally all spelled out in this book. Patriarchy is the origin of inheritance and private property and thus has to be abolished for communism to succeed. The /pol/tards were right about this one

[v_v !!+e0M0fBMYzt No.19581375]

who the fuck told you that

[Anonymous No.19581399]

>>19581375
Wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.19581400]

Read the book you little pseudnigger

[Anonymous No.19581409]

>>19581366
this is the type of shit that makes me question if i'm really a marxist at all. i support patriarchy and don't think women or faggots should have rights. but also i hate capitalism. damn. i'm like a chink or some shit

[Anonymous No.19581450]

>>19581409
>but also i hate capitalism
Is that all communism is to people: anti-capitalism?

[Anonymous No.19581455]

>>19581450
nah marxism is more philosophical. anti-capitalism is how capitalism functions

[Anonymous No.19581459]

>>19581400
>>19581399
cope

>But what will quite certainly disappear from monogamy are all the features stamped upon it through its origin in property relations; these are, in the first place, supremacy of the man, and, secondly, indissolubility. The supremacy of the man in marriage is the simple consequence of his economic supremacy, and with the abolition of the latter will disappear of itself. The indissolubility of marriage is partly a consequence of the economic situation in which monogamy arose, partly tradition from the period when the connection between this economic situation and monogamy was not yet fully understood and was carried to extremes under a religious form. Today it is already broken through at a thousand points. If only the marriage based on love is moral, then also only the marriage in which love continues. But the intense emotion of individual sex-love varies very much in duration from one individual to another, especially among men, and if affection definitely comes to an end or is supplanted by a new passionate love, separation is a benefit for both partners as well as for society – only people will then be spared having to wade through the useless mire of a divorce case.

>What we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman’s surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual – and that will be the end of it.

[Anonymous No.19581464]

What if I want just everyone to be kind to humans and animals and fetuses alike? And everyone to possess dignity and virtue and respect for each other? And everyone to not quarrel over petty matters and give every subject proper thought and not parrot opinions? Which ideology is compatible with this kind of thought?

[Anonymous No.19581466]

>>19581464
>Which ideology is compatible with this kind of thought?
ideology of being 15 years old

[Anonymous No.19581468]

>>19581366
As you are apparently a sentimental bourgeois, it would have been better if you had not known this truth, but now that you know it you have to accede to it in order to advance true justice.

[Anonymous No.19581473]

>>19581466
How come? All the 15 year olds I knew when I was 15 were petty and full of hatred

[Anonymous No.19581475]

>>19581409
Sounds like you're more of a right wing reactionary than a marxist

[Anonymous No.19581480]

>>19581475
fuck you

[Anonymous No.19581489]

>>19581475
>>19581480
marx considered homosexuality a "bourgeoise decadence," it says so right in the communist manifesto. no communist country allowed gays to have rights until china in like 90-something. i hate white people and am not a right wing reactionary, you know nothing of politics, go fuck yourself, etc

[Anonymous No.19581490]

>>19581468
Define "true justice"

[Anonymous No.19581493]

>>19581489
+1500 social credit points
I didn't know they allowed you to browse 4chin in PRoC

[Anonymous No.19581498]

>>19581366
https://youtu.be/3KknF_ceK-M?t=98

[Anonymous No.19581501]

>>19581459
The tripfag asked who told you that "cultural Marxism is a rightoid meme" and I answered wikipedia because that's true. It seems like sometime in 2020 the commies on the internet clued into the (years old, by then) alt-right analysis of the frankfurt school and proceeded to label it a conspiracy theory, anti-semitic canard, and etc.

[Anonymous No.19581512]

>>19581489
>marx considered homosexuality a "bourgeoise decadence," it says so right in the communist manifesto.
Can you point to me where it says that in the Communist Manifesto

[Anonymous No.19581526]

>>19581490
>Define "true justice"
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. It is so simple, so self-evidently true. All sane and good persons agree on this.

[Anonymous No.19581536]

>>19581489
>no communist country allowed gays to have rights until china in like 90-something.
Not true; the GDR was possibly the most pro-LGBT country in the world at one point. However, you're mostly correct insofar as the majority of socialist states were anti-LGBT until recently.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19581545]

>>19581366
>oh noes! Who will save muh patriarchy!?
Look at that cover. Males do this to women and their children

[Anonymous No.19581552]

>>19581526
This isn't really helpful. Even Marx conceded that this rule would only be applicable in the higher stage of communism. Are you saying that justice is impossible until then?

[Anonymous No.19581564]

>>19581512
bro the communist manifesto is like 20 pages just read the bitch

[Anonymous No.19581566]

>>19581552
The so-called 'higher stage' is within reach, but not with regressive policies in place. If you are in favor of equality and justice, you will necessarily agree with us. If not, well..........

[Anonymous No.19581571]

>>19581489
>marx considered homosexuality a "bourgeoise decadence,"
Yeah and a lot of soviet bloc countries didn't degenerate culturally as much as the west did, they kept their traditions and so on. Hence "cultural" marxism. It's not an economic theory at all, it's critical theory.
>While critical theorists have often been called Marxist intellectuals, their tendency to denounce some Marxist concepts and to combine Marxian analysis with other sociological and philosophical traditions has resulted in accusations of revisionism by Orthodox Marxist and by Marxist–Leninist philosophers. Martin Jay has said that the first generation of critical theory is best understood not as promoting a specific philosophical agenda or ideology, but as "a gadfly of other systems."[32]
I guess that's where the space is created to call it a conspiracy theory, because the critical theorists didn't call themselves cultural marxists. Adorno didn't say The Authoritarian Personality is a work of cultural marxism. It's considered a legitimate work of sociology. Cultural marxism is an interpretation that ascribes a certain and nefarious bias to the frankfurt school and critical theory.

[Anonymous No.19581577]

>>19581459
>marriage should be based on real love instead of financial investments and men and women should decide for themselves instead of being determined by economic interdependency
what's the problem here chud?

[Anonymous No.19581580]

>>19581566
>The so-called 'higher stage' is within reach, but not with regressive policies in place.
Even if that's true that means this higher stage wasn't within reach for hundreds if not thousands of years. That would mean that justice has only recently been made possible

[Anonymous No.19581592]

>>19581577
Marriage should be based on whatever you want it to be based on.

