/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20932941]

What are the best arguments for and against communism?

[Anonymous No.20932962]

>>20932941
Historical materialism is a second, or third hand materialism that cannot account accurately on political matters. And most jewish communists were just right-wing capitalists brainrotting young people with useless dialectics.

[Anonymous No.20932964]

>>20932941
Bakunin's was good (I'm assuming you are referring to Marxist-Leninism with that hammer and sicle)

[Anonymous No.20932968]

>>20932941
Against
>People love to own things.
For
>Workers are the owners of their labor.

[Anonymous No.20932981]

>>20932941
Communism is not a "theory" with "arguments"; it is a hostile attack on civilization by spiteful mutant criminals.

[Anonymous No.20932992]

>>20932941
>for
new religion for masses
>against
annoying religious fanatics who think they can "into science" because "muh marxism is scientific"

[Anonymous No.20933000]

>>20932962
>>20932992
this

>>20932964
no one cares about anarchists

>>20932968
>>20932981
incel cope, kys

[Anonymous No.20933010]

>>20933000
i care about anarchists, im sympathetic to their naive teenage struggle, political idology as a means to excercise violent hormonal tendencies sounds far better than just drinking in parks.

[Anonymous No.20933016]

>>20932941
You'll never get anything more than vague hand gestures about this topic here. Look at all the current replies, it's just misrepresentative moralising. I can't be fucked typing out an essay for you so I'd suggest you delve into academic papers and maybe some history books. I know my answer is just as vague but on such a charged topic I think it's best you form your own opions independently. Just search for something about communism that you're interested in and try to balance your sources, communists and capitalists embellish and misrepresent on this topic so try to find the nuance if it's there. Good luck.

[Anonymous No.20933020]

>>20933016
Holy useless post

[Anonymous No.20933025]

Just read Schumpeter's book Capitalism Socialism Democracy for a decent overview

[Anonymous No.20933028]

>>20933000
OP asked for good arguments for and against COMMUNISM.
That's exactly what anarchists drive towards. You're confused

[Anonymous No.20933034]

>>20932981
>Communism is not a "theory" with "arguments"; it is a hostile attack on civilization by spiteful mutant criminals.
Unironically yes.

t. communist

[Anonymous No.20933054]

>>20932941
>>20932941
Morally bankrupt. Motivations matter and every single leader behind the movement were rich jews or jews with tons of connections.

Marx for instance kept harping on and on and on about how Hegel was a pussy for not calling for a revolution. For not making his philosophy real (verwirklichen). Marx was positioning himself and Engels as the chads who were going to get things done, but what ended up happening was that once Marx felt that shit was actually going to start getting real, he left out of Germany as fast as he could and lived in England never mentioning anything about philosophy ever again.

Also tons of grammatical errors in his own book. Publisher had to correct them with brackets indicating that something was fixed.

[Anonymous No.20933068]

>>20933054
>but what ended up happening was that once Marx felt that shit was actually going to start getting real, he left out of Germany as fast as he could and lived in England never mentioning anything about philosophy ever again.
Imagine posting in a Marx thread without even having glanced at his biography.
>When the more revolutionary leader of the Workers’ Union, Andreas Gottschalk, was arrested, Marx supplanted him and organized the first Rhineland Democratic Congress in August 1848. When the king of Prussia dissolved the Prussian Assembly in Berlin, Marx called for arms and men to help the resistance. Bourgeois liberals withdrew their support from Marx’s newspaper, and he himself was indicted on several charges, including advocacy of the nonpayment of taxes. In his trial he defended himself with the argument that the crown was engaged in making an unlawful counterrevolution. The jury acquitted him unanimously and with thanks. Nevertheless, as the last hopeless fighting flared in Dresden and Baden, Marx was ordered banished as an alien on May 16, 1849.

