/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22476938]

"Utopian socialism"
> the current state of society is bad
> lets try small experiments
> implement the best ones

"scientific socialism"

> make untenable prediction about future
> my idea will totally work guys
> kills and dispossess millions
> boasts about it

[Anonymous No.22476942]

uh, oh, looks like somebody doesn't trust the science!

[Anonymous No.22476956]

Any modern resources on National Socialism besides picrel?

[Anonymous No.22476976]

>>22476938
Marx married an aristocrat and flaunted his wealth among the high society, wealth largely supported by big factory owners
If you're serious about socialism don't use him as your icon

[Anonymous No.22476994]

>>22476938
Go back to >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.22477010]

>>22476976
Marx was poor. not that it matters: you're applying religious thinking to socialism because you're retarded

[Anonymous No.22477035]

>>22477010
Marxism is a religion.

[Anonymous No.22477047]

>>22477035
no, Marxism is anti-religious
>The religious reflections of the real world can, in any case, vanish only when the practical relations of everyday life between man and man, and man and nature, generally present themselves to him in a transparent and rational form. The veil is not removed from the countenance of the social life-process, i.e. the process of material production, until it becomes production by freely associated men, and stands under their conscious and planned control.

also your pic is extremely ironic
>Grammatically speaking, a free state is one in which the state is free vis-à-vis its citizens, a state, that is, with a despotic government. All the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term. The people’s state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx’s anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one’s enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people’s state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm

[Anonymous No.22477069]

>>22477047
You are taking a narrow perception of what can be labeled a religion.
In truth, any system in which human will is surrendered to abstracts is, functionally, indistinguishable from religion.
Marxism doesn't believe in a magic man in the sky, but it sill holds beliefs, and is therefore a religion.
The only form of true atheism is the absolute lack of belief in any ideals as superior to one's own will.

>>but there has never been anyone who claimed to be the son of God and founded a religion.
So you do recognize that Marxism demands the use of State coercion and violence and doesn't actually oppose it. Good. Everything else in that quote you posted is cope.
>yeah we want to oppress the people but it will only be for a transitional period of indeterminate length, trust me bro we will totally give away State power once... uh... once we decide it's the right time to do it

[Anonymous No.22477075]

>>22477069
forgot to copy, I meant to quote:

>>Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution
So you do recognize that Marxism demands the use of State coercion and violence and doesn't actually oppose it. Good. Everything else in that quote you posted is cope.
>yeah we want to oppress the people but it will only be for a transitional period of indeterminate length, trust me bro we will totally give away State power once... uh... once we decide it's the right time to do it

[Anonymous No.22477079]

>>22477047
>that one deranged leftytroon who thinks quoting from marxist holy scripture is the correct way to settle any argument

[Anonymous No.22477083]

>>22477035
Correct. It has scripture, divine prophets and prophecies, and dogma, and tenets that must be taken on faith. It is a religion in every way that matters.

[Anonymous No.22477102]

>>22477047
Marxist theory of state is so bad. It's behind even the liberal conception of it since the liberals at least admit the state is constitutive of the social order while Marxists still talk about it as a form outside and above it, merely passing in control from one social strata to another. Its a dead simple quote but Bakunin is fucking right in that quote. Maybe Marxists don't understand that the "people's stick" is ironic? There is no "the people" there's just someone with a stick and someone without it and the person with the stick will continue to rationalize why "beating until morale improves" is a sound idea until you take his stick away. Marxists can't ever get started with any post-state organziation because thei state is their supreme form of organization but it also must dissolve of itself but only "when the time is right" so what organizing structure can there be that is outside and above class while also being subordinate to it and self-annihilating? It's incoherent waffling that only survives because Marxists turned the theory into dogma.

[Anonymous No.22477104]

>>22477069
>Marxism doesn't believe in a magic man in the sky, but it sill holds beliefs
no it doesn't, nothing marx said about communism was just a opinion, it's conclusions drawn from hard facts and evidence of how capital functions

[Anonymous No.22477111]

>>22477104
>it's conclusions drawn from hard facts and evidence of how capital functions
Yeah, sacred gnosis is drawn from divine revelation. Marx got his divine revelation through "economics" and thus made his eschatological prediction about the end of the world- I mean, the end of class society. Just like any other prophet.

[Anonymous No.22477112]

It's tempting to say that Marx set socialism back two centuries by associating it with internationalism, but it's really 20th century pseudo-Marxists who did that. Marx was not an obsessive internationalist who made the dissolution of the nation a sine que non of communist revolution. In his view, communist revolution would be achieved in and through national states. The national state was simply the natural form of organization reached by the bourgeois moment in the historical development of human production. Marx was, effectively, a nationalist. He thinks that the revolution will happen in the most developed nations (England, France, Germany) and that these will continue to exist as natural ethno-cultural formations long after the revolution, although obviously much will change over generations and centuries of post-capitalist production. But it is simply a myth to think that Marx thought the communist revolution would destroy all nations instantly, or that destroying nations was conducive to a communist revolution. This makes no sense within Marx's theory.

But the other socialist and syndicalist traditions was even more accepting of the nation, and it can be said that only a small minority of leftists in the 19th century ever cared much about internationalism EXCEPT as a supplement to intra-national organization. "Workers of the world unite" means proletarians in each nation have more in common with each other than with their local bourgeoisies; it does not mean that to be a worker you must not also be a Frenchman or a Pole. No one ever thought this.

In fact, socialist theory tended to converge on nationalist theory throughout the 19th century. Proudhon, an "anti-nationalist," and Louis Blanc, a reform socialist, were both French patriots who wouldn't have dreamed of "opening the borders" with France's historical enemies, let alone with migrants. Neither would Marx or Engels by the way, since they were biological race realists and thought non-Europeans were inferior. Proudhon's thought later led to the national syndicalism of Georges Sorel and the Cercle Proudhon, which inspired the Spanish Falange and Mussolini's Fascism. Mussolini was one of the leading Marxists in Italy and sublated Marxism into Fascism, alongside innovators like Corradini . In Germany the nationalist-socialism tradition is even stronger: from Fichte's "closed commercial state" to List's national economy and Adam Müller's corporatism, through Rodbertus and Lassalle, Spengler's "Prussian socialism," Othmar Spann's neo-corporatism, and similar ideas among thinkers like Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, and ultimately to the embrace of National Socialism by Germany's leading interpreter of Marx (according to Engels), Werner Sombart ("German Socialism").

National socialism or fascism is simply the entelechy of the socialist impulse in modernity. Internationalist socialism is not only a dud, it was never really embraced by anyone intelligent. Not even by anarchists.