[Anonymous No.19581603]

>>19581536
yeah but they're germans. nazism is homosexual. even under communism they're gay.
>However, you're mostly correct insofar as the majority of socialist states were anti-LGBT until recently.
thanks

all i'm saying is i'm not a right wing reactionary if i'm against homosexuality and feminism. the big mistake is equating sexuality with power and politics, i don't even understand the weird logic of it. i read this book called capital hates everyone recently and i agreed with almost all of the book except for when he considers heterosexuality essentially capitalistic/fascistic, and thought feminism/queer movements/decolonization could provide some resistance against fascism (right wing reactionaries), whereas in fact feminism/queer movements/decolonization are always reabsorbed by neoliberal hegemony and marketed back to the would-be radicals, imbued in mainstream media etc and this is how neoliberal capitalism functions, how neoliberal hegemony functions. the dude even argued against sexuality as being a function of power at some point, so i don't know how he fell into that lazy error of thought, maybe due to pressure from a female collaborator. heterosexuality is a preference, it is not political. there's nothing essentially political about heterosexuality. furthermore, queer/gender politics, even trans people, hell, what resistance does that provide? the man and his white bitch want to castrate you, fuck you up the ass, make you a humiliated slave. goddamn.
but i don't think the sexual is political. the sexual is radically apolitical, that's my point. which reminds of something marcus steinweg said, actually, he said that sexuality is apolitical.
stop turning sexuality into a matter of politics, whether it be identity politics, gender politics, or the politics of domination and submission which is also gender politics. sexuality is not about power. sex is not about power

[Anonymous No.19581606]

>>19581366
Communism is genuinely the funniest thing to ever happen. Its end game is (apparently) a society with no state or classes, but the short term plan is to give all power to a tiny group of people, just let an absolute dictatorship rule everything tyrannically and murder anyone who disagrees. This will totally end up in a stateless classless society.

The fact that people fall for this is endlessly entertaining. How fucking dumb can you even be.

[Anonymous No.19581613]

>>19581571
i barely read your bullshit, fuckin quoting wikipedia. just say white liberals. don't call them cultural marxists. they're not marxists. they're white liberals. they haven't read adorno. they don't fuck with the frankfurt school. they don't understand anything they were taught in school. they're just white liberals. that's all they are, white liberals. don't even call them leftists.

[Anonymous No.19581621]

>>19581606
>How fucking dumb can you even be.
oh, the disgusting irony

[Anonymous No.19581623]

>>19581545
Reminder butterfly doesn't know how to wipe her own ass.

[Anonymous No.19581637]

>>19581526
What If I am a high maintenance incompetent waste of DNA? Is It Just for others to proportionaly catter to me more than to themselves?

[Anonymous No.19581643]

>>19581366
>Holy shit you guys told me that Marxists don't really want to abolish monogamy and family and that cultural Marxism is a rightoid meme
Literally nobody told you that. Nobody told you that. Stop starting threads like this.

[Anonymous No.19581651]

>>19581621
You cant argue against anything o said though lmao. Your plan is LITERALLY just "give a dictatorship absolute power bro this will somehow end in utopia". It is impossible to be more of a useful idiot than than you. You are a pawn for every rich and powerful people who laugh at you.

[Anonymous No.19581657]

>>19581366
Leftists fully intend to lie about their intentions every step of the way

[Anonymous No.19581659]

>>19581651
t. NPC

[Anonymous No.19581663]

>>19581637
Well, no offense, anon, but the more useful idiots we have on our side the better.

When the Revolution comes, you will surely be among the first to receive your "reward."

[Anonymous No.19581668]

>>19581659
You cant make an actual argument because deep down you know I'm right. What you hope yourself is you'll get to be part of this ruling dictatorship yourself. You won't lmao. Should it ever occur you'll be killed or a peasant with no power.

[Anonymous No.19581681]

>>19581668
moron

[Anonymous No.19581686]

>>19581603
>capitalism/fascism
And you said I didn't know politics.
I said you sounded like a reactionary because the position hates the bourgeoisie and liberalism like you said and also prefers patriarchy and heterosexual relationships like you said.
Loved how triggered you got though. Gave me a good chuckle

[Anonymous No.19581692]

>>19581681
You will NEVER live in a classless stateless society. You wont even get to live in a dictatorship of people calling themselves communists; you will be a slave in that society just like you are in this one. You are an ugly little mutant craving and fantasizing about power you will never have.

[Anonymous No.19581708]

I don't understand communists. You guys don't wanna be rich and
>>19581681
He's right. You're a loser anon. Even in a communist society a hierarchy will quickly establish itself and you will end up at the bottom. Your condition won't improve in the slightest. You might have to start doing manual labor instead of shitposting tho.

[Anonymous No.19581709]

>>19581366
It's funny how apparently Engels fell victim of the very same trick that he warned others about and mistook the welfare of a very marginal strata of society for the welfare of society in general. The system of free love and easily breakable marrital bonds which he outlines in this book as the goal of future society would be the most unfree system in the world and its vast inequality of distribution (with top 10% of chads de facto monopolizing access to women) would put inequalities present in free market economies to shame. I don't want to insult Engels' appearance too much but let's just say that a system of this kind isn't exactly something a person of Engels' physiognomy should put faith in lmao

[Anonymous No.19581721]

>>19581686
you haven't read the book i'm referencing, you don't understand what i'm talking about, and you're a stupid, judgemental piece of shit

[Anonymous No.19581726]

>>19581692
>>19581708
please, for the love of marx, kill yourselves

[Anonymous No.19581729]

>>19581459
Did you ever really love someone if you part from them the moment it stops being fun? Is "love" really equivalent to sexual passion, as he makes it seem? I don't think so. Comes off like a playboy trying to soothe a guilty conscience, especially when he says "But the intense emotion of individual sex-love varies very much in duration from one individual to another, **especially among men.**" Speak for yourself, Engels.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19581740]

>>19581623
And childish slander is what little boys do.

[Anonymous No.19581744]

>>19581726
The most pathetic thing about communists isn't even the bloodlust though. That's natural in a sense. It's that they pick the form of rebellion handed to them by the liberals they pretend to oppose, a dress up pretend rebellion essentially. What do liberals actually get up in arms about? Fascism. But no communist has the balls to be a fascist because there are actual consequences for that in our society. So you pick the option that doesnt get you into trouble. You manage to be both a disgusting coward and also a seething piece of shit who wants to murder people, because the liberal state finds you useful as a kind of voluntary police to root out its actual threats: fascists.