[Anonymous No.20933076]

>>20933034
You're too honest to be a real communist, you will inevitably become some kind of right winger

[Anonymous No.20933093]

>>20933034
>>20932981
It attacks capitalism, goldbug. As the name implies, it wants *community* back. Not techno Jetsons designer sex-bots and government mandated drugs, or whatever civilization you think is neato

[Anonymous No.20933099]

>>20933068
Marx never fought you fucking idiot. He published his reddit post in the newspaper and got exiled and he said ok, and left.

[Anonymous No.20933105]

For: Overproduction, the common ruin of both contending classes in the form of a climate collapse, and capitalism has exhausted its progressive content (in which it developed the productive forces). Everywhere the profit motive is barring further progress.

Against: As long as you don't confuse Leninism with Stalinism there is no against - or you own capital

[Anonymous No.20933118]

>>20933105
imagine advocating for slave morality. two legs bad, 4 legs good.

[Anonymous No.20933122]

>>20933105
Leninism leads inexorably to Stalinism. Lenin thought that all that spontaneous democratic participation in a workers' federation would happen and be exactly what prevents a Stalin from coming. He was wrong.

[Anonymous No.20933125]

>>20932941
For: it'll happen one day because Marx said so

Against: it hasn't happened and is not even close to happening

[Anonymous No.20933135]

>>20933122
Nah Lenin was right. State socialism and socialism in one country goes against everything that Lenin and Marx wrote about

[Anonymous No.20933137]

>>20933099
> got exiled and he said ok, and left
Prussian secret police chased him throughout europe and the guy most definately was not ok with being exiled.

Just call marx and communists faggots instead of just talking out of your ass, it saves time

[Anonymous No.20933138]

>>20933122
It's just feudalism redressed with a new name. The Lords are the party and the peasants are the communes. The people who pushed for the revolution had no intentions of "working". Hot pocket eating image board posters pretending that, if circumstances were just a little more different, or if better people were the leaders, maybe, just maybe it would have worked.

4 legs good, 2 legs bad

[Anonymous No.20933154]

>>20933137
whats the matter, can't see your revolution through? Scared of police? What happened to all that Hegel shit talking? The fat fuck was an opportunist and you know it.

[Anonymous No.20933155]

>>20933138
Feudalism was nowhere near as tyrannical as the USSR.

[Anonymous No.20933160]

>>20933154
>Scared of police
most people are usually averse to armed organisations that have a licence to kill
> What happened to all that Hegel shit talking
what're you talking about?
> The fat fuck was an opportunist and you know it
who? marx?

[Anonymous No.20933161]

I'm sure feudalism can lead to becoming a world power

[Anonymous No.20933170]

>>20933161
They never were. They were a shit hole with stolen Nuke tech from Nazi PoW's. It was absolutely mind blowing stupid that the USA did not continue east and dispose them. Most of the worlds problems would be erased.

[Anonymous No.20933180]

>>20932941
Capitalism is the elite hijacking your economy to control your government and communism is the elite hijacking your government to control your economy. Anyone shilling for these ideologies is an opportunistic who hopes he can become part of the elite and step on everyone else. Communists are even worse though, since they are incapable of achieving anything in a fair competition, so they whine and try to use people's decency against them to bring down the system and take over themselves. Capitalists are not much better though, simping for people who want us to work for peanuts and force our kids to transition so big pharma can become even richer. The solution is only one.

[Anonymous No.20933184]

>>20933170
That somehow defeated the Germans despite their bureaucracy

[Anonymous No.20933186]

>>20933161
Fossil fuel is running dry as we speak. The new world order will either be 1. a continuing battle between "world powers" till we all die off, 2. statists corralling people into a series of Neo-feuadalist fiefdoms, or 3. people managing to regrow the forests, savannas, jungles etc. and live in them while refusing to world-powers or statists.

[Anonymous No.20933190]

>>20933020
I liked the post and thought it was a good warning against taking the replies in this thread seriously

(Dialectic)

[Anonymous No.20933191]

>>20933170
Follow your leader and kys

[Anonymous No.20933195]

>>20933170
>It was absolutely mind blowing stupid that the USA did not continue east and dispose them
The allies already tried and failed at that during the Russian civil war, they certainly wouldn't be interested in trying again immediately after WW2.