[Anonymous No.22477120]

>>22476938
That's a very charitable description of utopian socialism. You left out all the bullshit about sexual liberation leading to socialism somehow and socialism changing the composition of sea.
But utopian socialists predicted the degeneration of ussr before almost every scientific socialist.

[Anonymous No.22477174]

>>22476938
>kills and dispossess millions
>boasts about it
What of it, cuck?

[Anonymous No.22477184]

>>22477111
Divine revelations usually don't come from analysing economic papers in London

[Anonymous No.22477185]

>>22477174
>tranny cope: we are going to FUCKING MURDER you in the revolution chud we will NOT EXCUSE the revolutionary mass terror!
>tranny reality: 41%

[Anonymous No.22477191]

>>22477102
>while Marxists still talk about it as a form outside and above it, merely passing in control from one social strata to another
lol is this good bait or just typical clueless anarchoid? this is exactly what Marxists deny
>But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes. (Civil War in France, ch. 5)

>In the above-quoted passage, the question [of the state] is treated in a concrete manner, and the conclusion is extremely precise, definite, practical and palpable: all previous revolutions perfected the state machine, whereas it must be broken, smashed.
>This conclusion is the chief and fundamental point in the Marxist theory of the state. And it is precisely this fundamental point which has been completely ignored by the dominant official Social-Democratic parties and, indeed, distorted (as we shall see later) by the foremost theoretician of the Second International, Karl Kautsky.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch02.htm

>There is no "the people"
another thing that Marxism affirms. here's Marx criticizing democratic petty-bourgeois for talking about the false abstraction of "the people" rather than about the antagonistic classes that make up this abstraction:
>The democrats concede that a privileged class confronts them, but they, along with all the rest of the nation, form the people. What they represent is the people's rights; what interests them is the people's interests. Accordingly, when a struggle is impending they do not need to examine the interests and positions of the different classes. (18th Brumaire, ch. 3)
>there's just someone with a stick and someone without it
yes, there's a ruling class and an exploited class
>Marxists can't ever get started with any post-state organziation
that's not for Marxists to do but for the revolutionary proletariat when it is decidedly in power. the present task of the Marxists is to lead the proletariat to that point
>thei state is their supreme form of organization
it's the only form under which the proletariat can overcome the bourgeoisie, yes. you're welcome to keep revolutionarily burning trashcans.
>but it also must dissolve of itself but only "when the time is right"
yes, if it dissolves before capitalist society is destroyed, then the only result will be the rebirth of the bourgeois state. what good is that for?
>so what organizing structure can there be that is outside and above class while also being subordinate to it and self-annihilating
proletarian state is not outside and above the proletariat. it's an organ of the proletariat. and it is self-annihilating because under proletarian dictatorship everyone becomes subsumed into the proletariat. and when everyone becomes a single class, there's no longer class. and when the proletariat dies as a class, so do its class organs.
>It's incoherent waffling
it's perfectly coherent, you're just a retard because you refuse to read a book sincerely

[Anonymous No.22477197]

>>22477185
>Chud cope: you won’t do— wait, no, don’t send my bigoted social media posts to my employ—ack!
>boomer contard dad stumbles in: imagine if the roles were reversed! I’ll clean this up later
*turns on flops fat ass down on couch and turns on Greg Gutfield*

[Anonymous No.22477208]

>another commietranny thread

[Anonymous No.22477209]

>>22477069
>it sill holds beliefs, and is therefore a religion.
lol, everything as a religion then. what's the point of this? do you just want to feel smart?
>So you do recognize that Marxism demands the use of State coercion and violence and doesn't actually oppose it
yes, and?
>yeah we want to oppress the people but it will only be for a transitional period
oh no pls don't oppress the poor bourgeoisie :-(((
aren't you the guy who just said there's no "the people"? and yet now you do the thing where you subsume pro-bourgeois elements into "the people" in order to spare them from proletarian oppression. lmao
>>22477079
it is the correct way to settle an argument about what Marxism says, yes. problem?

[Anonymous No.22477213]

>>22477197
Oof, incel vibes.

[Anonymous No.22477217]

>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
Go back tranny.

[Anonymous No.22477221]

>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
Go back.

[Anonymous No.22477224]

>>22477217
>>22477221
why are you posting pictures of your anti-Marxist buddies who support red capitalism

[Anonymous No.22477225]

>>22477184
>umh sweaty our prophet got his relevation of the future through heckin' math and shieeet that doesn't make any sense and has been debunked over and over by actual economists for the past 150 years but we still believe in it because we just want to believe in it, totally not faith btw
It's called divine revelation because it's an irrational belief that is used to attempt to magically predict the future. Ancient prophets got their revelation through animal innards, watching the sky, or meditating on a mountain. Marx and Hitler sought to make their revelation "scientific" by claiming they were actually based on the study of science (economics and biology, respectively) but ultimately it was still completely irrational.
It's the exact same as some preacher claiming to use math to decipher when the end of the world is going to happen lmao
https://youtu.be/QynNpzqYt0Y?t=213

Max Weber made an exposition to the Austrian army that was later compiled in a short book title On Socialism. it's really good, it explains how Marxist attempts at predicting the downfall of capitalism are quite literally religious eschatology (Der Sozialismus, 1918).

[Anonymous No.22477231]

>>22477217
Fail

[Anonymous No.22477233]

>>22477225
>It's called divine revelation because it's an irrational belief that is used to attempt to magically predict the future
So are newton's laws an irrational belief that if i throw an apple in the air?

[Anonymous No.22477236]

>>22477209
>lol, everything as a religion then
No? If you are incapable of grasping an existence independent of lifelong servitude to abstracts then that's your problem. It shows how deep you are in delusion.
>aren't you the guy who just said there's no "the people"?
That wasn't me.

[Anonymous No.22477240]

>>22477197
take your fucking meds, subhuman

[Anonymous No.22477241]

>>22477221
Greentext discord tranny is a /lit/ staple, just let him tucker himself out.

>>22477233
If Newton's followers created a state in which not believing in Newton's laws was illegal and "counter-revolutionary" then yes, except the analogy in this case would be better if you said Cartesian corpuscular theory or Gassendian atomism instead of Newtonian theory. Imagine a Gassendian telling you "it's just science and facts, look at the data and try to disagree with me, by the by if you disagree with me the Stasi kill you."