Quite possibly the most pathetic type of human to ever exist.

[Anonymous No.19581763]

>>19581729
He was a playboy in real life and ironically enough he used his privileged position as a son of a wealthy industrialist to attain that status. He never married and he had numerous liaisons with female workers in his father's factory (most famous probably being with Mary Burns whose death greatly upset Engels) but he'd be at the very bottom of sexual hierarchy once his desired system was achieved

[Anonymous No.19582217]

>>19581366
Retard did you only read the resume, the backcover? You really piss me off.
Engels wanted to go back to the primitive gens, the extended family, were this extended family is communal, and produce the ressources and share those ressources together. Engels literally glorified the barbarian Gens, in american indians, during pages and pages.
You commodity worshippers, basically want the commodity patriarchal family. A traditional commodity, a traditional family, anchored in traditional Capitalism. A goyim commodity, to fight back against the jewish commodity.

[Anonymous No.19582229]

>>19581606
>What is revolutionary catalonia? What is the paris commune? What are Israeli Kibbutz? Who are the christian communists, the Huterrites? Why am i totally ignorant of those things?

[Anonymous No.19582265]

>>19581709
Incelism is also a leftwing creation.

[Anonymous No.19582301]

>>19581606
>>19581651
>but the short term plan is to give all power to a tiny group of people, just let an absolute dictatorship rule everything tyrannically and murder anyone who disagrees
That's only the Leninism (and it's derivatives). Which is only one specific school of thought in the Marxist discourse.

And the thing about Leninism is that everyone knows the issues with the Vanguard Party approach, but it has the practical argument of being really fucking good at overthrowing capitalist governments. Worked literally every time it started going. Piggy fears the Lenin.

[Anonymous No.19582320]

>>19581366
>and thus has to be abolished for communism to succeed
no, you're illiterate and retarded. it's literally the other way around: the abolition of private property will cause the family to wither away.
>>19581409
you aren't. every other fucker on twitter ""hates capitalism""
>>19581455
Marxism is anti-philosophical. Marx:
>Feuerbach's great achievement is: ... The proof that philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought and expounded by thought, i.e., another form and manner of existence of the estrangement of the essence of man; hence equally to be condemned....
>>19581459
where does he say that patriarchy has to be abolished for communism to succeed? abolishing private property is not a matter of abolishing patriarchy (whatever the fuck that means) but of the proletariat taking political power and expropriating bourgeois property, whether it belongs to individual men, women, joint-stock companies or states.
>>19581464
who cares what you want lmao
>>19581490
justice is the glorified expression of the existing economic relations. Engels:
>In its further development [legal science] compares the legal systems of various peoples and various times, not as the expression of the given economic relationships, but as systems which find their justification in themselves. The comparison assumes something common to them all, and this the jurists find by summing up that which is more or less common to all these legal systems as natural law. However, the standard which is taken to determine what is natural law and what is not, is precisely the most abstract expression of law itself, namely, justice. From this point on, therefore, the development of law for the jurists, and for those who believe them uncritically, is nothing more than the striving to bring human conditions, so far as they are expressed in legal terms, into closer and closer conformity with the ideal of justice, eternal justice. And this justice is never anything but the ideologized, glorified expression of the existing economic relations, at times from the conservative side, at times from the revolutionary side.
>>19581536
GDR was capitalist
>>19581606
no, in short term the goal of the communist movement is the conquest of political power by the proletariat as a class, not by a tiny group of people suspended in air. you're the worst voluntarist moron if you think power can be arbitrarily conquered and sustained by a few dozen people against millions.
>>19581709
he didn't outline it as a goal. learn2read incel
>>19581744
fascism is a form of bourgeois rule. liberals fearmonger about fascism so that the proletariat doesn't organize independently against capitalism but rather unites with liberals to defend a veiled, democratic bourgeois dictatorship against an open, authoritarian bourgeois dictatorship.
>>19582217
>Engels wanted to go back to the primitive gens
no he didn't. communists can distinguish the past from the future.
>>19582301
that's not leninism

[Anonymous No.19582322]

>>19582229
None of those are successful examples of communism lmao
>>19582301
Then go ahead and suck Lenin's dick instead of liberals. Great improvement. You're still sucking dick.

[Anonymous No.19582326]

>>19582320
>conquest of political power by the proletariat as a class, not by a tiny group of people
You're actually so incredibly dumb that if your rulers tell you "we're totally part of your class and on your side" you'll believe it lmao

[Anonymous No.19582344]

>>19581489
>it says so right in the communist manifesto
No it doesn't

[Anonymous No.19582346]

>>19582326
you couldn't be more wrong. I couldn't possibly give less shit about who someone says they are. what matters is the interests of which class they actually express with their program and their actions. not what slogans and labels they use to present themselves.

[Anonymous No.19582353]

>>19582326
>>19582346
and you've been already retroactively refuted by Marx in 1852 anyway:
>[A]s in private life one differentiates between what a man thinks and says of himself and what he really is and does, so in historical struggles one must distinguish still more the phrases and fancies of parties from their real organism and their real interests, their conception of themselves from their reality.

[Anonymous No.19582361]

>>19582353
>>19582346
>we're totally representing your class interests bro just let us have absolute power
LMAO you absolute rube

[Anonymous No.19582365]

>>19582361
actually illiterate. impressive

[Anonymous No.19582374]

>>19582365
If they end up not representing your interests after you give them absolute power what are you going to do about it kek

[Anonymous No.19582386]

>>19582229
And where are they now?

[Anonymous No.19582387]

>>19582374
if a bourgeois party is in power then the task of the proletariat is to overthrow it and put its own party in power

[Anonymous No.19582395]

>>19582387
And once that "proletariat"(lmao) party is in power and inevitably starts abusing its power like every other group that has ever been in power what are you going to do about it?

[Anonymous No.19582440]

>>19582395
you're disconnected from reality. every bourgeois party defends private property and the subjugation of wage labor.
if the proletariat loses control over its own political class organ then it needs to either reconquer it or constitute another one and put it in the place of the former, and then learn from the mistakes that led to that situation so that they aren't repeated.