[Anonymous No.20933201]

>>20933184
I wonder if it had anything to do with Germans fighting a three-front war. (Afrika, Westen). I wonder if it had anything to do with pretty much the whole world fighting them.

[Anonymous No.20933203]

>>20933135
Not quite true, Marx and Engels thought state socialism would emerge before international socialism because it would take place in a seizure by one highly developed capitalist state's political and organizational apparatus by the workers. There was supposed to be a rolling wave of "red republics." These would correspond to nations but not "nationalities," i.e. only to great nations with historical identities like Germany and Italy. Marx and Engels were extremely unsympathetic to smaller nationalities in the Balkans.

Most of their nationalism was aimed at reconstituting Poland and taking back all of Russia's "stolen" imperial land.
>Poland has demonstrated in 1863 and further proves every day that it cannot be done to death. Its claim to an independent existence in the European family of nations cannot be refused.
>Sir – Wherever the working classes have taken a part of their own in political movements, there, from the very beginning, their foreign policy was expressed in the few words – Restoration of Poland. This was the case with the Chartist movement so long as it existed, this was the case with the French working men long before 1848, as well as during that memorable year, when on the 15th of May they marched on to the National Assembly to the cry of “dive la Pologne!” – Poland for ever! This was the case in Germany, when, in 1848 and ’49, the organs of the working class demanded war with Russia for the restoration of Poland. It is the case even now; – with one exception – of which more anon – the working men of Europe unanimously proclaim the restoration of Poland as a part and parcel of their political programme, as the most comprehensive expression of their foreign policy. The middle-class, too, have had, and have still, “sympathies” with the Poles, which sympathies have not prevented them from leaving the Poles in the lurch in 1831, in 1846, in 1863, nay, have not even prevented them from leaving the worst enemies of Poland, such as Lord Palmerston, to manage matters so as to actually assist Russia while they talked in favour of Poland. But with the working classes it is different. They mean intervention, not non-intervention, they mean war with Russia while Russia meddles with Poland, and they have proved it every time the Poles rose against their oppressors. And recently, the International Working Men’s Association has given a fuller expression to this universal instinctive feeling of the body it claims to represent, by inscribing on its banner, "Resistance to Russian encroachments upon Europe – Restoration of Poland.”

Here is Engels on nations in general:
>There could, indeed, be no two opinions as to the right of every one of the great national subdivisions of Europe to dispose of itself, independently of its neighbours, in all internal matters, so long as it did not encroach upon the liberty of the others.

[Anonymous No.20933206]

>>20933195
They were considerably weaker after 3 decades of communism and WW2. Paton knew that and we bowed out while off'ing Paton.

[Anonymous No.20933232]

>>20932941
There are a lot of good concepts in it. A few you might find useful:

(1) Economic substructure determines political superstructure. Political superstructure reinforces economic substructure. The ownership of the means of production influence the relations of production. The U.S. is a great example because it has a high level social productivity and advanced productive forces but not necessarily great relations of production. And great relations of production in theory don't always benefit people if you have poor social productivity.

(2) Political superstructure will protect its economic substructure. See financial policy, laws, debates, use of violence and oppression, propaganda. Any means necessary to ensure the ownership of means of production or relations of production remain unchanged or only partly changed.

(3) Capitalism will structurally create its contradictions (long story so I won't go into the details). Internally, contradictions are the fight for the means of production, the distribution of goods and services, etc. Externally, these contradictions can be "transferred" elsewhere such as through war, petrodollar recycling, welfare regimes in developed countries, high-value manufacturing vs. mid-low manufacturing, "I'm gonna build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" or "Russia is to blame for the inflation" and so on, or trying to set people against each other to divide people from the same class in order to weak social class struggle.

(4) Without transference and redirection of contradictions, capitalism will eventually implode. But only when capitalism is overthrown completely and replaced by socialism will there be a "qualitative" change in society which will be "upgraded" to a new level. This will occur over a long period of time and taking the shape of a zig-zag or spiral-shaped pattern.