[Anonymous No.22477242]

>>22477225
Marx's work is correct though. you claim it's irrational but you can't show what's irrational about it. and when you try, you immediately show that you're too stupid to even engage in basic rational thinking
>>22477236
you're deluded if you can't distinguish scientific belief from religious belief

[Anonymous No.22477247]

>>22477224
>t-they're totally not marxtroons like me goiz
classic
>>22477231
>phoneposter

[Anonymous No.22477248]

>>22477241
>If Newton's followers created a state in which not believing in Newton's laws was illegal and "counter-revolutionary" then yes
So what is fact is just solely dependant on wether you personally find it morally objectionable, do lacerations cease to cause bleeding if i find blood morally offensive?

[Anonymous No.22477255]

>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
>>22477224
>>22477231
>>22477233
>>22477242
You will never own the means of production, tranny.

[Anonymous No.22477256]

>>22477241
your analogy is retarded. there are defamation laws in every country. but that doesn't mean the facts they protect are irrational to believe in.
>>22477247
Marxism is opposed to red capitalism and anti-fascism

[Anonymous No.22477257]

>>22477248
The question is always, who judges? I think it's irrefutable fact that Marxism is retarded, you think it's irrefutable fact that it's not retarded. What do we do now? What if I happened to be in political power and you didn't, or vice versa? Being able to think through this sort of thing is a sign of well-developed theory of mind, the kind a 5 or 6 year old develops on average.

[Anonymous No.22477260]

>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
go back to /leftroonpol/

[Anonymous No.22477261]

>>22477242
>Marx's work is correct though
Gee I wonder why every attempt at putting it to practice has failed.
inb4
>the ideas are good it's just that the people doing it were bad
Yeah, their faith wasn't pure enough, right?

[Anonymous No.22477263]

>>22477257
>What if I happened to be in political power and you didn't, or vice versa?
Between equal rights force decides

[Anonymous No.22477264]

>>22477256
>Marxism is not the 99% of movements that have claimed to be Marxist in history, it's only Marxism as defined by my podcast/discord/favorite streamer

[Anonymous No.22477266]

>>22477255
>>22477260
>muh china
>muh cuba
lol more red capitalism cheerleaders. keep spamming shit from your fap stash of photos of your pro-capitalist buddies. you're proving my point.

[Anonymous No.22477267]

>>22477256
>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
>>22477224
>>22477231
>>22477233
>>22477242
>>22477256
Kill yourself tranny.

[Anonymous No.22477269]

>>22477266
>>22477256
>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
>>22477224
>>22477231
>>22477233
>>22477242
>NOOOOOOOOOO THEY'RE CRAPITALISTS, NOT MARXOIDS LIKE ME
cope and dilate, troon.

[Anonymous No.22477270]

>>22477269
>>22477267
Mass replying is gay, no matter what side you're on.

[Anonymous No.22477272]

>>22477267
>>22477269
Making fun of insufferable faggots by becoming one yourself is an incredible bit

[Anonymous No.22477273]

>>22477261
Marxism doesn't say proletariat isn't guaranteed to succeed in every revolutionary attempt. it only needs to succeed in one.
and it's not a matter of faith but of relation of forces and of tactical decisions.
>>22477267
>le meme Stalin and Mao shirt
another le based red capitalism fan. how many more photos of young guys do you have saved? I'm not gonna lie it's starting to feel a little bit gay

[Anonymous No.22477274]

>>22477266
>>22477256
>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
>>22477224
>>22477231
>>22477233
>>22477242
You will never belong here

[Anonymous No.22477278]

>>22477264
imagine being so gullible that you believe random leftards who call themselves Marxists. you must be a big fan of self-id

[Anonymous No.22477281]

>>22477273
>>22477272
>>22477266
>>22477256
>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
>>22477224
>>22477231
>>22477233
>>22477242
trannies don't belong here
>>22477270
they deserve it.

[Anonymous No.22477282]

>>22477242
>Marx's work is correct
Only if you accept historical materialism on faith, despite it having absolutely no real world evidence for existing, and being in general a pile of unfalsifiable pseudoscience. Actual science doesn't require "belief", beyond what your eyes shows you. To believe in Marx is to accept his cockamamie explanation for how human societies develop despite all the evidence to the contrary. It is, in short, a religious conviction, not a belief founded on evidence.

[Anonymous No.22477286]

>>22477273
>>22477272
>>22477266
>>22477256
>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
>>22477224
>>22477231
>>22477233
>>22477242
/leftroonpol/ is so embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.22477290]

>>22477273
>>22477272
>>22477266
>>22477256
>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
>>22477224
>>22477231
>>22477233
>>22477242
Oh look, even their moderators are troon freaks, how fitting for their ideology.

[Anonymous No.22477291]

>>22477290
>>22477286
>>22477281
>>22477274
>>22477269
>>22477267
>>22477255
www.indeed.com

[Anonymous No.22477292]

>>22477273
>>22477272
>>22477266
>>22477256
>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
>>22477224
>>22477231
>>22477233
>>22477242
why do marxoids worship niggers?

[Anonymous No.22477298]

>>22477273
>>22477272
>>22477266
>>22477256
>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
>>22477224
>>22477231
>>22477233
>>22477242
Well I have an answer: Because they're cucks and love their penises.

[Anonymous No.22477301]

>>22477282
>despite it having absolutely no real world evidence for existing
lol except the entire way human societies have always been organized
>Actual science doesn't require "belief"
yes it does. belief is just an attitude towards truth or falsity a proposition or a state of affairs. you can't do science without having attitudes towards propositions being true or false.
>beyond what your eyes shows you
you have an extremely naive view of science if you think it's exhausted by what your eyes show you.
>To believe in Marx is to accept his cockamamie explanation for how human societies develop despite all the evidence to the contrary
lol what evidence to the contrary?

[Anonymous No.22477303]

>>22477273
>>22477272
>>22477266
>>22477256
>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
>>22477224
>>22477231
>>22477233
>>22477242
>b-but at least muh Stalin was b-based
nope

[Anonymous No.22477307]

>autist is so mindbroken by marxism, has to spam his retarded images to cope

[Anonymous No.22477309]

>>22477307
the result of a lack of fatherhood in the community

[Anonymous No.22477310]

>>22477301
>>22477273
>>22477272
>>22477266
>>22477256
>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
>>22477224
>>22477231
>>22477233
>>22477242
>troon is still going

[Anonymous No.22477314]

>>22477307
>>22477301
>>22477273
>>22477272
>>22477266
>>22477256
>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
>>22477224
>>22477231
>>22477233
>>22477242
>n-no please don't expose my side

[Anonymous No.22477315]

>>22477307
yeah I don't understand how he doesn't realize how pathetic it makes him look

[Anonymous No.22477317]

>>22477282
The notion of primitive communism is specially laughable, when every single actual study on hunter-gatherer society shows that they aren't egalitarian at all and there are very strict hierarchies in many cases.
The tripartite division of history in
>golden age devoid of vice
>fall of man into vice (ie the present)
>future paradise after the end of the world as we know it
Is very common amongst religions. Engels just changed the names from "garden of Eden -> fall of Adam and Eve -> the kingdom of God after Jesus' second coming" into "primitive communism -> class society -> communism".