[Anonymous No.19582446]

>>19582440
How does the proletariat(the entire mass of workers) control the small group of people who will make up the dictatorship exactly lmao

[Anonymous No.19582490]

>>19582446
the dictatorship will be made up by the entire class. the entire class controls its party because it makes up its cadres and its support base. the party can be in power only as long as it has the support of the organized class and the organized class supports the party only as long as it expresses and realizes its class program.

[Anonymous No.19582494]

>>19582490
The entire class makes up the dictatorship? Hundreds of millions of people are going to choose together on each policy? Will they vote?

[Anonymous No.19582512]

>>19582229
All massive failures

[Anonymous No.19582513]

>>19582490
Jeez, this is what theory vids do to the gullible, huh. Do you not get that class formation necessitates the new class suborn all interests to its own security? Read a fucking book, preferably some general history.

[Anonymous No.19582524]

>>19582513
He doesn't get that at all. He will tell you that the dictatorship isn't a class, just representatives of the proles. He has absolutely no clue what mechanism will allow proles to exert control over the dictatorship. Its almost fascinating how deluded he is

[Anonymous No.19582527]

>>19581409
you're a national socialist

[Anonymous No.19582577]

>>19582494
>The entire class makes up the dictatorship?
yes
>Hundreds of millions of people are going to choose together on each policy?
no, class interest can be determined without consulting all the members of the class at all times. moreover, such consultation can often yield wrong results: for example, asked individually, each capitalist would like to pay nothing out of his profits to fund the welfare state. however, it's actually in the interest of the capitalist class as a whole to fund welfare state enough so that the fitness of the workers for exploitation is maintained when they're unemployed, so that the capitalists don't end up with a shortage of workers and the resulting higher price of labor doesn't eat into their profits many times more over what minimal welfare state taxes would have.
similarly, the general opinion of all the proletarians taken together on some issue doesn't even have to line up with the proletarian class interest. the proletariat as a whole doesn't control the dictatorship by a majority voting on every single issue, but in sustaining or withdrawing its support depending on how it perceives the general tendency of where things are going. if the party fails to deliver on its promises without any good justifications, when the situation fails to develop according to its predictions, when the strength of the class only deteriorates instead of improving, then the class as a whole will withdraw its support, reject the party as its own political organ, and the party's rule will be over.
>>19582513
>theory vids
don't project your youtube brain on other people
>Do you not get that class formation necessitates the new class suborn all interests to its own security
what does that even mean?

[Anonymous No.19582581]

>>19582577
>no, class interest can be determined without consulting all the members of the class at all times
Then it's not a dictatorship of the entire class. It's a dictatorship of a small group of people claiming they represent the class. Absolutely lol at your worldview

[Anonymous No.19582589]

>>19582577
>what does that even mean?
Holy shit, you're actually "lecturing" on /lit/ and you haven't even read Đilas? Pack it in.

[Anonymous No.19582592]

>>19582577
>but in sustaining or withdrawing its support
Also how does this work? Do they elect the party who actually does decide policy? How do they "sustain or withdraw" support precisely? Since you've already said you don't need to even take their opinions into account on individual policies.

[Anonymous No.19582595]

>>19582322
>>19582386
>>19582512
Go back telling the Huterrites that they are failures. As well as the Kibbutz.

[Anonymous No.19582607]

>>19582595
Oh you mean small communities that live within capitalist societies. This is your example of communism succeeding lol

[Anonymous No.19582608]

By the way, what else is a faliure? Capitalism. Reminder that we are in negative interest rates.

[Anonymous No.19582616]

>>19582608
Maybe we should have one country implement libertarian economics and another implement communist economics and see which does better

[Anonymous No.19582619]

>>19582608
The failures of capitalism don't excuse the failures of communism, comrade. You disappoint Marx and Lenin. Stalin, not so much.

[Anonymous No.19582628]

>>19582595
Huterrites arent commies.

[Anonymous No.19582636]

>>19582616
Libertarian economics are still Capitalistic economics. Thus, they are subjected to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Thus, they have internal contradiction, and thus they will fall.
Since you don't know what the tendency of the rate of profit is, let me explain it like you are 5. The more productivity there is. The cheaper production prices get, due to competitivity. The more saturated markets get. So basically, you have very cheap products, which you cannot sell, because markets are saturated. It's an inextricable situation. And we are in this situation since end 2019. It's unironically over. Was half over since 2008, now it's over.

[Anonymous No.19582638]

>>19582636
Very interesting. I still think we should do the experiment, why not right?

[Anonymous No.19582649]

>>19582628
>Huterrites arent commies.
Yes they are. I mean, read at least the introduction from wikipedia. They are communal, based on Acts of the Apostles, which are themselves the source of inspiration for Marx: "to each according to their needs".

[Anonymous No.19582672]

>>19582638
I think as well. You'll get in the pod, eating insects, watching holograms as your daily distraction.
I'll have to work half the day for basic consumption, which will fit my needs.

Keep going like this, and you will get in the pod. Jews or not.

[Anonymous No.19582674]

>>19582581
>Then it's not a dictatorship of the entire class.
yes it is. it's a dictatorship exercised according to the interests of that class.
>It's a dictatorship of a small group of people claiming they represent the class.
no, it's a dictatorship of a class executed by that class's political organ. this organ can only govern as long as the ruling class recognizes it as its class organ, and this happens only as long as the class at large recognizes this organ as acting according to its general class interest.
>Absolutely lol at your worldview
I don't even lol at how you struggle to distinguish between two straightforwardly different concepts. I just find it sad
>>19582589
literally who? am I supposed to be impressed by your name drop? if you have some objections then repeat them but without the vagueness.
>>19582592
>How do they "sustain or withdraw" support precisely?
by going along with party's decisions or by not going along with them and paralyzing the functioning of the country
>>19582649
communism is specifically the revolutionary movement of the proletariat. it has nothing to do with some past religious movement

[Anonymous No.19582689]

>>19582672
Is that similar to what happened historically in countries which called themselves communist vs countries which approximated libertarian ideals?

[Anonymous No.19582702]

>>19582674
> going along with party's decisions or by not going along with them and paralyzing the functioning of the country
Ah I see "going along with". You know for a second I was worried you hadn't thought this through.