(5) Theory and practice are dialectically united. You can modify the theory through obtaining feedback from practice and then use the modified theory to guide the practice and then so on and so forth. Marxism's elements are not separate, still, absolute, metaphysical (of course this part may not be true) but dialectical, developing, transforming. You can't understand anything without understanding its relations to other things. Marxism is (or at least intends to become) the dialectical unity of natural science and philosophy. Marxism is interested in changing the world for a better collective gain. If a theory can't change the world, its five million pages of writing are as useless as toilet paper no mater how logical and self consistent it may sound.

[Anonymous No.20933259]

>>20933195
>they certainly wouldn't be interested in trying again immediately after WW2.
They were in fact gearing up to do just that till the plan was leaked and the Russian started to prepare for it. It's known Churchill was behind it, but uncertain if Roosevelt was. No doubt Patton would have gone against orders
Just as they are currently trying to weaken them for an attack

[Anonymous No.20933265]

>>20933135
Also if this is Butters I know you're a russiaboo so here's a bonus quote from Engels on the Ukrainians being a distinct nationality from Russia too.
>the southern provinces were inhabited by the so-called Little Russians, [Ukranians] whose language is now by most authorities considered as perfectly distinct from the Great Russian (the language we commonly call Russian).

Here's Lenin saying the Russians are notorious bullies and STALIN was the one to overdo his dislike of nationalities
>It is quite natural that in such circumstances the "freedom to secede from the union" by which we justify ourselves will be a mere scrap of paper, unable to defend the non-Russians from the onslaught of that really Russian man, the Great-Russian chauvinist, in substance a rascal and a tyrant, such as the typical Russian bureaucrat is. There is no doubt that the infinitesimal percentage of Soviet and sovietised workers will drown in that tide of chauvinistic Great-Russian riffraff like a fly in milk.
>were we careful enough to take measures to provide the non-Russians with a real safeguard against the truly Russian bully? I do not think we took such measures although we could and should have done so.
>I think that Stalin's haste and his infatuation with pure administration, together with his spite against the notorious "nationalist-socialism" [Stalin critised the minority nations for not being "internationalist" because they did want to unite with Russia], played a fatal role here. In politics spite generally plays the basest of roles.

>A distinction must necessarily be made between the nationalism of an oppressor nation and that of an oppressed nation, the nationalism of a big nation and that of a small nation. In respect of the second kind of nationalism we, nationals of a big nation, have nearly always been guilty, in historic practice, of an infinite number of cases of violence; furthermore, we commit violence and insult an infinite number of times without noticing it.
>It is sufficient to recall my Volga reminiscences of how non-Russians are treated; how the Poles are not called by any other name than Polyachiska, how the Tatar is nicknamed Prince, how the Ukrainians are always Khokhols and the Georgians and other Caucasian nationals always Kapkasians.

>That is why internationalism on the part of oppressors or "great" nations, as they are called (though they are great only in their violence, only great as bullies), must consist not only in the observance of the formal equality of nations but even in an inequality of the oppressor nation, the great nation, that must make up for the inequality which obtains in actual practice. Anybody who does not understand this has not grasped the real proletarian attitude to the national question, he is still essentially petty bourgeois in his point of view and is, therefore, sure to descend to the bourgeois point of view.

[Anonymous No.20933271]

>>20933265
>That is why in this case it is better to over-do rather than under-do the concessions and leniency towards the national minorities. That is why, in this case, the fundamental interest of proletarian class struggle, requires that we never adopt a formal attitude to the national question, but always take into account the specific attitude of the proletarian of the oppressed (or small) nation towards the oppressor (or great) nation.

>It would be unpardonable opportunism if, on the eve of debut of the East, just as it is awakening, we undermined our prestige with its peoples, even if only by the slightest crudity or injustice towards our own non-Russian nationalities. The need to rally against the imperialists of the West, who are defending the capitalist world, is one thing. There can be no doubt about that and it would be superfluous for me to speak about my unconditional approval of it. It is another thing when we ourselves lapse, even if only in trifles, into imperialist attitudes towards oppressed nationalities, thus undermining all our principled sincerity, all our principled defence of the struggle against imperialism.