[Anonymous No.22477320]

>>22477301
>>22477273
>>22477272
>>22477266
>>22477256
>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
>>22477224
>>22477231
>>22477233
>>22477242
Well I will. Tired of commietrannies shitting up the board and lying all the time.

[Anonymous No.22477324]

>>22476938
"Utopian socialism" ~ is a romantic movement, a 'hero cult', in the sense that an utopian socialist position is that the working class needs a leading figure, an intellectual, to tell them what to do.

Marxist "scientific socialism" ~ is a position which intends to 'unearth' (or reveal) the inner workings of society, thus it has a determinist moment to it. Society is such and such and progressing in such and such way because of these inner workings.

[Anonymous No.22477327]

>>22477315
I think he's geriatric as well, there's a screenshot of leftypol from 2014 talking about Ferguson that's OLD

[Anonymous No.22477332]

>>22477315
>>22477301
>>22477273
>>22477272
>>22477266
>>22477256
>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
>>22477224
>>22477231
>>22477233
>>22477242
>commietrannies calling anyone else pathetic when they're the ones who still cling onto some retarded dead ideology that will never succeed

[Anonymous No.22477337]

>>22477317
The work of marx and engels regarding primitative societies is faulty mainly due to the fact that they were working with the infomation and conceptiosn of their time so say there are parts of 'The Origin of the Family' is just wrong but their work on capitalist society is accurate

[Anonymous No.22477339]

Bakunin

Proudhon

Robert Owen

Fourier

Daniel de León

Kropotkin


All these thinkers

And they still choose the unemployed NEET

socialists deserve their downfall

[Anonymous No.22477340]

>>22477327
>>22477315
>>22477301
>>22477273
>>22477272
>>22477266
>>22477256
>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
>>22477224
>>22477231
>>22477233
>>22477242
Stop embarrassing yourselves any further, trannies. This is your mod btw.

[Anonymous No.22477345]

>>22477340

[Anonymous No.22477349]

>>22477327
>>22477315
>>22477301
>>22477273
>>22477272
>>22477266
>>22477256
>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
>>22477224
>>22477231
>>22477233
>>22477242

[Anonymous No.22477350]

>>22477047
Parellels can be drawn between different sects of Christianity and their rites with different flavors of leftism, it’s not hard.

[Anonymous No.22477352]

>>22477345
>>22477327
>>22477315
>>22477301
>>22477273
>>22477272
>>22477266
>>22477256
>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
>>22477224
>>22477231
>>22477233
>>22477242
But I'm posting a person that moderates your marxoid echo-chamber though?

[Anonymous No.22477356]

>>22477345
>>22477327
>>22477315
>>22477301
>>22477273
>>22477272
>>22477266
>>22477256
>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
>>22477224
>>22477231
>>22477233
>>22477242
LOL

[Anonymous No.22477362]

>>22477345
>>22477327
>>22477315
>>22477301
>>22477273
>>22477272
>>22477266
>>22477256
>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
>>22477224
>>22477231
>>22477233
>>22477242
why are commie supporters just so dysgenic? Can someone explain to me this phenomena?

[Anonymous No.22477366]

>>22477314
>"MaoistTaylor"
>my side
more like my sides!
>>22477317
primitive societies were classless.
drawing conclusions from societies that have been changed by contact with the civilized world is flawed.
Marxism doesn't present primitive societies anywhere near being the "golden age devoid of vice", nor does it present capitalist society as "fall of man into vice". those moralistic categories just completely don't mesh with the scientific descriptions furnished by Marxism. your analogy is complete a failure.
>>22477352
you mean the website where your red capitalist buddies congregate? I wouldn't know because I don't go there, I'm not a mental retarded
>>22477362
post your photo lil bro

[Anonymous No.22477369]

>>22477345
Who is this supposed to be. This is an anonymous image board.

[Anonymous No.22477370]

>>22477339
Proudhon was a moralistic faggot THOUGH

[Anonymous No.22477372]

Is he right, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.22477380]

>>22477366
>>22477345
>>22477327
>>22477315
>>22477301
>>22477273
>>22477272
>>22477266
>>22477256
>>22477047
>>22477191
>>22477197
>>22477174
>>22477209
>>22477224
>>22477231
>>22477233
>>22477242
>still in denial
Just how pathetic can you be?

[Anonymous No.22477384]

>>22477372
yeah
>>22477366
>primitive societies were classless.
>source: my ass

[Anonymous No.22477386]

commiesisters...

[Anonymous No.22477389]

lololol

[Anonymous No.22477395]

>>22477384
what basis for class did those societies have? all of their healthy members needed to do physical work for the tribe to survive. class appears only once there's enough surplus for an entire section of the given society to subsist from the productive labour of others. primitive societies are by definition those that haven't yet reached that level of productive power.
>>22477389
all of those states were capitalist in 1961

[Anonymous No.22477396]

Why do commies lie all the time?
Can you even believe in a single thing they're uttering?

[Anonymous No.22477399]

>>22477395
Next you're gonna tell me that China isn't a communist country. Come on, do it.

[Anonymous No.22477406]

>>22477396
the khmer rouge were industrial capitalists who wanted to build industrial capitalism in a peasant state
>>22477399
sure, it's capitalist, you even literally invest capital there and have it valorized by chinese proles

[Anonymous No.22477407]

>>22477395
>1961
lol sure

[Anonymous No.22477411]

I think every argument as to why religion cannot work under socialism can be easily refuted by Thelema
https://thelightinvisible.org/2017/02/02/the-curious-conversion-of-frater-achad/

In fact, a weird sort of mixture between Christianity and Thelema would in fact be perfect for a socialist revolution

[Anonymous No.22477412]

>>22477406
AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA, come and laugh at this clown

[Anonymous No.22477415]

This is also really common too.

[Anonymous No.22477417]

>>22477407
yeah https://www.sinistra.net/lib/pro/whyrusnsoc.html
>>22477412
lol still no arguments again. better spam some more pictures

[Anonymous No.22477419]

>>22477417
>the online archives of communist left
no thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0HZP9p-mnE
this video is better.