So they'll what, strike if the party stops following their interests? Out of curiosity are you familiar with what had often happened to strikers in both capitalist and "communist" countries?

[Anonymous No.19582716]

>>19582674
>and this happens only as long as the class at large recognizes this organ as acting according to its general class interest.
You'll find, historically, that the class at large is just completely ignored by the groups which claim they're acting in its interets. You are utterly incapable of describing a mechanism that would allow the class at large to control the group that rules it, because there isn't one.

[Anonymous No.19582732]

>>19581729
He was a faggy coomer.

[Anonymous No.19582737]

>>19581459
>When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice
>people don't get married
>birthrates plummet
>Western civilization risks disappearing

I guess left wingers being retarded is an historical constant

[Anonymous No.19582739]

>>19582737
Leftism is just gibberish concocted to plaster over the obvious crimes of the regimes that peddle it to their credulous followers.

[Anonymous No.19582753]

Bruh are we just gonna get tyrants with hammer and sickle aesthetics again brcause commies are apparently as creatively bankrupt as everyone else now

[Anonymous No.19582756]

>>19582702
>So they'll what, strike if the party stops following their interests?
yes
>Out of curiosity are you familiar with what had often happened to strikers in both capitalist and "communist" countries?
if the state is capitalist-capitalist or "communist"-capitalist, then that means the proletariat is outpowered by the other classes. but we've been talking about the exact reverse situation: where the proletariat is strong enough to have imposed and sustained its class dictatorship over the other classes. its obvious that, while in the former circumstances the proletariat has no power to impose its will on the government with any mass action, it has this kind of power in the latter circumstances.
>>19582716
>You'll find, historically, that the class at large is just completely ignored by the groups which claim they're acting in its interets.
quite to the contrary, I have found that the groups in power always executed the general interest of the class their represented quite well. even fucking Stalin did a good job at imposing the interests of the international bourgeoisie and the Russian peasantry over the proletariat.
>You are utterly incapable of describing a mechanism that would allow the class at large to control the group that rules it, because there isn't one.
there's no group that rules it in the first place. but if you mean to refer to the mechanism through which the class at large controls its particular organ that executes its dictatorship, then it's extremely simple and I've already described it.

[Anonymous No.19582780]

>>19582756
>where the proletariat is strong enough to have imposed
What form does this power take, specifically? What can they do apart from strike to control the party since you've said they arent allowed to vote to elect its members nor to decide on policy.

You just say "the proletariat is strong and in power". But what you describe is just a group which doesnt have to listen to masses of workers at all to make its decisions. So how are they powerful?

[Anonymous No.19582805]

>>19581366
>>19581399
Actually read the book

You’re misinterpreting everything. It’s not a long read don’t worry. Basically family will end up looking differently in a communist society (not disappear) because the family unit is shaped by the environment around it. Just like the nuclear family is entirely a product of the industrial revolution.

[Anonymous No.19582817]

>>19582805
How will it look in a communist society? Will the core of the family no longer be a mother and father and their children?

[Anonymous No.19582824]

>>19582780
>>19582756
Also what mechanism of coordination do they have to organize strikes? What if the party shuts off their means of communication or spreads propaganda that the strikes are anti-revolutionary? Not to mention they could just start shooting or imprisoning them.

[Anonymous No.19582852]

>>19582817
It will likely be more communal based and extended larger families will be more common.

Hard to predict. The main point of the book though is that like all things, the family unit is influenced by the society around it. This is the philosophy of dialectical materialism. The modern day nuclear family of the 50’s for example did not always exist before then. It was a product of the times. The book takes a look at the different family forms that have existed throughout history looking at everything from primitive societies to feudalism to capitalism. It’s not as though such a change is forced, it’s more like they naturally develop on their own.

[Anonymous No.19582856]

>>19581606
Leninism and Communism aren't one and the same you dumb fuck.

[Anonymous No.19582859]

>>19582856
You're right as leninism actually existed lmao

[Anonymous No.19582871]

I literally have no ideology. I'm just a resentful lumpen who hate faggots, trannies, women, rich people, conservatives and fat people.

[Anonymous No.19582884]

>>19582780
>What form does this power take, specifically?
it takes the form of class organizations such as factory councils, trade unions, political soviets and the political party.
>What can they do apart from strike to control the party
they can refuse to carry out its orders in the soviets, in the trade unions, refuse to send delegates to central organs. they can basically paralyze the entire country, making any rule impossible. what else could you possibly want?
>You just say "the proletariat is strong and in power". But what you describe is just a group which doesnt have to listen to masses of workers at all to make its decisions.
no, you're just fucking stupid. I haven't been talking about just the party but about the entire proletariat. and I kept explicitly telling you over and over why the party is not some group that doesn't have to listen to the masses, I kept explaining why the party has to act in line with the interests of the class it represents in order to stay in power. but it just keeps going over your head. fuck off and come back once you get cured of this clinical retardation.
>>19582824
>Also what mechanism of coordination do they have to organize strikes?
trade unions, factory councils and whatever other class organs they develop during their revolutionary struggle against the bourgeoisie
>What if the party shuts off their means of communication or spreads propaganda that the strikes are anti-revolutionary? Not to mention they could just start shooting or imprisoning them.
if the proletariat is so weak that it can't help but let interests of other classes be imposed over itself, then its dictatorship is over.
if the mere fact that they can start shooting proves that they will always succeed in defeating the proletariat, then we shouldn't even talk about any possible dictatorship of the proletariat: that's already excluded because the bourgeoise will always shoot at them, which according to this retard logic obviously means it will always win.

[Anonymous No.19582889]

>>19581577
The idea that by removing economic incentives relationships will be based on love is a retarded fantasy, if it's not money it will be another form of social currency and unlike money it might be nearly impossible to acquire.

Realistically what is going to happen is that the "communist" elite will hoard all the power/wealth and women will step over each other to date a party member. Normal men will be deprived from the ability to seriously raise their value in the eyes of the other sex with money

[Anonymous No.19582895]

>>19582852
I think it will be the opposite desu, a world that much more easily in theory that meets your needs anywhere you go and is borderless doesnt really tie you down. Why wouldnt you be in japan one month then maybe say the caribbean in another? Doesnt seem like the type of world of settling and making a family. And if left wing economics and social attitudes in reality have panned out thats been the case

[Anonymous No.19582896]

>>19582884
You still have literally only listed striking as an example of why the party has to obey the larger class lmao. You have no actual plan at all because the entire notion is gibberish, you just keep repeating "but it will be le strong" with zero actual concept of how it will have any power. Genuinely very amusing that you have clearly dedicated time to this subject and this is all you have

[Anonymous No.19582903]

Cuckmunists are braindead as they follow some failed ideology.