Here's Lenin on Ukraine lol, can someone please spread this to tankie twitter to annoy them:
>We do not favour the existence of small states. We stand for the closest union of the workers of the world against “their own” capitalists and those of all other countries. But for this union to be voluntary, the Russian worker, who does not for a moment trust The Russian or the Ukrainian bourgeoisie in anything, now stands for the right of the Ukrainians to secede, without imposing his friendship upon them, but striving to win their friendship by treating them as an equal, as an ally and brother in the struggle for socialism.

>No democrat, let alone a socialist, will venture to deny the complete legitimacy of the Ukraine’s demands. And no democrat can deny the Ukraine’s right to freely secede from Russia. Only unqualified recognition of this right makes it possible to advocate a free union of the Ukrainians and the Great Russians, a voluntary association of the two peoples in one state. Only unqualified recognition of this right can actually break completely and irrevocably with the accursed tsarist past, when everything was done to bring about a mutual estrangement of the two peoples so close to each other in language, territory, character and history. Accursed tsarism made the Great Russians executioners of the Ukrainian people, and fomented in them a hatred for those who even forbade Ukrainian children to speak and study in their native tongue.

>Russia’s revolutionary democrats, if they want to be truly revolutionary and truly democratic, must break with that past, must regain for themselves, for the workers and peasants of Russia, the brotherly trust of the Ukrainian workers and peasants. This cannot be done without full recognition of the Ukraine’s rights, including the right to free secession.

[Anonymous No.20933278]

>>20933076
I think you don't know enough communists. This is the only thing absolutely all communists agree on and all openly support.

[Anonymous No.20933287]

>>20933278
No.

[Anonymous No.20933293]

>>20932941
Communism? You mean Political Capitalism?

[Anonymous No.20933311]

>>20933287
What communism is, in the absolutely most reductive sense is the impetus to abolish the existing and to dismantle the past, in order to construct the future.

[Anonymous No.20933323]

>Victorious socialism must achieve complete democracy and, consequently, not only bring about the complete equality of nations, but also give effect to the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, i.e., the right to free political secession. Socialist Parties which fail to prove by all their activities now, as well as during the revolution and after its victory, that they will free the enslaved nations and establish relations with them on the basis of a free union and a free union is a lying phrase without right to secession—such parties would be committing treachery to socialism.

>Just as mankind can achieve the abolition of classes only by passing through the transition period of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, so mankind can achieve the inevitable merging of nations only by passing through the transition period of complete liberation of all the oppressed nations, i.e., their freedom to secede.

>The proletariat cannot but fight against the forcible retention of the oppressed nations within the boundaries of a given state, and this is exactly what the struggle for the right of self-determination means. The proletariat must demand the right of political secession for the colonies and for the nations that “its own” nation oppresses. Unless it does this, proletarian internationalism will remain a meaningless phrase; mutual confidence and class solidarity between the workers of the oppressing and oppressed nations will be impossible; the hypocrisy of the reformist and Kautskyan advocates of self-determination who maintain silence about the nations which are oppressed by “their” nation and forcibly retained within “their” state will remain unexposed.

>The fact that the struggle for national liberation against one imperialist power may, under certain circumstances, be utilized by another “Great” Power in its equally imperialist interests should have no more weight in inducing Social Democracy to renounce its recognition of the right of nations to self-determination than the numerous case of the bourgeoisie utilizing republican slogans for the purpose of political deception and financial robbery

>in contrast to the Proudhonists, who “repudiated” the national problem “in the name of the social revolution,” Marx, having in mind mainly the interests of the proletarian class struggle in the advanced countries, put into the forefront the fundamental principle of internationalism and socialism, viz., that no nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.[8] It was precisely from the standpoint of the interests of the revolutionary movement of the German workers that Marx in 1898 demanded that victorious democracy in Germany should proclaim and grant freedom to the nations that the Germans were oppressing.