[Anonymous No.22477420]

>>22477406
The Khmer Rouge were the closest to realizing the vision of Kaczynski, they were the most reactionary group that has ever existed, attempting to return to times before the agrarian revolution

[Anonymous No.22477425]

>>22477417
You're a clown, you don't deserve any arguments. Just keep spamming more quotes from marxist.com lmao.

[Anonymous No.22477431]

>>22477420
no, that's the wrong direction. they were trying to organize the exploitation of the peasants in order to get capital from the export of agricultural products and use that to build capitalist industry
>>22477425
oh sure buddy, I just don't deserve arguments. how convenient for someone who doesn't have any

[Anonymous No.22477432]

>>22477419
>cherrypicking by propaganda channel made to appeal to western liberals
yawn

[Anonymous No.22477433]

The absolute state of commietrannies lmao

[Anonymous No.22477435]

>>22477432
>uh akctually, this is propaganda, but the website that I linked to isn't m'kay?
You're not convincing anyone here. Everyone knows commieniggers are the ones who lie all the time.

[Anonymous No.22477438]

>>22477324
Then Marxism has devolved into the hero cult of scientific socialism, what’s even more ironic is that Marx fulfilled this hero cult idea by being anti-religious. He decided to determine who the followers of communism were allowed to believe in spiritually, ruling over the innermost and most intimate aspect of their identity, he had conservative social values as well, I am sorry but this complete hypocrisy; he absolutely believed that the people should follow the idol of his personal viewpoints, if he really wanted to fulfil the goal scientific socialism then he should have created tools and a process and tried to avoid creating an ideology, a tool and a process that could be used to develop other ideologies no matter the circumstance. There should have never been a Marxism or a communism if that was his goal, only the ‘Marxist process’ which could be used to achieve socialism by whatever means, furthermore why didn’t he publish his works anonymously? This would have lessened the biblical worship of him and his works that came after, and would have been a fantastic first step in creating a true scientific socialism where everybody’s voices are heard, not shouted down for going against the orthodoxy and tried as heretics.

If we want what Marx wanted, which is scientific socialism, then we must tear down the whole idea of ‘Marxism’ in the first place - and develop something new. Something anonymous, and something that could be added unto, something that could be continuously developed and peer-reviewed. A mere-skeleton for future work, without any romantic idealism for any ideology at all, a pure formula for future socialism to work in. There should also be a journal, and the key fundamentals of this new school should be done via anonymous contributions to this journal with even ideas that can contradict each other, rather than a book by an author who can be idealised. I think such a journal would provide a much healthier foundation for a socialist society than a bunch of books that can be easily outdated, and some bullshit ‘canon’

[Anonymous No.22477440]

>>22477431
you forgot your marxist.com quote, pal.

[Anonymous No.22477449]

lol

[Anonymous No.22477458]

>>22477440
>>22477449
>“theft” as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/letters/65_01_24.htm

[Anonymous No.22477462]

Is it really that east, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.22477467]

>>22477458
>>https://www.marxists.org
LMAO, called it.

[Anonymous No.22477474]

>>22477467
>called it
you got the timeline reversed there buddy

[Anonymous No.22477476]

>>22477449
M & E shit on the lumpen riots that engage in looting though

[Anonymous No.22477481]

>>22477474
Actually, no.

[Anonymous No.22477484]

>>22477481
the USSR did genocide the Tatars. why would red capitalism be any worse at genocide than other capitalism?

[Anonymous No.22477491]

>>22477481
>red capitalism
Is not a thing. Why are you denying your crimes?

[Anonymous No.22477494]

>>22477491
For
>>22477484

[Anonymous No.22477513]

>>22477491
it is. red Russia was capitalism under the red banner.
>In the USSR it is possible, with roubles lent by the statebank, for a group of individuals to buy labour power and keep for themselves the difference existing between the value produced and the amount of wages paid; such is the case with the ephemeral joint–stock companies responsible for the construction of housing and public buildings and edifices, and with the kolkhoses that remunerate tractor drivers and seasonal workers as wage-earners by paying them in cash. Indeed these same kolkhoses have been forced by the authorities, for several years, into setting up preserve factories and other processing industries, using partly profits from their enterprises, and partly the salary system for factory personnel. Finally it is the same with the state businesses themselves, which both pay their workers in money, encouraging and developing wage differentials related to labour power, and which invest, i.e. the profit which is realised is transformed into capital.
>In Russia the worker pays in money for all the foodstuffs and products that he needs, suffering silently from market fluctuations and even from the speculation indulged in by the individual producers, namely the kolkhosniks, who as well as having their share of the total kolkhos income, possess livestock and personal land which they are free to sell at whatever price they can get.
>Finally in the USSR money yields interest. This occurs through Government stocks, which bring in profits to the stockholders (as in the classical capitalist countries) and also in the form of interest which the state derives by lending to its own enterprises.
>How is all this different from the bourgeois societies of the capitalist west? In the USSR everything operates under the banner of value which in modern societies is merely a source of profit, capital accumulation and of exploitation of labour power. In Russia, everything is exchangeable with this cursed money. Everything is for sale, from the services of prostitutes to those of intellectuals, whose task consists of singing the praise of national «Socialism» and generally licking the boots of the powerful. https://www.sinistra.net/lib/pro/whyrusnsoc.html

[Anonymous No.22477518]

>>22477513
let me guess, this is another quote from marxists.org, right?

[Anonymous No.22477522]

>SINISTRA.NET is neither a group nor a organisation. It is a kind of project of workers and other people from different countries to publish marxist literature on the web, especially those textes of the «Communist Left», also known under the (not exact) name «Italian Left».
This page is our way in participating in the struggle for a reconstitution of the International Communist Party (ICP), which will be able to lead the world proletariat to the final aim, the proletarian revolution and the abolishment of the exploitation of men and nature, of wage labour and each form of money-based economical system. We consider the «Communist Left» as the only real marxist courant in the world.
yeah no thanks.

[Anonymous No.22477523]

>>22477518
no, but it doesn't matter where it's from because what it says is historical fact

[Anonymous No.22477968]

>>22476938
Lol at the /pol/cel seething and mass replying ITT. )))They((( don’t want intelligent and rational discussion of topics they dislike going on

[Anonymous No.22477974]

hint: if you want to kill a snarky marxist, tell him to stop making negative critiques of fake marxism and tell you what he thinks is REAL marxism

he either won't answer, in which case you checkmated him, or he'll be forced to link you to gayniggers.com/forum/leftysneed/gayspacecommunism.php

[Anonymous No.22477990]

>>22476938
epidemiologists and climate “””scientists””” are trying to do this too

[Anonymous No.22478003]

>>22477974
>marxism
is the critical-scientific outlook of the labour movement i.e. communism.