[Anonymous No.19582913]

>>19582884
>hen we shouldn't even talk about any possible dictatorship of the proletariat
Yes that's the point dumbass, its never going to happen

[Anonymous No.19582950]

>>19581744
That's exactly my problem with all the auto proclaimed Marxist/revolutionaries

[Anonymous No.19582974]

>>19582889
>You still have literally only listed striking as an example of why the party has to obey the larger class lmao.
I've listed several things. but overall yes, the proletariat """only""" needs to be able to paralyze the functioning of the entire country in order to ensure its control. it doesn't need anything more.
>You have no actual plan at all because the entire notion is gibberish, you just keep repeating "but it will be le strong" with zero actual concept of how it will have any power.
we're talking about an actual proletarian dictatorship, which has as its prerequisite that the proletariat had an active network of organizations all over the country that had managed to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie and impose the rule of its own class over all the other classes. and those organizations persist into the dictatorship in order to defend it. and they are what constitutes the real power of the proletariat. I don't get what's so difficult to grasp about this
>>19582913
no, the entire conversation was about SUSTAINING the dictatorship against a proletarian party that will supposedly go rogue for some reason and start acting against the interests of the proletariat once the dictatorship is established. but now since the pathetic non-arguments in the form of stupid questions have all been refuted, the goalpost is ready to be shifted.
it seems now we'll be talking about how the dictatorship of the proletariat is impossible in the first place, for the reason that the bourgeoisie will always try to defend itself. just like bourgeois dictatorship was obviously made forever impossible by the fact that the nobility and the clergy tried to defend itself, which is why we still live in feudalism.

[Anonymous No.19582979]

>>19582974
the first part was supposed to be for >>19582896
the other cuck probably realized how much of an incel he was and deleted his post before ending himself

[Anonymous No.19582987]

>>19582974
Its impossible to sustain for the same reason its impossible to enact. Striking is very easily dealt with. You bring up bourgeois succeeding nobility but guess what those are both tiny groups of people who exploit the masses. That's what you'll gain your incoherent commie society too, the "party" will just oppress everyone else. None of your little worker associations can change the fact that power exists.

[Anonymous No.19582990]

>>19582979
>incel
What? You sound like a redditor to be honest.

[Anonymous No.19582995]

>>19582979
You're larping as a revolutionary on 4chan and even then you wont even be actually edgy about it but pick fucking communism lmao.

[Anonymous No.19583055]

You will never live in USSR
You will never win against capital
You will never have a communist utopia
You will never get rid of inequality
You will never be fully vaccinated
You will never end racism
You will never be special
You will always be Capitalists' pest
You will always be a cuck

[Anonymous No.19583184]

>>19582974
>the proletariat """only""" needs to be able to paralyze the functioning of the entire country in order to ensure its control.
And how will it achieve that with a few petty strikes hastily assembled? All you need is a single soldier with a big gun to break up a strike or a protest, and the government can easily hide any evidence that they're corrupt or that they used force to break up a strike.

[Anonymous No.19583203]

>>19581606
Commies are literally economic incels. When you realize that, and start talking them down like you would an incel, everything makes just so much more sense.

The mentality of an incel, stemming from solely personal failures on the sexual market and extrapolating them to "muh society" (because that's convenient and takes away the blame from the boo-hoo you) is the same as the mentality of a commie, stemming from personal failures on the job market and extrapolating them to "muh society" (because that's convenient and takes away the blame from the boo-hoo you)

No commie or incel can ever refute this because it's fundamentally true. No sexually successful person is a "mental incel" (unless deeply mentally ill), no personally successful person is a commie (unless deeply mentally ill/virtue signaling)

[Anonymous No.19583217]

Cultural Marxism is real and it’s the reason why most leftists support the worst effects of capitalism. They are accelerationists who are bringing the contradictions of the system to its conclusion in hopes of creating communism. Try to refute this, you can’t.

[Anonymous No.19583228]

>>19582674
>>19582756
Jordan Peterson unironically retroactively refuted you and blew you the fuck out:
https://youtu.be/9Onj4Wx61ps
1 minute
>>19583203
holy based

[Anonymous No.19583230]

>>19583217
They don't support the worst effects of capitalism because they are accelerationists, they do it because they're fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.19583234]

>>19581409
Become facist

[Anonymous No.19583237]

>>19582884
>if the proletariat is so weak that it can't help but let interests of other classes be imposed over itself, then its dictatorship is over.
and that's the fate of every attempt of the socialism->communism transition in history. kek. congrats, you're almost there:
>>19583228

[Anonymous No.19583250]

>>19582979
you're LITERALLY an economic incel, bro.

[Anonymous No.19583251]

>>19583230
basically this. they don't have a grand scheme to push this system into communism. they are just worthless dregs who support anything that turns people into worthless dregs. that's the real core of leftism, obsession with inferiority and stagnation, and nothing produces mediocrity more effectively than capitalism hence why they are okay with it turning everyone into LGBT race mixed consumer cattle

[Anonymous No.19583253]

>>19582805
>>19582805
No, YOU read what I like or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.19583287]

>>19582974
>but overall yes, the proletariat """only""" needs to be able to paralyze the functioning of the entire country in order to ensure its control.
but that's why the idea is utopian from the start. never in history have most people actually cared about ideological issues. only a tiny minority. the rest is always more or less apathetic and, as it's especially evident in democracies, driven largely by inertia. a random example (not so random given I'm Polish)—in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was quite an avant-garde form of statehood for its time, over 1 million people were officially part of the nobility and, officially, enjoyed the same rights, could participate in the ""noble democracy"" (the quotes are there on purpose) and so on. but in reality only a small minority cared about national rule, the vast majority was either concerned only with their own local issues or too poor to care, occupied with work (for a richer noble). So you had over 1 million potential players, but only a couple or a dozen or so thousand actually active players. That's just the way the world works, kiddo.