>the recognition of the right of the nations oppressed by tsarism to free secession from Russia is absolutely obligatory for Social-Democracy in the interests of its democratic and socialist tasks.

[Anonymous No.20933350]

>5. Why Are Social-Democrats Against Annexations?

>In our view the answer is obvious: because annexation violates the self-determination of nations, or, in other words, is a form of national oppression.

>In the internationalist education of the workers of the oppressor countries, emphasis must necessarily he laid on their advocating freedom for the oppressed countries to secede and their fighting for it. Without this there can be no internationalism. It is our right and duty to treat every Social-Democrat of an oppressor nation who fails to conduct such propaganda as a scoundrel and an imperialist.

>It is our duty to teach the workers to be “indifferent” to national distinctions. There is no doubt about that. But it must not be the indifference of the annexationists. A member of an oppressor nation must be “indifferent” to whether small nations belong to his state or to a neighboring state, or to themselves, according to where their sympathies lie: without such “indifference” he is not a Social-Democrat.

>On the other hand, a Social-Democrat from a small nation must emphasise in his agitation the second word of our general formula: “voluntary integration” of nations. He may, without failing in his duties as an internationalist, he in favour of both the political independence of his nation and its integration with the neighboring state of X, Y, Z, etc.

>People who have not gone into the question thoroughly think that it is “contradictory” for the Social-Democrats of oppressor nations to insist on the “freedom to secede”, while Social-Democrats of oppressed nations insist on the “freedom to integrate”. However, a little reflection will show that there is not, and cannot be, any other road to internationalism

>Kautsky, who was then still a Marxist, published a letter written to him by Engels, dated September 12, 1882, which is extremely interesting in relation to the question under discussion:
>One thing alone is certain: the victorious proletariat can force no blessings of any kind upon any foreign nation without undermining its own victory by so doing.

>The dialectics of history are such that small nations, powerless as an independent factor in the struggle against imperialism, play a part as one of the ferments, one of the bacilli, which help the real anti-imperialist force, the socialist proletariat, to make its appearance on the scene.

>If we are to be faithful to socialism we must even now educate the masses in the spirit of internationalism, which is impossible in oppressor nations without advocating freedom of secession for oppressed nations.

[Anonymous No.20933407]

>stateless, classless society
This is basically the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. It's been achieved. It doesn't scale well. It's why literally every hunter-gatherer tribe has territory problems, since it requires a fuck ton of uncontested land to maintain. It's also why every tribe like this gets completely steamrolled by more efficient ways of living. Commies are ultimately regressive and must be stopped if we are to maintain our modern way of living.

[Anonymous No.20933412]

>>20933311
Which is the past of the periphery of the barbarians of "civilization". COMMUNITY.
Not "mutant criminals" but functioning freedom loving folks

[Anonymous No.20933418]

>>20932941
Man, Economy, and State by Murray Rothbard

[Anonymous No.20933439]

>>20933418
'right, back away. Get down.

[Anonymous No.20933449]

>>20932941
Communism is just a jewish type nationalism for kikes and their good goy golems. Mostly asians and niggers. To oppress the white european man world wide. Same with capitalism two sides of the same jewish coin.

[Anonymous No.20933461]

>>20933412
>Not "mutant criminals" but functioning freedom loving folks
Those two are conflated under capitalism.

[Anonymous No.20933483]

>>20933461
Well I took offense. Disregard.

[Anonymous No.20933490]

>>20932941
God

[Anonymous No.20933517]

>>20932941
a good argument against is the fact that leftists don't even fucking know what socialism or communism should really be, if this thread is anything to judge by

[Anonymous No.20933519]

>>20933517
They don't even know what Marx or Lenin said it should be, or what they said capitalism is either. Modern so-called communists are just bourgeois progressives who vaguely want "more to be done" to "help" people.

[Anonymous No.20933523]

>>20933000
>no one cares about anarchists
Theorylet confirmed. All communists, even marxist-leninists, are anarchists it’s just that they have different ideas on how to get there.