[Anonymous No.22478004]

>>22477035
Kek don't like Bakunin but gotta admit that's a pretty funny quote.

[Anonymous No.22478010]

>>22478003
cite three contemporary examples of movements embodying this outlook properly

[Anonymous No.22478024]

this shit stays up but when i make a thread about fukuyama it's deleted. the fuck is wrong with jannies on this board

[Anonymous No.22478028]

>>22478010
non-regime unions in southern europe such as SI Cobas
Oil workers in Iran
the people behind the China Labour Bulletin

[Anonymous No.22478034]

>>22478028

[Anonymous No.22478037]

>>22477395
>all of those states were capitalist in 1961
>um ackschully member states of the Soviet Union were capitalist
Quality gaslighting

[Anonymous No.22478043]

>>22478024
>when i make a thread about fukuyama it's deleted. the fuck is wrong with jannies on this board
That was a good thread too, there was a lot of quality discussion.
Jannies are fags it is known.

[Anonymous No.22478058]

>>22478037
They had wage labour.

[Anonymous No.22478133]

>>22478034
>cartoon frog
lol of course the rabid anti-marxist is some fat neet

[Anonymous No.22478137]

>>22478133
>175 years since communist manifesto
>FOR THE YEMENI 7-11 WORKERS!!!! UURRAHHH!!!
marxism's not looking so hot

[Anonymous No.22478150]

>>22478137
good luck moving out of your mom's basement before you hit 40

[Anonymous No.22478151]

>>22478003
>critical scientific
What is, then, to be done if it is proven wrong?

[Anonymous No.22478158]

>>22478150
you're a tranny who writes pro-marxist greentextathons on 4chan, a website you obviously hate, twice per week (almost always on workdays) for 3+ years, in the bitchiest tone imaginable, convincing nobody and accomplishing nothing, fueled only by your bitchy petulance. you could have access to a thousand truly embarrassing facts about me personally like i shit my pants and i'm a fag, and i'd still come out ahead of you

do the iranian steelworkers know you are defending them on /lit/ on wednesday afternoons via greentext and feminine carping?

[Anonymous No.22478160]

>>22476938
utopian experimental societies were based. none of the cringe lets just replace EVERYTHING and force EVERYONE to our theoretical model and hope a nation wide societal collapse doesn't happen due to theory and practice usually not translating one to one, lol.
just people trying out x or y in some community or another with volunteers and seeing what stuck.

[Anonymous No.22478223]

>>22478037
they weren't member states of the Soviet Union, but yes, they were capitalist, there was already a text linked twice explaining how the Soviet Union was capitalist, and everything there applies to the states in question as well, sometimes even more because in general there was less collectivization there than in the USSR.
>>22478137
the fact that it still persists while your meme ideologies come and go says enough. that's because contrary to them it's not a method de jour of misperceiving reality for gullible morons, but it is an expression of a real movement that can only disappear together with capitalism.
>>22478151
if it's proven wrong, it's to be rejected. the only problem is that you think things like pointing to capitalist states or spamming shit from one's tranny fetish folder actually disproves Marxism
>>22478158
wrong anon, retard. I'm not here to convince you or to achieve anything, I'm here to make fun of you for personal entertainment. what are you even so triggered about? how am I the petulant one when you cry like a bitch over nothing and one of your buddies even goes through a literal meltdowns every time I post >>22477320 >>22477332 >>22477349
also I've been on this website for many years longer than you, so sit down sonny

[Anonymous No.22478232]

>>22478037
>>22478223
but if you're not satisfied with the text on Russia and if you can read French, here's a text on Polish capitalism from 1971
https://www.sinistra.net/lib/bas/progco/qioe/qioeenebif.html

[Anonymous No.22478258]

>>22478223
I don’t think any of those is proving Marxism wrong, I’ve made exactly one post in this thread before this one, sperglord.
Glad to see your philosophy of science is slightly fewer decades behind what actual science is worrying about today than most commies though, congrats

[Anonymous No.22478269]

>>22477522
>abolishment of the exploitation of men and nature
yeah this is definitely very rational cool-headed scientific and not religious utopianism at all.

[Anonymous No.22478279]

>>22476938
>boasts about something that happened decades after his death.

Whoa, so Marx really could see the future?

[Anonymous No.22478281]

>>22478223
>they weren't member states of the Soviet Union,
Satellite states, whatever same thing. See pic related.

[Anonymous No.22478303]

Proving that Marx is right by quoting Marx is like saying that the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so. It's completely circular logic.

[Anonymous No.22478319]

>>22478269
yes, it is cool-headed scientific as this is where the development of humanity's productive forces objectively leads. humanity already recognizes here and there that by ruining nature it is sawing off the branch it sits on. it just can't completely do away with this at present because its metabolism with nature isn't under capitalism a subject of rational, species-wide planning but a subject of the exigences of capital accumulation, which only sometimes can be made to somewhat agree with ecological goals. but capital accumulation also objectively drives productive forces towards their centralization in the hands of society as a whole, which is exactly what will lead to social planning replacing capitalist anarchy, and consequently to humanity regulating its metabolism with nature in a way that doesn't ruin humanity's own habitat.
you can try to show where this logic is incorrect, but to call it religious utopianism just because you don't even grasp that there is a reality-based logic behind it is a failure on your part.
>>22478281
it's not really the same thing because Soviet Union was made of actual member republics, hence the word Union in the name.
>>22478303
true, that's why the only thing we set to prove by quoting Marx is that someone falsely attributes things to Marx. which happens all the time because none of the people complaining about Marx have read what he wrote.

[Anonymous No.22478320]

>>22478223
>but yes, they were capitalist, there was already a text linked twice explaining how the Soviet Union was capitalist, and everything there applies to the states in question as well, sometimes even more because in general there was less collectivization there than in the USSR.
Prices were set and the amount produced determined by the state in the USSR.
Doesn't sound like a free market to me, but if you have evidence showing otherwise I'm open to it.

[Anonymous No.22478325]

>>22478319
>it's not really the same thing because Soviet Union was made of actual member republics, hence the word Union in the name.
You're quibbling over irrelevant details. The reality was that in 1960s all of these states were controlled by the USSR.
Whether or not they were officially member republics is irrelevant, the Soviet Union functionally controlled these states and imposed their policies on them.
To the point that they had to rebel to achieve autonomy.