Another cool example from my own country—the Solidarity movement, which worked exactly like you preach it (let's paralyze the state with mass strikes and bend it to our will!). It achieved a transient agreement with the communist government in August 1980 and enjoyed the biggest freedoms any independent organization in any socialist country had had by that point. After that agreement, its popularity surged to over 10 million members (almost one-third of the adult population of the country).

the end result? things got too far, the newly denominated secretary-general Wojciech Jaruzelski ordered martial law in December 1981, tanks were rolled out, all the leaders of Solidarity were interned, beaten, "interviewed," and yes, tortured too. in total up to 100 people died or went missing. aaaaand that was it for the "10 million strong" movement. there were a handful of protests and strikes for the next 2 or so years and things eventually died down.

then Gorbachev came to power in 1985, ordered perestroika and glasnost, and Jaruzelski timidly started making concessions, and mass strikes began again, in earnest since 1988.
so basically, at will, the dictator could silence "10 million people."

You're so naive it hurts

[Anonymous No.19583425]

>>19582229
No one is saying you can't build a house of cards, but you can only build it so big.

[Anonymous No.19583461]

>>19582852
I mean, quite honestly, I am all for more extended family/local community expanded social structures. When I was a kid in the 90s, we still had both grandparents, multiple aunts, uncles, cousins in the area in addition to involvement with family friends and just a general "lend a hand" mentality. But that was all organic working class stuff. Neocapitalism sold out the economic conditions supporting it and now neosocialism is actively dismantling local community by standardized educational indoctrination. It isn't panning out to the ideal at all.

[Anonymous No.19583484]

>>19582987
>Striking is very easily dealt with.
it's very easy to deal with today when the proletariat is completely scattered and has no independent organizations, to the point that it doesn't exist as a class. but it's impossible to deal with when the proletariat is unified across the country in a class independent organization instead of being subsumed within regime institutions that direct every strike into prompt reconciliation with the bosses.
>You bring up bourgeois succeeding nobility but guess what those are both tiny groups of people who exploit the masses.
the nobility was only able to rule because the feudal order represented an advance for the agricultural population too. and the bourgeoisie came to power because it represented an advance for the former serfs and it keeps power also because it benefits the modern middle class. it was never a matter of a minority magically asserting itself against millions and never will be.
>the "party" will just oppress everyone else. None of your little worker associations can change the fact that power exists.
already debunked this 10 times over. you're simply too stupid to talk about this. I've explained why the party can't help but execute the proletarian class program as long as the proletariat is strong enough to sustain its dictatorship. and, far from denying that power exists, I've explained that the premise of the proletarian dictatorship is that the actual power rests in the class organizations of the proletariat.
but apparently all the explanations are no use because you're an utter voluntarist retard who wants to cling to the childish idea of some elite 1% indefinitely ruling over the remaining 99% against the interest of the latter by means of ancient jewish spells or something.
>>19582995
I'm not larping as anything but answering questions about communism. I've never said a word about myself.
>>19583184
>And how will it achieve that with a few petty strikes hastily assembled?
no, it will achieve that with a few or even one gigantic uprising assembled effortlessly by means of the powerful class organs that will have been forged by then through the proletariat's victorious revolutionary struggle against the bourgeoisie, which exist as an assumption in the situation under consideration, namely in the dictatorship of the proletariat.
>All you need is a single soldier with a big gun to break up a strike or a protest
and all you need is two soldiers with a big gun to break up a single soldier

[Anonymous No.19583492]

>>19583228
that's embarrassingly retarded. Stalin didn't represent anti-proletarian interests at the head of the Russian state because he just fancied it but because international capital and Russian peasantry overpowered the Russian proletariat which was completely ruined by the civil war. no Marxist believes that some skillful communist could single-handedly reverse the class force proportions in such situation. it's all Peterson projecting his retarded liberal great man theory onto communists because he's too stupid to read even a single pamphlet by Marx.
>>19583237
yes, the Paris Commune as well as the 1917-1927 revolution were defeated. now, if you seriously believe you can induce from n=2 into infinity, then you're even dumber than Peterson.
>>19583287
>the rest is always more or less apathetic and, as it's especially evident in democracies, driven largely by inertia
which in practice means they support the status quo, the rule of the class that rules at the given time. because the only way this rule can last is if they continually go along with it. in short, you just proved my point.
>the vast majority was... occupied with work (for a richer noble).
so they supported the continuing rule of the nobility by going along with it. again, thanks for proving my point. had they stopped working for the nobles, the rule of nobility would've collapsed. of course they weren't actually in the position to do that until productive forces necessary for capitalism developed. then, however, the peasantry absolutely did stop going along with the nobility, and it was indeed overthrown.
>so basically, at will, the dictator could silence "10 million people."
he silenced them so good that like a decade later Solidarity was allowed to take the entire senate and he was overthrown. literally can't stop proving my point. you think Jaruzelski made concessions because of Gorbachev and not because of the pressure from the fucking mass movement at home? lmao. if you really could just use tanks to magically solve immense revolt for good, then Stalinists would still rule in the USSR and Poland. the fact that you can sometimes manage to suppress the opposition for 5 or 10 years doesn't prove shit. it will come back twice as strong, if the conditions determine so (and in that case they did determine it: the crisis in the Eastern Block only deepened, the states, starved of capital, had no choice but to let capital from the Western flow in ASAP).

[Anonymous No.19583505]

>>19583484
>. I've explained why the party can't help but execute the proletarian class program as long as the proletariat is strong enoug
You have not remotely explained this. There is no mechanism that can allow it. Once the party exists, in power, nothing else can order it around. A child could grasp this but not you apparently

[Anonymous No.19583558]

>>19583505
no, the party has no power when the proletariat withdraws its support through, e.g., refusing any ordered state deliveries and instead distributing the products by itself through its other organizations such as the trade unions until its party is purified of hostile elements. in that case the state no longer even has the physical stuff it needs to operate on, but I guess according to your childish conception the magical elite could just feed the state institutions with electricity, printer paper and so on using their elite jewish conjuring spells.

[Anonymous No.19583560]

>>19583558
The proles who try to defy it will be shot or imprisoned, that's what actually happens. You have absolutely no clue how power works.