[Anonymous No.20933527]

>>20933519
Marx explicitly said you couldn't describe it and about 50% of communists get angry if you ask them to try

[Anonymous No.20933532]

>>20933000
All communists are also anarchists anon. Communism is a stateless society. It’s just that they have different ideas on how to get there.

[Anonymous No.20933550]

>>20933517
>>20933527
No no. It's the facts that there's two basic schools of thought. Read the nice utopian novel News From Nowhere by William Morris. This is basically what we're dreaming of

[Anonymous No.20933567]

>>20933311
This is your retarded worldview and is not, nor has anything to do with, communism

[Anonymous No.20933573]

>>20933532
bakunin was kicked off the IWW stfu.

[Anonymous No.20933592]

>>20933573
What does that have to do with anything?

Marx was an anarchist. Lenin was an anarchist. You’re a retard who forgot about the part where the state withers away because you don’t actually believe in communism.

[Anonymous No.20933593]

>>20933592
What the fuck are you talking about? You said communists and anarchists are the same and he gave you a concrete example, the fact that they fucking hated eachother throughout the entire 19th century and Marx did everything in his power to kick anarchists out of the International.

[Anonymous No.20933598]

>>20933592
They're tanks, yo. Statist socialists

[Anonymous No.20933601]

>>20933598
>tanks
*Tankies

[Anonymous No.20933603]

>>20933593
When Marx/Lenin talk about “anarchists” in a condescending way, they are talking down on people who believe communism can be achieved overnight with no proletarian transition state. They still believe that eventually, that transition state will wither away into a stateless society. This is literally on page 1 of state/rev by Lenin.

[Anonymous No.20933607]

>>20932941
Justice, freedom, empathy and happiness
Reality

[Anonymous No.20933609]

>>20933593
Marx and Bakunin have about the same idea of what communism is.
Lenin and Kropotkin also have the same idea on what communism is.

It’s just that they have a different method of how to get to communism. That’s why they hate eachother.

[Anonymous No.20933613]

>>20933593
Communism and Anarchism is literally the exact same fucking thing. It’s just that marxists believe in a centralized transition state while many anarchists don’t. That’s why they hate eachother. Same end goal. Different praxis.

[Anonymous No.20933625]

[Anonymous No.20933628]

[Anonymous No.20933630]

[Anonymous No.20933632]

>>20933625
>>20933628
>>20933630

[Anonymous No.20933645]

>>20933632
Correction.
That's after IMF sanctions

[Anonymous No.20934159]

>>20932941
>What are the best arguments for and against communism?
GET A JOB
JOIN YOUR UNION
SHOOT YOUR BOSS

[Anonymous No.20934170]

>>20933010
You would be more interested in ISIS, not a bunch of trannies on twitter sporting leather jackets

[Anonymous No.20934241]

>JOIN YOUR UNION

[Anonymous No.20934502]

>>20933567
Try reading Marx some time.

[Anonymous No.20934805]

>>20932941
Read Ellul.

[Anonymous No.20934808]

>>20932941
Communism is the attempt to institutionalize communitas, which can't be done because communitas is an emergent property that can't be controlled. This is why communism always devolves into dictatorship.

[Anonymous No.20934825]

>>20932941
Actually reading the communist manifesto makes you brain-dead. Though, it's nowhere near as bad as fascism.

[Anonymous No.20934966]

>>20932941
What for? The proletariat will assert it's interests no matter what 'arguments' you could find against communism.

[Anonymous No.20934975]

>>20934825
Yikes.

[Anonymous No.20935003]

Communism would lead to independent women with just as much power as you. That is the biggest argument against it.

[Anonymous No.20935066]

>>20932941
Turns out there really isn't a thing in human nature of "class"-"solidarity"
There isn't a whole lot in common with an uber driver or a commercial fisherman yet communism expects them to have an affinity towards eachother simply because they are "workers"
"Workers unite" is an empty slogan not connected with human life.

[Anonymous No.20935089]

>>20935003
So we suffer and are brought to the brink of extinction because of weak men with weak hearts.