[Anonymous No.22478350]

>>22478320
>Prices were set and the amount produced determined by the state in the USSR.
that wasn't universally true, because state didn't own some enterprises, such as kolkhozes, which could determine their own production (excepting taxes in kind) and set their prices when selling on kolkhoz markets. same with individual private agricultural producers.
and when it was true, for example in state-owned industrial enterprises, the exact same thing is true in all capitalism: the owner of the enterprise determines what's produced and then sets the prices. and when the state is the owner, then it's the state that does this. this happens in many capitalist states currently.
>Doesn't sound like a free market to me
free for what? for a proletarian it was about as free as in any other capitalist country. for an aspiring private bourgeois with initial capital less so, but capital is capital no matter who manages it. the existing enterprises were certainly free to operate on the market, and proletarians were forced to freely sell their labour-power on the market to then buy food on the market so that they don't starve, just the same as in any other capitalist state.
>>22478325
>You're quibbling over irrelevant details
no you're quibbling, I already told you before that this doesn't matter because both the soviet satellites and the soviet union were capitalist. you're the one making a fuss about being wrong in the use of a term where I already said it doesn't make a difference to what we're discussing and left it at that.

[Anonymous No.22478357]

>>22478319
humans have always exploited each other and nature. you can't abolish exploitation. that's religious eschatology.
>rational, species-wide planning
humans are irrational and have differing opinions. you can't just declare one thing to be the rational thing to do and then force everyone to do that unless you have a totalitarian repressive tyranny.
>objectively drives productive forces towards their centralization in the hands of society as a whole
this is vague religious woo-woo.
>social planning replacing capitalist anarchy
social planning has replaced capitalist anarchy many times and it never worked since perfect knowledge is impossible. also since people may not agree with your central plan, so then you have to savagely oppress them.
>regulating its metabolism with nature in a way that doesn't ruin humanity's own habitat
there's just no reason to think that you need totalitarian rational central planning to avoid this.
you're a religious cultist.

[Anonymous No.22478374]

>>22478350
>when it was true, for example in state-owned industrial enterprises, the exact same thing is true in all capitalism: the owner of the enterprise determines what's produced and then sets the prices. and when the state is the owner, then it's the state that does this. this happens in many capitalist states currently.
Mental gymnastics.
Capitalism means the producer of goods is private and is free to determine the price of his goods and produce as much as he wants.
As this was not the case generally in the Soviet Union it's not capitalist.

[Anonymous No.22478402]

>>22478357
>humans have always exploited each other and nature
no, initially they had no means to do so. by exploitation of humans by humans here is meant class society where surplus product is extracted from a subordinate class, and by exploitation of nature what's really meant is simply exhausting nature to the detriment of humanity, because in itself the use of nature as a resource is obviously a constant factor. it just must be done in a way that doesn't ruin it for us.
>humans are irrational and have differing opinions
humans are largely rational, capable of planning and execution, of mastering their environment. and their opinions can be reconciled as long as they share a common interest.
>you can't just declare one thing to be the rational thing to do and then force everyone to do that unless you have a totalitarian repressive tyranny.
sure but you can arrive at the rational thing to do together. repressive tyranny only exists in class society, where the exploiting class has to impose its will on a subservient class. in that case the interests are at odds, so tyranny is needed in place of rational reconciliation of opinions.
>this is vague religious woo-woo
there's nothing religious or woo-woo about it, it's just a short statement of a scientific conclusion from the study of present society. it is vague though, because I'm not going to explain the entirety of Capital to you step by step. if you want a slightly longer summary of that point, you can read the chapter on the historical tendency of capital accumulation https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm
>social planning has replaced capitalist anarchy many times
no it hasn't. on this you could read "The myth of «socialist planning» in Russia" https://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/compro/lipo/lipoebubie.html
>it never worked since perfect knowledge is impossible
that doesn't follow at all. why would you need perfect knowledge for something to just work? it doesn't have to reach some theoretical perfect efficiency, it just has to be sufficient.
real world capitalism wastes a shit-ton of resources, labour-time and so on due to many things including some imperfections, yet it hasn't collapsed yet. and when it does collapse, this won't be because it can't reach some theoretical perfection, but because it produces a class of people that are driven to abolish it.
>also since people may not agree with your central plan, so then you have to savagely oppress them.
already addressed
>there's just no reason to think that you need totalitarian rational central planning to avoid this.
sure, it can't be totalitarian.
the reason why capital is in such a bad position to achieve it has only been illustrated again recently: for all the ecological efforts, it has created a new war which disrupted energy trade, and suddenly Germany is reactivating old coal plants lol.
>you're a religious cultist.
you keep repeating the world religion like a spaz but you have no arguments to show for it.

[Anonymous No.22478413]

>>22478374
>Capitalism means the producer of goods is private and is free to determine the price of his goods and produce as much as he wants.
no, capitalism means the producer of goods is a capitalist, i.e. invests monetary value means of production and exploits wage labour in order to multiply it.
in the case of USSR the industrialist state could theoretically set whatever prices it wanted. it didn't ultimately for the same reasons any other capitalist owner doesn't, which is because through the medium of competition prices of goods are driven to correspond to their values.

[Anonymous No.22478414]

>>22478374
>>22478413
in means of production*

[Anonymous No.22478420]

>>22477292
Because they are the most useful of idiots to them, see also Bio-Leninism

[Anonymous No.22478448]

>>22478402
>by exploitation of humans by humans here is meant class society where surplus product is extracted from a subordinate class
redefining words in a convoluted ideological way to try to conceal your utopian cultism.
>humans are largely rational
delusional. then they'd all be marxists in the exact way you are, since that's the only rational thing to think apparently.
>capable of planning and execution
to achieve a specific well-defined goal, like "build this skyscraper". not "end exploitation".
>sure but you can arrive at the rational thing to do together
there are zero examples in history of humans reaching the kind of universal agreement to see through a particular detailed plan to achieve some society wide permanent transformation. to think that something like that could ever go species wide is pure cultism.
>repressive tyranny only exists in class society
no reason to think that repressive tyranny isn't always going to be a risk.
>in that case the interests are at odds
interests are always going to be at odds.
>no it hasn't. on this you could read "The myth of «socialist planning» in Russia"
they weren't pure enough in their implementation of holy scripture.
>why would you need perfect knowledge for something to just work?
yeah why would you need perfect knowledge for species wide planning. that's crazy.
>real world capitalism wastes a shit-ton of resources, labour-time and so on due to many things including some imperfections
but much less than central planning.
>yet it hasn't collapsed yet
like central planning did many times.
>it produces a class of people that are driven to abolish it.
this never happened when capitalism was at its most unregulated and cruel 150 years ago and so there's zero reason to expect it to happen now or in the future.
>it has created a new war which disrupted energy trade
capital didn't create a new war. a tyrant did, because that's just what tyrants do.
you're completely a religous cultist.