[Anonymous No.19583575]

>>19583560
they've just taken power from the bourgeoisie. if their organization was powerful enough to overthrow the bourgeois state, it's powerful enough to withstand the attack of some mercenaries.

[Anonymous No.19583585]

>>19583575
The only thing which can take over a state is another small group of people who replace it as the new state. "The masses as a whole" cannot take anything over, they cannot even act as a single agent.

[Anonymous No.19583588]

>>19583484
Not that anon, but
>the nobility was only able to rule because the feudal order represented an advance for the agricultural population too
Jesus Christ...
> and the bourgeoisie came to power because it represented an advance for the former serfs
Jesus Christ x2...
> I've explained why the party can't help but execute the proletarian class program as long as the proletariat is strong enough to sustain its dictatorship
Which... isn't a lot of time at all. Popular sovereignty is bullshit, drop the enlightment-era idealism.

[Anonymous No.19583605]

>>19583588
Using an ellipsis to indicate the text equivalent of a condescending pause is immediate grounds for disqualification.

[Anonymous No.19583644]

>>19583492
>which in practice means they support the status quo,
You do realize you self-owned yourself with this admission? It immediately obliterates any and all Marxist theory that relies on the proletariat becoming enlightened (preferably by Marx's own writings, in his own view, especially given since he himself sincerely distrusted the lower classes and approached with caution) and then proceeding with the glorious revolution

That's the utopia.
But the proletariat can never become enlightened and aware.
That's the reality. Check.

[Anonymous No.19583686]

now, having addressed the juice of the discussion here:
>>19583644
lemme go over the fluff in:
>>19583492
>he silenced them so good that like a decade later Solidarity was allowed to take the entire senate and he was overthrown. literally can't stop proving my point
>you think Jaruzelski made concessions because of Gorbachev and not because of the pressure from the fucking mass movement at home? lmao.
Yes. That's the whole point. All the good (from my liberal perspective) change that happened between 1988 and 1989 in Poland happened (other Poles are less likely to acknowledge this because they prefer to subscribe to the patriotic view that "we took down communism on our own") because Gorby got to power a few years earlier and rolled out what amounted to an exit plan from communism in everything but the name.

Jaruzelski's timid concessions were designed to copy Gorby's exit plan (the first [partly-]free election in the communist bloc whatsoever, was as I said, only partly free--Solidarity was only allowed to contest for 33% of seats in the parliament and it won all of them), but unlike in Russia where the commies successfully managed to rebrand and still continue to rule to this day as this rebranded formless post-communist mass, here it backfired because while trying to form a new exit-plan government (the same old commie party along with its satellites, but open toward capitalism and life post-communism; so basically what happened in Russia), the satellite parties (ZSL, etc.) in a surprising move broke off from the main Party (PZPR) and formed a coalition with Solidarity, securing it a ruling majority. All of this happened in August 1989 (way before any "velvet revolution" or "berlin wall" shit) and in early September 1989 the first non-communist leader, prime minister Mazowiecki, of a (now formerly) socialist country was elected by the parliament.

now that's a velvet revolution if i've ever seen one. communism that ended not even with protests, like in czechoslovakia, but with banally emotionless parliamentary reshuffling of power.

anyway, none of this would be possible if not for Gorby. if a hardliner got in power and tried to turn the Soviet Union into a hard-authoritarian but economically-liberalized country like China, we would still live with this shit. true story.

[Anonymous No.19583731]

>>19582689
There is no libertarianism. There is only Capital accumulation. And it's opposite: Capital abolition. Libertarianism doesn't exist, as Capitalism obviously tends to concentrate and form conglomerates.
Oh and by the way, Capitalism is dead, due to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, combined with market saturation. Libertarianism, or not, Capitalism is over.
>>19582674
>communism is specifically the revolutionary movement of the proletariat. it has nothing to do with some past religious movement
Huterrites live in communist societies. Since you obviously are not one of the tards, here some literature:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2803264

[Anonymous No.19583744]

>>19581409
This is antisemitic.

[Anonymous No.19583762]

>>19583585
no, the only thing which can take over a state is a class socially dominating enemy classes. a few people can't arbitrarily impose their will on millions.
>>19583588
>Jesus Christ...
feudal lords started as warlords who provided security for the peasants. they also provided material support when peasants were hit by bad harvest, etc.
>Jesus Christ x2...
it's pathetic that you can't even voice your disagreement. you should for example look into the situation of agricultural producers before the French Revolution. the nobility was clearly no longer able to provide a minimum of stability for them, which is why they revolted and supported the new bourgeois rule. the bourgeoisie removed feudal privileges relating to land and reformed agriculture.
>Which... isn't a lot of time at all.
it is. it lasts for the entire duration of the dictatorship when the revolution is successful
>Popular sovereignty is bullshit, drop the enlightment-era idealism.
I'm not talking about popular sovereignty, I'm talking about the power of a specific ruling class
>>19583644
I've explicitly said there that the peasants supported the feudal order as long as it functioned, but later they revolted against it, which was a necessity that made possible its collapse. yet your stupid gotcha takes the fact that they supported it at one time and wants to deduce from it that they were thus condemned to support it for eternity. ridiculous
>>19583686
>All the good (from my liberal perspective) change that happened between 1988 and 1989 in Poland happened (other Poles are less likely to acknowledge this because they prefer to subscribe to the patriotic view that "we took down communism on our own") because Gorby got to power a few years earlier and rolled out what amounted to an exit plan from communism in everything but the name.
he didn't do it because he was bored but because there was pressure for economic reform from below. and Jaruzelski wouldn't have made any concessions if there wasn't pressure from below mounting so that he risked being overthrown forcefully.
>communism that ended not even with protests, like in czechoslovakia, but with banally emotionless parliamentary reshuffling of power.
no communism has ended there because there was never any. the independent proletarian movement that had shown promise in 1970 came under the control of pro-bourgeois forces by 1981
>anyway, none of this would be possible if not for Gorby. if a hardliner got in power and tried to turn the Soviet Union into a hard-authoritarian but economically-liberalized country like China, we would still live with this shit. true story.
great. so the moral to this story is that the Solidarity movement and similar would've enforced the liberal economic reforms it pushed for either way. which is literally my entire point. thank you for the nth time

[Anonymous No.19583763]

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/352441684