[Anonymous No.22478510]

>>22478413
>Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Who owns the mop in the USSR?
If your answer is not private owners, it's not capitalism. Simple as

[Anonymous No.22478529]

>>22478448
>redefining words in a convoluted ideological way to try to conceal your utopian cultism.
it's pretty straightforward. you've failed to demonstrate anything utopian about it so far.
>delusional. then they'd all be marxists in the exact way you are, since that's the only rational thing to think apparently.
no, people are for practical reasons forced to accommodate the ruling ideology, because that's what's congruent with their need to operate in present society on the rules dictated by that society.
at the present level of development of class struggle, for any person to arrive at a situation where they seriously study Marxism must involve many coincidences.
the road that leads people to this will expand with the development of class struggle, up to the proletarian revolution finally removing the veil from the social process, so that people on the whole will be able to apply rationality to comprehending the social process as well. that's because they will no longer be driven by their environment to adopt false beliefs for the purposes of practical life in capitalism.
>to achieve a specific well-defined goal, like "build this skyscraper". not "end exploitation".
the path through which exploitation will end is well-defined, you just need to read the results of Marx's investigation into that question. the most important part of it involves the proletariat forming itself into a political party and seizing political power.
>there are zero examples in history of humans reaching the kind of universal agreement to see through a particular detailed plan to achieve some society wide permanent transformation
yes, communism society lies in the future, not in the past. good observation.
>to think that something like that could ever go species wide is pure cultism.
no, it derives clearly from the study of the tendency of capitalist society.
>no reason to think that repressive tyranny isn't always going to be a risk
there is, you only need to investigate human society to find the basis of tyrannical rule and find that this lies in class society.
>interests are always going to be at odds.
I'm talking about the ones that make a functioning society not feasible without forceful class oppression. those will not be at odds. and disagreements over more minor things don't prevent reaching compromise when the shared interest is overriding.
>they weren't pure enough in their implementation of holy scripture.
no, that's not what the text says.
>yeah why would you need perfect knowledge for species wide planning. that's crazy.
yeah, it is.
>but much less than central planning.
but I thought it has to be perfectly efficient to work? if not, then you don't need perfect knowledge.
also this is doubtful if you actually examine what people are wasting effort at right now. there's like a billion indians working to scam british people and americans every day.
>like central planning did many times.
capitalist planning has collapsed, sure. but not capitalism as a whole

[Anonymous No.22478551]

>>22478448
>>22478529
>this never happened when capitalism was at its most unregulated and cruel 150 years ago
also at its least developed, and so was the proletariat. for example, Germany only began to industrialize right then. and at the end of it, they had a proletarian revolution.
>so there's zero reason to expect it to happen now or in the future
the reason is that capitalism through its normal operation creates a class of people who are driven to overthrow it.
>capital didn't create a new war. a tyrant did, because that's just what tyrants do.
"that's just what tyrants do" - some epic science going on here. said tyrant presides over a capitalist state, and since his state loses capitalist competition in the "proper" way, like it lost economic competition over Ukraine to the West, it went instead for its other asset, the military. this is just competition of capitalist states escalating to a use of direct force. this sort of thing happens even between kebab shops.
>>22478510
>Who owns the mop in the USSR?
kolkhozniks, artisans, and the state
>If your answer is not private owners, it's not capitalism. Simple as
an important part of it is private owners, but still that's silly. the state isn't some magical entity. it can take over a capitalist enterprise and operate it like any other capitalist institution would.

good night

[Anonymous No.22478571]

>>22478529
Ain't nobody reading this shit tranny.

[Anonymous No.22478591]

>>22477112
You corkscrew off into fascism in the 20th century but ignore the socialist countries that explicitly indebted their political structures to Marx and Engels (including the DDR). But the way I see this socialism (and fascism, I suppose) is that they did try to uplink into the Absolute, or at least tried as much as they could, and in a sense were sort of answering Nietzsche when he asked where God was, where the new values were. This goes into what people are saying about Marxism being like a religion.

At least, this form of socialism in the 20th century took on this form, didn't (importantly) recognize relative human truths (or at the very least placed an absolute above relativisms) and didn't allow a societal fracturing and atomization, or at least tried as much as it could to prevent this. Of course, this means that the moment the USSR pursued liberalization they were doomed, as it was a fracturing of the very narrative and mythology that allowed them to exist in the first place. When the USSR liberalized, when it even allowed the possibility of liberalism, it "killed God," or "killed the truth of socialism" in other words, but the same exact fate would have befallen Nazi Germany if they'd won the war and attempted to liberalize in the ensuing decades. They also would've made the transition from modernity to post-modernity.

But of course, I'm not sure socialism necessarily MUST be like this, when it might be a particular form that currents of revolution and counter-revolution took in the 20th century, and with modernists on both sides tending toward extremism -- and not necessarily because that's what was healthy or what worked, but as a symptom of the problems of the time.

[Anonymous No.22478617]

>>22478551
>the state isn't some magical entity. it can take over a capitalist enterprise and operate it like any other capitalist institution would.
When the state sets prices and quotas to determine production it is by definition not a free market.
A free market, as most define it and irrespective of any abstract discussion as to whether it's actually free, is one where individuals /business owners economic activity is mostly unrestrained: they get to control or operate their business as they see fit.
A state in which the state primarily controls the market is not a capitalist one.
There can be some interference by the state but once the state is the one primarily determining production it's not free market.
In the Soviet Union if a business owner, a party member, wanted to produce more goods than the official quota stipulated to make profit he legally could not. Hence not a free market.
Not sure why this very basic idea of political economy seems to have broken your mind.

[Anonymous No.22479369]

>>22478529
literally everything you say just boils down to
>true because marx said it

[Anonymous No.22479454]

>>22476938
> make untenable prediction about future
> my idea will totally work guys
> kills and dispossess millions
> boasts about it
Why are you talking about Capitalism anon?

[Anonymous No.22479457]

>>22477035
Ah Bakunin the free mason bootlicker. At least Marx publicly opposed the free masons and the jews.

[Anonymous No.22479461]

>>22477111
The thing is, the bourgeois replaced the nobility, and the proletariat will replace the bourgeois. There is nothing prophetic about this.

[Anonymous No.22479463]

>>22477225
>Max Weber made an exposition to the Austrian army that was later compiled in a short book title On Socialism. it's really good, it explains how Marxist attempts at predicting the downfall of capitalism are quite literally religious eschatology
It's absolutely not religious eschatology, if you understand the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, combined with market saturation.

[Anonymous No.22479468]

>>22477491
Pic related literally contradicts what Engels said about theft. Thieves should be hanged by the proletariat.